-^- 
 
 O PRINCETON, N. J. "v^ 
 
 Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agnnv Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
 _ 
 
 
* S <^ 1.^^'^ ^ 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arcinive 
 
 in 2011 witii funding from 
 
 Princeton Tiieological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.arcliive.org/details/attempttoascertaOObe 
 
^^ {^. ^aM^^ 
 
 ATTEMPT 
 
 TO ASCERTAIN AND ILLUSTRATE 
 
 THE 
 
 AUTHORITY, NATURE, AND DESIGN 
 
 OB" 
 
 THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST 
 
 COMMONLY CALLED 
 
 THE COMMUNION 
 
 AND 
 
 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 BY WILLIAM BELL, 
 
 PREBENDARY OF ST. PETER'S, WESTMINSTER. 
 
 FROM THE SECOND LONDON EDITION. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY W. WELLS, NO. 6, COURT STREET, BOSTON. 
 
 Frinted at Cambridge by Hilliard Cr Metcalf. 
 1809. 
 

 I4- f /s/j 
 
PKIITCETOI^ 
 fi£C. APR?881 
 
 P R E F A C E^'^"^''^ " 
 
 •M^ 
 
 FIRST EDITION. 
 
 THE authority, nature, and effects of a rite institut- 
 ed by our Lord, as one of the two distinguishing rites of 
 his rehgion, must certainly be a subject of serious concern 
 to all who embrace the Christian faith : and the endeav- 
 our to acquire just and accurate ideas of the Lord's Sup- 
 per has been rendered a matter of still greater necessity, 
 by the no less important than contradictory opinions, which 
 still continue to be entertained with respect to this partic- 
 ular mstitution. 
 
 The following treatise, which took its rise from the au- 
 thour's endeavours several years agx) to settle his own no- 
 tions upon the subject, is an attempt to reduce the points 
 in question relating to this rite, as near as may be, to de- 
 monstration ; by examining into the only sources of in- 
 formation, from which any true knowledge of it can be 
 authentically deduced ; the history of its institution given 
 us by the apostles, and whatever else is said of it in the 
 New Testament itself. 
 
 On reviewing the argument with the closest attention, 
 he has not been able to detect any fallacy, either in the 
 principles assumed, or the consequences drawn from them. 
 But as it is very far from impossible that he may have 
 been deceived by some mvoluntary prejudice in favour of 
 his own conceptions, he now at length submits them to 
 the public ; that from the unbiassed judgment of others he 
 may either derive the satisfaction of being confirmed in 
 the truth of his deductions, or the benefit of having his 
 mistakes pointed out, and such conclusions as may prove 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 unexceptionable established. And with the direct view 
 of more easily obtaining one or other of these advantages, 
 the inquiry has been pursued through a series of distinct, 
 though connected propositions, dra^vn up in a close argu- 
 mentative form ; in order that every single principle upon 
 which it proceeds may plainly and fully appear, and the 
 truth or falsehood of every deduction be readily and clear- 
 ly determined. 
 
 From the very important effects, which have not only 
 been attributed to this rite, but, with the best inten- 
 tions, considered as points which it is scarce proper to call 
 into question, there is perhaps reason to apprehend, that 
 the conclusions here drawn relating to tiiem may possibly 
 give offence to some, whose approbation the author would 
 be happy to obtain. Should this prove the case, he still 
 flatters himself they will admit his apology, when he as- 
 sures them, that the treatise OAves its existence, as well as 
 its publication, to what he apprehends ought to be the 
 leading motive of every such inquiry ; a sincere desire of 
 ascertaining the true intention of Jesus hi the institution 
 concerned, tmd spreading the knowledge of what it' is cer- 
 tainly desirable that every one, who professes the faidi ill 
 Christ, should rightly understand. 
 
 If, in attempting to accomplish this, he has found him- 
 self under a necessity of reasoning in direct opposition to 
 opinions of men of the greatest name and most distinguish- 
 ed abilities, who have written professedly on the subject ; 
 the result of a conscientious pursuit of truth, in a point of 
 such impoitance to tiie religion of the gospel, will not, he 
 trusts, be imputed to voluntary prejudice, or still more 
 unbecoming presumption. 
 
 Attempts to rectify mistakes in points of considerable 
 moment, and especially when advanced and espoused by 
 writers of tlie gi-eatest authority, it will be readily agreed, 
 are endeavours to ser\ e the cause of truth where it stands 
 most in need of sui)port. And such is the acknowledged 
 eminence of those writers with whom we ai-e in this ques- 
 tion concerned ; that to show them to have fallen into any 
 mistake, should that in the event be found the case, is lit- 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 tie more than proving what would never be questioned, 
 that even their superiour endowments did not exempt them 
 from the common fallibility of man. 
 
 For the fundamental principles here enforced, with re- 
 spect to the nature and effects of the institution concern- 
 ed, the world has long been indebted to the well known 
 Mr, John Hales of Eaton ; and for a professed argument 
 in their support, to a verj^ eminent prelate, several years 
 since deceased. But how clearly soever they have been 
 established by this distinguished writer ; in consequence 
 of objections which have been urged against some partic-. 
 ulai'S of his reasoning in their defence, the subject itself 
 still remams uivolved in obscurity ; and not only the pub- 
 lic doctrines of each distinct protestant persuasion, but 
 the private opinions of individuals of perhaps eveiy per- 
 suasion, either vary considerably from each other, or at 
 the least continue vague and indecisive. This obscurity 
 and want of decision, therefore, it is the professed object of 
 the following treatise to remove ; by such an application 
 of the only principles upon which the points in question 
 are capable of being determined, and so clear a deduction 
 of the material consequences resulting from them, as may 
 evince the true nature of the rite by a complete direct 
 proof ; and, without expressly adverting to objections, may 
 in effect meet and supersede them. 
 
 Whether the argument here offered is equal to the de- 
 sign, such a scrupulous examination as the importance of 
 the subject requires, can alone determine. But should 
 there be found in it any such mistakes as will affect the 
 conclusion, still, it is hoped, the particular train of reason- 
 ing may have its use ; by assisting others effectually to 
 clear up what this attempt may have failed of determining. 
 And should even this be beyond its reach, it may yet be 
 of some service, if it is only sufficient to excite a serious 
 attention to the subject. For how little pleasing soever 
 disquisitions of this argumentative nature may be, and 
 how frequent soever they may have proved defective ; on 
 pomts which have occasioned much dispute, and contra- 
 dictory opinions of great importance, they are still abso- 
 
Vm PREFACE. 
 
 lutely necessary ; since it is certain, that nothing but at- 
 tentive and close investigation can conduct us to the sat- 
 isfactory detection of error, or the direct establishment of 
 truth. 
 
 And that even the mere practical reader may not be 
 deterred from the perusal of the following treatise by its 
 argumentative form, it is proper to apprize him, that 
 though the form itself should not be familiar, this signal ben- 
 efit will be found to be derived from it, that by means of it 
 the authority, nature, and design of the rite concerned, and ev- 
 ery practiced consideration relatmg to it, are here deduced in 
 the plainest and most direct manner, in the very short trea- 
 tise itself; while every point of difficulty, which would 
 otherwise have embarrassed the question, is kept entirely 
 apart, by being thrown into the Appendix, and the subse- 
 quent Notes : so that the argumentative method of treat- 
 ing the subject here adopted, while, by tracing every 
 thing from the fountain head, it is fai' more instructive and 
 satisfactory, will . be found, it is presumed, as easy of 
 comprehension, as even a mere popular treatise upon it 
 could have been. 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 THE church of England, in her sixth article, declares, 
 -^-^" Holy scripture containeth all things necessary to sal- 
 " vation : so that whatever is not read therein, nor may 
 '' be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, 
 " that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be 
 *' thought requisite or necessary to salvation." — 
 
 In the t^ventieth article it is declared — " The church 
 " hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and author- 
 " ity in controversies of faith : and yet it is not lawful for 
 " tlie church to ordain any thing that is conti-ary to God's 
 " word written ; neither may it so expound one place of 
 " scripture, that it be repugnant to another." 
 
 The nineteenth article declares — " The visible church 
 " of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the 
 " pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be 
 " duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all 
 " those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." 
 And then the article adds, 
 
 " As the church of Hierusalem, Alexandria, and Anti- 
 " och, have erred ; so also the church of Rome hath erred ; 
 " not only in their living, and manner of ceremonies, but 
 " also in matters of faith. 
 
 In the office for the ordination of priests in the church 
 of England, the following questions are proposed to the 
 candidate, and must be answered in the affirmative be- 
 fore he can be ordained. 
 
 " Are you persuaded, that the holy scriptures contain 
 " sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal 
 " salvation through faith in Jesus Christ ? And are you 
 " determined out of the said scriptures to instruct the 
 " people committed to your charge ; and to teach nothing 
 " as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but that 
 " which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and 
 " proved by the scripture ?" 
 
 " Will you then give your faithful diligence, always so 
 " to minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the disci* 
 " pline of Clirist, as the Lord hath commanded, and as 
 " this church and realm hath received the same, according 
 " to the commandments of God ; so that you may teach 
 " the people committed to your cure and charge with all 
 *' diligence to keep and obsen^e the same ?" 
 b 
 
* PREFACE. 
 
 " Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to ban- 
 " ish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines 
 " contrary to God's word ?" 
 
 " Will you be diligent in prayers, and in reading the 
 *' holy scriptures, and in such studies as help to the knowl- 
 " edge of the same V" 
 
 In the office for the consecration of Bishops, the first of 
 these questions is, in a similar manner, proposed to the 
 person who is to be consecrated, in the same words as to 
 a priest ; but the second and third in still stronger and 
 more explicit terms, as follows. 
 
 " Will you then faithfully exercise yourself in the 
 " same holy scriptures, and call upon God by prayer, for 
 *' the true understanding of the same ; so as ye may be 
 " able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome doc- 
 " trine, and to withstand and convince the gainsayers ?'* 
 
 " Are }^ou ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish 
 " and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine, con- 
 " trary to God's word ; and both privately and openly 
 " to call upon, and encourage others to the same ?" 
 
 And tiie same principles, which are the very ground- 
 work of these public ordinances of the church of England, 
 are no less conspicuous in the pri^^ate stiitutes of some of 
 her religious foundations. In one of those with which 
 the author of this attempt has the honor of being connect- 
 ed, the conduct required of its members in this impor- 
 tant particulai' is pointed out by an oath ; the following 
 declarations of which are too striking not to be noticed, 
 and too excellent not to be admired. 
 
 " Ego Deo teste promitto ac spondeo me 
 
 " veram Christi religionem omni animo amplexurum ; 
 " scripturae authoritatem hominum judiciis praepositu- 
 " rum ; regulam vitse, et summam fidei, ex verbo Dei 
 *' petiturum ; caetera, quae ex verbo Dei non probantur, 
 
 " pro humanis habiturum ; et contrarias verbo Dei 
 
 *' opiniones omni voluntate ac mente refutaturum : vera 
 ** consuetis, scripta non scriptis, in religionis causa ante- 
 *' habiturum." — In English as follows. 
 
 " In the presence of God, I promise and engage, 
 
 ^* that I will with my whole mind embrace the true relig- 
 
PREFACE. XI 
 
 " ion of Christ ; that I will prefer the authority of scrip- 
 " ture to the judgments of men ; that I will draw my 
 " rule of life, and every particular of my faith, from the 
 " word of God ; regard as merely human whatever is 
 " not proved by the word of God ; — and exert my most 
 " sti-enuous endeavours to refute such opinions as are con- 
 *' trary to the ^^^ord of God : in all points of religion, I 
 " will prefer what is true to whatever may have been re- 
 " ceived, and what is written to \vhatever is not written." 
 
 From these authorities it appears, I presume, beyond 
 dispute, that the fundamental principles of the church of 
 England are those, on which alone any church professing 
 a belief in a particular divine revelation can be consistent- 
 ly founded. 
 
 She declares the scriptures to be the sole repository of 
 all religious truths, and the test by which every article of 
 the faith she professes must ever continue liable to be tri- 
 ed. She lays down, at the same time, a certain system of 
 doctrines, as what she conceives the scriptures to contain ; 
 and frames her offices in agreement with them. But de- 
 claring that other churches have erred ; mindful that she 
 separated from the church of Rome on account of her er- 
 rors : and conscious that they who settled her own rule 
 of faith were not infallible ; she enjoins her ministers, with 
 the utmost solemnity, to make the study of the scriptures 
 their most serious concern ; in order that by the triecj and 
 approved result of their progressive inquiries the momen- 
 tous doctrines, and important rites of the gospel may be 
 the more accurately understood, and the more conscien- 
 tiously regarded. 
 
 Such is the genuine spirit of the church of England. 
 And whoever of her sons, embracing her establishment 
 with the same spuit, exerts his endeavours, with becoming 
 deference and care, in brightening but a single ray of the 
 splendour of her reformation ; manifests a proper attention 
 to the engagemeni:s he has entered into ; and by a consis- 
 tent adherence to the original principles of her separation 
 from the church of Rome, pursues the very plan she her- 
 self has pointed out for obtamingthe great ends of her in- 
 ,stitution. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 THE general inquiry into the Authority, Nature, and Design of the 
 Lord's Supper. ..;.... 1 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. 1. Further proofs of the designed universality and perpetuity of 
 
 the Lord's Supper. . . . . . . 23 
 
 No. II. What conclusions may be justly drawn from the natui*e and 
 
 effects of the Paschal Supper to those of the Lord's Supper. 31 
 
 No. III. Inquiry into the true meaning of St. Paul in the 1st Epistle to 
 
 the Corinthians from Chapter x. 14. to xi. 1. . . 25 
 
 No. IV. Inquiry mto the apostle's meaning from verse 20 to 34, of the 
 
 xith chapter of the same epistle. . . . .52 
 
 No. V. Inqviiry into the meaning of the 7th and 8th verses of the vth 
 
 chapter of the same epistle. .... 59 
 
 No. VI. Inquiry, whetlier any information, relating to the nature and 
 effects of the Lord's Supper, can be derived from the discouse 
 of our Lord in the Synagogue at Capernaum ; recorded in 
 the vith chapter of the gospel of St. John. . . . 64 
 
 No. VII. Examination of Dr. Cudworth's ai-gument. In favour of his own 
 notion of the Lord's Supper ; as founded upon what St. Paul 
 has said of it in the xth chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Co- 
 rinthians. ....... 71 
 
 No.VIII. Argument to shew, that Dr. Cudworth's notion of the natui-e 
 of tlie Lord's Supper is inconsistent with the fundamental 
 doctrines of the gospel. ..... 80 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 On page 28. Mr. Robert Barclay's argument, to prove that it was not 
 uitended by our Lord, tliat any rite should be celebrated, 
 in consequence of what he said and did at his last Sup- 
 per ; considered. ..... 87 
 
 On page 83. An argument by the bishop of Meaux in favour of transub- 
 stantiation ; and Bishop Warburton's method of answer- 
 ing it ; considered. . . . , . 102 
 
ATTEMPT, &c. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 I. X HE obligation we aie under to celebrate any 
 religious rite is founded on the authority of the person by 
 whom it is instituted ; and when the institutor is a per- 
 son authorized to reveal the will of God, we are as much 
 obliged to celebrate such rite, as we are to obey any oth- 
 er particular of the known will of God. 
 
 II. The true design of every religious rite must de- 
 pend entirely upon the intention of the institutor himself 
 with regard to it. 
 
 III. The intention of the institutor of any religious 
 rite, and consequently the nature and design of the rite 
 itself, must be learnt from the declarations of the institu- 
 tor, considered jointly with all such circumstances as he 
 must be supposed to have regarded at the time of the in- 
 stitution ; and from the declarations of such other per- 
 sons, if any such there are, as he has properly authorized 
 to declare his intentions relating to it ; and from these au- 
 thorities only. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 IV. If neither the words of the institution of any rite, 
 nor the circumstances in which it was instituted, nor the 
 declarations of those who alone are duly qualified to de- 
 clai'e its design, contain or imply a promise of any pecu- 
 liar rewards attending the performance, or a threatening 
 
2 The authority^ nature^ and 
 
 of any peculiar punishments attending the omission of it j 
 the rewards, or punishments, attending the performance 
 or omission of such rite, can be no other, than the good 
 or evil arising from obedience or disobedience to any ex- 
 press command of the institutor ; and the good or evil 
 naturally resulting from the due performance or omission 
 of the actions themselves, in which the right consists. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 V. The chi'istian rite, commonly called the Lord's 
 Supper, /^fl!>' wasinstited by Jesus, and Jesus was divinely 
 commissioned to reveal the will of God. 
 
 VI. The apostles and evangelists, including St. Paul, 
 were duly authorized, and the only persons so authorized, 
 to preach the religion of Jesus, and declare the design of 
 such rites as he appointed. 
 
 VII. The design of the Lord's Supper must be learnt 
 from the words of Jesus himself at the institution, consid- 
 ered jointly w ith the circumstances attending it ; and the 
 .declarations of the ^vriters of the New Testament relating 
 to it ; and from no other authorities whatever. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 VIII. The history of the institution of the Lord's 
 Supper is delivered by the vtTiters of the New Testament 
 in the following passages, and in them only : viz. Matt. 
 xxvi. 26, &c. Markxiv. 22, &c. Luke xxii. 19, &c. 
 Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 23, &c. and what they have each related 
 is as follows. 
 
 Matt. And as they were eating Jesus took bread, 
 Mark. And as they did eat Jesus took bread, 
 Luke. And he took bread, 
 
 Paul. The Lord Jesus, the same night that he was be- 
 trayed, took bread, 
 
 (cf) See the note on this page at the end of the appendix. 
 
design of the Lord^s Supper. 3 
 
 Matt. And blessed it, and brake it, ami gave to his dis- 
 ciples, 
 
 Mark. And blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, 
 
 Luke, And gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto 
 them, 
 
 Paul. And when he had given thanks, he brake it, 
 
 Matt. And said. Take, eat, this is my body, 
 Mark. And said. Take, eat, this is my body, 
 Luke. Saying, This is my body, 
 Paul. And said, Take, eat, this is my body, 
 
 Luke. Which is given for you ; This do in remem- 
 brance of me ; 
 
 Paul. IVIiich is broken for you ; This do in remetn- 
 brance of me. 
 
 Matt. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, 
 
 Mark. And he took the cup, and when he had given 
 
 thanks, 
 Luke. Likewise also the cup, after supper, 
 Paul. After the same manner also he took the cup, 
 
 when he had supped, 
 
 Matt. And gave \tto them, saying. Drink ye all of it ; 
 Mark. He gave it to them, and they all drank of it ; 
 
 Matt. JFor this is my blood of the New Testament ; fbj 
 Mark. And he said unto them. This is my blood of the 
 
 Neiv Testament, 
 Luke. Saying, This cup is the Neiv Testament in my 
 
 blood, 
 Paul. Saying, This cup is the Neiv Testament in my 
 
 blood ; 
 
 (b) It may not be improper to remind the reader here, ones 
 for all, of what has often been remarked, that in all passages where 
 our ti'anslation adopts the term New Testam-ent, it would have been 
 more proper to have used the word Covenant, as that expresses the 
 true sense of the word AmStiKa in the original, which the M'^ord Tes- 
 tament does not. See Bp. Pearce's note on Matt. xxvi. 28. vol i. 
 p. 183. 
 
4 The authority^ nature, aiid 
 
 Matt. Winch is shed for many, 
 Mark. JVhich is shed for many, 
 Luke. Which is shed for you. 
 
 Matt. For remission of sins, fcj 
 
 Paul. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance 
 of me. 
 
 IX. These passages containing the wholc^ history of 
 the institution of the Lord's Supper, as the writers of the 
 New Testament have transmitted it to us ; all conclusions 
 relating to the design of this rite, drawn from the institu- 
 tion itself, must be founded on a due consideration of the 
 declarations of our Lord here related, and the peculiar 
 circumstances in which they were made. 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 X. Upon a joint view of these several relations it ap- 
 pears, that all our Saviour said and did, in instituting the 
 rite under consideration, was as follows : 
 
 That while he was at supper with the twelve he broke 
 a piece of bread, giving thanks to God, and gave it to 
 them all, saying to them, Take, eat ; this is my body, 
 ■which is broken, or given, for you; this do in remem- 
 brance of me. 
 
 And that after supper he took a cup, and gave it to 
 them, saying. Drink ye all of it ; for this is my blood of 
 the New Covenant ; or, this is the Ne^v Covenant in my 
 blood; which is shed for you, or for many, for the remis- 
 sion of sins ; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remem- 
 brance of me. 
 
 XL From these accounts given us in the New Tes- 
 tament of what Jesus said and did in instituting this rite, 
 it evidently appears ; 
 
 1st, That Jesus commanded the Apostles to observe a 
 a practice of breaking and eating bread, and drinking 
 wine, together, in remembrance of him. 
 
