CHAP. IV.] TItANSUBSTANTIATZONo in the same figurative sense that was c?tomary 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 almsties. 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 ?]it?culties connected with the doctrine of transubstantiation, employ the expression, th? real Fresno, as a convenient mode of avoiding some of their ?]it?culties. 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 tl? 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, bx?t 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 ad- vantage of it, so as to make it appear that ?ncient 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 aud wine, but that these are truly convened iato 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. I?hey are means by which the benefits of Christ's death and sufferings are conveyed to us, aad have, on that account, a farther tide to be called by their name. Hence, as die words of institution express, they are, 1. Are. membrarw? 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 sAow fortl, or/n'o- �/m'm 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 contrad. icts several passage8 of Scripture. ,Goocle
�
