H 
 
 ■ !'•' ' 
 
 
 {in. 
 
 111! 
 
 nir; 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 lilt i 
 
 MM 
 
 ma' 
 
 H 
 
 
 m 
 
 nir 
 
 Mir 
 
 on; 
 in; 
 OH' 
 MIC 
 Mill 
 
 Ujit 
 
 III! 
 
 mi; 
 
 ;• : ; 
 
 | 
 [ 
 
 
 MM 
 
 Mii: 
 
 I!M 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 nil 
 
 MM! 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 Hfl 
 
 
 
 III) 
 mi 
 in; 
 
 Ml! 
 
 dm 
 
 MlM 
 
 MM: 
 Mm; 
 MM) 
 mm: 
 
 hi;; 
 Mi: 
 Mir 
 
 IMM 
 
 [ 1 
 
 !'; 
 
 i •-, 
 
 
 HHBBj 
 
 1 
 
 nnlinii. 
 J jijpiin- 
 iiimfin 
 
 IMItllljl 
 
 ii :;:m i 
 
 iiini'Hii 
 
 . 3 
 
 1 
 
 MMMMM ; 
 
 iiiiimi: 
 
 ... ,, 
 
 | 
 
 ! 
 
 n 
 
 j 
 
 L 
 
wm 
 Si 
 
 IBE 
 
 4 ■■ 
 
 ■*;■ 
 
 m 
 
 J LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.) 
 
 j ^^ ... Al 
 
 UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. 
 
 2 <%^<^<^ W^W^^^^^^^^^^^^l 
 
 I 
 
 
 MJ^M 
 
THE 
 
 4HURCH: 
 
 WAY OF JUSTIFICATION; 
 
 HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 IN THREE DISCOURSES. 
 
 Ret. K GREENWALD, D.D., 
 
 PASTOR OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE HOLY 
 TRINITY, LANCASTER, PA, 
 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 LUTHERAN BOOK STORE 
 
 No. 117 North Sixth Street. 
 18 76, 
 
 
Tub Library 
 Congress 
 
 of 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 v>- 
 
 ^1*° 
 
 **&1 
 
 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1876, 
 
 By E. GREENWALD, 
 
 In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 
 
 SHERMAN & CO., PRINTERS, 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 
gggjf -w#s§ 
 
 PEEFACE. 
 
 These Discourses, delivered on several occa- 
 sions of public interest in the Church, are here 
 presented in a permanent form, in the hope 
 that they may not be unproductive of good re- 
 sults, in aiding our church members to give an 
 answer to the inquirer, concerning the Church 
 we love, the Faith we hold, and the Holy Com- 
 munion we receive; and in promoting, above 
 all else, the glory of our dear Lord Jesus 
 Christ, of whose Church we are members, by 
 whose "Righteousness we are justified, and in 
 whose Holy Sacrament we have blessed fellow- 
 ship with His own divine life. 
 
 Lancaster, Pa., 
 
 October 31, 1875. 
 
 E. G. 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH.* 
 
 "I speak concerning Christ and the Church."— Eph. 5 : 32. 
 "Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old com- 
 mandment which ye had from the beginning."— 1 Johx 2 : 7. 
 
 Much stress is laid by the members of the Church 
 of Eome upon the question of the True Church, 
 and very properly, too, for the question is one of 
 great importance. It is not a matter of indiffer- 
 ence whether we belong to the True Church, or 
 not. Every one is interested in learning the marks 
 of the True Church, and none should rest satisfied 
 to be in any other than the True Church. 
 
 The question of the True Church has had very 
 great prominence given to it, of late, in the minds 
 of Christians, both in Europe and America. The 
 
 * Preached in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Centreville, Pa., Rev. 
 B. F. Apple, Pastor, October 31, 1874. 
 
 (5) 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 discussion of it is met with in the ponderous volume, 
 in the winged tract, and in the weekly paper. I 
 have met with it in numerous instances, among 
 educated and uneducated persons, when visiting 
 in different, and quite opposite, sections of a very 
 large parish. The question has, in every instance, 
 been urged upon the attention of our members by 
 their neighbors belonging to the Church of Rome. 
 In every instance, they have asserted that theirs 
 alone is the True Church ; that ours is not the 
 True Church; that they are safe because they 
 belong to the True Church ■ and the effort is in- 
 sidiously and persistently made to cause our mem- 
 bers to feel unsafe and dissatisfied because they do 
 not belong to the True Church. So often has this 
 question come to my attention, of late, as to leave 
 the conviction on the mind that it is a part of a 
 general and well- matured plan of operations by 
 which to attack the Church of the Reformation. 
 I feel that the question deserves attention, and 
 ought to be met in a thorough and candid discus- 
 sion of it, for the information of our members, and 
 to enable them to parry the attacks made upon 
 their faith and their Church, It is particularly an 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 appropriate theme on a centennial occasion such 
 as this,* and in view of the anniversary of the 
 Reformation by Luther, which the Church always 
 celebrates on the 31st of October. It is, at such a 
 time, very timely and very appropriate to inquire 
 into the reasons why we believe that we are the 
 True Church of Christ. I shall discuss the theme 
 with my accustomed earnestness and plainness of 
 speech, but whilst I do so firmly, I shall not forget 
 to do it kindly. 
 
 I shall speak, as on such an occasion I have a 
 right to do, of the Lutheran Church. It is the 
 Church of the Reformation. For many years the 
 Augsburg Confession was the only Protestant 
 Confession that was everywhere recognized as 
 such. The Protestant Church was the Lutheran 
 Church. It is much to be regretted, for the credit 
 and for the interests of Protestantism, that the 
 Augsburg Confession was not everywhere retained 
 as the only Protestant Confession, and the Church 
 of the Reformation the only Protestant Church, 
 
 * The occasion on which this discourse was preached was the Centen- 
 nial Festival of the Lutheran Church, at Centreville, held during the 
 week including the 31st of October. 
 
g THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 so as now, and always, to present a united front 
 to the powerful hierarchy of the Church of Rome. 
 But whilst I shall speak of the Church of the 
 Reformation directly, and defend its claims to be 
 the True Church, I feel that I am defending the 
 claims of our common Protestantism that holds 
 true Christian faith, cultivates true Christian life, 
 and practices true Christian duties. I am sorry 
 that I must say, in all candor, that not all that 
 calls itself Protestant, possesses this character. 
 There is some Protestantism that is very un- 
 sound in doctrine, and that preaches quite another 
 Gospel than that which Christ, and Paul, and 
 Luther preached. It is a species of semi-infidelity, 
 boasts itself of its rationalism, and makes human 
 reason, and not God's Word, the rule of its faith. 
 It takes away the divinity from Christ, and re- 
 nounces salvation by the atonement on the cross; 
 is proud, sensational, worldly, unchurchly, un sac- 
 ramental, schismatical, and human. It professes 
 to be Protestant and free, but it is no credit to 
 either Protestantism or true liberty. It has done, 
 and is doing, more to lead some men to conclude 
 that Protestantism is a failure, and the Reforma- 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 tion a mistake, than all the efforts of either Eo- 
 raanists or Infidels. In, therefore, offering argu- 
 ments in behalf of the Church of the Reformation 
 as being the True Church, I do not include such a 
 spurious Protestantism as this. On the contrary, 
 whatever I may think of the claims of the Church 
 of Rome to be the True Church, I am sure that 
 this spurious, half-infidel Protestantism, is not the 
 True Church. 
 
 In order that we may have a proper compre- 
 hension of the whole subject, we must first inquire, 
 What is the~Church ? 
 
 The answer is : "The Church is the assembly of 
 all believers among whom the Gospel is preached 
 in its purity, and the Sacraments are administered 
 according to the Gospel/' 
 
 This is the definition given in our Augsburg 
 Confession, and it is the true one. The Greek 
 word is "Eeclesia," and means an assembly, a con- 
 gregation, a community, a convocation of people 
 called out from the rest of mankind. Ek, kaleo, 
 means called out, and was used by the Greeks to 
 mean the same as our words convoke, or called 
 together. It is, therefore, rightly called in our 
 
JO THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 Augsburg Confession, "An assembly." As there 
 are many assemblies, or organizations of different 
 sorts, it next tells us what kind of an assembly it 
 is. It is an " Assembly of believers." 
 
 The Church must, of course, be an assembly " of 
 believers.'' It is not an assembly of unbelievers 
 of any sort. The kind of believers that constitute 
 the Christian Church must, of course, be Christian 
 believers; believers in Christianity, believers in 
 Christ, believers in the true Gospel, believers in 
 the true doctrines of the Word of God. All such 
 believers in the faith and doctrines of Christ, and 
 that associate together as confessors of that faith, 
 compose the True Christian Church, 
 
 The essential characteristics of a True Church, 
 according to this definition, is that " the Gospel 
 must be preached in its purity, and the sacraments 
 administered according to the divine institution." 
 
 1. There must be the true doctrine. 
 
 Impure doctrine makes an impure Church, There 
 cannot be a sound Church if the faith is unsound. 
 Soundness of the faith, and soundness of the 
 Church, are absolutely identical and necessary to 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. \\ 
 
 each other, A Church, like a home, is constituted, 
 not so much by the bricks and timbers of the 
 house, as by the people that inhabit it. If a Church 
 was a sound Church whilst it held sound doctrine, 
 it may, and will, become an unsound Church if it 
 becomes unsound in the faith. A Church is a true 
 Church if it holds true doctrines. If it holds false 
 doctrines, and tolerates unchristian practices, it is 
 a false, and not a true Church. It is the nature 
 of the faith, and of the practice that flows from 
 that faith, that constitutes the nature of the 
 Church. It is true or false, just as its faith and 
 practice are true or false* The Jewish Church, in 
 the time of Abraham, and Moses, and David, and 
 Isaiah, and Daniel, was a true Church, but In the 
 time of the Pharisees, when it crucified the Saviour, 
 and persecuted the apostles, it was no longer a true 
 Church. The Churches in Asia Minor were true 
 Churches when Peter wrote to them his first 
 Epistle, and could speak of them as " elect of 
 God" " having faith unto salvation/' "being be- 
 gotten again unto a lively hope," " having a faith 
 more precious than gold," " being built up a spirit- 
 ual house on the chief corner-stone, elect, precious/' 
 
12 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 which is Christ. But those of them were no longer 
 true Churches, when, in his second Epistle, he was 
 compelled to denounce their " false teachers," their 
 " damnable heresies/' their "denying the Lord that 
 bought them," their " having eyes full of adultery," 
 " that could not cease from sin;" and to call them, 
 " Cursed children, which have forsaken the right 
 way, and are gone astray, following the way of 
 Baalim son of Bosor." The Church at Eome was 
 a True Church, when Paul was its pastor, and 
 such saints as Priscilla and Aquila, Andronicus 
 and Junia, Tryphena and Tryphosa, and Urbane, 
 and Apelles, and Narcissus, and Persis, and Eufus, 
 and a host of others, true believers, and sound 
 Christians, were its members. But it ceased to 
 be a True Church when the Infidel Leo X. was 
 Pope, Tetzel was seller of indulgences, forgive- 
 ness of sins was sold for money, justification by 
 works was substituted for justification by faith, 
 the worship of Mary superseded the worship of 
 Christ, penance took the place of repentance, 
 and the grossest corruption prevailed everywhere 
 among popes, priests, monks, nuns, and people. 
 For a Church to be true, its faith, and practice, 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 13 
 
 and religious life must be true. If these are false, 
 and untrue, and corrupt, it ceases to be a true 
 Church. Every one can understand, and must 
 admit, the force of these facts, and the conclusive- 
 ness of these reasons. 
 
 2. This definition of the True Church requires the 
 Sacraments to be rightly administered. 
 
 There must be the true number, the true doc- 
 trine concerning their nature, and they must be 
 rightly administered to the proper persons. They 
 are two and not seven, as to their number. They 
 have each two elements, an earthly and a heav- 
 enly, or a visible and invisible, that are not 
 changed into each other, but remain two natures 
 whilst constituting one Sacrament, and, therefore, 
 there can be no transubstantiation. They must 
 be administered to all the communicants alike, in 
 both kinds, to the laity as well as to the priest, 
 so that all that commune receive the complete 
 Sacrament. We commit an unwarrantable inno- 
 vation upon Christ's institution if we add five 
 Sacraments to the two which he instituted. We, 
 with unwarrantable presumption, change one of 
 
14 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 the Sacraments altogether if we take away the 
 bread, or which is the same thing, transubstantiate 
 it into the substance of the body of Christ, so as 
 to leave no bread whatever remaining. And we, 
 with censurable boldness, defraud the congrega- 
 tion of a part of the Sacrament when we take 
 from them the cup and give them the bread only. 
 In all these respects the Sacrament is not rightly 
 administered according to the institution and pat- 
 tern of Christ, the divine Founder of the Church. 
 The True Church adheres most strictly, in all 
 points, to Christ's institutions, because the Sacra- 
 ments are vital to the very existence of the Church. 
 That Church ceases to be the True Church that 
 lays its presumptuous hands upon the holy insti- 
 tutions of Christ, and changes their number, their 
 nature, their elements, or their subjects. 
 
 This definition of the Church, as laid down in 
 our venerable Augsburg Confession, is so certainly 
 sound and correct, that no opponent, however dis- 
 posed, can by any possibility refute it. Sound 
 doctrine and the divine sacraments, truly believed, 
 and professed, and held, and practiced, as Christ, 
 the great Head of the Church, has himself taught, 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 15 
 
 and ordained, and commanded, and instituted them, 
 are necessary to constitute the True Church. A 
 great and powerful external organization called a 
 church, does not constitute a true Christian Church, 
 if the true faith, and the true sacraments, and true 
 Christian life, are wanting. Every one who gives 
 the subject the smallest consideration will admit 
 the correctness of this position. 
 
 Mohammedanism is not the True Church. Why 
 not? Not for the want of a large and powerful 
 external organization, that is just about as old as 
 the Pope of Eome. Mohammedanism has its pope, 
 called the Caliph, who is the " acknowledged suc- 
 cessor of Mohammed, and is invested with supreme 
 dignity and power in all things relating 1 to religion 
 and civil polity." As the Pope claims to be the 
 vicegerent of Christ, and the visible head of the 
 Christian church on earth, so the Caliph claims to 
 be the successor and representative on earth of 
 Mohammed as the Prophet of God. and the head 
 of the church of all good Mussulmans. The Caliphs 
 claim their dignity, and power, and position, al- 
 most in the very words in which the Pope claims 
 his. And their organization is immensely vast 
 
16 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 and powerful, for there is very little difference 
 between the number of adherents of the Caliph 
 and that of the Pope. But this external organi- 
 zation, and headship, and numbers, and powerful 
 claims, do not constitute Mohammedanism the 
 True Church. Why not? The answer is plain. 
 It has not the true faith, nor the right sacraments, 
 nor the correct practice. 
 
 We may cite a very apposite case much nearer 
 home. Mormonism claims to be the True Church. 
 It has its pope, its organization, its members, its 
 ordinances, and is such a wealthy and powerful 
 institution, that it has been able to defy the laws 
 and government of the United States. But Mor- 
 monism is not the True Church. Why not? The 
 answer is plain. It has not the true faith, nor the 
 right sacraments, nor correct practice. These 
 constitute the True Church, and where they are 
 wanting, the True Church is wanting; and no 
 organization of whatever kind, that has not the 
 true Christian faith, nor the true Christian sacra- 
 ments, nor the true Christian practice that results 
 therefrom, is the True Christian Church. 
 
 We must distinguish between the nature of 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. YJ 
 
 things. Mere names and outward appearances 
 are not enough. We must go into the interior of 
 all institutions, whether civil or religious, and 
 ascertain what are their principles, their nature, 
 their real character, and we must judge them 
 from what they really are. 
 
 Let us now go more into detail, in the examina- 
 tion of the claims of the Church of the Refor- 
 mation, to be the True Church, as over against 
 the Church of Rome. It must be borne in mind, 
 that we are not the aggressors in this contest, nor 
 are we taking the offensive; but we are acting 
 strictly on the defensive, and are asserting claims 
 that are being denied and called in question every 
 da} T . We are simply maintaining our right to 
 exist, in answer to those who are everywhere — 
 in public and in private — denying that we have 
 any right to live. If our claim to be the True 
 Christian Church cannot be maintained, then we 
 ought not to live. A false or untrue Church has 
 no right to exist. 
 
 What, then, are our claims to be the True 
 Churcli ? 
 
18 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 1. We are the True Church, because we have the 
 True Head of the Church, 
 
 There is, and can be, but one Head of the 
 Christian Church. That Head is Christ. It is a 
 divine and not a human Head. JSTo man can be 
 the Head of the Christian Church. It is a divine 
 institution, and, therefore, must have a divine 
 Head. It cannot have two heads, the one divine 
 and the other human. This would be a two- 
 headed monster, and not the True Christian 
 Church. Nowhere has Christ given us the least 
 intimation that He has appointed any human 
 head, any vicegerent, any representative man, 
 any one to act in His stead on earth, as the Head 
 of the Church. He occupies that position, and 
 He alone; and He has nowhere announced that 
 He has vacated that position, or given that honor 
 to another. It is contended that Peter was made 
 the head of the church, and that his successors 
 are the earthly representatives of Christ. But 
 the well-known, and oft-quoted, passage, says 
 nothing of the kind. " Thou art Peter, and on 
 this rock I will build my Church." Even if we 
 gran the interpretation which our Eomish friends 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 19 
 
 put upon it, the passage says nothing of the kind. 
 It speaks of "Peter," but it says nothing of his 
 successors. It speaks of a "rock" on which the 
 church will be " built," but the rocky foundation 
 is a very different thing from the " head" of 
 the Church. The passage says nothing about a 
 " head." The builder is the head, not the founda- 
 tion on which he builds. Even if Peter was meant 
 personally, and he was called the rock on which 
 the Church was to be built, it would only say, 
 what is elsewhere said, that the Church is " built 
 on the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being 
 the chief corner-stone " It would only say that 
 the Church is founded on the doctrine of Christ 
 and his apostles, which we all believe, and which 
 none disputes. Even then, allowing the popish 
 interpretation of this passage, it says nothing 
 whatever of a human head of the Church — of a 
 vicegerent of Christ on earth — of a pope to whom 
 the whole Christian Church in the world must be 
 subject^ and without whom there is no True 
 Church. But even this cannot be allowed. 
 
