TWENTY-EIGHTH LORD'S DAY.

OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

Question 75. How art thou admonished and assured in the Lord's supper, that thou art a partaker of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross, and of all his benefits?

Answer. Thus, that Christ has commanded me, and all believers, to eat of this broken bread, and to drink of this cup, in remembrance of him; adding these promises, first, that his body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and his blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me: and further, that he feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, with his crucified body and shed blood, as assuredly as I receive from the hands of the minister and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, as certain signs of the body and blood of Christ.

EXPOSITION.

The questions which claim our special attention in treating the Lord's supper, are these:

1. What is the Lord's supper?
2. What is the design of it?
3. In what does it differ from baptism?
4. What is the meaning of the words of the institution?
5. What difference is there between the Lord's supper, and the Popish mass, and why the mass is to be abolished?
6. In what does the lawful use of the Lord's supper consist?
7. What do the ungodly receive in the use of the Lord's Supper?
8. For whom was it instituted?
9. Who are to be admitted to this Supper?

The first three of the above propositions belong to the 75th and 76th Questions of the Catechism; the fourth belongs to the 80th; the sixth, seventh, and eighth belong to the 81st; and the ninth to the 82nd, and will be treated in order under each of these questions.
I. WHAT IS THE LORD'S SUPPER?

In considering this question, we shall first notice the different names which are applied to this sacrament, and then in a few words define what it is. It is called the Lord's Supper, from the circumstance of its first institution, which took place when Christ and his disciples were at supper, which circumstance of time the church in the exercise of her right and liberty has changed: for it was merely on account of the eating of the paschal Lamb, which the law required to be celebrated at night, and which was to be abolished by this new sacrament, that it was instituted in the evening at the time of supper, rather than in the morning, or at noon. Paul calls it the Lord's table. It is also called a covenant or assembly, from the fact that in the celebration of this supper there must be some, whether few or many, that meet together for this purpose. At the time of its institution the disciples were present, to whom it was said, "take this and divide it among yourselves," (Luke 22:17.) From this it is evident that there must have been a number present, which is confirmed by what the Apostle says when repeating the words of the institution: "When ye come together in one place this is not to eat the Lord's supper;" and adds still further, "wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another." (1 Cor 11:20,23.) And that a number of persons are necessary for the purpose of celebrating this supper may be shown from the design of it, which is that it may be a sign, and bond of love; "for we being many are one bread, and one body." (1 Cor. 10:17.) It is, again, called the Eucharist, because it is a ceremony of thanksgiving. It is often called by the fathers a sacrifice; not, however, a propitiatory, or meritorious sacrifice, as the Papists imagine; but a sacrifice of thanksgiving; because it is a solemn commemoration, and celebration of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. In the course of time it was called mass (missa) from the offering which was given by the rich for the benefit of the poor, or from the dismission of the assembly after the sermon which preceded the celebration of the supper, of which we shall hereafter speak more fully. We shall retain the name which the scriptures apply to it, and call it the Lord's supper. This brings us to the definition which the Catechism gives in answer to the above question, where it is said: The Lord's supper was instituted by Christ, who has commanded me and all believers to eat of this broken bread and to drink of this cup in remembrance of him, adding these promises, first, that his body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and his blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me; and further, that he feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, with his crucified body and shed blood, as assuredly as I receive from the hands of the minister, and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, as certain signs of the body and blood of Christ. Or, we may define it more briefly thus: The Lord's supper is the breaking and eating of bread, and drinking of wine according to the command of Christ, given to all believers, that he may by these signs declare that his body was broken, and his blood shed for them; that he gives them these things to eat and drink that they may be fed unto everlasting life; and that he will dwell in them and so nourish and quicken them for ever.

This sacrament, therefore, consists in the rite and the promise annexed to it, or in the signs and things signified. The rite, or signs are the bread which is broken and eaten, and the wine which is poured out, and drunk. The things signified are the broken body, and shed blood of Christ, which are eaten and drunk, or our union with Christ by faith, by which we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits, so that we derive from him everlasting life, as the branches draw their life from the vine. We are assured of this our union and communion with Christ by the analogy which there is between the sign and the thing signified: and also by the promise which is joined to the sign. This analogy declares, and exhibits in a particular manner the sacrifice of Christ, and our communion with him; because the bread is not only broken, but also given unto us to be eaten. The breaking of the bread is a part of the ceremony, because a part of that which is signified, viz: the breaking of the body of Christ answers to it, of which Paul speaks, when he says: "This is my body which is broken for you." (1 Cor. 11:24.) So the wine is separated from the bread to signify the violence of his death, when his blood was spilt and separated from his body.

II. WHAT IS THE DESIGN OF THE LORD'S SUPPER?

The Lord's supper was instituted:

1. That it might be a confirmation of our faith, or a most sure proof of our union, and communion with Christ, who feeds us with his body and blood unto everlasting life, as truly as we receive these signs from the hands of the minister. This object is attained by all those who receive these signs in true faith: for we so receive these signs from the hands of the minister, as if the Lord himself gave them unto us with his own hand. It is in this way that Christ is said to have baptized more disciples than John, when he, nevertheless, did it through his disciples. (John 4:1.)

2. That we may by the observance of it make a public confession of our faith, acknowledge our gratitude, and bind ourselves to constant thankfulness, and to the celebration of this benefit. Hence it is said: "This do in remembrance of me." "For as often as ye eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (Luke 22:19. 1 Cor. 11:26.) This remembrance, or commemoration of Christ precedes and is taken for faith in the heart; after which we make public confession, and acknowledgements of our thankfulness.

3. That it might be a public distinction, or badge, by which the true church may be known, and recognized from the world. The Lord has instituted this supper for none, but those who are his disciples.

4. That it might be a bond of love, declaring that all who partake of it aright, are made members of one body whose head is Christ. "For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Cor. 10:17.) Those now who are members of the same body have a mutual love one for another.

5. That the people of God who assemble in a public manner might be united together in the closest fellowship; for it was instituted to be observed in the congregation, whether there be many or few present. Hence Christ says, "Drink ye all of it," and Paul says, "When ye come together to eat tarry one for another." (Matt. 26:27. 1 Cor. 11:33.)

That the Lord's supper ought not to be celebrated privately, by one person alone may be proven; 1. Because it is a communion, and is the sign of our communion with Christ: but a private supper is no communion. 2. Because it is a solemn thanksgiving; and we ought all to render thanks unto God. Hence he who regards himself as unworthy to communicate with others, declares that he is not fit to give thanks unto God. 3. Because Christ, with all his benefits, is not the property of one, but belong to all in common. A private communion would, however, make a private good out of that which is common. 4. Because Christ admitted all his disciples, yea even Judas, from which it is easy to see that a private communion is contrary to the appointment of Christ. 5. That some neglect the communion or defer it even until death, arises no doubt from some wrong notion, or influence, either because they will not commune with others, or because they think that they are not worthy. But all who believe that they are delivered from eternal condemnation by the death of Christ, and desire to advance in holiness, are worthy. Briefly, when the Lord's supper is observed by one person alone it is done contrary to the design, name, institution, and nature of the sacrament.

Objection. But Christ makes the chief design of this supper consist in his remembrance. Therefore the confirmation of our faith is not the chief design of it.

Answer. This consequence is not legitimate; for the remembrance of Christ comprises the confirmation of our faith, and the expression of our thankfulness as separate parts. It is, therefore, such an inference as if one would say, Peter is a man; therefore he does not possess a body. It is more correct, therefore, to conclude thus: Because remembrance of Christ is the supper; therefore it is the confirmation of our faith; for if Christ appointed this sacrament in remembrance of himself, he also designs the confirmation of our faith, since faith is nothing else than a faithful remembrance of Christ and his benefits. But some one may be ready to reply, It is the Holy Ghost that confirms our faith; therefore not the Lord's supper. But this again is no just conclusion; for it is the same as if any one were to say, It is God that feeds and supports us; therefore bread does not nourish us. The Holy Ghost does, indeed, confirm our faith, but it is through the word, and the sacraments, as God feeds and nourishes us, through the use of bread.

III. IN WHAT DOES THE LORD'S SUPPER DIFFER FROM BAPTISM?

Although baptism, and the Lord's supper impart and seal unto us the same blessings, such as our spiritual ingrafting into Christ, communion with him, and the whole benefit of our salvation, of which the apostle speaks, when he says: "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit;" (1 Cor. 12:13) yet they, nevertheless, manifestly differ in various respects. They differ, (1.) In outward rites. (2.) In the signification of these rites. For although the washing away of sin by the blood of Christ, by baptism, and the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's supper, signify the same participation of Christ; yet the former is signified by plunging the body into the water of baptism, whilst the latter is exhibited, and sealed unto us in the supper by the eating of bread, and the drinking of wine. Hence whilst the sacraments agree, as to the things which they signify, they, nevertheless, differ as to the manner in which these things are expressed. (3.) They differ as to the design peculiar to each. Baptism is the sign of the covenant between God and the faithful; the Lord's supper is the sign of the preservation of the same covenant: or, baptism is the sign of our regeneration, and connection with the church and covenant of God; the Lord's supper is the sign of the nourishment and preservation of those who have already entered into the church. It is necessary that the Spirit should first renew us, of which renewal baptism is the sign; then after we are renewed it is further necessary that we should be nourished by the body and blood of Christ, the sign of which is the Lord's supper. Or to express it more briefly, God assures us by baptism of our reception into the church, and confirms us in regard to the preservation and increase of his gifts by the use of the Lord's supper. Yet Christ, who regenerates and nourishes us unto everlasting life is one and the same. (4.) They differ as to the manner of their observance. Baptism merely requires regeneration, and is applied unto all those whom the church regards as regenerated, including adults who make a profession of repentance and faith, and infants born in the church; whilst the Lord's supper requires that those who receive it examine their faith, commemorate the Lord's death, and express their thankfulness. "This do in remembrance of me." "Ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." "Let a man examine himself." (Luke 22:19. 1 Cor. 11:26,28.) All, therefore, who belong to the church, infants as well as adults, are to be baptized; whilst none but such as are capable of examining themselves and shewing the Lord's death are to be admitted to the supper. (5.) They differ in the order of their observance. Baptism precedes the Lord's supper, which ought not to be administered to any, except such as have been baptized, and that, not until they have made a profession of their repentance and faith. Hence in the ancient church, after the sermon, and just before the administration of the supper, they dismissed those who were excommunicated; likewise such as were possessed with an evil spirit, and those who were learning the first rudiments of the Christian faith, who were either not yet baptized, or had been baptized in their infancy, but did not sufficiently understand the principles of religion. So it was also in the Jewish Church, in relation to those who were uncircumcised. If those now who were baptized, were not admitted to the supper before they made a profession of their faith, much less are they to be admitted, who, although they are baptized, lead offensive and wicked lives. (6.) The Lord's supper is to be observed frequently, because it is proper for us often to commemorate his death. It was instituted to be a public commemoration, and showing of his death. It is also necessary for us frequently to have our faith confirmed in regard to the perpetuity of the covenant. The Lord's supper is, therefore, to be often repeated, as in the case of the paschal Lamb. Baptism, however, is not to be repeated, because there is no command requiring it, and because it is the sign of our reception in the church and covenant of God. The covenant once entered into is not again made void in the case of those who repent, but remains unchangeable. The gifts and calling of God are without repentance. There is, therefore, no new covenant made, not even in the case of those who fall, and renew their repentance. There is merely a renewal of the first covenant. Hence it is said: "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." (1 Cor. 11:25,26.) Of baptism it is said: "As many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death." "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." (Rom. 6:3. Mark 16:16.)

