1st. The Romanists seek to establish their doctrine by three arguments, (1.) Scripture, (2.) tradition, (3.) decisions of councils. But we have above, (Chap. V.), proved that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and judge of controversies. Their scriptural authority is nothing more than the language used by Christ in instituting the sacrament, Matt, xxvi., 26. They claim that the word " is" must be understood literally. Protestants insist, on the contrary, that this word, from the plain sense of the passage, and from the analogy of Scripture usage in many other passages, simply means represents, symbolizes. — See Gen. xli., 26, 27 ; Ex. xii., 11 ; Dan. vii., 24 ; Rev. i., 20.
2d. Paul calls one of the elements bread, as well after as be- fore its consecration, 1 Cor. x., 16 ; xi., 26-28.
3d. This doctrine is inconsistent with their own definition of a sacrament. They agree with Protestants and with the fathers in distinguishing, in every sacrament, two things, viz., the sign and the thing signified. See above, Chap. XXXVIII., question 2. But the doctrine of transubstantiation confounds these to- gether.
4th. The senses, when exercised in their proper sphere, are as much a revelation from God as any other. No miracle recorded in the Bible contradicted the senses,, but, on the contrary, the re- ality of the miracle was established by the testimony of the senses. See the transubstantiation of water into wine, John ii., 1-10, and Luke xxiv., 36-43. But this doctrine flatly contradicts our senses,
508 THE lord's supper.
since we see, smell, taste and touch the bread and wine as well after their consecration as before.
5th. Reason also, in its proper sphere, is a divine revelation, and though it may be transcended, never can be contradicted by any other revelation, supernatural or otherwise. See above, Chap. II., question 11. But this doctrine contradicts the principles of reason (1.) with respect to the nature of Christ's body, by sup- posing that, although it is material, it may be, without division, wholly present in heaven, and at many different places on earth at the same time. (2.) In maintaining that the body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament, yet without any of their sensible qualities, and that all the sensible qualities of the bread and wine are present, while the bodies to which they belong are absent. But qualities have no existence apart from the bodies to which they belong.
6th. This doctrine is an inseparable part of a system of priest- craft entirely antichristian, including the worship of the host, the sacrifice of the mass, and hence the entire substitution of the priest and his work in the place of Christ and his work. It also blas- phemously subjects the awful divinity of our Saviour to the con- trol of his sinful creatures, who at their own will call him down from heaven, and withhold or communicate him to the people.
10. What is the Lutheran doctrine of consul stantiation ?
Consubstantiation (literally constituting of the same sub- stance) was the term used by Luther to designate his doctrine, that while the bread and wine continue the same that they were before, and what they appear to our senses to be, the body and blood of Christ are nevertheless literally and corporeally present in a miraculous manner, in, with, and under the sensible ele- ments.
This view agrees with that of the Romanists, in asserting —
1st. A real corporeal and local presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament.
2d. That they are received by the mouth.
3d. That they are received equally by the believer and un- believer.
But it differs from the Romish doctrine, in denying —
CONSUBSTANTIATION. 509
1st. That the bread and wine are changed.
2d. That the union of the person of Christ with the elements is effected by the power of the officiating priest.
3d. In confining the presence of Christ's person within and under the elements to the very moment of the sacramental cele- bration. It follows that although this doctrine is false, absurd, and injurious, it is by no means so fatally dangerous as that of transubstantiation. It does not lead to the idolatrous worship of the host, to the denial of the cup to the laity, nor to the anti- christian sacrifice of the mass.
11. What is the doctrine of the Reformed churches as to the nature of Christ's presence in the supper ?