the closest intercourse with Him, “in whom,” as St. Paul says, "all died." Christ died as representing sinful Humanity, lying under the ban and curse of sin ; though personally standing entirely aloof from it, He identified Himself with our guilt, and took upon Him to answer all charges against us. If now we be one Spirit with Him,—if our union with Him be cemented inwardly by faith, outwardly by ordinance,-we too have in Him really and truly died for sin, and by that death in Christ have endured sin's penalty. The Law, the accusing conscience, the accusing spirit, have in that case no more charge against us,—we may go free. Oh, what a strength in dying to the power of sin may be gathered from this consideration, that in the dear Saviour, with whom we are so vitally and closely united in this blessed Sacrament, we have already died to its guilt! Oh! shall we not long for that union with Him,-union with His Merits, with His Cross, with His Passion, with His Spirit, which faith indeed avails itself of, but which this Ordinance conveys and seals! For this union, be it remembered, is the secret not only of all peace and pardon, but of all strength; and the tighter the bonds of it are drawn, the greater will be our power over indwelling corruption, and the more close and happy will be our walk with God.

LECTURE VIII

OF THE SENTENCES OF ADMINISTRATION

"He that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me."

THE

JOHN vi. 57

HE two sentences with which among ourselves the Communion in either kind is administered, exhibit a little miniature of the position of our Church, combining (as she everywhere does) two different aspects. (or, perhaps, I should rather say, two different elements) of Truth. The former sentence is a prayer: "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee (the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee), preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life," and is the same, with a very slight addition, as that which was used in the Mediæval Church, and is still used in the Church of Rome. The latter is an exhortation,-"Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee; and feed on Him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving;" "Drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful ;"and appeared for the first time in the second Prayer Book of King Edward VI., where it was appointed to be used alone, and to supersede altogether the first

1 The Form in the Sacramentary of Gregory is: "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto eternal life,”— omitting any mention of the body of the communicant. The introduction of the word "body" makes the form more complete, and conveys the important lesson which we have already dwelt upon, as taught us by that clause in the Prayer of Access, “That our sinful bodies may be made clean by His Body.

sentence, which had appeared alone in the first draught of the Prayer Book three years earlier.

It will be observed that the first sentence presents the Sacrament under the aspect of a means of Grace, as a rite, which (under certain assumed conditions) is of a salutary character: "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee,-preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life."

The second sentence, the composition, and substitution of which for the first, is no doubt due to the influence of the Foreign Reformers, Bucer and Martyr, represents the Sacrament under the aspect of a Commemoration, and also recognizes in a marked way the doctrine of the Twenty-eighth Article, that "the Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith."

This last was the only sentence of Administration in the authorized Book of Common Prayer, until the reign of Queen Elizabeth. When her accession gave an opportunity for consolidating the work of the Reformation, which work had been thrown back by the persecutions and troubles of Mary's reign, a Royal Commission was appointed, the leading spirit of which seems to have been Guest, to review the second Prayer Book of King Edward VI., and make such additions and alterations in it as, without compromising Truth, might conciliate different parties in the Church. It was then thought that though the latter sentence contained much and valuable truth, it was by itself liable to the misinterpretation that the Lord's Supper is nothing more than a memorial; that this misinterpre

tation would be precluded by recalling the earlier and equally Scriptural sentence; and that therefore for the future they should both be used together, and coalesce into one formulary. And this arrangement has remained to the present day.

But in this connexion we may mention another historical circumstance connected with these sentences, though it did not issue in any modification or alteration of them. The application of the sentences to each individual communicant separately is ruled by the use in each of them of the singular number: "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee,the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee,-preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life." This individual application of the blessing of the Ordinance was objected to by the Presbyterians at the Savoy Conference. Holding strongly the doctrine of Particular Redemption, they thought that it could not truly be affirmed that for every communicant the Body of Christ was given and His Blood shed. These great privileges they thought could be predicated only of the elect; and they expressed a wish, therefore, that the sentences might be worded in the plural, and that the Minister be not required to deliver the Sacramental elements "into every particular communicant's hand." Their recommendation of pluralizing the words, and using them only once for each body of communicants, is often adopted at present, and (as far as I know) without any Episcopal censure, sometimes from sheer necessity (the communicants being very numerous, and the Ministers only one or two), in which case it is surely very uncharitable, and savours somewhat of a Pharisaical adherence to the letter of the law, to object to it; but sometimes also, I fear, because that mode of admi

nistration is really thought preferable to the mode which is actually prescribed. It may unsettle this preference in the minds of some, and lead them to look with suspicion on this deviation from the ordinary practice, to know that the alteration was first advocated by those who had a direct doctrinal end to subserve by it; and that these divines designed to insinuate, by pluralizing the sentence, the false and deadly error, which deprives the Gospel of half its lustre, and which (in truth) leaves it no Gospel at all for the mass of mankind,—that only for a select few of the human race was the Blood of Atonement shed, and that they only have an interest in the Blessings of Redemption.

What has been said of the history of these sentences furnishes many interesting reflections, which have a practical bearing.

1. It has been often thrown out as a taunt against the Church of England, that the religion embodied in her formularies is a compromise between two conflicting principles. This is an ill-natured way of representing a circumstance, which, looked at in the right light, does credit to our Zion. What is meant by the taunt is, that the Church of England embraces in her system different elements of Truth,-elements which find acceptance with minds of quite different classes. If to embrace these different elements in one system be a compromise, all that we can say in our defence (and surely it is enough) is, that the Holy Scriptures themselves are a compromise also. No candid person will deny that Scripture contains very strong statements on both sides of the Calvinistic and Arminian controversy, on both sides of the Faith and Works controversy, on both sides of the Baptismal Regeneration controversy; nor was there ever any errorist yet who did not appeal,