Matthew 26:27-28

And he took the cup— We learn from Jewish writers, that the wine was mixed with water on these occasions; and from the first fathers, that the primitive Christians adopted this custom. He blessed the cup, according to the usual method mentioned in the note on Matthew 26:20. Hence the cup itself is named the cup of blessing. As the words this is my body, signify, "This is the representation of my body," so the words this is my blood of the new covenant, "this is the representation of my blood of the new covenant." And by the same rule that difficult expression, 1 Corinthians 11:27. Guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, undoubtedly signifies, "guilty of profaning the representation of the body and blood of the Lord." Wherefore Christ's meaning in the passage before us was this, "All ofyou, and all my disciples in all ages, as many as shall believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, must drink of this cup, because it represents my blood shed for the remission of men's sins; my blood, in which the new covenant between God and man is ratified; my blood therefore of the new covenant." Sothatthisinstitution exhibits to your joyful meditation the grand foundation of men's hopes, and perpetuates the memory of the same to the end of the world. Every sacrifice consisted of two parts, of flesh and blood; the most considerable part of the sacrifice was the blood; see Leviticus 17:11 and Exodus 24:8. The first covenant was ratified with blood. It is said of the blood of the sacrifices in the place just quoted from Exodus, This is, or behold the blood of the covenant. See Genesis 6:34. These words of institution relative to the cup, shew, that it is a primary end of this service to bring to the devout remembrance of Christians the death of their Master, as the foundation of the remission of their sins, and, in short, the whole mercy of the new covenant, as founded on the shedding of his blood; therefore they greatly err, who make the keeping up of the memory of Christ's death in the world, as a simple fact, the only end of the Lord's supper. Dr. Doddridge upon this subject observes very well, "I apprehend this ordinance of the eucharist to have so plain a reference to the atonement and satisfaction of Christ, and to do so solemn an honour to that fundamental doctrine of the church, that I cannot but believe, that while this sacred institution continues in the church (as itwill undoubtedly till the end of the world) it will be impossible to root that doctrine out of the minds of plain humble Christians, by all the little artifices of such forced and unnatural criticisms as those are by which it has been attacked. The enemies of this heart-reviving doctrine might as well hope to pierce through a coat of mail with a straw, as to reach such a doctrine, defended by such an ordinance as this, with any of their trifling sophistries." Another able writer has observed as follows: "Strange have been the inferences which the Romanists have pretended to draw from these and some other passages of Scripture of the like import; namely, that the elements of bread and wine are each of them actually transubstantiated into the whole natural body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ; but it may reasonably be asked, why these persons endeavour to impose such an unwarrantable signification on the above terms, while at the same time they deny that other parts of the sacred writ, which are expressed in the like words, (see 1 Corinthians 12:27. Ephesians 1:22.) can ever be admitted to have any such meaning. However, to speak more directly to the point, certain it is, that the above doctrine cannot be contained in the places under consideration, as it is impossible to be true in the very nature of the thing. This must evidently appear, from the following absolute contradictions, which, among many others, the transubstantiation in question necessarilyimplies, and towhich it is obvious the most unlimited power can never give a being:—that the same numerical body which has invariably existed for more than eighteen hundred years, does often at this time begin to be;—that the body of Christ is formed out of a particular substance, which never had a being till many centuries after the said body had unchangeably existed in full perfection;—that the body aforesaid does at once exist in its own proper form, and not in its own proper form; that the said body is at one and the same moment of time both greater and less than itself, (the size of an ordinary man, and yet no larger than a grain of sand:) that the above body is remote and distant from itself; that it is where it is not; that it is at once plainly seen and not seen by the same persons; that it is in real motion, while at absolute rest; that it comes where it was not before, and never comes to such place at all; that it is always in a glorified state, incapable of the least injury or defilement, and yet is sometimes not only eaten by the most contemptible vermin, but likewise totally immersed in the worst filthiness." These observations abundantly demonstrate the falsehood of the tenet above mentioned; and with regard to the phrases, this is my body—this is my blood, it is to be observed, that they are figurative; their precise meaning is, "This is symbolically, representatively, interpretatively, my body—my blood." Thus, 1 Corinthians 10:3 manna is affirmed to have been spiritual meat, and water spiritual drink, and the drinkers of the same are said to have drank Christ; that is, not literally, but symbolically, and in divine construction. In Exodus 7:1. Moses is declared to have been made a god to Pharaoh, that is to say, representatively. So Matthew 19:6 man and wife are asserted to be one flesh; that is to say, are considered in that view by Almighty God. In 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Corinthians 6:17 he that is joined to the Lord, is affirmed to be one spirit (with him); that is to say, in divine estimation; and

1 Corinthians 12:27 the church is said to be the body of Christ, and the several individuals which compose it, members in particular; that is to say, not corporeally so, but mystically, according to the established rules of the Christian oeconomy. The doctrine therefore contained in the passages under examination is, that by divine appointment the sacred elements do, in their use, actually signify, stand for, and represent the body of Christ as broken upon the cross, and his blood as shed there for our sins. Such is the true interpretation of the foregoing controverted sentences; which at the same time that it corresponds with the analogy of faith, is likewise agreeable to the sentiments of the best divines, both primitive and reformed. See Waterland on the Eucharist, ch. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.