IV. The arguments drawn from parallel passages of scripture, which teach the same doctrine in language which does not admit of any controversy.

1. Parallel passages, or phrases that are alike have the same sense and Interpretation. All those phrases are regarded as similar, or as sacramental phrases in which the names, or proper effects of the things signified are attributed to the signs; as circumcision is the covenant of God; the lamb is the Lord’s Passover; the Sabbath is the covenant of God; the Levitical sacrifices are an atonement for sin; the blood of the victims offered as sacrifices , is the blood of the covenant; the covering of the ark is the mercy seat; that rock was Christ; the bread is the body of Christ; the cup is the New Testament; baptism is the washing away of sin, and the washing of regeneration, c. (Gen. 17:10. Ex. 12:11; 81:1(3. Lev. 1:4. Ex. 24:8; 26:84. 1 Cor. 10:3. &c.) Therefore, the interpretation of all these phrases is similar. God himself interprets some of them in this way, as may be seen by a reference to the above quotations where he calls circumcision the token of the covenant; the lamb the sign and memorial of the Passover, and the Sabbath the sign of the covenant. We may therefore, justly interpret the rest in the same way and say: The Levitical sacrifices signify the atonement which the Messiah made for sin; the blood of the victims is a sign which confirms the covenant, or it is the sign of the blood of Christ, by which the covenant was sanctified; the covering of the ark signified the mercy-seat; that rock signified Christ; the bread is a sacrament of the body of Christ; the cup is a sacrament sealing the new covenant; baptism is a sacrament of the washing away of sin, and of regeneration, &c.

2. The blood of Christ is the New Testament in the same sense in which the cup is. But the cup is the New Testament sacramentally, that is, it is the sign of it. Therefore, the blood of Christ is also the sign of the New Testament. That the major of this syllogism is true, is evident from this, that the words of Luke and Paul: This cup is the New Testament in my blood; and those of Matthew and Mark: This is my blood of the New Testament, have without doubt the same meaning. The minor is proven by the first argument, and cannot be understood in any other sense; for the New Testament is not an external ceremony, or thing; but it is the gracious reconciliation with God, which the gospel promises for the sake of the blood of Christ. The cup must then either be the thing promised, or it is the seal of the promise. But it is not the promise, nor the thing which is promised. Therefore, it is the seal of the promise.

3. We may here repeat the words of Paul: “The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ.” (1 Cor. 10:16.) The bread is now the communion of the body of Christ, in the same sense in which it is also his body; because the words of Paul and Christ have the same meaning. Paul may, indeed be regarded as giving us an interpretation of the words of Christ. But the bread is the communion of the body of Christ sacramentally, that is, it is a sacrament, or sign of our spiritual communion with the body of Christ: for bread cannot properly and literally be called a communion. Therefore, the bread is also sacramentally the body of Christ, which is to say, it is a sacrament, or sign of his body. That the communion, or communication of the body of Christ is spiritual, is proven by these arguments:

1. Paul speaks of such a communion as that by which we being many, are one bread, and one body, which is spiritual in its nature.

2. The communion of Christ of which the Apostle speaks, excludes the communion of devils. Hence he says: “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.” (1 Cor. 10:21.) This is not an argument resulting from mere impropriety, as some suppose; but from an impossibility of the thing itself. It is the same as when Christ says, “Ye cannot serve God, and Mammon;” (Matt. 6:24.) for the original word, which in both places is translated, ye cannot, is the same. Paul reasons in the same way when he says:"What concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (2 Cor. 6:15.)

3. This communion of saints with Christ, and of Christ with the faithful the Scriptures explain spiritually, as when it is said: “Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ.” If we say we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” (1 John 1:3-8.) This spiritual communion which the saints have with Christ, and he with them is the same as that, in which we profess our belief in the Creed.

4. Lastly, Chrysostom interprets the words of Paul as expressing a spiritual communion, saying: “Why did not the Apostle use the word ujtokh which means participation? That he might direct attention to something more excellent, viz: to that union which is of the most intimate nature.” And a little further on he says: “Why do I call it communion? because we are the very same body of Christ. What is the bread? It is the body of Christ. What are they made who receive the body of Christ of not many, but one body; for as bread is baked out of many grains, so are we also incorporated with Christ. (Horn. 24. in 1 Cor. 10.)

4. The words of Christ, as recorded in the sixth chapter of John, are also here in point: "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:62,63.) In these words Christ expressly rejects the eating of his flesh with the mouth, and refutes it by two arguments which we have noticed on a former occasion; and at the same time establishes the idea of a spiritual manducation. Hence we are not to imagine a corporal eating of the body of Christ, seeing that the Scriptures expressly condemn it.

Obj. But the sixth chapter of John has no reference to the supper. Therefore it cannot be said to prove anything against the oral manducation of the body of Christ instituted in the supper.

Ans. But it is a false argument which proceeds to the denial of the whole, when there is only a denial in part. We admit that this chapter does not refer directly to the ceremony of the supper. But it does not follow from this, that it has no reference to it whatever. It has reference to the promise, This is my body, which is given for you; for this promise is drawn from the discourse of Christ in the sixth chapter of John, and is confirmed by the signs of bread and wine. It cannot, therefore, be understood of any other eating of Christ’s body in the supper, than that which we have in his discourse in the gospel of John, which is spiritual; for as we have just seen it condemns the eating of his flesh orally. To this our adversaries reply: This chapter does not condemn an oral, but a Capernaitical eating; to which we answer that every eating of Christ’s flesh with the mouth is Capernaitical, and therefore condemned; for a Capernaitical eating is riot only a bloody tearing, and eating of the flesh of Christ, and chewing it with the teeth, but it is any kind of eating, which is done with the mouth. For the Capernaites did not say, How can this man give us his flesh to devour, to tear with the teeth, &c., but they said, How can this man give us his flesh to eat, that is with the mouth. Neither does Christ withdraw their minds from a gross eating with the mouth, to that which is more refined in its nature; but directs them to his ascension into heaven, which would take place in a short time, when his body would be far removed from their mouths, from which we may infer that it was a spiritual eating of which he spake, which is effected by the Spirit and by faith.

5. From the fifty-fourth and sixth verses of this sixth chapter of John, it is also evident that to eat the flesh, and to drink the blood of Christ is to believe in Christ, to dwell in him, and to have him dwell in us; because the same effect of eternal life is attributed both to the eating of his flesh, and to faith in him. The Lord’s supper now sanctions this same eating; for apart from this there can be no other promise shown in the whole gospel, which is sealed by the supper. Therefore, to eat the body, and to drink the blood of Christ in the supper, is to believe in Christ, to dwell in Christ, and to have him dwell in us.

6. We may here also quote the words of Paul, 1 Cor. 12:13: “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” From this passage we may deduce the two following arguments: 1. The eating of Christ in the supper is the same as the drinking. But the drinking is spiritual. Therefore the eating is also spiritual.

7. The eating of the body, and the drinking of the blood of Christ is common to all the faithful, even to the fathers of the Old Testament: for we have all been made to drink into one Spirit. But that eating which is with the mouth is not common to all the faithful; for the fathers who lived before the birth of Christ, could not in this way eat his flesh, which may also be said of infants, and many adults who have not the opportunity of observing the supper. Therefore, this eating of the flesh of Christ with the mouth, which is affirmed by our adversaries, is not that true eating, which the gospel promises, and which the supper seals.