 (c) See the note on this page at the end of the appendix. 
 
design of the Lord^s Supper. 5 
 
 When he gave them the bread he said, Take, eat ; this 
 is my body, which is given for you; do this in remem- 
 brance of me. Here were two perfectly distinct, and posi- 
 tive commands. The first, to eat of the bread he then 
 gave them, at that time ; the second, to eat bread from 
 that time forward in remembrance of him. The words, 
 Take, eat, accompanied with the action of giving them the 
 bread, expressed the first ; and the additional injunction. 
 Do this in remembrance of me, the second ; since it is ev- 
 ident, that in order to eat bread in remembrance of him, 
 they must of necessity do it after he should be taken 
 from them. 
 
 And this being clear with respect to the bread, there is 
 not in reality any occasion for a distinct proof of the 
 same points with regard to the cup ; since it is manifest, 
 that the participation of the one was intended to be ac- 
 companied with that of the other. But the words of Je- 
 sus will equally prove the certainty of the institution with 
 regard to the cup likewise. 
 
 When he gave them the cup he said. Drink ye all of 
 it ; for this is my blood of the JVew Covenant, which is 
 shed for many for the remission of sins ; this do ye, as of: 
 as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. Here the words, 
 drink ye all of it, accompanied with the action of giving 
 them the cup, were a positive command to drink of that 
 cup, at that time ; and the additional injunction, This do 
 ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me, immediately 
 following the express injunction to drink at that time, as 
 well as the positive command to eat bread in remembrajice 
 of him, was as positive a command to do this after he 
 should be taken from them ; clearly signifying by the 
 new clause, as oft as ye dritik it, that they were not to do 
 this once only after he should have been put to death, but 
 to repeat it as a standing ordinance ; though at the same 
 time leaving it to their discretion to determine how fre- 
 quently they should do it.fdj 
 
 2dly, It appears from the relations of the New Testa- 
 ment, that Jesus commanded the Apostles to do this, not 
 
 (d) See the note on this page at the end of the Appendix. 
 
6 The authority y nature^ and 
 
 as a mere general remembrance of himself; but that they 
 should eat the breads as a memorial of his body, broken, 
 or given for them ; and consequently both together as me- 
 morials of his death ; and further, of his suffering death 
 for many^ that is for all, yor remission of sins. 
 
 And this likewise proves it to have been the intention 
 of Jesus, that the rite should be observed after his death ; 
 since they w€re to regard the bread as a memorial of his 
 body given for them, and the wine of his blood shed for 
 them ; which it was absolutely impossible for them to do, 
 till after he should have been actually put to death. 
 
 3dly, It appears, that the words and actions of our 
 Lord in instituting this rite, considered in themselves, do 
 neither express, nor imply, any thing more as contained 
 in this rite, than ;vhat has now been explained. 
 
 4thl}', More particularly it appears, that the words and 
 actions of Jesus on this occasion, considered in themselves, 
 do not contain or imply, either a promise of aoy special 
 reward, that should attend the pei-formance of this rite ; 
 or a threatening of any special punishment, that should 
 attend the omission of it ; or any thing more, than a plain 
 description of the rite itself, and a positive command to 
 celebrate it. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 XII. The Lord's Supper was not instituted by Jesus 
 for the observation of the apostles alone, but was enjoined 
 by him for a standing rite of his religion, to be perpetual- 
 ly celebrated by all who should e^'er profess themselves 
 his disciples. 
 
 As the apostles were the only persons present at the in- 
 stitution of the Lord's Supper, it may possibly be thought 
 we cannot be certain, from Jesus's command to them to 
 celebrate it, that he meant it to be obser^•ed by all who 
 should ever believe in him to the end of the world. Yet 
 this is, in the first place, only not absolutely certain, even 
 from the very words of Jesus in the institution itself. 
 
 He expressly directed them all to do what he then pre- 
 scribed ; and not at that time only, but to repeat it, as a 
 
design of the Lord'^s supper, 7 
 
 practice appointed by him, after he should be put to 
 death; fej without adding any intimation that they were 
 ever to discontinue it ; and the reason he assigned for en- 
 joining it, tliat he suffered death yo?' many ^ for remission of 
 sim, was neither peculiarly applicable to the apostles, nor 
 to any particular period of time. And since the reason he 
 assigned for instituting the rite is no less applicable to all 
 universally who shall ever believe in Christ, than it was 
 originally to die apostles ; and he commanded all who 
 were present to celebrate it, without any direction what- 
 ever, either to confine the celebration of it afterwards ta 
 themselves,^ or to discontinue it at any future period ; it 
 would, I apprehend, be contraiy to every principle of rea- 
 sonable interpretation to suppose, that he did not intend 
 it for a perpetual and universal rite of his religion. 
 
 And this obvious conclusion, from Jesus's words alone, 
 will derive no little additional strength from the particular 
 circumstances in which they were delivered. At the time 
 v/hen Jesus gave the aposdes these injunctions, he was cel- 
 ebrating with them the Paschal Supper, which was insti- 
 tuted by tlie law of Moses for a perpetual memorial of the 
 deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt, to be solemnly 
 celebrated by every Jew.ffJ And since it is indisputa- 
 ble, that Jesus designed the christian rite he instituted at 
 this time to be, in like manner, a memorial of the redemp- 
 tion of the world, tlirough his death, for the remission of 
 sins ; we are absolutely bound to conclude from every 
 circumstance accompanying the institution, that Jesus in- 
 tended it to be a perpetual rite of his own religion, as the 
 Passover was of the Jewish ; and to be universally cele- 
 brated by every Christian, as the Passover was enjoined 
 to be, and actually was, by every itw.fgj 
 
 (e) See pages 4, 5. 
 
 (f) See Exod. xii. 14, 17, 25—27. xiii. 8—10. xxiii. 15. 
 xxxiv. 18. Deut. xvi. 1, 3, 6. 
 
 (g) For further arguments in proof of this fundamental pointy 
 the reader will consult No. I of the Appendix. 
 
S The authority J nature, and 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 
 The Lord's Supper being established as a standing rite 
 of the religion of the gospel, the next point to be ascer- 
 tained is, what effects arise from the performance or neg- 
 lect of it. 
 
 XIII. All the benefits we are warranted in expecting 
 from the due ^performance of any rite instituted by Jesus, 
 to which no special benefits have been positively annexed, 
 can be no other than these : 
 
 1st, That approbation of God, which an intentional 
 compliance with his will must certainly procure. And 
 
 2dly, Whatever additional strength our principles and 
 habits of virtue may naturally acquire by the celebration 
 of any religious rite, owing to the virtuous tendency of 
 the right itself. 
 
 XIV. All the evils we are warranted in apprehending 
 from the omission of any rite instituted by Jesus, to the 
 omission of which no special evils have been positively an- 
 nexed, can be no other than these : 
 
 1st, That disapprobation of God, which an intentional 
 disobedience to his will must certainly produce. And 
 
 2dly, The loss of whatever additional strength our 
 principles and habits of virtue might naturally acquire by 
 the celebration of any particular religious rite, owing to 
 the virtuous tendency of the rite itself. 
 
 XV. Since neither the words, nor the actions of Jesus 
 in instituting the Lord's Supper, do in themselves contain, 
 or imply, a promise of any special benefits to reward the 
 celebration of this rite ; or a tlireatening of any special 
 evils to punish the omission of it ; it must be granted, 
 that there neither are, nor can be, any other benefits at- 
 tending the performance, nor any other evils attending the 
 omission of it, than those just described in propositions 
 XIII and XIV ; unless it shall be found, either that some 
 circumstances yet unnoticed accompanied the institution 
 of it, which will give some peculiar meaning to the words 
 and actions of our Lord in the institution ; or, that the 
 apostles in their writings hwxQ communicated to us some 
 
design of the Lord^s Supper. 9 
 
 particulars of its nature and effects, which neither the 
 words nor actions of Jesus in the institution itself, nor 
 tlie circumstances attending it, imply. 
 
 SECTION VIII. 
 
 XVI. This peculiar circumstance attended the institu- 
 tion of the christian rite in question; That the Supper at 
 which it was instituted was not a mere common meal, 
 but the Paschal Supper, a very remarkable rite of the Jew- 
 ish law. 
 
 XVII. It is likewise certain that Jesus was accustom- 
 ed to allude, both in his words and his actions, to those 
 peculiar circumstances and situations in which he was 
 speaking or acting. 
 
 XVIII. If therefore we should find any manifest resem- 
 blance between the christian rite, which we call the Lord's 
 Supper, and that Jewish rite, which Jesus was celebrating 
 with the twelve at the time of its institution, we may rea- 
 sonably infer, that it was the design of our Lord to make 
 the one so far bear resemblance to the other. But, 
 
 XIX. Neither that resemblance which subsists between 
 the Lord's Supper and the Jewish Paschal Supper, nor 
 any possible allusion in the institution of the one to die 
 other, can warrant us in supposing, that any other benefits 
 or evils attend the celebration or omission of the Lord's 
 Supper, than those already mentioned, as necessarily aris- 
 ing from the institution itself, in propositions XIII and 
 ^W.fhJ 
 
 XX. It cannot be supposed, that Jesus intended to give 
 the rite he himself instituted, a resemblance to any other 
 Jewish rite besides the Paschal Supper. For it was the 
 Paschal Supper only, which he was celebrating with the 
 twelve, when he instituted his own rite ; and there is no 
 other Jewish memorial to wliich it bears any resemblances 
 This is so evident as to need no proof. 
 
 (h) For the proof of this assertion see Appendix No. 11, 
 B 
 
10 The autlwrity, nature^ atul 
 
 SECTION IX. 
 
 XXI. It would be manifestly unreasonable, and in- 
 deed utterly unwarrantable to suppose, that it could be the 
 intention of Jesus, wdien instituting the christian rite in 
 question, to give it any resembUmce to, or make its na- 
 ture and effects in any degree whatever correspondent 
 with, those of any heathen rite. He, who came to abolisli 
 all the religious systems of the heathens, could not mean 
 to institute one of the distinguishing rites of his own 
 religion in imitation of any of theirs. ^/V 
 
 But if it had been possible for him to have entertained 
 this design, it is certain that in fiict he did not. 
 
 It is self-evident Jesus could not but be well aAvare, 
 that when he was celebrating the Pasclial Supper with the 
 twelve, in obedience to the law of Moses, their thoughts 
 must have been totally withdrawn from the consideration 
 of all heathen rites, which they held, and by their law were 
 commanded to hold, in utter abomination. If therefore 
 he had designed to make the nature and effect of his own 
 institution correspond Avith those of any heathen rite, he 
 must of necessity have explained this design to the 
 Twelve, either at the time or afterwards ; since without 
 this explanation it would have been absolutely impossible 
 for them to have conceived it ; and they, for the same 
 reasons, must in that case have expressly mentioned this 
 design of Jesus, as he had imparted it to them, \vhen they 
 came to relate the histoiy of the institution itself, in their 
 gospels. 
 
 Since therefore they have not recorded any thing of 
 this kindj it must be allowed, that Jesus neither had, nor 
 could have any design of making the nature and effects 
 
 CiJ The rite itself which Jesus instituted, which consisted of 
 nothing more than tasting bread and wine in religious commemo- 
 ration of some peculiar circumstances of his death, had not in 
 reality any resemblance to a feast, religious or not religious ; 
 thovigh the common supper, which the first Christians for some 
 time thought proper to eat together, when met to celebrate this 
 rite, so far as it was a meal eaten at that time, necessarily had. 
 
design of the JLo7-d^s Supper. 11 
 
 of the Eucharist in any degree similar to the supposed 
 nature and effects of any heathen rites ; and consequently 
 that the one cannot admit of any explanation from the 
 other. In fact, the opposite supposition appeai"s so man- 
 ifestly inadmissible, that had it not been actudly contended 
 for, it need not have been mentioned. 
 
 SECTION X. 
 
 XXII. Since from the history of the institution of the 
 Lord's Supper it is highly reasonable to believe, 1st, 
 That in it Jesus did allude to the Paschal Supper, but not 
 to any other Jewish rite ; and 2dly, That he did not at 
 all allude to any Pagan rite : And since no resemblance 
 whatever to the Paschal Supper can make the Eucharist 
 any thing different from what the words of the institution 
 prove it to be ^fkj it must be allowed, that as far as the 
 nature of this rite can be ascertained from the words of 
 the institution, considered jointly with all the peculiar 
 circumstances accompanying it, the Lord's Supper is 
 specifically, A memorial of our Lord ; but more especially 
 of his death, and the general purpose for which he died ; 
 having no other benehts annexed to the celebration, nor 
 any other e^'ils to the omission of it, than those necessarily 
 attending the celebration or omission of any other pos- 
 itive rite under the christian dispensation ; explained al- 
 ready in propositions XIII and XIV. 
 
 XXIII. But since it is certain that Jesus did by no 
 means completely instruct his disciples in the nature of 
 his religion, while he was \\dth them ; but left them to be 
 further instructed in it by the Holy Spirit, after he should 
 be taken from them ; and since it is therefore possible 
 that the Holy Spirit might afterwards inform them of 
 something peculiar to this rite, of which Jesus himself 
 had not apprized them ; it is incumbent on us to inquire, 
 whether the Apostles, in their writings, have communi- 
 cated to us any information relating to the nature and 
 
 (k) See Appendix, No. II. 
 
12 The authority^ nature, and 
 
 design of the Lord's Supper, more than we have been 
 able to derive from the history they have given us of the 
 institution itself. 
 
 SECTION XL 
 
 XXIV. The most remarkable passage in the New 
 Testament relating to the Lord's Supper, besides diose 
 already considered, which give us the history of its insti- 
 tution, occurs in St. Paul's 1st Epist. to the Corinthians, 
 and extends from chap. x. 14. to chap. xi. 1. But no 
 further information concerning the nature and design of 
 the Lord's Supper is communicated to us in this piissage 
 by St. Paul, than has already been deduced from the 
 history of its institution. ^/^ 
 
 XXV. The next passage of the New Testament, in 
 which mention is made of the Lord's Supper, is likewise 
 in the 1st Epist. of St. Paul to the Corinthians, and oc- 
 curs in ch. xi. from ver. 20 to ver. 34. But neither in 
 this passage has the Apostle imparted to us any informa- 
 tion relating to the nature and design of the Lord's Sup- 
 per, in addition to what Ave are furnished with b}-^ the his- 
 tory of its institution.^;?/^ 
 
 XXVI. There still remains another passage of St. 
 Paul's 1st Epist. to the Corintliians, which, if left uncon- 
 sidered, might possibly give occasion to some confused 
 doubts, whether that account of the nature and design of 
 the Lord's. Supper, which we have been forced to admit 
 from considering all the circumstances attending its in- 
 stitution, is a complete account of it, or not. But so far 
 is this passage from commmunicating to us any new in- 
 telligence rekviing to the design of the rite in question, 
 that in fact the Lord's Supper is not even so much as 
 alluded to in '\t.(n} 
 
 XXVII. It has by many been supposed, that the 
 most important benefits ai'e attributed, even by Jesus 
 
 » 
 (I) For the proof of this see the Appendix, No. III. 
 (m) For the proof of this see the Appendix, No. IV. 
 (n) For the proof of this see the Appendix, No. V. 
 
design of he Lord^s Supper. 13 
 
 himself, to the celebration of this rite, in some expressions 
 of his recorded by St. John in the 6th chapter of his 
 Gospel : But no conclusions whatever, relating to the 
 nature and effects of this rite, can be justly founded on 
 those expressions ',foJ nor are there any passages in 
 the writings of the Apostles, besides those which have 
 now been considered, from m hich any paiticulars of the 
 nature and design of the Lord's Supper can be learnt. 
 
 XXVIII. From a due consideration therefore of the 
 history of the institution of the Lord's Supper, including 
 the words and actions of our Lord in the institution itself, 
 and the peculiar circumstances attending it ; as well as 
 from an examination of all the passages in the writings 
 of tlie Apostles relating to it ; it appears, that the Lord's 
 Stipper is specifically, A religious memorial of our 
 Lord, but more especially of his death, and the general 
 purpose for which he died ; which has not any other 
 benefits annexed to the celebration, nor any other evils to 
 the omission of it, than those necessarily attending the 
 celebration or omission of any positive rite under the 
 Christian dispensation, explained already in propositions 
 XIII and XIV. 
 
 SECTION XII. 
 
 XXIX. From the actions of which this rite consists, 
 one principal design of Jesus in ordaining it appears to 
 have been, that of obliging all, who should ever come to 
 believe in him, to meet together for the celebmtion of a 
 rite, which would not only be a solemn profession of the 
 Christian faith ; but a memorial of one of the most sig- 
 nal and importmt events, by means of which that faith 
 was established. 
 
 XXX. And as the celebration of this rite ; with those 
 serious and thankful acknowledgments, which the vol- 
 untary sufferings and death of Jesus, for the redemption 
 of man, commemorated in it, evidently require ; has a 
 
 (o) lu proof of this see the Appendix, No. VI. 
 
14 The authority^ nature, and 
 
 direct and strong tendency to strengthen our religious 
 principles and improve our practice, and thus to promote 
 all the great objects of the gospel ; it seems highly rea- 
 sonable to conclude, that, in the institution of this rite, 
 our Saviour had likewise a design of contributing to 
 promote by it this beneficial effect. 
 
 In addition to these two designs, which cannot admit 
 of doubt ; as his ordaining a ceremony in commemora- 
 tion of his own death, for the remission of sin, before 
 his apprehension, and while he had it in his power to act 
 as he chose, is one very strong circumstantial proof, that 
 he did not suffer death, as it might have been objected, 
 by compulsion ; but with his own foreknowledge and 
 consent ; on purpose to complete a dispensation which 
 the wisdom of God thought fit to adopt for the redemj5- 
 tion of man ; it seems no unwaiTantable supposition, 
 that the giving this collateral proof of the truth of his 
 divine chaiacter, might be another end he proposed to 
 answer by this institution. 
 
 SECTION XIII. 
 
 XXXI. The true nature of any religious rite being 
 known, every tiling necessary to the due celebration of it, 
 and all the effects arising from it, must from thence be 
 determined. 
 
 XXXII. The Lord's Supper being precisely, A me- 
 morial of our Lord, but more especially of his death, 
 and the general purpose for which he died ; — Whoever 
 eats the bread and drinks the wme, at the celebration of 
 this rite, in designed remembrance of our Lord, but 
 more especially of his death and the general purpose for 
 which he died, does truly and properly fulfil the command 
 of Jesus in this institution, so far as relates only to the 
 immediate action of which the rite consists. 
 
 XXXIII. Since the act of eating bread and drinking 
 wine in remembrance of Jesus, but more especially of 
 his death, and the general purpose for which he died, 
 should naturally lead us to the njost serious reflections 
 
design of the Lord^s Suppet. 15 
 
 upon the goodness of God in appointing- the plan for our 
 redemption, and that of our Lord in fulfilling the part he 
 stistained in it ; together with the accumulated obligations 
 we aie thus laid under to fulfil the terms of our salvation, 
 and the fatal consequence of disregarding them ; we are 
 bound to consider it as the unquestionable intention of 
 our Lord in ordaining this rite, that we should seriously 
 apply the celebration of it to this excellent purpose. 
 Whoever therefore joins in this rite, without being care- 
 ful to make this use of it ; though he may actually eat the 
 bread and drink the wine in remembrance of our Lord, 
 and his death ; does not make such a use of this com- 
 memoration of him, as the plain reason of the thing, and 
 the moral doctrines of the gospel require. 
 
 XXXIV. The rite itself as instituted by our Lord, 
 consisting of nothing more than the actions of eating 
 bread and druiking wine, with the intention prescribed ; 
 whatever prayers any Church may think fit to adopt, as 
 well as whatever form of words they may appoint for 
 the officiating person to make use of, in distributing the 
 bread and wine ; in a word, whatever is said or done at 
 the celebration of this rite, except the distribution and 
 partaking of the bread and wine, with the, professed 
 design already mentioned ; is no part of the rite itself, as 
 ordained by our Lord, but must resc entirely upon human 
 prudence and authority ; and is so far proper, but only so 
 far, as it may be wisely calculated to remind the partici- 
 paiit of the paiticular design, which is essential to the 
 due performance of the rite ; and to excite those dispo- 
 sitions of piety and virtue, to which the celebration of 
 this rite naturally leads, and with which it evidently ought 
 to be accompanied.^/?^ 
 
 (fi) This proposition is to be understood with one limitation. 
 When Jesus took the bread and the cup, in order to give them to 
 the Apostles, before he gave them he used a form of thanksgiving, 
 customary at that time, over them : and from St. Paul we find 
 (i Cor. X. 16, The cufi of blessing -which we bless ;) that the Apos- 
 tles observed the same practice. Though therefore it does not 
 appear, that this thanksgiving was essential to the rite, as a com- 
 
X6 The authority^ nature^ and 
 
 SECTION XIV. 
 
