ART. his people.'* And this was so often repeated in the books of XXVIII. Moses, that besides the natural horror which humanity gives

at the mention of drinking a man's blood, it was a special part of their religion to make no use of blood: yet after all this, the disciples were not startled at it; which shews that they must have understood it in such a way as was agreeable to the law and customs of their country: and since St. Luke and St. Paul report the words that our Saviour said when he gave it, differently from what is reported by St. Matthew and St. Mark, it is most probable that he spake both the one and the other; that he first said, 'This is my blood,' and then, as a clearer explanation of it, he said, 'This cup is the new testament in my blood:' the one being a more easy expression, and in a style to which the Jews had been more accustomed. They knew that the blood of the lamb was sprinkled; and by their so doing they entered into a covenant with God: and though the blood was never to be sprinkled after the first passover; yet it was to be poured out before the Lord, in remembrance of that sprinkling in Egypt: in remembrance of that deliverance, they drank of the cup of blessing and salvation, and rejoiced before the Lord. So that they could not understand our Saviour otherwise, than that the cup so blessed was to be to them the assurance of a new testament or covenant, which was to be established by the blood of Christ; and which was to be shed: in lieu of which they were to drink this cup of blessing' and praise.

According to their customs and phrases, the disciples could understand our Saviour's words in this sense, and in no other. So that if he had intended that they should have understood him otherwise, he must have expressed himself in another manner; and must have enlarged upon it, to have corrected those notions, into which it was otherwise most natural for Jews to have fallen. Here is also to be remembered that which was formerly observed upon the word broken, that if the words are to be expounded literally, then if the cup is literally the blood of Christ,' it must be his blood shed, poured out of his veins, and separated from his body. And if it is impossible to understand it so, we conclude that we are in the

6

Transubstantiation is built on this error; that our LORD JESUS CHRIST did, on the night of his instituting this sacrament, eat his own flesh, and drink his own blood, and give both to his disciples. And this makes our LORD a transgressor of the law of Gon, which forbids any man to eat blood, Levit. xvii. 14, " For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, YE SHALL EAT THE BLOOD OF NO MANNER OF FLESH: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off." Perhaps you will say, that our LORD was not bound by this law, or that he had power to set it aside. He was bound by it inasmuch as he was the man CHRIST JESUS; for it is written in Gal. iv. 4, that he was, "made under the law." And although he had power to set aside the law, yet he did not do so, for he himself says in Matt. v. 17, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." The decree of the Apostles, Acts xv. 29, also binds the Christians to abstain from blood.' Page's Letters to a Romish Priest.-[ED.]

XXVIII.

right to understand the whole period in a mystical and figu- ART rative sense. And therefore since a man born and bred a Jew, and more particularly accustomed to the paschal ceremonies, could not have understood our Saviour's words, chiefly at the time of that festivity, otherwise than of a new covenant that he was to make, in which his body was to be broken,' and his blood shed' for the remission of sins; and that he was to substitute bread and wine, to be the lasting memorials of it; in the repeating of which, his disciples were to renew their covenant with God, and to claim a share in the blessings of it; this, I say, was the sense that must naturally have occurred to a Jew; upon all this, we must conclude, that this is the true sense of these words; or, that otherwise our Saviour must have enlarged more upon them, and expressed his meaning more particularly. Since therefore he said no more than what, according to the ideas and customs of the Jews, must have been understood as has been explained, we must conclude, that it, and it only, is the true sense of them.

But we must next consider the importance of a long discourse of our Saviour's, set down by St. John, which seems John vi. such a preparation of his apostles to understand this insti- 32, 33. tution literally, that the weight of this argument must turn upon the meaning of that discourse. The design of that was to shew, that the doctrine of Christ was more excellent than the law of Moses; that though Moses gave the Israelites manna from heaven to nourish their bodies, yet notwithstanding that they died in the wilderness' but Christ was to give his followers such food that it should give them life; so that if they did eat of it, they should never die :' where it is apparent, that the bread and nourishment must be such as the life was; and that being eternal and spiritual, the bread must be so understood: for it is clearly expressed how that food was to be received; he that believeth on me hath ever- ver. 40. lasting life.'

Since then he had formerly said, that the bread which he was to give, should make them 'live for ever;' and since here it is said, that this life is given by faith; then this bread must be his doctrine: for, this is that which faith receives. And when the Jews desired him to give them evermore of that bread, he answered, 'I am the bread of life: he that comes to ver. 47, 48, me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.'

In these words he tells them that they received that bread by coming to him, and by believing on him. Christ calls himself that bread, and says, that a 'man must eat thereof;' which is plainly a figure: and if figures are confessed to be in some parts of their discourse, there is no reason to deny that they run quite through it. Christ says, that this bread was his flesh, which he was to give for the life of the world;'

51.

ART. which can only be meant of his offering himself up upon the XXVIII. cross for the sins of the world. The Jews murmured at this, and said, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' To John vi. which our Saviour answers, that 'except they did eat the 53,54,55. flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man, they had no life in them.'

ver. 56.

ver. 63.

;

Now if these words are to be understood of a literal eating of his flesh in the sacrament, then no man can be saved that does not receive it: it was a natural consequence of the expounding these words of the sacrament to give it to children, since it is so expressly said, that life is not to be had without it. But the words that come next carry this matter further 'Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life.' It is plain that Christ is here speaking of that, without which no man can have life, and by which all who received it have life: if therefore this is to be expounded of the sacrament, none can be damned that does receive it, and none can be saved that receives it not.

