which is broken or delivered for you, and this is my Blood which is shed;"-by the addition of these adjuncts to the thing, by uniting to them what could only be said of His true body and Blood, it would appear that He wanted still more to define and identify the objects which he signified.

3. There are considerations likewise drawn from the circumstances in which our Blessed Saviour was placed. Can any of you conceive yourselves, if, with a certain prophetic assurance that in a few more hours you would be taken away from your family and friends, you had called them around you, to make to them your last bequests, and explain what you wished to be performed in remembrance of you for ever, that which was more especially to bind them after your death to your memory, can you imagiue yourselves making use of words, of their very nature leading to a totally different meaning from what you had in your mind or wished to appoint? And suppose that you were gifted with a still greater degree of foresight, and could see what would in future be the result of using these words-how by far the greater part of your children, not believing it possible that you could have any hidden meaning on such an occasion, would determine to take your words quite literally, whence you foresaw the complete defeat or perversion of your wishes; while only a very small number would divine that you had spoken figuratively; do you think that under such circumstances you would choose that phraseology, when it was possible, without the waste of another syllable, explicitly to state the true meaning which you wished them to receive?

4. Again, our Saviour himself on that night seems determined to make his words as plain and simple as He can; and it is impossible to read His last discourse to the apostles, as related by St. John, and not observe how often He was interrupted by them, and mildly, and gently, and lovingly explained Himself to them. And not so satisfied, He himself tells them -that He is not going to speak any longer in parables to them; that the time was come when He would no longer speak to

them as their master, but as their friend, as one who wished to unbosom Himself completely to them, and make them understand His words; so that even they say, "Behold, now thou speakest plainly, and speakest no proverb." Under these

circumstances can we suppose that He would make use of those exceedingly obscure words, when instituting this last and most beautiful mystery of love, in commemoration of their last meeting here on earth? These are strong corroborations, and all lead us to prefer the literal meaning, as the only one reconcilable with the particular situation in which the words were uttered.

But, my brethren, there are two other passages of Scripture which must not be passed over, although it will not be necessary to dwell very long upon them; they are in the Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians. One of them I have chosen as my text; but the other is still more remarkable. In the first St. Paul asks, "the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ; and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord?” In these words the apostle is contrasting the Jewish and heathenish sacrifices and rites with those of the Christians. No doubt but, when he speaks of their actions and sacrifices, it is of eating and drinking really that he treats, for, indeed, he is speaking of realities throughout. When, therefore, he contrasts these with the realities of the Christian institutions, and when he asks if these be not infinitely better and perfecter than what the Jews enjoyed, because our cup is a partaking of the Blood of Christ, and our bread was a partaking of the Body of the Lord; do not these words imply that there was a contrast, a real contrast, between the two?-that the one was partaken of as really as the other? that if their victims were truly eaten, we also have one that is no less received?

But, on the other text I have a great deal more to remark, for it is one of the strongest passages which we could desire in favour of our doctrine. In the following chapter, St. Paul

John xvi. 29.

enters at length into the institution of the Last Supper, and he there describes our Saviour's conduct on that occasion exactly as St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. Mark have done, making use of precisely the same simple words. But then he goes on to draw consequences from this doctrine. He has not left us the bare narrative, as the other sacred penmen have done, but he draws practical conclusions from it, and builds upon it solemn injunctions, accompanied with awful threats. Here, at any rate, we must expect plain and intelligible phraseology; and expressions noways likely to mislead. How, then, does he write?" He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord." Again; "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord."