 XXXV. The Lord's Supper having been instituted 
 by Jesus, Avithout his annexing any special benefits to the 
 celebration of it, the benefits certainly arising from the 
 dtie celebration of it can be no other than these : 
 
 1st, That approbation of the Almighty, which a 
 voluntarj^ obedience to his commands, upon the sincere 
 principles of religion and piety, must certainly procure : 
 and, 
 
 2dly, Whate^^er strengthening of our principles and 
 habits of virtue will naturally arise from the serious and 
 due performance of a rite, in which the death of our 
 Lord, and the general purpose for which he died, are the 
 very things commemorated. /^^^^ 
 
 XXXVI. The Lord's Supper having been instituted 
 by Jesus, without his annexing any special evils to the 
 omission of it, the evils unavoidably incurred by the 
 omission of it can be no other than these : 
 
 1st, That disapprobation of the Almighty, which 
 designed disobedience to, or the careless neglect of his 
 commands, must certainly occasion : and, 
 
 2dly, The loss of all that improvement of our virtu- 
 ous habits and dispositions, which would naturally arise 
 from the serious and due performance of a rite, in which 
 the death of our Lord, and the general purpose for which 
 he died, are the very things commemorated, (r) 
 
 XXXVII. The demerits of a thoughtless, light, un- 
 worthy manner of celebrating the Lord's Supper, must 
 wholly depend upon the actual ill principles and inten- 
 tion ; or at least die culpable want of good principles, 
 and a good intention ; in every particular instance, and 
 in each particular person ; of ^vhich God alone can judge. 
 
 memoration of our Lord ; nor can we be absolutely certain that 
 Jesus designed it to be regarded as strictly a part of the rite ; yet 
 certainly, in imitation of his example, and the practice of the 
 Apostles, some form of this kind may with peculiar propriety, at 
 least, be introduced in the celebration of it. 
 
 (q) See Prop. XIII and XXVIII. 
 
 (r) See Prop. XIV and XXVIII. 
 
design of the Lord^s Supper. 17 
 
 XXXVIII. The Lord's Supper having been instituted 
 without any special punishments annexed to a thoughtless, 
 light, unworthy manner of celebrating it ',fsj the punish- 
 ment, incurred by such a manner of receiving it, must be 
 regulated by the personal demerits of each individual in 
 each particular instance. 
 
 XXXIX. Should any one be sincerely convinced, that 
 tlie Lord's Supper was not instituted by Jesus for a 
 standing rite of his religion, but merely for the observance 
 of the Apostles themselves who were present at the in- 
 stitution ; no punishment whatever \vill be incurre'd by 
 him for omitting to celebrate it under this persuasion ; 
 but he must be answerable for the honest, or dishonest 
 use he made of his understanding, in consequence of 
 which he embraced this opinion. 
 
 SECTION XV. 
 
 XL. It is in the power of God to produce whatever 
 ideas he may please in the mind of man ; and by that 
 means to afford us such assistance as his wisdom may see 
 fit, towards the practice of our moral and religious du- 
 ties, by the unperceived operation of the Divine Spirit. 
 
 XLI. These gracious influences of the Spirit, which, 
 whenever communicated, are so many instances of the 
 divine goodness towards us, may be vouchsafed to us 
 either at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, or in the 
 performance of any other act of religious worship, or upon 
 any other occasion whatever, though no way immediately 
 connected with divine worship ; as often as the wisdom 
 and goodness of God shall see fit to vouchsafe them : but 
 we have not any promise, or even any the slightest inti- 
 mation, either from our Lord himself, or any of the Apos- 
 tles, or Evangelists, of their being peculiarly conferred 
 
 (s) That the temporal punishments which St. Paul informed 
 the Cormthians had overtaken them, for their disorderly behavioui: 
 while assembled together for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, 
 are no way inconsistent with what is here advanced, see what is 
 said relating to them at th€ close of No. IV of the Appendix. 
 c 
 
18 The authority, nature, and 
 
 upon us, on account of our celebration of the Lord's 
 Supper. 
 
 XLII. Whatever spiritual assistance the goodness of 
 God may at any time vouch.safc to man, the reason of the 
 thmg forces us to believe, that it will not be vouchsafed 
 us in the most ample degree, on account of the mere per- 
 formance of any religious rites, or any acts of religious 
 worship ; but on those tr}^ing occasions, in the various 
 difficulties of active life, \vhen the circumstances we are 
 placed in bring the strength of our virtuous and religious 
 principles to the severest proof; and when, under such 
 trials, we actually exert the greatest degi^ee of \'irtue ; 
 and at the same time ap]Dly, with the properest disposi- 
 tion, for the divine assistance to strengdien our own 
 weakness, and enable us to support the part which virtue 
 and religion require. 
 
 XLIII. But comparing together our acts of religious 
 worship, w ith respect to the natural tendency of the acts 
 themselves ; the Lord's Supper, in which the sufferings 
 and death of Christ, and the general puq^ose for which he 
 died, are the very things commemorated, is, of all mere 
 acts of religious worship, naturally, in itself, adapted to 
 possess our minds most strongly w ith religious reflections ; 
 and to induce as well as to enable us to strengthen most 
 effectually eveiy virtuous resolution ; and so far to ren- 
 der us deserving of, and thus enable us to obtain, the 
 greatest share of assistance from above. 
 
 SECTION XVL 
 
 XLIV. Pai'taking of the Lord's Supper does so far 
 contribute to our future salvation, as it is a designed com- 
 pliance with an express command of our Lord, naturally 
 productive of those benefits already explained, in Propo- 
 sitions XXXV and XLL But the performance of this 
 rite has no influence, peculiar to itself, in procuring for us 
 a state of happiness hereafter, nor can it at all contribute 
 towards our obtaining it, by any odier means, than the 
 virtuous effects we take care to make it productive of, in 
 our principles and our practice. — Refusing to partake of 
 
desigJt of the Lord^s Supper. 19 
 
 the Lord's Supper does so far endanger our salvation, as 
 it is in any instance an act of voluntaiy disobedience ^^^ 
 to an acknowledged command of our Lord, naturally 
 productive of the evils described in Proposition XXXVI. 
 — .\nd performing the outward actions of eating and 
 diinking at the Lord's Supper, without seriously reflecting 
 upon the particular events commemorated in it, and the 
 influence they ought to have upon our own conduct, 
 does so far endanger our salvation, as it contains, in each 
 distinct instance, a certain degree of want of religious 
 principle, and a culpable insensibility of the sufferings of 
 our Lord, and the blessings of our redemption ; of the 
 guilt of which, in every distinct instance, God alone is 
 the proper judge. 
 
 XLV. If ever the bread and wine ai*e received, 
 whether by the well, the sick, or the dying, as an appoint- 
 ed means of obtaining the remission of sins ; or in any 
 other light, than merely as an act of due obedience to a pos- 
 itive command of our Lord, naturally expressive of faith 
 in him ; and when seriously performed, as naturally con- 
 ducive to all such dispositions as that faith requires ; the 
 participant is deceived, and the right itself perverted. 
 
 XL VI. To live in the belief of the christian religion, 
 and yet to refuse to partake of the Lord's Supper ; ex- 
 cept in the case of a conscientious persuasion, that this 
 right was designed by our Lord for the observation of 
 tlie Apostles alone ; is living, in this instance, in a vol- 
 untary habit of sin; because in an habitual disobedience 
 to a command acknowledged to be divine :fuj and in 
 this particular sin are included these aggravating circum- 
 stances, that it is a voluntary contempt of an express 
 command of our Lord, extremely easy to be complied 
 with ; given at the very time when he was going to suf- 
 fer for our sakes ; expressly intended to recal to our re- 
 membrance the sufferings he voluntarily underwent to 
 promote our good ; and on that account not only the 
 
 (t) See Proposition XXXIX. 
 
 f «JSee the note on this page at the end of the Appendix^ 
 
26' The authority y nature^ and 
 
 most solemn right of his reUgion, but tl ;. which gratitude 
 ought to render us pecuhafly wiUing to celebrate. 
 
 XL VII. Neither our Lord himself, nor the Apostles, 
 having given us any precept to determine how often we 
 ought to partake of the Lord's Supper, no precise limits 
 can be assigned to our duty in this particular. But since 
 we are absolutely obliged to assist at this rite, by the ex- 
 press command of our Lord;/^a?>' since the excellent, 
 moral and religious tendency of the rite itself is evident 
 beyond question ; and since we know the Apostles 
 taught the first christians to partake of it very often ; it 
 must certainly be incumbent on us to join in it so fre- 
 quently, according to the circumstances in which \\'e may 
 happen to be placed, as to sho^v plainly, that we regard it 
 as one positive duty of the religion of Christ ; and, for 
 that reason, take pleasure in discharging it. 
 
 XLVIII. Since the Lord's Supper is nothing more 
 than a religious commemoration of him, but more espe- 
 cially of his death, and the general purpose for which he 
 died ; and these particulars may be all commemorated 
 with a truly pious and devout disposition, without our 
 setting apart any precise period of time to prepare our^ 
 selves for it ; such a practice is no more strictly necessa- 
 ry, however useful we may make it, for the worthy par- 
 ticipation ofthe Lord's Supper, than for the worthy per- 
 formance of any other act of religious worship : and 
 habitual good intentions to regulate our conduct by the 
 precepts of the gospel, joined to the serious employment 
 of our tlioughts, at the time, upon the business we are 
 about, will, in every instance, render our attendance upon 
 the celebration of die Lord's Supper, as well as our per- 
 formance of every other act of religious worship, an ac- 
 ceptable service. 
 
 XLIX. Since the partaking of bread and wine, in re- 
 membrance of our Lord, is an absolute christian duty, 
 and the serious ptrfonnance of it has a natural tendency 
 to produce a beneficial effect upon our lives ; eveiy 
 
 Cx^ Except in the case mentioned in Prop. XXXIX. 
 
design of the hordes supper. 21 
 
 attendance upon il, ?ally proceeding from a conviction of 
 its being a duty, and accompanied with serious attention 
 to the particulars commemorated in it, must in all cases 
 whatever be as proper and praise-worthy, as a similar 
 serious attendance upon any other act of religious wor- 
 ship, in the same cast;, 
 
 L. But since the particulars to be peculiarly commem- 
 orated in this rite, are such as, above all others, ought to 
 penetrate the heart with the warmest sense of gratitude, 
 both to our Creator, and Redeemer ; and excite the most 
 unreserved acknowledgment of ail our religious duties, 
 and the sincerest sorrow for our sins ; as well as induce 
 us to form and cultivate such virtuous resolutions, as may 
 produce that actual uprightness of conduct, which is the 
 great object of the gospel dispensation ; it is more espe- 
 cially our duty in partaking of the Lord's Supper, in par- 
 ticular, though it is likewise our duty when w^ perform 
 any act of religious worship in general, to reflect so much, 
 and so seriously, upon the particulars expressly com- 
 memorated in it, and the effect they ought to have upon 
 us, as to make our celebration of it actually conducive 
 to that virtue, which the gospel terms of salvation require. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 IF the principles above laid down are true, and the 
 consequences drawn from them just, it follows. 
 
 That the Lord's Supper is a rite of the simplest and 
 plainest nature, perfectly intelligible to every capacity. 
 
 That it is nothing more than what the w^ords of the in- 
 stitution fully express, A religious commemoration of the 
 sufferings and death of Clirist, and the general purpose 
 for which he died ; — which it is the absolute duty of ev- 
 ery one who believes in Christ to celebrate, because he 
 himself enjoined it ; — and which requires nothing more 
 for its worthy celebration, than that intentional obedience, 
 and serious disposition of mind, which deliberate reflec- 
 tion upon the particulars commemorated in it will natu- 
 rally produce. 
 
22 The authoriti/j nature^ ^c\ 
 
 That as the performance of it is not attended with any- 
 other benefits, than those we ourselves take care to make 
 it productive of, by its rehgious influence on our princi- 
 ples and practice ; so nothing, but our own want of seri- 
 ous and good intention in performing it, can possibly 
 make it productive of any danger or evil. 
 
 That as its primary object is the commemoration of the 
 sufferings of our Lord in accomplishing the adopted plan 
 of our redemption, we ought always to be disposed to 
 celebrate it, with the same readiness, the same thankful- 
 ness, and the same satisfaction of mind, as ought to ani- 
 mate us, when we offer up our thanksgivings to God in 
 our constant acts of worship. 
 
 And, in fine, that though it is left to our own discre- 
 tion how often to celebrate it, nothing can so well mani- 
 fest our proper ideas of, and attention to it, as an habitual 
 performance of it, whenever an opportunity is pui*posely 
 afforded us ; while an habitual omission of it, when set 
 before us, must unavoidably convict us, either of igno- 
 rance of its universal and perpetual oblig^ation ; some 
 misconception of its nature and effects ; or an inten- 
 tional disobedience to a positive christian duty. — The in- 
 junction of our Lord is always a reason for performing it ; 
 and if rightly understood, there cannot be any good reason 
 for avoiding it, consistent with those principles which 
 habitually influence the conduct of a man of virtue, and 
 upon which whoever professes himself a Chiistian would 
 be understood to act. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 NUMBER I. 
 
 X HE considerations which have been already 
 alleged, founded upon the very words of the institu- 
 tion, and the particular circumstances attending it, appear 
 to place the universal and perpetual obligation of this rite 
 beyond all doubt ; but if any can still remain, the conduct 
 of St. Paul, after he was miraculously converted to the 
 faith, and completely instructed in every particulai' of the 
 will of Jesus, by immediate revelation from Jesus him- 
 self, and inspiration of the Holy Ghost ;faj as well 
 as that of all the other apostles, who likewise were 
 divinely inspired to enable them to preach the gospel, and 
 explain the hitentions of Jesus, free from all misUike ;fbj 
 must effectually remove it. 
 
 St. Paul, who was not even a believer in Christ till 
 some little time after Jesus was put to death, was not one 
 of those apostles to whom Jesus said, when he instituted 
 this right. This do in re?nembj'ance of me. Had it there- 
 fore been the intention of Jesus, that none but the apostles 
 who were present at the time, and to whom he spoke, 
 should observe the rite he then instituted, St. Paul him- 
 self could not have celebrated it, when afterwards he be- 
 came miraculously converted, and professed the faith. 
 Or, if it be allowable to suppose, that on account of his 
 being converted in order to his becoming a chosen apostle, 
 it might be revealed to him that he was to celebrate it 
 himself, though he had not been present at the institution 
 
 CaJ Acts ix. 1 — 22 ; xxii. 14 ; xx\i. 15 — 18; Gal. i. 12 ; ii.2. 
 6 — 9 ; Ephes. iii, 3, 4 ; 2 Cor, xi. 5 ; xii. 1 1. 
 
 CbJ Matt, xxviii. 19, 20 ; John, xiv. 16, 17, 26 ; xvi. 12, 13 ; 
 Acts, i. 4, 5 ; ii. 1 — 4 ; Mark, xvi. 20. 
 
24 APPENDIX. [no. t. 
 
 still, if this rite was intended to be confined to the apos- 
 tles, it must at the same time have been revealed to him, 
 that though he was to celebrate it himself, he was not to 
 permit it to be celebrated by the converts he should 
 make ; and he must not only have made tliis the rule of 
 his practice, but he would likewise have informed all the 
 disciples whom he converted, of the revelation he had 
 received, commanding him so to do, to account for this 
 extraordinary particular of his conduct. 
 
 What then do we find to have been the fact ? Does 
 the New Testament show us that he acted in this very 
 particular manner? On the contraiy, it is indisputably 
 . certain from his own writings, that he not only permitted, 
 .but authorized, and even required, all who professed the 
 faith, to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Je- 
 sus, as Jesus had commanded the Apostles to do, the 
 night on which he was betrayed ; and this in obedience 
 to that original command to them, revealed by Jesus to 
 him at his own conversion. 
 
 In his first epistle to the Corinthians, being desirous to 
 illustrate a point of importance he w^as pressing strongly 
 upon them, he appeals for this purpose to the nature and 
 celebration of this very rite ; and that in such a manner 
 as to prove decisively, that it was at that time the estab- 
 lished practice of all Christians to celebrate it ; and that 
 he himself approved of, and authorized the practice, as 
 a standing institution of the religion of Christ. 
 
 1 Cor. X. 16. The cup of blessings which (saith St. 
 Paul) WE BLESS, is it not the partaking of the blood of 
 Christ? The breads which we break, Z5 it ?iot the 
 partaking of the body of Christ ? 
 
 17. Because the bread is onCy ive^ being many^ are one 
 body ; FOPv we are all partakers of the one 
 
 BREAD. 
 
 This epistle was not wTitten for the Corinthians alone, 
 though for them more especially ; but together Avith them 
 was expressly addressed to all, that in every place called 
 upon the name of the LordJesus.fcJ This appeal there- 
 
 (c) 1 Cor.i. 2. 
 
fore to the well-knoxvn natur€ and celebration of this rite, 
 as being universally practised and understood by the 
 apostles, and all, every where, who professed the faith, 
 is an absolutely decisive proof, not only that St. Paul him- 
 self and all the apostles celebrated it ; but that it was the 
 established practice of all Cliristians to break and eat bread, 
 and drink wine, in religious remembrance of Jesus, as he 
 had enjoined the apostles to do, on the night on which he 
 was betrayed. Nay, the similar conclusions to which St. 
 Paul on this occasion appeals, as the obvious consequen- 
 ces of assisting at the celebration of this rite with Chris- 
 tians, and at the JcAvish sacrifices with Jews ; that the one 
 implied the profession of Cliristianity, and the other of 
 Judaism ; is in fact a full proof, that the eating bread and 
 drinking wine in religious remembrance of Jesus was as 
 much a known and established rite of the religion of Christ, 
 as the sacrifices offered by the Jews were of the law of 
 Moses. 
 
 And from the universal practice of the right in question, 
 completely established by this passage of St. Paul, it will 
 necessarily follow, that it could not have been adopted 
 without authority, either by the Corinthians, or any other 
 christian church ; but that it must have been a duty en- 
 joined by St. Paul, and all the apostles, wherever they 
 planted the gospel, as a pei'petual institution of the relig- 
 ion of Christ. A practice of this, or indeed any other 
 kind, had it been authorised by the apostles, could not 
 possibly have started up in every place at once, where 
 they had established a cliristian congregation. And if 
 any one church had attempted to introduce such a novelty 
 into the religion they had been taught, it must have been 
 utterly beyond their power, even long after this period, to 
 have induced all other churches to adopt it. St. Paul and 
 tlie other apostles were at this very time preaching th6 
 gosjiel, and carefully superintending all the churches they 
 had planted : and certainly, while this was the case, it was 
 utterly impossible for any rite to be introduced, and be- 
 come established, even in any one church, and much more 
 so for any to have become the settled practice of all 
 churches, unless it had been authorised and enjoined by 
 
26 APPENDIX. [no. I. 
 
 the apostles themselves. The converts to the faith in 
 Christ must have taken the rites of their religion, as well 
 as its doctrines, from the apostles who converted them. 
 They could not presume to introduce the celebration of 
 any rite, as necessarily belonging to it, which the apostles 
 had not directed them to celebrate ; nor could the apos- 
 tles have peiTnitted them to continue the celebration of 
 any such right, if they had ; and much less could they 
 have sanctified any such rite, by even joining in the cele- 
 bration of it themselves, and directing it to be universally 
 practised ; since for them to have authorised the univer- 
 sal celebration of any rite, as an original institution of the 
 religion of Clirist, ordained by a command from him, 
 which Jesus had neither instituted himself, nor by rcA^ela- 
 tion directed them to enjoin, for universal celebration, 
 would have been coiTupting that religion, which tliey were 
 puq^osely selected to preach, and by inspiration enabled 
 to preach free from all corruption or mistake ; and there- 
 fore impossible. 
 
 The universal established practice, therefore, of eatmg 
 bread and drinking wine in religious commemoration of 
 Jesus, in the time of die apostles themselves, which, 
 from St. Paul's appeal to it, just considered, cannot be 
 doubted, is a decisive proof, that this rite could not have 
 been an unauthorised practice, improper!}^ introduced, 
 either by the Corinthians, or any other of the converts to 
 Christianity ; but that it must have been every where en- 
 joined from the first by nil tloe apostles, as well as St. 
 Paul, as having been instituted by Jesus in his command 
 to them on the night on which he was betrayed. And 
 this is still further evident, from the manner in which St. 
 Paul writes to the Corinthians in the same episde, to cor- 
 rect some great improprieties, which they had been guilty 
 of, when met together to celebrate this rite. 
 
 To make diem duly sensible of the great impropriety 
 of their conduct in this particular, and of the serious be- 
 haviour which ought to accompany this rite, he relates to 
 them the mtmner in which Jesus directed the apostles to 
 celebrate it, the night on which he was betrayed ;fdj — 
 
 (djl Cor. xi. 23—25. 
 
NO. I.] APPENDIX. 27 
 
 informs them, that the histor}'^ of its institution had been 
 revealed immediately to himself from the Lord ;(^ej — 
 reminds them, that he had imparted all the particulars of 
 it to them, when he first converted them to the faith ;^fj 
 — explains to them, from himself, the religious purpose 
 which the celebration of this rite was calculated to answer, 
 that of shewing the JLorcVs death till he should come ;fgj 
 — shews them the nature of their offence, in attending at 
 it without serious reflection upon its particular nature and 
 design ',fhj — assures them that sickness, and even death, 
 had been inflicted on some of them, as a temporal pun- 
 ishment for their culpable behaviour in this instance ; fij 
 — and, after exhorting them to that serious disposition, 
 which a commemoration of our Lord's death must neces- 
 sarily require, he directs them to continue the prac- 
 tice. CkJ. 
 
