believes such absurdities! After this, there is nothing so monstrous and incredible which he might not be prevailed upon to acknowledge, if he were first persuaded that it is taught in the Scriptures.

That consubstantiation is not taught in the Scriptures, might be proved by all the arguments which have been adduced to show, that the literal interpretation of the words, "This is my body," "This is my blood," is false. These it is unnecessary to go over again, as they were so lately laid before you. It deserves attention, that the interpretation of the Lutheran church is more forced and unnatural than that of the Romish church. The Papist, suspecting no figure in the case, with childish simplicity takes the words as they stand, "this bread is my body," and believes that the one is miraculously changed into the other. The Lutheran employs some thought, and exercises a little ingenuity, and finds that the words signify, not "This bread is my body," but "This bread contains my body." By what law does he deviate from the strict interpretation? Where does he find, that the verb of existence, is, signifies in, with, or under? Not in any of the canons of criticism, but in the necessity of his system, which cannot be supported without this explanation. Hence it is evident, that the Papist has the advantage of the Lutheran; and that, if the words are to be literally understood, they favour transubstantiation, and consubstantiation is founded on a perversion of them. Both doctrines are contrary to Scripture, as well as to reason and common sense; but that of Lutherans offers more direct violence to the words of inspiration.

However objectionable consubstantiation may be, it is, when compared with the favourite dogma of Papists, a harmless absurdity, as it is not clogged with the impious consequences which are deduced from transubstantiation. Although Lutherans believe the corporeal presence of Christ in the sacrament, they condemn the worship of it as idolatrous; they do not maintain the sacrifice of the mass, nor withhold the cup from the laity. It is an opinion which has no influence upon their practice, and does not lead them into error respecting other doctrines of religion. On this account, it has been regarded by the Reformed churches with less displeasure than the Popish tenet, and has been considered by many as not constituting an insurmountable obstacle to the communion between them.

The opinion of Zuinglius comes next to be considered. Although he does not hold so distinguished a place as Luther in the history of the Protestant Churches, yet it is certain that he preceded him in openly opposing the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome, made earlier and more rapid progress in the knowledge of the truth, and entertained far more enlightened views on the subject of the Eucharist than the German Reformer. He began to preach the gospel, as we are informed by himself, the year before Luther first declaimed against indulgences, and while the name of the latter was unknown in Switzerland. "He saw," as Melchior Adam relates in his life, "the error of transubstantiation, or of the substantial conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, the accidents only remaining; he saw that the dogma of consubstantiation, or impanation, that is, of the corporeal presence. of Christ in the bread and wine, their substance remaining, which Luther embraced, agreed neither with the words of our Lord, nor with the analogy of Christian faith, nor with the consent of orthodox antiquity; for he saw that it had not been said by Christ, Let this be or become my body,' nor even, Under this, or in this, my body is, or is contained.' Yet he did not see what he should safely adopt, till having weighed many similar passages of Scripture, and consulted orthodox antiquity, as Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, Theodoret, Bertram, and others, he at length determined, that in the words of our Lord, 'This is my body,' or, This bread is my body,' there is a me tonymy peculiar to the Hebrew language, and that metonymically the name of

the thing signified is transferred to the sign; that the bread is called the body of the Lord, and the wine the blood of the New Testament, because they are symbols of the body and blood of the Lord, or because they signify the body and blood of the Lord sacramentally. Before he published this opinion, he not only communicated it to his faithful friends, but took care that it should be made known to all persons in Germany and France who were distinguished for learning and authority; for he foresaw that the opposite opinion, which for so many ages had taken deep root in the minds of men, would with great difficulty be eradicated."* The opinion which he finally adopted was this,"That the bread and wine were no more than a representation of the body and blood of Christ; or, in other words, the signs appointed to denote the benefits that were conferred upon mankind in consequence of the death of Christ; that, therefore, Christians derived no other fruit from the participation of the Lord's Supper, than a mere commemoration and remembrance of the merits of Christ, and that there was nothing in the ordinance but a memorial of Christ."

That both Papists and Lutherans should have exclaimed against this simple view of the sacred institution, can excite no surprise. To some who had renounced the errors of both, he appeared to have gone to the opposite extreme. Those, therefore, who did not choose to condemn his opinion in express terms, deemed it necessary to make an apology for it. Thus Bucer, his contemporary, having remarked that in the epistles of Zuinglius concerning the sacraments, some things are found, from which it may be inferred that he did not attribute as much to the sacraments as ought to be ascribed to them, admonishes the reader, that Zuinglius did not deny that the sacraments are symbols of grace, and in their own way are auxiliary to faith; and goes on to state, that his object in speaking of them as he did, was, to guard men against putting confidence in the external work, not to evacuate the sacraments of Christ. "For he had to do with those who defended the vulgar impiety by which some men are led to seek salvation from the opus operatum, as they call it, that is, from the ceremony itself externally performed, being altogether careless of faith in the promises. Against these he justly contended, that Christ our Lord restores us to the favour of his Father; and not the sacraments, or the external action of the priests in the administration of the sacraments. Whatever therefore you shall read in these epistles which shall seem to detract something from the sacraments, understand all that to be said concerning the external action, to the exclusion of the Spirit of Christ."t