 It will be interesting to my hearers to learn 
 what is said on this passage by intelligent and 
 
20 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 candid Eoman writers themselves. It is well 
 known, that the decree of the Infallibility of the 
 Pope, voted by the council that held its sessions 
 in Rome a few years ago, has met with much 
 opposition from intelligent Roman Catholics them- 
 selves, such as Dr. Bollinger, Hyacinthe, Reinkens, 
 and others. Several of the most learned of its 
 opponents within the Romish Church have pub- 
 lished a w^ork entitled u The Pope and the Coun- 
 cil, by Janus/' It is a work of great ability. I 
 know you will give your closest attention, whilst 
 I quote from it the following passage, p. 74. " Of 
 all the fathers [of the first GOO years after Christ, 
 p. 76] who interpret these passages in the Gospels, 
 Matthew 16, 18 — John, 21, 17— the words of Christ 
 to Peter, not a single one applies them to the Roman 
 bishops as Peter's successors. How many fathers 
 have busied themselves with these texts, yet not 
 one of them, whose commentary we possess — 
 Origen, a. d. 230 ; Chrysostom, a. d. 370; Hilary, 
 a. d. 360 ; Augustine, A. d. 390; Cyril, a. d. 350 ; 
 Theodoret, a. d. 400 — and those whose interpreta- 
 tions are collected in catenas, has dropped the 
 faintest hint, that the primacy of Rome is the 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 21 
 
 consequence of the commission and promise to 
 Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock, 
 or foundation on which Christ would -build His 
 Church, of the office given to Peter to be trans- 
 mitted to his successors; but they understood by 
 it either Christ himself, or Peter's confession of 
 faith in Christ, or both together. Or, else they 
 thought Peter was the foundation equally with all 
 the apostles — the twelve being together the foun- 
 dation stones of the church. (Eev. 21 : 14, — : And 
 the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and 
 in them the names of the twelve apostles of the 
 Lamb.') The fathers could the less recognize in 
 the power of the keys, and the power of binding 
 and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of 
 the Eoman bishop, inasmuch as — what is obvious 
 to any one at first sight — they did not regard a 
 power first given to Peter, and afterwards con- 
 ferred in precisely the same words on all the 
 apostles (Matthew 16:19; 18:18) as anything 
 peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of 
 Eoman bishops." 
 
 So far the book from which I quote. It is not 
 often that we meet with such candid statements 
 
22 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 as these; and it proves that the truth of history 
 will force itself to be heard from the lips of candid 
 and intelligent men, who love truth more than 
 party. It establishes the position with which I 
 set out, that whilst we refuse to acknowledge the 
 jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, we are, never- 
 theless, the True Church, because we have Christ, 
 the true Head of the Church, and are built upon 
 the true foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
 Peter among the rest. 
 
 2. We are the True Old Church, because we have 
 the True Church succession. 
 
 Luther was not a schismatic, nor is the Lutheran 
 Church a sect. The Church of the Reformation 
 is the true and proper development of the true 
 Christian Church life, and in the way of the True 
 Church succession. The true old Church arose, at 
 the Reformation, out of the errors and corruptions 
 that had loaded it down for ages, and shaking 
 them off, appeared the same old True Church, 
 cleansed and purified. The Reformation was not 
 a revolution so much as it was a development. 
 Lather did not create the times, but the times 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 23 
 
 created Luther. Washington did not make the 
 American Revolution, but the Revolution made 
 Washington. The country called for Washington, 
 and he came. So it was not Luther that made 
 the Reformation so much as the Church oppressed, 
 and groaning, and struggling to rise, wanted a 
 suitable leader to help it up, and God raised the 
 true man of the times, that the times called for. 
 It was the Church itself that did its own reform- 
 ing. If the Church had not been struggling up 
 from beneath its grievous oppressions, Luther could 
 have done nothing, and his feeble voice would 
 never have been heard, or would soon have been 
 drowned and forgotten. In all great movements 
 in Church or State, there is, first, the condition of 
 things that is ripe for the movement, and then the 
 right man in the right place, is always found to 
 lead the movement and give it direction and suc- 
 cess. Such was the glorious Reformation of the 
 16th Century, known as the Lutheran Reforma- 
 tion. 
 
 It was not the rising up of one man, or a few 
 men, or of one or a few Churches, in one place or 
 a few places. But it was the spontaneous rising 
 
24 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 up of hundreds and thousands of men, of whole 
 nations of Churches; and when the rule, and the 
 errors, and the corruptions in doctrine and prac- 
 tice of Rome and its pope were cast off, the regular 
 routine of Church life moved on almost as unin- 
 terruptedly as if nothing had occurred to disturb 
 the even progress of affairs. 
 
 There was no breaking of the succession in the 
 ministry, in the Church organizations, in the ordi- 
 nation of pastors, in the preaching of the Word, 
 in the participation of the Sacraments, in the ad- 
 ministration of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, or 
 in any of the regular public and private acts of 
 Christian Church life. In most of the parishes of 
 Germany, the same pastors that had ministered 
 to the congregations under papal rule, renouncing 
 the pope and the errors of popery, remained still 
 the pastors of the same people who had become 
 Protestant. Their successors were educated, or- 
 dained, and appointed as they had been, and the 
 succession thus continued has remained to this 
 day. 
 
 This is particularly true as regards the countries 
 of Sweden, of Denmark, and of Norway. Here 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 25 
 
 the whole nation, as by one act, cast off the juris- 
 diction of the Pope of Borne, and the Churches 
 and pastors, almost as one man, embraced the 
 Beformation. No break in the succession occurred 
 anj r where. The succession was as regular as 
 when one wave succeeds another; as when one 
 joint of the wheat stem follows another; or as when 
 the child is born to his father, and inherits the 
 father's name, and the father's homestead. It was 
 the spectacle of three entire nations of Churches 
 rising and casting off the foul yoke that, not God ? 
 but man had imposed on them, and then moving on 
 in its purified Church life, as if nothing wonderful 
 had occurred. It was the same old Church, the 
 same line of descent, the True Church afterward 
 as before, much more the True Church afterward 
 than before, because it had cast off what had been 
 false and untrue, and its faith and practice were 
 now the pure truth of God. 
 
 So too, we may cite the case of the Church of 
 England. The 39 Articles and the Liturgy of the 
 Church of England are almost transcripts of the 
 Augsburg Confession and the Lutheran Liturgies. 
 Archbishop Cranmer was in constant correspon- 
 
26 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 denee with Melanchthon, and earnestly invited 
 him to England, and Melanchthon would have 
 gone to England if the Elector of Saxony would 
 have permitted him. Both the Articles and the 
 Liturgy of the Church of England are mainly 
 Lutheran. Here, too, there was no break in the 
 succession. By one act the entire nation cast off 
 the popish rule, and then moved on as it had done 
 before. Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and Church 
 members were the same persons the day after, that 
 they had been the day before. The stream, it is 
 true, rippled a little at the spot, and from a crooked 
 channel it turned into a straight one, but it was, 
 nevertheless, the same stream. It was the old 
 stream that had run on from the time that God 
 started it, and there was no break in the succes- 
 sion of its waters. It was the True Old Church, 
 truer because of the Reformation than it had been 
 before. It lost by the Reformation, not one ele- 
 ment of the True Church, but gained a much 
 stronger element of truth than it had possessed 
 before. 
 
 We are, therefore, the True Church, because we 
 have the true succession. The succession has not 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 27 
 
 been interrupted. There has been no break in it. 
 It is the same living tree, with its roots grounded 
 away back in the good soil of Jesus and the apos- 
 tles. It is the same living stream that started in 
 the pool under the temple in Jerusalem. It is the 
 same life which God breathed into its nostrils; it 
 never ceased to breathe, and it breathes with more 
 vigorous and healthy life since the Eeformation 
 than it did for centuries before. 
 
 3. We are the True Church because we have the 
 true faith. 
 
 We have the same old Apostles' Creed, says 
 Luther, in his admirable and well-known disser- 
 tation on the True Church, the old faith of the 
 old Church that has been held, believed, repeated, 
 and confessed from the beginning. Nothing has 
 been taken from it, and nothing added to it; but 
 we repeat it now as it was repeated from the time 
 of the death of the last of the apostles. Our chil- 
 dren are baptized in it now, as they were then. 
 Our Catechumens ratify it at their Confirmation 
 now, as they did then. And in our stated Sunday 
 services we repeat it, at morning and at evening 
 
28 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 worship, now, as it was then. We hold to every 
 article of it, and suffer no innovation therein. 
 All our subsequent confessions, and catechisms, 
 and symbols are only the full and complete de- 
 velopment of this old Apostles' Creed of the 
 Church catholic. We are, therefore, the True 
 Church, because we hold the true old faith of the 
 Apostles' Creed, which the True Church has held 
 from the beginning. 
 
 With the old True Church we also have the 
 Nicene Creed ; and in it, with this holy church 
 through the centuries, we profess our faith in 
 " One Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son 
 of God — begotten of His Father before all worlds — 
 God of God— Light of Light — very God of very 
 God — begotten, not made — consubstantial with 
 the Father, by whom all things were made." In 
 these noble words we utter our faith and hope 
 when partaking of the Holy Supper, in which He, 
 who is the Life of the world, gives Himself to us 
 for the nourishment of His own divine life in our 
 souls. As the True Catholic Church in all ages 
 has confessed this faith, we who belong to the 
 same have not ceased to confess it. We are, 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 29 
 
 therefore, parts of the body of true orthodox con- 
 fessors, and members of the True Church, the 
 conservator of our holy faith, by which we must 
 be saved. 
 
 We also hold, with the true old church of the 
 fathers, the Athanasian Creed, as the third chief 
 symbol, in which we confess concerning the God- 
 head, the true doctrine of the Unity in Trinity, 
 and Trinity in Unity, of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost; and concerning the Son of God, 
 " who although He be God and man, is yet not 
 two, but one, Christ — one, not by conversion of 
 the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the 
 humanity into God — one altogether — not by con- 
 fusion of substance, but by unity of person." We 
 have and hold this true faith as it has been held 
 and professed by the True Holy Catholic Church 
 in all the years of its purity; and, therefore, hav- 
 ing the True old Faith, we belong to the True old 
 Church of Christ. 
 
 And we have the Augsburg Confession, which 
 is the true and consistent development of the true 
 old faith of the true old church. In it, we have 
 not brought forth another faith, or changed any 
 
30 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 part of the old true faith, but have only, thereb} 7 , 
 corrected the errors, and rectified the abuses, by 
 which pope and priests had for so long a time cor- 
 rupted the True, Holy Church of the Fathers. In 
 no one point of doctrine have we, in this noble 
 Augustana, departed from the faith of the Holy 
 Catholic Church of the first centuries, but the 
 greatest and most successful care has been taken, 
 in the words themselves of this Magna Charta of 
 Protestantism, "in order that it might be the 
 more clearly perceived, that by us nothing is 
 received, either in doctrine or ceremonies, which 
 might be contrary to the Holy Scriptures, or 
 opposed to the universal Christian Church. For 
 it is clear, indeed, and evident, that with the 
 greatest vigilance, by the help of God, we have 
 been careful that no new or ungodly doctrine 
 insinuate itself, spread, and prevail in our 
 churches." We hold, therefore, and cherish the 
 one old true faith, of the true old church, which 
 was proclaimed in the beginning, and have neither 
 added anything to it, nor taken anything away 
 from it; and, consequently, having the true old 
 Faith, we have the True old Church of God. 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 31 
 
 4. We are the True Church, because ice have the 
 True, Old, Apostolic, Christian Baptism. 
 
 By Baptism we are incorporated into Christ, 
 made members of His Church, translated from the 
 Kingdom of nature into the Kingdom of grace, 
 made subjects of Christ's Kingdom, and heirs of 
 the heavenly inheritance. An unbaptized person 
 is not a member of the Christian Church. By 
 Baptism, as the divinely appointed initiatory Sac- 
 rament, a person is initiated, or brought into the 
 Church. This has always been so, and it is so 
 now. In all mission ary operations, as well as in 
 the regular parochial routine of home Church life, 
 it is Baptism that initiates old and young, upon 
 whom it is administered, into the Church. It was 
 so with the first candidate that was baptized by 
 Peter and the other apostles, on the day of Pente- 
 cost, and it is so with the child, or the adult that 
 has been baptized to-day. Being baptized with 
 water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, it is made a member of Christ, and of the 
 Christian Church. Not man's rite nor an ordin- 
 ance appointed by Pope or Council, but God's own 
 holy Sacrament makes us members of His Church. 
 
32 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 We are all so baptized. All our forefathers were 
 so baptized before us. In regular, unbroken suc- 
 cession, with no defective link, our baptism goes 
 up from the present members of the Church, to the 
 first members that were baptized on the day of 
 Pentecost. It is not a new Baptism, invented by 
 us, or by Luther, or invented in our day, or at the 
 time of the Reformation, but it is the "selfsame 
 old Baptism instituted by Christ, and in which the 
 Apostles, the primitive Church, and all Christians 
 after them, have ever been baptized to this day." 
 — Luther. Were they thereby made members of 
 the True Church ? So are we. It is the Baptism 
 of the old primitive Church, it has the same effi- 
 cacy now as then; it is administered in the same 
 way, in the same name, and initiates now as then, 
 into the same old, primitive, apostolic, true, Chris- 
 tian Church. 
 
 5. We are the True Church because we have the 
 true Lord's Supper. 
 
 We have the same two elements, the one earthly, 
 and the other heavenly — the earthly being bread 
 and wine, and the heavenly being the body and 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 33 
 
 blood of Christ — as Christ himself constituted it. 
 We take bread and wine as Christ did, and we say, 
 " Take, eat, this is my body/' and " Take, drink ye 
 all of it, this is my Blood," as Christ said. We 
 believe too, as his disciples believed, as he himself 
 taught us, and as they also teach, that " the cup 
 w T hich we bless is the communion of the blood of 
 Christ, and the bread which we break is the com- 
 munion of the body of Christ." We take Christ's 
 words as he uttered them, and we believe that 
 which they express. We do not attempt to ex- 
 plain them otherwise than according to their plain 
 and obvious meaning, nor do we fritter away their 
 force, by giving them an interpretation which 
 makes them a mere figure of speech. It is, what 
 Christ himself has made it, and as Luther in his 
 Small Catechism declares it to be, " The true body 
 and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the 
 bread and wine, given unto us Christians to eat 
 and to drink, as it was instituted by Christ him- 
 self." We retain, too, the whole sacrament, for 
 whilst we receive the body of Christ, we do not 
 destroy the bread, as the false doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation necessarily does. Neither do we 
 
 3 
 
34 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 give to the lay members of the Church, only a part 
 of a Sacrament, as they do who withhold the cup 
 from the people. Of these false doctrines, and of 
 these impious innovations, the old primitive Church 
 knew nothing, but held and administered the Sac- 
 rament of the Lord's Supper as we now hold con- 
 cerning it, and as we now administer it. We say, 
 therefore, with Luther, " We have the Holy Sac- 
 rament of the Altar even as it was instituted by 
 Christ himself, and as it was used by the Apostles, 
 and by all Christendom after them," until the 
 Church of Eome corrupted it. " We have intro- 
 duced nothing new therein," but have the same 
 old, pure, true body and blood, under the true 
 bread and wine, as the apostles, and the true, old 
 Church of Christ, always had. 
 
