CHAPTER VII. QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE LORD'S SUPPER. THE other rite, to which Protestants give the name of a sacrament, is commonly called, after the example of Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 20, the Lord's supper, as the Lord's day is called, Kvgiazŋ żμɛga, Rev. i. 10. It derives its name from having been instituted by Jesus, after he had supped with his apostles, immediately before he went out to be delivered into the hands of his enemies. In Egypt, for every house of the children of Israel, a lamb was slain upon that night, when the Almighty punished the cruelty and obstinacy of the Egyptians by killing their first-born; but charged the destroying angel to pass over the houses upon which the blood of the lamb was sprinkled. This was the original sacrifice of the passover. In commemoration of it, the Jews observed the annual festival of the passover, when all the males of Judea assembled before the Lord in Jerusalem. A lamb was slain for every house, the representative of that whose blood had been sprinkled in the night of the escape from Egypt. After the blood was poured under the altar by the priests, the lambs were carried home to be eaten by the people in their tents or houses at a domestic feast, where every master of a family took the cup of thanksgiving, and gave thanks with his family to the God of Israel. Jesus having fulfilled the law of Moses, to which in all things he submitted, by eating the paschal supper, with his disciples, proceeded after supper to institute a rite, which, to any person that reads the words of the institution without having formed a previous opinion upon the subject, will probably appear to have been intended by him as a memorial of that event, which was to happen not many hours after. Luke xxii. 19, 20. "He took bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it unto them, saying, this is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." He took the bread which was then on the table, and the wine, of which some had been used in sending round the cup of thanksgiving; and by saying, "This is my body, this is my blood, do this in remembrance of me," he declared to his apostles that this was the representation of his death, by which he wished them to commemorate that event. The apostle Paul, not having been present at the institution, received it by immediate revelation from the Lord Jesus; and the manner in which he delivers it to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xi. 23-26, implies that it was not a rite confined to the apostles who were present when it was instituted, but that it was meant to be observed by all Christians to the end of the world. "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." Whether we consider these words as part of the revelation made to Paul, or as his own commentary upon the nature of the ordinance which was revealed to him, they mark, with equal significancy and propriety, the extent and the perpetuity of the obligation to observe that rite which was first instituted in presence of the apostles. There is a striking correspondence between this view of the Lord's supper, as a rite by which it was intended that all Christians should commemorate the death of Christ, and the circumstances attending the institution of the feast of the passover. Like the Jews, we have the original sacrifice; "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us," and by his substitution, our souls are delivered from death. Like the Jews, we have a feast in which that sacrifice, and the deliverance purchased by it, are remembered. Hence the Lord's supper was early called the eucharist, from its being said by Luke, nabwr actor, ευχαρίστησας έκλασε. Jesus when he took the bread gave thanks; and his disciples in all ages, when they receive the bread, keep a feast of thanksgiving. To Christians as to Jews, there is a night to be much observed unto the Lord," in all generations. To Christians as to Jews, the manner of observing the night is appointed. To both, it is accompanied with thanksgiving. And thus, as different expressions led us formerly to conclude, that the initiatory rite of Christianity comes in place of the initiatory rite of the Abrahamic covenant, we now find that the other sacrament of the New Testament also has its counterpart under the Old. The Lord's supper exhibits by a significant action, the characteristical doctrine of the Christian faith, that the death of its author, which seemed to be the completion of the rage of his enemies, was a voluntary sacrifice, so efficacious as to supersede the necessity of every other; and that his blood was shed for the remission of sins. By partaking of this rite, his disciples publish an event most interesting to all the kindreds of the earth; they declare that, far from being ashamed of the sufferings of their master, they glory in his cross; and while they thus perform the office implied in that expression of the apostle, τον θάνατον του Κυρίου καταγγέλλετε, they at the same time cherish the senti ments, by which their religion ministers to their own consolation and improvement. They cannot remember the death of Christ, the circumstances which rendered that event necessary, the disinterested love, and the exalted virtues of their deliverer, without feeling their obligations to him. Unless the vilest hypocrisy accompany an action, which, by its very nature, professes to flow from warm affection, "the love