before the people that he may be worshipped, and that the worshippers of him are idolaters, let him be anathema!” (Sess. xiii. Can. 6.) {10} The wafer, therefore, or the piece of bread, is here said to be after consecration nothing less than a real, living Saviour, with body, soul, and divinity, to be worshipped with that holy, reverential worship which belongs exclusively to the God of heaven and earth, for that is the meaning of the word _Latreia_. There is something very awful in such a statement. It shows that there can be no peace with Rome—no compromise, no middle path. If they are right, we are awfully wrong. If we are right, they are guilty of idolatry. If all these pieces of bread are living Saviours, we have been terribly guilty in never worshipping any one of them; but if, on the other hand, they have remained bread still—plain, simple, unchanged bread—then we have idolatry of the most unquestionable character when that bread is exalted by the priest for adoration, and men fall down and worship it as the living God. Now, on what does all this tremendous fabric rest? What is there in the word of God to warrant it? What is there in the Scriptures of truth to give a sanction to such a system? So far as the word of God is concerned all hangs on the one text, “This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” To these words Romanists appeal again and again, as if they taught the doctrine, whereas the most cursory study of the different passages in which they are contained is sufficient to show that they mean nothing of the kind. Let me briefly give you four reasons. 1. The words themselves prove that they are figurative. Turn to 1 Cor. xi. 25, where we read: “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” Is there any one blind enough to suppose that the cup was changed into the new testament? The words must mean that the cup was an emblem of the covenant. When our Lord said, “I am the vine,” “I am the door,” “I am the bread of life,” He did not mean that He was changed into a vine, into a door, or into bread, but that all these things were emblems of His work. So He says of the cup, that it is an emblem of the covenant; and if we would be consistent interpreters, we must believe also of the bread that it was declared to be an emblem of the body. 2. The bread is called bread, and the wine wine, after consecration, both by our Lord Himself and His Apostles. In Matt. xxvi. 29, our Lord calls the wine the fruit of the vine after consecration. In 1 Cor. x. 17; xi. 26, 27, 28, we are all said to partake of bread: “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” 3. Even if these words were taken literally, they would not teach the doctrine of Rome.