 6. We are the True Church because we have the true 
 ministry. 
 
 We have the old, twofold call to the ministry. 
 First, of God — " For no man taketh this honor 
 unto himself, but he that is called of God as was 
 Aaron/' Secondly, of the Church, for when the 
 first congregation numbered only one hundred and 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 35 
 
 twenty members at Jerusalem, and there was a 
 vacancy in the apostleship occasioned by the death 
 of Judas, they all "gave forth their lots, and the 
 vote fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with 
 the eleven apostles." Christ, who has instituted 
 the office of the ministry, and who, with the other 
 "gifts" which He "gave unto men when He as- 
 cended up on high," included "pastors and teachers 
 for the edifying of His body," the Church, still calls 
 men into this holy office, and has so called them 
 from the beginning. And the Church, too, which 
 is the congregation of believers, having the keys 
 of the kingdom given to it, and its members being 
 " a royal priesthood," has the power, and has ever 
 exercised it, to call and ordain ministers to preach 
 the Gospel, and to administer the holy Sacraments. 
 This twofold call, which the old True Church had, 
 we still have, and have always had. We have, 
 therefore, the true ministry of the True Church. 
 But we accept no lordly pope as vicegerent of 
 Christ on earth, for Christ appointed none, and the 
 True old Church knew of none. Nor do we submit 
 to a despotic hierarchy, that puts all ecclesiastical 
 
36 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 power into the hands of corrupt and tyrannical 
 bishops and priests, by which men's consciences 
 are oppressed, their liberties destroyed, and both 
 the Church and the State are made captive to the 
 outrageous pretensions of vain and proud men who 
 arrogate to themselves the power and infallibility 
 that belong to God only. Such an oppressive hier- 
 archy Christ did not institute, and the True old 
 Church knew nothing of. As to ministerial suc- 
 cession, we have the true, regular succession, for 
 from the ordinations of the apostles, down through 
 all the centuries to our own immediate times, there 
 has been no break or interruption of the succession 
 in the ranks of the ministry. If the ministry in 
 Germany, and Sweden, and Denmark, and Norway, 
 and England, was a regular ministry up to the time 
 of the Eeformation, their successors through the 
 three centuries since must be also regular, for the 
 succession passed from one to the other in the same 
 regular way, and with the same twofold call. We 
 have, therefore, the true, old ministry, and the 
 True old Church of the apostles and prophets, 
 among whom the line of succession began. 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 37 
 
 7. We are the True Church because we have the 
 real old keys. 
 
 Christ gave the keys of the kingdom, or Church, 
 not to Peter only, but .to all the apostles; and not 
 to one only, but to all of their successors, with 
 authority to use them to open or to shut the 
 Church to men. By this is meant the power to 
 admit into the Church worthy persons, and to ex- 
 clude unworthy persons from it. The notion that 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to 
 one man, and that man the Pope of Pome, for him 
 to open and to shut the kingdom of heaven to 
 whom he will, was never held until the year A.D. 
 845, when it was foisted upon the Church by a 
 wicked forgery, known in Church History as the 
 "Isidorean Decretals/' It is directly opposed to 
 the Word of God, which tells us that Jesus gave 
 the power to bind and to loose, to all the apostles : 
 Matth. 18 : 18. It is an outrageous imposition, and 
 has been made the pretext for the worst tyranny, 
 the most high-handed oppression, and the crudest 
 injustice, on the part of the Pope of Eome, that 
 the world ever witnessed. " We have the real old 
 keys, and use them/' says Luther, to open the 
 
38 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 kingdom to believing and penitent sinners, and to 
 shut against unbelievers and hardened offenders, 
 "as Christ instituted and designed them, and as 
 the apostles and all Christendom have used them 
 unto this day. As, therefore, we have the keys 
 and their use, with the old Church, we are the 
 selfsame old Church," " We make no new keys," 
 nor impose a new yoke, such as neither the Church 
 nor the apostles imposed, nor our fathers were able 
 to bear : neither do we use these keys, which were 
 intended only for spiritual uses, to dethrone kings, 
 and burn and slay with fagot and stake, with tor- 
 ture and gibbet, as in the days of popish power. 
 But we use them as the old Church did, to admit 
 worthy men into, or to exclude unworthy men 
 from, Christ's Church or spiritual kingdom, as the 
 old Church did ; by the command of the Lord. We 
 have, therefore, the old, true apostolic Church, be- 
 cause like the old, true, and apostolic Church, we 
 have the real old keys, and use them as the old, 
 true, and apostolic Church used them. 
 
 8. We are the True Church because we have, and 
 hold, the true Word of God. 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 39 
 
 God's Word is the only rule of faith and practice 
 for men. It is the only infallible guide and teacher. 
 Man may err, but God can never err. We are di- 
 rected to go " to the law and to the testimony, and 
 if we speak not according to this Word, there is 
 no life in us." Neither is it man's Bible, but God's 
 Bible. The force of a plain passage of God's Word 
 is sought to be evaded by the flippant reply, "Yes, 
 so it reads in your Bible/' as if we had made the 
 Bible. No, it is God's Word, and not man's word, 
 and we have it in our hands, just as Christ spoke 
 it, and the apostles wrote it, and the old primitive 
 Church read it, and all Christendom, from that 
 time to this, believed and practiced it. Like them, 
 we ground our faith on God's Word, we believe 
 nothing that it condemns, and we reject nothing 
 that it reveals. We have it pure and true as it 
 came from the mouth of God himself, in the very 
 words in which He inspired it, and clothed with 
 infallible divine authority. " We/' says Luther, 
 "teach it diligently among us, without any addi- 
 tion of new or human doctrines, even as Christ 
 himself commanded and taught it. and as the 
 Apostles and the primitive Church always did. 
 
40 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 We invent nothing new, but continue steadfastly 
 to hold to the old Word of God, as the old Church 
 had it. We are, therefore, the real old Church, 
 and as the one and the same old and true Church, 
 we believe and teach the same old and true Word 
 of God." 
 
 9. We are the True Church, because we have the 
 true cross, and the way of salvation by it. 
 
 We have not the wooden cross, and Christ on a 
 crucifix, but the real and true cross, and a living 
 Christ who was crucified, but who is risen again, 
 and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and 
 ever liveth to make intercession for us. We adore 
 not so much the cross, as we adore Him who was 
 crucified on it, and bore our sins, and cleanseth 
 us from all sin by His blood. We do not take 
 Christ off the cross and put our own merits, and 
 works, and penances, and righteousness instead of 
 His. IN either do we displace Christ from his 
 office of intercessor for us with the Father, and 
 put Mary and the saints in His place. But count- 
 ing, with St. Paul, as dung all our own merits, 
 and works, and righteousness, we make mention 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 41 
 
 of Christ's righteousness, and His only; and east- 
 ing down at the foot of the cross all our vanity, 
 and pride, and self-exaltation, all hope of salvation 
 by any and all human means and methods, all 
 saintly intercession, all purgatorial purification, 
 all works of supererogation, all merit secured by 
 bodily penances and mortifications, we look up 
 to Christ crucified for us, as our wisdom and 
 righteousness, our sanctification and redemption, 
 our all in all, everything we need for our justifica- 
 tion before God, and our inheritance of the bliss 
 of heaven. This is the only and the old way of 
 salvation for the world. It was the way of Paul 
 and of Peter, and of all the apostles, and of the 
 primitive church, and of all Christendom in its 
 purest and best state. With the old church we 
 confess, " that there is no other name given under 
 heaven among men whereby we must be saved, but 
 the name of Jesus," alone. With the old church we 
 declare, " God forbid that we should glory, save in 
 the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ," With the 
 old church we testify, " Knowing that a man is 
 not justified by the works of the law, but by the 
 faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in 
 
42 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the 
 faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, 
 for by the works of the law shall no flesh be 
 justified." So believing, and so trusting, and so 
 confessing, we are of the True old Church of 
 Christ, in which we have salvation and eternal 
 life, by the abundant grace and mercy that flow 
 to the humble believer from the cross of Christ. 
 
 10. We are the True Church, because in it we have 
 the true happy deathbeds of the saints. 
 
 This is the great final test. In the True Church 
 we have peaceful deathbeds. The grace which we 
 therein receive takes the sting from death, and the 
 terror from the grave. We therein learn how to 
 die, as well as how to live. With the True old 
 Church we can say, in the language of her sainted 
 martyrs, "I have fought a good fight; I have 
 finished my course; I have kept the faith; hence- 
 forth there is laid up for me a crown of glory, 
 which the righteous Judge shall give me at that 
 day." With the old True Church we can exclaim, 
 with her dying saints, u O death, where is thy 
 sting? O grave, where is thy victory? Thanks 
 
THE TRUE CHURCH. 43 
 
 be to God which giveth us the victory, -through 
 our Lord Jesus Christ." In this good old church 
 the purest devotion has always been cultivated, 
 and has flourished from the first; the holiest, and 
 most self-denying, and most eminently useful lives 
 have been everywhere exhibited ; and the sweet- 
 est, happiest, and most blessed, deathbeds are 
 constantly witnessed. If we are not safe in this 
 church, we are not safe anywhere. If this is not 
 the True Church, there is no true church. If in 
 this church the soul cannot find rest and peace, 
 there is no rest nor peace for it anywhere on the 
 earth. If in this church the soul cannot be fitted 
 for heaven, it is in vain to hope for such fitness in 
 any other. Particular^, with this pure faith, and 
 these blessed sacraments, and this sure way of 
 justification, and this ancient order, and this right 
 practice, in this True Church, at the head of which 
 sits in glorious majesty our divine Lord Jesus 
 Christ, I would not entertain the thought, even 
 for a single moment, of exchanging my chances of 
 salvation for a place in the church at the head of 
 which sits the Pope of Eome. 
 
 I have Christ's church. I am sure of it. Christ's 
 
44 THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 church is the True Church. With Christ at the 
 head of it, I know I am safe. I would not feel 
 safe in a church with a man at the head of it. 
 Even though he claim to be infallible, I have no 
 proof of it; but many proofs to the contrary. I 
 am satisfied, therefore, to remain where I am ; and 
 I would not exchange my faith and hope for any 
 that the Church of Rome can offer me in their 
 stead. With the great and good Luther, at the 
 Diet of Worms, I must now and always say, and 
 with the same positiveness and feeling of certainty 
 with which he said it, — "Here I stand; I cannot 
 do otherwise. God help me :" Amen. 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, 
 
 * 
 
 "The just shall live by faith."— Roar. 1 : 17. 
 
 Our text furnishes us with a theme that is emi- 
 nently appropriate both to the place and to the 
 occasion. This house has been erected as a Chris- 
 tian Church, and we are assembled on the occasion 
 of its solemn consecration. This has just been 
 formally done, in the presence of the congregation, 
 by whose pious zeal its walls have been reared. It 
 has been dedicated as a Christian Church, for the 
 preservation and furtherance of the Gospel of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. It is declared to be distinct- 
 ively a Lutheran Church, in which " the doctrines 
 of Christ may be preached according to the Con- 
 fessions of our Evangelical Lutheran Church, His 
 
 * Preached at the consecration of the Church of the Holy Communion, 
 J. A. Seiss, D.D., Pastor, February 17, 1875. 
 
 (45) 
 
46 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 holy Sacraments rightly administered, and His 
 religion handed down to the latest generations." 
 Chief among the doctrines of our holy Christianity, 
 and prominent before all others in the Confessions 
 and history of the Lutheran Church, is the doc- 
 trine of Justification by Faith. The doctrine of 
 Justification by Faith in the atonement for sin 
 effected for us by the obedience unto death of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, distinguishes Christianity from 
 all other religions in the world. And the doctrine 
 of Justification by Faith alone, was the turning- 
 point of the Reformation ; it was the experience 
 of its necessity and efficacy in the heart of Martin 
 Luther that constituted his best qualification for 
 the work of the Reformation ; and as it distin- 
 guished the Lutheran Church from the Church of 
 Rome, so it has come to be regarded as the dis- 
 tinguishing mark of separation between Protes- 
 tantism and Romanism. Of all the texts, too, that 
 announce the doctrine, that which I have named 
 at the head of this discourse did as much, perhaps, 
 as any other single passage, to give shape both to 
 the experience and to the theology of the great 
 Reformer. During the spiritual conflict of his soul 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 47 
 
 at Erfurt, and his terrible sickness at Bologna, and 
 bis eventful visit to Rome and his effort there 
 to ascend St. Peter's staircase on his knees, these 
 words of Paul, like a ray of light from heaven, dis- 
 persed from his mind both spiritual doubt and 
 Romish superstition. It is eminently suitable, 
 therefore, that the doctrine of Justification by 
 Faith, which this text announces, should be taken 
 as the subject for consideration in the first dis- 
 course, following the dedication sermon this morn- 
 ing, in a house designed by its founders to be " Ein 
 Feste Burg/' for the propagation and defence of 
 the doctrines of the Reformation. 
 
 " The just shall live by faith." 
 
 Let us, first, enter briefly into an exegetical ex- 
 amination of this passage. The entire verse reads 
 —"For therein" — L e., as expressed in the preced- 
 ing verse, in "the Gospel of Christ which is the 
 power of God unto salvation to every one that be- 
 lieveth" — "For therein is the righteousness of 
 God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, 
 The just shall live by faith. " This is quoted from 
 Habakkuk 2:4. 
 
48 JUSTIFICA TION BY FAITH. 
 
 The life, expressed in the words " shall live/' is 
 undoubtedly eternal life. It is the opposite of 
 eternal death. It is explained in the previous verse 
 as "salvation," and in the following verse as the 
 opposite of, or deliverance from, " the wrath of 
 God." They that "live" in the sense here spoken 
 of, are saved from the " wrath of God," i. e., from 
 the condemnation which the law of God denounces 
 upon the transgressor. It is the same life referred 
 to by the apostle in the passage, Rom. 6 : 23, "For 
 the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is 
 eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord." And 
 again, in Eom. 5:21, "As sin reigned unto death, 
 even so might grace reign through righteousness 
 unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." It is 
 also the same life to which Jesus himself refers 
 when he says, John 3 : 16, " For God so loved the 
 world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
 whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but 
 have everlasting life." 
 
 They who thus "live," are here called "the 
 just." This word, as it occurs in this passage, is 
 used in the sense of "justified," A similar use 
 occurs in Job 9:2; where the question is asked, 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 49 
 
 "How should man be just with God?" The 
 import is, "flow should man be justified — pro- 
 nounced just — judicially acquitted before God?" 
 
 To be made just — pronounced just — justified be- 
 fore God— is asserted in the text to be " by faith/' 
 It is not on account of any innocence possessed, or 
 works wrought, by the person, that he is declared 
 to be "just," — not on account of any merit in him, 
 bat by " faith " in a merit outside of him. As faith 
 and works are always placed in opposition to each 
 other by the apostle, when speaking of the way of 
 salvation, his intention here, as elsewhere, is to 
 teach that a man is "just with God" by faith as 
 distinct from works, or by a righteousness other 
 than his own, and that is reckoned to him by faith 
 as the instrument of its appropriation. 
 
 This righteousness which is appropriated by 
 faith, and on account of which the man who be- 
 lieves is pronounced "just," and the effect of which 
 is that he " lives," i. e. } has eternal life, is in this 
 verse distinctly declared to be "the righteousness 
 of God." " For therein is the righteousness of God 
 revealed from faith to faith, as it is written. The 
 just shall live by faith." It is the same righteous- 
 
 4 
 
50 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 ness which the apostle uniformly mentions as the 
 ground of our Justification. Thus in Bom. 3: 20 
 — 22. " Therefore by the deeds of the law shall 
 no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law 
 is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteous- 
 ness of God without the law is manifested, being 
 witnessed by the law and the prophets. Even the 
 righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus 
 Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe." 
 And in Rom. 10 : 3, 4. u For they, being ignorant 
 of God's righteousness, and going about to estab- 
 lish their own righteousness, have not submitted 
 themselves to the righteousness of God. For 
 Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to 
 every one that believeth." And in Phil. 3 : 9. 
 " That. I may win Christ, and be found in him, 
 not having mine own righteousness which is of 
 the law, but that which is through the faith of 
 Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." 
 The plain import of this passage is therefore 
 this: Man is justified before God, and has eternal 
 life, not on account of his own righteousness, but 
 by faith in the righteousness of God, which is ac- 
 quired for us by our Lord Jesus Christ* We are. 
 
J USTIFICA TION B Y FAITH. 5 1 
 
 just, i. e., justified, by faith, and the effect is, we 
 shall live, or have eternal life. The great theme 
 announced in this precious passage is, 
 
 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 I invite your attention to the discussion of, 
 
 The Nature, 
 
 The Ground, and 
 
 The Means of Justification. 
 
 In the consideration of The Nature of Justifica- 
 tion, it is important that we endeavor to form a 
 distinct conception of the subject, apart from its 
 connection with an}^ other. Among many other 
 benefits, Christianity proposes to do two promi- 
 nent things for man. It proposes to produce a 
 personal change in his moral nature, and to effect a 
 judicial change in his state or relation to the law and 
 government of God. The one we call Sanctification, 
 and the other we term Justification. Sanctifiea- 
 tion is a change of the heart, Justification is a change 
 of state. The opposite of Sanctification is unholi- 
 ness; the contraiy of Justification is condemnation. 
 Sanctification removes the pollution of our moral 
 
52 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 nature occasioned by indwelling sin, Justification 
 takes away the condemnation which God inflicts 
 upon the guilty transgressor of His holy law. 
 Whilst Sanctification is the work of holiness, begun 
 at regeneration, and continuing through life, and is 
 not complete until its subject is perfected in heaven, 
 Justification is a forensic or judicial act by which 
 the Judge acquits from the charge of guilt, and 
 removes the sentence of condemnation that rested 
 upon the transgressor. The two things are essen- 
 tially distinct, and it is of the highest importance 
 to the formation of correct sentiments concerning 
 them, that we keep them separate in our thinking 
 of them. 
 
 Let us examine a few passages in order to ascer- 
 tain whether this distinction between Sanctifica- 
 tion and Justification is recognized in the Scrip- 
 tures, and particularly whether Justification is to 
 be taken in this judicial sense. In Prov. 17: 15, we 
 read, k 'He that juslifieth the wicked, and he that 
 condemneth the just, even they both are an abom- 
 ination to the Lord/' If to justify a wicked man, 
 meant to make him a righteous and good man, it 
 is not conceivable how it could be an abomination 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 53 
 
 to the Lord. It is plain that it means to pro- 
 nounce a wicked man free from guilt or blame, to 
 clear him from, merited punishment, to declare him 
 to be just, righteous, and innocent, notwithstanding 
 his being a wicked man, and thus imports a sort of 
 judicial proceeding. This passage alone is suffi- 
 cient to teach us that Justification is something 
 quite different from Sanctification, and that it 
 evidently does not mean the making of a man 
 morally righteous. The making of a man morally 
 righteous must necessarily take place, but that is 
 the work of Sanctification ; Justification means 
 something else. 
 
 Let us take another passage. In Job 9 : 2, 3, we 
 read : "How shall man be just with God? If he 
 will contend with him, he cannot answer him one 
 of a thousand.'' Here the word "just" is used, 
 not in reference to personal character, but to in- 
 dicate the judicial relation of man with God. If 
 God will "contend,' 1 i. e., enter into a trial with 
 man, as a criminal is tried by his judge, as he can- 
 not answer him, or account for, one of a thousand 
 of his sins, how, therefore, can he be justified, i. e., 
 cleared, or acquitted, or saved from condemnation 
 
54 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 in his sight? The judicial sense of this passage is 
 very plain. 
 