 Was it then possible for St. Paul to write in this man- 
 ner to those whom he had converted to the faith, in rela- 
 tion to any rite which had been properly introduced by 
 the converts themselves ; or any but what he, and all the 
 apostles, had originally enjoined the practice of, as a 
 standing institution of the religion of Jesus ? Unless the 
 original injunction of Jesus to the apostles had been in- 
 tended by him as a direction for the practice of all who 
 should ever profess the christian faith, as well as for that 
 of the apostles themselves ; with wliat truth or propriety 
 could St. Paul here press this original command upon the 
 Corinthians, and all other Chi'istians, without alledging any 
 other to explain or enforce it, as a proof of its being their 
 duty, as Christians, to celebrate the rite which that injunc- 
 tion ordained ? 
 
 If Jesus had intended to signify by that command, that 
 this right should be celebrated by the apostles, but by 
 the apostles alone, it would have been counteracting his 
 intentions, and therefore corrupting his religion, not only 
 to enjoin, but even to allow the celebration of it to Chris- 
 tians at large. And if, for the sake of argument, we for 
 
 (e)\h\ei. ver. 23. f/J Ibid. ver. 23. (^^-J Ibid. ver. 26. 
 (h) Ibid. V. 27—29. (i) Cor. xi. v. 30. (k)lh\^, ver. 33, 34, 
 
^ APPENDIX. [no. i,, 
 
 a moitient suppose it possible, for in no otlier light can 
 the supposition be admitted, tliat Jesus might mean to 
 enjoin the celebration of it, as a duty, for none but the 
 apostles ; but at tlie same time to permit the practice of 
 it to all Christians, as a voluntary act ; even in this case 
 the apostles could not have recommended, or even per- 
 mitted the celebration of it to their disciples, without aX 
 the same time explicitly informing them, that, as a duty, 
 this practice was enjoined by Jesus for the apostles 
 alone ; and that with respect to all others, therefore, they 
 only recommended it as a voluntary practice ; because 
 without this explanation, their apostolical authority would 
 certainly have caused it to be regarded as a general duty, 
 and thus have cprrijpted the religion they were apix)inted 
 to preach. 
 
 Since therefore it is certain, that the apostles, wlx) were 
 by inspiration informed of the true intention of Jesus in 
 all his commands, and especially in one of so remarkable 
 a nature as that under consideration, and incapable erf 
 corrupting liis religion, in any particular ; since they not 
 only celebrated this rite themselves, but enjoined all 
 whom they converted to the faith to celebrate it likewise ; 
 and this not as a voluntaiy performance, but as an act of 
 necessary obedience to the injunction of Jesus to them- 
 selves, the night on which he was betrayed ; it must be 
 granted, that this rite was not instituted by Jesus for the 
 observation of the apostles alone, though they were the 
 only persons present at the institution ; but was enjoin- 
 ed by our Lord for a standing rite of his religion, to be 
 celebrated by all, who should ever profess themselves 
 believers in him.f Ij 
 
 This argument, if I am not deceived, is conclusive : 
 but one particular of what St. Paul has said, not yet at- 
 tended to, will supply us with anotlier argument in proof 
 of the same point. In explaining tlie use of this rite he 
 says ; as often as y€ eat this breads and drink this cup^ ye 
 do sftew the Lord^s death till he come.(m) The earning 
 
 flJSec the note on tiis page at the end of the Appendix. 
 frnjl CW. Ki. 36. 
 
no. I.] APPENDIX. 29 
 
 of the Lord m different passages denotes twt) different 
 events ; the destruction of Jerusalem, together with the 
 Jewish pohty ; CnJ and the last judgment. To J Had St. 
 Paul therefore here meant, that this right was to be cele- 
 brated for the purpose of commemorating the death of 
 Jesus, till the first of these events, the destruction of Jeru^ 
 salem, but no longer ; he must of necessity have signifi- 
 ed, that it was in this sense he here used the expression, 
 since otherwise they would certainly have misunderstood 
 him : for if the rite concerned continued to be celebrated* 
 as an ordinance of the gospel, for thirty or forty years, 
 vidthout any signification of its being ever to be laid aside, 
 nothing certainly could induce any one to believe, tliat it 
 was then to cease, and be no longer observed. Had this 
 been the design therefore, St. Paul could not have written, 
 diat by celebrating this rite they showed the Lord's death 
 till he should come, without at the same time pointing out 
 WHICH coming oi the Lord he meant. Nay, had this 
 been the design, either Jesus himself at the time of insti- 
 tuting the rite, or at least the apostles when they came 
 to preach the gospel and enjoin the celebration of it, must 
 carefully liave explained it ; and we should have found 
 each of the evangelists, who has recorded the manner of 
 its institution, subjoining to it some intimation to be ob- 
 served, and at the end of which it was to be abolished ; 
 or at least acquainting us tliat it was not intended to be 
 perpetual. But the fact is, that neither Jesus, nor any one 
 of the evangelists, has given us the least hint of any such 
 intended limitation ; and the total silence of John in par- 
 ticular, with regard to this rite, supplies us with an abso- 
 lute proof, that it was instituted on purpose to be perpet- 
 ual. 
 
 John wrote his gospel, as is abundantly manifest from 
 its contents, after having perused those of Matthew, Mark, 
 and Luke ; on purpose to record many particulars of the 
 
 CnjK?, in Matt. xxiv. 30. Luke xviii. 8. xxi. 27. John xxi. 
 22. 23. Heb. x. 37. 
 
 foJAs in John xiv. 3. Acts i. ii. 1 Cor. iv. 5. 2 Thess. i. 10. 
 Rev. ii. 25. iii. 11. xxii. 7. 20. and, as will be proved, in the pas- 
 sage under consideration. 
 
Ito APPENDIX. [no. I. 
 
 words and actions of Jesus, which they had not mention- 
 ed. Had the Lord's Supper therefore been intended by- 
 Jesus for only a temporary institution ; and had it been 
 possible in that case, (though it certainly was not,) for 
 the other three evangelists to have recorded as they have 
 done, the manner of its being appointed, without adding 
 the least hint of its being intended to be observed for a 
 certain period only ; it is utterly inconceivable, that John 
 could in that case have omitted making mention of so 
 very singular a circumstance, which would have been ab- 
 solutely necessary to be made known. 
 
 Besides, John lived till after Jerusalem was actually de- 
 stroyed. If therefore the right in question had been in- 
 stituted by Jesus, in order to its being celebrated till that 
 event should have taken place, but then to be abolished ; 
 and if it had even been possible for no mention of this 
 design to have been made, till that time had actually arriv- 
 ed ; no sooner could Jerusalem have been destroyed, 
 than John must have declared, that the observation of this 
 rite was immediately to cease ; and have issued out his 
 apostolical injunctions to all Christians to discontinue it ; 
 acquainting them, at the same time, with those revealed 
 directions from the Lord, in obedience to which he did 
 so. And it will readily be allowed, that the liistory of so 
 very singular an abolition of a rite, ordained in so particular 
 a manner by Jesus himself, must as certainly ha.ve come 
 down to us, as any particulars whatever relating to Jesus, 
 or his gospel. 
 
NO. II.J APPENDIX. 5i 
 
 NUMBER ILfdJ 
 
 TO determine whether the particular occasion, 
 on which the Lord's Supper was instituted, will warrant 
 us to conclude, that there are any other benefits or evils 
 attending the performiince or omission of it, than such as 
 may be deduced from the words and actions of our Lord in 
 the institution itself, we must consider in the first place, 
 what resemblance our Lord himself intended to give it to 
 tlie Jewish Paschal Supper ; and then what consequences 
 may be justly deduced from that designed resemblance. 
 
 I. The form of the institution, and general nature of 
 the Lord's Supper, have a striking resemblance to those 
 of the Passo\'er. — As at the institution of the Passover it 
 was said, It is the Lord^s Passover ;CbJ so our Lord, in 
 instituting his o^vn rite, said, This is my body ; this is my 
 blood of the New Covenant ; or, this is the New Covenant 
 in my blood. — As at the institution of the Passover it was 
 said, This day shall be unto you for a memorial^(c) &c. so 
 our Lord said, This do in remembrance of or, for a me- 
 morial of me^ Sec. — As the Paschal Supper was to be a 
 memorial of the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt, 
 and of the means by which it was acomplished \(d) so 
 the Lord's Supper was to be a memorial of the re- 
 demption of mankind, and the means by which that was 
 accomplished. /^<?>' — So far the form of the institution of 
 the Lord's Supper, and its general nature as a memorial, 
 bears a striking resemblance to the form of Uie institution, 
 and general nature of the Paschal Supper, as a memo- 
 rial, (f) 
 
 n. The Pascal Supper being an institution of the law 
 delivered by Moses, its true nature and effects, as a' part 
 ofthe Jewish law, must be learnt from what is declared 
 concerning it in the book of Moses. 
 
 (a) See Prop. XIX, page 9. 
 
 f/ijExod. xii. 11,27. 
 
 (cj Exod. xii. 14. (d) Exod. xii. 14, 17, 24, 37. 
 
 (e) Matt.xxvi. 26, &c. 1 Cor. xi. 23. &c. 
 
 (f) See the note on this page at the end ofthe Appendix. 
 
32 APPENDIX. [no. II. 
 
 In the history of the institution of the Paschal Supper, 
 after reciting the directions for the particular manner in 
 which the rig^it itself was to be celebrated, (^j^^ it is im- 
 mediately added, ^/ly' — " And this day shall be unto you 
 " for a memorial ; and you shall keep it a feast unto the 
 " Lord throughout your generaticais, and you shall keepi 
 " it a feast by an ordinance forever." — And it is further 
 said, — " And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened 
 " bread ; for in this self-same day have I brought your 
 " armies out of Egypt ; therefore shall ye observe this 
 ** day in your generations by im ordinance for ever.'Yz^ 
 ■—Agreeably to which, when Moses had commanded the 
 people to kill the Passover, and given them particular di- 
 rections for the manner in which they were to kill it, he 
 added, — " And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to 
 f* the land whicli the Lord will give you, according as he 
 *' hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. And it 
 ** shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto 
 " you, What mean you by this service ? that ye shall say, 
 *' It is the sacrifice of the Loi'd's Passover, who passed 
 " over the liouses of the children of Israel in Egypt, 
 ** when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our hous- 
 ** es.'Y^y — Again, " Tiwu slialt keep the feast ofunleav- 
 " ened bread ; thou shalt cat unleavened bread seven 
 ** days, as I commanded thee in the time appointed of tlie 
 ^* month of Abib ; for in it thou camest out from Egypt." 
 flj — And thus again in the book of Deuteronomy, /^w^ 
 — " Observe the month Abib, and keep the Passover un- 
 ^* to the Loi'd thy Grod ; for in the month Abib the Lord 
 " thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night. — 
 " Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it : seven days 
 " shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the 
 ** bread of affliction ; for thou camest forth out of the 
 " land of Egypt in haste ; that thou mayest remember 
 " the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt 
 " all the days of thy life." — And again, /'?zy' " Thou shalt 
 
 (gj Exod.'Kii: 5-L18. ('AyiYAi. \er. 14. fij I^d. ver. 17. 
 fkj Exod. xii. 25 — 27. CO I^id. XKiiJ. 15. 
 
 ("mj Ch. yyi. 1,3. fnj IMd. vet. 4. 
 
no, li.^ APPtNlDlX* 33 
 
 " sacfifice the Passover at even, at the going down of the 
 " sun, at the season that thou earnest forth out of Egypt.'* 
 ■i— And thus We find Moses ordaining a second time, veiy 
 soon after tlie injjtitutioh of this rite,—" And thou shalt 
 " shew thy son in that day," (when they should celebratte 
 the Passover in the promised land ;) " saying, this is done 
 " because of that which the Lord did unto me, when I 
 *' came forth out of Egypt. And it shall be for a sign 
 " unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between 
 *' thine eyes, that the Lord's law may be in thy mouth ; 
 " for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out 
 " of Egypt. Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in 
 *' hi^ season from year to year."foJ 
 
 III From all these repeated accounts of the institution 
 of the Passover, and the end for which it was instituted, 
 delivered to the Jewish nation by Moses himself, the in- 
 stitutor of the rite, and the only person authorised to de- 
 clare the nature and design of the institution ; it indisput- 
 ably appears, 
 
 1st, That the Paschal Supper was expressly instituted 
 for a standing memorial of the miraculous deliverance of 
 the Israelites out of Egypt ; purposely intended to make 
 fhem tlie more mindful of that law of the Lord which 
 Moses soon after delivered to them. 
 
 2dly, That this was the only desigrt of the institution 
 of which Moses made any mention, and consequently its 
 only design as a part of the Jewish law, and the only one 
 of which the Jews themselves could have any conception. 
 
 3dly, That there were not any special promises annex- 
 ed to the celebration of this rite, or any blessings to be 
 Expected from it, but those promised to obedience to all 
 the positive injunctions in general of the law of Moses. 
 And therefore, 
 
 4thly, That the Paschal' Supper was precisely A re- 
 ligious memorial of the deliverance of the Israelites out of 
 Egypt, and the miraculous manner in which it was accom- 
 plished ; — and nothing more ; — and had no other benefits 
 attending the celebration of iti, than those which attended 
 
 roj Exod. xiii. 8—10. 
 
 E 
 
34 APPENDIX. [nO.I1. 
 
 the celebration of all the other positive rites in general of 
 the Jewish law ; viz. the blessings there promised to all 
 intentional obedience to God, and the natural good effects 
 of the performance of the rite itself; which in this instance 
 especially had a manifest tendency to excite and improve 
 every sentiment of gratitude to God, and obedience to all 
 his commands contained in the law of Moses. 
 
 IV. As the celebration of the Paschal Supper had no 
 peculiar blessings annexed to it, so neither was there any 
 punishment denounced for the omission of it, but what 
 was equally tlircatened for the omission, or transgression^ 
 of any other of the great positive rites of tlie Jewish law. Cp) 
 V. Since the Paschal Supper was to the Jews nothing 
 more than a religious memorial positively enjoined by 
 their law, without any peculiar benefits annexed to the 
 celebration, or any peculiar punishment to the omission 
 of it, and in reality not productive of either ; — no resem- 
 blance which our Lord might design the rite he himself 
 instituted should bear to the Paschal supper, can possibly 
 make the Lord's Supper, any thing more than A relig- 
 ious memorial positively enjoined in the law of Clirist ; — 
 Or be the cause of aimexing to the celebration of it any 
 peculiar benefits whatever ; or to the omission of it any 
 peculiar evils whatever ; — Or indeed any benefits, or 
 evils, but those which are universally annexed to obedi- 
 ence, and denounced against disobedience, to the com- 
 mands of our Lord, by the general principles and terms 
 of the christian dispensation ; which have been explained 
 already in Propositions XIIL and XIV. 
 
 (^/ij For the proof of this compare Exod. xii. 15, 19. with Exod. 
 XXX. S3, xxxi. 14. Levit. vii. 20, 2 1, 25, 27. xvii. 4, 9. xxiii. 29. 
 Numb. XV. 32—36. xix. 13. The general reason for denouncing 
 one uniform punishment against all these direct transgressions of 
 the plain and positive injunctions of the law, is given us in Numb. 
 XV. 30, 31. " The soul that doth ought presumptuously, whether 
 " he be born in the land or a stranger, the same reproveth the Lord ; 
 " and that soul shall be cut oft" from among his people. Because 
 " he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his com- 
 " mandment, that soul shall be utterly cut off ; his iniquity shall 
 *' be upon him." 
 
NO. III.J APPENDIX. 35 
 
 NUMBER 111. fa J 
 
 THE Christians at Corinth having allowed them- 
 selves in the practice of partaking of the religious feasts 
 in the heathen temples, upon the flesh of those victims 
 which had been offered in sacrifice to their idols ; and 
 having, as it should seem from 1 Cor. ch. viii. ver. 1 con- 
 tended for the harmlessness of the practice, from their 
 full conviction of the folly of all idol worship ; St. Paul 
 sets himself to convince them of its impropriety, and in 
 the end absolutely forbids it, as unlawful in any one who 
 embraced the faith in Christ. 
 
 In 1 Cor. ch. viii. he urges, that though in general 
 they did this without any religious regard to the heathen 
 idols ; yet there were some among them not so free from 
 all tendency to idolatry, who would be induced by their 
 example to do the same with a real religious regard to the 
 heathen idols ; and thus be seduced into a degree of sin- 
 ful idolatry. — In ch. ix. he further presses upon them the 
 duty of abstaining from this practice, from a benevolent 
 regard to the safety of their weaker brethren ; by enu- 
 merating several particulars, in which he himself had al- 
 ways abstained from Avhat he had a full right to have 
 done, merely with a view to promote the good of those 
 who had embraced the christian faith. — 'In ch. x. he pro- 
 ceeds to dissuade them from this practice, as dangerous 
 even with respect to themselves, notwithstanding they 
 thought themselves secure from receiving any prejudice 
 from it ; by reminding them, from ver. 1 to 14, of sev- 
 eral instances in which their forefathers the Israelites, 
 notwithstanding the miracles which they were sensible 
 had accompanied their deliverance from Egypt, drew up- 
 on themselves the displeasure of God, not only by vari- 
 ous acts of disobedience, but even by acts of idolatry it- 
 self ; and those of a similar nature to the idol feasts^, 
 which the Corinthians had allowed themselves to frequent. 
 In conclusion, the Apostle finishes his argument?^ 
 
 C^J See Prop. XXIV, Page 12, 
 
9# APPENDIX. [no. III. 
 
 against the practice in question, from rtr. 15 to 22, by 
 shewing, from one obvious consequence of assisting, as 
 well at the Jewish religious Feasts, as at the Christian 
 Eucharist, that partaking of the idol feasts in the heath- 
 en temples, was an evident overt act of idolatry ; and 
 therefore absolutely unlawful in all who embraced tjip 
 christian faith. 
 
 The passage itself, in which he makes this mention of the 
 cliristian Eucharist, and ^^'hich is here necessary to be 
 considered ; in order to know, whether it may afford us 
 any insight into the nature of this rite, in addition to what 
 has been deduced from the institution itself; together 
 with such directions as St. Paul thought fit to give the Co- 
 rinthians, for regulating their conduct with respect to eat- 
 ing meat, which had been oftbred in sacrifice to idols, even 
 in the houses of the heathens, is as follows. 
 
 1st Epist. Coi\ ch. X. ver. 14, to ch. xi. ver 1. 
 14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry, 
 
 15. I speak as to wise men ; judge ye what I say. 
 
 16. The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the comrnun- 
 ion of the blood of Christ ? The bread, which we break, is it not 
 the communion of the body of Christ ? 
 
 17. For we, being many, are one bread and one body ; for we 
 are all partakers of that one bread. 
 
 18. Behold Israel after the flesh ; are not they, which eat of the 
 sacrifice, partakers of the altar ? 
 
 19. What say I then ? That the idol is any thing ; or that, which 
 is offered in sacrifice to idols, is any thing ? 
 
 20. But / say that the things, which the Gentiles sacrifice, they 
 sacrifice to devils, and not to God : and I would not that ye should 
 have fellowship with devils. 
 
 21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils : 
 ye canpot be partakers of the Lord's table and the table of devils. 
 
 22. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger 
 than he ? 
 
 23. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedi- 
 ent : all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. 
 
 24. Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth. 
 2'5. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat; asking no 
 
 questions for conscience sake. 
 
 26. For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 
 
 27. If any of them that believe not bid you to feast, and ye be 
 disposed to go ; whatsoever is set before you eat ; asking no ques-* 
 tion for conscience sake. 
 
1^0. III.] APPENDIX- 3? 
 
 38. But if and man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice tp 
 idols, eat not ; for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake ,: 
 TFor the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof.] 
 
 29. Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other's : for why 
 is my liberty judored of another man's conscience ? 
 
 30. For if I by grace be a partaker ; why am I evil spoken q^ 
 for that, for which 1 give thanks ? 
 
 3 1 . Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do 
 all to the glory of God. 
 
 32. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, 
 nor to the church of God. 
 
 33. Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own 
 profit, but the firofit of many, that they may be saved. 
 
 Ch. xi. 1 . Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 
 
 We have here before us St. Paul's whole reasoning in 
 this passage concernmg the Lord's Supper. And to de- 
 termine the true meaning of what he has here said relatT 
 ing to this rite, it is absolutely necessaiy, in the first place, 
 to fix the sense of some words in the original, which are 
 of importance to it, and whose meaning has been made 
 mattter of doubt ; by inquiring into the sense, in which 
 the same words are used by St. Paul on other occasions, 
 as well as by the apostles throughout the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 Remark 1. In ver. 15, the clause translated — Ispesik 
 as to wise men — ^is in the original — ug (p§ovi(Juoig "Kzyu 5 
 and St, Paul always uses the word (pgovi^og for a per- 
 son of sense, judgment, or discretion : when he speaks 
 of a person of scientific knowledge, he uses the word 
 o'o(pog. 
 
