The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism

By Dr. Zacharias Ursinus

THIRTIETH LORD'S DAY.

Question 80. What difference is there between the Lord's supper and the Popish mass?

Answer. The Lord's supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, who, according to his human nature, is now not on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, and will there be worshipped by us: -- but the mass teacheth that the living and the dead have not the pardon of sins, through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.

EXPOSITION

This Question is necessary on account of the errors, and horrid abuses which the Mass has introduced into the Church. It is otherwise asked, Why is the mass to be abolished? This question, however, is contained in the above; because the differences which exist between the Lord's supper and the Popish mass, constitute the reasons why the mass is to be abolished. For since the mass has so many things connected with it, which are in direct opposition to the Lord's supper, it must not be confounded with it, nor substituted in the place of it, nor tolerated in the church by godly magistrates; but must be abolished. Before we proceed, however, to point out the differences between the Lord's supper and the Popish mass, it is proper that we should say a few words in reference to the term, mass. And first, there are some who derive the word mass from the Hebrew masah, which signifies a tribute, or voluntary offering. The word has this meaning in Deut. 16:10, where it is said, "Thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the Lord thy God with a tribute of a free-will offering of thine hand." This offering was so called, being as it were, a yearly tribute, which was given most willingly and cheerfully. It is also understood by some to signify a sufficiency, meaning that so much should be given as might be sufficient, which, perhaps, is the more correct interpretation, since God in Deut. 15:8, commanded the Israelites to open their hands wide unto the poor, and to lend that which was sufficient for their need. This the Chaldee paraphrast interprets missah; from which it is supposed that it is called mass, or missa, as if it were a tribute, and a free-will offering, which should everywhere be offered to God in the church for the living and the dead. But this is not probable. It is true, indeed, that the church has borrowed some words from the Hebrew; as Satan, sabaoth, hallelujah, &c.; but these and similar words were introduced into the Latin church through the Greek church, and were introduced into the Greek Testament when it was first written in the Greek language; nor have we any Hebrew words in our church which the Greek church had not before. Furthermore, if we examine the writings of the Greek Fathers it will be seen, that the word missa is never used by them; from which we are inclined to believe that the word missa was not derived from the Hebrew.

Therefore the term missa, which is doubtless a Latin word, seems to be taken from the Fathers, who used remissa for remissio. Turtullian says: "We have spoken of remission (remissa) of sins." Cyprian says: "He who was to grant remission of sins, did not disdain to be baptized." Again: "He who blasphemes against the Holy Ghost, obtains no remission of sins." Hence, as the Latin Fathers used the term remissa for remissio, so they also seem to have used missa for mission, which is derived from mittendo. But here again there is a great diversity of sentiment For some will have it that missa is to be understood in the sense of mission, from an ancient custom of ecclesiastical rites, which was introduced into the Latin churches from the Greek, that when the sermon and lecture were over, the deacon, before the consecration of the mysteries, sent away or commanded the catechumens, the demoniacs, and such as were excommuncicated, to depart, saying, with a loud voice, "If there be any catechumen still remaining in the church, let him depart;" so that missa seems to be used in the sense of mission (sending away), because it was the last part of divine service. Others suppose that it is called missa in the sense of dismissa, or dismissio, from the manner in which the ecclesiastical assemblies, or congregations, were dismissed; because, when the prayers and other services were ended, the deacon exclaimed, "lie, missa est;" that is, Go, you may depart. Others, again, understand it thus: "Go, now is the collection of alms;" which they say were called missa, from being sent, or thrown in for the benefit of the poor. In short, it was that which was transacted in the church after the departure of the catechumens, or the collection of alms. Lombard has a different view of the subject: "It is called missa" says he, "because a heavenly messenger comes for the purpose of consecrating the vivifying body of Christ, according to the prayer of the priest: Almighty God, command that this be carried by the hand of thy holy angel to the high altar, &c. Therefore, unless an angel come, it cannot be properly called a mass." Lo the folly of the man! Again: "It is called mass either because the host is sent, of which mention is made in that service, where it is said, Ite, missa est; that is, follow the host which is gone up into heaven, -- go after it; or because an angel comes from heaven to consecrate the Lord's body, by whom the host is carried to the heavenly altar; whence it is also said, Ite, missa est."

We reject the idea of the mass, and also the term itself, for the reason that it does not belong to the Lord's supper, which has nothing in common with the mass, although some of the ancient writers employed the term. Nor is there any necessity that we should use this term, inasmuch as we have other words which express this mystery in a more striking manner, which are extant in the Scriptures, which call it the Lord's supper, the table of the Lord, the breaking of bread.

We may now, from what has been said, perceive the difference between the Lord's supper and the Popish mass; which difference is so great as to require that the mass be wholly abolished. The Catechism points out three things in which the Lord's supper and the Popish mass chiefly differ from each other:

1. The Lord's supper testifies to us that we have a free pardon of all sin, by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross, according as it is said: "The bread is the body of Christ, given for us." "The cup is the blood of Christ, shed for you unto the remission of sins." "This do in remembrance of me." "Ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." "This he did once, when he offered up himself." "By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." "By the which will we are sacrificed through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all." "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin, forever sat down on the right hand of God." "For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." 1 Cor. 11:26. Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 26; 10:10, 12, 14.)

The mass, on the other hand, teaches that the living and the dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests. Their Canon, which they call the less, thus teaches in reference to this subject: "Holy Father, Almighty and Eternal God, receive this immaculate host, which I, thine unworthy servant, offer unto thee, the living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offenses, and neglects, and for all round about me; yea, and for all faithful Christians, living and dead, that it may result in salvation to me and them unto everlasting life." Their greater Canon has the following: "Remember, Lord, thy servants and handmaidens N. N., and all round about me, whose faith and acknowledged devotion are known unto thee, for whom we offer unto thee, or who present unto thee this sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all theirs, for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their salvation and preservation," &c. What need was there that Christ should offer himself, if the oblation of a sacrificing priest might avail for the redemption of souls?

2. The Lord's supper testifies to us according to the articles of our faith, that Christ, as to his human nature, is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and not concealed under the accidents of the bread and wine; but that he exhibits to us in the Supper his body and blood, to be eaten and drunk by faith, and engrafts us into himself by the Holy Ghost, that we may abide in him, and have him abide in us, as it is said: "He that is joined to the Lord, is one Spirit." "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" "We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens." "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest." (1 Cor. 6:17; 10:16. Heb. 8:1, 4.)

The mass teaches, on the other hand, that the bread and wine, by virtue of the consecration, are changed into the body and blood of Christ, and that his body and blood, in the act of consecration, are brought down from heaven; that they are concealed, after a bodily manner, under the forms of bread and wine; that they are really handled by the hands of the minister, carried about, and eaten and received with the mouth by the communicants. These figments of the brain are opposed to the incarnation, the ascension, the intercession, and return of Christ to judgment; all of which are important articles of our faith, and also to the nature of sacraments, in which the signs must necessarily remain, and not lose their nature, as we have already demonstrated.

3. The Lord's supper teaches that Christ is to be worshipped by us in heaven at the right hand of the Father: for it does not overthrow, but establishes the articles of our faith, and the doctrine of the whole gospel, which teaches that Christ is to be sought and worshipped ABOVE. "Seek those things which are ABOVE, WHERE Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." (Col. 3:1.) Stephen, when he was stoned, saw Christ and worshipped him ABOVE, standing at the right of God. (Acts 7:55.) The ancient church also sang in her service, or liturgy, SURSUM CORDA HABEMUS AD DOMINUM, we lift up our hearts unto the Lord.

