Accordingly, even _after_ consecration, when the Romish Clergy assert the wine to have been literally transubstantiated into the actual material blood of Christ; he himself still calls it _this fruit of the vine_: an appellation, if we receive as scriptural truth the doctrine of Transubstantiation, _then_ clearly false and erroneous and inaccurate. (2.) We may note, that the Apostles expressed not the least surprise, or uttered the smallest murmur, on account of our Lord’s phraseology, when he instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist. The reason is obvious, though the fact is highly worth our special attention. They had heard and recollected his own explanation of the parallel language which he employed at Capernaum. Hence they _now_, as a matter of course, understood him to speak _figuratively_, not _literally_: and hence, what was the natural result, his words _now_ gave them NO offence. 3. _I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you_: _that The Lord Jesus_, _the night in which he was betrayed_, _took bread_: _and_, _when he had given thanks_, _he brake_, _and said_: _Take_, _eat_; _this is my body_, _which is broken for you_: _this do in remembrance of me_. _After the same manner also_, _the cup_, _when he had supped_, _saying_: _This cup is the New Testament in my blood_: _this do ye as oft as ye drink_, _in remembrance of me_. _For_, _as often as ye eat_ THIS BREAD _and drink_ THIS CUP, _ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come_. _Wherefore_, _whosoever shall eat_ THIS BREAD _and drink_ THIS CUP _of the Lord unworthily_, _shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord_. _But let a man examine himself_: _and so let him eat of_ THE BREAD, _and drink of_ THE CUP. {13a} (1.) The language of St. Paul exactly corresponds with the language of Christ. Even after consecration, the Apostle, we may observe, still repeatedly calls the elements _this bread_ and _this cup_ or _the bread_ and _the cup_. Yet he could not _truly_ have thus called them: if, all the while, they had become, by transubstantiation, literal human flesh and literal human blood. (2.) We may here again note, that the _true_ doctrine of the Eucharist, as undoubtedly delivered by St. Paul to the gentile converts of Corinth, does not appear to have excited either surprise or offence. Whence the presumption, or rather indeed the certainty, is: that, in delivering it to them, he distinctly taught, on the authority of his Lord and Master, that _it is the spirit which quickeneth_, that _the flesh profiteth nothing_, and that _the words spoken by Christ are spirit and life_. 4. As our Saviour thus fully explains his own phraseology: so, in strict congruity with his explanation; on the existence, of the soul and divinity of Christ in the consecrated elements, and on the adoration of those elements with the very same adoration as that which is paid to the Deity, Holy Scripture is PROFOUNDLY SILENT.