v. 58. Were it, as the Papists hold, his literal flesh, and eaten by all in the Mass, the consequence would be that the very worst of the communicants (to say nothing of the mice and worms by which the eucharist is occasionally devoured) would through the virtue of this heavenly bread attain eternal life. That living bread therefore which Christ calls his flesh, and that blood which is drink indeed, can be nothing but the doctrine of Christ's having become man in order to shed his blood for us; a doctrine which whosoever receives by faith, shall as surely attain eternal life, as the partaking of meats and drinks supports our brief term of bodily existence: nay, more surely; for thus, as above quoted, Christ dwells in us, and we in him; whereas the food which is received into the body does not dwell there, being carried off partly by natural transpiration,* and partly in other ways, as soon as the process of digestion is completed.

This solemnity is called by Paul 'the Lord's Supper,' 1 Cor. xi. 20. and its original institution by Christ, together with an explanation of the rite, is given v. 23-30. I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me: after the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do

ye, as oft as ye drink it, 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.' It is also incidentally explained x. 16, 17, 21 the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? for we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.'

6

Under the law, the Lord's Supper was typified by the manna, and the water flowing from the rock. 1 Cor. x. 3, 4. our fathers did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ.' If they under a carnal covenant partook spiritually of the body of Christ, surely we do not partake of it carnally under a spiritual covenant.

I have quoted the above passages at length, inasmuch as in them is comprised the whole Scripture doctrine relative to the Lord's Supper. Whosoever interprets these with true Christian simplicity of heart according to their plain and obvious meaning, will be at a loss to account for the numberless absurd speculations on this subject, by which the peace of the church has been destroyed, and which have well nigh converted the Supper of the Lord into a banquet of cannibals.

Consubstantiation,* and above all the papistical doctrine of transubstantiation (or rather anthropoph

*The Lutheran holds consubstantiation; an error indeed, but not mortal.' Of true Religion, &c. Prose Works, IV. 262.

agy, for it deserves no better name) are irreconcileable, not only with reason and common sense, and the habits of mankind, but with the testimony of Scripture, with the nature and end of a sacrament, with the analogy of baptism, with the ordinary forms of language, with the human nature of Christ, and finally with the state of glory in which he is to remain till the day of judgment.

In speaking of sacraments, as of most other subjects between whose parts an analogy exists, a figure is frequently employed, by which whatever illustrates or signifies any particular thing is used to denote, not what it is in itself, but what it illustrates or signifies. In sacraments, on account of the peculiarly close relation between the sign and the thing signified, this kind of identification is not uncommon; an inattention to which peculiarity has been, and continues to be, a source of error to numbers. Thus circumcision is called a covenant, Gen. xvii. 10. and a token of the covenant,' v. 11. Again, a lamb is called the passover,' Exod. xii. 11. which text is defended against the exceptions of objectors by the similar passages, Luke xxii. 7. 'the passover must be killed.' v. 8. prepare us the passover.' v. 11. where I shall eat the passover.' v. 13. they made ready the passover.' A similar expression occurs 2 Sam. xxiii. 17. is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? Accordingly, the same form of speech is used in regard to baptism: Eph. v. 26. that he might cleanse it with the washing of water by the word: Col. ii. 12. buried with him in baptism;' and to the Lord's Supper: Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. 'as they were eating, Jesus took bread,' &c.......' take, eat;

6

this is my body.' Compare also Mark xiv. 23. and Luke xxii. 20. this cup is the new testament.' See also 1 Cor. xi. 25. Again, 1 Cor. x. 4. that rock was Christ.' The object of the sacred writers, in thus expressing themselves, was probably to denote the close affinity between the sign and the thing signified, as well as, by a bold metaphor, to intimate the certainty with which the seal is thus set to spiritual blessings; the same form of speech being used in other instances, where the certainty of a thing is to be emphatically expressed: Gen. xli. 27. the seven kine are seven years.' Rev. i. 20. xvii. 9. ‘the seven heads are seven mountains,' and v. 12. 'the ten horns are ten kings.'

Lastly, since every sacrament is, by its very definition, a seal of the covenant of grace, it is evident that the Papists err, when they attribute to the outward sign the power of bestowing salvation or grace by virtue of the mere opus operatum; seeing that sacraments can neither impart salvation nor grace of themselves, but are given as a pledge or symbol to believers of the actual blessing. 1 Pet. iii. 21. 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience.'

Hence it follows, that sacraments are not absolutely indispensable: first, because many have been saved without partaking of them; thus circumcision was dispensed with in the case of women, baptism in that of the thief on the cross, and doubtless of many infants and catechumens. Thus also many have obtained the gifts of the Spirit through the word and faith alone. Acts x. 44. the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.' Nor was John himself,

the first who administered the rite, baptized, although he testified that he also had need of baptism, Matt. iii. 14. The same was not improbably the case with Apollos, inasmuch as this latter does not appear to have left his native city of Alexandria for Ephesus till long after the death of John; nor can it be inferred with certainty, from its being said of him that he knew only the baptism of John, that he had actually undergone the ceremony. Yet, as far as appears, Aquila and Priscilla considered a more thorough initiation in the gospel all that was wanting to him, without requiring that he should be baptized, Acts xviii. 24-26. Secondly, the seal does not constitute the covenant, but is only an evidence of it; whence Abraham, after that he had already believed and was justified, received circumcision as the seal of his righteousness. When therefore it is said John iii. 5. 'except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' this must be understood in a conditional sense, assuming that a fit opportunity has been offered, and that it has not been lost through neglect. The same may be said of Eph. v. 26. that he might cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,' and Tit. iii. 5. by the washing of regeneration;' for the gospel is also called the power of God unto salvation,' Rom. i. 16. and we are said to be born again by the word,' 1 Pet. i. 23, although those who die in infancy must either be regenerated by the Spirit alone, without any outward reception of the gospel or word, or they must perish altogether. In the same manner, he who believes only, drinks of that living water which is the blood of Christ, and eats of that heavenly bread

เ