The-papacy-its-history-dogmas-genius-and-prospects-wylie

ol4THE EUCHARIST, TRANSUBSTANTIATION, THE MASS,years," " I am the door," and a hundred other instances,which the memory of every reader can supply,—What wouldwe make of these sayings on the literal principle ?" This isCalvin," say we, meaning it is his portrait. The veriestsimpleton would scarce take us to mean that the lines andpaint on the canvas are the flesh and blood, the soul andspirit, of Calvin.occur inBut, say the Romish doctors, these phrasesdreams and parables, where a figurative mode ofspeech is allowable ; while the words " This is my body"form part of a plain narrative of the institution of the Supper.Well, let us take the corresponding narrative in the OldTestament,—the institution of the Passover,—and see whethera mode of speech precisely identical does not there occur." It (the lamb) is the Lord's Passover ;" that is, it isthe token thereof. No one was ever so far bereft of understandingand reason as to hold that the lamb was transubstantiatedinto the Passover ; that is, into the Lord's passingover the houses of the Israelites. The lamb, when eatenin after ages, was, and couldbut be, the memorial^ and nothingmore, of an event long since past.In these two analogouspassages, then, we find a mode of speech preciselysimilar ; and yet Rome interprets them according to twodifferent canons. She applies the figurative rule to thelamh^ the literal to the bread. But we need not go so far asto the Old Testament to convict Rome of violating her owncanon ; we have only to turn to the second clause of thesame text,— " He took the cup, . . . saying, . . .this is my blood." Was the CUP his blood I Yes, on theliteral principle. But, says Rome, the " cup" is here, by atrope or figure of speech, put for what it contains. Undoubtedlyso ; but it is a trope or figure of the same kind withthat in the first clause,— " This is my body ;" and Romepays her canon but a poor compliment, when it is no soonerenacted than abandoned. We cannot be blamed, surely, ifwe follow her example, and abandon it likewise, along withthe monstrous dogma she has built upon it.But, leaving canons of interpretation, let us betake our-