 Take another passage. In Psalm 143 : 2, we 
 read: "And enter not into judgment with thy 
 servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be 
 justified." In this passage, the forensic or judicial 
 sense of the word " justified, v is very clear* The 
 Psalmist prays that God will not enter into judg- 
 ment with him, i. e., call him to account, or sit as 
 a judge on his case, because, being really guilty, 
 and as all men are equally guilty with himself, 
 therefore, neither himself, nor any other man 
 living, can be, in God's sight, justified, i. e., acquit- 
 ted of the charge of sin and saved from the pun- 
 ishment which it deserves. To be justified, and to 
 be acquitted, are here evidently the same thing. 
 
 Those passages in which justification and con- 
 demnation are spoken of as opposites of each other, 
 make this interpretation especially manifest. Take 
 for example, Eom. 5:18, "As by the offence of one 
 judgment came upon all men to condemnation, 
 even so by the righteousness of one the free gift 
 came upon all men unto justification of life." 
 Here, just as condemnation means " the judicial 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 55 
 
 act of declaring one guilty, and dooming him to 
 punishment," as Webster defines it, so justification 
 means the very opposite of that, and imports the 
 judicial act of declaring one not guilty, and saving 
 him from punishment. 
 
 Equally clear is Bom. 8 : 33, " Who shall lay any 
 thing to the charge of God's elect ? It is God that 
 justifieth — who is he that condemneth ?" Here the 
 whole transaction, as indicated by these words, is 
 judicial. We have before us the judge, the tri- 
 bunal, the accuser, the charge brought, the person 
 arraigned, the condemnation sought, the acquittal 
 from the charge, the exemption from punishment. 
 The whole is judicial. The condemnation of the 
 accused by the judge does not make him guilty — 
 he was guilty before, and his condemnation judici- 
 ally fastens his guilt upon him, and sentences him 
 to punishment. So his justification does not make 
 him righteous; the righteousness, on the ground 
 of which he is justified, must be found before, and 
 his justification is his judicial acquittal of the 
 charge, brought against him on the ground of a 
 perfect righteousness that is found to be adequate 
 for his acquittal 
 
56 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 It seems to me that these passages make the 
 nature of Justification plain to the commonest 
 capacity. By keeping clear in our minds the dis- 
 tinction between sanctification, which makes us 
 personally holy, and justification, which is our 
 judicial acquittal of the charge of guilt, and the 
 removal of the condemnation which God's law 
 denounces upon the transgressor, we can have no 
 difficulty in comprehending the nature of both. 
 To use the forcible words of another, " Sanctifiea- 
 tion is the act of God within us, changing our 
 moral nature—Justification is the act of God with- 
 out us, changing our relative state — blessings in- 
 separable^ indeed^ but essentially distinct" 
 
 It may be instructive, as well as interesting, to 
 all present to hear what is said concerning the 
 nature of Justification, by some of the old and 
 learned divines of our Church, as well as the testi- 
 mony of our Confessions themselves. The Formula 
 of Concord, Art. 3, says, "The word to justify here 
 signifies to declare or pronounce just or righteous, 
 and absolved from sins, and to account as released 
 from the eternal punishment of sins, for the sake 
 of the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 57 
 
 to faith by God/' The great Chemnitz says, 
 " Paul everywhere describes Justification as a 
 judicial process, because the conscience of the sin- 
 ner, accused by the divine law before the tribunal 
 of God, convicted, and lying under the sentence of 
 eternal condemnation, but fleeing to the throne of 
 grace, is restored, acquitted, delivered from the 
 sentence of condemnation, is received into eternal 
 life, on account of the obedience and intercession 
 of the Son of God, the Mediator, which is appre- 
 hended and applied by faith." To this clear and 
 lucid statement of the doctrine, Quenstedt, another 
 of our profound divines, furnishes the explicit 
 testimony : " Justification is the external, judicial, 
 gracious act of the most Holy Trinity, by which it 
 accounts a sinful man, whose sins are forgiven on 
 account of the merits of Christ, apprehended by 
 faith, as just, to the praise of its glorious grace and 
 justice, and to the salvation of the justified/' To 
 these statements of the doctrine, we must yet add 
 that of the learned Baier, who says, ''Justification 
 has a forensic sense, and denotes that act by which 
 God, the Judge, pronounces righteous the sinner 
 guilty of crime, and deserving punishment, but 
 
58 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 who believes in Jesus." The testimony of the * 
 Church is uniform with the testimony of the 
 Scriptures. As the Word of God announces the 
 doctrine, so it has been understood and confessed 
 by all the sound divines and faithful members of 
 the Church, from the beginning to the present 
 time. 
 
 Bearing in mind the forensic or judicial meaning 
 of justification, we must next inquire into the 
 nature of the righteousness which constitutes 
 
 THE GROUND OF JUSTIFICATION, 
 
 In order correctly to understand the ground of 
 our justification, we remark — 
 
 1. Justification, or, a judicial acquittal, demands a 
 perfect righteousness as the ground of it. 
 
 The great moral law controls our relation to 
 God and to His moral government of the w r orld. 
 It is the standard of moral duty. Obedience of 
 the law is righteousness; transgression of the law 
 is sin. 1 John 3:4. Righteousness requires a 
 perfect fulfilment of every precept of the' law, 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 59 
 
 and the least violation of any of its precepts is 
 sin, and brings us under its entire condemnation. 
 "He that is guilty of one point is guilty of all," 
 and the denunciation is in these solemn words : 
 " Cursed is every one that continueth not in all 
 things written in the book of the law to do them." 
 This is very clear. It is not needed to break 
 every precept of the law in order to be a trans- 
 gressor of the law. If one precept is broken, the 
 law is broken. An offender in one point is an 
 offender against the whole law. No righteousness 
 is perfect that is not complete in all things, The 
 righteousness on account of which we can be 
 justified before the court of heaven must be per- 
 fect. Nothing less than this is righteousness. In 
 a judicial sense, nothing less than this can be 
 righteousness. As it was in the old law, so it is 
 now, and always will be, in God's court, as in 
 human courts, "If there be a controversy between 
 men, and they come into judgment, that the 
 judges may judge them, then shall they justify 
 the righteous and condemn the wicked. " Deut. 
 25:1. "We are sinners, simply because we have 
 transgressed the law, whether it be only once 
 
60 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 or a thousand times; so we can be accounted 
 righteous only when we may be regarded as 
 having perfectly kept the law." The thief or the 
 murderer suffers the penalty of imprisonment or 
 capital punishment for the violation of but one of 
 the immense number of laws on the statute-book. 
 He may have kept all the others; the transgres- 
 sion of one is enough to condemn him. So says 
 human law, and on this point the law of God and 
 the law of man accord perfectly, and the enlight- 
 ened judgment of all men, in all ages, has pro- 
 nounced it right and just. 
 We remark — 
 
 2. We have not in our hearts and lives a personal 
 righteousness that can constitute the ground of our 
 justification. 
 
 The Scriptures, confirmed by every man's expe- 
 rience, make this point so clear that argument 
 upon it is scarcely necessary. The passages, 
 Horn. 3:10, " There is none righteous, no not 
 one/' and Eom. 3:23, "For all" have sinned and 
 come short of the glory of God/' are complete 
 proofs of it. Equally explicit is the passage, Titus 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 61 
 
 3:5, "Not by works of righteousness which we 
 have done, but according to his mercy hath he 
 saved us." But most conclusive of all are the 
 declarations, Rom. 3: 20, "Therefore by the deeds 
 of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight, 
 for by the law is the knowledge of sin," and Gal. 
 2:16, "Knowing that a man is not justified by 
 the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus 
 Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, 
 that we might be justified b} T the faith of Christ, 
 and not by the works of the law, for by the works 
 of the law shall no flesh be justified." 
 
 Now, the nature of Justification itself, being a 
 judicial acquittal of a person arraigued for crime, 
 makes it very evident that, if we are sinners and 
 have transgressed the law, we can never be justi- 
 fied by our works, for our works are the very 
 things that condemn us. A prisoner, arraigned 
 before the court on a charge of crime, can be 
 acquitted only if his innocence is established; but 
 if guilty, and strict justice is done, he must in- 
 evitably be condemned. Adam, before he fell, 
 could have been justified by works, for he was 
 then innocent and had broken no law. Unfallen 
 
62 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 angels can be justified by works, for they have 
 never sinned. But sinners, being guilty men, as 
 we all are, can never be justified by works, for 
 " How can a man be just with God? If he will 
 contend with him, he cannot answer one of a 
 thousand." If we were holy as Adam before he 
 fell, as nnfallen angels are, or as Jesus, who was 
 without sin, then we might hope to be justified by 
 works; but the fact of guilt "makes justification by 
 works impossible. 
 We remark — ■ 
 
 3. Christ's righteousness is the only ground of our 
 justification. 
 
 The Scriptures uniformly represent that Christ 
 became our substitute and surety, took our place, 
 and acted in our stead, and by His obedience unto 
 death, His doing, and His suffering, He effected 
 for us a vicarious atonement ; and that whosoever 
 believes on Him has His righteousness accounted 
 to him as his own, and stands justified before God, 
 for Christ's sake. Christ's obedience is, therefore, 
 instead of our obedience, and His righteousness 
 instead of our righteousness, in the matter of our 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 63 
 
 justification. The perfect righteousness which Jus- 
 tification requires, and which we so lamentably 
 lack, we find in our Divine Surety, who obeyed 
 the law in our stead, whose righteousness is made 
 over or imputed to us, and in His righteousness 
 we are accepted and regarded as righteous. The 
 law is fulfilled, not by us, but in the person of a 
 representative — "The Lord our righteousness." 
 Jer. 23 : 6. Faith appropriates that righteousness, 
 so that to the believer alone is the vicarious right- 
 eousness of Christ imputed. It is, therefore, called 
 the righteousness of faith, and the entire doctrine 
 is known as the doctrine of Justification by Faith. 
 
 Concerning this doctrine, as thus briefly stated > 
 let us now go to the Word of God, and listen to its 
 testimony : 
 
 In the third chapter of Romans, St. Paul argues 
 this subject at length, in the most able and con- 
 clusive manner. "There is none righteous; no > 
 not one." "Therefore by the deeds of the law, 
 there shall no flesh be justified in His sight.'* 
 "But now the righteousness of God without the 
 law is manifested, even the righteousness of God 
 which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and 
 
64 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 upon all them that believe. For all have sinned, 
 and come short of the glory of God. Being justi- 
 fied freely by His grace through the redemption 
 that is in Christ Jesus. Whom God hath set forth 
 to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to 
 declare His righteousness for the remission of sins 
 that are past, to declare, I say, at this time, His 
 righteousness, that He might be just, and the 
 justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. There- 
 fore we conclude that a man is justified by faith 
 without the deeds of the law." Can anything be 
 more clearly stated, or more conclusively rea- 
 soned? Not any deeds that man doeth, nor any 
 righteousness that man worketh, but the right- 
 eousness of God, the Divine Redeemer of man, is 
 the ground on which his justification or acquittal 
 before God taketh place. 
 
 Now, this is not the only instance in which this 
 doctrine is taught in the Scriptures. It is the 
 general tenor of the apostle's teaching. Let us 
 hear a few additional statements. In Rom. 10: 
 3, 4, he says, concerning his Jewish brethren, 
 "For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, 
 and going about to establish their own righteous- 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 65 
 
 ness, have not submitted themselves to the right- 
 eousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law 
 for righteousness to every one that believeth." 
 
 Hear also Phil. 3 : 9, "And be found in him, not 
 having mine own righteousness which is of the 
 law, but that which is through the faith of Christ; 
 the righteousness which is of God by faith." In 
 1 Cor. 1:30, we read: "But of him are ye in 
 Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wis- 
 dom, and righteousness, sanctification, and re- 
 demption/' In 2 Cor. 5:21, we read: "For He 
 hath made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, 
 that we might be made the righteousness of God 
 in Him." Jeremiah had prophetically said con- 
 cerning Christ, Jer. 23:6, "And this is the name 
 whereby He shall be called, The Lord our right- 
 eousness." 
 
 Now, brethren, we can only conceive of two 
 classes of justifying righteousness. Only tw T o 
 kinds of righteousness, as bearing upon our justifi- 
 cation, are ever spoken of in the Scriptures, and 
 these are our own righteousness and the right- 
 eousness of Christ. These are always placed in 
 direct and positive opposition to each other when 
 
 5 
 
QQ JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 the subject of discussion is justification. See 
 how completely and persistently the antithesis is 
 carried out. " Is one called the 'righteousness of 
 the law/ the other is the 'righteousness of faith/ 
 Is one called by St. Paul 'our own righteousness/ 
 the other he calls the 'righteousness of God.' Is 
 one described as 'by the law/ the other is 'with- 
 out the law/ Is one reckoned to 'him that work- 
 eth/ the other is to ' him that worketh not/ Is 
 the one 'of debt/ the other is 'of grace/ Does 
 one give man 'whereof to glory/ because it is 'of 
 works/ the other 'excludes boasting/ because it is 
 'of faith/ Does Paul 'count all things but loss 
 that he may win Christ, and be found in Him V 
 He has no hope of succeeding till he has first laid 
 aside 'his own righteousness ' as worthless, and 
 put on in its stead the 'righteousness which is by 
 the faith of Christ/ In his view these two are 
 essentially inconsistent in the office of justifica- 
 tion, so that if we trust in the one we cannot have 
 the other; if we 'go about to establish our own 
 righteousness/ it implies that we have not sub- 
 mitted to, but rejected, the 'righteousness of God.' " 
 What, now, is the process ? The sinner stands 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 67 
 
 before God charged with the transgression of His 
 law. He is guilty. He can present no plea of 
 "not guilty." He has committed the deed with 
 which he is charged ; and not only in one instance, 
 but in thousands, for they are more than the hairs 
 of his head, and cannot be numbered. As he has 
 no innocence to offer, and no righteousness to 
 plead, he is under the curse of the law, and awaits 
 the sentence of condemnation from the lips of the 
 Judge. But lo ! a righteousness is found that will 
 save him. Christ his divine substitute and surety 
 has by his vicarious obedience " magnified the law, 
 and made it honorable" — has so fully obeyed the 
 law in his stead, that not one jot or one tittle re- 
 mains unfulfilled; and this His righteousness is 
 now declared for the remission of sins — declared, 
 repeats the apostle, that God "might be just, and 
 the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." He, 
 therefore, that lays hold with the trembling hand 
 of faith upon the Saviour's righteousness, has that 
 righteousness reckoned to him, and in it he stands 
 justified before God. With David, Psalm 71: 16, 
 his faith leads him to say, "I will make mention 
 of thy righteousness, even of thine only;" and the 
 
68 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 righteousness of which he makes mention, and on 
 which he rests his salvation, will not disappoint 
 his hopes. 
 
 We quote the words of another: " Such is the 
 fulness of that meritorious cause of justification 
 unto all who believe, that they are accounted 
 righteous; in other words, righteousness is ac- 
 counted or imputed to them — righteousness as 
 perfect as the merits of the Redeemer, because of 
 those merits it consists — so that to believers God 
 no more imputes sin, than if they had never sin- 
 ned. The numerous passages I have quoted, teach 
 nothing less than that whenever a sinner believes 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ, though his sins be as 
 scarlet, and as numerous as the sands on the sea- 
 shore, the righteousness of Christ, as his substitute 
 and surety, is so perfectly made over to him, that 
 he stands in Him, before God, as having nothing 
 laid to his charge; his sins remembered no more; 
 his justification (not his sanctification, remember,) 
 — his justification as perfect as was that of Adam 
 before he sinned — no more capable of being in- 
 creased than the righteousness of the Beloved in 
 whom he is accepted. This is the fulness of the 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. (39 
 
 glory of our redemption. It is finished. It is 
 finished. 'He that believeth is justified from all 
 things from which he could not be justified by 
 the law of Moses.' Therefore does St. Paul tri- 
 umphantly exclaim, ' Who shall lay anything to 
 the charge of God's elect? It is God that justi- 
 fieth; who is he that condemneth V Such is the 
 blessed doctrine of Justification by Faith, without 
 which, as the standards of the church truly say, 
 < The poor conscience can have no certain hope, 
 nor conceive the riches of the grace of Christ/ " 
 
 The doctrine as thus announced in God's Word, 
 is the doctrine of our Church as laid down in our 
 Confessions, and is also the uniform testimony of 
 our ablest theologians. Says the Apology of the 
 Augsburg Confession: " To be justified here sig- 
 nifies, according to forensic usage, to absolve a 
 guilty man and pronounce him just, but on account 
 of the righteousness of another, viz., of Christ, 
 which righteousness of another is communicated 
 to us by faith." The Formula of Concord, Art. 3, 
 has the following: " Christ's obedience, therefore, 
 not only in suffering and dying, but in His being 
 voluntarily put under the law in our stead and 
 
70 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 fulfilling it with such obedience, is imputed to us 
 for righteousness, so that for the sake of this 
 perfect obedience, which He rendered unto His 
 heavenly Fathei for us, in both doing and suffer- 
 ing in His life and death, Gad forgives us our sins, 
 accounts us as righteous and just, and saves us 
 eternally/' The great theologian, Quenstedt, has 
 this luminous passage : " The form of imputa- 
 tion consists in the gracious decision of God, by 
 which the penitent sinner, on account of the most 
 perfect obedience of another, L e., of Christ, appre- 
 hended by faith, according to Gospel mercy, is 
 pronounced righteous before the divine tribunal, 
 just as if this obedience had been rendered by man 
 himself/' It will be clearly seen how closely these 
 statements of the doctrine harmonize with the 
 utterances of the Word of God, as presented in 
 this discourse. 
 
