taken, blessed, and broken the bread, he commands that it should be
eaten _in remembrance of him._ Having given them the cup to drink, he
adds, "This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, _in remembrance_ of me." The
words, "this is my body--this cup is the New Testament in my blood,"
appeared to me only what they really are, figurative expressions,
signifying that the bread _represented_ his body, and the wine his
blood. These words do in no degree change or modify the principal
idea, that of _commemoration_, which runs throughout this action of
our Lord.

Had it even been possible that these words had deceived me; had
I taken them in their literal meaning, I should soon have been
undeceived by those which immediately follow, which in themselves
utterly overthrow the doctrine of the real presence, and the whole
system of the mass. These are the words: "As often as ye eat this
bread and drink this cup, ye do _show_ the Lord's death _till he
come."_ 1 Cor. 11:26. After this declaration, connected with so many
others, what further proof was wanting that St. Paul never believed
that the bread and wine contained the actual body of Christ? I clearly
saw that in this passage he meant that it is really bread we eat, and
wine we drink, in the sacrament, and not the actual body and blood
of the Son of God. I perceived that he taught that the Lord is not
actually present in that ceremony according to the sense of the Romish
church, because he distinctly says, "that by participating in it, we
do _show_ the Lord's death _till he come_"

In short, I was convinced that, according to St. Paul, it is not the
body and blood of Jesus Christ that the priests hold in their hands,
and which they offer as a sacrifice in the mass.