Article well defines it, means the "change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord." Observe, the change of the substance, not the change of the phenomena. There is one great change of natural substance, recorded in the Scriptures of truth, which may help us to a clear understanding of the matter in hand. At the wedding of Cana in Galilee, Our Lord changed water into wine-into wine of a quality and flavour superior to any which the guests had yet partaken of. Now if we were to ask a Romanist whether the change effected in the elements by the Priest's consecration of them is of the same kind as the change which passed upon the water in the six waterpots of stone at Cana, he would say, because in truth he could say nothing else, "Not exactly. I believe that the transformation wrought by the Priest is as great a miracle as that wrought by our Lord on the occasion you refer to, but not as capable of being appreciated by the senses. The water at Cana, when changed into wine, had the taste and colour of wine; whereas the bread and wine after consecration, though changed (as I believe) into the literal Body and Blood of Christ, still retain the taste and colour of Bread and Wine. It is the substance which I believe to be changed, not the phenomena which meet the senses. Everything which meets the senses remains just as it was before." In short, the Romanist avails himself of an old philosophical distinction broached by Aristotle, and gravely questioned in modern times by Locke, between the substance and the accidents in things material. All matter was supposed to have, in addition to those properties which reach the senses, such as shape, colour, smell, taste, consistency, and so forth), some inward nucleus or substance, which could neither be seen, heard, tasted, smelt, nor felt. This old philosophical distinction was found a mighty convenience by Roman Divines. For when their adversaries asked them how the Bread and Wine could be changed into Flesh and Blood, without having the appearance and taste of flesh and blood, they furbished up Aristotle's old distinction, and made a controversial weapon out of it, saying that the substance of the Bread and Wine was changed into another substance, but that the phenomena, that is the taste, the smell, the colour, the consistency, remain the same as ever. And this is the form in which the Council of Trent has stereotyped the dogma.

Of this dogma our Church most wisely says,

first, that it cannot be proved by Holy Writ. It is of course utterly vain to seek in Scripture for the absurd philosophical distinctions and technicalities, which constitute the real ground of the Romanist's position. Scripture gives us food for the heart, not metaphysical cobwebs to entangle the mind. But there is another and most fatal objection to the acceptance of any such distinctions; which is this. Once grant that things are not what they seem to be, and that habitually the human senses are imposed upon by the appearance of bread and wine, where there is really nothing but Flesh and Blood; and you cut away the evidence of the Resurrection of Christ, and so supplant the whole of Christianity. Has not God consecrated the evidence of our senses, by resting the proof of the Resurrection of His dear Son on the testimony of veracious persons, who saw Him and ate with Him after He was risen? And if God has consecrated this evidence, am I at liberty to tamper with it by foolish subtleties, which open a breach in the fortress of Christianity, whereby the infidel may easily enter?

Next, our church asserts that it is "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture." So far from being annihilated by Consecration (as the Romanists pretend), the bread is expressly called "bread " by St. Paul after consecration: "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death till Ha come. "Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord." And if the words are to be so literally pressed, we must, according to one version of them, say that the cup is the New Testament, which is a reductio ad absurdum of the whole principle of interpretation. And further, in Our Lord's first administration of the Ordinance, how could the bread, which He held in His hand, be His Body in the literal and carnal sense of the words? which single argument ought for ever to have put to the flight so monstrous an absurdity.

the doctrine announced by Holy Scripture, and faithfully echoed by our Church? Nothing more nor less than this, that "the Cup of blessing which we bless, is the Communion " (means of participating in) "of the Blood of Christ;" and that "the Bread which we break, is the Communion" (means of participating in) "of the Body of Christ." The elements are the medium of our Communion with Christ in some way altogether mysterious, supersensual, heavenly, and divine-not to be comprehended by the human reason, and therefore not to be expressed by human definitions. If it be asked what it is which gives the elements this character, the answer is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the Consecration. Why are we afraid of the Apostle's own words, because Rome has perverted them? "The Cup of Blessing, WHICH WE BLESS" (there is the Consecration) " is it not " (in virtue of such blessing) "the Communion of the Blood of Christ?" "The Bread WHICH WE BREAK" (and the Bread is broken in the course of the Prayer of Consecration) "is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ?" Why should we be afraid of the precise and admirable language of our own Twenty-eighth Article; "The Body of Christ is given in the Supper" (observe, the words are "given, taken, and eaten ;" and it is clear from the following paragraph, where the taking and eating onlynot the giving—are said to be by faith, that the "giving" must be by Consecration)" only after an heavenly and spiritual manner?" If it be asked what it is in us, which lays hold of this Gift, appropriates it, assimilates it, makes it a strength and a refreshment to the soul, the answer is perfectly clear, "Faith." Without Faith there is no blessing, and no receptivity of blessing, to the individual. Without Faith, in no wise is the recipient of the Consecrated Elements a partaker of Christ, but "rather to his condemnation he doth eat and drink the sign and Sacrament of so great a thing. For "the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten" (not "given," observe, but "received and eaten ") "in the Supper is Faith." The faithless communicant resembles the crowd who thronged and pressed our Lord's natural Body, without partaking of any benefit whatThe faithful communicant resembles that poor woman, who, by touching the hem of His garment, drew forth an instantaneous cure.