 In this manner (p^ovtfji^os is used by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 
 iv. 10 ; 2 Cor xi. 19 ; Ephes. i. 8. And so by Mat- 
 thew vii. 24 ; x. 16 ; xxv. 2, 4, 8, 9. And Luke ii. 42 j 
 xvi. 8. 
 
 St. Paul uses (ro(pog for a person of scientific knowledge, 
 Rom. i. 14, 22; 1 Cor. i. 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27 ; 
 ii. 1, 5, 6 ; iii, 10, 18, 19 ; 2 Cor. i. 12. And sq Matt. 
 xi. 25 ; xii. 42 ; Luke, x. 2i ; Acts, vii. 22. 
 
 He once uses ^m€X\- — &o0og — in the sense of, prudent, 
 sensible, discreet. Ephes. v. 15. 
 
 This clause therefore in ^^er. 15. ou^^l^t to be translat- 
 
f8 APPENDIX, [no. III. 
 
 ed, — / address myself to you as to as to men of sense and 
 discretion ; judge ijourselves of what I say. 
 
 Remark 2. The next words in the original whose 
 meaning has been made matter of dispute, and upon the 
 supposed meaning of which, all the notions, wliich have 
 ever been embraced, of something mysterious in the na- 
 ture of the Lord's Supper, have been chiefly, if not entire- 
 ly founded ; are—r-Ko/vwv/a in ver. 16; and Koivwvoj in 
 ver. 18 and 20 ; and fXfTe%e/v in ver. 17, 21. and 30. 
 
 1st, Signifies merely the connection, participation, part- 
 nership, agreement, &c., of one person or thing with, in, 
 or of, another person or thing ; without any reference 
 whatever to ih& joint participation, &c. of more tlian one 
 in the same thing. 
 
 As 2 Cor. vi. 14 ; viii. 23 ; Ephes. iii. 9 ; Philipp. ii. 1 ; 
 iii.lO; lTim.v.22; Phil.l7; and 1 Pet. v. 1; 2Joh.ll. 
 And this is exactly the manner, in which it is used in the 
 very passage in question, 1 Cor. x. 16. 
 
 2dly, Where several persons or things are spoken of 
 as partaking of any thing, this word itself does express 
 collectively the joint participation of all ; but simply the 
 distinct participation of each : That is, in other words, it 
 expresses the general idea of participation, &c. and notli- 
 ing more. 
 
 As Rom. XV. 27; 1 Cor. i. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. 7 ; xiii. 13 ; 
 Gal. ii. 9 ; Heb. ii. 14 ; x. 33 ; 1 Pet. iv. 13 ; 2 Pet. i. 4 ; 
 1 John i. 3, 6, 7 ; Matt, xxiii. 30 ; Luke v. 10. And so 
 it is used likewise in the passage before us, 1 Cor. x. 18, 
 20. 
 
 3dly, When St. Paul would express, in this word it- 
 self, the idea of the^omf partaking, 8>cc. of more than one 
 in any person or thing, he distinguishes his meaning by 
 pernxing to it the particle — cuv. 
 
 As Rom. xi. 17 ; 1 Cor.ix.23 ; Ephes. v. 11 ; Philipp, 
 i. 7 ; iv. 14. And so John, Rev. i. 9 ; xviii. A-.fbJ 
 
 (b) The word xaamM sometimes signifies benevolent assistance, 
 or charitable contribuiion towards those, who stand in need of it. 
 As Rom. xii. 13 ; xv. 26 : 2 Cor. viii. 4 ; ix. 1, 13 ; Gal. vi. 6 5 
 
N*0. III.] APPENDIX. 39 
 
 jX{rg;^gii'— ja/€ro;^oj— ia6ro;^/jj— 
 
 1st, Signilies merely one person's or thing's partaking 
 of, agreeing with, &:c. another person or thing ; without 
 any reference whatever to the jom? partaking, &c. of more 
 than one in the same thing. 
 
 As 1. Cor. ix. 10 ; x. 30; 2 Cor. vi. 14; Heb. ii. 14? 
 V. 13 ; vii. 13. 
 
 2dly, When several persons or things ai'e spoken of, 
 as partaking, &c. of any thing, this word itself does not 
 express collectively the joint partaking, of all, but simply 
 the disti?ict partakmg, agreement, &c. of each, with the 
 thing spoken of : that is, it signifies the general idea of 
 participation, &c. and nothing more. 
 
 As 1 Cor. ix. 12 ; Heb. iii. 1, 14 ; vi. 4 ; xii. 8. And 
 in the passage before us, 1 Cor. x. 17, 21. 
 
 3dly, When St. Paul would express, in this word itself, 
 the idea oitht joint partaking, joint agreeing, &c. of sev- 
 eral together in any person or thing, he distinguishes his 
 meaning by prefixing to it the particle — truv. 
 
 As Ephes. iii. 6 ; v. 7. 
 
 4thly, The words (/.stejcsiv and noivuveiv, /xeTo;co? and 
 HOivcovogy are used synonimously, as well in the internal or 
 spiritual, as the external or material sense. 
 
 As 2 Cor. vi. 14; Heb. ii. 14; iii. 1, 14 ; vi. 4. So 
 particularly Luke v. 7 ; compared with v. 10'. And so 
 likewise in the very passage under consideration ; as will 
 appear by comparing 1 Cor. x. 16 with ver. ll.fcj 
 
 From these indisputable proofs of the sense, in which 
 St. Paul uses these words, it is abundantly plain, that they 
 must be interpreted in the same sense respectively in 
 those verses where they occur in 1 Cor. ch. x. And 
 more especially, as what is of importance to the true in- 
 terpretation of ver. 16, it appears from these proofs, that 
 St. Paul having here made use of the simple notvuviu, not 
 the compound ffvyHoivuvia, its true and whole meaning in 
 this verse must be — each person's partaking, or partici- 
 
 Philipp. i. 5 ; iv. IS ; Heb. xiii. 16. And so Acts ii. 42. But 
 with this application of it we have here no concern, and when used 
 in this sense it is easily distinguished. 
 
 (cj SeQ the note on this page at the end of the Appendix. 
 
10 APPlNDIX. [no. III. 
 
 patioji, of the body and blood there mentioned, and noth- 
 ing tnorc»(^dJ 
 
 And the true sense of hoivuviu in this passage beii% 
 thus ascertained from St. Paul's undoubted use of it in 
 other places ; it is of great moment, I apprehend, to ob- 
 serve further, what, as far as I know, has never yet been 
 properly attended to, that though St. Paul has actually in- 
 serted this word only, in the latter part of each of the ques- 
 tions, he here asks, the obvious sense of the questions 
 themselves absolutely requires it to be understood in the 
 first part of each question likewise. The cup or wine it- 
 self, in this rite, is the blood of Christ ; but it must be 
 the partaking of the cup, that is, the partaking of the 
 blood of Christ : in like maimer the bread itself is the 
 body of Christ ; but it must be the partaking of the bread, 
 that is, the partaking of the body of Christ. This is self- 
 evident. And from this observation joined to the forego- 
 ing, in which the meaning of Hoivmia was ascertained, it 
 necessarily follows, that in order to comprehend St. Paul's 
 true meaning, we must here understand by the cup and the 
 bread, the mo<vwv<«, or partaking of the cup and the bread, 
 in the first part of these questions^ to answer to the 
 xo/vftjv/a, or partaking of the body and blood in the last 
 part of them.(<'<?y/ 
 
 There is still another particular, of the utmost impor- 
 tance to the meaning of St. Paul in this verse, and die 
 nature of the right concerned, which it is absolutely ne- 
 cessary to clear up, because it has been made matter of 
 much doubt ; and that is, the true sense, in which th6 
 bread and wine are here styled the body and blood of 
 Christ. And this will apj^eai- extremely plain, merely 
 from considering the acknowledged meaning of the same 
 form of expression in the appointment of the Jewish Pas- 
 cal Supper; from which Jesus evidently borrowed it, 
 when he applied it to the rite he himself ordained. 
 
 As in the institution of the Pascal Supper, it is said of the 
 lamb killed and eaten in the manner prescribed, It is the 
 
 (d) See the note on this page at the end of the Appendix. 
 
 (e) Sec the note on this page at the end of the Appendix- 
 
NO. III.] APPEJJDIX. 41 
 
 hordes passover ;(fj so in the institution of the right be- 
 fore us Jesus said, of the bread and wine taken as he di- 
 rected, This IS my body ^ This is my blood of the Ntnv 
 Testament ; — or — This is the New Testament in my 
 blood. I 
 
 And as the Paschal Lamb, killed, dressed, and eaten as 
 enjoined, was not the action itself of the Lord's passmg 
 over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt ; but precisely 
 a religious memorial of that transaction, called by its 
 name ; and expressly declaimed to be so at the very time 
 of the institution \(g) — So the bread and w^ine, taken as 
 Jesus commanded, are not the body of Christ, and the 
 blood oj Christ in the New Testament, themselves ; but 
 precisely religious memorials of them, called by their 
 names ; and expressly declared to be so, by Jesus him- 
 self, in the w^ords of the institution. /^A^ In tliis sense 
 therefore, and in no other, must St. Paul have meant to 
 ask, Avhether the piu taking of them was not the partaking 
 of the body and blood of Jesus, in the passage under con- 
 sideration. 
 
 From the several remarks now made it appears, that ui 
 order fully to express the true sense of St. Paul, and 
 nothing but his sense, in ver. 16, it must be translated in 
 the following manner. 
 
 Ver. 16. The partaking of the cup of blessing, which 
 we bless, is it not, to each of us, the partaking of the me- 
 morial of the blood of Christ ? The partaking of the 
 bread, which we break, is it not, to each of us, the partak- 
 ing of the memorial of the body of Christ ?fij 
 
 Remark 3. We translate ver. 17 thus ; — For ive, be- 
 ing many, are one bread, and one body ; for we are. all 
 partakers of that one bread. 
 
 (f) Exod. xii. II. 
 
 (s) See Exod. xii. 14, and more at large in No. II. of this Ap- 
 pendix, (h) See Luke xii. 19, and 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. 
 
 (i) The very important misconceptions of the rite in question, 
 which have arisen from an obscure and mistaken interpretation of 
 this verse especially, have rendered it necessary to ascertain its 
 true meaning with the utmost precision. 
 
 • F 
 
4fl' APPENDIX. [no. III. 
 
 Now though a meaning may be collected from it, even 
 thus translated, certainly the figure by which we are call- 
 ed 07ie bread is extremely forced and unusual. It is at 
 the same time observable, that through the whole argu- 
 ment, St. Paul has not made even the least use of it, but 
 argued entirely upon that plain and familiar figure of styl- 
 ing all one body. If therefore the original will admit of 
 being properly translated, so as to free the passage from 
 this forced and unusual figure, which is not only useless, 
 but even embarrasses the sense, it ought to be so inter- 
 preted ; and it has long been observed, that it may with 
 the strictest propriety be translated thus : — Because the 
 bread is one, we who are many (or, we all) are one body ; 
 for we all partake of the one bread. 
 
 This renders St. Paul's meaning just, forcible, and 
 clear. He first styles the bread — one bread ; evidently 
 because it is partaken of by all, as the representative of one 
 iuid the same thing ; and then he argues, — Because the 
 bread so partaken of is one, all who thus partake of it are 
 one body ; that is, one collective body of Christians, dis- 
 tinguished from all other collective bodies, by the cele- 
 bration of this peculiar christian rite. A consequence so 
 clear, that he might well leave it to the Corinthians them- 
 selves to judge of its evidence and truth. This there- 
 fore, I apprehend, must be admitted as the true interpre- 
 tation of this verse. ^A-^' 
 
 Remark 4. To remove all obscurity from St. Paul's 
 meaning in this whole passage, it is necessary to'observe, 
 that ^uiiiovtotg and laiii^oviuVy in ver. 21, 22, which we trans- 
 late, devilsy ought to be rendered, davwjis ; that is, false 
 idol lords, worshipped by the heathens as mediators be- 
 tween their superior gods, Seo/, and men. 
 
 Where the word Iuhloviov is used in the New Testa- 
 ment to express the object of heathen worship, as in this 
 passage, it must always, I apprehend, be translated, dte- 
 mon,(lJ signifying the intermediate object of their wor- 
 ship. And that it ought to be so translated here is fur- 
 
 (k) Sec the note on this page at the end of the Appendix 
 (I) As Acts xvii. 18, 22. 1 Tim. iv. 1. 
 
NO. III.3 APPkNDIX. 4S 
 
 ther manifest from hence, that the whole force of the argu- 
 ment, which St. Paul here urges to deter the Corinthians 
 from all approaches to idolatry, by frequenting the feasts 
 upon those sacrifices, which were offered by the heathens 
 to their J«//xov/«, does not in any degi*ee depend upon their 
 being evil beings, or devils ; but merely upon their being- 
 idols, or false objects of worship ; so that no one could 
 with propriety, or even innocence, offer worship to the 
 only true God, and to these dcemons, or vain idols, like- 
 wise. /^m^^ 
 
 These points settled, the whole passage before us, con- 
 taining the argument St. Paul here insists on, and some 
 consequences he draws from it for the direction of the 
 Corinthian disciples in the point to which it relates, may 
 now be clearly and satisfactory explained. Through the 
 whole of it the apostle has expressed himself, as he usu- 
 ally does, with great conciseness ; and left sometliing to 
 be supplied, though nothing but what is obvious, in or- 
 der fully to express his meaning. — Thus it is evident, 
 that ver. 17 wants something to connect it with ver. 16 ; 
 and to prove the point intended by it, and connect it with 
 ver. 18. And, of the other verses, part require, and all 
 will admit, some insertions, to make them express their 
 \vhole meaning and design ; as, it is apprehended, will 
 now be clearly seen, by the following full, but exact and 
 close illustration. 
 
 1 Cor. chap. 10. 
 
 Ver. 14. f Flier ef ore my beloved brethren, Jiee Jrom 
 idolatry. 
 
 15, I address myself to you as to men of sense and dis- 
 cretion ; pass sentence yourselves upou the force and pro- 
 priety o^wJiat I advance. 
 
 16. The partaking of the cup of blessing, which we 
 bless, is it not to each of us the partaking of the memorial 
 of the blood of Christ, shed for us ? The pai'taking of the 
 bread, which we break, is it not to each of us the partaking 
 of the memorial of the body of Christ, given or broken for 
 
 (m) It is likewise evident that ^xiudytas in verse 20 refers to the 
 ;^ame object as uiaXoi in verse 19. 
 
44 APPENDIX [no. III. 
 
 US ? — And is not our partaking of these memorials of the 
 body and blood of Clirist, in the manner in wliich he com- 
 manded his disciples to partake of them, a pubHc virtual 
 declaration that we are his disciples ? This must cer- 
 tainly be allowed ; for — 
 
 17. Because the bread, thus taken by us all, is One ; 
 i. e. is the memorial of one and the same thing, the body 
 of Christ ; xve, being many, are one body ; i. e. we be- 
 come one body, viz. of Christ's professed disciples ; for 
 "we are all partakers of the one bread ; viz. that bread, 
 which so partaken of, 'is to each of us the memorial of one 
 and die same thing, — Christ's body broken for us. 
 
 It is plain then, that our partaking of the bread, which 
 we break in this manner, and of the cup, which we bless 
 in this manner, is a virtual public declaration, that we are 
 each of us disciples of Christ. — Nor is this apparent, vir- 
 tual declaration peculiar to the performance of this chris- 
 tian rite alone ; the case is exactly the same in the Jewish 
 worship. 
 
 18. Behold Israel after the fesh : consider how the 
 case stands with respect to the Je\vs : Are not they which 
 eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar ? Is not every 
 one, Avho eats of the Jewish sacrifices, understood to pro- 
 fess himself, by eating of them, a disciple of Moses, and 
 a worshipper of the God of the Jews ; to whom the sacri- 
 fice he eats of is offered up, and tlie altar professedly con- 
 secrated ? 
 
 19. IVhat say I then ? What then need I assert to 
 make good the point, of which I would comunce )'^ou ; 
 viz. That it is improper for you as Christians, to frequent 
 the idol feasts of the Gentiles ? Need I assert — That an 
 idol is any thing ? any real superior being ? — Or, that 
 which is o^ered in sacrifice to idols is any thing ? any 
 tiling of such a nature in itself, after having been offered 
 to idols, that eating it can pollute you ; and that you ought 
 not to frequent the idol feasts on that account ? 
 
 Certainly I have no occasion to assert this to prove my 
 point, nor do I assert it : and therefore, your denying 
 this, and being free from all mistaken prejudices of this 
 
NO. III.] • APPEN-DIX 45 
 
 sort, cannot possibly be any answer to my objections to * 
 your frequenting the idol feasts. 
 
 20. But, what I assert is, that the things, which the 
 Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to 
 God : — ^to false, imaginary, intermediate lords, not to 
 the one true God : — ^nd I would not that ye should have 
 connexion with dcemons ."-^And what I contend for is, 
 that you, who profess yourselves worshippers of the one 
 true God, ought not to have any connexion whatever 
 with false imaginary gods ; — which you must necessari- 
 ly appear to some to nave, so long as you frequent those 
 idol feasts, which are considered as acts of religious wor- 
 ship to the idols, or imaginary dasmons, in honor of 
 whom they are held. 
 
 The reason why I oppose your allowing yourselves to 
 appear thus connected with idols, or false imaginary gods, 
 is nothing more than the plain self-evident impropriety of 
 the thing. 
 
 21. Ye cannot drink the Lord^s cup, and the cup of dee- 
 mons : — If ye drink the cup professedly consecrated to 
 the Lord in the riglit instituted by Jesus, and by so doing 
 profess yourselves disciples of Christ, and worshippers of 
 the one true God ; evident it is, that you cannot either 
 consistently, or innocently drink a cup consecrated to 
 false gods, at the feasts held in their temples ; by drink* 
 ing which you appear to profess yourselves worshippers 
 of those idols or false gods : — Ye cannot partake of the 
 Lordh table, and the table of damons : — If ye partake of 
 the table consecrated to the Lord, in the rite instituted by 
 Jesus, and by so doing profess yourselves disciples of 
 Christ, and worshippers of the one true God ; evident it 
 is, that you cannot either consistently, or innocentl}'^, par- 
 take of a table consecrated to false imaginary gods, in the 
 temples of those gods ; by doing which you appear to 
 profess yourselves worshippers of those idols, or false 
 gods. 
 
 You cannot indulge yourselves in this practice without 
 provoking the jealous anger of the Lord, by this appar- 
 ent act of idolatry ; for by idolatry more especially, vou 
 
^ APPENDIX. NO. HI. 
 
 very well know, the jealous anger of the Lord will certainly 
 be Gxcitcd.f?iJ Let me then ask you — 
 
 22. Do xuc provoke the lord to jealousy ? — Do you re- 
 ally choose to stir up the jealous nn^cvfoj of tlie Lord 
 against you, by being guilty of this act of appai'ent idola- 
 try ? — ire xve stronger than he ? — Are you able to se- 
 cure yourselves from the effects of that wrath of God, 
 which your continuance in this act of apparent idolatry 
 will certainly draw upon you ? 
 
 As I have already s<{\6.,fpj to you, who have knowledge ; 
 who know th^t an idolis nothi?2g ; no real God ;^^>^ and 
 that ivhat is offered to idols is nothing; nothing in itself ca- 
 pable of polluting you by eating it ;frj to you, as far as 
 concerns yourselves only, there cannot be any harm in 
 the mere action of partaking of things offered to idols. 
 I grant therefore, that if the matter was to be considered 
 with respect to yourselves onh', it \vould be allowable 
 for you to do it. But will you therefore contend, that 
 there cannot be any good reasons against it ? 
 
 23. All things are lawful for me^ but all things are not 
 expedie?it : — Because an action is such, that, considered 
 witli respect to myself only, it would not be criminal to 
 me ; it does not follow, that therefore it must be profitable, 
 or expedient. — 411 things are lawful for me, but all thi?igs 
 edify not : — Because an action is such, that, considered 
 with respect to myself onl}'^, it would not be criminal in 
 me ; it does not follow, that therefore m}' doing it will 
 contribute to the edification and good of others. 
 
 Certain it is, that though your partaking of idol feasts 
 cannot be prejudicial to you, who have knowledge to pre- 
 
 (n) Vide the second commandment. 
 
 (o) Bishop Pearce observes upon the place (see his Commenta- 
 ry, vol. ii. p. 257) that the word in the original does not necessarily 
 signify jealousy : but when we consider the second command- 
 ment, we may, I should suppose, with peculiar propriety translate 
 it, jealous anger, in this pariicular passage ; where the giving 
 countenance to idolatry is the very offence, against which the apos- 
 tle is cautioning the Corintliians, 
 
 (p.) 1 Cor. viii. 1. (q) Ch. viii. 4. 
 
