Gentiles. (Eph. iii. 9.) In these texts, "communion" signifies more than merely men's professing themselves joined together in a society; and hence the nature of this sacrament is deduced, that as the ancient method of making bargains before the art of writing was introduced, was the mutual delivery of some pledges, which were the symbols of the faith thus plighted, so our Saviour instituted this sacrament in compliance with our frailty, to give us an outward and sensible pledge of his entering into covenant with us, of which the bread and wine are constituted the symbols.a

Those, however, who hold the opinion first mentioned, interpret this text differently. They conceive that by the communion of the body and blood of Christ can only be meant the joint acknowledgment of Christ and of his death, in the sacrament, but that no communication or partnership can be inferred from it. This interpretation is founded, 1°. on the context. St. Paul introduced this passage in order to show the Corinthians how detestable a thing it was for a Christian to join in the idols' feasts, and thus be

66

a partaker with devils." Hence they infer, that the fellowship or communion of Christians in the sacrament must be of the same nature

a See Usher's Sermon preached before the Commons House of Parliament, p. 26; and Jewel's Treatise of the Sacrament.

with the fellowship of devils in acts of idolatry; and as the latter consists only in their associating themselves with those that worshipped idols, they conclude, that the former implies no more than a similar association in the profession of Christianity. 2°. The same conclusion is derived from v. 18. " the Jews who did eat of the sacrifices, were partakers of the altar." These words, it is supposed, cannot signify more than that they professed the religion of which the altar was the chief instrument, the sacrifices being there offered.

To these arguments it may be replied, 1o. It is reasonable to believe that as God suffered the devil to exercise a certain power over the idolatrous world, so there might be some inchantment in the sacrifices offered to idols, and that the devil might have some control over those who partook of them. This is confirmed by the reasoning of St. Paul. He anticipates an objection that might have been made, that there could be no harm in their joining in the idols' feasts, since an idol was nothing, and therefore any thing offered to it could contract no defilement from it. Now, if the meaning of their being

66

partakers with devils," is only their joining in acts of fellowship with idolaters, then the sinfulness of this would have been evident, since it were a dishonouring of God and a debasing of man to unite in the worship of a "nothing."

2°.

But St. Paul urges the argument farther; that though it was true that the idols were lifeless things, yet since they were the instruments by which the devil kept the world in subjection to him, any Christians who deserted the protection which their own religion afforded against the powers of darkness, fell within the reach of Satan, and might justly fear being brought into a partnership of those magical temptations which would be suffered to fall on such as associated themselves to so detestable a service. In the same sense the words are used, when it is said that "the Israelites who eat of the sacrifices, were partakers of the altar;" that is, all of them who joined in the acts of their religion, such as the offering the peace offerings, were partakers of its blessings, of the burnt offerings and expiations that were made for the sins of the whole congregation. Thus also all Christians who receive this sacrament worthily, have thereby a share in that which is represented by it, the death of Christ, and the benefits which result from it. In this sense we admit a real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament; that is, a true presence, in opposition to the types of the Mosaic law; by which Christ's body and blood, as they were broken and shed on the cross, and the merits and effects of his death are in a visible and fœderal act offered to all worthy believers.

1o. We shall now consider the doctrine of the Roman Church on this subject.

a

When the bread and wine are consecrated, they are annihilated, and their outward appearances or accidents alone remain, which, though they are not substances, are yet supposed to have an essence separable from matter. These appearances, with the body of Christ under them, are the matter of the sacrament. And though the natural and visible body of Christ could not be the sacrament of his body, yet they think that his real body, thus veiled under the appearances of bread and wine, may be the sacrament of his glorified body. This, they conceive, though now in heaven in an extended state, is yet presented in every place where a true consecration is made; and though it is denominated one, still, as the species are broken, so many new bodies are divided from one another, every crumb of bread and drop of wine being a new body, by the efficacy of the miracle first wrought. This they explain by supposing that extension may be separated from matter, as other accidents and as the whole soul is believed to be in the whole body, yet all the soul is in every part of it, so they imagine that Christ's body is present in the sacrament, according to the laws of spirits, without extension or the filling of

are;

3 See Bellarmine de Sac. Euch. 1. iii. c. 18.

space. Finally, the form of this sacrament consists in the words of the consecration, "this is my body," and "this is my blood."

The objections which exist against the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation may be divided into two classes: 1st. The particular objections against the parts assigned to this sacrament ; and 2nd. The general objections against the doctrine itself.

1st. We shall consider the particular objections against the parts assigned to this sacrament.

As to the matter, it may be objected, 1. As it would be absurd to place the matter of the sacrament in the appearances merely, which are not matter, and as the words "this is my body" must be literally understood, it follows, that Christ's body is thus made the sacrament of itself, 2. A change in the accidents of any substance can only arise from a change in that substance, in consequence of which new accidents arise, while the former vanish. Accidents, therefore, without a substance, cannot be liable to change; yet in the case of this sacrament, the accidents are not free from alteration, for the bread may become mouldy and the wine sour. As long, however, as the ap pearances of the bread and wine continue, they conceive the body and blood of Christ to remain; but when the corruption of them is complete, the body of Christ is withdrawn. 3. A miracle is required to make the accidents subsist without