thus his "peculiar," "holy," and "elect" people, were entitled to all the privileges and promises of that covenant, though it rested with each individual to make a good or an ill use of these advantages. The Lord was ready to perform his part, if they would perform theirs; but if they refused this, still they were not allowed to draw back from the engagement, but incurred the heavier judgment for their disobedience. The rebellious were not permitted, as they desired, "to return into Egypt," but were cut off in the wilderness.

And the infants of the Israelites were admitted into this covenant by the rite of circumcision, at the age of eight days; though they were, of course, then, incapable of immediately enjoying or understanding their privileges. If this had been sufficiently attended to, it might have obviated the difficulties that have been raised from the consideration that such as are baptized in infancy cannot be, at once, nor till they become moral agents, actually influenced by the Holy Spirit; whence it has been inferred by some, that the new birth does not necessarily take place at baptism: while the Anabaptists (who

alone act consistently with these views) contending that we should not put asunder what God has joined together, the sign, and the "inward spiritual grace, or thing signified,"accordingly defer baptism till the party is arrived at years of discretion.

But after all, there is no more difficulty in the case than in one which occurs every day; that of an infant inheriting an estate. He is incapable, at the time, of using or comprehending the advantage; but still it is his; he is not hereafter to acquire the title and claim to it; but he will hereafter become capable of understanding his claim and employing his wealth; and he will become responsible at the same time for the use made of it.

Christians in like manner are called upon at their peril, to make the best use of their advantages, as soon as they become capable of understanding them and if they fail to do this, they are not on that account esteemed as never having been admitted to those advantages, but, on the contrary, incur, on that very ground, the heavier condemnation. What, "know ye not," says St.

Paul,

"that ye are the temple of the Holy Ghost

which dwelleth in you? and if any man defile (p0cipi) the temple of God, him will God destroy," (φθερεί).

It is then, and ever was, a matter of faith, to believe in the continual sanctifying presence of God with his Church; and in "the communion of saints," viz. the participation of all Christians, as far as they will avail themselves of the offer, in the assistance of that Holy Spirit, from which every good and every perfect gift proceeds."

:

Doubtless one of the objects of our Lord, in the institution of the Eucharist, was to remind Christians of this "communion" or fellowship of the Holy Ghost, and to impress it habitually on their minds. For with a view to the mere commemoration of our Lord's sacrifice, and expression of our faith in his atonement, the mere breaking of the bread, and pouring out of the wine, might have been sufficient but the bread and wine, are by Christ's appointment eaten and drunk; in conformity with his declaration, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you:" "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, the same dwelleth in me, and I in him." What then is it of which the devout communicants are really partakers, under the outward symbols of bread and wine? Surely, of the Spirit of Christ; for, "hereby know we that He dwelleth in us, by his Spirit which He hath given us ;" and hence, St. Paul's expression, that we are all made to drink (πoríσonμev, 1 Cor. xii. 13) into one Spirit."

66

This

In this respect our case and that of the early Christians coincide. But there is this point of

This obvious interpretation the Romanists (and afterwards the Lutherans) were led to overlook, partly at least, no doubt, from the habit of keeping too much out of sight the divine unity, and of regarding the Son and the Holy Ghost, too much as distinct Beings; so that to partake of Christ must, they thought, be something different from partaking of the Holy Spirit. Hence they inferred that the communicants received the literal, material, body and blood of Christ; and they accordingly boast that they alone interpret the Scripture declarations not figuratively. There is no need to adduce the well-known refutations of this extravagant doctrine; but there is one answer to it, which is usually overlooked, and which goes to overthrow the foundation of it; viz. that if we could actually receive into our mouths the very flesh and blood of Christ, this could not, of itself, be productive of any benefit to the soul: it might, if God willed it, be the appointed token and means of our receiving such benefit; even as the water of the pool of Siloam was, of restored sight; but it could not itself confer any spiritual advantage, any more than water could cure blindness. It must therefore, after all, be in a spiritual and figurative sense that Christ says, my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed;" if they were literally eaten and drunk, they must still be the sign of something else, represented and conveyed by them. So that the violence done to Scripture and to reason, for the sake of avoiding a figurative interpretation, does not, after all, even accomplish that object.

66

The

difference between the two; that this was not to them, as to us, the great trial of their faith;

The error of transubstantiation, the English Church has guarded against most carefully, by declaring that the bread and wine remain unchanged,-that they are only a sign of Christ's body and blood,—and that it is only "after a spiritual manner" that his body and blood are received by the faithful. But it would have been better perhaps to have added to this, for the benefit of the unlearned, a statement that the bread and wine not only are merely a sign, but are a sign of a sign: i. e. that they represent our Lord's flesh and blood, and that his flesh and blood again are a sign of something else. This is indeed implied, when it is said that Christ's body and blood are "spiritually received," and that it "strengthens and refreshes the soul;" for it is manifest that literal, material, flesh and blood cannot be spiritually received, or refresh the soul. But for the sake of avoiding those vague and confused ideas, which are apt to lead ultimately to the regarding of the Eucharist as a mere memorial, it might have been better to state distinctly what it is that the faithful communicants really partake of. That which strengthens and refreshes the soul of Christians, as bread and wine do man's body, is "the Spirit of Christ," whereby "He dwelleth in us, and we in Him;" for "it is the Spirit that quickeneth; (Swoπolour) the flesh profiteth nothing." John vi. 63. And as it is the soul or spirit of a man that animates (quickeneth) his body, which would otherwise be lifeless; so, Christians, who are, themselves, the figurative body of Christ, are quickened,-receive life and vigour― "strength and refreshment," from the Spirit which dwelleth