 (r) Ch. X. 19. 
 
NO. III.] APPENDIX. 47 
 
 vent it ',fsj yet may your example in this instance, as I 
 have already told you, f^ J be of great prejudice to such of 
 your fellow Christians, as have not an equal degree of 
 knowledge in these particulars with yourselves. The 
 immediate consequence of which can be no other than 
 this ; that you must regulate your conduct in this partic- 
 ular, as in all others, by the extensive principles of that 
 sincere benevolence enjoined in the law of Christ. 
 
 24. Let no mani seek his own, but every man another^ s 
 good. — Let no man, in any instance, for a satisfaction to 
 himself, do what he knows will be attended with a real 
 mischief to others ; but forego any such pleasure to him- 
 self, for the sake of promoting the good of others. Let 
 no man therefore frequent idol feasts in the heathen tem- 
 ples for his own gratification ; but absolutely abstain from 
 them, that he may not set an example, which will prove in 
 the end prejudicial to others. 
 
 The extensive principles of sincere christian benevo- 
 lence, if properly attended to, will clearly teach you what 
 course you have to pursue, with regard to this matter, 
 upon all occasions. As first, 
 
 25. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking 
 no questions ,or conscience sake. — Whatever meat you 
 find publicly exposed for sale, in the customary manner, 
 make no scruple of eating, without making any inquiry 
 into the particular occasion, on which it was killed. For 
 though it should have been part of a sacrifice offered to 
 idols, as this is not known, nor supposed to be known, to 
 you, your eating it cannot possibly mislead, or give of- 
 fence to any one. 
 
 26. For the earth is the Loi'd^s, and the fullness thereof. 
 — For, as every good thing with which the earth abounds 
 is created by the one true God ; certainly we may par- 
 take of them all, where no particular circumstance inter- 
 feres, as given us by him. — Again, 
 
 27. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, 
 and ye be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you, eat . 
 
 (s) 1 Cor. viii. 1, 4, (t) Ch. viii. 7, 9—13. 
 
40 APPENDIX. £nO. HI, 
 
 asking no questions for conscience sake* — By this means, 
 as before, your eating what is set before you cannot mis- 
 lead, or give offence to any one. 
 
 28. But if any one say unto you. This has been offered 
 in sacrifiee unto idols, eat not ; for his sake that shewed it^ 
 and for conscience sake. — For by eating in this case, you 
 may set a prejudicial example to him who informed you 
 it had been offered to idols ; which by the laws of chris- 
 tian charity just mentioned you ought conscientiously to 
 avoid. — \_For the earth is the Lord^s, and the fullness there- 
 of. — For, since every thing with which the earth abounds 
 is created by the one true God, }^ou ought not to partake 
 of any of them under such circumstances, as may give 
 
 ' room to others to conclude, that you attribute them to 
 idols, or false imaginary gods.]rwJ 
 
 29. Conscience, I so,y-) not thine own, but of the othefs. 
 — But, mistake me not ; I do not mean, that in this case 
 you should abstain for any scruples you ought to enter- 
 tain in your own minds ; but purely as a duty of chris- 
 tian benevolence, that you may not give offence to him 
 who told you, or be the means of leading him into error* 
 — For, why is my liberty judged of another man's con- 
 science ? — For certainly there cannot be '^^Ry good reason, 
 why I should.abridge myself of a liberty, vdiich is inno- 
 cent in me, but this ; That I ought to avoid shocking 
 the prejudices of another, and leading him into evil. — ; 
 That there is no reason respecting myself only, why I 
 ought to abstain from eating, in this case, is plain : — 
 
 30. For if I by grace(dc) be a partaker ; why am I 
 evil spoken of for that, for which I give thanks ? — For if 
 I partake of any thing witli proper thankfulness to God, 
 from whom it originally comes ; there cannot be any rea- 
 son whatever, relating to myself alone, why I should be 
 
 Cu) Such appears to be the natural meaning of this clause in 
 this place, if the repetition of it here be genuine ; which however 
 there seems reason to believe is not, as it is a manifest interruption 
 to the reasoning of the passage. 
 
 ("x) It ought to be translsted — nvith thanksgiving :— 9ee Bp. 
 Pearce qn the place. Comment, vol. ii. p. 259. 
 
NO. III.3 APPENDIX. 49 
 
 evil spoken of, for partaking of that, for which I am prop* 
 erly thankful to the Creator of all things. 
 
 It is evident there cannot be any ; and therefore, the 
 rule, by which you must conduct yourselves in this whole 
 aftair, is the great law of christian charity just mention- 
 ed. 
 ' 31. Whether thei'efore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye 
 4oy do all to the glory of God. — With regard therefore to 
 the point under consideration, as well as to every other, be 
 careful to act in such a manner, upon every occasion, as 
 plainly to shew yourselves sincere worshippers of the one 
 true God ; in opposition to ever}', the least appearance of 
 idolatry. 
 
 32. Give no?ie oj^ence ; neither to the Jeivs, nor to the 
 Gentiles.) nor to the church of God. — Be careful not to 
 place any stumbling-block in the way of tlie unbelieving 
 Jews and Greeks, which may prevent their conversion to 
 the faith in the one true God, in the gospel ; and neither 
 to give offence to your weaker christian brethren ; nor to 
 be the means of leading them into any practice, which 
 they themselves esteem sinful. 
 
 33. Eveji as I please all men in all things, not seeking 
 mine own p7'oJit, but that of the many, that they may be 
 saved. — In acting thus you will do no more than I myself 
 do ; for it is my rule, on all occasions, to prefer the good 
 and salvation of others, to my own immediate ease and 
 satisfaction. 
 
 Ch. xi. I. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of 
 Christ. — As in this I have set Christ before myself for 
 my example, so ought you to take me for yours. 
 
 From this illustration of the whole passage before us, 
 which, if I mistake not, renders St. Paul's method of ar- 
 guing in it cleai*, pertinent, and conclusive ; and which 
 is founded on the true meaning of his words, as they are 
 used by St. Paul himself, and the other sacred writers, 
 throughout the New Testament ; it is obvious, that through 
 this whole passage, the apostle has not either expressly 
 asserted, or said what implies, any thing concerning the 
 
 G 
 
^ APPENDIX. [no. ill 
 
 nature of the Lord's Supper, more than this ; — That the 
 celebration of this rite was necessarily to be considered, 
 and always actually was considered, as a public profession, 
 by every person, who assisted at it, that he himself was a 
 believer in Christ, and a worshipper of the one tnie 
 God. 
 
 The whole strength of St. Paul's argument in this pas- 
 sage, as far as it relates to the Lord's Supper, is founded 
 on this consideration, and this only ; the inference he 
 draws requires no other principle to be allowed, to make 
 it valid and complete ; nor will the use, to which he has 
 here applied it, admit of any other consideration to be add- 
 ed to it. No other conclusion therefore, relative to the;; 
 specific nature of the Lord's Supper, can possibly be 
 drawn from any thing the apostle has here said relating to 
 it, than this ; — That celebrating the Lord's Supper must 
 certainly be considered as a virtual declaration, on the 
 part of each communicant, that he is a believer in Jesus, 
 and a worshipper of the one true God, in opposition to 
 every species of idolatry. — And this certainly was a truth 
 so evident, that St. Paul might well appeal to it, in the 
 manner he has ; and leave it to the sense and discretion 
 of the Corinthians themselves, to pass sentence upon the 
 manifest truth and propriety of the conclusion he drew 
 from it, for the future regulation of their o^vn con- 
 duct. 
 
 After the full inquiry we have now made into the true 
 meaning of St. Paul in his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 ch. X. 14, &c. no suspicion, it is hoped, can still remain, 
 that any particular information, relative to the specific na- 
 ture and design of the Lord's Supper, can possibly, be 
 drawn from what St. Paul Jias there said concerning it. 
 But since a remarkable argument has been founded upon 
 this particular passage, which appeared to its very emin- 
 ent author. Dr. Cudworth, and has appeared to others of 
 the greatest name since fy J him, as an absolute demon- 
 
 fyj See in particular a treatise, entitled, " A rational account of 
 the natuix; and end of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper," by 
 Bishop Warburton- 
 
.... - * 
 
 !N0. III.] APFElTDI3t. 51 
 
 stration, that the Lord's Supper is a rite of a very different 
 nature from what we have yet found it to be ; it will add to 
 our satisfaction upon this point, though it is by no means 
 necessary, if by taking a view of what Dr. Cudworth ha^ 
 advanced in favour of that opinion, which he was the first 
 proposer of, and imagined he had demonstrated, we can 
 shew it to be founded in mistake. This therefore will be 
 particularly considered in No. VII of this Appendix. 
 
APPENDIX. [no. IV. 
 
 NUMBER IV.CaJ 
 
 THE Ciiristians at Corinth having been guilty of great 
 improprieties in their behavior, when assembled together 
 to celebrate the Lord's Supper ; St. Paul reproves them on 
 this account, in 1st Epist. Cor. xi. 20 — 32. 
 
 Of this passage ver. 23, 24, 25, contain St. Paul's his- 
 tory of the instituiion of the Lord's Supper, and have been 
 already considered ; (bj and ver. 26, the apostle's own 
 explanation of its use and design ; and the only verses, 
 which can induce us to doubt, whether that explanation of 
 its specific nature, to which we have hitherto been forced 
 to assent, is a true and complete account of it or not, are 
 the following, from 27 to 32. 
 
 27. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink the 
 cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of 
 the Lord. 
 
 28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the 
 bread, and drink of the cup. 
 
 29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drink- 
 eth damnation to himself ; not discerning the Lord's body. 
 
 30. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and 
 many sleep. 
 
 31. For if we would judge ourselves, wc should not be judged. 
 
 32. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord^; that 
 we should not be condemned with the world. 
 
 To understand this passage, it is necessary to observe, 
 First, That by eating and drinking iinivorthUy ; or, as 
 it may be translated, unworthily of the Lord., ver. 27 ; is 
 precisely meant, eating and drinking in the Lord's Supper, 
 without seriously considering, and by that means without 
 behaving, as becomes those, who do seriously consider, 
 that this rite is always to be celebrated, as — A religious 
 commemoration of our Lord, but more especially of his 
 death, and the general purpose for which he died ; — inten- 
 ded to show his death till he come. 
 
 Secondly, — That the examination of themselves before 
 they partook of the Lord's Supper, enjoined in ver. 28, 
 
 CaJ See Proposition XXV, page 12. 
 
 ( bj Sec Sections IV. and V. of the Treatise itself 
 
wo. IV.] APPENDIX* 5S 
 
 caniiot signify any thing more, than such a degree of seri- 
 ous reflection upon the action they were about to perform, 
 as would secure their partaking of it with a proper atten- 
 tion to its rehgious design. 
 
 Thirdly, — It is an agreed point, that the word damna- 
 tion^ which our translation has adopted in ver. 29, is here 
 improperly made use of, instead of the more general term 
 judgment^ or condemnation ; and that it here refers express- 
 ly to nothing more, than the temporal punishments made 
 mention of in ver. 30 ; and which St. Paul informs them 
 were inflicted on them as merciful chastisements ; in ver. 
 32. And it is further certain, that by not discerning the 
 Lord'^s body, as we translate the words in the same verse, 
 St. Paul meant, not attending to that distinction between 
 the common use of bread and wine, and the partaking of 
 them as the religious memorials of the body and blood of 
 Jesus ; which the nature of such a commemoration requir- 
 ed. 
 
 The only particular, therefore, which can lead us to 
 doubt, whether the Lord's Supper has not something 
 more in its nature, than we ha^e }-et been able to discov- 
 er, must be this ; that it is here declared. Whoever shall 
 eat and drink unworthily, or without suitable serious re- 
 flection and behaviour, shall be guilty of the body and blood 
 of the Lord. 
 
 This expression, it must be confessed, is so obscure, as 
 to render it extremely difficult to assign its true meaning. 
 
 The only natural meaning of the Avords themselves is, 
 being gidlty of wounding his body, and shedding his blood; 
 or, in other words, guilty of putting him to death. 
 
 But certain it is, that they among the Corinthians, who, 
 when met together to paitake of the Lord's Supper, had 
 behaved in that irreverent and indecent manner, which St. 
 Paul in this letter to them has informed us they did, had 
 neither been guilty of putting our Lord to death, nor of 
 any sin equal to that ; but only, of shewing themselves, in 
 that instance, in a ver}^ high degree culpably destitute of 
 all serious reflection on the goodness of our Lord, so sig- 
 nally displayed in his suflferings and deatli ; which '.vant> 
 
fi* APPENDIX, iLNb.iVk 
 
 of serious reflection, thoughextremelyblaiTicable, and wor^ 
 thy of punishment, was by no means to be compared to 
 the crime of actually putting Jesus to death. So that the 
 first and obvious meaning of our translation of this pas- 
 sage, cannot possibly be the true meaning of St. Paul. 
 
 To convince the Corinthians of the impropriety of 
 that indecent l^ehaviour, they had been guilty of, at their 
 meetings to celebrate the Lord's Supper, St. Paul, having 
 first repeated Tc J the history of its institution, which clos- 
 es with this command. Do this in remembrance of me ; ih 
 order to make them properly sensible of the solemn na- 
 ture of this rite, immediately adds, from himself,— ;/or 
 as often as ye eat this bread, anddrink this cup, ye do shev^ 
 (proclaim) the Lord''s death, till he come.(d) — Having 
 thus reminded them, that it was the death of Christ in 
 particular, for the commemoration of which this rite was 
 more especially enjoined, he directly draws this conse- 
 quence from that consideration ; — Wherefore, whosoever 
 shall eat this bread, anddrink this cup of the L^yrd, unwor- 
 thily^ (i. e. in an inconsiderate and indecent manner, as 
 they had done ; ) shall be, as we translate it, guilty of the 
 body and blood of the Lord. 
 
 St. Paul says, wherefore, whosoever shall eat, &c. If 
 we ask why ? it is evident he means, because this rite 
 was designed, more especially, to shew the Lord''s death ; 
 — to be a religious commemoration of his sufferings and 
 death in particular. So that whoever behaved at the cel- 
 ebration of this rite in such a manner, as to shew a thought- 
 less disregard, and want of serious attention to it, did, by 
 tliat particular misbehaviour, unavoidably shew a disregard 
 and want of serious attention to the sufferings and death of 
 Gur Lord ; in some small degree similar to, though by no 
 means to be compared with, that of those, who actually 
 caused him to be put to death : and consequently, so far 
 as the want of proper attention to his sufferings and death, 
 in this instance, bore a resemblance to that of those, who 
 actually caused him to be put to death ; so far they be- 
 
 CO Ver. 23—25. ^d) Ver. 26. 
 
IfO, IV.3 APPENDI^i. 55 
 
 came guilty, as avc translate the word, of the body and 
 blood of the Lord. 
 
 Thus mterpreted, what St. Paul here says is easy, and 
 intelligible, as well as strictly just and true ; but in no 
 other sense can it possibly be either intelligible, just, or; 
 true.fcj And the fact is, that this is the true meaning) 
 of the apostle's own words ; and that the obscurity of the 
 passage arises wholly from an impropriety in the transla. 
 tion. 
 
 The original is, svo^og e^cti rs auiAxrog, &c. and the wordi 
 svoxos is of such extensive use and application, that, on, 
 different occasions, the obvious sense of the passage will 
 force us to translate it in a very different manner. 
 
 In Matt. ch. xxvi. 66. — evoxog ^ctvarov so-xe ; and- 
 Mark, ch. xiv. 64. — eivui evcjcov ^uvctrov ; it may with 
 propriety be translated ^wz/fz/ of; hecausey guilty of 
 death, is an elliptical expression,^ which use has render- 
 ed famihai* ; and the meaning of which answers exactly^ 
 to the meaning of the word in these two passages; 
 
 But in Matt. V. 21, 22. — evoxog s^nviM^urei-^—rf (jwt^it/ ^ 
 —aQ rviv yeevuv ; — and Mark iii. 29. — svox^og euv uiuvicv 
 n^t(T£ug; — and Heb. ii. 15. — evoxoi v\(reiv ^SmXetag ; — in alh 
 these passages it must of necessity be translated — subject 
 to, exposed to, liable to, obnoxious to, Sec. ; and cannot pos- 
 sibly be rendered — guilty of. 
 
 And in 1 Cor. xi. 27, the passage under consideration, 
 fvo^gc? cyai Tov (TuiLciTog ; as well as in James ii. 10.< — 
 ysyoMs TuvTwv £voX,og, which is exactly similar to it ; to 
 give it its true and proper meaning, it must be rendered 
 in a different manner still ; such as, — offends agai?ist — 
 afft'ontsr-^shews a disrespect to. Sec. — Or still more fully, 
 is guilty of offending against — guilty of affro?iting — 
 guilty of shelving a disrespect to, &c. — Not absolutely, 
 guilty of the body and blood of Christ, iw the one instance ; 
 or, guilty of all the commandments, in the other. 
 
 The necessity there is for translating the vv^ord in this 
 mamier, in these two perfectly similar passages, is not 
 
 Cc^ See the note on this page, at the end of the Appendix, 
 
S6 APPENDIX. [no. I\^. 
 
 only evident from the reason of the thing, but likewise 
 from St. James^ explanation of his own meaning. 
 
 St. James says,(^ Whosoever shall offend against one 
 commandment of the law — yeyove itavrwy evoxog ; \\ hich 
 we translate, is guilty of all. — But here the evident reason 
 of the thing must convince us, that this translation is im- 
 proper ; because it makes St. James affirm what is abso- 
 lutely false ; and what indeed he has informed us, he did 
 not mean. Whoever breaks one commandment of the 
 law only is far less guilty than he, ■who actually breaks 
 them all. The utmost that with truth can be said of him, 
 who breaks one only^ is, that he offends against, or sliews a 
 disrespect to, all ; by offending against, in one instance, 
 that authority, which equally enjoins all : and this the 
 apostle himself has informed us, was exactly what he 
 'm^m-it.fgj Here therefore it is manifest, that evo'X^og 
 ysyove should not have been rendered, absolutely, is guilty 
 of; but ought to have been translated, becomes an affront- 
 er of; or becomes guilty of affronting ; or, of shewing a 
 disrespect to, all the rest. 
 
 And for the self same reasons, in the passage before us, 
 fvo%of yeyove tov oruy^uToi ought not to have been translat- 
 ed, absolutely, is guilty of the body, ^c, but should have 
 been rendered by some such expression as, offends against, 
 ajfronts, shows a disrespect to ; Or, more fully, is guilty of 
 offending against, affronting, or shewing a disrespect to, the 
 body and blood, that is, the memorials of the body and 
 blood, and, consequently, the sufferings and death of 
 Christ, ^/zy" 
 
 From the parallel passage of St. James, therefore, as 
 well as from the nature of the thing itself, it is evident, 
 
 (f) Chap. ii. 10. 
 
 (g) James ii. 11. 
 
 Ch) The reader may have the satisfaction of finding this inter- 
 pretation confirmed by the authority of Bp. Pearce, in his Com- 
 mentary and note vipon the passage, vol. II. p. 270. Though there, 
 in the note, by filling up the vi^ords of St. James thus, — is guilty of 
 the breach of all ; — he undesignedly goes further than either his own 
 interpretation of the original word, or the reason of the thing, will 
 warrant. See likewise his note on Matt. ch. v. 21. vol. I. p. 30. 
 
NO. IV.^ APPENDIX. 57 
 
 that this obscure expression, is guilty of the body and 
 blood of the Lord^ is improperly adopted by our translation 
 in Cor. ch. xi. 27 ; and that the real meaning of St. Paul 
 himself, in this passage, cannot possibly afford us any 
 foundation whatever, for attributing to the specific nature 
 and design of the Lord's Supper, any thing more than, or 
 different from, what we have found it to be, by consider- 
 ing the history of its institution, and all the peculiar cir- 
 cumstances attending it. 
 
 Should it nevertheless be imagined, that even those 
 temporal punishments, which St. Paul here tells the Co- 
 rinthians had actually overtaken them, on account of 
 their unworthy, indecent behaviour, Avhen met together 
 to celebrate the Lord's Supper, seem to shew, that this 
 rite must contain something more in its nature, than has 
 yet appeared from all the particulars of its institution ; 
 the answer is easy and obvious. 
 
 From the history of the institution it is indisputably 
 certain, that our Saviour himself neither annexed any 
 special benefits to the due performance of this rite ; nor 
 any special evils to the omission, or unworthy perform* 
 ance of it. And since it is likewise certain, that none of 
 the apostles have given us even the least intimation of 
 any such appointment ; it necessarily follows, that as far 
 as depends upon the nature of the rite itself, no other 
 blessings or evils can arise from the due celebration, or 
 faulty neglect of it, than those already enumerated in 
 Propositions XIII and XIV. 
 
