THE LORD'S SUPPER. The modern Romish distinction between "the sacrifice and the sacrament of the Mass," was unknown to our early divines. By the Mass, they understood, in general, the service of the Church, or the public Liturgy; whether prayers only were said, or whether the Holy Communion was celebrated. Thus Adamnanus relates, that the last Mass which St. Colme attended, was the Vesper Mass of the Lord's Day (June 9, A.D. 597). Nor did they distinguish the Sacrifice from the Sacrament, as the Romanists do now; but used the name of Sacrifice indifferently, both for that which was offered to God, the Eucharist, "the special sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving ;" and for that which was given to and received by the communicant, namely, the elements of bread and wine. Thus Sedulius says, "Tarry one for another that is, until you receive the sacrifice;" explaining 1 Cor. xi. 33. Our ancestors received the Sacrament in both kinds, according to the Scriptures, both clergy and laity: "As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lord's death until he come." 1 Cor. xi. 26. —" Drink ye all of it." Matt. xxvi. 27. In his Pastoral Hymn, Sedulius thus eloquently expresses the Evangelical doetrine : * "In fine, who else is present, as Chief Pontiff The fruit of the Corn, and the joys of the Vine." And, in his Comment on St. Paul's Epistles, he thus ably explains it:-" Melchisedek offered bread and wine to Abraham, for a figure of CHRIST offering his body and blood upon the cross, to GOD HIS FATHER." Here Melchisedek is represented as a Royal High Priest, the type of CHRIST; the bread and wine were offered to Abraham (not to God); and they were a figure of CHRIST's body broken, and blood shed on the cross for an offering to GOD. The bread and wine therefore are offered to the Communicants (as to Abraham) daily, for a commemoration of the Lord's passion (once performed) and of our own salvation." And he thus aptly and eloquently illustrates our Lord's command, "Do this in rɛ Denique Pontificum princeps, summusque sacerdos, Sedul. Carm. Pasch. lib. 4. membrance of me." Luke xxii. 29. "He left us a memorial of himself; even as if one that was going a far journey should leave some token to him he loved, in order that, as often as he beheld it, he might recollect his benefits and acts of friendship." Claudius also remarks †, that "Our Saviour first wished to deliver unto his disciples the sacrament of his body and blood; which he signified by the breaking of the body and the effusion of the cup; and afterwards, to offer up the body itself upon the altar of the cross."-Here it is remarkable, that in the second clause, the thing signified, "the body," is substituted for the sign, "the bread;" even where the direct intention of the speech was to distinguish the one from the other; "the body" in the figurative sense, from "the body itself," in the literal sense. And this apparent solecism is perfectly conformable to primitive usage, and warranted by the genius of the oriental languages, the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syro- Chaldee; in which the verb substantive frequently supplies the place of the verb of similitude; "it is," put for "it denotes, signifies, or represents." When our + Voluit autem discipulis suis tradere sacramentum corporis et sanguinis sui ; quod significavit in fractione corporis et effusione calicis ; et posteà, ipsum corpus immolari in ara érucis. Claud. lib. 3, in Matth. - this Lord, therefore, said, "This is my body" is my blood," (Matt. xxvi. 26, 27) he meant, according to the vernacular, or Syro-Chaldee phraseology, "This represents my body;"-" this represents my blood;"--and not merely his body and blood, in their natural or sound state, when he spake these words; but as afterwards, in their suffering state, when "broken," and "shed" on the cross. And our Lord himself demonstrates this figurative application, when he calls the wine, not simply, "my blood," but " my blood," but "my blood of the New Testament," or new covenant ratified thereby. Matt. xxvi. 28. And analogy decides the figurative sense of the bread likewise: "this represents my body, which is to be broken shortly on the cross.” (κλωμενον, put for το μελλον κλασθαι.) 1 Cor. xi. 22. The Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, therefore, grounded on the literal expressions, "This is my body," &c. is not only revolting to common sense, that Christ should have two bodies at the same time, his own natural body, and the bread in his hands at the time he spake these words, but is also contrary to scripture critically explained. It even stands convicted and confuted by the evidence of the Romish Missal itself; reciting and paraphrasing our Lord's words more correctly and fully, than even our Communion Service : "Verba autem consecrationis (quæ sunt forma hujus sacramenti) sunt hæc: "Hoc est enim corpus meum:" et, "Hic est enim calir sanguinis mei, Novi et eterni Testamenti, mysterium fidei; qui pro vobis et pro multis EFFUNDETUR, in remissionem peccatorum." "The words of Consecration (which are the form of this sacrament) are these: — "For this is my body:" and, "For this is the cup of my blood, of the New and eternal Testament, the mystery of faith; which SHALL BE SHED for you and for many, for the remission of sins." Here the future tense, effundetur, "shall be shed," shews that no transubstantiation or change of the bread and wine into the substance of our Lord's body and blood, actually took place at the time when OUR LORD consecrated the elements; nor, consequently, when the priest consecrates them at present. The verb, effundetur," shall be shed" (it is but justice to the Latin Vulgate to remark) is surely a more correct rendering of the original, το εκχυνομενον, (put for το μελλον εκχύνεσθαι) than our received translation, "which is shed;" instead of "which is to be shed," shortly, on the Matt. xxvi. 28. cross. How well the sacramental doctrine was understood in England also, we learn from the admirable Homily of Elfric, Archbishop of Canterbury, |