Question 76. What is it then to eat the crucified body, and drink the shed blood of Christ?

Answer. It is not only to embrace with a believing heart, all the sufferings and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain the pardon of sin and life eternal; but also, besides that, to become more and more united to his sacred body, by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in us; so that we, although Christ is in heaven, and we on earth, are, notwithstanding, "flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone;" and that we live and are governed for ever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are by one soul.

EXPOSITION.

This Question has respect to the thing which is signified by the Lord's supper. The eating of the body, and the drinking of the blood of Christ is not corporal, but spiritual, and embraces, (1.) Faith in his sufferings and death. (2.) The forgiveness of sins, and the gift of eternal life through faith. (3.) Our union with Christ through the Holy Spirit, who dwells both in Christ and in us. (4.) The quickening influence of the same Spirit. Hence to eat the crucified body and to drink the shed blood of Christ is to believe that God receives us into his favor for the sake of Christ's merits, that we obtain the remission of our sins, and reconciliation with God by the same faith, and that the Son of God, who having assumed our nature united it personally with himself, dwells in us, and joins us to himself, and the nature which he assumed, by granting unto us his Spirit, through whom he regenerates us, and restores in us light, righteousness, and eternal life such as belongs to the nature which he took upon himself. Or to express it more briefly, it is to believe—to obtain the remission of sins by faith—to be united with Christ, and to become partakers of his life, or to be made like unto Christ by the Holy Spirit who works the same things both in Christ and in us.

This eating is that communion which we have with Christ, of which the Scriptures speak, and of which we make confession in the Creed, which consists in a spiritual union with Christ, as members with the head, and branches with the vine. Christ teaches this eating of his flesh in the sixth chapter of John, and confirms it in the supper by external signs. It is in this sense that the ancient fathers, such as Augustin, Eusebius, Nazianzen, Hilary and others, explain the eating of Christ's flesh as we shall hereafter show. It is plain, therefore, that neither the doctrine of transubstantiation which the Papists advocate, nor a corporal presence of Christ, and the eating of his body in the bread with the mouth, which many defend, can be established from the language which is employed in reference to the supper, which promises the eating of Christ's body.

Question 77. Where has Christ promised, that he will as certainly feed and nourish believers with his body and blood, as they eat of this broken bread, and drink of this cup?

Answer. In the institution of the supper, which is thus expressed: "The Lord Jesus, in 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 often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death until he come."

This promise is repeated by the holy Apostle Paul, where he says, "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; because we are all partakers of that one bread.

EXPOSITION.

The institution of the Lord's supper establishes the true and saving communion of the body and blood of Christ. We must, therefore, diligently enquire after the true meaning of the words of the institution. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, give a particular account of the institution of the Lord's supper, which we have repeated by the apostle Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians. We shall here repeat the account which each one gives of the institution of the supper.

Matthew 26:26, &c.

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it: For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Mark 14:22, &c.

"And as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many."

Luke 22:19, &c.

"And took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave 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."

1 Cor. 11:23, &c.

"For 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."

We shall now give a short exposition of the words of the Apostle Paul, as just quoted, and then present our views upon this most important subject.

The Lord Jesus: He is the author of this supper. It is for this reason called the Lord's supper. We must, therefore, inquire what the Lord did, said, and commanded, as Cyprian appropriately admonishes us, when he says: "If Christ alone is to be heard, we must not regard what any one before us has thought proper to be done; but what Christ, who is before all, has first done."

The same night in which he was betrayed: This circumstance is added to teach us that Christ instituted his supper at the last celebration of the Passover that he might show, (1.) That there was now an end to all the ancient sacrifices, and that he substituted a new sacrament, which should henceforth be observed, the Passover being now abolished; and that it signified the same thing which that did in the place of which it was substituted, with the exception of the difference of time. The Paschal Lamb signified that Christ would come, and offer himself a sacrifice. The Lord's supper teaches that this is already accomplished. (2.) That he might excite his disciples, and us to a more attentive consideration of the cause on account of which he instituted this supper, and that he might also show how solemnly he would commend it to our regard, in as much as he would not do any thing just before his death, except that which was of the greatest importance. Christ instituted it then at the time of his death that it might be, as it were, the testament, or last will of our testator. In a word: Paul adds this circumstance that we may know, that Christ instituted this supper as a memorial of himself now ready to die.

He took bread: The bread which Christ took was unleavened bread, such as they ate at the feast of the Passover. This circumstance, however, does not properly belong to the Supper, any more than the evening at which time it was instituted; for the use of unleavened bread at the institution was accidental. Hence we must not infer from this that there is any necessity for the use of such bread in the celebration of the Supper, or that Christ would lay down any particular way of baking, or using it. Yet still the bread which is used in the celebration of the Lord's supper differs from common bread, for whilst the latter is eaten for the nourishment of the body, the former is received for the nourishment of the soul, or for the confirmation of our faith, and union with Christ. It is here to be observed too, that Christ is said to have taken bread from the table, that is, with his hand. Hence he did not take his body; nor did he take his body with, in, or under the bread, except in a sacramental sense: for his body did not lie upon, but sat at the table.

When he had given thanks: Matthew and Mark say of the bread, when he had blessed it; and of the cup, when he had given thanks. Luke and Paul say of the bread, when he had given thanks. Hence to bless, and give thanks signify in this place the same thing, so that the mystery of the magical consecration of the Papists, cannot be found in the difference of the language here used. Christ blessed, that is, gave thanks to his Father, and not to the bread, for spiritual blessing; because his work on earth was now finished, with the exception of the last act, which was just at hand, and because it pleased the Father to redeem the world by the death of his Son: or he gave thanks because the typical Passover was abolished, and that which was true, and signified was now exhibited, and that the Church had a memorial of him; or he may have given thanks for the wonderful gathering and preservation of the church.

He brake it: He broke the bread which he took from the table, and distributed the one bread among many, and not some invisible thing which was concealed in the bread. He did not break his body, but the bread. Hence Paul says, "The bread which we break." (1 Cor. 10:16.) He distributed the one bread among many: because we being many are one body. Christ then broke the bread not merely for the purpose of distributing it, but also to signify thereby, (1.) The greatness of his sufferings, and the separation of his soul from his body. (2.) The communion of many with his own body, and the bond of their union, and mutual love. "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." (1 Cor. 10:16.) The breaking of the bread is, therefore, a necessary ceremony both on account of its signification, and for the confirmation of our faith, and is to be retained in the celebration of the Supper: 1. Because of the command of Christ, Do this. 2. Because of the authority and example of the church in the times of the Apostles, which in view of this circumstance, termed the whole transaction, the breaking of bread. 3. For our comfort, that we may know that the body of Christ was broken for us, as certainly as we see the bread broken. 4. That the doctrine of transubstantiation and consubstantiation may be rejected, and abandoned.

Take, eat: This command was addressed to the disciples and the whole church of the New Testament, from which it appears, 1. That the Popish mass, in which the Priest gives nothing to be received, and eaten by the church, is not the Lord's supper, but a private supper to him that sacrifices, and a mere theatrical performance. 2. That we ought not to be idle spectators of the supper, but ought to receive, and eat it. 3. That the Lord's supper ought not to be celebrated, except where there are those to receive and partake of it. 4. That it is a sign of grace on the part of God, who exhibits unto us certain benefits which we are to receive by faith, as we take the signs with our hand and mouth.

This is my body: This, that is, this bread: as if he would say, this thing which I have in my hand, which was bread. That this is the proper interpretation is evident from the following considerations: 1. Christ took nothing but bread: he broke bread: and gave the broken bread to the disciples. 2. Paul says expressly, "The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" 3. It is said of the wine: "This cup is the New Testament in my blood." It is in the same way that it is here said, This, meaning this bread, is my body which is broken for you, and delivered unto death. The literal sense, if we understand the words properly, is this: The substance of this bread is the substance of my body. But to understand the words in this sense would be absurd; for bread is something destitute of life, which is baked of grain, and not personally united with the Word; but the body of Christ is a living substance, born of the virgin Mary, and personally united with the Word. Christ, then, calls the bread his body, meaning thereby, that it is the sign of his body, attributing by a figure of speech, the name of the thing signified to the sign; because he appoints this bread as the sign, and sacrament of his body, as Augustin interprets it when he says: "The Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body." Be it far from us, therefore, that we should say that Christ took bread visibly, and his body invisibly in the bread; for he did not say, In this bread is my body; or, This bread is my body invisibly; but, This bread is my body, true, and visible which is offered for you.

These, moreover, are the words of the promise added to this sacrament, for the purpose of teaching us that the bread in this use is the body of Christ, which is exhibited and given to those who partake of it and believe in this promise; or, it is the flesh of Christ which he promised that he would give for the life of the world. For this is the same promise which Christ had made before in the sixth chapter of John, where he says that his flesh shall quicken us, and that it shall contribute to the salvation of those who eat of it. Here he merely adds the sacramental rite, which clothes and seals the promise, as if he would say: I have promised in the gospel eternal life to all that eat my flesh and drink my blood; now I confirm and seal with this external rite the promise which I have made, that henceforth all that believe this promise and eat this bread may be fully persuaded and assured that they do truly eat my flesh, which is given for the life of the world, and that they have eternal life.

By this promise the bread is made the sacrament of Christ's body, and his body is made the thing signified by this sacrament; and these two, the sign and thing signified, are joined in the sacrament, not by any physical union, nor by any corporal or local existence of the one in the other, much less by a transubstantiation or change of the one into the other; but by a sacramental union whose bond is this promise which is added to the bread, requiring faith of those who use it, which union declares, seals, and exhibits the things signified by the signs. From this it appears that these things in their lawful use are always exhibited and received conjointly, but not without faith, viewing and apprehending the thing promised and now present in the sacrament; yet not present or included in the sign, as in a vessel, but present in the promise which is the better part, being the soul of the sacrament. For they want judgment who say that the body of Christ cannot be present in the sacrament unless it be in or under the bread, as if the bread alone without the promise were the sacrament, or the principal part of it.

Which for you: For my disciples; that is, for your salvation and that of the whole church.

Is broken: But the body of Christ, some one may say, was not broken, nor is it now broken. To this we reply, that the Apostle in this passage has respect to the signification of the breaking of the bread, which denotes the rending of Christ's body. For, as the bread is broken in pieces, so the body and soul of Christ were torn from each other upon the cross. The property of the sign is, therefore, by a sacramental metonymy, attributed to the thing signified.