 The discussion of our subject would be incom- 
 plete, if we did not yet consider more at length, 
 Faith as the 
 
 MEANS OF JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 In the economy of grace, Faith performs a two- 
 fold office. It is, in the soul, the root and spring 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 71 
 
 of all other Christian graces; and, therefore, is the 
 principle of our sanctification. All Christian 
 virtues do spring out of a true and living faith. 
 Good works, as the fruit of a living piety, have 
 their root and source away down in true and sav- 
 ing faith. " Faith without works is dead, 5 ' says 
 the apostle, and a dead faith cannot save us. 
 Faith is the hand that lays hold on Christ, Hebo 
 6 : 18 ; and it must be a living not a dead hand, for 
 a dead hand cannot lay hold. Faith is the eye, 
 that looks to Jesus for salvation, Isaiah 45:22; 
 John 3 : 14, 15; and it must be a living, sparkling 
 eye, for a dead eye cannot look. This office of 
 faith, as the spring whene-e issue the streams of 
 holy and useful deeds, that adorn the Christian 
 character and bless the world, is of very high and 
 essential importance, and must have a very promi- 
 nent place in the teachings of the Church, and in 
 the practical life of every Christian. 
 
 But for the purpose of Justification, faith has 
 another, and different office, which is to be kept 
 very distinct both in our teaching, and in our ex- 
 perience. It is simply the means or instrument of 
 our appropriation of Christ, by which we put on 
 
72 J USTIFICA TION B Y FAITH. 
 
 Christ's righteousness, and lay hold on the promises 
 of salvation in him. Faith is not the ground of our 
 Justification, for this is the righteousness of Christ, 
 nor is there any such merit in the exercise of faith, 
 that we are justified as a reward for the good 
 work or merit of believing. It is simply the in- 
 strument; the hand stretched out, the eye looking, 
 by which we accept and appropriate to ourselves, 
 the merits of the Saviour. In the language of the 
 Confessions of our Church, " It remains the office 
 and property of faith alone, that it alone, and 
 nothing else, is the medium or instrument, by and 
 through which the grace of God, and the merit of 
 Christ, in the promises of the Gospel, are appre- 
 hended, and received, and accepted, and are applied, 
 and appropriated to us, and that love and all other 
 virtues or works are excluded from this office, and 
 property of such application or appropriation." 
 Formula Concord, Art. 3, Just, by Faith. Faith is 
 therefore effectual unto our Justification simply as 
 an act by which we embrace Christ, receive His 
 benefits, appropriate His merits, put on the gar- 
 ment of His spotless righteousness, lay hold upon His 
 promises, cling to His cross, and put our feet firmly 
 upon the rock of our Salvation, which is Christ. 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 73 
 
 It is of the first importance that we keep dis- 
 tinctly separate in our minds, this twofold nature 
 and office of faith. In reference to our Justifica- 
 tion, it is simply the means ; or the instrument of 
 our appropriation of Christ, and His benefits, and 
 that only. "To some it may seem, however, that 
 the difference between these divergent views is 
 too slight to be made of any importance. But we 
 apprehend, it is the point of divergency where lies 
 the unseen origin of those very errors which have 
 for their legitimate issue, when carried out, nothing 
 less than justification by our own righteousness." 
 — Bp. Mcllvaine. 
 
 " In the point of acceptation, " says an old divine, 
 "God hath given to this poor virtue of faith a 
 name above all names. Faith, indeed, as it is a 
 virtue, is poor and mean, and comes short of love. 
 Faith is but a bare hand. It lets all things fall 
 that it may fill itself with Christ. Nothing is re- 
 quired but a bare empty hand, which hath nothing 
 to bring with it; though it be ever so weak, yet if 
 it have a hand to receive, it is alike precious faith, 
 that of the poorest believer and the greatest 
 saint." 
 
74 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 Again. " Faith is simply the hand that takes of 
 the righteousness of Christ, and appropriates it 
 unto us, while laying our sins on the head of that 
 wonderful sacrifice He was for us. It is a hand 
 without price, without desert, a sinful, as well as 
 an empty hand, meriting to be smitten dead for 
 its own defects, and for the sinfulness of him 
 whose hand it is, while as God's appointed means, 
 it puts on Christ, and clothes the sinner in His right- 
 eousness" 
 
 The representation of the instrumental office of 
 faith, by terming it the hand that takes, and the 
 eye that looks, is not only common in theological 
 writers, but is so because authorized by the Word 
 of God. There we are directed both to "lay hold 
 on the hope that is set before us," Heb. 6 : 18, and 
 to " Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the 
 sins of the world," John 1 : 29, and " Look unto me 
 and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth," Isaiah 
 45 : 22. As this taking and looking is not with the 
 bodily hand and eye, it is, of course, with the hand 
 and eye of faith. 
 
 I may fittingly sum up the results of the discus- 
 sion in the forcible words of an eloquent divine. 
 
JUSTIFICA TION BY FA ITH 75 
 
 " By faith we are in Christ Jesus. A weak faith 
 accomplishes this living union as really, though 
 not with so much sensible consolation to the soul, 
 as a stronger faith. But, says St. Paul, there is 
 no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. 
 Now, condemnation is the pi^ecise opposite of jus- 
 tification. Where one is not, the other must be. 
 To impute sin is to condemn; not to impute sin is 
 to justify. If it is unreasonable to speak of God's 
 imputing sin only partially, so that a man shall be 
 accounted as only partly a sinner and partly not 
 a sinner, which is indeed absurd, then it is un- 
 reasonable to speak of God's justifying but partly, 
 or accounting a man in a judicial sense partly con- 
 demned and partly acquitted, which would amount 
 to being partly a child of God, and partly a child 
 of the devil — partly under the penalty of the law, 
 and partly under grace. In precisely the same 
 sense and degree, therefore, in which justification 
 could be progressive, must condemnation be also. 
 But condemnation is not progressive in any sense. 
 It is complete as soon as we sin. A thousand 
 more sins will increase our penalty, but cannot 
 increase the certainty of our condemnation. The 
 
76 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 amount of penalty depends on the amount of guilt. 
 The perfectness or certainty of condemnation de- 
 pends only on the fact of guilt. Just as a dozen 
 acts of theft will increase the amount of the con- 
 vict's penalty ; but in a just administration of law, 
 one act of theft will insure condemnation. So also 
 in justification. Christ's righteousness is set in 
 precise opposition to our sin. Justification depends 
 upon our having that righteousness accounted to 
 us instead of our sin. Faith is the instrument or 
 means that obtains that righteousness. As the 
 first act of sin condemns perfectly, so the first act 
 of faith justifies perfect^. Subsequent acts of 
 faith, and stronger degrees thereof, will increase 
 our sense of consolation in Christ, and our con- 
 fidence of the love of God. and our strength in 
 every walk of Godliness, and will multiply upon 
 our souls for present comfort and spiritual pros- 
 perity all the recompense arising from such growth 
 in grace, just as increase of guilt increases shame 
 and penalty; but all this can no more acquire for 
 us a more perfect justification, than additional 
 guilt would obtain a more entire condemnation. 
 Christ our righteousness is our strong city — -our 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 77 
 
 city of refuge. Once inside the gates, the sinner 
 is safe from the avenger, whether he enter far 
 within or just across the threshold. Christ is the 
 ark. It mattered not, in the days of JSToah, 
 whether those who fled from the flood to the ark 
 were possessed of a strong or a trembling faith — 
 whether during the awfulness of the deluge they 
 all felt assured of protection, or were some of them 
 fearful. Strong or weak in .faith, they had suf- 
 ficient faith to induce them to flee for refuge to 
 the hope set before them. When the flood came, 
 they were found therein. It was enough. All 
 from the very instant of their entrance were alike 
 perfectly secure under the shadow of the Almighty. 
 Continuing in the ark, their safety admitted neither 
 of increase nor diminution. So in Christ. He that 
 wins Christ, and is found in Him, is complete in 
 Him. He may have entered the last hour, or the 
 last century. He may have come doubtful or 
 assured: with a trembling faith or with an assured 
 one. His hand may have reached the refuge with 
 a firm or a feeble grasp. He may have escaped 
 out of the deepest mire of ungodliness, or from 
 having been always not far from the kingdom; 
 
78 JUSTIFICA TION BY FAITH. 
 
 but it altereth not, he is in the ark. God hath shut 
 him in. Who shall lay anything to his charge? 
 It is God that justifieth; who is he that con- 
 demneth ? It is Christ that died, yea, rather that 
 is risen again, who also maketh intercession for 
 us." — Bp. Mcllvaine. 
 
 Indulge me yet in three remarks. 
 
 1. We have in this, subject the great line of dis- 
 tinction between truth and error. 
 
 The doctrine of Justification by Faith is par- 
 ticularly the dividing line between Roman ism and 
 Protestantism. The Reformation of the sixteenth 
 century turned principally on this point. "Luther/' 
 sa}^s Scott, in his " Luther, and the Lutheran 
 Reformation/' " was appointed in the counsels of 
 Providence, by no means exclusively of the other 
 reformers, but in a manner more extraordinary 
 and much superior, to teach mankind, after up- 
 wards of a thousand years' obscurity, this great 
 evangelical tenet, compared with which how little 
 appear all other objects of controversy ! He proved 
 by numberless arguments from the Scriptures, and 
 particularly by the marked opposition between 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 79 
 
 law and faith, law and grace, that in justification 
 before God all sorts of human works are excluded, 
 moral as well as ceremonial. He restored to the 
 Christian world the true forensic or judicial sense 
 of the word justification, and rescued that term 
 from the erroneous sense in which, for many ages, 
 it had been misunderstood, as though it meant 
 infused habits of virtue, whence it had been usual 
 to confound justification with sanctification. By 
 this doctrine, rightly stated with all its adjuncts 
 and dependencies, a new light breaks in on the 
 mind, and Christianity appears singularly distinct 
 not only from Romanism, but also from all other 
 religions, Neither the superstitions of the Papist, 
 nor the sensibility of the humane, nor the splendid 
 alms of the ostentatious, nor the most powerful 
 efforts of unassisted nature, avail in the smallest 
 degree to the purchase of pardon and peace. The 
 glory of this purchase belongs to Christ alone; 
 and he who in real humility approves of, acquiesces 
 in, and rests on Him, is the true Christian." 
 
 These observations of the historian are discrimi- 
 nating and just. 
 
80 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 2. We have in this subject the source of greatest 
 consolation to Christian minds. 
 
 How full of hope and comfort to the heart of 
 the humble believer is the doctrine of justification 
 by faith in Jesus Christ ! " Being justified by 
 faith we have peace with God;" and, of course, 
 peace within our own hearts. When we look at 
 ourselves, we see naught but weakness, imperfec- 
 tions, and sins ; and we justly tremble with ap- 
 prehension for the future; and if we had nothing 
 but our own righteousness to depend on, we might 
 well utterly despair. But when we look away 
 from ourselves, and contemplate the pure and per- 
 fect righteousness of Christ, our divine surety, 
 and consider that His spotless righteousness, being 
 His obedience of the law in our stead, is imputed 
 to us as our own, and that we may stand in it 
 righteous before God, and justified of all our sins, 
 the soul is filled with unutterable peace and joy. 
 We lie at the foot of the cross, and look up to 
 Jesus crucified for us, as all our salvation, and the 
 view gives peace unspeakable. The whole doc- 
 trine is so extraordinary and wonderful, that the 
 Christian is sometimes disposed to think that it is 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. gl 
 
 too good to be true. But no, fellow Christians, it 
 is as true as it is good. 
 
 3. We have in this subject the answer to be given to 
 anxious souls who inquire the way of salvation. 
 
 To the question, " Sirs, what must I do to be 
 saved?" the Apostle Paul gave the answer, "Be- 
 lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be 
 saved;" and, brethren, we have no other answer 
 for that question now. We have the same needs, 
 the same Saviour, the plan of salvation is the 
 same, and the way by which we can procure its 
 benefits is still the same. On account of its won- 
 derful simplicity, it is regarded now, as formerly, 
 by the "Jew a stumbling-block," and by the 
 "Greek foolishness;" but it is still "the power 
 of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." 
 We must, therefore, now as ever, direct the inquirer 
 for the way to heaven to the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 as his " wisdom and righteousness, sanctification 
 and redemption." But, he answers, " I am such a 
 great sinner." We reply, " There is no doubt of 
 it." " I have deserved to be cast away forever." 
 " 'Tis certainly true." " I can do nothing to atone 
 
 6 
 
82 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 for my numerous and aggravated transgressions." 
 " 'Tis plain that you cannot." "What, then, shall 
 I do ?" " Do ! simply, believe on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and trust in the Atonement He has made 
 for you. Believe His word and promise when he 
 tells you that He became your substitute, obeyed 
 the law, and endured its penalty in your stead; 
 and that as your substitute His obedience is your 
 obedience, His righteousness your righteousness, 
 His sufferings instead of your suffering, aod that 
 for His sake, God will treat you as having per- 
 fectly kept the law; and, therefore you will not 
 only be released from the punishment due to 
 transgression, but be entitled to the full rewards 
 of obedience. Do you believe this? If you truly, 
 and with the whole heart, believe it, there is no 
 more difficulty in your case. Your fears will give 
 place to hope, joy will succeed to sorrow, and your 
 soul will be at peace with God, and with itself." 
 
 Indulge me in one remark more. Am I address- 
 ing any who are altogether indifferent as regards 
 their justification, and are impenitent, unbelieving, 
 careless sinners ? Let me affectionately remind 
 you that you are sinning against the highest pos- 
 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 83 
 
 sible exhibition of love and mercy. You are 
 rejecting the way of salvation which the Divine 
 mind has devised, and are exalting your reason 
 above Infinite Wisdom. In resting on jour own 
 merits, and rejecting Christ's justifying righteous- 
 ness, you are casting from you God's method of 
 mercy, and are " hewing out for yourselves broken 
 cisterns that can hold no water." Will you blindly 
 go down to despair, when so much has been done, 
 and all is ready, to raise you to heaven ? 
 
 Cling to the Crucified ! 
 
 His death is life to thee, 
 
 Life for eternity. 
 
 His pains thy pardon seal ; 
 
 His stripes thy bruises heal; 
 
 His cross proclaims thy peace, 
 
 Bids every sorrow cease. 
 
 His blood is all to thee, 
 It purges thee from sin, 
 
 It sets thy spirit free, 
 
 It keeps thy conscience clean. 
 Cling to the Crucified ! 
 
 Cling to the Crucified ! 
 His is a heart of love, 
 
84 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 Eull as the hearts above ; 
 Its depth of sympathy 
 Are all awake for thee ; 
 His countenance is light, 
 Even to the darkest night. 
 That love shall never change, 
 
 That light shall ne'er grow dim ; 
 Charge thou thy faithless heart 
 To find its all in Him. 
 Cling to the Crucified ! 
 
 Cling to the Crucified ! 
 
 His righteousness is thine, 
 
 His works thy plea divine ; 
 
 Thy sins on Him were laid ; 
 
 His soul an offering made ; 
 
 Justice is satisfied ; 
 
 The claims of law supplied ; 
 
 God now will pardon give, 
 And man be justified ; 
 
 He that believes shall live, 
 Since Christ for him has died. 
 Cling to the Crucified ! 
 
gssp^ -rs '"■" '^f^%^,jri5te&se£«K?» 
 
 THE HOLT COMMUNION.* 
 
 "Take, eat ; this is my body."— Matth. 26 : 26. 
 
 "The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the 
 blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion 
 of the body of Christ? "—1 Cor. 10 : 16. 
 
 We propose, as a Synod, and as a congregation, 
 to partake this morning of the Holy Sacrament 
 of the Lord's Supper. It is a most blessed sacra- 
 ment of the Christian Church. We must neces- 
 sarily, as Christians, attach much importance to it. 
 Christ, our Lord, did so, and we, as His faithful 
 disciples, must very highly prize what he solemn- 
 ly instituted. In the Old Testament Church there 
 were two Sacraments, and there are two in the 
 New Testament Church. Circumcision gave way 
 to Baptism, and the Passover to the Lord's Sup- 
 per. Circumcision was received once in a lifetime, 
 
 * Preached before the Evangelical Lutheran Miuisterium of Pennsyl- 
 vania, at Norristowu, Pa., May 23, 1875. 
 
 (So) 
 
86 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 but the Passover often • so Baptism is received 
 only once, but the Lord's Supper often. Circum- 
 cision was administered to children, and the Pass- 
 over to adults; so Baptism is administered to chil- 
 dren , and the Lord's Supper to adults. Circumcision 
 was initiatory and brought the subject into the 
 Church, and the Passover was partaken by the 
 person when in the Church as a regular member 
 thereof; so Baptism brings us into Christ, and 
 translates us from the kingdom of nature into the 
 kingdom of grace, and the Lord's Supper is a 
 Sacrament for those who are already in the 
 Church, and full members thereof. Circumcision 
 denoted the subject's regeneration, or entrance 
 upon a new life of true faith and piety, and the 
 Passover was the sustentation of that life and a 
 reminder of blessings bestowed by the Paschal 
 Lamb; so Baptism is the washing of regeneration 
 and effects the vital union with Christ's life, and 
 the Lord's Supper is the nourishing of that spirit- 
 ual life, and a most blessed remembrancer of the 
 benefits bestowed upon us by the sacrifice of 
 Christ, our true Paschal Lamb, on the cross. Cir- 
 cumcision preceded, and the Passover followed 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 87 
 
 after, and was administered to none who were un- 
 circumcised; so Baptism must be received first, 
 and the Lord's Supper comes after, and is only 
 administered to persons who have been previously 
 baptized. The analogy is complete, and very in- 
 structive, between the two Old Testament and 
 the two New Testament Sacraments, 
 
 The doctrine of the Lord's Supper was very 
 early involved in the great and eventful discus- 
 sions that the Reformation gave rise to. A Sacra- 
 ment so holy, and occupying so prominent a posi- 
 tion in the Christian Church, and that had been 
 so sadly corrupted by the errors against which 
 the entire force of the Reformation was directed, 
 would necessarily early engage a large share of 
 attention, It did so. Luther, at a very early 
 period in the great movement which he inaugur- 
 ated, perceived the error which the Church of 
 Rome held concerning this Sacrament, both as to 
 its doctrine, and as to its practical administration. 
 It consists of two earthly elements, bread and 
 wine. The one only was administered to the 
 laity, the other was withheld, and was partaken 
 by the priest alone. This, of course, was contrary 
 
88 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 to its original institution, by our Lord, who gave 
 it in both kinds. Luther therefore restored it to 
 its original institution, and both administered it 
 himself, and required it to be administered by 
 others, in both kinds. He restored the cup to the 
 people, and thus gave, not a part of the holy 
 Sacrament only, but the whole Sacrament, to all 
 who participated. 
 