The mass teaches, on the other hand, that Christ is to be worshipped in the bread, which worship is, without doubt, idolatrous. For to worship Christ in the bread, is to direct our worship in soul, mind, thought, and as much as may be, in the motion or gesture of the body, to the place where the bread is, and looking thither, pay homage and reverence to Christ, as though he were there more especially than elsewhere. It was in this way that God was anciently worshipped at the ark, in which worship the mind was not only directed to the ark, but the body was also inclined to it as much as possible. That this is idolatry, may be proven, 1. From this, that no creature has the power to restrict the worship of God to anything or place in which, or at which God has not expressly commanded us to worship him, or in which he has not promised to hear us. From this it is easy to see the cause of the difference, why the Jews, directing their worship to the Mercy Seat, did, nevertheless, at the same time worship the true God in spirit, and were assured by the divine promise of being heard; whilst those who worshipped in Dan and Bethel, and upon the high places, and in the temple of Samaria, were idolaters, worshipping what they knew not. The reason of this is explained more fully in 2 Kings, 17:9. 2. Because in the New Testament all worship which is tied, or limited to any particular place, is entirely abolished, whilst a spiritual worship is now required of us, kindled by the Holy Ghost, and offered up in true knowledge and faith. Christ himself plainly teaches this, in John 4:22, 23: "Ye worship, ye know not what; we know what we worship. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth." When he says, that we shall worship in spirit, not in this mountain, nor at Jerusalem, he abolishes all worship which is restricted to any particular place. Hence we must abolish and hold in abhorrence the wicked device of the corporal presence of Christ in the bread, which is the foundation of the idolatrous worship of the Papists: for as long as Christ's bodily presence in the bread is retained, whether it be by tran, or consubstantiation, so long the Popish worship will remain. For as in former times, before the ascension of Christ into heaven, it was not only lawful, but even necessary to worship Christ in whatever place he was; so now, if he is in the bread, he must be worshipped in the bread, whether we see him or not. Yea, we ought rather to believe the word of God, than any of our senses, if it taught any such thing. But if, on the other hand, we reject the corporal presence of Christ in the bread, we also abolish, by the command of God himself, this shameful worship which the Papists are wont to bestow upon the body of Christ, which, they say lies concealed under the forms of bread and wine.

The Ubiquitarians take exception against us here, and say that Christ is in the bread, not to be adored, but to be eaten; neither does he give any command that he should be adored in the bread, but that he should be eaten. This, however, which they assert, is a mere begging of the question, for Christ commanded neither. If he is in the bread it is proper that he should be there worshipped, on account of the general command: "Let all the angels of God worship him." "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God." (Ps. 97:7. Heb. 1:6. Deut. 6:13; 10:20.) They imagine Christ, therefore, to be in the bread, and yet affirm that it is not lawful to worship him. Hence Musculus and others, to solve this difficulty, fall down before the bread, and worship Christ in it. Hesshuss argues against what we have affirmed, in this way: The Divinity, although it is present in all creatures, is, nevertheless, not to be adored in them. Therefore, neither is it necessary that the humanity of Christ should be adored in the bread, although it is corporally present in it. But the cases are different; for the adoration of the Divinity is not restricted to all creatures, but is joined to the humanity which he assumed, as to its own temple. Hence, wherever the humanity of Christ is, there the Divinity will be worshipped in it, and with it, so that the ubiquity of Christ's humanity is entirely overthrown by this argument upon which they are wont to lay so much importance. For the humanity of Christ is not to be worshipped in all creatures, and everywhere, it follows that it is not present everywhere, in all pears, apples, ropes, cheese, &c., as the Ubiquitarians write in reference to this subject.

These differences were enlarged by the addition of the following particulars, and delivered by Ursinus in the year 1669:

1. The Supper testifies, that the sacrifice of Christ alone justifies; the Popish priests affirm that the mass justifies, according to the work which is done.

2. The Supper teaches that Christ has redeemed us by offering himself for us; the Priests affirm that we are justified by Christ offered by them.

3. The Supper teaches that our salvation is accomplished by the one sacrifice which Christ offered for us upon the cross; the Priests affirm that it is accomplished by the mass being frequently repeated.

4. The Supper teaches that we are engrafted into Christ by means of the Holy Spirit, through faith; the mass deceives when it teaches that Christ enters into us corporally, or that we are engrafted into Christ by his entering into us corporally.

5. The Supper teaches that Christ ascended into heaven, after having accomplished his sacrifice; the mass-mongers will have it that he is upon the altar, as to his body.

6. The bread and wine remain in the Supper, and are not changed as to their substance, because the sacraments retain and do not change the substance of the signs; the mass-mongers teach that the substance of the bread and wine is annihilated, and that the accidents only remain.

7. The design of the Supper is the confirmation of our faith in Christ, and of his only sacrifice; the design of the mass is the confirmation of the opinion concerning works which are done, and a denial of the sacrifice of Christ.

8. The Supper teaches that Christ is to be adored in heaven; the mass-mongers adore him under the forms of bread and wine. These differences prove that the Popish mass is, in fact, nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice of Christ, and an accursed idolatry.

These differences, moreover, prove that there are many and weighty causes on account of which the Popish mass ought to be suppressed, abolished, and entirely discarded from the church, viz:

1. The Popish mass is a manifold corruption, or rather the abolishing of the whole rite instituted by Christ, that is, of the Lord's supper. For it takes away the cup from the laity, and adds many foolish toys, unknown to the Apostles, and never practiced by the church in her early history; when, nevertheless, no creature has the power of instituting sacraments, or of changing or abolishing their divine constitution.

2. The mass destroys the sign, and the sacrament itself, inasmuch as it changes the sign into the thing signified. It denies that there is any bread and wine present, but declares it to be the flesh and blood of Christ substantially, which is repugnant to the nature of sacraments, which does not allow the substance of the signs to be destroyed, neither does it require any physical connection between the signs and the things signified, and so does not require any transubstantiation or corporal presence in the supper; but doubtless leads us to Christ crucified, and now reigning in heaven, and thence communicating himself unto us.

3. The opinion of merit attaching itself to that which is done, is grounded in the mass: because the priests feign that the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, which merits, by its own dignity and virtue, the remission of sins, for them, and for others by the work which is done. But this virtue did not even belong to the Mosaic sacrifices. It belongs only to the one sacrifice which the Son of God offered once for us upon the cross, to which the Lord's supper leads and directs us, whilst the mass withdraws and calls the mind away from it. It is true that the Fathers do sometimes call the supper a sacrifice, but they meant a eucharistical, or thanksgiving sacrifice, and not a propitiatory sacrifice, as the Papists maintain. And indeed the supper is that sacrifice which Christ offered, as the bread is that body which he gave for us, which, however, is to be understood sacramentally. These mass-mongers, however, make the mass, not that very same sacrifice which Christ offered, but something different from it; for, say they, it is a sacrifice without blood, by which we obtain the forgiveness of sins. Hence they do in fact deny the sacrifice which Christ offered by the shedding of his blood, when they deny that Christ has perfectly merited the remission of sins, and imagine another sacrifice for sin, although they affirm that they offer no other sacrifice, than that which Christ offered. For it is one thing to offer one sacrifice once, and that sufficient to atone for all sin, which the Scriptures declare to be true of the sacrifice of Christ; and it is another thing for the same sacrifice to be frequently offered which does not agree with the sacrifice of Christ. They contradict themselves when they say, that this sacrifice alone is sufficient for the remission of sins, and this sacrifice, with others, is offered for sins.