This do: This is a command for the observance of this sacrament. This which you see me do, do ye also hereafter in my church; when congregated take bread, give thanks, break, distribute, eat, &c. He comprehends and gives command in reference to the whole transaction; and that to us who believe, and not to the Jews who were about to crucify him.

In remembrance of me: That is, meditating upon my benefits which I have bestowed upon you, and which this sacrament calls to your remembrance; feeling also in your hearts that I give you these my gifts, and celebrating them by public confession in the sight of God, angels and men, and so giving thanks for them. The design of the Lord's supper is, therefore, a remembrance of Christ, which does not consist merely in meditating upon his history, but is a remembrance of his death and benefits, including faith by which we appropriate to ourselves Christ and his merits, and gratitude or a public confession of the benefits of Christ. The parts of this remembrance, which is as it were the whole supper, are faith and gratitude, from which it appears that it was instituted to be a memorial of Christ, calling to our recollection what, and how great benefits he hath purchased for us, and with what, and how great sufferings he has obtained them, confirming in us at the same time the faith by which we receive these gifts. It does not, therefore, follow, that because Christ has instituted the supper to his remembrance, that it is not for the confirmation of our faith, any more than if I were to say, the supper does not confirm our faith, because the Holy Ghost does. It is no proper consequence to infer the denial of an instrumental cause from the fact, that we give prominence to the chief cause, no more than the denial of a part follows from a statement of the whole of which it is a part. Remembrance of Christ comprehends the remembrance of his benefits, together with faith and the giving of thanks; for Christ by the use of these signs admonishes us of himself and of his benefits, and stirs up and establishes our confidence in him, from which it naturally follows that we also publicly express our gratitude to him. Hence this supper ought not only to admonish us of our duty, as some will have it, but it should first remind us of Christ's benefit, and then of our duty; for where there is no benefit, there cannot be any gratitude.

Drink ye all of this: This command condemns the conduct of the Pope who refused the laity the cup, and is likewise opposed to the sophistical figment of the concomitance of the blood with the body of Christ under the form of bread. Christ commanded all to eat and to drink. The Pope, however, will not allow the wine to any but the priests, giving nothing more than the bread to the laity, affirming that they drink in eating the bread. This shameful conduct is condemned by this command of Christ: "Drink ye all of this." That the argument of the Pope in justification of his course is a mere sophism, when he affirms that this command had reference merely to the disciples who were present at the time, who were not laymen, but priests, is evident, (1.) Because, by this argument they foolishly make the disciples mass-mumming priests. (2.) Because, the Scriptures do not recognize the distinction which they make between the priests and laity. All the faithful are called priests in the Scriptures. "And hath made us kings and priests unto God, and his Father." "Ye are a royal priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (Rev. 1:6. 1 Pet. 2:9,5.) (3.) Because, by the same pretext the whole supper might be taken away from the laity, especially from females, if it were true that none are to be admitted to this sacrament but that class of persons present at its institution. The figment of concomitance is a wicked pretext, which Christ refutes when he calls the bread by itself, his body, and the cup by itself, his blood, and gave both separately to the disciples to be eaten and drunk, and commanded them henceforth to administer them in the same way.

This cup is the New Testament: Or, the covenant according to the Greek word diaqhkh, which corresponds with the Hebrew Berith. It is called the new covenant, which means the renewed, or fulfilled covenant. The new covenant consists in our reconciliation with God, and communion with Christ and all his benefits by faith in his sacrifice already offered, without the observance of the ceremonies of the old Passover. The supper is called the new covenant with reference to its signification, because it is the sign and seal of this covenant, sealing unto us our reconciliation with God, and our union with Christ by faith. Christ in calling the supper the new covenant, comprehends both the promise and the condition expressed in the promise, which is repentance and faith on our part; from which it follows that it was also instituted to bind us to a Christian life. The new covenant is here also opposed to the old, which was the Passover with its rites. The supper signifies Christ already offered; the Passover signified Christ who should be offered. Both, however, signify our union with Christ. From what has now been said, we may infer that the drinking of the blood of Christ is not corporal; for the New Testament is only one, and includes also all the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ into the world.

In my blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins: The blood of Christ is his death. Hence in his blood, is the same thing as in, or on account of his death. The shedding of the blood of Christ is his merit, in view of which we receive the forgiveness of sin, when it is apprehended by faith.

As often as ye eat this bread: The supper is, therefore, to be frequently celebrated, which we may also establish from its design, which is to celebrate the Lord's death.

Ye do shew the Lord's death: Believe that Christ died, and that for you; then profess his death publicly before all.

Until he come: This supper is, therefore, to be perpetuated unto the end of the world, nor is any other external form of worship to be expected.

The words of the institution, which we have now explained, may be more fully illustrated by the words of the Apostle: "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?" (1 Cor. 10:16.)

The cup of blessing: It is called the cup of blessing, or thanksgiving, because it is received for this end, that we may call to mind the benefits of Christ, and so render thanks to him for his sufferings and death.

The communion of the blood of Christ: Communion is a participation in the thing which is common. The communion of the body and blood of Christ is, therefore, to be made through faith partakers of Christ and all his benefits, by the same Spirit dwelling both in Christ, and in us, and effecting the same things in us which he does in Christ: or, it is the spiritual fellowship which the faithful have with Christ, as members with the head, and as branches with the vine. The bread and wine are the communion, that is, they are the sign and testimony of our communion with Christ. This communion, as the Apostle briefly expresses it, consists in this, that we being many are one body; from which it is easy to see that this our communion with Christ is no corporal eating; for it is effected only by faith and the Holy Ghost. Christ is the head, and we are the members; all who are members have communion in all the benefits of Christ. The head and benefits are both common: hence we are all members in common and so have mutual love one to another.

---

TWENTY-NINTH LORD'S DAY.

Question 78. Do then the bread and wine become the very body and blood of Christ?

Answer. Not at all; but as the water in baptism is not changed into the blood of Christ, neither is the washing away of sin itself, being only the sign and confirmation thereof appointed of God; so the bread of the Lord's supper is not changed into the very body of Christ, though, agreeably to the nature and properties of sacraments, it is called the body of Christ Jesus.

EXPOSITION.

The Catechism, in the answer to this Question, rejects the doctrine of transubstantiation advocated by the Papists, and also the doctrine of consubstantiation defended by the Ubiquitarians and others, and explains the language which is here used together with the true sense of the words of Christ, This is my body. In our exposition of this question we shall consider, in the first place, the form of speech here used, and the true sense of the words of Christ, and then notice the controversies in regard to this subject. And here we must refer to this sacrament, what was said when speaking of sacramental phrases in general. It is in this way that Augustin makes an application of the general rule of sacramental phrases to the particular instance of eating the flesh of Christ when he says, "The only way by which we can determine whether a Scriptural phrase is to be taken in a proper, or figurative sense, is to see if it can properly be referred to some moral duty, or be made to harmonize with the true faith, and if this cannot be done, then we may know that it is spoken figuratively." And then a little further on he produces this example: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood ye have no life in you. Here Christ seems to enjoin a shameful crime. Hence it must be understood figuratively, as teaching us, that we must partake of the passion of our Lord, and joyfully and profitably call to mind, that his flesh was wounded and pierced for us." As the Scriptures sometimes speak of baptism properly, and at other times figuratively, as we demonstrated when speaking of baptism, so they speak in like manner of the Lord's supper. It is, for instance, a figurative mode of speech when Christ says, of the bread, This is my body; and of the cup, This is my blood: and when Paul says, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. For in all these instances the name of the thing signified is attributed to the sign by a sacramental metonymy. It is in the same way that we must understand Paul, when he says, This is my body which is broken for you, because he attributes the property of the sign (which is to be broken) to the thing signified. It is in the same way that Cyprian says: "When we drink of the cup we hang to the cross, we suck the blood, and place our tongues in the very wounds of our Redeemer." It is in the same way that we must understand Chrysostom, when he says: "The blood of Christ is in the cup; the body of Christ which is in heaven is placed on earth to our view; nor is it only seen; but it is touched; nor is it only touched, but eaten; it is held, and eaten by us, as a token of love, as we sometimes fondle those whom we love," &c. These declarations are all to be understood as spoken figuratively of the body of Christ.

These are proper forms of speech, when Christ says, This do in remembrance of me: and when the Fathers every where in their writings say, The breaking of the bread is a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ: The bread signifies the body of Christ: It is a figure, a sign, a sacrament of the body of Christ.

OF THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE WORDS OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE HOLY SUPPER.

Since our adversaries, the Papists and others, deny that Christ speaks sacramentally in the words of the institution, and contend that his words are to be literally understood, we must here say something in regard to this controversy. The Papists imagine that by virtue of the consecration the bread is changed, or converted into the body of Christ, the accidents only remaining. This change they call transubstantiation. There are others again, who contend that there is a consubstantiation, or co-existence of the body of Christ in, or with the bread. These two classes of persons equally boast, that they understand the words of Christ in their natural sense, which, however, is far from being true; for the true simplicity and property of words is that to which, for a proper understanding and interpretation, nothing is added, taken away, or changed. But those who believe that the body of Christ is with, in, and under the bread, add to the words of Christ and so depart from their true simplicity; for if we are to retain simply what Christ said, and if that is not to be admitted which he did not say, then we cannot say, The bread is bread and the body of Christ at the same time; but simply, The bread is the body of Christ. For Christ did not say my body is in, or with, or under the bread; or the bread is bread, and my body at the same time; nor did he add, (as these persons do) really, substantially, corporally; but these were all the words he uttered, This is my body. Neither can the advocates of the doctrine of transubstantiation prove that they interpret the words of Christ in their natural sense, when they say that the bread is changed into the body of Christ; for this is an invention of their own. Christ does not say the bread was already made, or being made, or would be made his body; but he merely said, the bread is my body, from which it is plain that no change can be admitted if the words of Christ are understood in their literal sense. Hence it is with little success that these persons endeavor to make it appear that they interpret the words of Christ in their literal sense, when they in so many respects, and so manifestly, depart from them.

We, however, retain the words of Christ simply without any addition, or change, affirming that the bread is the body of Christ, the true and visible body which was offered for us upon the cross. But as these words when understood in their literal signification, teach what is repugnant to the true christian faith, (for if the bread were the body of Christ in a proper sense, it would follow that it was crucified for us) we must interpret them sacramentally, which is to say, that the bread is called the body of Christ, because it is the sign of his body, and that the cup, or the wine in the cup is called the blood of Christ, because it is the sign of the blood of Christ. The cup is likewise called the New Testament, because it is the sign of the New Testament, as baptism is called "the washing away of sin," and "the washing of regeneration," because it is the sign of both these things which are effected by the blood and Spirit of Christ. The true sense and interpretation then of the words of Christ, This is my body, which is given for you, is, this bread which I break and give unto you is the sign of my body, which was delivered unto death for you, and is a certain seal of your union with me, so that whosoever shall believe and eat this bread, does, in a certain sense, really and truly eat my body. The name of the thing signified is, therefore, attributed to the sign by a sacramental metonymy, and that both on account of the analogy which there is between the sign and thing signified, and also on account of the connection which the thing signified has with the sign in its proper use.

