as used in the Lord's Supper, are changed into the body and blood of Christ,- -so that those who partake of the supper, eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus. This doctrine has been deemed by the Catholics not only as true, but so essential that those who deny it are deemed guilty of damnable error or heresy, and on this ground thousands of Protestants have been subjected to imprisonment torture and death, as heretics.

Protestants as well as Papists admit that Christ uttered the words which have been quoted; and they believe them to be both true and important in the sense they were used by our Lord. There has been a difference of opinion between Lutherans and other Protestants as to the import of the words, as used by Christ. The most common opinion among Protestants of the present day is probably this, that the words are to be understood in a figurative sense, meaning that the bread and the wine in the Lord's Supper, are to be regarded as symbols of the body and blood of Christ.

Another example may be the following:

In foretelling his death, Jesus said "I lay down my life for the sheep." His Apostles represent that "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us that "he suffered for sins, the just for the unjust"that "he died for all," and "tasted death for every man." A large portion of the Christian world have understood these and similar passages as importing that Christ suffered as a substitute for sinners-endured for them a vicarious punishment-the wrath of God

-the full penalty of the law, or an equivalent to the punishment due to us all"—at least "all the elect." The doctrine of vicarious punishment, like that of transubstantiation, has been declared to be an essential doctrine, and those who dissent from it have been denounced as heretics, enemies of Christ, despisers of the truth, and unworthy of the name of Christians.

Yet as it was in the other case, those Christians who dissent from the doctrine of vicarious punish. ment, readily admit all that the Bible says of the sufferings and death of Christ; they believe that he laid down his life for his sheep, that he gave his life a ransom for sinners, and "died for all"—" the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." They believe too, that in his death, his love and the love of God for our sinful race, were really and wonderfully displayed. And that we are reconciled to God All these ideas they by the death of his Son. believe to be as true as they would have been had Christ suffered a vicarious punishment-but not true in the sense which has been supposed by the advocates for that doctrine.

Now let it be observed that in both examples the words relied on are ambiguous; for there is more than one sense in which they are capable of being understood. As a portrait or image is called by the name of the person represented, so the bread and wine may be called the body and blood of Christ, which are represented by them; and it is well known

that there are several senses in which one person may die for another, or for many others.

Let it also be observed that in the first example, Christ did not say, This bread is changed into my body-nor, This wine is changed into my blood Not a syllable was said by him about any change or transubstantiation. This idea was added to the words of Christ by the framers of the doctrine. So in the second example, Christ did not say I lay down my life as a vicarious punishment for my sheep. Nor did his Apostles in any instance say, that Christ endured for us "the wrath of God," or the penalty of the divine law due to our offences. This idea was added by the framers of the doctrine of vicarious punishment, just as the idea of change was added by the framers of the doctrine of transubstantiation. I have no doubt that in each case the framers thought the idea they added to be implied in the words of Scripture; but this is no proof that it was implied, nor that any man had a right to insert it, as the word of God. It is, however, by thus adding to the words of Scripture what men have supposed to be implied, that numerous propositions have been formed as essential articles of faith. Nor has the mischief of this creed-making policy stopped here. Each sect, after having thus formed its essential articles, have called them the truth. Hence, with them to love the truth, is to love the articles of their creed, formed in the words of man's wisdom; and any one who dissents from these articles, is supposed to be a despiser of the truth, an opposer of the truth, an enemy

to the God of truth. Of course, the opposition to these supposed truths, is imputed to depravity of heart. Hence persecution in various forms, has been practised by one sect of Christians against another. What an awful responsibility does a fallible uninspired man take on himself, when he ventures to substitute his own opinion of an ambiguous passage of Scripture for the word of God, and to make that opinion a test by which he may judge the hearts of others!

That ministers of the gospel have a right to explain the Scriptures according to their own understanding of them, and to do what they can to make them plain to the understandings of their hearers or readers, is readily admitted. But no man has a right to require others to assent to his interpretations contrary to the convictions of their own consciences, nor to set up his own explanations as of equal authority with the word of God. As it is my duty to explain the Scriptures according to the impartial dictates of my own understanding, I ought to know that it is the duty of my brethren to explain according to their respective understandings, and not according to mine. If they dissent from me, I ought to consider that I also dissent from them; and the same candor and forbearance which I may reasonably desire from them towards myself, I should evince in my conduct towards them.

To the honor and praise of the Four Evangelists, it has been said of them, that, in their history of our Lord, "They tell the world what he said, and what

C

he did; but they invariably leave the judgment that ought to be formed of both, to the discernment of their readers."* Happy it would have been for the Christian world if all creed-makers had adopted the wise policy of the Evangelists, so far as to give all articles of faith in the language of the inspired writers, or as nearly so as possible. Summaries of the Christian faith in this form might have been very useful, and have been the means of preserving union and peace among the disciples of the common Lord. Notes and comments too might have been safely added, as accompaniments of the articles, had they been properly distinguished from the articles, and only given as the opinions of fallible men, with proper cautions to the reader to consider them in no other light-but to use his own understanding, and all the means he may possess to ascertain what is truth and what is "Add thou not to his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." counsel of Agur. Mr. Poole, in on this text says-" As the word of God is pure, do not thou corrupt and abuse it by adding to it thy own or other men's inventions and opinions, and delivering or receiving them in the name and as the words of God." Prov. xxx. 6.

error.

Such is the wise his Annotations

Now I may seriously ask, were not the doctrines of Transubstantiation and vicarious punishment formed by adding to the word of God the "inventions and opinions" of men? Have not these "inventions and opinions been delivered and received as the * Dr. Campbell.