of Christ" will "constrain" them to fulfil the purposes of his death, by "living unto him who died for them ;" and we have every reason to hope that, in the places where he causes his name to be remembered, he will come and bless his people. From these views of the Lord's supper, the command of Jesus, "do this in remembrance of me," has been held in the highest respect ever since the night in which it was given; and the action has appeared so natural, so pleasing, so salutary an expression of all that a Christian feels, that, with the exception only of the Quakers, whose spiritual system, far refined above the condition of humanity, despises all those helps which he who knows our weakness saw to be necessary, it has been observed in the Christian church, from the earliest times to the present day. This is the pleasing picture of the Lord's supper, which we wish always to present: and happy had it been for the Christian world, if this were all that required to be said upon the subject. But it has so happened, that an ordinance, which is the natural expression of love to the common master of Christians, and which seems to constitute a bond of union amongst them, has proved the source of corruptions, the most dishonourable to their religion, and of mutual contentions the most bitter and the most disgraceful. For while, with a trifling exception, all Christians have agreed in respecting and observing this sacrament, they have been very far removed from one another in their opinions as to its nature; and these opinions have not been always speculative, but have often had a considerable influence upon a great part of their practice. Had the Scriptures represented the Lord's supper in no other light than as a remembrance of the death of Christ, there could hardly have been room for this variety of opinion. But as there are expressions, both in the words of the institution, and in other places of Scripture, which seem to open a further view of this ordinance, the different interpretations of these passages have given occasion to different systems. In the words of the institution, Jesus calls the cup "the new testament, or covenant, in my blood," which implies a connexion of some kind, in conceiving and stating which men may differ, between the cup drunk in the Lord's supper and the new covenant. He says also, "this is my body; this is my blood; which implies a sacredness, of the degrees of which very different apprehensions may be entertained, arising from the connexion between the subject and the predicate of these propositions. The apostle Paul, in reciting the words of the institution in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, for the purpose of correcting certain indecencies in celebrating this ordinance which had arisen in the infant Church of Corinth, speaks of the guilt and danger of eating and drinking unworthily, in a manner which to some conveys an awful idea of the sanctity of the Lord's supper, and to many suggests the most precious benefits as the certain consequence of eating and drinking worthily. This suggestion appears to be confirmed by the incidental mention which Paul has made of the Lord's supper in the 10th chapter of that Epistle. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ?" Lastly, there is a long discourse of our Lord in John vi. which some consider as nothing more than a continued figure, without any special relation to the Lord's supper, whilst others apply it either in its literal, or at least in its highest sense to this ordinance. Upon these passages of Scripture are founded the four different systems concerning the Lord's supper, of which I mean to give a concise view. 1. The first to be mentioned, is that monstrous system which is held in the church of Rome, the several parts of which may be thus shortly brought together. It is conceived that the words, "this is my body, this is my blood," are to be understood in their most literal sense; that when Jesus pronounced these words, he changed, by his almighty power, the bread upon the table into his body, and the wine into his blood, and really delivered his body and blood into the hands of his apostles; and that at all times, when the Lord's supper is administered, the priest, by pronouncing these words with a good intention, has the power of making a similar change. This change is known by the name of transubstantiation; the propriety of which name is conceived to consist in this, that although the bread and wine are not changed in figure, taste, weight, or any other accident, it is believed that the substance of them is completely destroyed; that in place of it, the substance of the body and blood of Christ, although clothed with all the sensible properties of bread and wine, is truly present; and that the persons who receive what has been consecrated by pronouncing these words, do not receive bread and wine, but literally partake of the body and blood of Christ, and really eat his flesh and drink his blood. It is further conceived that the bread and wine, thus changed, are presented by the priest to God; and he receives the name of priest, because in laying them upon the altar he offers to God a sacrifice, which, although it be distinguished from all others, by being without the shedding of blood, is a true propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the dead and of the living-the body and blood of Christ, which were presented on the cross, again presented in the sacrifice of