In this interpretation which we have now given of the words of Christ, we have not been deceived and led astray by philosophy, and human reason, as our adversaries basely misrepresent us; but we have been governed by those rules according to which, by the consent of all wise men, we are to judge of the correctness of the interpretation of any portion of Scripture, viz: according to the analogy or rule of faith; according to the nature of the subject or thing, and according to the testimony of Scripture which establishes the same thing. It is by the help of these three rules that the true sense of Scripture is generally determined, whenever there is any necessity to depart from the letter, to the sense of any particular portion of divine truth. (1.) That no interpretation is to be received which does not agree with the rule of faith, or which is opposed to any particular article of faith, or to any command of the Decalogue, or to any express declaration of Scripture, is evident from this, that the Spirit of truth does not contradict itself. (2.) That we may know if the sense, or meaning conveyed by any words corresponds with the nature of the subject spoken of, when there is any controversy, as to the true meaning, we must see, as here concerning the supper, which is a sacrament, how the Scriptures in other places speak of the sacraments, and particularly of the supper. (3.) And lastly, other parallel passages of Scripture must be considered, which either plainly and confessedly teach the same thing, or from which we may prove, in other words, that the same doctrine is taught concerning the same thing, as that which is comprehended in the passage under controversy: for if we can arrive at the true meaning of any other clearer and uncontroverted passage of divine truth, we may also be fully persuaded of the sense of the one about which there is a dispute, if both teach the same thing. Hence it is evident, that that interpretation of the words of Christ in reference to the institution of the Supper, which agrees with these rules must be true, whilst those which differ from them are false. Now the interpretation which we have given of these words, which indeed is not ours, but the interpretation of Christ himself, of the apostle Paul, and of all the orthodox Fathers, agrees in every respect with these rules. There can, therefore, be no doubt of its correctness and agreement with the truth of the gospel. We shall now proceed to the arguments by which we prove that the interpretation, which we have given of the words of Christ is true. These arguments consist of four kinds.

1. There are some which we deduce from the text itself, and from the circumstances connected with the institution of the Lord's supper.
2. There are others which we gather from the nature of the thing or subject by understanding the words in a sense corresponding with the thing itself, or which is the same thing as to understand them according to the nature of all sacraments.
3. There are others again which we infer from the analogy of the articles of our faith, or from a comparison of the different parts of christian doctrine.
4. And lastly, there are others which we derive from parallel passages of Scripture, which teach the same things with such plainness as to leave no room for controversy.

I. THE ARGUMENTS DEDUCED FROM THE WORDS, AND CIRCUMSTANCES CONNECTED WITH THE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

1. The human nature of Christ at the first celebration of the Supper sat at the table in its own proper place, and is now in heaven. Hence it was not then, nor is it now corporally at the same time in the bread, or in the place of the bread.

2. Christ did not at the first Supper take into his hand, nor break his body, but the bread. Hence the bread is not properly, and in reality the very body of Christ.

3. The body of Christ was born of the Virgin; bread is made out of meal. It is not, therefore, really the body of Christ.

4. Christ said of the visible bread, which was broken, This is my body; and of the visible cup, which he gave to the disciples, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. Hence the Papists do not hold fast to the letter, when they thus transpose the words of Christ, My body is contained under the form of bread and wine; nor do the Ubiquitarians when they say, My body is in, with, and under this bread; much less when they both say, My invisible body, which is contained under this form, or under this bread, is my body. For both of them do not only manifestly depart from the letter to a gloss of their own, but they also wickedly pervert the words of Christ in the very first gloss which they make, as if it were written, My body is under this, and in the latter they make Christ utter a foolish tautology, as if he had said, My body is my body.

5. The body of Christ which we eat in the supper was delivered to death, and crucified for us. This, however, cannot be said of the bread. Hence it is not properly, nor in reality the body of Christ.

6. The cup is the New Testament, in the same way in which the bread is the body of Christ. But the cup is the New Testament sacramentally, as we have already shown, and as we may still further prove by this argument: The New Testament is not properly drunk with the mouth, but believed with the heart. But the cup is drunk with the mouth. Therefore, it cannot properly be the New Testament. It is now in the same sense that the bread is the body of Christ, viz: in a sacramental sense.

7. If the bread is properly the body, and the cup the blood of Christ, it must follow, that in the first supper the blood was separated from the body of Christ, and then they are both exhibited to us separately, as they are separate signs. But neither was the blood in the first supper without the body, nor is the body of Christ now given to us without the blood; for then at the first supper Christ was not yet dead, nor does he now die any more. The bread is, therefore, the body, and the cup the blood of Christ, not properly, but sacramentally.

8. That which Christ himself ate and drank, was not properly his body and blood, or else he must have eaten and drunk himself. But he ate of that bread, and drank of that cup: "I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine." (Mark 14:25.) Chrysostom says: "Christ also drank of the wine, lest his disciples when hearing these words should say, What, shall we then drink his blood, and eat his flesh? and so be troubled? For when he first made mention of this kind of eating and drinking, many became offended at his words. Hence, in order that this might not now occur, he himself first ate and drank, that he might thus lead them with a calm mind to the communion of these mysteries." Hence, the bread and cup are not properly, but sacramentally the body and blood of Christ.

9. Remembrance is not of things bodily present, but absent. Christ instituted this sacrament to his remembrance. Therefore, he is not corporally present in the bread, or in the sacrament.

10. Christ with his body is either not substantially in the bread, nor under the form of bread; or the supper is no longer to be celebrated. For the Apostle commands us to eat of this bread and to drink of this cup, and to show the Lord's death till he come. The celebration of this supper is, then, evidently not to be dispensed with, but must continue to the end of the world. Christ has not, therefore, come as yet, neither is he bodily present in the bread, or under the form of bread.

11. Lastly, as the bread was the body of Christ in the first supper, and as the disciples did eat the body of Christ, so in the very same sense, and in no other, is the bread now the body of Christ, and it is in the very same way that we eat the body of Christ; for the supper which we celebrate, is the same which the disciples celebrated. But the bread in the first supper was not essentially the body of Christ, neither did the disciples eat with their mouths the body of Christ in, or under the form of bread; for Christ reclined at the table with his disciples in a corporal and visible manner, and did not undergo any change during the whole transaction. Therefore, the bread is not now the body of Christ, as to its essence, nor do we eat with our mouths the body of Christ in, or under the form of bread.

II. THE ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE DRAWN FROM THE NATURE OF SACRAMENTS.

1. The very form of speech which is used furnishes a strong argument in favor of the view which we have presented: The bread is the body of Christ. But bread is not in its own substance the body of Christ, (for it has been by reason of this, that the idea of transubstantiation and consubstantiation has been invented.) Therefore, the language is figurative and sacramental, being such as is common to the sacraments, and which we have explained when speaking of the institution of the supper.

2. In all sacraments, when the names or properties of the thing signified are attributed to the signs, it does not signify the corporal presence of the things in the signs, but a correspondence between the signs and things signified, and a sealing of the things by their signs, and a union of these two things in their lawful use. In this supper, now, Christ attributes the names of the things signified (his body and blood) to the signs (bread and wine) saying, This is my body: This is my blood. Hence, we must not understand these words as expressing any corporal presence.

3. The nature of all sacraments requires that the signs be taken corporally, whilst the things signified must be understood spiritually; and that the things which are visible are not the things signified, being only the signs and pledges of them. Hence, inasmuch as the supper is a sacrament, we must take the signs and things signified, in a sense corresponding with the nature of sacraments generally.

4. Sacramental phrases must be understood sacramentally. The words of the supper, This is my body; This is my blood, are sacramental phrases; for they attribute the names of the things signified to the signs which are used in this sacrament. They must, therefore, be understood sacramentally.

Objection. But the words of the supper do not contain any figure of speech. Therefore, they are not to be interpreted sacramentally, but literally. Answer. We deny the antecedent; for Christ himself annexes a sacramental phrase, saying, Do this: that is, eat this bread and drink this cup in remembrance of me, that ye may be admonished and assured that my body was given over to death, and my blood shed for you and given to you as the meat and drink of eternal life. The same thing may be said of this declaration of Christ, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; that is, it is the seal of the New Testament, or of the promises of grace now fulfilled by my blood.

5. That which the gospel does not promise, the supper cannot seal unto us: for the sacraments declare, exhibit, confirm, and seal the same thing which the word promises. It is for this reason that the sacraments are called visible promises, and visible words. But the gospel no where promises any corporal or oral eating; yea, Christ in the gospel expressly condemns, and refutes it by these two arguments: 1. Because his body would in a short time be taken up into heaven, and so be far removed from the Jews to whom he spake. 2. Because the eating of his flesh in this way could be of no profit. Nor does Christ in the instance to which reference is here had, merely refer to a gross, carnal and oral manducation of his flesh, but he rejects in a positive way the eating of his flesh in every form, in which it may be done with the mouth. There is, therefore, no oral or corporal manducation to be conceived of in the supper, which is contrary to the gospel.

6. The figment of a corporal presence, and eating of the flesh of Christ under the bread, is wholly repugnant to the formal character of the sacraments. It is, therefore, to be rejected. That the antecedent is true, is evident from this, that it is neither the sign, nor the thing signified, of which two things every sacrament consists. It is not the sign, because it does not strike the senses, neither is there any thing included in it which it might signify; nor can it be said to be the things signified, because the Scriptures never speak of any change of the essence, nor of any real commingling of the flesh of Christ, with our bodies, neither can there be any, unless we embrace the reveries of the Eutychians, and Swenckfieldians; for the sacraments declare and seal unto us only such blessings as are contained in the promise of the gospel. Again, it is not the thing signified, because it is effected without faith, and is common both to the godly and the ungodly, whereas the things which are signified by the sacraments are received by faith alone, and by none but the godly. And still further, if it were the thing signified, no one ever had been, or would be saved without it; for all the sacraments signify the same things, which are also given to all those who are to be saved, because they are the benefits of the Messiah, comprehended in the promise of the gospel. These benefits are the same unto all; neither is any one saved without them. There is, therefore, no room left for a substantial presence, and oral manducation of the body of Christ in, or under the form of bread in the sacrament, and it is in fact nothing more than an empty name, and idol in the world.