 But the change in the external administration, 
 was not the only benefit which accrued from the 
 Eeformation. Its reformatory work descended 
 deeper, and corrected a more vital error, and one 
 that affected the doctrine and life of the Sacra- 
 ment. 
 
 It is well known that the Church of Some held, 
 and still holds, the doctrine known as Transub- 
 stantiation. By this is meant, that after the ex- 
 ternal elements of bread and wine, laid on the 
 altar, are consecrated by the priest, and by that 
 act of consecration, a total change is effected in 
 those elements, so that nothing of their original 
 nature and substance remains, save their outward 
 semblance only. The word Transubstantiation 
 means change of substance, a change of one sub- 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 89 
 
 stance into another substance. The idea is that 
 the entire substance of the bread and wine is 
 changed, and instead of it, another, and a totally 
 different, substance is produced. What was, pre- 
 vious to the act of consecration, simply bread and 
 wine, are such no longer, but are changed — tran- 
 substantiated — into the real flesh and blood, to- 
 gether with the soul and divinity of Christ. It 
 follows, therefore, that as the communicant mas- 
 ticates, swallows, and digests something, and that 
 something is not bread and wine, but the actual 
 flesh and blood, together with the soul and divinity 
 of Christ, these are masticated, swallowed, and 
 digested by the communicant. 
 
 This doctrine of Transubstantiation was rejected 
 by Luther at a very early period. His faithful 
 adherence to the Word of God, as his only Eule 
 of Faith, and directory of Christian doctrine, 
 would not permit him to receive this as an article 
 of faith. The Bible, indeed, speaks of the Body 
 and Blood as a part of the Sacrament, and he 
 honestly, and in full faith, received its statement. 
 But it also speaks of bread and wine, as a part of 
 the Sacrament, both after, as well as before, the 
 
90 THE ROLF COMMUNION. 
 
 consecration ; and he must also receive this state- 
 ment. If he believed, therefore, that the Lord's 
 Supper consisted of the Body and Blood of Christ, 
 he must also believe that it consisted of bread and 
 wine. The one is stated as plainly, and with as 
 much positive directness as the other. He would 
 explain neither away, but accept them both on the 
 same divine authority. He could not believe that 
 it was bread without the Body, and he could not 
 believe that it was the Body without the bread. 
 Both were declared, by the same divine lips, to be 
 present, and to constitute the Holy Sacrament, 
 and he must believe both. The Word of God was 
 clear, and decisive, and left him no alternative. 
 As Transubstantiation set aside the bread, took it 
 away from the Sacrament, changed and abolished 
 its nature, and transubstantiated it into the Body, 
 thus destroying one integral part of the Sacra- 
 ment, and offering only half a Sacrament to the 
 people, Luther did not hesitate to reject entirely 
 the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 
 
 The same earnest adhesion to the statements of 
 the Word of God, would not permit him to reject 
 the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 91 
 
 from the Lord's Supper. Some, in his time, swing- 
 ing off from the gross doctrine of Transubstantia- 
 tion, which made the Sacrament all Body, swung 
 over to the opposite extreme, and made the Sacra- 
 ment all bread. In their view, it was nothing but 
 bread eaten, and wine drank, in a sort of com- 
 memorative representation of Christ's death on 
 the cross, But Christ, when instituting it, had 
 positively said, " This is my body." He took 
 bread, blessed it, still calling it bread, but at the 
 same time pronounced it His Body, Here was a 
 most solemn transaction, done in the most solemn 
 manner, uttered with the most solemn words, and 
 performed at a most solemn time. He must be 
 supposed to choose His words with great care, and 
 with direct reference to their plain import, because 
 He was instituting an ordinance that was to be 
 observed in all coming time, as the chief Sacra- 
 ment of His Church. His words, therefore, must 
 be well weighed, and must be accepted in their 
 true and obvious meaning. 
 
 It was, therefore, plain to Luther's mind, that 
 the Lord's Supper consisted of two kinds of ele- 
 ments, an earthly and a heavenly, both of which 
 
92 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 were necessary to constitute the Sacrament. The 
 earthly was bread and wine, the heavenly was the 
 Body and Blood of Christ. The earthly was not 
 a Sacrament without the heavenly, neither was 
 the heavenly a Sacrament without the earthly. 
 The bread and wine alone, did not constitute a 
 Sacrament, neither did the Body and Blood of 
 Christ alone, constitute a Sacrament. Therefore, 
 neither must be changed. The bread must not be 
 changed into the Body, neither must the Body be 
 symbolized merely by the bread. Both must be 
 there in their true and real nature, or there is no 
 Sacrament. 
 
 Conclusive as are the words of our Lord at the 
 institution of the Holy Sacrament, they receive 
 confirmation from the clear and positive state- 
 ments of the Apostle Paul. 
 
 In 1 Cor. 10 : 16, St. Paul asks, " The cup of 
 blessing which we bless, is it not the communion 
 of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we 
 break, is it not the communion of the body of 
 Christ." This passage is written in the form of 
 questions, and in such a way that there can be 
 only one, and that an affirmative, answer given to 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 93 
 
 them. To the question, " Is not the cup of bless- 
 ing the communion of the blood of Christ?" the 
 answer necessarily must be, yes. And to the 
 question, " Is not the bread which we break, the 
 communion of the body of Christ ?" the only 
 answer that can be given, and that he intended 
 should be given, is, yes. The one is the commu- 
 nion of the Blood, and the other is the commu- 
 nion of the Body, of Christ. 
 
 Now, what is meant by the word "Communion," 
 as it twice occurs in this verse ? We can only 
 rightly understand the meaning of the verse, and 
 the nature of the Lord's Supper, by carefully con- 
 sidering the meaning of this word. As the cup, 
 or the wine that it contain s, is the " Communion " 
 of the Blood, and the bread is the " Communion" 
 of the Body, of Christ, the question is of essential 
 importance, What is that "Communion?" The 
 Greek word, here translated " communion," is the 
 word " xoivutvta" and the dictionaries define its 
 meaning by the words "community, sharing, par- 
 ticipation, partaking, connection, communication, 
 distribution, alliance," and others of the like gen- 
 eral import. The idea plainly is, as stated by the 
 
94 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 learned Bengel in his Gnomon on this passage. 
 " He who drinks of this cup, is a partaker of the 
 blood of Christ/' and he who eats of this bread 
 is a partaker of the body of Christ. It is the 
 channel, or vehicle, or medium of conveyance, by 
 which as the earthly or visible element, the heav- 
 enly or invisible element is imparted to the com- 
 municant, and received by him. It means, he who 
 partakes of the cup, partakes of the Blood; he 
 who partakes of the bread, partakes of the Body. 
 This is the meaning of the word Koinonia, here 
 translated "Communion." The verse might be 
 translated, " When we use the cup of blessing 
 which we bless, do we not also partake of the 
 Blood of Christ? When we use the bread which 
 we break, do we not also partake of the Body of 
 Christ?" This idea of participation, partaking, 
 communication, must be well borne in mind, if we 
 would rightty comprehend the deep and precious 
 meaning of the passage. 
 
 But this is not alh In 1 Cor, 11 : 27, the Apostle 
 Paul says, '" Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this 
 bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, 
 shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 95 
 
 Of course, disrespect to the bread and the wine, 
 could not involve disrespect to the Body and Blood 
 of the Lord, unless in some way, the Body and 
 Blood of the Lord were connected with the bread 
 and the wine. As it is the Sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper about which he speaks, this connec- 
 tion of the bread and wine with the Body and 
 Blood, is the same as that which, in the previous 
 chapter, he had called " the Communion of the 
 Body and Blood of Christ." The disorderly Cor- 
 inthians were led to treat the Lord's Supper with 
 disrespect, and to eat and drink the bread and 
 wine in gluttonous and drunken excess, because 
 they failed to consider that there was more than 
 bread and wine in the Sacrament, and that another 
 and a divine element was also present, viz., the 
 Body and Blood of Christ, The Apostle, there- 
 fore, with much earnestness, pointed out their 
 guilt, which consisted not simply in treating bread 
 and wine with disrespect, but in treating with 
 contempt the higher, even the divine element of 
 which it consisted. They became guilty of shame- 
 ful abuse of the Bod}^ and Blood of the Lord. The 
 Body and Blood of the Lord must, therefore, be 
 
96 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 there. These must then necessarily bo a part of 
 the Sacrament, and give it its value, and consti- 
 tute its divine character. Disrespect to bread and 
 wine couid not be the crime here charged upon 
 the Corinthians, if the Body and Blood of Christ 
 were not present, and did not form a part of the 
 Sacrament. How could they be guilty of the 
 Body and Blood of the Lord, by any unworthy 
 eating and drinking of bread and wine simply ? 
 Whilst this verse then, clearly teaches the presence 
 of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Com- 
 munion, it also teaches that there is no Transub- 
 stantiation, for the bread is still called bread, and 
 what the Apostle calls it, that it undoubtedly is. 
 The two elements, constituting one Sacrament, are 
 both distinctly named. Both are there. The one 
 is not destroyed by being changed into the other. 
 The Body of Christ is a part of the Lord's Supper, 
 but the bread is also. There is no Transubstan- 
 tiation. 
 
 But this is still not all. In 1 Cor. 11 : 29, the 
 Apostle says. " For he that eateth and drinketh 
 unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to 
 himself, not discerning the Lord's Body." How 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 97 
 
 could any man be justly censured for not discern- 
 ing the Lord's Body, if there was no Body of the 
 Lord there to be discerned ? The Greek word 
 translated "discerning" means to discriminate, to 
 distinguish. They did not distinguish between 
 the common eating and drinking of mere bread 
 and wine, and the solemn partaking of a holy 
 Sacrament of which the Body of the Lord con- 
 stituted a part. Their sin consisted in failing to 
 discern or distinguish the Lord's Body. But if 
 there was no Body of the Lord there, there was 
 no Body to be discerned, and they could not be 
 guilty of not discerning what did not exist. 
 The whole verse would be meaningless, and the 
 charge of the apostle of sin and guilt against the 
 Corinthians, would have been absurd, if the Sacra- 
 ment consisted only of bread and wine, and the 
 Body and Blood of Christ formed no part of it. 
 Jt was the fact that the Body and Blood of Christ 
 were present, and constituted the chief thing in 
 the Sacrament, that rendered them guilty who 
 partook unworthily, because neglecting to discern 
 this hio-her element in it. The excesses in which 
 they indulged, proceeded from their not discern- 
 
98 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 ing the Lord's Body in it, and in this consisted 
 their guilt, and on account of it they ate and 
 drank damnation to themselves. Not only bread, 
 therefore, but the Lord's Body also, are present in 
 the Lord's Supper. All this is very plain to those 
 who candidly and carefully read these passages. 
 
 From these plain passages of our Lord, and His 
 apostle, Luther could do no otherwise than hold, 
 that, whilst the earthly or visible element in the 
 Lord's Supper was bread and wine, which under- 
 went no change during any period either before 
 or after the consecration thereof, there was at the 
 same time, another element in the Holy Sacra- 
 ment, which was no other than the glorified Body 
 and Blood of the Lord. The Word of God was 
 too direct and positive in its statements, for him 
 to adopt any other view, without an utter rejec- 
 tion of that Word. Such was his reverence for 
 God's Word, that he followed wherever it led, and 
 a "Thus saith the Lord/' was with him, the end 
 of all controversy. 
 
 This doctrine, so Biblical and clear, thus held 
 and promulgated by the great Eeformer, was at 
 first assented to and held by all who were assoei- 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 99 
 
 ated with him in the work of Reformation. But 
 after the lapse of a few years, other views began 
 to be entertained, and preached by Carlstadt, 
 Zwinglius, (Ecolampadius, and others, and thus 
 the unhappy differences arose concerning the doc- 
 trine of the Lord's Supper, that have, until this 
 daj T , afflicted the Protestant Church. These dif- 
 ferences are much to be regretted. Whilst the 
 Church of Rome is united on the doctrine of Tran- 
 substantiation, the Protestant Church fritters 
 away its strength, by a large part of it very un- 
 wisely taking an extreme position in opposition 
 to that of Rome, and which must be maintained, not 
 by Scriptural declarations, but by arguments drawn 
 professedly from reason and philosophy. It is 
 much to be regretted that Luther's moderate 
 views, and conservative position, sustained as they 
 are by the plain and direct declarations of God's 
 Word, have not been universally adhered to by 
 Protestants. Many of the views that have been 
 uttered and printed on this doctrine, are very 
 crude and undigested, and indicate much more 
 zeal without knowledge than sound and thorough 
 acquaintance with Biblical theology. The doc- 
 
100 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 trine of Luther has been assailed, not with pas- 
 sages from God's Word, for these are confessedly 
 plainly and positively in his favor, but with reasons 
 and objections drawn from the inability of the 
 human mind to comprehend the mystery, or to 
 understand how the Word of God can be true in 
 its declarations on this subject. It is, too largely, 
 the old spirit of rationalism that has for many 
 centuries troubled the Church, not o^ily on this, 
 but on other fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. 
 It may serve a useful purpose, if we consider some 
 of these objections and difficulties. The doctrine 
 is strongly intrenched in the Word of God, and 
 mere philosophy cannot overthrow God's Word. 
 Even if the specious objections that human reason 
 may allege against it, could not be fully explained, 
 still God's Word must stand firm over against any 
 difficulties which man's limited capacity to com- 
 prehend the infinite, may interpose. A doctrine 
 of God's Word is not necessarily false, because it 
 is beyond the reach of our feeble reason. Man's 
 ignorance cannot overthrow God's infinite intelli- 
 gence. If God says so, it is true, whether we can 
 explain it or not. 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 1Q1 
 
 1. It has been charged that the doctrine of Luther, 
 and of the Lutheran Church, differs little^ if in any- 
 thing, from Transubsta ntiat ion . 
 
 But this charge is so obviously untrue, that little 
 effort would seem to be necessary to refute it. 
 Transubstantiation, or a change of the substance 
 of the bread and wine into the actual flesh and 
 blood of Christ, so that no bread and wine remain, 
 but what seem to be bread and wine, are really 
 something else — this notion was rejected by none 
 more positively than it was by Luther, and by no 
 Church more peremptorily than by the Lutheran 
 Church. The Form of Concord uses the following 
 strong language: "We, therefore, reject and con- 
 demn with our hearts and lips, as false, and dan- 
 gerous, and deceptive, the Transubstantiation of 
 the papists, that the bread and wine are changed 
 into the substance of the Body and Blood of 
 Christ/' The Lutheran Church goes out with this 
 plain and distinct principle that the bread and 
 wine undergo no change of substance whatever. 
 At no time or stage in the consecration, or in the 
 participation of the Sacrament is there any change 
 in the substance of the bread and the wine. They 
 
102 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 are bread and wine when placed on the table, they 
 are bread and wine when put to the lips of the 
 communicant; they feel, and taste, and smell, and 
 look like bread and wine, and they are so; no 
 change of substance, whatever, of any kind or 
 degree, is effected by their presence on the Com- 
 munion table. Let this be distinctly borne in 
 mind. If there is no change in the substance of 
 the bread and the wine, then, of course, there can 
 be no Transubstantiation, for this necessarily sup- 
 poses such a change. Indeed, it is in such a change 
 that Transubstantiation consists. If no change 
 takes place in the substance of the bread and the 
 wine, there can be no gross and carnal eating and 
 drinking of Christ's Body and Blood at all. If we 
 grant that there is no change in the substance of 
 the bread and the wine, all the gross and repulsive 
 ideas, which Transubstantiation awakens, are at 
 once wholly excluded. The presence of Christ 
 must then be of a Sacramental sort, glorified, 
 spiritual, heavenly, not earthy and gross. 
 
 It would seem that a small amount only of can- 
 did reflection, is needed to prevent the making of 
 such a charge as this. Christ's body is His glori- 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 1Q3 
 
 lied, resurrection body. The saints, when they 
 rise from the dead will be " like unto Christ's own 
 glorious body." Our resurrection bodies are 
 spoken of as being '-spiritual bodies/' So nearly 
 will our glorified bodies resemble pure spirit, that 
 " spiritual bodies," is the proper term to designate 
 their nature. In this respect they will resemble 
 Christ's body. His body is, therefore, a ''spiritual 
 body." There can, then, of necessity, be no gross, 
 carnal eating, as a man eats the flesh, and drinks 
 the blood of an animal slain. It is an eating and 
 drinking of a different kind. It is after a heav- 
 enly, divine, Sacramental sort. It is a bodily par- 
 taking, but the body is Christ's glorified, spiritual 
 body, the nature of whose existence, and the mode 
 of whose communication to the partaker of the 
 Sacrament are necessarily incomprehensible to us. 
 It is a real presence, for if not real, it is not a 
 presence of Christ's Body and Blood at all. But 
 it is the real presence of the glorified human na- 
 ture of Christ, that is so nearly pure spirit as to 
 be properly called a " spiritual body." 
 
 That this is the doctrine of the Lutheran Church 
 is evident from the following quotation from the 
 
104 the sour COMMUNION. 
 
