at the disciples' point of view, and ask: How did they probably understand their master? An infidel author is not entirly wrong, when he says, with more impartiality than many dogmatists: "To the authors of the Gospels the bread in the eucharist was the body of Christ; but had they been asked whether the bread had been transubstantiated, they would have denied it; had they been told that Christ's body was eaten in or under the form of bread, they would not have understood it; had it been said that the bread and wine only signify his flesh and blood, they would not have been satisfied." O, that all Christians would agree with each other in realizing that in partaking of this sacrament, they have not only a symbolic representation of Christ's death, but a real communication of Christ himself to them in all the fulness of his redeeming love!

Let us, then, in their successive order, carefully examine the words, by which our Saviour instituted this sacrament. "TAKE, EAT." As bread is the symbol of Christ's body, given for us as an atoning sacrifice, so the eating of it is the symbol of the reception and appropriation of that atonement. Recognizing in his disciples all his future followers, our Lord says, "TAKE, EAT," thereby designating the act of eating as a moral act, dependent upon individual volition.

"THIS IS." The copula "is" has been the occasion of the most violent and tedious theological controversies. Without laying any stress upon the fact that, in the Aramaean language spoken no doubt by our Lord at the institution of the eucharist, no copula was used, and the mode of connecting subject and predicate in the Greek and Hebrew, and indeed in many of the modern languages, often denotes mere comparison (Gen. xi. 12; Exod. xii. 11; Luke xii. 1; John xv. 1; Galat. iv. 24; Hebr. x. 20, etc.); we shall, in the first place, thoroughly examine the various meanings that the laws of language admit of being attached to the copula "IS."

I. The Lutheran Church no less than the Roman Catholic Church ascribed to the copula " Is" the meaning of real substantiality; — although the Lutheran Church, respecting

the mode of this subsistency, differs as much from the Roman Church as those who give the copula only a figurative meaning. The Roman Church asserts that Christ distinctly predicated of the bread he gave his disciples that it is his body, and hence draws the inference that it has ceased to be bread. But as this inference directly contradicts 1 Cor. x. 16, and xi. 26-28; where "the bread which we break," is still called bread, so it is equally inconceivable that our Lord meant the elements distributed by him to be the material parts of his living body. Such a misapprehension, on the part of the disciples, was not only impossible at the institution of this sacrament, but our Lord obviated it with reference to every subsequent celebration by adding, "which is given or broken for you." Upon this strictly literal interpretation the Roman Church based the monstrous doctrines: 1. That the priest has the power, by means of the consecrating formula, to change the substance of bread and wine into the substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, although the accidents, such as color, form, taste, etc., remain unchanged. 2. That the body and blood of Christ once presented upon the cross, is again presented by the priest in the mass, under the form of wine, as a propitiatory sacrifice. 3. That the body of our Lord is indissolubly joined to the consecrated hostia (wafer), and is therefore to be worshipped independently of the sacramental act.

66

Luther protested against the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, but he likewise contended that the copula "Is " must be understood to express real substantiality, with this difference, that Christ predicates of the subject — the bread,

that IT IS his body; hence, what he gave his disciples, was at the same time bread and a part of his body; or, in other words, the flesh and blood of Christ are substantially present in the eucharist (although in a glorified state), and are received by the communicants in, with, or under the form of bread and wine. This is called consubstantiation. But this interpretation, viewed from a purely exegetical point of view, is untenable, because it involves a direct self-contradiction; for we cannot predicate of a definite concrete that

it is another definite concrete, unless we mentally supply the words, "at the same time" (the bread is at the same time bread, and at the same time the body of Christ), which the text does not justify, and whereby the strictly literal sense is relinquished. It is to be observed that the point in question is not whether the thesis, that Christ is substantially present in the bread and wine, is reconcilable with reason, but whether we are at liberty, according to the laws of language, to attribute this meaning to the words of Christ. It is an indisputable law of language that the copula never declares two different existing things as identical; and this law is recognized even by those who maintain that the elements are at the same time bread and wine and the flesh and blood of Christ, assuming only a juxta-position of the bread and flesh, instead of an identity of both. To assert that the copula must be presumed to identify the subject and predicate, where no metaphor is used, is entirely illogical. The premise of this conclusion is not only not proved, but refuted by an indisputable law of thought and language. We see, then, that, apart from any other reasons, the copula "1s," in its grammatical and logical relation, cannot be understood in its strictly literal meaning; hence the question arises:

66

II. What other meaning can be attached to the copula "IS?" It may have a twofold meaning: 1. This (bread) signifies my body — is a symbol of my broken body, of my propitiatory death. This is Zuingli's interpretation. 2. This (bread) is a pledge of my body, that is, he who receives the elements, receives with them all the blessings flowing from my atoning death. This is Calvin's interpretation. Both these interpretations lead us to a closer investigation of the question: What are we to understand under the predicate?

"MY BODY?" That our Lord did not mean his natural body, as the Roman Church teaches, has already been shown. The Lutheran dogma is that our Lord speaks here of his body with reference to its glorified state. But this interpretation is not compatible with the additional remark," which is given for you" (Luke), or "which is broken for you"

(Paul). For, 1. The foundation of the remission of sins is Christ's sacrificial death, not the reception of his glorified body. 2. Jesus could not have spoken of his glorified body, because it was not yet glorified, and the disciples could not have understood him. The idea of a twofold material body of Christ—the one sitting opposite them unchanged, the other being eaten by them—would cer tainly have been new and strange to them; and had the words of our Lord produced this idea in their minds, they would, doubtless, have expressed their astonishment, and, as it was their custom, asked their master for an explanation. 3. If our Lord spoke of his glorified body, how are we to understand the words: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins"? What are we to understand under the glorified blood? The glorified blood would certainly be included in the glorified body. Hence, we see that the expression, "this is my body," cannot mean the literal body of Christ, whether glorified or natural, and we are forced to take the words in a figurative sense?

In order to arrive at the correct understanding of the words in question, we must return once more to the consideration of the passover. As the paschal lamb was only a type of "the lamb of God," and the "passing over" of the destroying angel a type of the New Testament pardon and justification; so Christ, contrasting himself with the paschal lamb, declares his death to be the true and real atoning sacrifice. That he would give his life as a ransom for the sins of the world, that he would be violently put to death, and that his death would be a sacrificial death, this our Lord had often intimated to his disciples, but they were not able fully to comprehend it; and it is an undeniable fact that during his public ministry he did not make the doctrine of his propitiatory death as prominent as his disciples did after his death and ascension, for in the apostolic writings it is presented to us as the centre of the entire doctrinal system of Christianity. But now the time had come when he desired clearly and solemnly to disclose to them the fun

damental doctrine of the atonernent through his death, and to impress it indelibly not only upon their own minds, but upon the minds of those who through their preaching would believe in him unto the end of the world. As the disciples well understood the typical significance of the passover, he declared at its last celebration his death to be the fulfilment of what was typified by the paschal lamb. He showed them how his body was to be delivered unto death once for all.

The key for the correct understanding of the nature and design of the Lord's supper is, therefore, to be found in the atonement through the death of Christ. With reference to this, our Lord declares: "This is my body, which is given for you;" that is, "This (bread) signifies my body” (typified by the paschal lamb). The bread is a symbol of Christ, the bread of life (John vi. 35, 41); the broken bread is a symbol of the broken body of Christ, and the wine is a symbol of the shed blood of Christ. The act of eating and drinking is a symbolic act, signifying that the participation in an atonement can be obtained only through an essential union with the atoning sacrifice. This idea lay typically in the passover, for the death of the paschal lamb was not sufficient; the slain lamb was to be eaten. The life of every Israelite was spared at the first celebration of the passover; and at every subsequent celebration he was made a partaker of all the blessings of the covenant by means of eating and assimilating the lamb, whose blood was shed for his atonement. As the death of the paschal lamb was only a type of Christ's death, so the eating of the lamb was a type of that vital union which is to subsist between the believer and Christ who died for him. The typical lamb entered, as material food, into a mere bodily union with the Israelite; Christ, the true propitiatory sacrifice, on the other hand, enters into a personal, spiritual union with the soul, so that he becomes our head, and we his members. That our Lord does not mean, by the partaking of bread and wine, an actual eating and drinking of his glorified blood and body, but an appropriation of the benefits of the atonement made by him, he had