 But St. Paul has here informed us, that the Corin- 
 thians were punished in a special manner, for their un- 
 worthy behaviour at the Lord's Supper, with weakness, 
 sickness, and death ; and this with a special design to 
 chastise the persons so offending, in this world ; in order 
 to prevent them from being condemned in the next. 
 
 It follows, therefore, that these judgments, which were 
 inflicted on the Corinthians, were not any established 
 punishments, annexed to the unworthy celebration of the 
 Lord's Supper, and always accompanying it, on account 
 of any thing peculiar in the nature and effects of the 
 
5S' APPENDIX, NO. IV. 
 
 rite itself; but extraordinary punishments, inflicted on 
 them by the special providence of God, at that particular 
 time only ; in order the more effectually to further the 
 propagation, and secure the establishment of the gospel, 
 in those early days of its infant state. 
 
KO. V.J APPENDIX. 59 
 
 NUMBER N.(a) 
 
 THE passage here referred to is 1st Epist. Corinth, 
 jchap. V. ver. 7, 8 ; and is as follows. 
 
 " Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us ; therefore 
 *•'■ let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither \vith 
 " the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with tiie 
 *'■ unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." 
 
 As this passage is wholly figurative, styles Christ our 
 passover, makes mention of his being sacrificed for us, 
 and exhorts us to keep the feast in a particular manner ; 
 it may possibly at first view, and while considered merely 
 by itself, excite a confused suspicion that it relates to the 
 Lord's Supper ; and that it is founded on something in 
 the nature of that rite, which we have not yet discovered. 
 But if we consider it, as it stands connected with what 
 goes before it, which is absolutely necessary to ascertain 
 its true meaning, w^ shall be satisfactorily convinced, that 
 the Lord's Supper is not so much as alluded to in it ; and 
 that it is not even capable of being applied to that rite. 
 
 St. Paul is here addressing the Corinthian disciples 
 upon a very particular occasion. 
 
 Ch. V. ver. 1 . It is reported commonly, (says the Apostle) that 
 there is fornication among you ; and such fornication as is not so 
 much as named among the Gentiles ; that one should have his 
 father's wife. 
 
 2. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned ; that 
 he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. 
 
 3. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have 
 judged already, as though I were present, <;oncerning him that hath 
 so done this deed :— . 
 
 4. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered 
 together, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ ; 
 
 5. To deliver such an one to Satan, for the destrviction of the 
 flesh ; that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus'. 
 
 6. Your glorying is not good: know ye not that a little leaven 
 'leaveneth the whole lump ? 
 
 7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that yc may be a new 
 lump ; as ye are unleavened. For even Christ, our Passoverj is 
 ^■.acrificed for us : 
 
 C&J See proposition XXVI, page 12. 
 
6% APPENDIX. [no. V. 
 
 8. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither 
 with the le-iven of ewilCbJ and wickedness ; but with the unleav- 
 ened bread of sincerity and truth. 
 
 Such is the whole connected passage : and if for a moment 
 we suppose St. Paul to have alluded to the Lord's Supper 
 in the last clause of it, his reasoning must then unavoida- 
 bly stand thus : 
 
 " I condemn you Corinthians for suffering so extraor- 
 dinary a species of fornication, as I hear of, to be practised 
 among you without reproof ; and I command you, l^y my 
 apostolical authority, to put away from among you the 
 person who has been guilty of it. And this I enjoin you 
 purposely that more persons may not become guilty of as 
 flagrant enormities, by the influence of his example. You 
 know that a little leaven Icaveneth the whole mass in which 
 it is suffered to remain ; and you ought therefore to be 
 solicitous to separate from you every one, who is guilty of 
 such enormities, as tend naturally to destroy in others that 
 purity of manners required of you by, the gospel. For 
 as Christ, who may be called our Passover, is sacrificed 
 for us ; we ought (to do what ?) to celebrate the LorcPs 
 Supper^ not with old leaven, our old accustomed vices ; nor 
 with the leaven of evil and wickedness ; but with the 
 unleavened bread of sincere goodness and truth ; i. e. 
 with a virtuous and pure conversation." 
 
 Such must St. Paul's reasoning here be, if by keeping 
 the feast he meant — celebrating the Lord'^s Supper^ in the 
 passage in question. To convince the Corinthians, that 
 they ought to expel from their society the fornicator he 
 mentions ; and that for this particular reason, which he 
 expressly assigns, lest his unpunished wickedness should 
 embolden others to an indulgence in equal vices ; he must 
 here have meant to remind them of the obligations they 
 were under as Christians, (not, to regulate their lives by 
 the pure and virtuous precepts of the gospel ; but, truly), 
 to celebrate the Lord's Supper with a proper disposition. 
 But this interpretation of the Apostle's meaning is sui-ely 
 
 (b) So the word x«xt« should be translated, instead of malice s 
 which is focei^n to tiie meaning of the passage. 
 
JirO. v.] APPENDIX. 61 
 
 so manifestly improper, and even absurd, that there is no 
 possibility of admitting it as true. 
 
 Evident it is, that St. Paul does not here object to the 
 person, whom he orders them to put away from them, that 
 he had been guilty of profaning the Lord's Supper ; but 
 that he was guilty of such immoral conduct, as was ut- 
 terly inconsistent with the purity required of a disciple of 
 Christ. In all that St. Paul says, both of the person and 
 the oftence,^c^ his thoughts are wholly taken up with the 
 vicious and moral nature of the offence itself ; without 
 even the least glance at any remote effect of it, in profan- 
 ing either his celebration of the Lord's Supper, or any oth- 
 er act of religious worsliip, which it equally prophaned.. 
 And since it is certain, that there is not even the remotest 
 hint at the Lord's Supper, in the five first verses, in which 
 he insists upon the enormity of the offence, and directs 
 them to separate from them the person v/ho was guilty of 
 it ; it would be absurd to imagine, that in the three next 
 he should mean to tell them, and this without any thing to 
 introduce it, that they must separate from the person in 
 question, for this strange reason above all others, — lest 
 they should come, like him, to prophane the Lord's Sup- 
 per. 
 
 By a figurative expression of keeping the feast ^ and the 
 manner in which they should keep it, it is plain St. Paul 
 meant the due regulation of their lives as disciples of 
 Ciirist; without any reference whatever to the Lord's Sup- 
 per. This is not only clear from the five first verses of 
 the passage, but even still more so from the three last 
 themselv^ ; which consist of such figures, as St. Paul 
 could not have made use of in speaking of the Lord's Sup- 
 per. 
 
 He here directs the Corinthians to purge out the old 
 leaven ; because, as Christians, they were wileavened ; 
 and bound to keep the feast ^ not with old leaven^ nor with 
 the leaven of evil and wickedness ; but with the unleaven- 
 ed bread of sincerity and truth. But how could St. Paul 
 choose out this figure, above all others, when speaking 
 
 (c) From ver. 1 to 5. 
 
-ga APPENDIX. CnO.V* 
 
 of the Lord's Supper ; or how can it be appHed to that 
 rite ? As far as relates to the Lord's Supper, most cer- 
 tain it is, that Christians are not, what St. Paul here says 
 they are, unleavened ; since the gospel contains no direc- 
 tion to make use of unleavened bread in celebrating the 
 Lord's Supper ; and it is therefore impossible that St. 
 Paul could have the Lord' Supper in his thoughts, when 
 he reminded the Corinthian disciples, that they were un- 
 leavened. 
 
 In fact the truth is simply this. To make the Co- 
 rinthians sensible of the necessity there was for stigmatiz- 
 ing the person, who had been guilty of that enormity, 
 which the Apostle here reprehends ; he reminds them of 
 the mischievous influence which such an example, if suf- 
 fered to go unpunished, would have among them ; by 
 putting to them a question, than which none could be more 
 familial, — Knorw ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the 
 whole lump ? Having put this question, he immediately, 
 and very naturally, styles those, sins, in which they had 
 been accustomed to allow themselves before their conver- 
 sion to the faith in Christ, the old leaven ; and directs 
 them to pui'ge it out^ or to keep themselves pure from all 
 such corruptions for the future ; in order that they might 
 be a netv lump ; as they xvere unleavened ; that is, in plain 
 terms, that they might now be really purified from all 
 those vices, in which they had before indulged ; as their 
 profession of the faith in Christ plainly required, and sup- 
 posed them to be. 
 
 This illustration of the point he had to inculcate from 
 the nature of leaven, and the mention of unleavened 
 bread, having led St. Paul's thoughts to the Jewish Pas- 
 chal Supper, in which the bread is indispensably requir- 
 ed to be unleavened ; and tliere being a striking resem- 
 blance between the deliverance of the Israelites, of which 
 that Supper was the appointed memorial], and the redemp- 
 tion of mankind tlirough Christ ; he goes on to strength- 
 en what he had already said, by reminding them, that 
 Christ their passover had been sacrificed for them ; and that 
 therefore they ought to keep the feast, vof xvith old leaveJh 
 
NO. v.] APPENDIX* 63 
 
 neither with the leaven of evil and wickedness, but with the 
 unleavened bread of sincerity and truth : As if he had said, 
 in direct aiid plain terms, — That Christ, who might very 
 aptly be styled the Passover of Christians, had been slain 
 for them ; and therefore, as the Jews, in celebrating their 
 deliverance by the Paschal Supper, abstained from all 
 leavened bread, in obedience to the injunction of the law 
 of Moses J so they, who professed themselves Christians, 
 should as it were celebrate their redemption through 
 Christ, by abstaining from all sm and wickedness, and 
 by practising sincere holiness and virtue ; agreeably to th6 
 precepts of the law of Christ. 
 
 This appears so manifestly the trutli, and the whole 
 meaning of St. Paul in this passage, that we may venture 
 to affirm, in exhorting the Corinthians to keep the feast 
 tvith the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, it was 
 their moral conduct in their whole life and conversation, 
 not their manner of celebrating the Lord's Supper, that 
 he had his thoughts upon ; and consequently, that no in- 
 formation concerning the nature and design of the Lord's 
 Supper can possibly be derived from this passage ; since 
 in reality that rite is not even so much as alluded to in 
 itrdj 
 
 (d) The reader may see other arguments to prove the 'same 
 point with respect to this passage, in the treatise intitled, *'A plain" 
 ttccouut of the Lord's Supper," by Bishop Hoadly, 
 
APPENDIX [no. Vr. 
 
 NUMBER yi. 
 
 ST. JOHN, in the 6th chapter of his Gospel, has re- 
 corded a discourse, held by Jesus with the Jews, in the 
 synagogue at Capernaum, the day after he had fed five 
 thousand person s with five barley loaves and two small fishes . 
 Notwithstanding that miracle, they required from him a 
 sign, in order to believe in him, adding, that God had giv- 
 en them bread from heaven ; in consequence of which, 
 alluding particularly to the miracle they hud mentioned as 
 superior to that he had so lately worked, he expressed 
 himsel in the following very striking manner. 
 
 " I am the living bread which came do^vn from heaven : 
 " if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever : and 
 " the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give 
 " for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove 
 " amongst themselves,- saying, how can this man give us 
 ** his flesh to eat ? Then said Jesus unto them, Verily, 
 " verily, I say unto you, except. ye eat the flesh of the 
 " Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 
 " Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, 
 " hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 
 " For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink in- 
 " deed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, 
 *' dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father 
 ** hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eat- 
 " eth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread, 
 " which came down from heaven ; not as your fathers 
 " did eat manna, and are dead ; he that eateth of this 
 " bread shall live forever. '^Cy^ 
 
 These remai-kablc expressions, having a very strong 
 resemblance to thot;e, which Jesus made use of, when at 
 length he instituted tlie rite of eating bread and drirking 
 wine in remembrance of him, and of his death in particular; 
 (on which occasion he styled tl,'^ bread to be eaten his body^ 
 and the ivine to be dra;ik his blood ;) it has by many been 
 supposed, tliat in this discourse, he really, tiiough covert- 
 
 (a) Gospel of John, vi. 5 1*-"5§. 
 
jrO. VI.] APPENDIX. 65 
 
 ly, alluded to that rite ; and the expressions just quoted 
 have by them been considered as so many direct proofs, 
 that the most important spiritual benefits ai'e, by the spec- 
 ial appointment of Jesus, annexed to the celebration of it. 
 
 That Jesus might thus allude to a rite, which he was at 
 length certainly to institute, before the time of its actual 
 institution, is what cannot be denied. But before we ad- 
 mit the supposition of any special pri^'ileges as annexed to 
 the rite in question, upon the strength of the expressions 
 he made use of at this time, two distinct points are neces- 
 sary to be proved ; the one, that Jesus certainly did al- 
 lude to this rite upon this occasion ; the other, that if he 
 did, he must certainly have meant, by what he said, to at- 
 tribute to the celebration of it such spiritual benefits, as 
 have been supposed. If either of these particulars is even 
 left in doubt, the conclusions, contended for from the ex- 
 pressions of Jesus at this time, must be wholly given up. 
 And the positive proof of both these fundamental points 
 lies upon those who assume them, and attribute peculiar 
 benefits to the celebration of the Lord's Supper, as found- 
 ed upon them. But the truth is, that even of the allusion 
 itself we are so far from having any proof, that except the 
 turn of the expressions themselves, there is not the least 
 evidence in its support ; and the more we seek for such 
 collateral proofs of it, as might naturally be expected if it 
 were real, the more doubtful it will be found. 
 
 The expressions Jesus made use of upon this occasion, 
 appeared so strange to his hearers, and gave them so great 
 offence, that, in order to remove it, he thought proper im- 
 mediately to signify to them, that his flesh itself could not 
 do them any service ; and that what he had said of his 
 flesh must be figuratively understood. ^6^ But though 
 the disgust conceived at what he had said, about eating 
 his Jieshj and drinking his bloody was so strong, that from 
 that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no 
 
 (b) " Doth this offend you ? — Tt is the Spirit that quickeneth, 
 " the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that I speak upto you, 
 *"* tiijey are Spirit, and they are life." Ver. 61, 63, 
 
 r 
 
66 APPENDIX. [no. VI. 
 
 more with him ;(c) and this desertion induced him to ex- 
 postulate with die Twelve upon it ; yet neither then, nor 
 at any time alter wards, did he give even the Twelve any 
 intimation, that in the expressions, at which his hearers had 
 taken so great offence, he had only alluded to a particular 
 rite he should one day institute, and require all who be- 
 lieved in him, to celebrate ; and which would then con- 
 vince them, there was no real ground for the disgust they 
 had conceived at his words. And when at length he ac- 
 tually instituted that rite, to the form of which he has here 
 been supposed to have alluded, in so very remarkable a 
 manner ; he enjoined the celebration of it, without ascrib- 
 ing to the bread and wine to be taken in it, any of those 
 extraordinary effects, which in this discourse he attributed 
 to eating his flesh and drinking his blood ; and without 
 informing the Apostles, that it Avas to the institution of 
 this rite he had formerly alluded, ^vhen he so much offend- 
 ed the Jews ; by speaking to them of giving them his 
 jiesh to eat, and of the benefits to be derived from eating 
 hisjleshy a?ul drinking his blood. 
 
 Nor does it appear less worthy of remark, that though 
 St. John, the only Evangelist who has recorded the dis- 
 course in question, has in other instances, of far less im- 
 portance than this is supposed to have been, shewn him- 
 self particularly careful in explaining what Jesus meant ; 
 when his expressions are such as his hearers either did not, 
 or might not rightly understand -yf^dj yet on this occa- 
 sion, though so highly important as it has been imagined, 
 he has not thought it requisite to apprize us, that in those 
 declarations relating to eating his flesh and driiiking his 
 bloodj at which so great offence was taken, Jesus alluded 
 to the rite he afterwards instituted at his last Supper, and 
 to certain very important spiritual benefits, which were 
 to be annexed to the celebration of it. 
 
 From this silence of John, as well as that of Jesus him^ 
 self, witli respect to his supposed allusion in this dis- 
 course, it must ever remain a matter of doubt and uncer- 
 
 CcJ John, vi. 66. 
 
 (dj See the note on this pa^e at the end of the Appendi^tt 
 
NO. VI.] APPENDIX. 67 
 
 tainty, whether Jesus had in reaHty any such allusion in it. 
 And on this account alone, were there no other, we are 
 fully warranted in assuming, that no doctrines whatever, 
 relating to die nature and effects of the rite concerned, 
 and much less any of so very great importance as those 
 which have been contended for, can be safely founded on 
 any expressions, made use of by Jesus on this occasion. 
 
 But let us suppose, notwithstandmg these considera- 
 tions, that he might allude, in what he now said, to the 
 rite in question : still we shall have abiuidant reason to 
 convince us, that he certainly did not mean to ascribe any 
 such privileges, as those, w hich have been supposed, to it. 
 
 Those interpreters indeed, who have taken it for grant- 
 ed, that Jesus alluded at this time to the rite he afterwards 
 instituted at his last Supper, and likewise to certain sin- 
 gular, spiritual benefits, which were to be positively an- 
 nexed to the celebration of it, have in general been ex- 
 tremely cautious of pointing out, with any precision, what 
 those benefits are. They speak of them however as of 
 very great importance to salvation. And the truth is, 
 that the expressions, on which they found them, which 
 have been already quoted, are so ver\" strong, direct, and 
 clear, that if they were really meant by Jesus to signify 
 any special benefits to be annexed to the celebration of 
 the rite in question, they can signify no less, than that eat- 
 ing bread and drinking wine, as he at his last Supper 
 should direct them to be partaken of, under the name of 
 his body and blood, would be absolutely necessary to sal- 
 vation ; and be attended with such special communica- 
 tions of divine grace, or grants of divine favor, as would 
 secure to the participant an inheritimce of eternal \ifG,(^eJ 
 
 Was it then possible for Jesus, was it consistent with the 
 moral doctrines he ail along taught, and the fundamental 
 doctrines of the Gospel, to annex such privileges as tiicse 
 to the celebration of any rite ? Or, if tliis had been possi- 
 ble, and if such had been his real meaning in this dis- 
 course ; must he not at some time afterwards have C£ius- 
 
 ("ej See Gosp. of John vi. 54, 55, 56, 57, in particular. 
 
6€ APPENDIX. [no. VI. 
 
 ed this extraordinary meaning to be signified to the 
 Twelve, so as that tiiey should clearly comprehend it ? 
 Could he make so very singular an appointment, as this 
 would liavc" been, a part of his religion, ^vithout revealiiig 
 a full imd exact explanation of it to those persons, to whom 
 alone he meant to entrust the preaching of his gospel ? 
 And if any such explanation of what Jesus had said in the 
 instance before us, ever had been imparted to the Apostles 
 and Evangelists, either by Jesus himself in person, or by 
 inspiration after he was removed from them ; must not 
 each of those, who thought it right to leave the world an 
 authentic history of his ^\ ords and actions, and who have 
 made particular mention of the rite he instituted as a me- 
 morial of his death, have carefully recorded this very sin- 
 gular discourse, as well as that necessary explanation of 
 its important meaning, with which they had been made 
 acquainted '? 
 
 Is this then the case ? So fai' from it, that neither 
 Matdiew, Mark, nor Luke, have made the least mention 
 of any part of this discourse ; though they have each giv- 
 en a paiticular history of the institution of that rite, to the 
 nature and beneficial effects of which, it has been sup- 
 posed to have had so very important a reference; — While 
 Johji, on the contrary, the only evangelist, who at last 
 preserved this discourse, has neither taken any notice of 
 the institution of the rite at the last Supper,/^' nor given 
 us any intimation that this discourse related at all to it ; — 
 In or has any one of the Evangelists left die least hint of 
 
 (f) Should this silence of St. John, with regard to the Lord's 
 Suppev, appeur, at first sight, to afford matter for surprize ; it need 
 only be recollected, that at the time when John wrote his gospel, this 
 rite had for several years been constantly celebrated by all Chris- 
 tians, in obedience to the injunction of Jesus Christ, under the im- 
 mediate direction of St. John himself, as well as all the rest of the 
 Apostles. St. John Avriting his Gospel in these circumstances, af- 
 ter the other three Evangelists had written theirs ; and principally, 
 as ais Gospel itself shows, with a view to relate many particulars 
 ■which they had pussed over ; he made no mention of the institu- 
 tion at the last Supper, of which they had each given a minute ac- 
 count, 
 
NO. VI.3 APPENDIX. 69 
 
 any special benefits, of any kind, as annexed to the cele- 
 bration of it. 
 
 Had the meaning of Jesus, at this time, been such as it 
 has by many been supposed, it is utterly inconceivable, 
 either that the three Evangelists, who have carefully re- 
 corded the institution of the rite at the last Supper, could 
 have omitted to acquaint us with the special benefits an- 
 nexed to it ; by preserving likewise the only discourse of 
 Jesus, in which he had ever alluded to them, and at the 
 same time explaining its real meaning ; — Or that John, 
 when he thought fit to relate this discourse, and the great 
 offence taken at it, in consequence of its being misunder- 
 stood ; could have omitted to add an explanation of the 
 true meaning of Jesus in it, and of those special benefits, 
 to which it alluded, as positively annexed to the rite he 
 afterwaixls instituted at his last Supper. 
 