 " Formula of Concord," one of our Symbolical 
 Books. After quoting an extended extract from 
 Luther's works, the Formula proceeds to say : 
 " From these words of Dr. Luther, it is manifest 
 in what sense the word spiritual is used in our 
 churches, concerning this matter. For, with the 
 Sacramentarians, this word spiritual signifies noth- 
 ing more than that spiritual communion, when by 
 faith the truly believing are incorporated in spirit 
 in. Christ, the Lord, and become true spiritual 
 members of His body. But when this word spiritual 
 is used by Dr. Luther and by ourselves in relation 
 to this matter, we understand by it the spiritual, 
 supernatural, heavenly mode, according to which 
 Christ, being present in the Holy Supper, works 
 not only consolation and life in the believing, but 
 also judgment in the unbelieving. And by this 
 word spiritual we reject those Capernaitic thoughts 
 concerning the gross, carnal presence, with which 
 our churches are charged by the Sacramentarians, 
 notwithstanding our public and frequent protesta- 
 tions. In this sense we wish the word spiritual to 
 be understood, when we assert that, in the Holy 
 Supper, the body and blood of Christ are spiritually 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 1Q5 
 
 received, eaten, and drank; for although this par- 
 ticipation takes place orally, yet the mode is spirit- 
 ual." 
 
 When these two things are duly taken into con- 
 sideration, viz., that there is no change supposed 
 to be effected in the substance of the bread and 
 the wine, but that they remain, during the whole 
 communion, simply bread and wine, and that, fur- 
 ther, the presence of Christ is the presence of his 
 glorified, spiritual body, that is inseparably united 
 to the divine nature in one person,— when, we say, 
 these two points are taken into consideration, who 
 can reasonably object to the doctrine as thus 
 held, and set forth, or charge upon it the gross 
 error of Transubstantiation ? 
 
 Bear with me, whilst, even at the risk of some 
 repetition, I dwell a little longer on this objection 
 to the doctrine of the Lutheran Church on the 
 Lord's Supper. 
 
 Let it, then, be borne in mind,, very distinctly, 
 by friends and opponents of the doctrine of the 
 Lutheran Church, that we hold : 
 
 First, the Lord's Supper is composed of two vis- 
 ible or earthly elements, viz,, bread and wine. 
 
106 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 both of which must be used in the administration 
 of the Sacrament. 
 
 Secondly, neither the bread nor the wine under- 
 go any change at any time, before or during the 
 administration of the Sacrament. They are both 
 so termed in the passages describing it, and not 
 the remotest intimation is given of any change. 
 The bread remains bread, and the wine remains 
 wine. Bread and wine are placed on the altar, 
 and after consecration they are what they were 
 before, substantially bread and wine. The bread 
 is not changed into the Body, nor the wine into 
 the Blood. They remain bread and wine, both in 
 their essence and in their accidents. They undergo 
 no change in their nature, whatever. The com- 
 municant eats and drinks bread and wine; they 
 look, and feel, and smell, and taste like bread and 
 wine, and they are bread and wine. They were 
 bread and wine when the proper officer laid them 
 on the altar; they are still bread and wine when 
 the prayer of consecration is said over them ; they 
 are bread and wine when the communicant re- 
 ceives them into his lips ; and from first to last in 
 the Lord's Supper they are bread and wine. 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 1Q7 
 
 But thirdly. The word of God informs us that 
 there is another element present and partaken of, 
 a heavenly and invisible element, that is also re- 
 ceived with the reception of the visible or earthly 
 element, and this invisible or heavenly element is 
 called the Body and Blood of Christ. This is very 
 distinctly stated. " The cup of blessing which we 
 bless, is it not the communion of the blood of 
 Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the 
 communion of the body of Christ?" There are 
 two factors, or two kinds of elements, therefore, 
 in the composition of the Lord's Supper. The one 
 is visible, tangible, external, terrestrial, viz., the 
 bread and wine. The other is invisible, intangible, 
 internal, celestial, viz., the Body and Blood of 
 Christ. The one is gross, material, and that can 
 be touched and handled, and that is cognizant by 
 our bodily senses, viz., the bread and wine. The 
 other is refined, spiritual, that cannot be touched 
 or handled, and that is not perceived by our 
 bodily organs or senses, viz.. the Body and Blood 
 of Christ. When I take the earthly, God also 
 with it, gives me the heaven 1 v. 
 
 These two kinds of elements are always present, 
 
108 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 and make the one Sacrament. They, however, 
 remain distinct, as to their different natures, and 
 are never changed the one into the other. The 
 bread is never changed into the Body, nor the Body 
 changed into the bread. How they are related to 
 each other, is, of course, mysterious to us, but the 
 mysteriousness of it does not destroy the fact, nor 
 make it any the less certain. The same mystery 
 exists in all the other means of grace, as well as in 
 other undisputed facts of Christianity. See how 
 this principle runs through them all. 
 
 The Word of God is v composed, as we have it, of 
 two parts, the material and the spiritual. The 
 material is the Book, visible, earthly, external, 
 which we can see with the eye, and touch with the 
 hand. But the spiritual, is the truth and grace 
 which it conveys, invisible, heavenly, internal, 
 which we can neither see with the eye nor touch 
 with the hand. The material is the vehicle of the 
 spiritual, for through it the spiritual is conveyed; 
 but the material is never changed into the spiritual, 
 nor the spiritual into the material. 
 
 The Sacrament of Baptism has two kinds of 
 elements, an earthly and a heavenly. The one is 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 109 
 
 water, and the other is the Holy Ghost, for Chris- 
 tian Baptism is a Baptism both of water and of 
 the Hoh T Ghost. The water is visible, earthly, 
 external, tangible, as we can see it, and feel it, and 
 handle it. But the Holy Ghost is invisible, heav- 
 enly, internal, intangible, and that we cannot see, 
 and feel, and handle with our bodily organs and 
 senses, as we do the water. So here, too, there is 
 no change of the one element into the other ele- 
 ment. The water is not changed into the Holy 
 Ghost, nor the Hohy Ghost into water, but through 
 the administration of the water in Baptism, the 
 Holy Ghost is given. Yet, although there are two 
 elements in Baptism, and there is no Transub- 
 stantiation, or passing of one substance into the 
 other, but both water and the Holy Ghost retain 
 their distinct natures, there are however not two 
 baptisms, but only one Holy Sacrament of Chris- 
 tian Baptism. As in Baptism, so in the Lord's 
 Supper. The two kinds of elements, the earthly 
 and the heavenly, although not changed, the one 
 into the other, but retaining their distinct natures, 
 yet constitute but one ' Holy Sacrament of the 
 Lord's Sapper. 
 
HO THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 We may here also cite, with such limitations as 
 are necessary to guard against wrong sentiments, 
 several illustrations of a somewhat different kind. 
 Christ, in His Person, as composed of two distinct 
 natures, affords such illustration. Not that the 
 union of the two natures, and the union of the 
 two elements, are the same, for the Lutheran 
 Church does not hold that the union of the Body 
 and the bread, is like that of the divine and human 
 natures in Christ, which are "inseparably joined 
 together in unity of person, being not two Christs, 
 but one Christ." But guarding carefully against 
 pushing the comparison too far, we note that when 
 on earth, Christ's divinity manifested itself, and 
 acted through His humanity, as the visible vehicle 
 or medium of communication with men, so in the 
 Lord's Supper, there is one Holy Sacrament, com- 
 posed of two different elements, the one earthly, 
 the other heavenly, and in the mode of its opera- 
 tion the heavenly communicates itself by and 
 through the earthly. But as in His own myste- 
 rious person, there is no fusing of the natures, no 
 changing of the one into the other, no transmuting 
 of the humanity into the divinity, and yet of the 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. HI 
 
 two natures, there is constituted one undivided 
 Christ; so in the Holy Communion, whilst there 
 is no changing of the earthly into the heavenly, 
 no Transubstantiation of the bread into the Body, 
 yet of the two kinds of elements, there is consti- 
 tuted one Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 So also, not precisely like it, for we do not hold 
 that the Body dwells locally in the bread, as the 
 soul lives in the human body, or is physically con- 
 nected with it, but still near enough for illustration, 
 as to the mode of operation, we remark, that every 
 man is composed of two component parts, or dis- 
 tinct natures, the body and the soul. The body is 
 not changed into the soul, nor is the soul changed 
 into the body. The one is visible, the other 
 is invisible. The one is material, the other is 
 spiritual. The invisible soul, or spiritual nature, 
 manifests itself through the visible body, or material 
 nature, as it is the soul that speaks through the 
 tongue, that acts by the hands and feet, and that 
 hears and sees through the ears and eyes. Where 
 the one is, there is also the other, for in life they 
 are never separated. 
 
 When, therefore, we say that the bread and wine 
 
112 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 are the visible, earthly, external, and material 
 parts of the Sacrament of the Lord's Sapper, 
 whereas the Body and. Blood of Christ, are the in- 
 visible, heavenly, internal, supernatural parts of 
 the same Sacrament, that the earthly is the 
 medium through which the heavenly is conveyed, 
 that they are always present, so that when we have 
 the one, w T e have also the other, and that the in- 
 visible arid heavenly element is the higher and 
 nobler element,— when we say this, we are only 
 saying what we see everywhere taught in the 
 Gospel, what is in plain accordance with the anal- 
 ogy that exists in all the ordinances and means 
 of grace, and that we see illustrated in our own 
 complex natures, and in many other things exist- 
 ing around us. When, consequently, our Church 
 Catechism, the smaller Catechism of Luther says, 
 that " the Lord's Supper is the true Body and 
 Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread 
 and wine, given unto Christians to eat and to 
 drink, as it was instituted by Christ himself/' it 
 only says, in clear and beautiful words, what is 
 most plainly taught in the numerous passages of 
 the New Testament, referring to the Lord's Supper. 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. H3 
 
 2. Another common objection to the doctrine of 
 Luther, and a favorite mode of rendering it absurd 
 to the minds of unthinking persons, is to ask : How 
 could the Body and Blood of Christ be "partaken of in 
 the Lord's Supper ■, by the disciples, when He .was 
 sitting present with them at the table ? When He 
 said, "Take, eat. this is my Body/' did they really 
 eat His Body that was then sitting at the table 
 with them? 
 
 Now, if we believed in the Bomish tenet of 
 Transubstantiation, and therefore, that there was 
 really no bread nor wine on the table, after Christ 
 had consecrated them, but the bread and wine that 
 had been there, were actually changed into the 
 substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, so that 
 what the disciples masticated and swallowed, and 
 what they saw, and felt, and handled, and tasted, 
 was not bread and wine, but the real substance of 
 the Body and Blood of Christ, then such a question 
 as this would probably give us some trouble to 
 answer. The disciples masticated something with 
 their teeth, what they masticated they swallowed, 
 and what they swallowed the stomach digested. 
 But if it was not bread and wine, which Transub- 
 
 8 
 
114 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 stantiation denies that it was, it must have been 
 the substance into which Transubstantiation affirms 
 they were changed. As that, according to the 
 tenet of Transubstantiation, was the substance of 
 the Body and Blood of Christ, therefore, the dis- 
 ciples masticated, swallowed, and digested the 
 substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, whilst 
 he was sitting at the table with them. But as the 
 Lutheran Church does not believe in the gross, 
 Capernaitish eating and drinking which Transub- 
 stantiation proposes, such a question as this, urged 
 as an objection to our doctrine, does not at all 
 affect us. 
 
 On the subject of the various modes of Christ's 
 presence which this question involves, Luther 
 himself has some very admirable remarks in his 
 Treatise on the Sacraments. They show how 
 profound were his sentiments, and how farseeing 
 his views. He was, indeed, the most extraordi- 
 nary uninspired man that ever lived. Let us hear 
 his words ; 
 
 "The body of Christ/' says he ; " has three dif- 
 ferent ways, or a triple mode, of being in any 
 place. 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. H5 
 
 " First, the comprehensible and corporeal mode, as 
 when he went about corporeally on earth, where 
 he occupied, and took up space according to His 
 magnitude. This mode, He is still able to use, 
 when He pleases, as He did after His resurrec- 
 tion, and as He will at the last day/' But this is 
 not the mode of His presence at the Lord's Supper. 
 
 "Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, in 
 which He is not circumscribed in space, but pene- 
 trates through all creatures, where He pleases, as 
 my vision (to use this rude comparison), passes 
 through air, light, and water, and yet neither 
 takes up, nor makes room; as sound passes through 
 air, or water, or planks, or walls, and yet does not 
 take up. nor make, room ; again, as light and heat 
 pass through air, water, glass, crystals, and the 
 like, and yet neither make nor require room, and 
 many similar examples could be named. This 
 method He employed when He arose from the 
 sealed sepulchre, and when He passed through 
 the closed doors. 
 
 " Thirdly, the divine and heavenly mode, in which 
 He is one person with God, and according to 
 which, all creatures must, undoubtedly, be far 
 
11(3 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 more easily penetrated, and be nearer to Him, 
 than they are according to the second mode. For, 
 if according to the second mode, He can be in and 
 with creatures, in such a way, that they neither 
 feel, nor touch, nor measure, nor comprehend Him, 
 how much more wonderfully is He in all creatures 
 according to this exalted third mode, so that they 
 neither measure nor comprehend Him, but much 
 rather that He has them present before Him, 
 measures and comprehends them ! For this mode 
 of the presence of Christ, derived from the per- 
 sonal union with God, you must place far, very 
 far beyond creatures, as far as God is above them; 
 again as deep and as near in all creatures as God 
 is in them, for he is an inseparable person with 
 God, 'where God is there He must also be, or our 
 faith is false. But who can tell, or imagine the 
 manner in which this takes place? We well know 
 that it is so, namely, that He is in God, that He 
 is apart from all creatures, and that He is one 
 person with God, but how it comes to pass, we 
 know not. It is above nature and reason, yea 
 above all the angels in heaven; it is known and 
 obvious to God alone. Since, then, it is unknown 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. H7 
 
 to us 5 and is nevertheless true, we should not deny 
 His word unless we are able to prove with cer- 
 tainty, that the Body of Christ can by no means 
 be where God is, and that this mode of presence 
 is false. It is incumbent upon the objectors to 
 our doctrine, to prove this, but they will not 
 attempt it/' 
 
 These wonderful words of the great Luther, 
 afford a complete answer to the question which is 
 asked with so much confidence, as an unanswer- 
 able objection to the true doctrine of Christ's 
 presence in the Holy Communion. Christ had 
 more than the one mode of presence as He sat in 
 the view of His disciples. He was visible there, 
 was he not at the same time invisible elsewhere ? 
 If His divine and human natures were inseparable, 
 and constituted one person, as the Scriptures 
 clearly teach, and all true evangelical Christians 
 believe, was He not in His human nature, wher- 
 ever He was in His divine nature ? Whilst, 
 therefore, He sat visibly in the upper room in 
 Jerusalem, was he not at the same time present 
 in Galilee, in the house of Mary and Martha in 
 Bethany, in the place called Calvary where He 
 
118 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 was to be offered up as a sacrifice for the sins of 
 the world, and indeed in all other places? Who 
 can circumscribe the movements or define the 
 presence of such a Being as the Son of God, and 
 Son of Mary, in His wonderful complex nature ? 
 What was there to hinder him communicating 
 Himself after a Sacramental, heaventy, incompre- 
 hensible sort, to His disciples as He sat with them 
 at the table and as they received from His hands 
 the earthly elements of that mysterious Sacra- 
 ment which was to be observed in all future time, 
 to the end of the world, as the "Communion of 
 His Body, and the Communion of His Blood ? " 
 It must be plain to every true Christian believ- 
 ing reader of the Holy Scriptures, that our ideas 
 of Christ's presence, and movements, and pow- 
 ers, must be different from those which w T e form 
 of any other being of whom we have any knowl- 
 edge. Here is the mistake that men make, and 
 the source of a large amount of perplexity and 
 error concerning the things of Christ. They 
 think of Christ, as a being like themselves and 
 of His presence and acts as those of men consti- 
 tuted like themselves, and with such narrow and 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. H9 
 
 low views, they can never rise to the height and 
 breadth of the wonderful things that are taught 
 concerning Him in the Scriptures. Their meas- 
 urement signally fails them, when they would 
 measure such a being as Christ, with the meas- 
 uring rod that they use to measure their own 
 insignificant altitude. 
 
 3. It is further alleged as an objection to this 
 doctrine, that it is incomprehensible. 
 
 We admit it. We do not know how Christ 
 communicates himself to the partaker of the Holy 
 Communion. We know that it is not visible, 
 tangible, carnal, sensual. It is invisible, intangible, 
 supernatural, celestial, after the manner of His 
 glorified Body. This is all we know. But what 
 then ? Does its mystcriousness militate against its 
 reality? Is it not real and true because I do not 
 understand it? I do not sg regard it. For the 
 matter of that, it does not seem more mysterious 
 to me than any other of the means of grace, or 
 facts of the Gospel. How God's grace is com- 
 municated to me through the letters, and words, 
 and ink, and paper, that constitute the written 
 
120 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 Word of God, is a mystery to me. How the Holy 
 Ghost, through the medium of water in Baptism, 
 conveys to the soul of the person baptized, His 
 divine blessing and grace, is a mystery to me. 
 How Christ's divinity is united to his humanity, 
 so that through the flesh and blood of His mortal 
 body, that suffered and died on the cross, God 
 spake, and wrought miracles, and moved among 
 men, is a mystery to me. How the shedding of 
 Christ's blood on the cross effected an atonement 
 for my sin, and washes it away, and saves my 
 soul, is a mystery to me. How Christ is at all 
 times present wherever two or three are gathered 
 together in His name, and present, too, in His 
 twofold, divine and human nature, for as such 
 only is He the Mediator between God and man, 
 and therefore, present with his people, is a mystery 
 tome. How therefore " the cup of blessing which we 
 bless" is "the communion of the Blood of Christ," 
 and " the bread which we break is the communion 
 of the Body of Christ," is, of course, a mystery 
 to me. But cannot I take His word for it ? May 
 I not believe what He says? When Christ says, 
 " This is my Body," shall I not believe His words ? 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 121 
 
 When the Holy Apostle says, in words so plain 
 that I cannot misunderstand them, that the cup 
 is the communion of His Blood, and the bread is 
 the communion of His Body, shall I not believe 
 that he speaks the truth ? Christ knows, and the 
 apostle knows, if I do not know. Shall I, who 
 am so much lower in the scale of intelligence, re- 
 fuse to let Christ or His apostle instruct me? 
 Shall I sit in judgment on Christ's veracity? 
 Shall I deny the apostle's truthfulness? I do not 
 refuse to believe other mysteries, why should I 
 refuse to believe this ? The other mysteries of 
 my holy faith are not, in any degree, less mysteri- 
 ous to me, or more easy for me to understand, than 
 this, and yet I believe them without any hesita- 
 tion. I admit them to be facts and realities on 
 the testimony of God's Word, even though the 
 mode of them is a mystery to me. Why should I 
 feel, and believe, and act, differently concerning 
 the mystery of Christ's presence in the Holy Com- 
 munion ? Cannot Christ give me His Body and 
 Blood, as He says He does? He says it is so ; and 
 why should I doubt His words? He says, "This 
 is my Body," and shall I deny it in His face ? No. 
 
