the body and blood of Christ," 1 Cor. x. 16, but properly, "the Lord's supper," 1 Cor. xi. 20. because the Lord celebrated and instituted it in the evening or night, when he was betrayed; not be cause he would oblige us to administer the supper at that time, but, because he ate the passover at that time according to the divine institution, and celebrated this sacrament with the remains of it. And it is called particularly" the Lord's supper, because the Lord himself instituted it, is that which is signified by it, and is the end of it: see this in the text.

The nature of this sacrament cannot be rightly explained, without considering the constituent parts of it; these are, (1) the outward signs, (2) the thing signified, (3) the union of the sign with the thing signified, and (4) the foundation, or ground of that union.

1. The outward signs are the use of bread and wine, which are sufficient to constitute a perfect meal for feeding, refreshing and strengthening a person. Whether the bread must be leavened, or unleavened, risen or unrisen, cannot be determined from the example of Christ, because he made use of unleavened and unrisen bread only, which was ready at hand, on account of the passover. It appears to us most proper to use leavened and risen bread, because that is most nourishing and savoury, and therefore better adapted to serve for a sacramental sign, and to represent in a lively manner the thing signified. The other sign in the supper is wine: whether this must be white, or red, mixed with water, or unmixed, can also no be determined from the example of Christ; for he speaks only of "the fruit of the vine," Matt. xxvi. 29, which it is said was red and mixed with water in the passover, according to the custom of those times. We make use of pure wine rather than of any other because Christ speaks only of the fruit of the vine, and this is more proper to represent and seal the spiritual object. But it is an insufferable conduct of the Papists, that they administer only wafers, and thus merely the lightest kind of bread, which can scarcely be called bread; and when they also withhold the cup in the supper from the people, to wit, the laity, they act contrary to the nature of a supper, and of Christ's institution, yea, they commit sacrilege. Christ gave the cup as well as the bread, to his disciples, and the apostles gave it to the churches: the Papists cannot excuse this conduct of theirs by saying that Christ gave the cup to the apostles only; for he also gave to them only, and to no others, the bread; yet they will not on this account withhold the bread from the people. Moreover the apostles did not receive the cup, as apostles, but as common communicants. Furthermore, the Papists cannot conceal this shame of

theirs by pretending, that Christ's blood is in his body, and is thus received with the bread; for then the priest also would not need to receive the cup, and the blood of Christ is represented in the supper, as shed. Neither doth it help them that the supper is called "the breaking of bread;" for this doth not exclude the drink, and a common meal is so called. See Luke xiv. 1. xxiv. 30.

But these signs cannot be of any advantage, unless they be used. therefore Jesus, when he administered this supper, C6 took." and laid hold of them; he "gave thanks" for them, and "blessed" them, by which means he sanctified and set them apart to be sacramental signs; "he broke" the bread, and "gave it with the cup," which contained the wine, "to the disciples," and he commanded them to "take, eat and drink in remembrance of him," to which he added, in order to explain the virtue of the sacrament, that "the bread was his body, which was broken for them, and the cup his blood, the blood of the New Testament, or the New Testament in his blood, which was shed for them, and for many." The Papists and Lutherans act contrary to this, not only when they administer the bread whole and unbroken, which therefore cannot signify the broken body of Christ; but also when they do not give, or suffer the communieants to take it into their hands, but thrust it into their mouths as if their hands were less clean than their mouths, or any other outward or inward part of their body, and as if the hands of the masspriest were purer than the hands of the common believers. It is usual to inquire here, whether Christ himself also partook of the Lord's supper, and whether he administered it also to the traitor Judas; these are not matters of such great importance, that we need dispute with any person about them; but it is more than probable, that Christ himself partook of the supper, since he received all the other sacraments, and he saith himself, " that he would not henceforth drink of the fruit of the vine," Matt. xxvi. 29. He had therefore drunk of it. It is also likely, that Judas did not receive this supper; for the devil entered into him with the paschal sop, which had been dipped in the dish. Jesus instantly dismissed him, and he went forthwith out, John xiii. 26, 27, 30. This happened before the supper.

2. These signs, used in this manner, signify something; which is the body and blood of Christ, that is, his painful suffering, exhibited most visibly in the breaking of his body, and the shedding of his blood, called by Christ himself "the blood of the New Testament, or the testament in his blood, shed for the remission of sins." In order to understand this rightly, we must know that the Lord God enters into a covenant of grace with all the elect, in order to be a

God to them, and to forgive their sins. This covenant, which is the same in all times, hath a twofold administration, namely, the administration of the Old, and the administration of the New Testament. The Old Testament consiste h in the promise of the forgiveness of sins through the reflex virtue of the sufferings of the Messiah, who was to come, which testament was dedicated, signified, and sealed by the blood of the beasts that were sacrificed, as Paul teacheth us, Heb. ix. 18-22. The New Testament consists in the promise of the forgiveness of sins by the atonement, actually accomplished through the shedding of the blood of the Lord Jesus, for the estab lishment of the testament of God; this the same apostle teacheth us, when he saith, Heb. ix. 15, "For this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions, that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." The supper doth not then signify the forgiveness of sins by the suffering of the Messiah, who is yet to come, as the passover did: but the forgiveness of sins by the atonement actually accomplished through the shed blood of Jesus. The Lord's supper excels the passover, as much as the New Testament excels the Old.