ever.

It is quite necessary to remark, for the full illustration of the subject, that the

error both of Rationalists and Romanists has, strange as it may appear to say so, a common principle; and that this is one of the many instances in which extremes meet. Observe, then, that neither Rationalist nor Romanist acknowledges a mystery in the Eucharist. The Rationalist avows explicitly that there is no mystery; that Christ's words of Institution are to be taken figuratively; that the elements are mere emblems of Christ's Body and Blood, and nothing more; that the right is merely commemorative. The Romanist equally abolishes the mystery, though in another way; as the Rationalist had eluded the mystery by a figura tive, so he no less eludes it by a gross and carnal interpretation. This Bread, he says, becomes substantially flesh; and this Wine becomes substantially Blood. In that case there is no mystery in our reception of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist; we press with our teeth that which is flesh; we taste with our tongue that which is blood; there is nothing mysterious here; but merely a carnal animal process, the very notion of which shocks our feelings of reverence as well as our common sense. On the other hand, we of the English Church hold that while, on the one hand, the consecrated Bread and Wine remain all along in their true and natural substances, they become by consecration the medium by which every faithful communicant "verily and indeed" (not in figure only) "takes and receives," in some mysterious manner, the Body and Blood of Christ. And if our adversaries ask us with Nicodemus, "How can these things be?" our answer must be that of the three Hebrew youths to Nebuchadnezzar ; "We are not careful to answer thee in this matter." We are not ashamed to say frankly, "We do not know how." We are not afraid to acknowledge a mystery in the highest ordinance of the Faith; and we desire to bear in mind that if a mystery could be explained, and made clear to the human understanding, it would cease to be a mystery. We object to you Rationalists, we object to you Romanists, that, the one by a figurative, the other by a gross and carnal interpretation, ye profess to explain the inexplicable. We think that even on subjects of Natural Science, which are not beyond the compass of human reason, professed explanations often serve only to obscure the truth. The Body and Mind reciprocally act upon one another; that the blood circulates in living

animal bodies; that the nourishment received by such bodies is assimilated, and becomes part of the animal fabric, either bone, or flesh, or muscle; all these positions are certain, and may safely be assumed and acted upon; but as to how these things are, as to what precisely is the mystic link of sympathy between mind and matter, what is the origin of the movement called circulation, why a living body should have an assimilative power over nourishmentof these points, even in the present very advanced state of science, we must confess ourselves entirely ignorant. Is it to be wondered at if in subjects of Revelation, which notoriously transcend the powers of the human mind, our understanding should sometimes be at fault?

If in the researches of Natural Philosophy you can hardly move three steps without coming to a dead wall, how can we suppose that in Divine Philosophy mysteries, precluding all further research, will not meet us at every turn?

It will, however, frequently happen that if, in the acceptance of mysteries, we are humble, patient, and docile, our Heavenly Father will not indeed make them plain to our understandings, but will give us such glimpses of light upon them as will confirm us in our faith. And perhaps we may derive, under His blessing, some such confirmation of our faith from au illustration of the subject (it is nothing more) which we are about to propose.

SECT. 2.

"Except ye eat the flesh of the Sun of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”—John vi. 53.

THERE is one other thing besides the Eucharistic Bread, which in Scripture is called, and called repeatedly, "the Body of Christ." The Church or Society of the faithful is so called. The Church "is His Body," we are told, 66 the fulness of Him that filleth all in all. "Ye are the Body of Christ, and members in particular." "The Head, even Christ, from whom the whole Body, fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love."

And again (with an evident allusion, as the context shows, to the words of Adam respecting his newly-formed partner, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh"), "We are members of His Body, of His flesh, and of His

bones." In this and other passages the marriage union is pointed at as signifying and representing the spiritual marriage and unity which is betwixt Christ and His Church. And it is much to our purpose to observe, that this spiritual union is spoken of explicitly as a mystery: "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church."

