ance or dignity ascribed to the former than to the latter. Hence, according to the theory of Zuingle, it is impossible, so far as I can see, on any principles of right reason, to point out, wherein the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a more eminent or a more beneficial commemoration of the passion than a mere sermon on the subject soundly and emphatically delivered from the pulpit. But take in the grand idea of a feast upon a sacrifice, and the difference immediately appears. A sermon on the passion is merely and exclusively commemorative the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is commemorative indeed; but then it is additionally the appointed channel of conveying such benefits to the faithful, as no bare human exhortation possibly can convey. It federally communicates and assures to the devout recipient the blessings purchased by the sacrifice itself; just as those, who partook of a post-sacrificial feast, were held thereby to participate likewise in all the benefits of the previous sacrifice. The pious communicant rightly commemorates the death of his Lord; this is his part in the transaction: an immediate interest is confirmed to him in the great sacrifice of the true Lamb; this is God's part in the transaction.

Thus it is plain, that the theory of Zuingle retains indeed man's part in a transaction purely federal, but altogether omits God's part: a theory, which by its defectiveness destroys the very notion of a covenant, while it reduces the holy mysteries of a sacrament to a rank no higher than that of a commemorative sermon.

(4.) Nor is the proper nature of the Lord's Supper established only in the way of inference and induction from the nature of its type the paschal feast, however clear and incontrovertible such a mode of reasoning may be: we may gather it, both from the circumstances attending the institution of that sacrament, and yet more decisively from the illustration given by St. Paul.

When Christ instituted the sacrament now under consideration, he had just been celebrating with his disciples the feast of the Passover.' But every disciple present could not but know, that the Passover was a feast upon a sacrifice. Hence, when he used such expressions as eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and when afterwards by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost they were led clearly to discern that he was the grand piacular sacrifice typified by the sacrifice of the paschal lamb: it

The celebrated difficulty, however, produced by the cir cumstance of the Jews having kept their - Passover on the day subsequent to that on which our Lord instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, has led some to contend, that he with his disciples did not keep the Passover at all, but that he only partook with them of a preparatory supper. See Waterland on the Euchar. c. ii. p. 61-64. To this opinion I cannot subscribe: because, with the excellent Cudworth, I think it evident, that Christ, with many other pious Jews, kept the Passover on the day when it really ought to have been kept; while the bulk of the nation, superstitiously following the decree of the Sanhedrim, did not keep it until the subsequent day. The whole question, so far as I can judge, is most satis factorily stated and discussed by that learned writer in his Discourse on the Lord's Supper. chap. iii. p. 24, 25.

were impossible for them not to perceive, that the sacrament corresponded minutely with the feast of the Passover; and, consequently, that, like the feast of the Passover, it was a feast upon a sacrifice.

Accordingly, St. Paul most luminously sets forth the whole matter in a way which cannot be misapprehended.

I speak as to wise men : judge ye, what I say. The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread, which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh : are not they, which eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar? What say I then, that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I But I say, that the things, which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God: and I would not, that ye should have a communion of demons. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table of demons.

Nothing can be plainer, than that the apostle here illustrates the nature of the Lord's Supper by the nature of those post-sacrificial feasts, which were alike familiar both to Jews and to Gentiles.

* See Waterland on the Euchar. chap. i. p. 53-56. chap. ii. p. 61-64.

His argument against the corrupt practice in the Corinthian Church of joining in feasts upon sacrifices which had been offered to the demon-gods is a reductio ad absurdum, conducted on principles which he knew must be allowed by the members of that Church. Just as the Israelites under the Levitical dispensation, who eat of the sacrifices, were by that act partakers of the altar: so believers under the Christian dispensation, who partook of the mystic body and blood of Christ, were by that act equally partakers of the grand consummating sacrifice. Now the Gentiles similarly believed, that those, who eat and drank at the table of demons where the flesh of the victims was set out after they had been duly sacrificed, federally participated in the benefits procured by the sacrifice itself. Hence, as the religion of Christ disclaimed all fellowship with the worship of the demon-gods, it were a palpable contradiction to partake indifferently of the Christian postsacrificial feast and of pagan post-sacrificial feasts: because this indifferent participation plainly involved the idea, that a man might at once derive federal benefits from two sacrifices, the Christian and the pagan; which two sacrifices all the while, like the Christian and the pagan theologic systems, stood in avowed and direct opposition to each other.'

Similar to this is Bp. Potter's mode of interpreting the passage. After describing the nature of the post-sacrificial feasts which were common both to Jews and to Gentiles, and after stating that the Lord's Supper was always believed to

Such is the argument of the apostle: but it is quite inconclusive, unless we admit the doctrine that the Lord's Supper is a feast upon a sacrifice; for, without this admission, there is no sort of parallelism between the several cases which he brings forward in studied mutual connection. The participation of Christ's body and blood is explained by the well known fact, that those Israelites, who eat of the Levitical sacrifices, were thence partakers of the altar and afterwards the cup and table of the Lord are industriously contrasted with the cup and table of demon-gods. Consequently, the nature of the sacrament must be the same as the nature of those post-sacrificial feasts which were common alike to the Jews and to the Gentiles.

(5.) From this decision of St. Paul we may now argue back, with additional force, to the specific nature of our Lord's passion.

If the Dominical Supper be a feast upon a sacrifice, which the apostle unequivocally pronounces it to be; then the death of Christ itself must inevitably be as much a sacrifice in the strict

succeed in the place of sacrifice, he proceeds to make the following just observation. Eating the Lord's Supper was the same rite in the Christian Church with eating the things offered in sacrifice among the Jews and Heathens. It is an ¡ act of communion or fellowship with God, at whose table we are said to be entertained: and therefore it is declared to be inconsistent with eating the gentile sacrifices, which is an act of communion with devils (or rather demon-gods) to whom these sacrifices were offered. Potter on Church gov. p. 269, 270. See also Cudworth on the Lord's Supper. chap. iv.