IV.] TIJ?SUBSTA.MTIATION. 2?) and is ranked among the foremost works on dogmatical theology in the Church of Rome. But the above quotations form only a small part of what is contained in the Missal and other Roman Catholic authors re- specting these profanations of Christs sacrament. We must here refer the reader to the extracts from the Missal, respecting the D?�t? of Ma?, quoted in the chapter on the Mass. Ill. We shall now proceed to answer the arguments employed by Roman Catholics in fayour of transubstantiation. 1. They maintain, "that previous to the institution of the sacrament, bread had never been taken as a sign or symbol of our Lord's body; and therefore the tlgurative interpretation is not correct." We answer, 1. AHowing that bread was never before used to represent Christ's body, it would not follow that it must not be employed in that sense in the words of institution. For we have no account that Christ, before the gospel was wriuen, was called a door, a may, a v/n?; yet the figura- tive application of them is evident; because the metaphorical style is idainly employed. In like rmmner, when it is said, T/d?r tr my body, t/? tr my b/sod, we know the metaphorical style is used, because these expressions in their connections possess all the analogies of such style. 2. We have proofs that bread is frequently employed in the metaphori- ca/ sense, to express the blessings which Christ bestows upon his people; and eating and drinking often denote the pertloipation of spa,. ritual blessings. Among many examples take the following: "Wis- dom crieth in the streets, . Come, eat of the bread and drink of the wine that I have mingled,"Prey. ix, 5. That is, "Go in the way of understanding," yet. 6. "Eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness," Isa. Iv, 2, 3. Besides, was there ever a sacra- ment without signs or symbols ? Circumcision and the passover had their signs under the law, and we have already shown that our Lord used the figurative language customary at the celebration of these .*.acramento. Baptism has its sign under the new covenant. But we have already said enough on the words of institution to overturn the doctrine of transubstantiation. 2. It is argued from the sixth chapter of St. John's gospel, that since Christ saith," Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Mood, ye have no life in you ;" and then adds failher, "Whose eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up a? the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed :" what can be more clear, say they', than that in the sacrament of the eucharist the true, real, and natural body of Christ is eaten, and his true, real, and natural blood is drunk, and not bread and wine, our sense8 would persuade us ? 'I'o this we Innwer, that our Lord, in this chapter, is represented as t?eding the multitudes by a miraculous supply of bread, in consequence of which many followed him, that they might enjoy the same privilege ? From this he took occasion to instruct them in spiritual mat- toru, and informs them that they should not "labour for the meat that perisbeth, but for that which shall endure to everlasting ]fie."T]mt this chapmr either does not properly belong to the eucha?t at all, or, at any rate, gives no just ground for the doetrine of tmmut)otantiatio? will appear from the following eonsideratious. (1.) Some learned sad noted meu mona thmmdv# soknowi?
�
