it be added, that it were absurd to suppose that he who has offered himself to God could be offered by another. Lastly; since the Scripture asserts (Heb. vii. 27; x. 14) that the sacrifice of Christ is but one, and that it was so perfect that "by this one offering he perfected for ever them that are sanctified," it neither ought to be, nor can be, repeated; otherwise it would be neither a perfect, nor yet a single, offering.

What is the meaning of these words, "This is my body?"

They are not understood by all persons in the same sense for some think that the bread is actually changed into the body, and the wine into the blood of Christ, which change they denominate transubstantiation. Others imagine that the body of Christ is in the bread, or under it, or with it. And there are some who suppose that in the Lord's Supper they are partakers, but nevertheless spiritually, of the body and the blood of the Lord: all which opinions are erroneous and false.

How do you prove this in respect to the first of these opinions?

As follows-Because it might otherwise be in like manner maintained that the cup is changed into the testament, or that the testament was in, under, and with the cup, or was drunk spiritually: since it is written by Luke and Paul, "This cup is the new testament in my blood," as absolutely as it is before said, "this is my body,"-the words from which these persons deduce their opinion. Moreover, in respect to this transubstantiation, as it is called, since the Scrip

tures

tures designate the bread we take by the name of bread in the very use of it, (as is clear from the words of Paul, 1 Cor. x. 16; xi. 26, 27, 28,) it is evident that the bread remains there, without any transmutation whatever into the body of the Lord. The Scripture, besides, testifies (Acts iii. 21) that the body of Christ is in heaven, and must abide there "until the time of the restitution of all things." He cannot therefore be any more existing on earth. Whence it is that the Holy Scriptures assert that the Lord Jesus will descend and come to us from heaven: but if he be now here under the form of bread and wine, he can no more come; for no one can come to the place where he already is. The body of Christ, moreover, is only one; whereas the bread, or the hosts, as they call them, are many, and indeed infinite in number. It would follow, therefore, that the body of Christ is at the same time both numerically one, and many and infinite in number. It would also follow, that this one body of Christ was at one and the same time seen and not seen by the same person, was eaten by him and not eaten, was within him and not within him; that it is at the same time superior and inferior to itself, is greater and less than itself; that it retains its stature and does not retain it ;-all which things overturn one another, and are clearly selfcontradictory. It is above all most absurd, as common sense itself shows, that the immortal body of Christ should be capable of being chewed and masticated by our teeth, as the host is chewed and masticated; and also that it should be capable of being

burnt, and in many other ways destroyed. It is evident in the next place, that Christ speaks of that body of his wherein he was crucified, which was a terrestrial and animal body;-but that which he now has is neither terrestrial nor animal, but celestial and spiritual, as clearly appears from Paul (1 Cor. xv. 44-49). And besides, in instituting this rite, he considers his body, and proposes it for our commemoration, as, on account of suffering, without life and blood; and therefore appoints a peculiar commemoration, by the use of the cup, of his blood drawn from his body. But the body of Christ is now living, and no longer obnoxious to any pains or to death. Let it be added, that that which now exists, cannot be made out of any thing else ;-but the body of Christ now exists, therefore it cannot be made out of bread.

How do you prove the second opinion to be erroneous and false?

That this opinion cannot stand, appears from most of the reasons already stated, and principally from hence, that the body of Christ dwells in heaven, and that this opinion takes away altogether from the body of Christ the properties of a body, and thus becomes self-contradictory.

How do you prove the same in respect to the third opinion?

This opinion also cannot stand; since it can by no means happen that the very substance of the body of Christ, abiding in heaven, can be actually taken by us, who dwell on earth; and this too in an infinite num

ber

ber of places at the same instant. For this real partaking requires that the one should be actually brought into contact with the other. But if they should assert that this is done by faith, which looks to the substance of Christ, existing in heaven, as its object, and through this, as a medium, derives a certain efficacy or advantage flowing from Christ to mankind ;-it may be replied, first, that this is not a real participation of the body of Christ; since, according to this, the substance itself is not partaken, but the fruits of it: and they themselves affirm, that the real participation of the body of Christ is such that it cannot be comprehended by the mind, nor expressed by the tongue; whereas that participation which has just been noticed, may be both understood by the mind and expressed in words ". In the next place, this may be done without this eucharistie rite, as well as by it. Besides, if this was the intention of Christ in the words "this is my body," they could not have been spoken either of the bread or of this act absolutely; but only with this condition, that those who came to the Lord's table were possessed of this faith. As, however, those persons observe the ordinance who are without this faith,—and sometines all may be of this description who eat this sacred bread together,―neither the bread nor the act can have any such conjunction with the body of Christ as they desire not to repeat at this time other things tending to the refutation of this opinion.

51 Vide Calvini Instit. lib. iv. cap. xvii. 57. M.RUarus.

What

What then is to be understood concerning the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood of Christ in the sixth chapter of John's gospel?

Christ is not speaking there of this ordinance; for in that chapter he ascribes eternal life unconditionally to him who eats his flesh and drinks his blood, and withholds eternal life absolutely from him who does not eat his flesh and drink his blood; which that he did not assert in reference to this rite is hence evident, because a person might partake of this ordimance and nevertheless perish, and because, on the other hand, a person who had not partaken of it, never perhaps having had an opportunity, might be saved. Hence it follows that the power of conferring eternal life upon men can on no account be attributed to this rite, unless it be certain that the very flesh and the very blood of Christ be actually taken in it. But I have just demonstrated that this cannot be done. And, indeed, Christ himself sufficiently shows that his words are to be understood not in a literal but in a spiritual sense, when he tells those who were offended by the harshness of them (ver. 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;" that is, they ought to be understood of a spiritual thing suited to the obtaining of eternal life. Christ does not therefore, in this passage of John's gospel, speak of the eucharistic ordinance; but he calls his body, deprived on our account of life and blood, MEAT, and his blood, drawn forth from his body, DRINK, because his death has the

power