the mass. It is conceived, that the materials of this sacrifice, being truly the body and blood of Christ, possess an intrinsic virtue, which does not depend upon the disposition of him who receives them, but operates immediately upon all who do not obstruct the operation by a mortal sin. Hence it is accounted of great importance for the salvation of the sick and dying, that parts of these materials should be sent to them; and it is understood that the practice of partaking in private of a small portion of what the priest has thus transubstantiated, is, in all respects, as proper and salutary as joining with others in the Lord's Supper. It is further conceived, that as the bread and wine, when converted into the body and blood of Christ, are a natural object of reverence and adoration to Christians, it is highly proper to worship them upon the altar, and that it is expedient to carry them about in solemn procession, that they may receive the homage of all who meet them. What had been transubstantiated was therefore lifted up for the purpose of receiving adoration, both when it was shown to the people at the altar, and when it was carried about. Hence arose that expression in the church of Rome, the elevation of the host; elevatio hostiæ. But, as the wine in being carried about was exposed to accidents inconsistent with the veneration due to the body and blood of Christ, it became customary to send only the bread; and, in order to satisfy those who for this reason did not receive the wine, they were taught that, as the bread was changed into the body of Christ, they partook by concomitancy of the blood with the body. In process of time, the people were not allowed to partake of the cup; and it was said, that when Jesus spake these words, " drink ye all of it," he was addressing himself only to his apostles, so that his command was fulfilled when the priests, the successors of the apostles, drank of the cup, although the people were excluded. And thus the last part of this system conspired with the first in exalting the clergy very far above the laity. For the same persons, who had the power of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and who presented what they had thus made, as a sacrifice for the sins of others, enjoyed the privilege of partaking of the cup, while communion in one kind only was permitted to the people. The absurdities of this system have been fully exposed by Calvin, Tillotson, Burnet, and the numberless writers, who, since the time of the Reformation, have directed the artillery of reason, philosophy, ridicule, and Scripture, against this enormous fabric. So much sound sense and logical acuteness have been displayed in the attack, that it may often be matter of wonder how such a system could be swallowed. To account for this, you must recollect the universal ignorance which for many ages overspread Europe, the natural progress of error, the credulity of superstition, the artifice with which this system was gradually unfolded, and the deep and continued policy which, by availing itself of figurative expressions in Scripture, of the glowing language of devout writers, of the superstition of the people, and of every favourable occurrence, compounded the whole into such a form, as, when brought to maturity, engaged various interests in maintaining its credit. It appears, from ecclesiastical history, that it was not without much opposition that this system, the result of the growing corruptions of succeeding ages, was finally established. Although, from the beginning, the Lord's supper was regarded with such reverence as would easily degenerate into superstition, and, although in all ages of the church there had been an opinion founded upon the words of our Lord, that communicants partake of his body and blood, yet when an attempt was made in the ninth century to define the manner of this participation, by saying that the body which suffered on the cross was locally present in the Lord's supper, the attempt was resisted; and the rational doctrine, by which Joannes Scotus Erigena combated this attempt, was maintained and illustrated in the eleventh century by Berenger. Even after the name transubstantiation was invented in the thirteenth century, and declared by the authority of the Pope in the fourth Lateran council to be an article of faith, impressions made by the doctrine of Berenger were not effaced from the minds of men and some, who did not venture to profess their disbelief of an article which the supreme authority of the church had imposed upon all Christians, tried to avoid the palpable absurdities of that article, by substituting, about the end of the thirteenth century, in place of transubstantiation, the word consubstantiation. This word was adopted by Luther at the beginning of the Reformation, and is commonly employed to express the distinguishing character of the second system concerning the Lord's supper. 2. It appeared to Luther, from the words of the institution, and from other places of Scripture, that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the Lord's supper. But he saw the absurdity of supposing that, in contradiction to our senses, what appears to us to be as much bread and wine, after the consecration as before it, is literally destroyed, or changed into another substance; and, therefore, he taught that the bread and wine indeed remain, but that, together with them, there is present the substance of the body and blood of ww |