Now, in the first place, we can easily see that when the Church is said to be the Body of Christ, just as when the Bread in the Eucharist is said to be His Body (or the Communion of His Body), the words have a figurative meaning. No one will dispute this. The eyes, by which the body guides itself, are in the head. The thinking faculty, the willing and determining faculty, are supposed to reside in the head. The brain reflects, and then issues its volitions to the hand and the foot, through whom those volitions are carried out. Similarly Christ in Heaven illuminates His Church by the Holy Spirit, and shows her the way wherein she should walk. Christ issues His mandates to us through His Word, and through His Spirit in our consciences; and we are His instruments for carrying them out. All this is perfectly true; and all this serves to explain to us the reason why the Church is called the Body of Christ.

But is the expression nothing more than a figure? Is the union betwixt Christ and His Church, in virtue of which He is our Head, and we are His members, merely a metaphor, a poetical form of speech? God forbid that we should think so! for to think so would be to forfeit our greatest comfort. We are verily and indeed united to Christ,-after an heavenly and spiritual manner, -a manner no less real because it is spiritual and heavenly. Just as the immortal spirit is really united to the body, and just as the thread of connexion between the spirit and the body is that mysterious thing which we call Life; so our spirits are really and truly united to Christ in Heaven, and the thread of connexion is that mysterious Agent, by whose operation He was conceived of the Virgin, and is conceived again in our hearts, the third Person in the Blessed Trinity, called, in the Nicene Creed, "the Lord, and Giver of Life." This Spirit, the human soul of Our Lord possesses without measure; we, on the other | hand, possess Him according to the measure of the gift of the Christ; but the connexion be tween us and Christ established by this medium, so far from being a mere figure, is the most real

union in the world. All other unions,-the union of the head with the members, of the branches with the vine, of the man with his wife, are but shadows of this heavenly, spiritual, ineffable, and incomprehensible union, just as the furniture in Moses' Tabernacle was but a poor dim copy of the things showed him in the mount.-Yet, on the other hand, what a monstrous and revolting absurdity would it be to represent this union of Our Blessed Lord with the members of His Church, as in any sense natural, earthly and carnal! Only imagine the absurdity of a man's pressing St. Paul's words, -"We are members of His Body, of His flesh, and of His bones," so literally as to say that he himself had an actual blood relationship to Our Lord, and was a member of His family according to the flesh. Or suppose that because it is written, "We are members of His Body," another should assert that he was literally the very foot, or the very hand of Christ, which was nailed to the Cross. These speculations would be justly regarded as the very ravings of fanaticism; and the man who should broach them would only be thought worthy of being lodged in an asylum for lunatics.

Now if the Church be called the Body of Christ, on the one hand, not by a mere figure, nor yet, on the other hand, in a literal, natural, and carnal sense, but in a heavenly mystery, why should not the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist be called His Body and Blood in a manner something similar? The Bread and Wine are unquestionably figures of His Body and Blood, the corn bruised in the mill aptly representing Him who was bruised for our iniquities, the wine (or pressed grape) aptly emblematizing that precious Blood, which was pressed out in the endurance of the curse for our sakes. But are the consecrated elements nothing more than figures? Not so. They are in a heavenly mystery, which we presume not to understand, and therefore which we presume not to define, the Body and Blood of Christ, insomuch that to those who "rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ."

But it is surely fanatical, contrary not only to sobriety, but to reverence, to maintain that in a natural, animal, carnal way the elements are the Body and Blood of Christ. To take up such a position is to press the words of Scripture

against common sense, and against the analogy of other passages in which the same words are used, to a most revolting conclusion.

Our illustration has led us to speak of the real living oneness of the Church with Christ, even as the Body is united to the Head, and as the Branches are united with the Vine.

And we shall gain still further light upon our subject by remarking that of this union with Christ the Holy Communion is the great appointed means and instrumentality. This is well brought out in the first exhortation; The benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament (for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink His blood; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us").

