*

viour took bread, and blessed it; and afterwards he took the cup, and gave thanks. His example therefore binds his servants, ministering in his nameby solemn prayer and thanksgiving, to consecrate, or set apart from a common to a holy use, so much of the bread and wine as may be needed on the occasion. That, being sanctified by the word of God and prayer, they may have a special relation to the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, of which they are the divinely appointed symbols. By this act of consecration, we acknowledge that the elements undergo a certain change. It is however only relative or sacramental, as we have just stated, and altogether different from that for which Papists contend, as we shall presently show. Scripture teaches that the elements remain bread and wine, after the consecration. 1 Cor. xi. 26.

2. The distribution of the elements is to follow their consecration. Our Saviour, when he had blessed the bread, brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you :" And so with regard to the cup also, after giving thanks, he gave it to his disciples, saying, drink ye all of it: For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Agreeably to this rule, the minister of the gospel officiating in the name of his Master, must brake the bread, to represent the "wounding and bruising" of Christ's body. bread which we break," says Paul.

* Isa. liii. 5.

The

The broken bread is, then, to be given to the communicants, as the communion of the body of Christ. After which, the wine having been poured out, is to be given to them, as the communion of the blood of Christ.+

This is the order to be observed in the administration of the Lord's supper; and in this way" Jesus Christ is evidently set forth crucified among us," as well as crucified for us. The affecting scene of Golgotha is brought to view; and the crucified, bleeding, dying victim, is set before our eyes! "Believers, now behold the man!

The man of grief! condemned for you:
The Lamb of God, for sinners slain,
Weeping, to Calvary pursue !"

From this view of the subject, which, we feel confident, is according to the mind of Christ, and the order of the primitive church; you cannot but be filled with astonishment, and regret, at the corruptions and abominations introduced by the Church of Rome, in relation to this ordinance.

The doctrines of transubstantiation, and the mass -for they are inseparably connected-are, as Mosheim justly remarks, when speaking of the former, "the most monstrous doctrines, that the phrenzy of superstition was capable of inventing!" And as the man of sin may yet display his power on this side of the Atlantic, before the reign of truth and righteousness shall be completely established, it may

1 Cor. x. 16.

+Form for admin. of supper.. Gal. in. 16 Ecc. His. vol. iii. 256.

not be improper to make a few remarks in relation

to these "monstrous errors.

By transubstantiation is meant, a real change of the bread and wine, into the body and blood of Christ, effected by the act of consecration,—or, to use the words of Bellarmine, one of their celebrated writers: "The meaning of Christ's words." This is my body, is this: What is contained in these species, or appearances of bread and wine, is really and properly my very, true, and natural body!"*

According to this, the same body, which was mangled and torn on the cross, is again broken: and the same blood, which stained Mount Calvary, is again shed, whenever this ordinance is celebrated.. And as the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is, in Scripture, declared to be effectual to cleanse from all sin; so the Papists ascribe efficacy to the daily offering up of Christ in the mass;-an efficacy, which is not confined to the living; but which is even effectual to release the dead from the torments of purgatory! Yea, further; they assert, that as Christ's body and blood are truly exhibited, and li

*The doctrine of consubstantiation, for which Luther contended, is but one remove from this error, inasmuch as it maintains the real presence of Christ under the emblems of bread and wine! In this point more than any other, perhaps, Luther fell short of what the state of the church at that time required, in the work of reformation. But Luther was a man ; and a man who did wonders. There is more cause to be astonished that he did so much, than to wonder that he did not accomplish more.

† 1 John i.

terally offered, in the celebration of the mass, it is the duty of all to pay religious worship to the appearance of bread and wine; which, say they, are in reality the body and blood of the Saviour! But we will give you their own account of this impious absurdity: "The mass is that holy service, in which, a lawfully ordained priest, by pronouncing, in a low tone of voice, these five words Hoc enim est corpus meum,' [for this is my body,] creates of bread Christ Jesus; and offers him to God, the Father, as a sacrifice, to atone for the sins of the living and the dead."

In the true spirit of this definition, the famous Council of Trent passed the following decrees,— viz.

1. Whosoever shall deny, that there is offered to God in the mass a true and proper sacrifice-let: him be accursed!

"2. Whosoever does not believe, that in these words Do this in remembrance of me,' Christ constituted his Apostles, and all their successors, to be properly and truly priests, to offer the body and blood of Christ-let him be accursed!

"3. If any man shall say, that the sacrifice of the mass is only gratulatory, and in commemoration of Christ, and not propitiatory; and that it only profiteth him who partakes thereof, and not the living and the dead-let him be accursed!"

Here you have a view of the Popish doctrines of transubstantiation and the mass. At one glance you will perceive their absurdity and impiety.

For what can be more absurd, than that the bread and wine should be changed into the body and blood of Christ? Do not our very senses, which testify that, in the sacrament of baptism, the water is not changed into the blood of Christ-also testify, that the bread and the wine, used in the sacrament of the supper, remain substantially the same, after conse→ cration, that they were before? Ah! but the sub-. stance is changed, while the appearance and properties remain unaltered.?

This is absurdity run mad! For by what do we know substances, but by their properties or accidents?—or what effects a change in substances, but a change of their properties? If a substance may be changed, without a change of accidents, then there is an end to all distinctions between objects of every description!

For instance: I take the liberty to tell you, that a clod of earth is an angel: And when you tell me, that its properties are those, which are peculiar to matter, and directly the opposite of those which belong to a spirit? reply: True; but the substance is a spirit, although the properties are those of matter!

How ridiculous: Yes; and how anti-sacramental too; for this doctrine of the Church of Rome is inconsistent with the very nature of a sacrament. It destroys the sign-or, at least, identifies it with the thing signified. This is incompatible with the nature of a sacrament; which, as we have before sta