Therefore since eternal life does always follow the eating of Christ's flesh,' and the 'drinking his blood,' and cannot be had without it; then this must be meant of an internal and spiritual feeding on him: for, as none are saved without that, so all are saved that have it. This is yet clearer from the words that follow, my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed it may well be inferred, that Christ's flesh is eaten in the same sense, in which he says it is meat: now certainly it is not literally meat; for none do say that the body is nourished by it; and yet there is somewhat emphatical in this, since the word indeed is not added in vain, but to give weight to the expression.

It is also said, he that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.' Here the description seems to be made of that eating and drinking of his flesh and blood; that it is such as the mutual indwelling of Christ and believers is. Now that is certainly only internal and spiritual, and not carnal or literal: and therefore such also must the eating and drinking be.

All this seems to be very fully confirmed from the conclusion of that discourse, which ought to be considered as the key to it all; for when the Jews were offended at the hardness of Christ's discourse, he said, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life:' which do plainly import, that his former discourse was to be understood in a spiritual sense, that it was a divine Spirit that quickened them, or gave them that eternal life, of which he had been speaking; and that the flesh, his natural body, was not the conveyer of it.

All that is confirmed by the sense in which we find eating and drinking frequently used in the scriptures, according to what is observed by Jewish writers; they stand for wisdom,

XXVIII.

learning, and all intellectual apprehensions, through which the ART. soul of man is preserved, by the perfection that is in them, as the body is preserved by food: So, Buy and eat: eat fat things; drink of wine well refined.'

6

Maimonides also observes, that whensoever eating and More Nedrinking are mentioned in the Book of Proverbs, they are to vochim. be understood of wisdom and the law: and after he has brought several places of scripture to this purpose, he concludes, that because this acceptation of eating occurs so often, and is so manifest, as if it were the primary and most proper sense of the word; therefore hunger and thirst stand for a privation of wisdom and understanding. And the Chaldee paraphrast turns these words, 'ye shall draw water out of the Isa. x. 3 wells of salvation;' thus, 'ye shall receive a new doctrine with joy from some select persons.'

Since then the figure of eating and drinking was used among the Jews, for receiving and imbibing a doctrine; it was no wonder if our Saviour pursued it in a discourse, in which there are several hints given to shew us that it ought to be so understood.

It is further observable, that our Saviour did frequently follow that common way of instruction among the eastern nations, by figures, that to us would seem strong and bold. These were much used in those parts to excite the attention of the hearers; and they are not always to be severely expounded according to the full extent that the words will bear. The parable of the unjust judge, of the unjust steward, of the ten virgins, of plucking out the right eye, and cutting off the right hand or foot, and several others, might be instanced. Our Saviour in these considered the genius of those to whom he spoke: so that these figures must be restrained only to that particular, for which he meant them; and must not be stretched to every thing to which the words may be carried. We find our Saviour compares himself to a great many things; to a vine, a door, and a way: and therefore when the scope of a discourse does plainly run in a figure, we are not to go and descant on every word of it; much less may any pretend to say, that some parts of it are to be understood literally, and some parts figuratively.

For instance, if that chapter of St. John is to be understood literally, then Christ's flesh and blood must be the nourishment of our bodies, so as to be meat indeed; and that we shall 'never hunger any more, and never die after we have eat of it. If therefore all do confess that those expressions are to be understood figuratively, then we have the same reason to conclude that the whole is a figure: for it is as reasonable for us to make all of it a figure, as it is for them to make those parts of it a figure which they cannot conveniently expound in a literal sense. From all which it is abundantly clear that nothing can be drawn from that dis

ART.

course of our Saviour's, to make it reasonable to believe that XXVIII. the words of the institution of this sacrament ought to be literally understood: on the contrary, our Saviour himself calls the wine, after those words had been used by him, the 'fruit of the vine,' which is as strict a form of speech as can well be imagined, to make us understand that the nature of the wine was not altered: and when St. Paul treats of it in those two chapters, in which all that is left us besides the history of the institution concerning the sacrament is to be found, he calls it five times bread, and never once the 1 Cor. & body of Christ. In one place he calls it the communion of the body, as the cup is the communion of the blood of Christ.' Which is rather a saying, that it is in some sort, and after a manner, the body and the blood of Christ, than that it is so strictly speaking.

16.

If this sacrament had been that mysterious and unconceivable thing which it has been since believed to be, we cannot imagine but that the books of the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, and their Epistles, should have contained fuller explanations of it, and larger instructions about it.

There is enough indeed said in them to support the plain and natural sense that we give to this institution; and because no more is said, and the design of it is plainly declared to be to remember Christ's death, and to shew it forth till he come,' we reckon that by this natural simplicity, in which this matter is delivered to us, we are very much confirmed in that plain and easy signification, which we put upon our Saviour's words. Plain things need not be insisted on: but if the most sublime and wonderful thing in the world seems to be delivered in words that yet are capable of a lower and plainer sense, then unless there is a concurrence of other circumstances, to force us to that higher meaning of them, we ought not to go into it; for simple things prove themselves: whereas the more extraordinary that any thing is, it requires a fulness and evidence in the proof, proportioned to the uneasiness of conceiving or believing it.

6

We do therefore understand our Saviour's institution thus, that as he was to give his body to be broken' and his 'blood to be shed for our sins,' so he intended that this his death and suffering should be still commemorated by all such as look for remission of sins' by it, not only in their thoughts and devotions, but in a visible representation: which he appointed should be done in symbols, that should be both very plain and simple, and yet very expressive of that which he intended should be remembered by them.

Bread is the plainest food that the body of man can receive, and wine was the common nourishing liquor of that country; so he made choice of these materials, and in them appointed a representation and remembrance to be made of his body