whereby we give to the sign the name of the thing signified. We say concerning a picture of George Washington, This is George Washington. Of a map of the United States we say, This is Pennsylvania. Yet no person is so stupid as to believe that the picture is really Washington, but that it is only a representation of him; or that that part of the map called Pennsylvania is really that state, but only a representation of it. When, therefore, Christ took up a piece of bread, broke it, and said, This is my body, who can suppose he was handling and breaking his own body, any more than that the above-named picture was George Washington, or that the map was truly the state of Pennsylvania? The truth is, there is scarcely any figure more common than this is, for this represents, or signifies.

(3.) As this is an ordinary figure in common speech, so it is peculiarly so in the language of Scripture. Indeed, in the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac languages, there are either no words which express to mean, signify, represent, or at least such words are of exceedingly rare occurrence. Thus, "The seven kine are (i. e., represent) seven years," Gen xli, 26. "This is (represents) the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt.” "The ten horns are (signify) ten kings," Dan. vii, 24. "That rock was (represented) Christ," 1 Cor. x, 4. We also find this idiom running through the Greek language. Thus, "The seven stars are (represent) the angels of the seven churches; and the seven candlesticks are (represent) the seven churches," Rev. i, 20. "I am the vine, ye are the branches," John xv, 5. Our Lord did not say, Hoc est corpus meum, as he did not speak in the Latin tongue, though so much stress has been laid upon this quotation from the Vulgate version, as if the original had been in Latin. Now as our Lord spoke in the Chaldaic or Chaldaio-Syriac, he spoke according to the idiom of that language. And any man speaking in that language would say, This is my body, This is my blood, when he intended to convey the meaning that the bread and wine represented the body and blood of Christ.

Mr. Milner, however, informs us, that where Christ calls himself the vine, and his followers branches, the figurative meaning is obvious. This, however, is fallacious; for supposing the meaning to have been literal, their senses, according to the Roman Catholic way of reasoning, would no more have disproved them to be real branches, than it would have disproved Christ to be a real vine. When we say that the senses testify that the bread remains bread, therefore the words of institution are figurative, they will not allow the argument, but discard the evidence of sense. Hence they cannot consistently adduce it to prove that our Lord did not mean that the apostles were vine branches. Therefore the objection is rendered nugatory, and the parallelism stands good.

(4.) It is to be observed that the words of institution were, This is my body, To Sidoμevov, given for you, xλwμevov, broken; This is my blood, το εκχυμενον, shed. The words, therefore, This is my body, This is my blood, are not all the words embraced in the institution; for he spake these words only once, as he instituted the eucharist only once. Therefore the expressions used by St. Luke and St. Paul, namely, This is my body given for you, or my body broken for you, and This is my blood shed for you, embrace no more than what our Lord said at the first

16*

institution of the sacrament. When, then, St. Matthew and St. Mark inform us that he said, This is my body, they must say the truth, but not the whole truth, that being, as St. Luke and St. Paul inform us, This is my body given or broken for you; This is my blood shed for you. From this it is manifest, that since Christ was then actually alive, and so his body was not actually given or broken for us, the bread could not be naturally or really his body, but only by way of figure or representation, as being then instituted and broken to represent that body which was shortly to be given and broken on the cross for us. So also is the wine styled his blood shed, as being instituted then as the perpetual representation and memorial of his blood shed and separated from his body on the cross.

(5.) Besides, both the evangelist and St. Paul use the present, and not the future tense. Their words are, This is my body broken or given ; This is my blood shed. These expressions were used even while Christ was yet alive; and so his body was not actually broken, or his blood shed; it could not, therefore, be literally his body or blood, but only by way of representation, as being then instituted to represent that body which was shortly to be given and broken on the cross for us. And this was according to the usual sacramental phrase. Thus, before the paschal sacrament was celebrated, it was said, "This is the passover to the Lord," Ex. xii, 11, 13. That is, this is what is instituted to represent it. And of circumcision it is said, "This is my covenant," Gen. xvii, 10. And this was before that Abraham was circumcised,

Gen. xvii, 23, 24.

The Roman Catholics, in their Latin Vulgate, as well as in their English Douay version, employ the future tense instead of the present. This is certainly taking a liberty with the word of God which by no means favours their cause.

(6.) Wine is, by way of figure, called the blood of the grape, (Deut. xxxii, 14; and by the heathen, aua Corpvwv, blood of the branches, Achill. Tatius, L. 2,) and why not, by a like metaphor, called the blood of Christ? Moreover, bread is a proper emblem to represent those benefits derived from the death of Christ, by which our souls are spiritually fed as our bodies are fed with material bread.

(7.) From the words of institution we learn that the bread and wine remained unchanged after consecration. St. Paul calls that five times bread which they did eat, and which was to them the communion of the body of Christ, and by eating of which unworthily they became guilty of the body of Christ, not discerning the Lord's body, 1 Cor. x, 16, 17; xi, 26, 27, 28. Thus he five times calls that bread which was consecrated, and by our Saviour called his body. Now it is surprising that one single passage, mentioned by our Saviour while he was alive, should be deemed sufficient to make us all believe that this bread was his body, and that this living Christ was at the same time dead and sacrificed; and that the same body which was before the eyes of the disciples was also broken for them at the same time, with many thousand contradictions besides.

(8.) There is another argument to show that our Lord spoke in a figurative sense, and that is, because this was the mode of expression that was used among the Jews in their sacraments, and particularly in the sacrament which our Lord had then celebrated. Two eminent

sacraments God appointed among the Jews, circumcision and the passover; yet to both of these the Holy Scriptures, and the Jews from them, gave the name of the thing to the sign which they signified. Circumcision, which was no more than the sign and seal of God's covenant with the Jews, answering to our baptism, is in Scripture called the covenant itself. Thus twice in one chapter God saith, "This is my covenant; every male child among you shall be circumcised." And again, " My covenant shall be in your flesh," Gen. xviii. 10, 13. And every one knows that circumcision was not God's covenant, but the sign of the covenant, or the sacrament whereby they entered into covenant.

And as for the other sacrament, the paschal feast, in the place of which our Lord instituted the Lord's supper, the very name (passover) by which it is called is an instance of that for which we contend. The sacrificed lamb with which the Jews celebrated this sacrament was not the passover itself, but only a sign or memorial of it; for the passover itself, in its literal sense, was God's passing over the Israelites when he slew the first-born of the Egyptians. Yet this feast is called the Lord's passover. "This is the Lord's passover," Ex. xii, 11. And for ever after when this paschal feast was kept, when the lamb was set upon the table, the master of the house spoke to his company in these words: "This is the passover, which we therefore eat because God passed by our houses in Egypt." And we have every reason to believe that our Saviour used the same words when he kept this feast with his disciples. Every one present knew that the lamb was not really the passover, for that was a deliverance which God wrought for them but once; the lamb was only a memorial of that passover or deliverance.

Now since God in Scripture first used the expression, and the Jewish rituals tell us that in all succeeding passovers it was continued, who can doubt but the apostles, when they heard our Saviour say of the bread, This is my body, would understand the words in the sense we have been declaring? The apostles at that time were celebrating the paschal feast, which was a commemoration of the past deliverance; yet they heard our Saviour say of the bread, "This is the bread of affliction which your fathers ate in Egypt." They heard him say of the flesh upon the table, "This is the Lord's passover." Having finished the passover, they saw our Saviour take bread, give thanks to God, and then bid them eat of it. He then says, This is my body broken for you. I might appeal to every reasonable man, if they would not understand this latter expression in the same sense that they did the former that is to say, that the bread which Christ now blessed and brake was just as much his body broken, as the bread of affliction which their fathers ate in Egypt, or as the lamb they had before eaten of, was the Lord's passover. And we may as well imagine, that when these words of the Jewish ritual, "This is the Lord's passover," were spoken, the disciples understood that just then the destroying angel was passing over the houses of the Israelites, and slaying the first-born of the Egyptians, as we can imagine that when our Saviour said, "This is my body broken for you," they understood him of his real natural body, which was not then crucified. From all which we infer, they took not his expressions literally, as the Roman Catholics do, but

in the same figurative sense that was customary among them, and according to which all sound Protestants frame their faith.

Besides, the apostles neither hesitated nor objected. Whereas if Christ had, contrary to the custom of all nations, contrary to the custom of the Jewish nation; if he had, contrary to all this, intended the words, "This is my body," to be understood literally, it is certain that some objections, or some queries, would have been put forth by the apostles. This we believe, on the point of analogy, is an insuperable barrier to the Roman Catholic; we have never seen any thing like an attempt to beat it down, and sure we are that it will ever prove impregnable.