4. There is another error concealed under this, that they should imagine themselves able to obtain the forgiveness of sins, and the deliverance of souls absent or dead and in purgatory, when the word of God declares, on the contrary, that we shall be clothed in heaven, if we are found clothed and not naked on earth; and that we shall be judged according to the characters which we have when we depart out of this life. Cyprian says, "When we have once departed this life, there is then no room for repentance, and no effect of satisfaction: here life is either lost or gained; here eternal salvation is obtained by the worship of God, and by the fruit of faith."

5. There is also here another error, because they feign that, by the offering of the sacrifice in the mass, they do not only merit the forgiveness of sins, but also other benefits, as the healing of the sick, and of sheep, horses, cattle, swine, &c. They imagine, therefore, that benefits are conferred in the mass of an entirely different character from those promised in the Gospel, and sealed by the sacraments.

6. The mass is opposed to the priesthood of Christ. Christ alone has the power of offering himself. These mass-mongers, however, imagine that the Son of God may be offered, not only by himself, but by others also; and that they offer him unto God the Father, when there is, nevertheless, no creature of such dignity as to be able to offer the Son of God as a sacrifice. The priest is greater and more excellent than the sacrifice. Hence, as they affirm that they are the priests who offer Christ, they exalt themselves above him. To this they are wont to object, saying that they do not slay, but only offer and exhibit the Son to the Father, that he may remit unto us our sins for the sake of Christ, so that they merely in this way apply that one sacrifice of the Son of God. But that which they affirm is sufficient to convict them of error, that they offer Christ with their hands; for it remains that they make themselves the priests who offer the Son of God as a sacrifice, and so exalt themselves above him. Nor does that which they affirm, when they say that they do not slay Christ, avail anything: for there were many things offered by the priests of old, which they nevertheless did not slay; but only sacrificed, or offered, as cakes, burnt offerings, &c. The Jews slew Christ, but they did not sacrifice him; but Christ was willingly slain, and, therefore sacrificed himself, "Who, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God. (Heb. 9:14.) Christ verily offered himself once a sacrifice to the Father for us. "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." "Christ, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin, forever sat down on the right hand of God. ( Heb. 9:28; 10:12.) The Papists now, in opposition to these express declarations of Scripture, will have Christ offered often in the mass. They maintain that they sacrifice him often, but do not slay him. A propitiatory sacrifice, however, cannot be offered without the death of the victim; for, "without the shedding of blood, is no remission."

7. The mass is in conflict with the articles of our faith respecting the true humanity of Christ, his true ascension into heaven, and his return to judgment; for it joins to Christ a body made of bread, and imagines that Christ is concealed corporally under the forms of bread and wine.

8. The Mass is opposed to the communion of saints with Christ: for it devises the horrible figment that Christ's body is made to enter into our bodies, and to remain within us as long as the forms of bread and wine remain undigested. The Supper teaches, on the other hand, that we are members of Christ by the Holy Spirit and are engrafted into him.

9. Finally, the mass is repugnant to the true word of God, because it establishes the idolatrous worship of Christ in the bread, as we have already shown. The Papists restrict or bind the worship of Christ to a thing, to which Christ has not restricted it by any express command; and in this way they declare themselves idolaters, no less than if they were to worship Christ at a wall, or if they were to adore him falling down before a pillar.

From what has now been said, it is evident that the mass is an idol, formed by Anti-Christ out of various accursed errors and blasphemies, and substituted in the place of the Lord's supper, which, for this reason, is properly and necessarily abolished.

Obj. 1. The Mass is an application of the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore it ought not to be abolished. Ans. We deny the antecedent, for the reason that the merits of Christ are applied unto us by faith alone, as it is said, "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith." (Eph. 3:17.)

Obj. 2. There must necessarily be a perpetual sacrifice in the church. Isaiah foretold that it should be "from one Sabbath to another" and Malachi says, "They shall offer a pure offering." (Is. 66:23. Mal. 1:11.) Ans. The sacrifices of the Christian church are eucharistical: and it is of such sacrifices that it is here declared that they shall be perpetual and pure. The Fathers call such a sacrifice of thanksgiving eucharistical, 1. Because it is a remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ. 2. Because, in the primitive church alms, which were a sacrifice, were offered and given to the poor, after the observance of the Lord's supper. But the Fathers never dreamed that the Supper was a propitiatory sacrifice.

Question 81. For whom is the Lord's supper instituted?

Answer. For those who are truly sorrowful for their sins, and yet trust that these are forgiven them for the sake of Christ; and that their remaining infirmities are covered by his passion and death; and who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy; but hypocrites, and such as turn not to God with sincere hearts, eat and drink judgment to themselves.

EXPOSITION

There are three things to be explained in the exposition of this Question:

I. For whom has the Lord's Supper been Instituted?
II. What do the wicked receive, if they come to this Supper?
III. What is the lawful use of the Supper?

1. WHO OUGHT TO COME TO THE LORD'S SUPPER?

The questions who ought to come, and who ought to be admitted to the Supper, are distinct and different. The former speaks of the duty of communicants; the latter of the duty of the church and ministers. The former is more restricted; the latter is broader, and more general: for, as touching the former, none but the godly ought to come to the Supper; whilst, as it respects the latter, not only the godly, but hypocrites also, who are not known to be such, are to be admitted by the church. Hence all that ought to come, ought also to be admitted; but not all who ought to be admitted, ought to come: but only those, 1. Who acknowledge their sins, and are truly sorrowful for them. 2. Who trust that their sins are forgiven them by and for the sake of Christ. 3. Who earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy: that is, those only ought to come to the Lord's supper, and they alone are worthy guests of Christ, who live in true faith and repentance. It is in these things that a true examination, in order to a profitable approach to the holy Supper, consists. Paul speaks of this, when he says, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." (2 Cor. 11:28.) To examine one's self is to see if we have faith and repentance, as it is said, "Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith, and whether Christ is in you." But how shall a man know that he possesses these things? 1. By having confidence in God, and peace of conscience. "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God." "Hope maketh not ashamed, because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to us." (Rom. 5:1, 5.) 2. From the effects of a true faith, or from the beginning of a true obedience, being both internal and external, and from a sincere desire and purpose to obey all the commandments of God. Those who have the consciousness that they possess those things; or, to express it in other words, those who have faith and repentance, not only in possibility, but actually, ought to come to, and partake of, the Lord's supper. Infants are not capable of coming to the Lord's supper, because they do not possess faith actually, but only potentially and by inclination. But here actual faith is required, which includes a certain knowledge of what God has revealed, and an assured confidence in Christ; it also requires the commencement of a new obedience, and purpose to live godly; and also an examination of ourselves, with a commemoration of the Lord's death.