122 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 I believe what He says. He says so; ibis is 
 enough for me. Does He say, "This is my- Body 
 . — this is my Blood ?" He does. Does an inspired 
 apostle say, "The cup of blessing which we bless 
 Is the communion of Christ's Blood, and the bread 
 which we break is the communion of Christ's 
 Body?" He does. This is enough. I believe it. 
 God says so. It is enough. 
 
 My feelings are not shocked either by the lan- 
 guage employed, or by the sentiment which the 
 language expresses, as some have asserted. It is 
 not shocking to me to believe that Christ gives 
 himself, after a sacramental and heavenly sort, to 
 the communicant — His glorified self to me. I am 
 not shocked by the atonement which is made for 
 my sins by the shedding of Christ's Blood on the 
 cross, but the doctrine is most welcome, and its 
 influence is most cheering to my heart. I am not 
 shocked that water in Baptism is the medium of the 
 Holy Ghost's blessing, or that the letter of the 
 Word is the channel through which divine truth 
 reaches my mind; nor that Christ's divinity acted 
 through the human body which He assumed when 
 He was born of the Virgin Mary ; nor that my 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 123 
 
 own immortal soul speaks and acts through my 
 tongue, and hands and feet. None of these things 
 are shocking to me, or wound my sensibilities, or 
 awaken carnal and unworthy thoughts in my 
 breast. Why then should I be shocked at the 
 doctrine that in the Lord's Sapper there are two 
 kinds of elements, the bread and wine, and the 
 Body and Blood of Christ, and that the heavenly 
 and spiritual employs the earthly and material as 
 the medium through which it is conveyed to my 
 soul? Do I not see the same beautiful analogy 
 here that runs through all the others ? Is it not 
 distinctly, and most plainly asserted in numerous 
 texts ? Instead of shocking me, is not the doc- 
 trine most beautiful, consistent, heavenly, and pre- 
 cious to my heart in the unspeakable blessings 
 which it imparts, in the nearness to Christ which 
 it effects, and in the delightful elevation of my 
 soul above the earthly and visible, to the glorious 
 heavenly and invisible things which it brings to 
 view ? The Lord's Supper would seem to me very 
 tame, and even gross, indeed, if I saw in it nothing 
 but the gross matter of bread and wine, but when 
 I am called to look through and beyond these 
 
124 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 earthly and material things, to the divine treasure 
 which these earthen vessels contain and present 
 to me, I am, in the highest degree, edified, com- 
 forted, and blest. These heavenly treasures, which 
 are in the Holy Communion, on which my eye of 
 faith fixes, as I partake of it with my lips, make 
 this holy Lord's Table, the most precious of all 
 other places in the world to me. Take this away, 
 and I would be compelled to lament with Mary 
 Magdalene at the sepulchre: " They have taken 
 away my Lord, and I know not where they have 
 laid him." 
 
 4. One of the commonest and most flippant ob- 
 jections we hear, is the assertion that this doctrine 
 is Romanism. 
 
 It is want of acquaintance with what this doc- 
 trine really is, that leads any sincere man to make 
 such a charge as this. They that make it, have 
 perhaps never investigated the subject. They 
 neither understand what the Bible teaches, nor 
 what Eome teaches, nor wherein lies the difference 
 between them. Such charges by such persons, do 
 not for a moment disturb our composure. We 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 125 
 
 must do, in their case, as did the ancient advocate 
 of a cause before Philip, appeal from Philip ill- 
 informed, to Philip better informed. I flatter my- 
 self that all who have carefully followed me in the 
 present discourse, will very readily be able to 
 point out wherein the true doctrine of the Lord's 
 Supper differs from the false doctrine of the 
 Church of Eome on this subject. The difference 
 is very great, and very plain. 
 
 Indeed, it is only from this standpoint of the 
 true doctrine of the Lord's Supper as it is made 
 known in the Scriptures, and confessed by the 
 Lutheran Church, that the error of the Church of 
 Eome can be successfully combated. This doc- 
 trine gives us the whole Sacrament, in both its 
 terrestrial and heavenly elements; it does not 
 take away the cup, nor does it change and take 
 away the bread, and yet it gives us the true Body 
 and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. It leaves us 
 Christ, and does not deem it necessary in order to 
 avoid the error of Transubstantiation, to go to the 
 other extreme, and banish Christ from his own 
 Sacrament. It gives us the whole Sacrament, 
 unmutilated, both in its earthly and heavenly ele- 
 
126 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 merits, just as Christ instituted it, and the whole 
 primitive Christian Church believed and practiced 
 it. It is also directly in harmony with the words 
 of Christ when instituting it, and with the words 
 of the Apostle Paul when describing it. Most 
 reflecting persons feel that a mere figurative repre- 
 sentation does not accord with Christ's words, 
 "This is my Bod}'" — "This is my Blood," nor 
 with the Apostle's strong declarations, "The cup 
 of blessing which we bless, is it not the Commu- 
 nion of the Blood of Christ? the bread which we 
 break, is it not the Communion of the Body of 
 Christ?" and "he that eateth and drinketh un- 
 worthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood 
 of the Lord," and "he that eateth and drinketh 
 unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to 
 himself, not discerning the Lord's body." If the 
 Lord's Supper consisted of nothing but bread and 
 wine, these strong expressions of Christ, and His 
 holy apostle, would have no meaning. Why 
 should Jesus have said, " Take, eat, this is my 
 body — this do in remembrance of me," if no em- 
 phasis was intended to be laid on the words, 
 '-This is my body," but only on the words, "This 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 127 
 
 do in remembrance of me?" If it is not His 
 Body, as He says it is, but only a commemorative 
 eating, the words, " This is my body/' might have 
 been left away altogether, and all would have 
 been expressed that those who take this view, 
 contend it does. It would then say, "Take, eat 7 
 in remembrance of me." If this is all, why did 
 Christ insert at all, the words, "This is my Body?" 
 They that adopt this view commit the same mis- 
 take that the believers in Transubstantiation com- 
 mit, only in the other direction. Transubstantia- 
 tion takes away the bread, and professedly makes 
 it all body. These, however, take away the body, 
 and leave nothing but bread. In either case, we 
 have only a part of a Sacrament. If they are 
 censurable who take from us the earthly element, 
 are those not equally censurable, who would de- 
 prive us of the heavenly? Is there not almost 
 the same occasion to quote Paul's earnest words 
 to them, as there was for him to utter them to 
 the Church of Corinth ? What answer can they 
 make to him, when he asks, " The cup of blessing 
 which we bless, is it not the Communion of the 
 blood of Christ ? the bread which we break, is it 
 not the Communion of the Body of Christ ?" 
 
128 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 5. It is objected that the Lutheran Church teaches 
 the doctrine of Consubstantiation. 
 
 The persistence with which the doctrine of 
 Consubstantiation is charged upon the Lutheran 
 Church, in the face of her constant denial of it, in 
 her Confessions, and by her theologians, is won- 
 derful. It would seem that her opponents act 
 upon the principle that a falsehood well stuck to, 
 will in the end be accepted as truth. Even Webster, 
 in his Unabridged Dictionary, defines Consubstan- 
 tiation as the doctrine maintained by the Lutheran 
 Church. It will be a conclusive answer to this 
 charge, to quote the statements concerning it, of 
 some of the oldest and ablest of our theologians. 
 I cite from Dr. Krauth's Conservative Eeforma- 
 tion : 
 
 Mutter, A. D. 1611, says, "When we use the 
 particles 'in, with, under/ we understand no local 
 inclusion whatever, either Transubstantiation or 
 Consubstantiation." "Hence is clear the odious 
 falsity of those who charge our churches with 
 teaching that 'the bread of the Eucharist is liter- 
 ally and substantially the body of Christ;' that 
 * the bread ami body constitute one substance;' 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 129 
 
 that 'the body of Christ in itself, and literally, is 
 bruised by the teeth/ and all other monstrous ab- 
 surdities of a similar nature. For Ave fearlessly 
 appeal to God, the Searcher of hearts, and the 
 Judge of consciences, as an infallible witness, that 
 neither by Luther nor any of ours was such a 
 thing ever said, written, or thought of." 
 
 Andrew Osiander, Chancellor of the University 
 of Tubingen, A. D. 1617, says, " Our theologians 
 for years long have strenuously denied and power- 
 fully confuted the doctrine of a local inclusion, or 
 physical connection of the body and bread, or con- 
 substantiation. We believe in no impanation, sub- 
 panation, companation, or consubstantiation of the 
 body of Christ; no physical or local inclusion or 
 conjoining of bread and body, as our adversaries, 
 in manifest calumnies, allege against us." 
 
 John Gerhard, A. 1). 1637, says, " On account of 
 the calumnies of our adversaries, we would note 
 that we do not believe in impanation, nor in con- 
 substantiation, nor in any physical or local pres- 
 ence." " We believe in no consubstantiative pres- 
 ence of the body and the blood. Far from us be 
 that figment. The heavenly thing and the earthly 
 
 9 
 
130 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 thing in the Lord's Supper are not present with 
 each other physically and naturally." 
 
 Carpzov, A. D. 1657, says, " When the words, in, 
 with, under, are used, our traducers know, as well 
 as they know their own fingers, that they do not^ 
 signify a Consubstantiation, local coexistence, or 
 impanation. The charge that we hold a local in- 
 clusion, or Consubstantiation, is a calumny. The 
 eating and drinking are not physical, but mystical 
 and sacramental." 
 
 Oalovius, A. D. 1686, says, " We do not assert 
 any local conjunction, any fusion of essences, or 
 Consubstantiation, as our adversaries attribute it 
 to us; as if we imagined that the bread and the 
 Body of Christ pass into one mass. We do not 
 say that the Body is included in the bread." 
 
 Baier, J. G,, A. D. 1695, says, "The Sacramental 
 union is neither substantial, nor personal, nor local. 
 Hence it is manifest that impanation and Consub- 
 stantiation, which are charged upon Lutherans by 
 enemies, are utterly excluded. There is no sensi- 
 ble or natural eating of the Body of Christ." 
 
 Leibnitz, A. D. 1716, distinguished as a profound 
 theological thinker, as well as philosopher of the 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 131 
 
 highest order, says, " Those who receive the Evan- 
 gelical (Lutheran) faith by no means approve the 
 doctrine of Consubstantiation, or of impanation, 
 nor can any impute it to them, unless from a mis- 
 understanding of what they hold/' 
 
 Buddeas, A. D. 1728, says, "All who understand 
 the doctrines of our Church know that with our 
 whole soul we abhor the doctrine of Consubstan- 
 tiation, and of a gross ubiquity of the flesh of 
 Christ. They are greatly mistaken who suppose 
 the doctrine of impanation to be the doctrine of 
 Luther and of our Church." 
 
 Cotta, A. D. 1779, makes the following remarks 
 upon the different theories of Sacramental union: 
 " By impanation is meant a local inclusion of the 
 body and blood in the bread and wine. Gerhard 
 has rightly noted that the theologians of our 
 Church utterly abhor this error. The particles 
 in, with, under, are not used to express a local in- 
 clusion. As our theologians reject impanation, so 
 also they reject the doctrine of Consubstantiation. 
 This word is taken in two senses. It denotes 
 sometimes a local conjunction of two bodies; some- 
 times a commingling or coalescence into one sub- 
 
132 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 stance or mass. But in neither sense can that 
 monstrous dogma of Consubstantiation be attrib- 
 uted to our Church ; for Lutherans believe neither 
 in a local conjunction nor commixture of bread 
 and Christ's Body, nor of wine and Christ's Blood." 
 These citations are sufficient. We need, and can 
 have, no stronger or more conclusive testimony. 
 
 Having now stated the true doctrine of the 
 Lord's Supper, and defended it from some of the 
 objections with which it is commonly assailed, let 
 me hasten to a few practical conclusions. 
 
 1. I will not doubt nor wrangle, but simply be- 
 lieve the Word of my Lord, and yield my reason to 
 the Supreme Eeason, in this, and all other doctrines, 
 and ordinances, and institutions of the Gospel. 
 
 I am not offended because the Christian religion 
 has its mysteries. That there should be in it 
 things deep and unfathomable, was to have been 
 expected from the nature of the subject, and from 
 the infinite perfections of its divine Author. It 
 would be, to my mind, bare, and meagre, and un- 
 attractive, and too much like the production of 
 small men, who could not go beyond their own 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 133 
 
 shallow depth, if it had no mysteries. Its pro- 
 found mysteries are not only exceedingly inter- 
 esting, and reasonable, and even fascinating to my 
 mind, but they constitute one of the most satis- 
 factory proofs that its author is God, and its origin 
 in heaven. I will not, therefore, dispute, and ob- 
 ject, and find fault, but simply believe and humbly 
 submit. I will take God at His own word, and 
 not attempt to explain it away, or raise difficulties, 
 nor oppose my own feeble reason to the Infinite 
 reason, nor abuse what I do not understand, nor 
 labor to make that look absurd which appears so 
 only because it is too far above the reach of my 
 limited capacities. There are more things in 
 heaven and earth than have ever been dreamed of 
 in our philosophy. Things are not necessarily false 
 because incomprehensible. I will, therefore, not 
 argue, but believe. I will not raise objections, 
 but receive the truth of God, in the terms in 
 which He has himself declared it. Christ has 
 himself used the words, " This is my Body/' "This 
 is my Blood," "He that eateth my flesh, and 
 drinketh my blood." The words awaken in my 
 mind neither superstitious feelings, nor Eomish 
 
134 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 sentiments, nor carnal ideas. They are the words 
 of my Lord, and I will use them, and hear them 
 used, with the devout and holy reverence which 
 they are adapted to produce. 
 
 2. I will endeavor always to commune with the 
 solemn awe which the nature of the Holy Communion 
 inspires. 
 
 Of all the ordinances of the Gospel, the Holy 
 Communion is the most solemn. It possesses the 
 highest sanctity, because the whole Gospel seems 
 to centre in it; or rather it is the culmination of 
 all the doctrines, facts, and precepts of the Gospel. 
 " We are at the Lord's Table. We can rise no 
 higher in this life. There is nothing beyond but 
 heaven." With the ancient Patriarch we may 
 say, "How dreadful is this place: this is none 
 other but the house of God, and this is the gate 
 of heaven." The nature of the Lord's Supper 
 produces this solemn feeling. At the communion 
 table I am in the presence of God, There I feel 
 nearer to God than anywhere else. I welcome 
 this feeling. I love to feel that God is near me, 
 and that I am near to him. The feeling is hallow- 
 
THE HOLY COMMUNION. 135 
 
 ing as well as pleasurable. It subdues my sins, it 
 hallows my heart, it makes me better, it humbles 
 self, it exalts Christ and His ordinances, it lifts 
 me above the world, and it brings me nearer to 
 heaven and the holy angels. 
 
 3. 1 will sanctify my heart, and commune at the 
 Lord's Table, with clean hands and pure lips, because 
 the holy presence of the Lord demands it. 
 
 Christ is present there. Nothing unholy or 
 unclean should come into his presence. He is 
 holy, and He requires all to be holy as He is holy. 
 His ordinances are holy, and they tend to sanctify, 
 and make holy, those who partake of them. 
 There is an especial sanctity pervading the Lord's 
 Supper. The atmosphere that surrounds it is 
 holy, and it hallows all who come within its influ- 
 ence. I will keep the foot, and cleanse the heart, 
 when I come to the table of the Lord. I will 
 always, when there, remember where I am ; and 
 what I am doing. I will consider at whose table 
 I am, who is near me. and whose eye is upon my 
 heart. I will not tremble as a slave in the pres- 
 ence of a hard master, but I will humbly bow as 
 
136 THE HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 a child before the venerable form of a parent. I 
 will cherish the awe which the place, and the 
 presence inspire, and I will also entertain the joy 
 which the occasion is adapted to awaken. I am 
 an invited guest, and although I feel that I am an 
 unworthy one, still I know that I am a welcome 
 one. Not with awe alone, therefore, but with joy, 
 also, will I draw water out of these wells of sal- 
 vation. I will sanctify myself, for the feast; its 
 author, its nature, its occasion, are all holy. I 
 will come with clean hands, and a pure heart, and 
 a soul that has not lifted itself up unto vanity. I 
 will repent of all my sins, be sorry with true 
 brokenness of heart on account of them, weep 
 over my great unworthiness, confess and beg ab- 
 solution on account of my manifold commissions 
 of evil, and omissions of duty, fervently pray God 
 to forgive and save me for Christ's sake, and 
 humbly renew my vows of piety and obedience at 
 His altar, earnestly relying upon the help of His 
 grace to enable me to carry away from the Holy 
 Communion table, such spiritual strength as will 
 make, and ever keep me, a better and a happier 
 Christian. 
 
e * 
 
 c, 
 
■ 'Sii*'. I I T 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 ^x 
 
 ^H 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 r£\ 
 
 ■ 
 
 £& 
 
 ^m 
 
^1 
 
 - '-■**». 
 
 _■ K 
 
 
 ^B 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 ■