Now it ought to be thoroughly understood and considered, in order to any right conception of the subject, that this Union with Christ is the great blessing of the Ordinance to the faithful recipient. It is the blessing shadowed forth by the use of the outward visible sign, and actually realized by the soul of every faithful communicant. I say it is the blessing shadowed forth. For what is the use made of the Bread and Wine? They are taken and eaten. And what becomes of sustenance when received by a healthy frame? It is assimilated; or, in other words, in due time it becomes part of the frame which receives it, and cannot be distinguished from other parts of the same kind. The food becomes bone, or flesh, or muscle, as the case may be. In an analogous way the Heavenly or Spiritual Food, which is given in this Supper after an heavenly and spiritual manner, and which Faith, wherever it exists, assimilates (for Our faith is the organ of digestion,-that which alone makes the food available), is incorporated with our inner man; and He, upon whose Body and Blood we have fed, becomes one with us, and we with Him. So that there is something more in this Sacrament, and something higher, than a mere spiritual Presence of Christ. That spiritual Presence is covenanted to all united worship, even when the Holy Supper is not celebrated; for the charter of mere Common Prayer runs thus: "Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them." But you will at once see that the idea of Christ's Presence with us, and the idea of Christ's Union with us, are totally distinct;

and that the latter idea, while it involves the former, goes far beyond it in blessedness. When we pay our respects at an earthly court, we are in the Presence of the Sovereign; but when, in the comparative privacy of our homes we feel the full solace of all the charities and sympathies of domestic life, this is something more than the presence of our relations and friends,-it is a union of hearts with them. And, similarly, it is a high privilege (as doubtless angels account it equally with ourselves) merely to present ourselves before the King of kings, to do homage at His footstool in conjunction with our brethren. But it is a still higher and more blessed privilege (and one for which the angels have no capacity, because Christ took not their nature upon Him, as He hath taken ours) to be united with the Lord, so as to become one Spirit with Him, so as to be "members" (after a true and real, and yet after an heavenly manner) "of His Body, of His Flesh, and of His Bones."

Having thus obtained the leading idea of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as conveying (or rather, cementing and maintaining) a close and living union with Christ, let us expand this idea in somewhat greater detail.

We are all in the most real and actual way united with the first Adam by natural generation; and, in virtue of this union, we all inherit the entail of sin, sorrow, and death. "We are in Adam, and Adam in us," is a statement of matter of fact, not involving in the least degree any theory of imputed sin. "We are in Adam;" for the child is a part of the parents, drawn out of the parents, deriving physical and mental peculiarities, if not from them, yet from some of his remoter ancestry; and as the human race originally had one father, we are all ultimately, with all our physical and mental peculiarities, drawn out of Adam. Time was, when he and Eve stood alone in the world, and the whole human race with all its immense varieties of manner, character, and physiognomy, was all wrapped up in that first pair.-" And Adam is in us ;" to be sure he is; the parent (or other ancestor) comes out in the offspring. Adam's openness to sinful enticement: Adam's curiosity to know more than was meet for him; Adam's self-willed disobedience to orders: Adam's shame, when he felt he had done wrong; Adam's miserable and cowardly prevarication, when remonstrated with by God, --all these features of Adam's character are

exactly reproduced in every young child of the present day, because that child is in fact a part of Adam, drawn out of him, in the last resort, though through the intermediation of a long line of ancestry. And every such child in due time suffers, toils, and dies for the same reason, that he is a part of Adam, who was doomed for his sin to suffering, toil, and death.

Now as our sin and misery comes, in the natural order of things, by our union with (or, to phrase it differently, our participation of) Adam, so the appointed method of our salvation is by our union with (or participation of) Christ. And the union must be as real and true in the one case as in the other. The connexion with Adam, which ruins us all, bringing death into our physical, and sin into our moral constitution, is not a fictitious, imaginary, or figurative connexion, but an intense and painfully experienced reality. And our connexion with Christ must be equally real. Divines talk about the imputation of Christ's merits to us, as if such imputation were some legal fiction, by which God blinded Himself to our sins. But the imputation of Christ's merits to any soul is nothing else than the natural and necessary result of that soul's union to Him. A soul united to Christ is literally and actually a part of Christ (just as a child of Adam is literally and actually a part of Adam), and, as a part of Christ, has Christ's merits to show for itself. "He that is joined to the Lord," says the Apostle Paul, is one spirit."

66

He

But how is this real and true union between Christ and the souls of men brought about? The first grand step in effectuating it was the Incarnation. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity came down from Heaven, and took upon Him our nature, in its germ or seminal principle, and in taking it, purified it from all the stains which it had taken from the Fall. did not ally Himself (as certain old heretics pretended) to a human person called Jesus of Nazareth; but took the simple nature of Man, before it had received any personal configuration. In this nature he lived a truly human life, full of human sympathies and affections, and pre-eminently full of human virtues and merits. And these virtues and merits shone forth most conspicuously in the end of His career, when His willing, meek submission to the curse which man had earned by sin, to the bodily torture, to the mental and spiritual darkness, (He alone of all men appreciating sin in its true awfulness