CHq. IV.] ?A.LNSUBSTANTI?TION, ?43 institution of the sacrament. When, then, St. Matthew and St. Mark inform u8 that he said, TA? ?, my bo?y, they must say the truth, but not the whole truth, that being, as St. Luke and St. Paul inform us, T? 5 my ?dy ?m or broken for yo?; TAO ? my Mood,A? for From this it is manifest, that since Christ was then actually alive, ? so hi8 body was not actually given or broken for us, the bread could not be naturally or reaJly his body, but only by way of figure or repre- sentation, as being then instituted and brsken to represent that body which was shortly to be given and broken on the cross for tin. So also is the wine styled ? b?,d sled, as being instituted then as t? 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 Fright, and not the future tense. Their words are, T/?/? my body brotm or ?; T]? /.? my b/ood sled. 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 brokeu ou the cr?ss for us. And this was according to the usual sacramental phrase. Thus, bofor? the paschal sacrament was celebrated, it was said, "This is the pass- over to the Lord," Ex. xiJ, 1], 13. That is, this is what is instituted to repr, t?n$ it. And of circumcision it is said, "This is my covenant," Gert. 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 f?re tense instead of the present. This is certainly taking a liberty with the word of God which by no means fayours their cause. (6.) Wine is, by way of figure, called fie b/oog of tie 8ra?, (Dent. xxx/i, 14; and by the heathen, 'af?a ?/?orpm.?, b/ood of tie bran?le?, Achili. Tatius, L. 2,) and why not, by a like metaphor, called the blood of Christ ? Moreover, bread is a proper emblem to represent those boneits derived from the death of Christ, by which our souls are spi- ritually 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 /vemd which they did eat, and which was to them tie ?ossm,m/oa of /?y of C/u?t, and by eating of which unworthfiy they became of tie body of Clrist, sot disceraing tJ? Lord'# body, 1 Cor. x, 16, 17 xi, 26, 27, 28. Thus he five times calls that bread which was conse. crated, and by our Sadour 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 //t,/sg Christ was st the same time ? sacrificed; and that the same body which was before the eyes of disciples was also broken for them st the same time, with many thou- s?nd contradictions besides. (8.) There is another a.-gument to' show that our Lord spoke in ?fi?ve sense, and thai is, because this was the mode of expression was used mnong the Jews in.their ?ramants, and _pzrfioulady is tb s?msaS wlfioh our l,md lad tIasa ? Tvo 1
�
