repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance, reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Corpus Christi datur, accipitur, et manducatur in Coena, tantum cœlesti et spirituali ratione. Medium autem, quo corpus Christi accipitur et manducatur in Coena, fides est.

Sacramentum Eucharistiæ ex institutione Christi non servabatur, circumferebatur, elevabatur, nec adorabatur.

1. WHENCE does it appear that the Lord's Supper is a sign of Christian fellowship?

In speaking of the Eucharist, St. Paul describes the Sacramental bread as an emblem of that love and unity, which ought to subsist among Christians, and incorporate them into one undivided body, of which Christ is the spiritual head. For we, being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.' (1 Cor. x. 17.)

6

2. Shew that the Lord's Supper is also a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death.

As the Lord's Supper was instituted for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of 'the benefits which we receive thereby,' so, in accordance with the true character of a Sacrament, the elements of bread and wine are an outward sign of the spiritual blessings obtained for us by the body of Christ broken, and his blood shed upon the cross for our salvation; insomuch that the worthy recipient of the appointed symbols becomes through faith a partaker of the thing signified. With a view to avoid any attempt to explain the mysterious nature of this participation, our Church has, with her usual moderation, conveyed her meaning in terms which are strictly Scriptural. The cup of blessing which we bless,' asks

St. Paul (1 Cor. x. 16.), 'is it not the communion of the 'blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the 'communion of the body of Christ.'

3. Explain the nature and design of the Eucharist, by means of the analogy observable in the sacrifices both of Jews and Heathens.

Among the Jews, some of their sacrifices were entirely consecrated to God, as being typical of the full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice of the promised Redeemer; and of the trespass-offering, a portion was eaten by the priests only, as mediators between God and the person who made the offering; but in peace-offerings, which were a token of reconciliation between God and man, part was offered to God, and the rest consumed by the priest and people, who were thereby reinstated in covenant with Jehovah. To this latter class the Passover, and consequently the Lord's Supper, manifestly belong; and thus our Lord declares in John vi. 53. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, 'and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.' Hence this Sacrament is not a sacrifice, but a feast upon a sacrifice, to wit, the sacrifice once offered by Christ upon the cross: and such were not only these feasts which accompanied the Jewish sacrifices, but those among the heathen upon things offered to idols, which St. Paul contrasts with the agape, or Eucharistic feasts of the early Christians (1 Cor. x. 13. sqq.). Now these epulo sacrificiales under the Law were regarded as federal rites between God and the parties who partook thereof; just as covenants were ratified in early times by the contracting parties eating and drinking together. Those present were regarded as God's guests, who entered into covenant with him by eating their portion of the victim, while his was consumed; and, in like manner, the Christian's participation in the Holy Communion is a visible pledge of Christ's love to his faithful followers, as well as a bond of unity among themselves.

4. How is the death of Christ represented in the New Testament; and by what term is this sacrifice expressed?

The Sacrifice of Christ is represented in the New Testament as an offering for Sin; and that, by means of the same sacrificial term which the LXX. apply to the sin

offering of the Levitical dispensation. Thus, for instance, in 2 Cor. v. 21. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν. Compare Lev. iv. 20. ix. 7. xiv. 18. xv. 19. Numb. vi. 11. viii. 12. Isai. liii. 10. In like manner, we have ò uóσxos тns ȧμαρTías (Ezek. xlv. 22.), and similar expressions; in which ἡ ἁμαρτία, according to Ecumenius, is equivalent to τὸ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν θῦμα.

5. In what light does the Church of Rome regard the celebration of the Eucharist?

The Romanists believe that the sacrifice of the death of Christ is repeated every time the Lord's Supper is administered, and an atonement thereby made both for the living and the dead. Accordingly they regard the service of the Mass as a lively representation of the several circumstances of his death and passion. The error has obviously arisen out of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. [See on Art. XxxI.]

6. What is meant by Transubstantiation?

The doctrine is thus stated in the 14th Article of the Creed of Pope Pius IV:-'In the Sacrament of the Eu'charist there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our 'Lord Jesus Christ; and there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and of the whole 'substance of the wine into his blood; which conversion 'the Holy Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation.' In explanation of the term, the Trent Catechism teaches that, 'because in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the whole substance of one thing passes into the whole substance of another, the word Transubstantiation was rightly and wisely invented by our forefathers.'

7. Shew that the argument from Scripture, upon which the doctrine of Transubstantiation is founded, is invalid.

The doctrine is mainly built upon the solemn words employed by Christ at the institution of the Sacrament (Matt. xxvi. 26. 28.), and his exhortations to his disciples in the sixth chapter of St John's Gospel. Of these last, in order to prevent misapprehension, he distinctly asserted the spiritual nature. The words that I speak unto you, they

6

are Spirit, and they are life' (John vi. 63.). It is also manifest that the words 'This is my body' and 'this is my 'blood,' could only be meant to imply that the bread represented his body, and the wine his blood; and are no more to be understood literally, than we are to suppose our Lord himself to have been actually a door, a vine, a lamb, or a way. Besides, as the blood of the Paschal Lamb was a symbol, so by analogy are the Eucharistic elements. Indeed there is no word in Hebrew which expresses to signify or represent; and consequently it is, was employed for it signifies, by a common Oriental idiom. Examples of this usage abound. Compare Gen. xli. 26. Dan. vii. 24. Matt. xiii. 31. 39. Luke viii. 9. xv. 26. John vii. 36. x. 6. Acts x. 17. 1 Cor. x. 4. Gal. iv. 24. Rev. i. 20.

8. Does it not appear that this doctrine is alike impossible and absurd?

It is impossible that the bread, which Christ gave to his disciples, should have been his natural body, while he was then alive, and in the act of breaking it; nor could the wine in the cup be the blood still flowing in his veins. In fact, the elements are still called bread and wine after consecration (1 Cor. x. 27.); and it is moreover absurd to suppose that Christ can be corporeally present to different congregations of communicants at the same time.

9. Point out the inconsistency of Transubstantiation with the nature of miracles, and the evidence on which they invariably rest.

The reality of the miracles of the Old and New Testaments was in all cases established by the evidence of the senses; and whenever change of property or substance was effected, similar to that which is alleged of Transubstantiation, such change was obvious and readily discernible. When, for instance, our Lord turned water into wine at the Marriage-feast in Cana, the attributes of the wine took place of those of the water; whereas the consecrated bread and wine remain, as far as the senses can discover, bread and wine still. Moreover, the accidents of the miracle are plainly inverted; for instead of Christ's body and blood being changed into bread and wine, as the words of institution are made to indicate, it is the bread and wine that are transubstantiated into Christ's body and blood.

10. Shew that Transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture.

In the Gospel narrative of the institution of the Lord's Supper, it is plainly related that Jesus took bread, and 'break it, and gave it,' i. e. the bread, to his disciples. So likewise of the Cup. He also spake of the wine after consecration as being still 'the fruit of the vine' (Matt. xxvi. 26-29.). Neither is it possible to reconcile the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist with the assurance that he is at the right hand of God in heaven, there to remain until the times of the restitution of all things.' See Acts iii. 21. Eph. i. 21.

11. In what respect does Transubstantiation overthrow the nature of a Sacrament?

Inasmuch as a Sacrament has an outward visible sign, as well as an inward and spiritual grace, the conversion of the bread and wine in Christ's body and blood, by which the sign is changed into the thing signified, must at once destroy the Sacramental character of the Ordinance.

12. What are the Superstitions, to which the doctrine of Transubstantiation has given rise?

Those which are enumerated in the last clause of the Article. Under the absurd persuasion that the consecrated wafer, or, as it is called, the Host, has become the actual body of Christ, Romanists worship it on their knees, as it is elevated by the priest for that purpose: and not only is the portion reserved' for the sick solemnly paraded through the streets in Romish countries, but a day, called Corpus Christi Day, is set apart, on which the Host is 'carried 'about' in procession, lifted up,' and 'worshipped.'

13. Does the Ordinance of Christ give any sanction to these superstitions?

At the institution of the Sacrament, our Lord's command was simply this:-Take, eat, this is my body which is 'given for you; do this in remembrance of me' (Matt. xxvi. 26. Luke xxii. 19.). From these words no sanction can be elicited either for the reservation, perambulation, elevation,