It had appeared to some that Zuinglius denied the efficacy of the sacraments, and reduced them to mere signs which work solely by a moral influence; and this apology was undertaken to show that this was not his intention. To have represented them as naked signs, would no doubt have been improper; because, if they were instituted for the confirmation of our faith, they could not have accomplished this design without the communication of grace; but there seems to have been a disposition in that age, to believe, that there was a presence of Christ in the Eucharist different from his presence in the other ordinances of the gospel; an undefined something, which corresponded to the strong language used at the institution of the Supper, "This is my body, this is my blood." Acknowledging it to be figurative, many still thought that a mystery was couched under it. It was not, indeed, easy for those who had long been accustomed to the notion of the bodily presence of Christ, at once to simplify their ideas; and perhaps, too, they were induced to express themselves as they did, with a view to give less offence to the Lutherans. Whatever was their motive, their language is not always sufficiently guarded. Hence Bucer adds, Melch. Adami Vitæ Germ. Theol. Vita Zuinglii, p. 39, 40. † Buceri Epist. in Melch. Adami Vita Zuinglii, p. 41, 42.

"When it is said that Christ, having left this world and carried his body to heaven, cannot be consubstantiated with the bread, do not think that in our churches he is excluded from the sacred Supper, and that bread and wine alone are administered as empty symbols. As the passage of our Lord Jesus Christ into heaven, implies only that he is not here after the manner of this world; so we do not deny that he is united to the bread, or locally included in the bread; but not naturally, and after the manner of this world. We acknowledge that the true body and the true blood of Christ, true Christ himself, God and man, is present to us in the Supper; that by the words and symbols he is exhibited not for the perishing food of the flesh, but for the eternal food of the soul, and on that account is not perceived by sense and reason, but by true faith."*

These words are very unguarded. While they deny, they seem also to affirm, the real presence of Christ in the sacrament in some mysterious manner, and are calculated to mislead and to confound the mind. Had it been said that the bread and wine are merely signs of his body and blood, but that he is contemplated and enjoyed by the communicants in the exercises of meditation and faith, we could have understood it; but what idea can we affix to the presence of the true body and the true blood of Christ, "not naturally, and after the manner of this world?" Would not Papists and Lutherans say the same thing?

The name of Calvin ought always to be mentioned with respect. He was one of the brightest ornaments of the Reformation, and in learning, genius, and zeal, had few equals, and no superior. His opposition both to transubstantiation and to consubstantiation is well known; and yet, in speaking of the Lord's Supper, he has expressed himself in the following manner: "The sum is, that our souls are not otherwise fed with the flesh and blood of Christ, than bread and wine sustain our corporeal life. Nor would the analogy of the sign otherwise agree, unless souls found their nourishment in Christ; which cannot be, unless Christ truly coalesce with us into one, and restore us by the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood. But although it seems incredible that, the places being so distant, the flesh of Christ should penetrate to us so as to be our food, let us remember how much the secret power of the Spirit exceeds our senses, and how foolish it is to attempt to measure his immensity by our standard. What our mind does not comprehend, let faith conceive, that the Spirit truly unites things which are disjoined in place. That sacred communication of his flesh and blood, by which Christ transfuses his life into us, no otherwise than if he penetrated into our bones and marrow, he attests and seals in the Supper; not indeed in a vain and empty sign, but there exerting the efficacy of his Spirit, by which he fulfils what he promises."t

I confess that I do not understand this passage. It supposes a communion of believers in the human nature of our Saviour in the Eucharist; and endeavours to remove the objection arising from the distance of place, by a reference to the almighty power of the Spirit, much in the same way as Papists and Lutherans solve the difficulty attending their respective systems. If Calvin had meant only that, in the Sacred Supper, believers have fellowship with Christ in his death, he would have asserted an important truth, attested by the experience of the people of God in every age; but why did he obscure it, and destroy its simplicity, by involving it in ambiguous language? If he had any thing different in view; if he meant that there is some mysterious communication with his human nature, we must be permitted to say that the notion was as incomprehensible to himself as it is to his readers. The error into which he and others have fallen is this, that while they acknowledge the words of institution to be figurative, they speak of them occasionally in such terms as Buceri Epist. ubi supra. † Calvini Instit. lib. iv. cap. xvii. sect. 10.

import the literal sense; not attending to this obvious canon of interpretation, that, in explaining a figure, we should give the true sense in other terms, and uniformly adhere to it; and that to mix together the figure and the literal sense, sometimes bringing forward the one and sometimes the other, creates confusion in the minds of others, and, instead of illustrating the subject, involves it in obscurity.

LECTURE XCII.

ON THE

SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

True Nature of the Eucharist.-In what Manner Christ is Present in It.-Observations on the Time of Institution; The Symbols; The Mode of Administration.-What is Implied in Partaking of it.-Who may Partake.-Periods of Celebrating it.

