is wholly incapable of informing us how the corporeal elements bread and wine produce in those who partake of them feelings of strength and gladness (the antecedents and consequents not being in the same category), we can yet understand that the Creator of all things might by His immediate will attach to those substances such effects, not alone for the sake of man's body, but for the higher purpose of thereby informing his spirit that there is cause for confidence and joy in the broken body of the Lord, and his poured-out blood. This view is justified by the language of St. Paul, where he says, speaking of the Son of God, that "all things were created through him and unto him" (eis auton, Col. i. 16); from which doctrine it may be inferred that our Lord, having regard to the cognizable effects of bread and wine spoken of by the Psalmist, said of bread, "This is my body," and of wine, "This is my blood," because his body and blood, when "spiritually discerned," have the very same effects.

But why did Christ say, "This is my body," "This is my blood"? The answer to this question may be given at once by pointing to a rule in Scriptural teaching, according to which the symbol and the thing symbolized are expressed in identical terms. {34} The Bible must have been read to little purpose by those who have not discovered that this characteristic pervades all parts both of the Old and the New Testament. On this principle, when speaking to the Jews, our Lord made no distinction between his own body and the visible temple at Jerusalem, just because his body was the proper habitation of the Holy Spirit antecedently to, and comprehensively of, the dwelling of the Spirit in any temple made with hands. St. Paul also employs like teaching where he says, "They are not all Israel that are of Israel" (Rom. ix. 6), the first "Israel" meaning God's elect of all nations and times, and the other the Jewish people, by whom the elect are typified. The rationale of this mode of teaching appears to be, that we could not speak, or even think, of abstract verities, such as that Jesus Christ is to us the author of life, and strength, and joy, without perceptions and feelings antecedently derived from external realities; and the more closely abstractions are viewed by the intervention of their necessary objective antecedents, the more exact and effective will be our knowledge. I venture here to express the opinion that all the contention and diversity of views that have arisen about Transubstantiation and the Real Presence are referable to the non-recognition of the above-mentioned principle of Scriptural teaching by symbols, and generally to an inability to understand and rightly interpret the {35} concrete and symbolic language of Scripture. Defect of knowledge in this respect has given occasion to many errors. With regard to the doctrine of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, I am of opinion that the above-mentioned dogmas, and the forms of worship connected with them, which appear to be rightly designated as superstitious, have had the effect of very much keeping out of view the relation of that ordinance to the covenant which, through the death of Jesus Christ, makes immortality sure. Perhaps it should rather be said that the superstitious practices give evidence that "the blood of the new covenant" is not understood.

From the preceding discussion I draw the conclusion that our Lord, in saying of the wine, "This is my blood of the New Testament," expressed the doctrine that his blood (signifying his death) is both the pledge and the means, through faith, of partaking of the joy (signified by the wine) of a new and ever-lasting life. The Testament is new because it contains the promise of a future inheritance under better sureties than those of the old covenant of the Law.

After having thus considered what the Scriptures say concerning death, we have next to inquire what they reveal concerning resurrection. As preliminary to this inquiry, it may be remarked that the foregoing arguments relative to Christ's partaking with us in death, are such as point directly to the conclusion that {36} we shall participate with him in resurrection. In St. Paul's teaching (1 Cor. xv. 12-19) Christ's resurrection and the resurrection of the dead are events so necessarily related that, "if the dead rise not, Christ was not raised up." But the fact of Christ's resurrection was substantiated by so many witnesses, who saw him alive after his death, that we may with certainty infer, according to this doctrine, that the dead will rise. It is, however, to be observed that the argument of the apostle in the passage just quoted is expressly addressed to those who have faith and knowledge, and cannot be adduced in proof of the doctrine of the resurrection of all men. For evidence as to the truth of this doctrine recourse must be had to other parts of Scripture.

For the present purpose it will suffice to cite two remarkable sayings of our Lord, recorded in St. John's Gospel. He first says, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" (John v. 25); and then (in vv. 28 and 29 of the same chapter) he says, "The hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment" (kriseôs). The first passage refers to a partial resurrection, inasmuch as it makes mention of those only who shall hear the voice of the Son of {37} God, and hearing shall live; whereas the other passage asserts that all who are in sepulchres (mnêmeiois) shall hear his voice, and divides these into two classes—those that have done good, who rise to live (the class just before mentioned), and those that have done evil, who rise to be judged. The assertion in vv. 28 and 29 is, accordingly, a revelation respecting the resurrection of all the dead, and is to be taken as comprehensive of the other; so that the class that will partake of "the resurrection of life" are the same as those of whom it is said in the first passage that they will hear the voice of the Son of God and will live. As far as regards the distinction into two classes, this doctrine agrees with that preached by St. Paul, where he affirms that his unbelieving countrymen "themselves allowed that there would be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust" (Acts xxiv. 15). It may here be remarked that it is not necessary to infer from its being said in John v. 28, 29, that "all that are in their graves shall hear his voice and come forth," that all will rise simultaneously. Rather the separate mention in v. 25 of those that hear and live, and especially the assertion that the hour in which these hear is not only coming, but "now is," would seem to apply exclusively to the resurrection of "the just," and to indicate that this resurrection is antecedent to that of "the unjust." However, to settle this question, {38} which is a very important one, recourse will now be had to other passages of Scripture.

On the principle of regarding, for application in this argument, the whole of the Canonical Scriptures as authoritative, it is legitimate to refer to the Book of Revelation for information respecting the resurrection of the dead. Now, in Rev. xx. 5 we have in express terms, "This is the first resurrection." And again, in the next verse, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power." It is evident, therefore, that this is the resurrection of the just, and that those who are thus "blessed and holy" are thenceforth exempt from mortality. This conclusion has a very important bearing on our argument; for, on turning to v. 4 of the same