Objection. This oral manducation is a sign of that which is spiritual, and is a great confirmation of our faith. Therefore, the body of Christ is also a sacrament, whilst the thing signified is invisible grace. Answer. The antecedent is false, because the flesh of Christ is invisible under the bread, and cannot, therefore, signify another thing which is invisible, or confirm our faith. Sacraments, or signs ought to be visible; hence that does not deserve to be called a sacrament, (as Erasmus says) which is not accomplished by an external sign: for the sacraments have been instituted for this end, that they may, as it were, effectually show to our external senses what the word promises, and the Holy Spirit works in our hearts, that they may be visible testimonies, and pledges of the promise of grace exhibited and applied. It is for this reason that Augustin says: "A sacrament is a visible word." Again, "It is a visible form, or sign of an invisible grace." Again, "A sign is a thing which differs from the form which it presents to our senses, and produces in our thoughts something else. Again, "the signs of divine things are indeed visible; but the things themselves are invisible." Hence also the definition of Prosper; "The sacrifice of the church consists of two things, the visible form of the signs, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; in the sign, and the thing signified thereby, which is the body of Christ." There is, therefore, no invisible thing or action that brings to view the nature, or thing signified by the sacrament. Consequently those who affirm that the flesh of Christ is a sacrament in, under, or with the bread, must show unto us this visible and sensible eating in the Supper, if they do not wish to stand in opposition to the general voice of the church. Again, there must be an analogy between the sign, and the thing signified; for unless the sacraments (says Augustin,) have some correspondence with the things of which they are sacraments, they would be no sacraments. Now if the flesh of Christ be also a sacrament, and if the thing signified be invisible grace, what analogy and correspondence will there be between the two sacraments? There can evidently be none; from which it follows that the flesh of Christ cannot be called a sacrament, seeing it is not less the thing signified by the sacrament, than the salvation which is signified analogically by the bread, as by a sign. Hence the sacramental eating, which is effected by the mouth, does not, when considered in itself, extend to the body of Christ in any physical manner; because, by this eating, nothing more than the external signs are exhibited and received in their own nature. Augustin, inquiring how the bread is the body of Christ, and the wine his blood, says: "These, brethren, are called sacraments; because one thing is seen in them, and another is understood. That which is seen has a material form; that which is understood a spiritual benefit," &c.

7. The communion which the word promises, and the sacraments seal, is not corporal, but spiritual. But the communion of Christ, which there is in the supper is the same which is promised in the word, and sealed in the other sacraments. Therefore, the communion which there is in the supper is not corporal, but spiritual. The first proposition is clear; because the gospel teaches no other communion than that which is spiritual, which is effected by faith. The second proposition is also evident, because the promises of the gospel extend unto us the very same blessings which the sacraments exhibit, and promise; for the sacraments are a visible word, in as much as they promise the same thing which the word does by visible signs, and are seals of the promise of the same grace.

8. All the sacraments both of the Old, and the New Testament, signify the same thing, and the same communion with Christ. But the signification and communion of all the other sacraments is wholly spiritual. Therefore, it must be the same as it regards the Supper. All grant the truth of the minor proposition. The major is confirmed by what the Apostle says: "For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body." "They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea; and they all did eat the same spiritual meat." (1 Cor. 12:13; 10:2.)

Objection. But all the sacraments do not signify the same thing: for baptism signifies washing by the blood of Christ, the Lord's supper the body and blood of Christ. Answer. The thing signified is not different, because as we have already shown, to be washed with the blood of Christ, and to drink his blood is the same thing. The manner in which the thing signified, which is one and the same, is expressed, is indeed different, on account of the different signs which have not the same analogy to that which is signified. Therefore, as the thing signified and promised in baptism, and also in circumcision and the Passover, is spiritual and not corporal, so it is likewise, in relation to the Supper.

III. THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE ANALOGY, OR CORRESPONDENCE OF THE ARTICLES OF OUR FAITH.

1. There are strong arguments in support of the view which we have presented, drawn from the article which has respect to the truth of the human nature of Christ. The Word assumed a nature like unto ours in all things, sin excepted; and will retain the same to all eternity for our comfort and salvation. But human nature is not infinite, nor can it be at the same time in many places, nor visible and invisible. To be essentially present in many, and in all places at the same time is peculiar to the Godhead alone, according as it is said: "Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord." (Jer. 23:34.) God is by this attribute distinguished from all creatures. Nor can the Godhead itself be at the same time visible and invisible, finite and infinite; but it remains always as to its substance invisible, incomprehensible, and infinite; otherwise it would not be unchangeable. Hence we must not suppose when Christ says, This is my body, that his body then sat visibly at the table, and was at the same time invisible in the bread; or that it now remains at the same time visible in heaven, and is also contained invisibly in the bread.

2. From the article of Christ's ascension. Christ ascended truly, by which we mean, that he was taken up into heaven with his body visibly and locally, in such a manner that his body did not remain, nor does it now remain, on earth, but in heaven, and that he will come from thence to judge the world. Hence he is not in the bread. Or we may thus state the argument: The body of Christ is finite, seeing it is a true body. But it is now in heaven. Therefore it is not in the bread. The major proposition is established by the article of Christ's ascension into heaven. "While they beheld, he was taken up." "Seek those things which are above where Christ sitteth," &c. (Acts 1:9. Col. 3:1.) Again, if the true body of Christ is infinite, as our adversaries affirm, then it is also invisible and insensible. Hence that was not a true body of Christ, being only apparent, which was seen, suffered, and moved upon the earth, and so all those things which are spoken of Christ in the articles of our faith, could not have been truly done, but must have been done only in appearance, so that we still remain under the power of death if this be true.

Here, however, two things must be observed: (1.) The argument which we draw from the article of Christ's ascension, does not remove his body from the supper, as some slanderously say of us; but only from the bread; for the distance between heaven and earth, whilst it makes it impossible that Christ's body should exist in heaven, and be in the bread at the same time, does not stand in the way of his presence in the supper to be eaten spiritually by faith. Our faith in the promise joined to the bread and wine, beholds and embraces the body and blood of Christ, and all his benefits as most truly present in the supper. (2.) The argument here deduced from the two articles of faith alluded to, overthrows the conceit of Christ's corporal presence in the bread; for if the human nature of Christ might be everywhere, or present at the same time in many places, his ascension would not prevent its being both in heaven and in the bread at one and the same time. But as the human nature of Christ is finite, and not present in many, nor in all places, it follows that the argument which we deduce from his ascension into heaven is irresistible. For as the consequence which naturally follows from the property of Christ's human nature, in respect to the first celebration of the supper, which we may thus state: The body of Christ sat at the table; therefore it was not in the bread, nor in the mouths of his disciples: as this consequence is legitimate and irresistible, so it is a proper consequence which we draw from the truth of the ascension of Christ into heaven, when we thus reason: The body of Christ is in heaven; therefore it is not in the bread, nor any where else upon the earth.

Objection. It is only human reason which decides that Christ's corporal presence in the bread is opposed to these articles of our faith. Therefore it may not in reality be opposed to them. Answer. We deny the antecedant; because Christian faith and the word of God teach in connection with reason, that the body of Christ, which is, indeed, human and finite, cannot exist at the same time in all, nor many places; and that now since the ascension it is not on earth, but in heaven, and will remain there, until Christ come to judge the quick and the dead. Hence it is not only repugnant to human reason, but also to the word of God, that Christ's body should be present at one and the same time in heaven and in the bread. It is, indeed, an incontrovertible truth that human reason is not to be heard in divine things, when it is in manifest opposition to the word of God; and that it should always submit to the holy Scriptures which contain a revelation of the divine will; yet it is not to be simply and unceremoniously thrust aside or rejected, no not even in divine things, as if the word of God could teach that which is in opposition to sound reason; but we must use it aright, that so we may distinguish truth from falsehood. God has endowed us with reason that we may be able, by the light of the understanding, to decide in regard to contradictory opinions, and that knowing with certainty what is in harmony with the word of God, and what is in opposition to it, we may embrace the former and reject the latter. If this were not so, there would be no dogma so absurd, and impious—there would be nothing in the polluted sinks of Heretics, however detestable and monstrous, which could be refuted by the holy Scriptures; for all heretics and imposters always boast, that their opinions are not in opposition to the word of God, but that they only seem to contradict it, in the judgment of human reason.

To this it is objected as follows: The Scriptures attribute to the body of Christ many properties and prerogatives which are beyond and above nature, which our bodies do not possess, such as to walk upon the water, to be transfigured, to be carried up into heaven, to pass through a rock and closed doors, to be personally united to Deity, to be made a sacrifice for sin, &c. Therefore it is not absurd to say, that it is present at the same time in heaven and in the bread, or that it possesses ubiquity itself. Answer. The antecedent has falsehood mingled with what is true. The Scriptures no where affirm that the body of Christ passed through a rock, and doors that were closed. Hence we deny it. The other things which are enumerated are, indeed, spoken of in the Scriptures, but they are such things as may be found in connection with a nature that is truly human; for Peter also walked upon the water; and we shall also be transformed and ascend into heaven. But the ubiquity or presence of Christ's flesh, in many places at the same time, is never affirmed in the Scriptures. For to be everywhere present, or to be present at different places at the same time, is peculiar to the Godhead alone, which is infinite; but every creature is finite, and is by its own finiteness distinguished from the Creator. That, now, which is finite cannot be at the same time in more places than one. Hence it is that the Scriptures, and the most distinguished teachers in the ancient church, speak of this presence in many places as a most forcible argument of true Divinity. Christ says himself: "The Son of man which is in heaven." (John 3:13.) Didymus says, "The Holy Ghost himself, if he were a creature, would at least have a substance that would be limited, as is the case with all created things. For although invisible beings are not circumscribed in place, yet they are finite, as to the property of their substance. But the Holy Ghost has not a limited substance, seeing that he dwells in many." Tertullian says: "If Christ be nothing more than a man, how could he be present wherever he is called upon; inasmuch as to be present everywhere does not belong to the nature of man, but to that of God." Hence our adversaries, when they imagine that these prerogatives are the cause of Christ's presence in many, and in all places, are guilty of admitting that as a cause which is none; or they, at least, argue from things that are unlike; for the cause of these things, and that of ubiquity is quite different.

3. From the article of the communion of saints. The communion of saints with Christ is the same now that it has ever been, or ever will be, both in regard to those who use the sacraments, and also in regard to those who are by necessity excluded from their use. For there is only one communion of saints with Christ, inasmuch as we are all one body in him. But the communion of saints with Christ has always been of a spiritual character, as the Apostle teaches when he says: "He that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit." "Hereby know we, that we dwell in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." "He is the vine; we are the branches." "He is the Head; we are the members." "He is the Bridegroom; we with the whole church constitute his Spouse." (1 Cor. 6:17. 1 John 4:15. John 15:5. Eph. 1:22; 4:15, &c.) Or, the argument may be thus presented: all the saints have the same communion with Christ, those of the Old Testament as well as those of the New; those who have the opportunity of observing the supper, as well as those who have not the privilege. (1 Cor. 10. Eph. 4. Rom. 8.) Neither can we eat Christ in any other way, than the disciples did at the first celebration of this supper. But they ate him spiritually. Therefore, we also eat him in a similar manner.

We argue again from this same article: The eating of Christ is the same as his dwelling in us. But this is spiritual. Therefore, the eating of Christ is also spiritual. The major is evident from the fact that we eat Christ, that he may dwell in us, and we in him, and not that he should depart from us as soon as he is eaten. "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him." (John 6:56.) The minor is proven by this, that Christ's dwelling in us is the same as that of the Father. "If a man love me he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14:23.) But how does the Father abide or dwell in us? Assuredly by the Holy Spirit. Hence, it is in the same way that Christ abides with us and dwells in us. Here the following passages of Scripture are in point: "Hereby know we that we dwell in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith." "I am the vine, ye are the branches; he that abideth in me and I in him," &c. (1 John 4:13. Eph. 3:17. John 15:5.)

4. From the article of the forgiveness of sins. If Christ be in the bread in a corporal manner, and be given by the hands of the minister, then forgiveness of sins ought to be sought from the hands of God on account of that which is in the bread, and which the minister has in his hand, whether the bread remains at the same time with him or not. For remission of sins for the sake of Christ is most especially to be sought whenever we celebrate the supper. Those who commune ought, therefore, to pray thus: I beseech thee, O heavenly Father, that thou wouldst be gracious to me for the sake of this thy Son, who is in this bread, who is handled by the minister, and whom I eat with my mouth. This is that shocking idolatry which is practiced in the Popish mass, which is doubtless so displeasing in the sight of God, that it were better for us to suffer a thousand deaths, than that we should ever be guilty of it. The gospel teaches us, however, that we ought to ask of God the forgiveness of sins, not for the sake of Christ who is in the bread and who is carried in the hands of the minister and eaten with the mouth, but for the sake of him who suffered and died for us, and who is now in heaven at the right hand of God interceding for us. Hence, we thus argue: That which goes to establish the shocking idolatry of the mass, is to be rejected. The corporal presence and oral manducation of Christ in the bread, go to establish the idolatry of the mass. Therefore, they are to be rejected.

6. We may here yet add the arguments drawn from the sacrifice and worship of Christ. Wherever it is evident that Christ is bodily present, whether it be in a visible or invisible manner, there he is to be worshipped by having our thoughts and affections directed to that place. But Christ is not to be thus worshipped in the supper, for we are not to have our thoughts and affections turned to the bread or to the place of the bread. Therefore, he is not present in the bread in a corporal manner, nor in the place of the bread. The major proposition is too plain to need any proof. The minor is evident from this, that since the ascension of Christ into heaven, we cannot, without being guilty of manifest idolatry, associate divine worship with any particular place or thing, unless God expressly command it, or utter some promise in regard to it; for Christ has plainly taught us that we are now no longer to restrict our devotions to any particular place or thing on earth. "The hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father. Ye worship, ye know not what; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:21-25.) And still further; if we are to worship Christ in the supper by having our thoughts and devotions directed to the bread, then the priests who offer sacrifices would have in their own hands that whole sacrifice, by which they offer the Son unto the Father for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness of sins; and so it would be necessary to repeat the crucifixion of Christ.

Objection. But Christ did not command that we should offer, or worship him in the bread, but that we should eat him. Therefore, neither the offering of Christ to the Father, nor the worshipping of him in the bread as the Papists do, can grow out of his corporal presence in the bread. Answer. Those who thus argue beg the question, for the Scriptures nowhere affirm that Christ commanded us to eat him in the bread. Then they also shift the question at issue; for the command which we have concerning the worship of Christ is general; "He is the Lord; and worship thou him." "Let all the angels of God worship him." (Ps. 45:12. Heb. 1.6.) This general command, without any exception, or expectation of a special precept, should constrain us all to obey and adore Christ in the bread, if it were clearly evident that he was invisibly concealed in it, not less than if we saw him present with our eyes. So Thomas acted properly, when, without waiting for any special command, he worshipped toward the place where he saw Christ standing, exclaiming: "My Lord, and my God." (John 20:28.) As long, therefore, as the idea of a corporal presence in the supper prevails, so long will the idolatry of the Papists continue; for the Papists themselves, when they make an offering of Christ in the mass, will not have us to understand this as if Christ were put to death thereby, but merely as an exhibition of Christ, who is present in the bread in a corporal manner, and as a seeking and obtaining the forgiveness of sins for the sake of him, whom the priests hold in their hands, and present unto the Father.

IV. THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM PARALLEL PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE, WHICH TEACH THE SAME DOCTRINE IN LANGUAGE WHICH DOES NOT ADMIT OF ANY CONTROVERSY.

1. Parallel passages, or phrases that are alike have the same sense and interpretation. All those phrases are regarded as similar, or as sacramental phrases in which the names, or proper effects of the things signified are attributed to the signs; as, circumcision is the covenant of God; the lamb is the Lord's Passover; the Sabbath is the covenant of God; the Levitical sacrifices are an atonement for sin; the blood of the victims offered as sacrifices, is the blood of the covenant; the covering of the ark is the mercy-seat; that rock was Christ; the bread is the body of Christ; the cup is the New Testament; baptism is the washing away of sin, and the washing of regeneration, &c. (Gen. 17:10. Ex. 12:11; 31:16. Lev. 1:4. Ex. 24:8; 26:34. 1 Cor. 10:3. &c.) Therefore, the interpretation of all these phrases is similar. God himself interprets some of them in this way, as may be seen by a reference to the above quotations where he calls circumcision the token of the covenant; the lamb the sign and memorial of the Passover, and the Sabbath the sign of the covenant. We may, therefore, justly interpret the rest in the same way, and say: The Levitical sacrifices signify the atonement which the Messiah made for sin; the blood of the victims is a sign which confirms the covenant, or it is the sign of the blood of Christ, by which the covenant was sanctified; the covering of the ark signified the mercy-seat; that rock signified Christ; the bread is a sacrament of the body of Christ; the cup is a sacrament sealing the new covenant; baptism is a sacrament of the washing away of sin, and of regeneration, &c.

2. The blood of Christ is the New Testament in the same sense in which the cup is. But the cup is the New Testament sacramentally, that is, it is the sign of it. Therefore, the blood of Christ is also the sign of the New Testament. That the major of this syllogism is true, is evident from this, that the words of Luke and Paul: This cup is the New Testament in my blood; and those of Matthew and Mark: This is my blood of the New Testament, have without doubt the same meaning. The minor is proven by the first argument, and cannot be understood in any other sense; for the New Testament is not an external ceremony, or thing; but it is the gracious reconciliation with God, which the gospel promises for the sake of the blood of Christ. The cup must then either be the thing promised, or it is the seal of the promise. But it is not the promise, nor the thing which is promised. Therefore, it is the seal of the promise.

3. We may here repeat the words of Paul: "The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ." (1 Cor. 10:16.) The bread is now the communion of the body of Christ, in the same sense in which it is also his body; because the words of Paul and Christ have the same meaning. Paul may, indeed be regarded as giving us an interpretation of the words of Christ. But the bread is the communion of the body of Christ sacramentally, that is, it is a sacrament, or sign of our spiritual communion with the body of Christ: for bread cannot properly and literally, be called a communion. Therefore, the bread is also sacramentally the body of Christ, which is to say, it is a sacrament, or sign of his body. That the communion, or communication of the body of Christ is spiritual, is proven by these arguments: 1. Paul speaks of such a communion as that by which we being many, are one bread, and one body, which is spiritual in its nature. 2. The communion of Christ of which the Apostle speaks, excludes the communion of devils. Hence he says: "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." (1 Cor. 10:21.) This is not an argument resulting from mere impropriety, as some suppose; but from an impossibility of the thing itself. It is the same as when Christ says, "Ye cannot serve God, and Mammon;" (Matt. 6:24.) for the original word, which in both places is translated, ye cannot, is the same. Paul reasons in the same way when he says: "What concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (2 Cor. 6:15.) 3. This communion of saints with Christ, and of Christ with the faithful the Scriptures explain spiritually, as when it is said: "Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ." If we say we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1:3-8.) This spiritual communion which the saints have with Christ, and he with them is the same as that, in which we profess our belief in the Creed. 4. Lastly, Chrysostom interprets the words of Paul as expressing a spiritual communion, saying: "Why did not the Apostle use the word metokh, which means participation? That he might direct attention to something more excellent, viz: to that union which is of the most intimate nature." And a little further on he says: "Why do I call it communion? because we are the very same body of Christ. What is the bread? It is the body of Christ. What are they made who receive the body of Christ? not many, but one body; for as bread is baked out of many grains, so are we also incorporated with Christ. (Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. 10.)

4. The words of Christ, as recorded in the sixth chapter of John, are also here in point: "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life." (John 6:62,63.) In these words Christ expressly rejects the eating of his flesh with the mouth, and refutes it by two arguments which we have noticed on a former occasion; and at the same time establishes the idea of a spiritual manducation. Hence we are not to imagine a corporal eating of the body of Christ, seeing that the Scriptures expressly condemn it.

Objection. But the sixth chapter of John has no reference to the supper. Therefore it cannot be said to prove any thing against the oral manducation of the body of Christ instituted in the supper. Answer. But it is a false argument which proceeds to the denial of the whole, when there is only a denial in part. We admit that this chapter does not refer directly to the ceremony of the supper. But it does not follow from this, that it has no reference to it whatever. It has reference to the promise, This is my body, which is given for you; for this promise is drawn from the discourse of Christ in the sixth chapter of John, and is confirmed by the signs of bread and wine. It cannot, therefore, be understood of any other eating of Christ's body in the supper, than that which we have in his discourse in the gospel of John, which is spiritual; for as we have just seen it condemns the eating of his flesh orally. To this our adversaries reply: This chapter does not condemn an oral, but a Capernaitical eating; to which we answer that every eating of Christ's flesh with the mouth is Capernaitical, and, therefore, condemned; for a Capernaltical eating is not only a bloody tearing, and eating of the flesh of Christ, and chewing it with the teeth, but it is any kind of eating, which is done with the mouth. For the Capernaites did not say, How can this man give us his flesh to devour, to tear with the teeth, &c., but they said, How can this man give us his flesh to eat, that is with the mouth. Neither does Christ withdraw their minds from a gross eating with the mouth, to that which is more refined in its nature; but directs them to his ascension into heaven, which would take place in a short time, when his body would be far removed from their mouths, from which we may infer that it was a spiritual eating of which he spake, which is effected by the Spirit and by faith.

5. From the fifty-fourth and sixth verses of this sixth chapter of John, it is also evident that to eat the flesh, and to drink the blood of Christ is to believe in Christ, to dwell in him, and to have him dwell in us; because the same effect of eternal life is attributed both to the eating of his flesh, and to faith in him. The Lord's supper now sanctions this same eating; for apart from this there can be no other promise shown in the whole gospel, which is sealed by the supper. Therefore, to eat the body, and to drink the blood of Christ in the supper, is to believe in Christ, to dwell in Christ, and to have him dwell in us.

6. We may here also quote the words of Paul, 1 Cor. 12:13: "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." From this passage we may deduce the two following arguments: 1. The eating of Christ in the supper is the same as the drinking. But the drinking is spiritual. Therefore the eating is also spiritual. 2. The eating of the body, and the drinking of the blood of Christ is common to all the faithful, even to the fathers of the Old Testament: for we have all been made to drink into one Spirit. But that eating which is with the mouth is not common to all the faithful; for the fathers who lived before the birth of Christ, could not in this way eat his flesh, which may also be said of infants, and many adults who have not the opportunity of observing the supper. Therefore, this eating of the flesh of Christ with the mouth, which is affirmed by our adversaries, is not that true eating, which the gospel promises, and which the supper seals.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE VIEW WHICH WE HAVE ADVANCED.

Having now presented the arguments which may be drawn from the holy Scriptures, and from the foundation of our faith, we may next adduce the testimony of the Fathers of the early and purer church, from which it will be seen that they teach the very same doctrine, which we do concerning the holy supper. We shall merely produce, from a very large number of extracts that might be made from their writings, a few passages which may serve as an index to the views, which they held and taught in reference to this subject.

Irenĉus: Panis terrenus accepta vocatione a verbo Dei, non amplius est communis panis, sed efficitur eucharistia, quœ constat ex duabus rebus, terrena &. cœlesti. Lib. 4. c. 34.

Irenaeus says: The earthly bread being so called by the word of God, is no longer common bread; but becomes the eucharist, which consists of two things, the earthly, and the heavenly.

Terrullianus: Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit: hoc est corpus meum, dicendo; id est, FIGURA CORPORIS MEI. Lib. 4. cont. Marcion.

Tertullian says: The bread which Christ took, and distributed among the disciples, he made his own body, saying, This is my body, that is, The figure of my body.

Clemens Alexandrinus: Hoc est bibere Jesu sanguinem, esse participem incorruptionis Domini. Pĉdag. lib. 2 cap. 2.

Clemens, of Alexandria, says: To drink the blood of Jesus is to be made a partaker of our Lord's immortality.

Cyprianus: Nec potest videri sanguis ejus quo redemti & justificati sumus; esse in calice, quando vinum desit calici, quo Christi sanguis OSTENDITUR, qui scripturarum omnium sacramento & testimonio predicatur. Idem: Hœc quoties agimus, non dentes ad mordendum acuimus; sed fide sincera panem sanctum frangimus, & partimur, dum quod divinum & humanum est, distinguimus, et separamus, itemque simul separata jungentes, unum Deum & hominem fatemur; sed & nos ipsi corpus ejus effecti sacramento, & re sacramenti capiti nostro connectimur & unimar. Lib. 2. epistola 3. Serm. de cœna.

Cyprian says: The blood of Christ with which we are redeemed and justified cannot seem to be in the chalice, when there is no wine in it, by which the blood of Christ is showed, which is spoken of in every sacrament and testimony of the Scriptures. Again: As often as we do this, we do not sharpen our teeth for the purpose of eating, but we break and distribute the holy bread with a true faith, whilst we distinguish, and separate that which is divine from that which is human, and joining them again when they are separated, we confess one God and man; we are also by this sacrament made his body, and are cemented, and united to our head by the thing signified.

Canon concelii Niceni: In divina mensa rursus et jam hic non proposito panis & vino pueriliter adhereamus, sed sublato inaltum mente per fidem; consideremus proponi in sacra illa mensa agnum Dei tollentem peccata mundi; qui sine mactatione a sacerdotibus sacrificatur: & pretiosum ejus corpus & sanguinem vere accipientes nos, credamus hœc esse nostrœ resurrectionis SYMBOLA. Nam ideo etiam non multum, sed parum accipimus; ut agnoscamus quod non ad satietatem, sed ad sanctificationem accipiatur. De divina mensa, & quid.

The canon of the Council of Nice says: Here is also the Lord's table; let us not childishly cleave to the bread and wine set before us, but let us, lifting our minds to heaven by faith, consider that on that holy table is placed the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world, who offered himself as a sacrifice without being slain by the priests; and let us, receiving his body and precious blood, believe that they are signs of our resurrection. It is for this reason that we only receive a small quantity, that we may know that it is not received for satisfying, but for our sanctification.

Basilius: Apposuimus ANTITYPTA sancti corporis & sanguinis tui. In Litur.

Basil says: We have set before us the figures of the holy body and blood of Christ.

Hilarius: Hœc accepta atque hausta id efficiunt, ut & nos in Christo & Christus in nobis sit. De Trin. lib.

Hilary says: That which is eaten, and drunk produces this effect, that we are in Christ, and Christ in us.

Gregorius Nazianz. ANTITYPTA pretiosi sanguinis & corporis Christi. Orat. de Pasch.

Gregory Nizeanzen says: The figures of the body and precious blood of Christ.

Ambrosius: Quia morte Domini liberati sumus, hujus rei memores, in edendo & potando carnem & sanguinem Domini pro nobis oblata sunt, SIGNIFICAMUS. Idem: Hœc oblatio est FIGURA COROREIS & SANGUINIS Domini nostri Jesu Christi. In 1. Cor. 2. De Sacr. lib. 4. c. 5.

Ambrose says: Because we have been redeemed by the death of our Lord, we, being mindful thereof, signify in eating and drinking the flesh and blood of the Lord which were offered for us. Again: This offering is a figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. In 1 Cor. 11. De Sacr. lib. 4. c. 5.

Augustinus: Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum sui corporis. Idem: Dominus Judam adhibuit ad convivium; in quo corporis & sanguinis fui FIGURAM discipulis suis commendavit & tradidit. Idem: Si sacramenta quandam similitudinem carum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum, sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est: ita sacramentum fidei fides este. Idem: Sicut ergo cœlestis panis, qui caro Christi est, SUO MODO vocatur corpus CHRISTI; cum revera sit SACRAMENTUM CORPORIS CHRISTI; illius videlicet, quod visibile, palpabile, mortale in cruce positum est: vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, quĉ sacerdotis manibus fit, CHRISTI passio, mors, crucifixio, NON REI VERITATE, SED SIGIFICANTE MYSTERIO: sic sacramentum fidei, quo baptismus intelligitur, fides est. Idem: Ista, fratres, idco dicuntur sacramenta, quod in eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur, speciem habet corporalem: quod intelligitur, fructum habet spiritualem; Cont. Adem. e 12. In Psal. 3. Epist. 23. ad Bonif. In fentet. Prosper. de consec. dist. 2. c. hoc est. Ser. ad infant.

Augustin says: Our Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body when he gave the sign of his body. Again: The Lord admitted Judas to that feast in which he gave to his disciples the figure of his body and blood. Again: If the sacraments had not a certain correspondence with the things of which they are sacraments, they would be no sacraments at all. And it is on account of this correspondence that they very often receive the names of the things themselves. As, therefore, the sacrament of the body of Christ is, after a certain manner, the body of Christ, and as the sacrament of the blood of Christ is his blood, so the sacrament of faith is faith. Again: As the celestial bread, which is Christ's flesh, is in some way called the body of Christ in as much as it is the sacrament of his body, which is to say, of that visible, tangible, and mortal body which was nailed to the cross; and as the sacrificing of his flesh, which was accomplished by the hands of the priest, is called the passion, death, and crucifixion, not in the truth of the thing, but signifying it in a mystery; so the sacrament of faith, which is baptism, is faith. Again: These, my brethren, are called sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, and another is understood. That which is seen has a corporal form, whilst that which is understood has a spiritual benefit.

Chrysostomus: Hic est sanguis meus, qui effunditur in remissionem peccatorurn: quod dicebat, ut ostenderet, passionem & crucem mysterium esse, & discipulos consolaretur. In Matt. hom. 83.

Chrysostom says: This is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins, which Christ said to show that his passion, and cross constitute a mystery, and that it might administer comfort to his disciples. In Matt. hom. 83.

Theodoretus: Servator certe noster nomina commutavit, & corpori quidem idem, quod erat symboli ac signi, nomen imposuit: symbolo autem quod erat corporis. Causa mutationis manifesta est iis, qui sunt divinis mysteriis initiati, Volebat enim eos, qui sunt divinorum mysteriorum participes, non attendere naturam eorum quĉ videntur; sed propter nominum mutationem, mutationi, quĉ fit ex gratia credere. Qui enim, quod natura est corpus, triticum & panem appellavit, & vitem se ipsum rursus nominavit, is symbola quĉ videntur, appellatione corporis & sanquinis honoravit, non naturam quidem mutans; sed naturĉ gratiam adjiciens. Dial. 1.

Theodoret says: Our Saviour evidently changed the names of the signs, and the things signified, and gave the same name to his body which belongs to the sign; and to the sign that which belongs to his body. The reason of this change is manifest to those who have been initiated into divine mysteries. For he designs that those who partake of these divine mysteries, should not look to the things which are seen; but on account of the change of the names should believe the change which is made through grace. For he who called, that which is naturally a body, wheat and bread, and also called himself a vine, honored the signs which are seen with the title of his body and blood, not indeed by changing their nature, but by adding grace thereto.

There is a notable saying of Macarius, the Monk, which we may also here repeat: "The bread and wine are a type or figure corresponding with the flesh, and blood of Christ; and those who receive the bread which is showed, eat the flesh of Christ spiritually." Macarius Homil. 27. We might add many other testimonies from the writings of the Fathers, which for the sake of brevity we omit.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

We may now easily see what we are to think of the doctrine of transubstantiation. It is a wicked device of the Papists, which we shall briefly

prove by a variety of arguments. Before doing this, however, it is proper that we should first state, in a few words, what the Papists understand by transubstantiation.

They suppose that by the act, or force of consecration, by which they mean the repeating, over the elements of bread and wine, the words, This is my body; This cup is the New Testament in my blood; the bread and wine are converted, or changed as to their substance, into the body and blood of Christ, so that all that remains of the bread and wine is the form, or accidents, viz.: the appearance, the smell, the taste, the weight, &c. They, therefore, consider the words, which are used in the consecration of the elements, productive, and creative. They hold that the change is effected, or made complete, in the very instant in which the priest pronounces the last syllable, DY; This is my bo-DY, after which the elements do not remain any longer bread and wine; but become the body and blood of Christ, which are now substantially present, and contained under the form of bread and wine, so that all who partake of them, eat his body, and drink his blood with the mouth.

As to the manner in which this change is effected, they do not agree among themselves. There are some who maintain that the substance of bread and wine is changed by transubstantiation, into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, so that the bread and wine become, as to their essence, the body and blood of Christ, retaining merely their external forms, which change is called a substantial change, or a change of the substance. There are others, again, who hold that the substance of bread and wine is not changed; but that it is annihilated, and that the substance of the body and blood of Christ takes its place, so that, after the consecration, the substance of Christ's body and blood assumes the form, and accidents of the substance of the bread and wine, which change is called a formal change, or a change of the form. Lombard gives an exposition of both views, (lib. 4, dist. II.) and seems to approve of the former. The Papists call both changes transubstantiation. They affirm also that the pronoun this, denotes some vague or indefinite substance, contained under these accidents, in general, without having any reference to quantity, or quality, so that it refers neither to the bread, nor to the body of Christ; but to what was contained under the form, which, before consecration, was bread, but which, by the force of the words, became the body of Christ; so that the words, This is my body, mean according to their view, That which is contained under this, or under these forms, is my body.

They also differ widely among themselves in regard to the accidents, as to where they are grounded, or situated, whether in the body of Christ, or in the air, or in the original matter of the bread and wine, or whether they are the properties of any subject. The common opinion is, that they exist without any subject. This is the view of the Schoolmen, and of all the Papists, and consists of two principal parts; the one having reference to transubstantiation, and the other to the eating of Christ's body with the mouth. But both of these things are inconsistent with the words of Christ, and are a wicked device. As it respects the eating of Christ's body with the mouth, under the form of bread, it is overthrown by the same arguments by which we have established the spiritual eating of Christ's body. And as it respects transubstantiation, we thus refute it:

1. That which is Christ's body in the supper, remains, and is neither changed, nor annihilated, otherwise the body of Christ would not remain, or be present in the eucharist. But the bread in the supper is the body of Christ, sacramentally, as we have already shown: Therefore the bread in the supper remains, and is neither changed, nor annihilated. The minor proposition has already been proven, and may be established more fully, (1.) By the words of Luke and Paul: This cup is the New Testament, &c. The bread is the communion of the body of Christ. (2.) By this argument, drawn from these words: That which Christ broke, he called his body. But he broke the bread, and not some indefinite substance, or merely the accidents of the bread. Therefore, the bread is the body of Christ. (3.) It is also proven thus: The pronoun this, refers either to the bread, or to the mere accidents of the bread, or to the body of Christ, or to some indefinite substance. But it cannot refer to some indefinite substance, for it was bread that Christ gave, and brake, and not something general, under the form of bread. Nor can it refer to the body of Christ, visible or invisible: for his visible body sat, and talked with the disciples; and an invisible body, Christ never had. The Papists themselves, confess that the body of

Christ is not present, under the form of bread, when the priest commences to repeat the word This, but only after the change is effected, which, as we have already remarked, takes place when the last syllable of the words used in the consecration of the elements is pronounced. Nor can it refer to the mere accidents of the bread; for it was not the mere accidents that Christ broke. Therefore the particle this, cannot refer to any thing else but the bread, so that the words of Christ, This is my body, must mean, This bread is my body.

2. Christ broke bread. But he did not break his body. Therefore the bread is not, in reality, his body.

3. The body of Christ was delivered for us unto death. But the bread was not thus given for us. Therefore, the bread is not, in reality, the body of Christ.

4. Christ does not say, as the advocates of the doctrine of transubstantiation do, My body is under these forms; or, My body is contained under these forms. Therefore they do not retain, but pervert the words of Christ.

5. Christ did not say, Let this be made; but, This is my body. Therefore, the words of Christ do not change the bread into the substance of his body, but merely teach, that the bread in this use is the body of Christ in a sacramental sense.

6. Paul expressly calls that which is given and received, bread, both before and after it is eaten. Therefore, the bread is neither annihilated, nor changed into the substance of the body of Christ, but remains bread.

7. In every sacrament there are two things; the signs and the things signified, or, as Irenaeus says, the earthly and the heavenly things, without which there can be no sacrament. But transubstantiation takes away from the eucharist the sign, or that which is earthly, which is bread and wine. Therefore, it destroys the nature, or true idea of a sacrament.

8. The mere shadow, or form of bread and wine, cannot confirm faith in heavenly things, but practices a deception, inasmuch as it is not what it appears to be. But the signs in the eucharist ought to confirm our faith in heavenly things, viz.: that we are as certainly fed with the body and blood of our Lord, as we are certain that we receive the bread and the wine: for the sacraments were instituted to confirm our faith by the use of visible signs. Therefore, transubstantiation which changes the signs into a mere shadow, cannot be true.

9. Transubstantiation destroys the analogy which there is between the sign, and the thing signified, of which Augustin speaks when he says, "That the body of Christ so nourishes the soul, as the bread nourishes the body; and as one bread is baked out of many grains, so we, who partake of this one bread, being many, are made one bread, and one body." (Epis. 23, ad Bonif.) But the mere accidents of bread and wine cannot represent or sustain this analogy, because they cannot of themselves nourish; nor can we say, as the accidents of bread and wine nourish the body and sustain natural life, so the body of Christ nourishes the soul unto eternal life: for in this case the analogy would be between that which is real, and that which is a mere shadow. Therefore, the analogy which holds between the sign, and the thing signified, is evidently inconsistent with the doctrine of transubstantiation, and so refutes it.

CONCERNING CONSUBSTANTIATION.

The Papists, from what we have said, imagined that two great miracles were wrought in the eucharist by virtue of the consecration of the elements; the changing of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and the subsistence of the accidents of the bread and wine, independent of any subject; both of which may easily be refuted; for the former evidently contradicts the analogy of the entire Christian faith, whilst the latter is at war with all sound philosophy. And, as to that virtue which there is in the act of consecration, of which they make so much account, it is nothing more than a magical device of the devil and of human ingenuity.

When some of the ancient Doctors perceived these absurdities, they rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, and coined that of consubstantiation, which teaches the co-existence of two substances in the same place, or the presence of the body and blood of Christ, not under the forms of bread and wine, but in, or under the bread and wine itself. These persons maintained that the signs were not transubstantiated, or changed as to their substance; but that they were consubstantiated, by which they meant, that the bread and wine remained; but that the body and blood of Christ were substantially present with, in, and under the bread and wine, and eaten and drunk with the mouth.

Lombard refers to this view, and asserts that it was already before his time advocated by certain persons; and calls it a paradox—a strange view.

Guitmund attributes it to Berengarius, after his recantation, and calls it impanation.

Others regard Walrame as the originator of this view, against whom Anselm wrote two books which are still extant.

Others, again ascribe it to Rupert, who lived shortly after Guitmund, about the year of our Lord 1124.

Peter, cardinal of Cambray, declared that he would rather embrace consubstantiation than transubstantiation, had not the church of Rome decided differently. He lived about the year of our Lord 1416.

At length Luther, falling in with the opinion of this cardinal of Cambray, as he himself testifies, did not at first regard it as an article of faith, to believe that the substance of the bread remains, or does not remain with the body of Christ, but maintained that either view might be held without subjecting their advocates to the charge of heresy. Subsequently, however, it seemed more probable to him that the bread should remain, and that the body of Christ should be present in, with, and under the bread. This is now the generally received opinion of those who call themselves Lutherans. They interpret the words of Christ, This is my body, thus, In, with, and under this bread is my body; and they boast equally as much as the Papists, that they retain the words of Christ in their literal sense, without any trope or figure. And whenever they contend with the Papist, they refer the particle This to the bread alone, which itself, according to their view, is the body of Christ. But when they are brought into controversy with us, whom they call Sacramentarians, then the particle This, no longer refers to the bread only, but to the bread, with the body of Christ which is invisibly concealed in it, and the sense of the words, This is my body, they affirm to be this: This bread, and my body which is concealed in this bread, is my body. This their gloss, they prove, as they say, with plain and familiar illustrations, so that Christ, when he gave his body invisibly in the bread, said, This is my body, just as the farmer says of the grain in his sack, This is grain, pointing to the sack; or as the merchant, in speaking of the money in his purse, says, as he holds it up, This is my money; or as the mother says of her child lying in the cradle, This is my child, pointing to the cradle; or as the vender of wine says, as he hands the cup, This is wine. These illustrations are gathered from their writings and disputations.

But the same thing happens unfortunately to these good men, which the poet says of another class of persons:

Stulti dum vitant vitia, in contraria currunt.
Fools when they run from certain vices, rush into the opposite extremes.

For instead of the absurd miracle of the Papists, in regard to the subsistence of the accidents of the bread and wine, independent of any subject, they imagine another still more absurd, viz: the penetration of two bodies; so that they may be said to have wandered farther, than the Papists themselves from the words of Christ, whether we regard the letter or sense of the words. For the words, if taken literally, must be thus understood: This, that is, this bread, is my body; and if we have respect to the sense, or true meaning of the words, it must be: This visible bread which is broken and given is my true and essential body given for you. It is my true body, not by any change of the essence, as the Papists believe, (for the Word did not assume bread, neither was bread delivered or crucified for us,) but it is my true body in a mystical sense, and according to a sacramental form of speech, as Christ himself, and Paul, and all the orthodox fathers have understood it. The interpretation which the advocates of transubstantiation put upon the words of Christ, is far from being their literal and true sense; for it is not true that the Papists retain the letter, seeing that they put in the place of the words of Christ, this is my body, this gloss: This thing, or indefinite substance contained under these forms is my body; much less, therefore, do the consubstantialists retain the literal and true meaning of the words of Christ, seeing that they substitute their own words in the place of what Christ said, saying, in, with, and under this bread is my body; or, the bread and the body of Christ, which is invisibly concealed in this bread, is my body. For neither is the bread by itself, nor the bread with the body of Christ concealed in it, properly the body of Christ; as a purse, whether full or empty, is not properly and without a figure of speech called money. And as to the various illustrations, or forms of speech, which they bring forward for the purpose of establishing their view, they are evidently foreign; for as it respects the instances to which we have already referred, that which is expressed by them is plain, as soon as it is uttered, that grain is in the sack, money in the purse, an infant in the cradle, and wine in the cup. But that the body of Christ is in the bread, does not appear so clearly, neither can it be proved, since there is an article of the Christian faith which declares that it is in heaven.

OF THE SCHISM OF THE CONSUBSTANTIALISTS.

The words of Christ, This is my body, were at first the only foundation upon which Luther based his view of the presence of Christ in the supper. Subsequently in the controversy which he had with those who opposed the view of consubstantiation, he took refuge in the years 27 and 28 to the doctrine of ubiquity, and instead of the one foundation upon which he at first based his view, he now proposed four: (1.) The personal union of the two natures in Christ. (2.) The right hand of God, which is everywhere. (3.) The truth of God, who cannot lie. (4.) The three-fold manner of the existence of Christ's body in any place. Being at length driven from these, he again betook himself to the words of Christ, and desired that all disputation as to ubiquity might be brought to an end. Since the time of Luther, however, some who profess his name, not finding a sufficient support for their cause in the words of Christ, have again taken shelter under the doctrine of ubiquity, and to this day regard it as the main stay of their peculiar view. Yet there are others who reject it altogether. It is to this diversity of sentiment that the schism of the consubstantialists traces its origin. There are some who will be Lutherans simply, who defend impanation or the existence of Christ's body in the bread, and the oral manducation by the words of Christ alone. There are other multi-presentiary and omni-potentiary Lutherans, who hold that the body of Christ is present at the same time in many hosts on account of the omnipotency really communicated to it. And, finally, there are some omni-presentiary, or ubiquitarian Lutherans, who, for the purpose of defending the presence of Christ's body in the bread, seize the shield of ubiquity, and teach that the body of Christ, by virtue of its union with the Word, is every where present; and, therefore, present also in the bread, before and after its use in the supper, and that the rite and consecration merely cause it to be eaten in the bread. Our young divines, that they may have a correct understanding of this controversy, must not be ignorant of these things; for, from what we have said, they may see that to this day the doctrine of consubstantiation rests upon two main pillars, or props—ubiquity and the words of Christ. We have already explained what is meant by ubiquity, and given a sufficient refutation of it in the exposition of the articles relating to the personal union of the two natures in Christ, his ascension into heaven, and sitting at the right hand of God the Father, to which we refer the reader. And as to the words of Christ, they neither teach the doctrine of consubstantiation, nor will they admit of such an interpretation, the Papists themselves being witnesses in the case. The ubiquitarians also acknowledge this in their writings, and have for this reason invented the doctrine of ubiquity, because they clearly saw that their views could not be sustained by the words of Christ; but would soon be overthrown if made to rest on this foundation.

Christ said, This is my body