We have reviewed the opinions of different denominations of Christians concerning the Lord's Supper, and have seen that even some of those who denied the real presence, have not always expressed themselves with sufficient clearness and simplicity. The words of institution have impressed them with an idea, that, although there is no change of the elements, and the true body and blood of our Redeemer are not contained in them, yet something mysterious is implied. This charge, at least, may be fairly advanced against those whom we find, even although they profess to explain the subject, making use of figurative language. It is true that, since our Lord calls the bread and wine his body and blood, we may be said to eat his body when we eat the bread, and to drink his blood when we drink the wine; but then it should be considered, that we can only eat the one and drink the other, in the same sense in which the former is called his body, and the latter his blood, that is, figuratively, Stript of all metaphorical terms, the action must mean that, in the believing and grateful commemoration of his death, we enjoy the blessings which were purchased by it, in the same manner in which we enjoy them when we exercise faith in hearing the Gospel. Why, then, should any man talk, as Calvin does, of some inexplicable communion in this ordinance with the human nature of Christ; and tell us that, although it seems impossible, on account of the distance to which he is removed from us, we are not to measure the power of the Divine Spirit by our standard? I am sure that the person who speaks so, conveys no idea into the minds of those whom he addresses; and I am equally certain that he does not understand himself. When our Lord speaks, in the Gospel of John, of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, all Protestants will acknowledge that he simply means our reception of him and his benefits by faith. Why should it be supposed that any other thing is signified by the Lord's Supper, in which the language is virtually the same? What rule of interpretation will justify us in entertaining the idea of something more mysteri ous in the one case than in the other? There is an absurdity in the notion, that there is any communion with the body and blood of Christ, considered in themselves; that he intended any such thing; or that it could be of any advantage to us. There is an absurdity in imagining that, by calling the symbols

his body and blood, he meant to fix our attention upon these, materially considered; and in not acknowledging that his design was to direct our thoughts to himself, as our incarnate Redeemer, who was substituted in our room, expiated our sins, and has obtained a perfect salvation for us. The ordinance is misunderstood, when it gives rise to carnal meditations; and is then only observed aright, when our minds are employed in the spiritual contemplation of his atonement, and its effects. When our Church, therefore, says that "the body and blood are as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses,"* and, that they "feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace," it can mean only, that our incarnate suffering Saviour is apprehended by their minds, through the instituted signs; and that, by faith, they enjoy peace and hope; or it means something unintelligible and unscriptural. Plain, literal language is best, especially on spiritual subjects, and should have been employed by Protestant Churches with the utmost care, as the figurative terms of Scripture have been so grossly mistaken. On this ground, I object to the following words in the Confession of Faith of the Reformed Churches of France: "We confess that, in the Holy Supper, Jesus Christ feeds and nourishes us truly with his flesh and blood, that we may be one with him, and that his life may be communicated to us. For, although he is in heaven till he come to judge the world, yet we believe that, by the secret and incomprehensible virtue of his Spirit, he nourishes and quickens us with the substance of his body and blood. We hold that this is done spiritually, not to put imaginations and thoughts in the place of the effect and the truth, but inasmuch as this mystery surmounts, by its height, the measure of our senses, and the whole order of nature."

It is not the design of these observations to deny, or call in question, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I should not hesitate to affirm a real, in opposition to an imaginary, and in distinction from a symbolical, presence, had not the phrase been abused to express a doctrine inconsistent with Scripture and common sense. But the doctrine of his presence I would not found, as others do, upon the words of institution, which, when justly interpreted, merely import that the elements are signs of his body and blood. Now, a sign is very far from implying that the thing signified is present. It is rather understood to represent an absent object, and is put in its place to remind us of it, because it is removed to a distance from us. Instead of being a fair conclusion from the words of institution, that there is a peculiar, mysterious presence of our Saviour, which can be accounted for only by the miraculous power of the Spirit, it might rather be inferred that he is not present at all, and that the design of the symbols is to call him to remembrance in his absence. The doctrine of his presence in the Sacred Supper, is legitimately deduced from his general promise, which relates to all his ordinances without any special respect to the Supper: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them."§ It is this promise which gives us ground to consider him as present in the Eucharist, in baptism, in prayer, in the preaching of the Gospel. In all these ordinances he is present; and he is present in the same manner in them all, namely, by his Spirit, who renders them effectual means of salvation. This sentiment would be pronounced heretical by the Church of Rome, and by the followers, of Luther; and would even incur the disapprobation of many Protestants, who have been accustomed to think that Christ is somehow in the Eucharist, as he is not in any other ordinance. But their belief and their confident affirmation are of no value, if they are not supported by Scripture. And where do they find any ground for their opinion + Larger Cat. Q. 168. Matth. xviii. 20.

Conf. ch. xxix. § 7.

+ Art. xxxvi. Vide Quick's Synodicon, vol. i. p. 14.