Hypocrites, and such as have no true faith and repentance, ought not to come to the Lord's supper, 1. Because the sacraments were instituted merely for the faithful, and such as turn to God with sincere hearts, that they might seal unto them the promise of the gospel, and confirm their faith. The word is common both to the converted and the unconverted. It is preached to those who are converted that they may be confirmed thereby; and to the unconverted that they may be converted. The sacraments, however, belong to the faithful alone; and as to the sacrament of the Lord's supper, Christ instituted it in the presence of his disciples alone, as he said, "With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you." (Luke 22:15.) We, therefore, conclude from the nature and subject of sacraments as follows: What God has instituted for his household and children, that hypocrites and aliens from the church ought not to receive. 2. Paul forbids hypocrites and all wicked persons to come to the Lord's table, in words which admit of no controversy, when he commands, "That everyone examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." (1 Cor. 11:28.) 3. Because, when hypocrites and such as turn not to God with sincere hearts come to the Lord's table, they eat and drink judgment to themselves, and are guilty of the body and blood of Christ. "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Cor. 11:29.) 4. To these considerations we may yet add the general testimony of Scripture, which forbids unbelievers to come to the Lord's supper, and condemns the use of the sacraments on the part of those who are unconverted. "Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother." "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man." "If thou be a breaker of the law thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." (Matt. 5:24. Is. 66:3. Rom. 2:25.)

Obj.1 But God commands all to observe the sacraments, and Christ says, "Take, drink ye all of this." Therefore, the ungodly do not sin by coming to the Lord's table. Ans. We reply to the antecedent that God does, indeed, command all to observe the sacraments; but then he requires that they be used lawfully, to do which there must be faith and repentance. God commands all to be baptized, and to observe the supper: but he also commands them to repent and believe. "Repent and be baptized." "Let a man examine himself." (Acts 2:38. 1 Cor. 11:28.)

Obj. 2. We are all unworthy. Therefore, none ought to come to the Lord's table. Ans. We reply to the antecedent, that we are all unworthy by nature, and in ourselves; but we are made worthy by the grace of Christ, if we come with faith and a good conscience. Augustin says: "Come with boldness; it is bread and not poison." No one ought, therefore, to absent himself because of his unworthiness, seeing that all who come with faith and penitence are counted worthy guests. "To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembeleth at my word." (Is. 66:2.)

Obj. 3. Those who keep from profaning the supper act properly. Those now who stay away from the Lord's table on account of being at enmity with someone, and for other sins, keep from profaning the supper. Therefore, their conduct is such as is right and proper. Ans. We reply to the major proposition by making a distinction: Those who keep from profaning the Lord's table act properly, if they keep from it in such a way as they ought, viz: by repenting of those sins which render them unworthy; but they act unwisely and wickedly, who, when they absent themselves from the Lord's table, continue in sin, hypocrisy, and a state of enmity with their neighbor, for they add sin to sin, and contempt to profanation. We must not do evil, that good may come.

II. WHAT DO THE WICKED RECEIVE IN THE USE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER?

Hypocrites, and such as turn not to God with sincere hearts coming to the Lord's supper, receive not the things signified, viz: the body and blood of Christ, but the naked signs of bread and wine, and these to their condemnation. This is proven,

1. From the definition of eating. To eat Christ is to be made a partaker of the substance, merit, efficacy and of all the benefits of Christ, as it is said, "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him; even he shall live by me." (John 6:56, 57.) But the wicked and unbelieving are not made partakers of Christ. Therefore, they do not eat Christ.

2. From the manner and means of eating. Christ's body is eaten by faith alone, because we receive him with all his benefits by faith only. The body of Christ is the food of the soul and not of the belly, of the heart and not of the mouth, as it is correctly expressed in Luther's catechism: "These words, FOR YOU, require believing hearts." But the ungodly and hypocrites have no faith. Therefore, they do not receive the body of Christ.

3. Christ offers his body in the supper, to be eaten by them alone for whom he offered himself upon the cross. But he offered himself upon the cross only for those that believe, and not for the ungodly or for hypocrites. "I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me." "This is my body which is given for you." (John 17:9. Luke 22:19.)

4. The body of Christ is the vivifying bread, which, whosoever receives, receives life at the same time; for Christ's Spirit is not separate from his body. "He that eateth my flesh dwelleth in me, and I in him." (John 6:56.) But the ungodly in receiving the signs do not receive life. Therefore, they receive the signs without the things signified.

5. The ungodly eat and drink judgment to themselves. Therefore, they do not eat and drink the body and blood of Christ. This argument is of force according to the rule of contraries. For to eat judgment to themselves is, through unbelief and abuse of the sacraments, to be driven from Christ and separated from him and all his benefits; or, it is grievously to offend God by abusing the sacraments by receiving them without faith and repentance, and so to bring upon themselves temporal and eternal punishment if they do not repent. To eat Christ, on the contrary, is to be made a partaker of Christ and of all his benefits by faith; for no one can eat Christ, and yet not be made at the same time a partaker of his merit, efficacy and benefits. Hence, no one can at the same time eat Christ, and also condemnation to himself.

6. When Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:21, "Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils," he affirms that there is something in the Lord's supper of which the ungodly cannot partake. But they do partake of the signs of bread and wine at the Lord's table. Therefore, he excludes them from a participation in the body and blood of Christ, the things signified in the supper. To this it is objected that when the Apostle says ye cannot, he means ye cannot partake with a good conscience, and unto salvation. But this is a false gloss; because the Apostle does not reason from what is unprofitable, but from what is impossible. Ye ought not to partake with them that sacrifice to idols. Why? Because this is to partake with devils. But it is impossible that ye should at the same time be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table of devils; because it is impossible to serve two masters at the same time, as Christ says, "No man can serve two masters. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." (Matt. 6:24.) It is in the same sense that the Apostle here says, "Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

7. Christ says, (Matt. 15:26,) "It is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to dogs." The body of Christ is the children's bread, that is, it is the bread of the faithful. Therefore Christ does not cast his body to dogs, meaning the wicked, contrary to his own doctrine. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine," &c. (Matt. 7:6.)

8. From the authority of the Fathers, who taught the same thing in reference to this subject. See Augustin lib. 21, cap. 25, de civit. Dei., and in Johan. tract. 26, and 59, and in sent. Prosper! cap. 3, 39. Ambrose says of the Supper: "Although the sacraments suffer themselves to be taken or handled by those who are unworthy; yet those persons cannot be partakers of the Spirit, whose unbelief or unworthiness contradicts so great holiness." And a little farther on he says: "And as for those who are present at these sacred mysteries with cold hearts and souls, and who even partake of these gifts, they do indeed lick the rock, but they neither suck any honey or oil from it; because they are not enlivened by any sweetness of charity, nor by the sanctity of the Holy Spirit: they neither judge themselves, nor make any distinction in regard to the sacraments, but use these holy gifts without any reverence, as if they were common food, and impudently push themselves to the Lord's table with unclean garments, for whom it had been better if they had been cast into the sea with a mill-stone tied about their neck, than to receive with their unclean consciences one morsel at the hands of the Lord, who even to this day creates, sanctifies, blesses and distributes to godly receivers his most true and holy body."

The reasons, on account of which unbelievers, and such as are ungodly bring upon themselves condemnation by eating and drinking, are, 1. Because they profane the signs, and by consequence the thing signified, by taking to themselves those things which were not instituted for them, but for the disciples of Christ alone. 2. Because they profane the covenant of God, by taking to themselves the signs of the covenant. They desire to appear in covenant with God, when in fact they are in league with the devil and not with God, whom they endeavor, as far as they can, to make the Father of the wicked. 3. Because they do not discern the Lord's body, and trample his blood under their feet. God does, indeed, offer his benefits to them, but they do not receive them by faith, and so mock God, whilst they profess to receive the benefits of Christ, inasmuch as they neither do, nor will any thing less, and thus they add this new offense to their other sins. 4. Because they condemn themselves by their own judgment; for in coming to the Lord's table they profess that they approve of this doctrine, and that they believe that there is no salvation out of Christ. And yet, in the meanwhile, they are conscious that they are hypocrites, and so condemn themselves.