Here are two denunciations, founded by St. Paul on the doctrine of the Eucharist. The first is, that whosoever receives unworthily drinks judgment or damnation to himself, because he does not discern the Body of the Lord. What is the meaning of discerning the Body of Christ? Is it not to distinguish it from ordinary food, to make a difference between it and other things? But if the Body of Christ be not really there, how can the offence be considered as directed against the Body of Christ? It may be against his dignity or goodness, but surely it is not an offence against his body. But, on the second sentence, it is curious to observe, that, throughout Scripture, the form of speech there used occurs only once besides, in the Epistle of St. James, ii. 10, where it is said, that whoever "transgresses one commandment is guilty of all,”—that is, of a violation or transgression of all the commandments. It is the only passage parallel in construction to this, where the unworthy communicant is said to be guilty, -not of injury, not of crime,-but guilty of the thing against which the crime is committed, that is, guilty of the Body of Christ. This is a peculiar expression, and perhaps may be

* 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29.

illustrated by a similar form in the Roman law, where a man guilty of treason, or an offence against majesty, is simply called "guilty of majesty," (reus majestatis,)—that is, of an injury or offence against it. We see here, that the unworthy receiver is guilty of the Body, that is, of an offence against the body, of Christ; but, as in the one case, if the majesty were not there, that crime could not be committed, so, likewise, unless the Body of our Saviour was here, to be unworthily approached, the abuse of the Eucharist could not be called an offence against it. Nay, rather such a designation would diminish the guilt. For to say that a person offends against Christ Himself, or that he offends against God, is a much greater denunciation of guilt, than to say that he offends against the Body of Christ, except in cases of actual personal injury. For while the greatest outrage possible would be one against His Body, when personally ill-treated, as in the case of the Jews, who buffeted and crucified him; yet, in its absence, it is the weakest mode of describing the offence, when we are to suppose Him sitting at the right hand of God, and, consequently, not to be approached by man.

'Now, looking at all the Scripture texts on the Eucharist, conjointly, there is an observation which can hardly fail to strike any considerate and reflecting mind. We bring to bear on it four distinct classes of texts. First, we have a long discourse delivered by our Saviour under particular circumstances, a considerable time before His passion. Others suppose Him to have, throughout it, treated of faith, or the necessity of believing in him. Yet, through a certain part of that discourse, He studiously avoids any expression which could possibly lead His hearers to understand Him in that sense, but again and again uses phrases, which naturally bring all who heard him to believe that it was necessary to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood-to receive his Body; and He allows the crowd to murmur, and His disciples to fall away, and his Apostles to remain in darkness, without explaining away their difficulties.

Let us allow that, for once, our Saviour spoke and acted so;

we come, secondly, to another quite different occasion. It is no longer the obstinate Jews, or unsteady disciples, whom He addresses; He is alone with his chosen twelve. He no longer wishes to speak of faith, as all agree; he wishes, according to Protestants, to institute a symbol commemorative of His passion; and, most extraordinarily, he uses words, conveying precisely the same ideas, as on the other occasion, when speaking of quite another subject, having no reference at all to that institution. And all this is related by several of the Evangelists, without comment, in nearly the same words; they evidently consider it a most important institution;-but still we receive not a hint from one of them that the words are to be understood figuratively.

We come, in the third place, to St. Paul, where he wishes, in the words of my text, to prove that this commemorative rite of the Christians is superior to the sacrifices eaten by the Jews and heathens. Once more, although there is not the slightest necessity for such marked expressions, but he might have used the words symbol, or figure, or emblem,—although writing on a totally different occasion, and addressing a different people, he falls into the same extraordinary phraseology, he makes use of precisely the same words, and speaks as if the real Body and Blood of Christ were partaken of.

He goes on to reprove the bad use of this rite. At least, on this fourth occasion, there is room to illustrate in a different manner, opportunity enough to describe its true character; but once more he returns to the same unusual phrases, of Christ's Body and Blood being received, and tells us that those who partake of this Blessed Sacrament unworthily are guilty of an outrage on that Body. Now, is it not strange, that on these four different occasions, our Saviour, and his Apostles, explaining different doctrines-speaking to different assemblies, under totally different circumstances,-should all concur in using these words in a figurative meaning, and not let one syllable slip as a key or guide to the true interpretation of their doctrine? Is it even possible to suppose, that our Saviour, dis