apostolical Church has laid down the true scriptural doctrine on this subject, avoiding, on the one hand, all needless subtlety and refinement, and, on the other, all superstitious corruption. And if in so doing, I should further succeed in impressing on my hearers a becoming sense of the importance of this sacred rite, of the benefits which are derived from the worthy celebration of it, and of the obligations both of duty and of interest which should impel every Christian to attend it with becoming frequency, the time which shall be employed on this subject will not be devoted to an unavailing purpose.

The passages of Scripture from which we derive our knowledge of the Lord's Supper are few and short still we may be certain that they are sufficiently full and express to convey to us as perfect information respecting it, as it is necessary for us to possess. The words of our Saviour at the first institution are recorded with some little variation of expression by three out of the four Evangelists, St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. They are again given by St. Paul, who, as has been commonly believed, and as he himself seems positively to declare", had received an express revelation on the subject; who, at all events, wrote of it under that general inspiration by which he was guided in every part

b 1 Cor. xi. 23.

106

ON THE SACRAMENT OF

of his writings. The same Apostle also communicates to us some further information respecting the Lord's Supper in two passages of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which he had occasion to explain the nature of the rite, and to reprove some faulty practices in the celebration of it. In speaking of the passages which give us direct information respecting this subject, I abstain from mentioning our Lord's very remarkable discourse given in the 6th chapter of St. John's Gospel. In so abstaining, I am well aware that I differ from some eminent and sound divines *; but I hold it best, in looking to the foundations of scriptural doctrine, always to proceed on certain, rather than on disputable, ground. Delivered as that discourse was, at a period long antecedent to the institution of the Eucharist, it seems clear that our Lord cannot be considered as directly speaking of the institution, however He may have designed to allude to it by anticipation, and however His words in the discourse may, with perfect propriety, be explained and illustrated by such allusion.

By combining together the expressions of the three Evangelists and of St. Paul recording our Saviour's words, it appears that, when celebrating the Paschal Supper with His disciples, He took the

c 1 Cor. x. xi.

*See Note H.

d Matt. xxvi. 26. Mark xiv. 22. Luke xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 23.

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

107

bread, and blessed it, or gave thanks to God, and brake it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given," or "which is broken," "for you; this do in remembrance of Me." Likewise, after supper, He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He 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;" or, as St. Luke and St. Paul deliver His words, "This cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is shed for you;" and then He added the command, "Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of Me." Independently of this account of the original institution, the words of St. Paul, in the two passages to which I have alluded, materially conduce to a just understanding of the true nature of the rite. The one The one immediately follows the words of our Saviour spoken at the first institution, to which I have already adverted. The Apostle proceeds, "Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." In the other passage, he asks the Corinthians," The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?

e

f 1 Cor. x. 16.

The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"

Now, on the most cursory view of these expressions, it must be really surprising to every one who exercises an unprejudiced judgment, to observe on how slender a foundation rests the important doctrine of transubstantiation, which in less enlightened times has been so extensively received in the Christian Church, and is still maintained in that portion of it which adheres to the Romish communion. After all that the writers of that communion have argued on the subject, involving much subtlety and intricacy of reasoning, and tending rather to perplex the judgment, and to obstruct the free course of the understanding than to assist it, the question seems entirely to turn on the literal sense of the words, This is My body, this is My blood. Against the literal sense, it has often been unanswerably argued, that, since our blessed Lord was present in His body, at the time when He instituted the Eucharist, it is quite impossible that, at that time, the words could have had any other than a symbolical or figurative meaning. If then the words, as they came from our Saviour's lips, had not a literal but a figurative meaning, what reasonable pretence can there be for holding them to bear any altered meaning in all succeeding times; for saying that, although they were at first figuratively used,

they were intended to be ever afterwards understood in a literal sense? It has often been asked too, why, if, as the Romanist pretends, there is either necessity or propriety in affixing a literal sense to the words, This is My body, this is My blood, there should not exist the same necessity and the same propriety in understanding our Lord to speak of Himself in a literal sense when He says ", " I am the true vine;" “I am the door." And, if, in the latter instances, a literal sense has never been thought of, why should it in the former ?

But, while it is maintained that no just inference can be drawn from the words of our Lord in favour of the doctrine of transubstantiation, it is not enough to say that this doctrine derives no direct support from Scripture rightly understood; for it has always appeared to me that one of the expressions of St. Paul, which I have already cited, is quite conclusive against it. St. Paul says, "Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." He is manifestly speaking of the bread after consecration; otherwise, the unworthy participation, of which he speaks, could not take effect. Since, therefore, he calls it bread after consecration, precisely as he would have done before, the in

John xv. 1. x. 9.