Those, therefore, who argue that if the ungodly eat to themselves condemnation, they must eat the body of Christ, reason falsely. Yea, it may be said that the contrary is rather true; for if they eat to themselves condemnation, they do not eat the body of Christ. For to eat Christ and to eat condemnation are contraries, which cannot hold true at the same time. But, say our opponents, they eat unworthily; therefore they nevertheless eat. We grant that they do indeed eat; but they merely eat bread, and not the body of Christ; for it is expressly said, Whosoever shall eat this bread unworthily. But, say they again, Christ is not only a savior, but also a judge; to which we reply, that he is not a judge of those by whom he is eaten, but of those by whom he is despised; for it is said of them that eat, "He that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57.) And of those that despise Christ, "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matt. 7:23.) As the gospel is the savour of life unto life when it is believed, and is the savour of death unto death when it is despised, so Christ, when he is eaten, quickeneth, and when he is despised, judgeth. Christ now is despised, when he is offered to the unbelieving in the word and sacraments, and is rejected by their unbelief. But it is still further objected: The ungodly are guilty of the body of Christ; and therefore must eat it. But the cause of their guilt is not the eating of Christ, but the eating of the bread without Christ; because it is said, Whosoever shall eat of this bread unworthily, &c. An abuse of the sign is a contempt cast upon Christ himself; as an injury done to the charter or seal of a king is an injury done to the king himself, and is an offense against his injured majesty. But how, it is asked, can the ungodly eat judgment to themselves, and be guilty, when it is a good work to receive the sacraments? We reply, that the receiving of the sacraments is in itself a good work, and when it is accompanied with the true and lawful use thereof; otherwise it is a work which God does not command, but forbids, as he himself says: "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man," &c. (Is. 66:3.) So Paul says: "This is not to eat the Lord's supper," &c. "If thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." (1 Cor. 11:20. Rom. 2:25.) If this were not true, we might thus conclude: The receiving of the body of Christ is a good work; therefore the ungodly cannot by this receiving be guilty of the body of Christ.

III. IS WHAT THE LAWFUL USE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER?

The lawful use of the Supper is, when the faithful receive in the church the bread and cup of the Lord, and show his death, so that this receiving may be a pledge of their union with Christ, and an application of the whole benefit of our redemption and salvation. It consists in these three things:

1. In retaining and observing the rites and ceremonies instituted by Christ. This, too, must be done, not ludicrously, nor by one person privately, but in a regular assembly of the church, whether great or small. The rites which Christ has instituted are, that the Lord's bread be broken, distributed and received, and the Lord's cup be given to all the communicants, in remembrance of his death. 2. When the rites are observed by those persons for whom they were instituted by Christ; that is, when the bread and wine are received by those whom Christ designed should receive them; which persons are not his enemies, but his disciples the faithful. The observance of these rites without faith and repentance, is not the use, but the abuse of them. 3. When the supper is received, and the whole transaction is directed to the end for which it was instituted by Christ, viz: in remembrance of the Lord's death, which is for the confirmation of our faith, and the rendering of true gratitude.

Question 82. Are they also to be admitted to this supper, who, by confession and life, declare themselves infidels and ungodly?

Answer. No; for by this the covenant of God would be profaned, and his wrath kindled against the whole congregation; therefore it is the duty of the Christian church, according to the appointment of Christ and his apostles, to exclude such persons by the keys of the kingdom of heaven, until they show amendment of life,

EXPOSITION

They are to be admitted to the Lord's supper by the church, 1. Who are of a proper age to examine themselves, and to commemorate the Lord's death, according to the command: "This do ye in remembrance of me." "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread." "Ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (1 Cor. 11:25, 26, 28.) The infant children of the church are, therefore, not admitted to the use of the Lord's supper, even though they are included among the number of the faithful.

2. Those who are baptized, and who by baptism are made members of the church. The covenant entered into with God in baptism, is renewed in the observance of the Lord's supper. It was for this reason that none, except those who were first circumcised, were permitted to eat the passover. Therefore, Turks, Jews and all other aliens from the church are to be debarred from the use of the supper.

3. Those who profess true repentance and faith in word and indeed, or who exhibit a profession of faith and repentance in their deportment, whether it be made truly and sincerely, or by secret hypocrisy. The church is not to judge in regard to that which is secret and hidden. It, therefore, admits all whom it judges to be members of Christ, that is, all whom it hears and sees professing repentance and faith by confession, and the external deportment of the life, whether they be truly pious, or hypocrites whose true character is not yet known.

Those, however, are not to be admitted to the Lord's table, who simply declare that they believe all these things, whilst they continue to lead ungodly and sinful lives; for he that says he believes, and yet has not the fruits of faith, lies, and denies indeed what he affirms in words, according to the declaration of the Apostle, where he says: "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him; being abominable and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." (Tit. 1:16.) So the apostle James declares, James 2:20. "That faith without works is dead."

The reasons why only those are to be admitted to the Lord's supper, who by confession and life profess repentance and faith, are:

1. Because the church would profane the covenant of God, if it were to admit to the holy communion the unbelieving and impenitent; for he that does a thing, and he that consents to it are regarded in the same light by the law. To profane the covenant of God, is to commend and recognize those as the confederates, or friends of God, who are his enemies, and to represent God as such an one, as is in league with hypocrites and wicked men. There are two ways in which the covenant of God is profaned. The one is by administering the signs of the covenant to those, to whom God promises nothing; the other is by using the signs without repentance and faith. For they do not only profane the covenant of God, who take to themselves the signs of the covenant, whilst they are impenitent, but those also, who knowingly and willingly administer the signs to such persons as God has excluded from his covenant. Those, therefore, who give the signs of the covenant to the ungodly, make God the friend of the wicked, and make the children of the devil the children of God.

2. If the church were to admit to the Lord's supper, knowingly and willingly those who by confession and life, declare themselves infidels and ungodly, the wrath of God would be kindled against the whole congregation. And that the wrath of God is in this way kindled against the church, the apostle Paul clearly affirms when he says: "For this cause many are weak, and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." (1 Cor. 11:30, 81.) God is, therefore, angry with those who consent to, or connive at the profanation of this sacrament and punishes them, because he punishes the wicked who were admitted by their consent; for the Lord's supper is equally profaned by both.

3. Christ has given command not to admit such as are ungodly at his table. If any one denies the existence of such a command in reference to the Lord's supper, the sense, or substance of it may easily be proven, since Christ instituted his supper for his disciples, and for them alone, as may be inferred from what he said: "With desire, I have desired to eat this Passover with you." "Take this, and divide it among yourselves." "This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you" (Luke 22:15, 17, 19. ) The Lord's supper was, therefore, instituted for the disciples of Christ alone, and so the command, Take this, &c., pertains to them. All others, for whom Christ has not died, are excluded. To these reasons we may add the following,

4. Clear and forcible demonstration: Those who deny the faith, are not to be regarded as members of the church, no not even of the visible church. All those now who refuse to repent, deny the faith according to what the Apostle says: "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him; being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." (Tit. 1:16.) Therefore, those who refuse to repent are not to be regarded even as members of the visible church, and so are not to be admitted to the sacraments of the church, but should be excluded from them as aliens, so long as they continue to lead impenitent and ungodly lives. As for those hypocrites, however, whose true character is not known by the church, they are to be admitted to the Lord's supper with the godly, as those who by confession and life profess repentance and faith. Yet none should come, except such as truly believe; for all others, including even those hypocrites whose true character is not known by men, eat and drink judgment to themselves, and profane the Lord's supper.