But the use of the elements signifies spiritual things, as well as the elements themselves. We might say that the taking, and blessing of the bread and cup signify that the Father accepted, ordained, sanctified and qualified his Son to be Surety and High Priest: that the breaking of the bread, and the pouring out of the wine intimate his dying and bloody sufferings, which broke his body, and destroyed his life; and also that Christ, when he gave the bread and cup, expressed that he most readily would, and now did surrender up his body, blood and life for the sinner to death, and that he actually imparted himself, with all the fruits of his sufferings, to the penitent and believing sinner. But that we may abide by the instructor, who designs chiefly the thing signified by the eating of the bread, and the drinking of the cup, we say that this eating and drinking of the signs signifies the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ; therefore he saith, "eat and drink, for this is my body, this is my blood;" and also John vi. 53, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."

It might be asked here, why doth Christ command us to eat his flesh, as a sacrifice of atonement, and drink his blood, offered up for the remission of sins, since under the Old Testament it was forbidden to eat of the sacrifice of atonement, according to Lev. iv. 2—12· It was lawful for the priest to eat only of the people's sacrifice of VOL. II.

I

atonement, as we see, Lev. vi. 30, but he might not eat of his own sacrifice of atonement, for it was to be wholly consumed by fire, as the Lord commanded, Lev. iv. 3-12. To this we must add, that "no man might eat of the blood, because the Lord gave that upon the altar to make an atonement for souls," Lev. xvi. 10, 11, 12. And the Lord Jesus assigns the selfsame reason for eating his flesh and drinking his blood, for which they might not eat blood: for he saith, this is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins. This matter will appear still more strange, if we consider that the prohibition of eating of the flesh, and drinking of the blood of atonement is founded in reason; for, (a) they who ate of the sacrifice of atonement were considered as taking upon themselves, and as bearing the sins, for which they would make an atonement, which the priests did by their eating, as we see, Lev. x. 17. (b) They who ate of the sacrifice, which was lawful for every one who brought a thankoffering, were admitted to fellowship and to the most intimate friendship with God, as persons who ate of one table and altar with him, as Paul teacheth, 1 Cor. x. 18, 20. Now he who should eat of his sacrifice of atonent, and thus bear his sins, could not be considered as exercising 1.lowship with God, as a friend, but was obliged to stand afar off, as a person, who was laden with his sins, and as an enemy, and to abase himself before the Lord with humble fasting: and it was therefore a contradiction, that any one should eat of his sacrifice of atonement. Why then doth Christ command us, contrary to the divine institution, to eat his flesh, as a sacrifice of atonement, and to drink his blood, which was shed for the remission of sins ?

This is the difficulty. They might not eat any flesh and blood of the sacrifice of atonement under the Old Testament, because it did not take away sins in such a manner, that the sinner was wholly delivered from sin, and might be admitted to a true fellowship and friendship with God; for the sins were transferred to the sacrifice, and he who ate the sacrifice, united himself to the flesh of the sacrifice, and to the sins of the flesh of that sacrifice, and so the sins remained upon and in the sacrificer. "The blood of the sinoffering was brought into the tabernacle of the congregation, to make an atonement in the holy place, and therefore that flesh might not be eaten, but was to be burned with fire," according to the law of Lev. vi. 30, as an evidence, that the sins were retained and laid up there; as it were, until the time of reformation: but when Christ requireth that we should eat his flesh, and drink his blood of atonement, he shows that his priesthood and sacrifice of atonement were of another

nature, and that he atoned so perfectly, and removed so entirely in. one day all the accumulated transgressions of those, who were under the first testament, that none of them remained, and that believers, eating this flesh, and drinking this blood of his, do not retain their sins any longer upon them, but are admitted to the truest and liveliest fellowship with God by this eating and drinking. And thus Christ administering a priesthood and sacrifice different from the Levitical priests, could, and was obliged to institute a different and New Testament, and to deliver different commandments in it from those, which were in the former testament, ordering us • to eat his flesh and drink his blood of atonement, which was forbidden before. Therefore the apostle saith, Heb. vii. 11, 12. "If there were then perfection by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there, that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law."

But must we then eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ properly, and in a corporal manner, as they did anciently eat of the thankofferings, and the priests of the sacrifices of atonement? By no means. The Capernaites thought that Christ meant this when he spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood; but he understood this spiritually, and therefore said, John vi. 63. “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." As this spiritual eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of his blood is understood by few, the instructor asks in the seventy sixth question, what this signifies? It is, (a) to "embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ, and to obtain thereby the pardon of sin and eternal life." He is proffered and presented with his sacrifice to the sinner for the complete salvation of his soul; the sinner, perceiving this, appropriates and accepts him and his sacrifice by faith, as a hungry and thirsty person accepts and takes to himself the proffered meat and drink; therefore he cries, Isaiah lv. 1. "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat; yea, come buy wine and milk without money, and without price." Having spoken of himself, as the bread from heaven, and of faith in himself, he explains this faith by the similitude of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, John vi, 32—63. (b) “Besides this, to become more and more united to his sacred body by the Holy Ghost who dwells both in Christ and in us," &c. And so this eating and drinking denotes to unite Christ in his sufferings and