(9.) Finally, it is impossible that the apostles could believe that they ate the body of Christ when they saw that body before them; or that they drank his blood, when they knew that blood was still in his veins. Or how could they have been persuaded to drink blood against the express letter of the law, or to eat human flesh, or swallow their Lord and Master down their throats?

Roman Catholics, to get rid of their difficulties connected with the doctrine of transubstantiation, employ the expression, the real presence, as a convenient mode of avoiding some of their difficulties. They refer to the Greek Church, the Eutychians, the Jacobites, &c., who hold to the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. But the real presence of Christ in the sacrament is not the point in question. Christ has promised that his presence will be with all his people everywhere. He has especially promised that his presence will be with the preaching of the gospel to the end of time. "Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world." There is no doubt but the promise extends to the sacrament of the Lord's supper, which is a significant way of preaching the gospel. Protestants in general believe in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, not as corporeal, but spiritual. Roman Catholics have assumed the almost exclusive use of the expression, real presence, and having it generally conceded to them as peculiarly their own, like the word catholic, have taken advantage of it, so as to make it appear that ancient fathers and churches whose principles differ entirely from theirs are on their side. The thing, as defined by the Council of Trent, is not that Christ is really present with the bread and wine, but that these are truly converted into the whole substance of Christ's humanity and divinity, so that not a particle of the bread and wine remains.

All true Protestants acknowledge that the bread and wine are more than representations or symbols of the broken body and shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. They are means by which the benefits of Christ's death and sufferings are conveyed to us, and have, on that account, a farther title to be called by their name. Hence, as the words of institution express, they are, 1. A remembrance of the death of Christ; and that can never be said of transubstantiation, as that is no remembrance at all. 2. By this sacrament we show forth, or proclaim the Lord's death till he come. 3. It is the seal of the covenant of grace through Christ.

2. The doctrine of transubstantiation not only has no ground in Scripture in general, nor in the words of institution in particular, but it directly contradicts several passages of Scripture.

In our Lord's notable discourse at Capernaum, on the subject of feeding the church with his flesh and blood, his language was so strong that his hearers exclaimed, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? To correct their misapprehension he declared that his language was figurative, in the following words: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life, John vi, 63. Here, on a subject having a near affinity to the eucharist, our Lord teaches us that his style is figurative when such expressions are employed, as, Christ is the rock; his flesh is bread; his blood is drink; and therefore the exposition of Roman Catholics is opposed to that of our Saviour.

It was foretold by David that God would not suffer his HOLY ONE to see corruption, Psa. xvi, 10. St. Peter applies this to the flesh of Christ, (Acts ii, 22-32,) which saw no corruption. Now if the doctrine of transubstantiation be true, his body continually undergoes corruption, by the necessary process of digestion.

Again, according to Scripture, the body of Christ was offered but once, Heb. ix, 28; x, 10; 1 Pet. iii, 18. But according to the Latin Church, in the celebration of the eucharist the priest offers up really the body and blood of Christ to God, as a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. By them Christ is often offered up. According to Scripture he is offered up only once. Therefore they and Scripture are at variance.

The following text is inconsistent with the doctrine of transubstantiation: "For ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always," Matt. xxvi, 11. If Christ were to be in the host, soul, body, and divinity, then he must be always with his disciples, contrary to the assertion in the text.

But the most accurate reasoners in the Church of Rome have been aware that Scripture does not support transubstantiation. Accordingly some of them have dwelt principally on the authority of tradition, and the support to be derived from ecclesiastical decisions. When some have striven to maintain it by Scripture, their arguments have manifestly laboured for want of support. Others have candidly acknowledged that it is not among those doctrines which are proved clearly by Scripture.*

3. The doctrine of transubstantiation contradicts our senses. By our senses we can readily discern that what is in the cup is wine, and that the bread in the sacrament is not human flesh. To obviate this difficulty it is said that the species of bread and wine remain, after their change into the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. They also teach sometimes, in their manuals, to renounce utterly the judgment of their senses, and all human understanding. Now if our senses cannot be trusted, how do we know that these words, This is my body, are to be found in Scripture, or on this paper now before our eyes?

The doctrine of transubstantiation contradicts our senses, and on this account proves itself to be a false doctrine, contrary to the Scripture, and not originating from Him who gave us our senses for infallible directors. This doctrine, when viewed in reference to the evidence

*See M'Gavin's Protestant, vol. i, p. 419, ch. 57. Also Hughes and Breckenridge, pp. 191, 244.