Obj. The church does not profane the covenant of God by admitting hypocrites to the Lord's supper. Therefore, it does not profane it by admitting those who are known to be impenitent. We reply to the antecedent as follows: The church does not do wrong by admitting hypocrites, that is such as are not known to be hypocrites; because it is compelled to acknowledge them as sincere in view of the confession which they have made of their faith, and the repentance which they have feigned. But if the church were knowingly and willingly to admit known and avowed hypocrites, or such as deny repentance and faith, both in word and deed, it would do wrong. To this it is objected: But there are many impenitent persons who intrude themselves, and profane the covenant, especially where the proper discipline of the church is not maintained, and yet the church does no wrong in admitting them. Therefore, it is not wrong that other persons denying repentance should be admitted to the Lord's table. Ans. The church in this case does no wrong, not because it is no sin to admit such as are impenitent, but because it admits them ignorantly -- not knowing that they are such. But the impenitent who push themselves forward to the Lord's table, profane the covenant, not to the condemnation of the church, or of those who commune with them, but to their own guilt; for they by so doing bring judgment upon themselves. Yet the church should carefully observe and inquire into the character of those who are admitted to the Lord's table, and the minister, where excommunication, or church disciple is not exercised, is excused, if he does not willingly administer the supper to those who abuse it, and if he is instant in admonishing and reproving them, and if he desires them to avoid these abuses; for "blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness." But the sin will rest upon others, viz: upon those who abuse the sacraments, and who connive at these things.

1. The other sacrament of the New Testament is called the Lord's Supper, not because it should be celebrated in the evening, or at the time of supper, but because it was instituted by Christ when he observed the last supper with his disciples before his death. It is called the Lord's table, because Christ feeds us in its proper use. It is called the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, because the body and blood of Christ are communicated to us in it. It is called theeucharist, because there is in it a solemn thanksgiving for the death and benefits of Christ. It is called a covenant, because it should be celebrated in the public assemblies of the church. It is also called by the Fathers a sacrifice, because it is a representation of the propitiatory sacrifice which Christ accomplished upon the cross, and because it is a sacrifice of thanksgiving.

2. The Lord's supper is a sacrament of the New Testament, in which, according to the command of Christ, bread and wine are distributed in the assembly of the faithful, and received in remembrance of Christ; or that Christ may testify to us, that he feeds us unto eternal life by his body and blood broken and shed for us, and that we may return thanks to him for his benefits.

3. The first and chief design or use of the Lord's supper is, that Christ may declare to us that he died for us, and feeds us with his body and blood unto everlasting life, that he may, by this declaration, establish and increase our faith, and so by consequence this spiritual food in us. The second end is the giving of thanks for these benefits of Christ, and a public and solemn profession of our duty to him. The third, is to distinguish the church from all other religions. The fourth, that it may be a bond of mutual love. The fifth, that it may be a bond of the public assemblies of the church.

4. The first end of this sacrament which is a confirmation of our faith in Christ, the Lord's supper has, because Christ himself gives this bread and wine by the hand of the minister in remembrance of himself; that is, that he may admonish us by this symbol, as by his visible word, that he died for us, and that he is to us the bread of everlasting life, whilst he makes us his members; and because he has added to this rite the promise that he will feed those who eat this bread in remembrance of him, with his own body and blood, when he says, This is my body; and because the Holy Spirit by this visible testimony influences the minds and hearts of the faithful to believe with stronger confidence the promise of the gospel.

5. There is, therefore, a double meat and drink in the Lord's supper -- one external, visible and earthly, which is the bread and wine; the other is internal. There is also a double eating and receiving -- the one external, and signifying which is the corporal receiving of the bread and wine, accomplished by the hands, mouth and senses; the other internal, invisible and signified, which is the fruition of Christ's death, and a spiritual ingrafting into his body, accomplished not with the hands and mouth, but by the Spirit and faith. There is, finally, a double dispenser of this meat and drink -- the external of the external, which is the minister of the church, giving to us with his hand the bread and wine; the internal of the internal, which is Christ himself, feeding us with his body and blood.

6. The signs which serve for the confirmation of our faith are bread and wine, and not the body and blood of Christ; for the body and blood of Christ are received, that we may live forever; whilst the bread and wine are taken, that we may be confirmed in regard to that heavenly food, and enjoy it more and more.

7. The bread is not changed into the body of Christ, nor is the wine changed into the blood of Christ; nor are the bread and wine abolished to give place to the body and blood of Christ; nor is the body of Christ substantially present in the bread, or under the bread, or where the bread is; but the Holy Ghost employs this symbol in the right use of the Lord's supper, as a means for the purpose of stirring up our faith, by which he more and more dwells in us, inserts us into Christ, and brings it to pass that we are justified through him, and draw from him everlasting life.

8. When Christ says, This, that is, This bread is my body, and This cup is my blood, the form of speech is sacramental, or metonymical, so that the name of the thing signified is attributed to the sign, to teach that the bread is the sacrament, or symbol of his body, that it represents him and declares that the body of Christ was offered for us upon the cross, and is given unto us as the bread of everlasting life, and is, therefore, the means which the Holy Ghost employs for preserving and increasing this food in us, as Paul says, The bread is the communion of the body of Christ, by which it is meant, that the bread is the thing by which we are made partakers of Christ's body; and in another place, We have all been made to drink into one Spirit. The same thing is also taught when it is said, that the bread is called the body of Christ on account of the resemblance which there is between the sign and the thing signified, viz, that the body of Christ nourishes the spiritual life of the believer, as bread supports our natural life; and on account of the certain joint-reception of the sign and the thing signified in the lawful use of the sacrament. This, too, is the sacra mental union of the bread, which is indicated by the sacramental mode of speaking, common in relation to this subject, which is no local conjunction as some imagine.

9. As the body of Christ is, therefore, both his natural and sacramental body, which is the bread of the eucharist; so the eating of the body of Christ is two-fold: the one sacramental of the sign, viz, the external and corporal receiving of the bread and wine; the other real, or spiritual, which is the receiving of the very body of Christ. To believe, too, in Christ dwelling in us by faith, is to be ingrafted by the power of the Holy Spirit into his body, as members to the head, and branches to the vine, and so to be made partakers of the benefits of the life and death of Christ. It is, therefore, evident that those who thus teach, are falsely accused and represented, when it is said that they make the supper consist in the bare signs, or in a participation of the merits of Christ alone, or of his benefits, or of the Holy Spirit, whilst they exclude the true, real, and spiritual communion of the body of Christ itself.

10. The lawful use of the supper consists in this, that the faithful observe this rite instituted by Christ in remembrance of him, or for the purpose of stirring up their faith and gratitude.

11. As the body of Christ is eaten sacramentally in the right use of the supper, so without this use, as in the case of unbelievers and hypocrites, it is sacramentally eaten, but not really; that is, the sacramental symbols or signs, which are the bread and wine, are, indeed, received, but not the things which the sacraments signify, viz, the body and blood of Christ.

12. This doctrine of the Lord's supper is based upon many and most solid arguments. It is confirmed by all those passages which speak of the Lord's supper. Christ, too, calling the visible and broken bread, and not something invisible in the bread, his body which was given, or broken for us, which, as it cannot be understood properly or literally, himself adds the declaration, that that bread is truly received in remembrance of him, which is as if he had said, that the bread is a sacrament of his body. He also says, that the supper is the New Testament, which is spiritual, one and everlasting. Paul, in like manner, says, that it is the communion of the body and blood of Christ, because all the faithful are one body in Christ, who can have no fellowship or communion with devils. This same apostle also makes the same ingrafting into Christ by one Spirit in baptism and the holy supper. The same thing is confirmed by the entire doctrine and nature of sacraments, which exhibit to the eyes the same spiritual communion of Christ to be received by faith, which the word, or promises of the gospel declare to the ear. It is for this reason that the signs are called by the names of the things signified, and have the reception of the things themselves joined with them in the lawful use of the sacraments. The articles of our common faith establish the same thing, which teach that the body of Christ is a true human body, not present in many places at the same time, but is now placed in heaven to remain there until the Lord come to judge the quick and the dead; and that the communion of saints with Christ is effected by the Holy Spirit, and not by an interpenetration of the body of Christ into the bodies of men; and is, therefore, the doctrine which has been held and professed with great agreement by the whole church in her earlier and purer days.

The Lord's supper differs from baptism, 1. In the rite and manner of signification. The dipping or washing in baptism signifies the remission and removal of sin by the blood and Spirit of Christ, and our fellowship with Christ in his afflictions and glorification; the distribution of the bread and wine signifies the death of Christ to be laid to our account for the remission of sins, and our ingrafting into Christ, so as to be made his members. 2. They differ in their operation. Baptism is the testimony of our regeneration, of the covenant made with God, and of our reception into the church; the Lord's supper testifies that we are to be perpetually nourished by Christ dwelling in us, and that the covenant once entered into between God and us shall ever be ratified in regard to us, so that we shall forever remain united with the church and body of Christ. 3. They differ as it respects the persons to whom they should be administered. Baptism is ad ministered to all who are to be regarded members of the church, whether they be adults or infants; the Lord's supper is to be given to none except those who are able to understand and celebrate the benefits of Christ, and to examine themselves. 4. Baptism is to be received but once, because the covenant once entered into with God is always ratified in the case of those who repent; the Lord's supper is to be often received, inasmuch as it is necessary for our faith that we frequently renew that covenant and call it to mind. 5. They differ in the order which is to be observed. Baptism precedes the Lord's supper; the Lord's supper should be given to none except those who are baptized.

14. Those who examine themselves, and who are possessed of true faith and repentance, are worthy guests at the Lord's table. Those who have not this testimony within themselves, ought not to approach the Lord's table, lest they eat and drink judgment to themselves; nor should they defer that repentance which is necessary in order that they may come, and so bring upon themselves hardness of heart and everlasting punishment.

15. The church ought to admit to the Lord's supper all those who profess to receive the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and who have a purpose to live in conformity thereto; but should exclude all those who are unwilling to abandon their errors, blasphemies, or sins, when they are properly admonished by the church, and convicted of their errors and sins.

16. The Pope is guilty of corrupting the sacrament of the Lord's supper, in that he has removed from it the breaking of the bread, and refuses the cup to the laity. He is also guilty of the same thing in having changed the Lord's supper, by the addition of so many ceremonies not delivered by the Apostles, into a theatrical mass. These innovations, however, are still more wicked and idolatrous: That the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, in which Christ is offered to the Father, by the sacrificing priests, for the living and the dead, and is, by virtue of the act of consecration, substantially present, and remains as long as the forms of bread and wine continue uncorrupted; that the mass confers the grace of God and other benefits upon those for whom it is offered; that Christ is eaten orally, even though those who approach the Lord's table are destitute of any good desires or purposes; and that he is concealed and carried under the forms of bread and wine for the purpose of being adored. In view of these base corruptions, the mass ought to be abolished in all Christian churches. These corruptions may be included under these heads: 1. Transubstantiation. 2. The worship of bread. 3. Making a sacrifice out of the; Lord's supper. 4. Mutilating the Lord's supper by various human devices.

Certain principal arguments of the Consubstantialists against the sincere doctrines of the Lord's Supper, and those whom they call Sacramentarians; with a refutation of them.

The errors of the Sacramentarians, say they, are these: 1. That they make the Lord's supper consist merely in naked signs and symbols. Ans. We teach that the things signified are, together with the signs, exhibited and communicated in the lawful use of the supper, although not corporally, but in a manner corresponding to sacraments. 2. The Sacramentarians, say they, hold that Christ is present in the supper only according to his efficacy. Ans. We teach that Christ is present, and that he is united to us by the Holy Spirit, although his body is at a great distance from us, just as whole Christ is present in the ministry, although differently, according to the one nature. 3. We, say they, believe that an imaginary, figurative and spiritual body of Christ is present in the supper, and not his true, essential body. Ans. We have never spoken of an imaginary body, but of the true flesh of Christ, which is present with us, although it remains in heaven. We teach, moreover, that we receive the bread and body, but in a manner peculiar to each. 4. We, say they, hold that the true body of Christ which hung upon the cross, and his blood which was shed, for us, is distributed, and that it is spiritually received only by those who are worthy guests, whilst such as are unworthy receive nothing but the bare signs, and these to their condemnation. Ans. We admit the whole as being in accordance with the word of God, with the nature of the sacraments, with the analogy of faith, and with the communion of the faithful with Christ.

The general points in which the Churches, which profess the Gospel, agree and differ in the controversy respecting the Lord's Supper.

They agree in these particulars: 1. That the Lord's supper, as well as baptism, is a visible pledge and testimony annexed by Christ himself to the promise of grace, chiefly to this end: that he may confirm and strengthen our faith in this promise. 2. That in the true use of the supper, as well as in all other sacraments, two things are given of God, and secured by us, viz: earthly, external and visible signs, as the bread and wine; and heavenly, internal and invisible gifts, as the true body of Christ, with all his gifts, benefits and heavenly treasures. 3. That in the supper we are made partakers not only of the Spirit of Christ, and his satisfaction, righteousness, virtue, and operation, but also of the very substance and essence of his true body and blood, given for us upon the cross, and shed for us, and that we are fed with the same, unto eternal life; and that Christ declares and makes this known unto us by this visible reception of bread and wine in the supper. 4. That the bread and wine are not changed into the flesh and blood of Christ, but remain true and natural bread and wine -- that the body and blood of Christ are not enclosed in the bread and wine; and, therefore, the bread and wine are called the body of Christ -- his body and blood in this sense; that his body and blood are not only signified by these, and set before our eyes, but also because as often as we eat or drink this bread and wine, in the true and lawful use, Christ himself gives us his body and blood to be the meat and drink of eternal life. 5. That without the lawful use, the taking of bread and wine is no sacrament, being nothing more than a vain, empty ceremony and spectacle, such as men abuse to their condemnation. 6. That there is no other lawful use of the supper, except that which Christ instituted and commanded to be observed, viz: that which is in remembrance of him, and which declares his death. 7. That Christ does not command a hypocritical remembrance of himself, and declaration of his death; but such as embraces his sufferings and death, and all the benefits which he has obtained by these in our behalf, by a true faith and with sincere thankfulness. 8. That Christ will dwell in none but such as believe, and in them also who, not through contempt, but through necessity, cannot come to the Lord's supper; yea, in all believers, from the beginning of the world to all eternity, even as well, and in the same manner, as he will dwell in them who have observed the Lord's supper.

They disagree in these particulars: 1. That one class contends that the words of Christ, This is my body, must be understood literally, which they, however, do not prove; others, again, hold that these words are to be understood sacramentally, according to the declaration of Christ and Paul, and according to the rule by which we are to judge of the truth of any article of our faith. 2. The former class of persons will have the body and blood of Christ essentially present in or with the bread and wine, and so to be eaten, that together with the bread and wine received from the hands of the minister, it enters by the mouth of those who receive them into their bodies; the other class of persons believe that the body of Christ, which in the celebration of the first supper sat at the table with the disciples, now is, and will continue, not on earth but in heaven, until Christ shall come again to judge the quick and the dead, and yet that we who are on earth notwithstanding, as often as we eat this bread with a true faith are so fed with his body and made to drink of his blood, that we are not only cleansed from our sins through his sufferings and shed blood, but are, also, so united to him and incorporated into his true, essential, human body, by his Spirit dwelling both in him and in us, that we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone; and are more firmly and closely united to him, than the members of our body are united with our head, so that we draw and have in, and from him, everlasting life. 3. The first class of persons referred to maintain, that all who come to the Lord's supper and eat and drink of the bread and wine, whether believers or unbelievers, eat and drink corporally, and with their bodily mouth the flesh and blood of Christ, believers to life and salvation, and unbelievers to damnation and death. The other class of persons believe that unbelievers abuse, indeed, the outward signs to their condemnation, whilst none but the faithful eat and drink by a true faith, and by the Spirit, the body and blood of Christ unto eternal life. [This last paragraph is inserted with slight alterations from the old English translation by Parry.]

OF THE PASSOVER.

As the Lord's supper has been substituted in the place of the Passover y of which mention has been made, it is proper that we should here introduce some remarks in reference to the passover. The principal things in reference to the passover are included in the following Questions:

I. What was the Passover?
II. What was its design or use?
III. What are the points of resemblance between the Pascal Lamb and Christ?
IV. Has it been abolished, and what has succeeded it?

I. WHAT WAS THE PASSOVER?

The Passover was the solemn eating of a lamb, which God enjoined upon the Israelites in order, that this rite being annually observed in every family, might be a memorial to them of their deliverance from Egypt, and that it might especially declare to the faithful their spiritual deliverance from sin and death by Christ, who was to be slain upon the cross, and to; be eaten by faith. Or, it was a sacrament of the ancient church, which was to be celebrated according to the command of God in every family of the Jews, by the yearly slaying and eating of a lamb a year old, that it might be a memorial to them of the great benefit of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and that it might also be a seal of the promise of grace touching the forgiveness of sins on account of the sacrifice of the Messiah. The Greek padxa derived from the Hebrew pesach, which means a passover, derived from pasach, which signifies to Passover. This sacrament and feast was so called from the passing over of the angel, who seeing the blood of the lamb sprinkled upon the upper door post of the Israelites, passed over, and spared their first born, whilst he slew all the first born of the Egyptians. The history of the institution of the passover is contained in the twelfth chapter of the book of Exodus. God commanded that the slaying of the lamb should be accompanied with certain and various rites. The lamb had to be a year old; a male without blemish; it had to be separated from the flock by the family on the tenth day of the first month called Nisan, or Abib; it was to be slain four days after, or in the evening of the fourteenth day of the same month; the blood was to be sprinkled upon the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses of the Jews; then it was to be roasted with fire, and eaten whole, and in haste, with unleaven bread and bitter herbs. Those that ate it, stood with their loins girt, their shoes on their feet, and with their staff in hand. Of this rite the Lord said, "It is the Lord's passover." "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses, where you are, that when I see the blood I may pass over you." (Ex. 12:11, 13.)

This feast God commanded the Jews to celebrate with great solemnity every year, at which time seven days were devoted to its observance. "And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord, throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever. Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread," &c. (Ex. 12:14, 15; see also Ex. 12:17, 18; 23:15. Levit. 25:5. Deut. 16:1.)

II. WHAT WAS THE DESIGN OF THE PASSOVER?

There are five ends specified in the twelfth chapter of Exodus, on account of which the Passover was instituted.

1. That the blood of the lamb sprinkled upon the door posts might be a sign of the angel passing over them, and of the preservation of their first born. "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are, and when I see the blood I will pass over you." (Ex. 12:13.) This end, after the first performance of the rite, and the passing over of the angel, ceases, although the analogy of it remains forever: for God formerly spared, and now spares the faithful for the sake of the blood of Christ; by which we mean that he remits their sins, as is taught in the next object specified.

2. That it might be a type of the sacrifice of the Messiah yet to be offered, or that it might be a sign of the deliverance which would be wrought out by Christ, and so be a sign of God's grace to the church. This was the chief end of the yearly passover. This is proven by the following arguments. "A bone of him shall not be broken." (John 19:36.) This type John declares was fulfilled when Christ's bones were not broken upon the cross. Therefore the lamb was a type of Christ, and of his sacrifice. Again: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." (1 Cor. 5:7.) The paschal lamb, therefore, signified Christ, and the sacrificing of it, signified the sacrificing of Christ. Again: the church understood the signification of other sacrifices, that they were types of the sacrifice of the Messiah; for the ancient fathers were not so destitute of reason as to seek the remission of sins by the blood of bulls: much more therefore did they, by faith, behold in the paschal lamb the Messiah, and his sacrifice. Lastly, John calls Christ "the Lamb of God;" and "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;" (John 3:29. Rev. 13:8) because he was adumbrated by that lamb which was slain at the Passover.

3. That it might be a memorial of the first Passover, and deliverance of the children of Israel from Egypt. God desired that the remembrance of such a great benefit should be preserved among his people, lest their posterity might become ungrateful. "Seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; (for thou earnest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste) that thou mayest remember the day when thou earnest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life." (Deut. 16:3.)

4. That it might be a bond which would unite public assemblies, and perpetuate the ecclesiastical ministry. "And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation," &c.

5. That it might be a sacrament which would distinguish the people of God from all other nations. There shall no stranger eat thereof." "And when a stranger shall sojourn with you, and will keep the passover of the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near, and keep it, and he shall be as one that is born in the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." (Ex. 12:43, 48.)

III. WHAT ARE THE POINTS OF RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN THE PASCHAL LAMB AND CHRIST?

A consideration of the resemblances between the rites which God commanded to be observed in regard to the Paschal Lamb, and Christ, contributes very much to the confirmation, and illustration of the chief end of the Passover.

A comparison between the type and the Thing signified.

V. HAS THE PASSOVER BEEN ABOLISHED?

That the ancient Passover, with all the other types which prefigured the Messiah which was to come, was abolished at the coming of Christ, is evident, 1. From the whole argument of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews respecting the abolishing of the legal shadows in the New Testament. "The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old." (Heb. 7:12; 8:13.) 2. From the fulfillment of these legal shadows. "These things were done that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. A bone of him shall not be broken." "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." (John 19:36. 1 Cor. 5:7.) 3. From the substitution of the New Testament; for Christ, when he was about to suffer, and die and sacrifice himself as the true Passover, closed the ordinance relating to the paschal lamb with a solemn feast, and instituted and commanded his supper to be observed by the church in the place of the old passover. "With desire, I have desired to eat with you this passover, before I suffer." "This do in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:15, 19.) Christ here commands the supper, not the ancient passover, to be celebraced in remembrance of him. As baptism has, therefore, succeeded circumcision, so the Lord's supper has succeeded the passover in the New Testament.