 And the same conclusion, which we are obliged to 
 draw from this remarkable silence of all the Evangelists, 
 is no less strongly confirmed by that of St. Paul. 
 
 Had it been possible for any such special benefits to 
 have been annexed to the celebration of the Lord's Sup- 
 per, and had Jesus really meant to ascribe them to it, 
 either on this occasion, or any other ; we should certainly 
 have found St. Paul insisting upon them, when reproving 
 the Corinthians for some great improprieties, which they 
 were become guilty of, at the time of being met together 
 to celebrate it-fgj Any peculiar spiritual benefits cic- 
 companying it, but more especially of so important a na- 
 ture as those which have been supposed, would certainly 
 have afforded the Apostle the strongest, as well as thq 
 most obvious of all arguments, for a perfectly serious be- 
 haviour at the celebration of it. When therefore Ave lind 
 St. Paul, though sharply reproving the Corinthians for a 
 very different conduct, not making the least mention of 
 any special benefits whatever as annexed to this rite ; but 
 insisting merely on the command of Jesus at the institu- 
 tion, to prove the duty of celebrating it \(^hj and pointing 
 
 rgj 1 Cor. xi. 20, &c. C^J 1 Cor. xi. 23—25. 
 
9b APPENDIX. NO. VI. 
 
 out to them nothing more to shew its nature and effects, 
 than that, as often as they did celebrate it^ they shewed forth 
 the Lord'^s death till he should come ;(ij we have before 
 us, if I am not exceedingly deceived, an absolutely deci- 
 sive proof, that the great Apostle to the Gentiles knew of 
 no special benefits of any kind annexed to the celebration 
 of it ; and consequently, that neither in the discourse un- 
 der consideration, nor in any other, could Jesus mean to 
 allude to any. 
 
 Without having recourse, therefore, to any particular 
 method of interpreting the discourse of our Lord under 
 consideration, it appears, I imagine, abundantly plain ; in 
 the first place, that the supposed allusion of Jesus in this 
 discourse, to the rite he instituted at his last Supper, is at 
 all events doubtful, and absolutely incapable of being so 
 clearly proved, as to serve for the foundation of any doc- 
 trine ;— f-And in the next, tliat even supposing he did al- 
 lude at this time to it, he certainly did not mean, by any 
 thing he now said, to attribute any special privileges to 
 the celebration of it ; — And on the whole therefore, that 
 no doctrine whatever, relating to the nature and effects of 
 this rite, can be authentically deduced from any thing 
 said by Jesus upon this occasion. ^/^^ 
 
 (i) 1 Cor. xi. 26. 
 
 (k) Very soon after the publication of the former edition of this 
 treatise, it was urged, as an objection to it, that no notice had been 
 taken of that discourse of our Loi'd, which has now been consider- 
 ed. I therefore determined upon a new edition in order to consid- 
 er it. I was likewise induced to prepare one of the arguments alone, 
 to answer the purpose of a Practical Inquiry. And intending to 
 publish both at the same time, I referred in a note in the Argument 
 alone, to this edition of the treatise at large, as having considered 
 the 6th chapter of St. John. Determining afterwards to postpone 
 this edition for some little time, I inadvertently published the Prac- 
 tical Inquiry by itself; without reflecting upon the reference it 
 contained to this edition, not then published, for the discussion of a 
 particular point, in relation to which nothing was to be found in the 
 first edition. This impropriety is now removed by the present 
 publication ; but having been publicly called upon to account for it, 
 it seems requisite to iriform the reader by what means it arose. 
 
iro. VII.3 APPENDi;?. 731 
 
 NUMBER Vn,(^aJ 
 
 TO preclude the possibility of misrepresenting Dr. 
 Cudvvorth's argument concerning the nature of the Lord's 
 Supper ; founded on what St. Paul has said relating to it, 
 in the 1st Ep. to the Corinthians, ch. x. 14, &c. and that 
 we may have it completely before us, it will be proper ta 
 insert it at length. 
 
 A Discourse canceming the true notion of tlie IjOrd^s 
 Supper, chapter iv. 
 
 " But lest we should seem to set up fancies of our own, 
 and then sport with them, we come now to demonstrate 
 and evince, that the Lord's Supper, in the proper notion 
 of it, is Epulum ex Oblatis, or, A Feast upon Sacrifice ; 
 in the same manner with the feasts upon the Jewish sac- 
 rifices under the law, and the feasts upon f/JwAoSuTiX, things 
 oftered to idols, among the heathens. And that from a 
 place of scripture, where all these shall be compared to- 
 gether, and made exactly/ paiallels to one another." 
 1st. Ep. Cor. ch. X. 
 
 Ver. 14. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 
 
 15. I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say. 
 
 16 The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the commun- 
 ion of the blood of Christ ? The bread, which we break, is it not 
 the communion of the body of Christ ^fbj 
 
 18. Behold Israel after the flesh ; are not they, which eat of the 
 sacrifices, partakers of the altar ? 
 
 20. Now I say, the things, which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sac- 
 rifice to devils, and not to God : and I would not that ye should 
 have fellowship with devils. 
 
 21. Ye cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and the cup of dev- 
 ils ; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and the table of 
 devils. 
 
 " Where the apostle's scope being to convince the Co-. 
 rinthianS of the unlawfulness of eating things sacrificed to 
 
 fa J See page 51. 
 
 fbj It is remarkable that Cudworth leaves out ver. 17 and 19 ; 
 as if they embarrassed the argument St, Paul is here upon. 
 
72 APPENDIX [no. VII. 
 
 idols, he doth it in this manner ; — Shewing, that though 
 an idol were truly nothing, and things sacrificed to idols 
 physically nothing, as different from other meats ; as it 
 seems they argued, and St. Paul confesses, ver. 19 ; yet 
 morally and circumstantially, to eat of things sacrificed to 
 idols, in the idol's temple, was to consent with the sacri- 
 fices, and be guilty of them." 
 
 " Which he doth illustrate, Firsts from a parallel rite 
 in the Christian religion, where the eating and drinking of 
 the body and blood of Christ, offered up to God upon the 
 cross for us, in the Lord's Supper, is a real communica'- 
 tion in his death and sacrifice : — Ver. 16. — The cup of 
 blessings which we bless^ is it not the communimi of the 
 blood of Christ ? The bread, which we break ^ is it ?iot the 
 communion oj the body of Christ /"' 
 
 " Secondly, from another parallel of the same rite 
 among the Jews ; where always, they that ate of the sac- 
 rifices were accounted partakers of the altar ; that is, of 
 the sacrifices offered up upon the altar : Ver. 18. — Be- 
 hold Israel after the flesh ; are not thei/, which eat of the 
 sacrifces, partakers of the altar ? — In veteri I-«ege, qui- 
 cunque admittebantur ad edendum de hostiis oblatis, cen- 
 sebantur ipsius sacrificii, tanquam pro ipsis oblati, fieri 
 participes, et per illud sanctificari ; as a late commenta- 
 tor fully expresses it." 
 
 " Therefore, as to eat the body and blood of Christ in 
 the Lord's Supper, is to be made partaker of liis sacrifice 
 offered up to God for us ; — as to eat of the Je\vish sacri- 
 fices under the law, was to partake in the legal sacrifices 
 themselves ; — So to eat of things offered up in sacrifice 
 to idols, was to be made paitakers of the idol sacrifices ; 
 and therefore was unlawful." 
 
 *' For, the things, rvhich the Gentiles sacriflce, they sacri- 
 fice to devils : but Christ's body and blood were offered 
 up in sacrifice unto God ; and therefore they could not 
 paitake of both together ; the sacrifice of the true God, 
 and the sacrifice of devils : — \e ca?mot drink of the cup of 
 the Lord, and the cup of devils ; ye cannot be partakei's of 
 the Lordh table, and the table of devils, — St. Paul's argii- 
 
NO. VII.] APPENDIX. 75 
 
 ment here must needs suppose 2i perfect analogy between 
 these three, and that they are all parallels to one another, 
 or else it hath )io strength. Wherefore, I conclude from 
 hence, — That the Lord's Supper is the same among 
 Christians, in respect of the Christian sacrifice, that among 
 the Jews the feasts upon the legal sacrifices were, and 
 among the Gentiles the feasts upon tlie idol sacrifices ; 
 and therefore, Epulum sacrificiale, or, Epulum ex Obla- 
 tis. — 'Oxf^ ih&oi 5£/^«." 
 
 Thus reasons Dr. Cudworth. To enable ourselves to 
 determine satisfactorily, whether his reasoning is really 
 conclusive, the best method will be, to consider first, his 
 explanation of St. Paul's argument ; and then the con- 
 clusion, which he himself draws from that explanation of it. 
 
 In the first place he lays it down, tliat the point St. 
 Paul here intends to prove is. That going to the pagan 
 feasts upon sacrifice was " morally and circumstantially 
 to consent with the sacrifices, and be guilty of them." 
 
 And then, That in order to prove this point, St. Paul 
 alledges these two considerations : viz. 
 
 That, among Christians, partaking of the Lord's Sup- 
 per is " A real communication in his death and sacri- 
 fice :" by which Cudworth means, in the effects, or ben- 
 efits, of his death and sacrifice : And, 
 
 That among the Jews, all who ate of the sacrifices,, 
 were accounted partakers of the effects, or benefits, of 
 their sacrifices. 
 
 He says first, St. Paul's design here is, to prove, that 
 eating at the pagan idol feasts was " morally and circum- 
 " stantially to consent with the sacrifices, and be guilty of 
 " tliem :" That is, for I know not what other meaning 
 to give the words, That as being seen at the idoi feasts 
 was a circumstance, from which every one was morally 
 sure it would be concluded by some, who saw him there, 
 that he was an idolater ; so every one, who notwithstand- 
 ing this, fi-equented idol feasts, must be supposed un- 
 concerned at its being thought he was an idolater ; and 
 consequently must be considered as virtually guilty of an 
 act of idolatry before those, who sav/ him there. 
 
74 APPENDIX. fwo. vir. 
 
 This then is the point, according to Cudworth himself, 
 which St. Paul here intended to prove ; and in this we 
 are perfectly agreed : let us now consider the two reasons, 
 which, according to his representation of them, St. Paul 
 alledges to prove it. 
 
 The first is, That among Christians, partaking of the 
 Lord's Supper, " is a real communication in his death 
 " and sacrifice :" and that is, as Cudworth means, in the 
 effects or benefits of his death and sacrifice. 
 
 But how could this i)articular consideration answer St. 
 Paul's purpose in this argument, as it has just been ex- 
 plained ? 
 
 To prove, that partaking of idol feasts was being vir- 
 tually guilty of an act of idolatry, and consequentl) a vir- 
 tual profession of idolatry' ; how could St. Paul possibly 
 alledge, that partaking of the Lord's Supper among Chris- 
 tians was (not, virtually joining hi an act of ChrisLian wor- 
 ship, and consequently a virtual profession of Christianity ; 
 — but) " a real communication in Christ's death and 
 sacrifice ;" i. e. in the effects or benefits of it ? For St. 
 Paul to have alledged this consideration, to prove the point 
 just mentioned, would have been urging what was quite 
 foreign to his purpose, and manifestly useless and improp- 
 er. 
 
 To prove the point, which k is agreed he meant to 
 prove, the only argument he could draw from what ob- 
 tained among the Christians must have been this : — That 
 as, among Christians, partaking cf bread and wine at the 
 celebration of the Lord's Supper, was apparently partaking 
 of them in compliance with the institution of Christ, and 
 assenting to the Christian rites, and therefore a virtual pro- 
 fession of Christianity ; — so partaking of the idol feasts 
 with idolaters, must be apparently consenting to, and be- 
 ing guilty of, the idol sacrifices. ; and consequently a vir- 
 tual profession of idolatry. 
 
 Thus inteq:)reted, St. Paul's argument, drawn from 
 what obtained among Christians, is natural, obvious, and 
 indisputably conclusive ; nor could he possibly alledge 
 any thing more plain, or more directly to the purpose, to 
 
so. VII.] APPENDIX. 75 
 
 prove the point he certainly had in vieyv. Whereas, if we 
 interpret it as Cudworth does, it necessarily becomes im- 
 proper, and utterly inconclusive. 
 
 The second argument which St. Paul urges, is drawn 
 from what obtained among the Jews : — Behold Israel af- 
 ter the Jiesh ; are not they^ which eat of the sacrifices^ par- 
 takers qftlie altar ? — And according to Cudworth his 
 meaning in this question is, — Among the Jewsfare not all, 
 who eat of the legal sacrifices, accounted partakers of the 
 effects, or benefits, of those sacrifices ? 
 
 But here it is evidently just as foreign to the point St. 
 Paul wanted to prove ; (that frequenting idol feasts was 
 being virtually guilty of an open profession of idolatry ;) 
 to alledge, that eating of the Jewish sacrifices was account- 
 ed a real participation in the effects, or benefits, of those 
 sacrifices ; as it was to allege, in the former instance, 
 That partaking of die Lord's Supper was a real communi- 
 cation in the effects of Christ's death. 
 
 On the other hand, it is evidently as pertinent to St. 
 Paul's design, to urge, That among the Jews frequenting 
 the Jewish feasts upon sacrifice was virtually assenting to 
 those sacrifices, and consequently a viitual profession of 
 Judaism ; as, to urge from the Christian, That partaking 
 of the Lord's Supper was virtually assenting to the Chiis- 
 tian rites ; and consequently, a virtual profession of Chrisr 
 tianity. 
 
 For the same reasons therefore, which oblige us to re- 
 ject Cud worth's interpretation of the argument drawn by» 
 St. Paul from the Christians, we must likewise reject his 
 similar interpretation of the similar argument drawn from 
 the Jews. And the meaning of this question put by the 
 vc^ostXe.^Behold Israel after the flesh; are not they, -which 
 eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar ? can be ' no 
 other than this ; Is not eating of the Jevvish legal sacrifices 
 with the Jews, virtually giving assent to those sacrifices ; 
 and consequently a virtual professio'^ ^i Judaism ? 
 
 Thus, it is presumed, we see clearly, that Cudworth's 
 interpretation of St. Paul's two premises is founded on a 
 jmistake ; we must now examine his representation of the 
 
76 APPENDIX. [no. VII. 
 
 manner, in \vhich St. Paul argues from them ; which, ac- 
 cording to him, is as follows. 
 
 " Therefore, — As to eat the body and blood of Christ 
 in the Lord's Supper, is to be made partaker of his sacri- 
 fice offered up to God for us ; — As to eat of the Jewish 
 sacrifices under the law, was to partake of the legal sacri- 
 fices themselves ; — so to eat of things offered up in sacri- 
 fice to idols, is to be made partakers ofthe idol sacrifices; 
 and therefore is unlawful." 
 
 Here first it is absolutely necessar}' to observe, that this 
 stating of St. Paul's argument requires to have the mean- 
 ing of each of its propositions precisely ascertained, to en- 
 able us to determine whether the argument it contains is 
 conclusive or not : for unless the identical tenns, in 
 which it is drawn up, (" being made partakers of Christ's 
 *' sacrifice," and " partaking in the legal sacrifices," and 
 " being made partakers of the idol sacrifices,"), are used 
 to express exactly the same meaning in each of the prem- 
 ises and the conclusion ; the argument must necessarily 
 prove inconclusive ; or, in reality, no argument at all ; 
 though by means of having its premises and conclusion ex^ 
 pressed in tlie same terms, it wears at first sight the ap- 
 pearance of complete demonstration. 
 
 To discover therefore with certainty whether St. Paul's 
 argument, as it is here stated by Cudworth, is really, as 
 well as apparently, conclusive, we must strike out the 
 identical terms themselves, in which the premises and con- 
 clusion are expressed ; and substitute in their stead that 
 precise meaning, which Cudworth here designed to ex- 
 press by them. And when we have done this, his state 
 of St. Paul's argument, as appears from what he says in 
 his three preceding paragraphs, will stand thus : — 
 
 ** Therefore, 
 
 " As to eat the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's 
 " Supper, is a real communication in Ms death and sacri- 
 " fice ;" that is, in the effects or benefits of it ; — 
 
 " As to eat of the Jewish sacrifices under the law is to 
 share in the effects or benefits of those sacrifices ;" per ilia 
 sanctificari ;-^ 
 
so. VII.] APPENDIX. 77 
 
 " So, to eat of things offered up in sacrifice to idols is," 
 (what ? not, " to share iu the effects of those idol sacrific- 
 es ;" the only conclusion that can possibly be drawn from 
 these premises ; but) " to consent with those sacrifices, 
 and be guilty of them :" that is, nothing more tlian to be 
 virtuali)^ guilty of an act of idolatry, and therefore, to be 
 virtually a professed idolater. 
 
 By thus substituting in the room of the identical terms, 
 themselves in each proposition, that meaning, in which 
 Cudworth uses them in the two premises, and that very 
 different meaning, in which he uses them in the conclu- 
 sion ; we see at once, that the conclusion by no means fol- 
 lows from the preniises, as he understood them ; and in 
 fact has no depeiidence upon them ; and consequently, 
 that his interpretation of St. Paul's method of arguing, 
 from what obtained among the Christians and the Jews, 
 must be false ; because it renders the apostle's conclusion 
 not pertinent, and his method of reasoning improper. 
 
 In reality, St. Paul's own ai-gument, unobscured by any- 
 thing foisted into it, is as simple and plain as possible, and 
 is nothing more than this : — 
 
 As, to eat bread and drink wine with Chi'istians, when 
 tliey professedly eat the one, and drink the other, as the 
 appointed memorials of the body and blood of Christ, is 
 virtually eating and drinking with the same apparent de- 
 sign that they professedly eat and drink with ; and con- 
 sequendy, is a virtual, apparent profession of Christianity ; 
 And, 
 
 As, to eat of the Jewish sacrifices with the Jews, is for 
 the same reasons, a virtual, appaient profession of Judaism ; 
 
 So, to eat of idol sacrifices with professed idolaters, is, 
 for the same reasons likewise, a virtual, apparent profes-* 
 sion of idolatry. Wherefore, 
 
 Since as I siu.d,(^cj it is your duty as Christians to flee 
 Jrom idolatry \ and of course from all apparent professions 
 of idolatry ; it must of necessity be improper in you aa 
 Christians to frequent idol feasts. Q. E. D. 
 
 We may now, I imagine, cleai'ly see tiie falsehood of 
 
 (c) 1 Cor. s. 14. 
 
7S APPENDIX. [no. VII. 
 
 that fundamental principle, from which Cudworth draws 
 his own conclusion, that the Lord's Supper is Epulum 
 sacrificiale, or Epulum ex oblatis. 
 
 He sa.ys,fdj " St. Paul's argument here must needs 
 *' suppose a. perfect analogy between these tliree actions, 
 " and that they are all parallels, fej exact parallels to one 
 " another ; or else it hath no strength." 
 
 Answer. 
 
 1st, St. Paul's argument must needs suppose such an 
 analog)' between the three actions concerned, and that 
 they are parallel to each other so far, as is necessary to 
 make his argument drawn from comparmg- them togeth- 
 er really conclusive and just ; but it does not suppose the 
 analogy between them to extend further, or that they are 
 parallels to each other in any gi*eater degree, than tliis may 
 require. 
 
 2dly, St. Paul's argument is made really conclusive and 
 just, merely by granting, what cannot be denied, that the 
 three actions mentioned in it agree in this one particular 
 only. That each is a virtual, apparent profession of that 
 religion, to which it respectively belongs ; Avidiout taking 
 it at all into consideration, whether the Lord's Supper is 
 exacdy the same sort of rite in the Christian religion, that 
 the Jewish and idol feasts upon sacrifice in the Jewish and 
 Pugan religions ; that is, without considering at all 'wheth- 
 er the Lord's Supper is specifically Epulum sacrificiale, 
 or Epulum ex oblatis, or not. Therefore, 
 
 3dly, St. Paul's argument does not suppose a perfect 
 analogy between the specific natures of die three actions 
 in question : It does not suppose them to be exact paral- 
 lels ; or parallels to each other so far, as to afford any 
 ground whatever for concluding, "that the Lord's Supper is 
 " the same among Christians, in respect of the Christian 
 " sacrifice, that among the Jews the feasts upon the legal 
 " sacrifices were, and among the Gentiles the feasts upon 
 *' the idol sacrifices ;" That is, in other words, St. Paul's 
 argument docs not afford any ground whatever for con- 
 
 (d) See the passage in page 7 1 . fe) See the same page.. 
 
JtO, VII.] APPENDIX. ■?$ 
 
 eluding, that the Lord's Supper is specifically Epulum 
 sacrificiale, or Epulum ex oblatis. Q. ii. Ij.ffJ 
 
 From what has now been urged, it must, it is hoped, 
 be clearly seen, that the sense in which Cudworth has in- 
 terpreted the principles, upon which St. Paul argues, in 
 the passage on which he has founded his own notion of 
 the Lord's Supper, is by no means the true sense of St. 
 Paul ; and consequently, that the peculiar opinion of the 
 nature of the Lord's Supper, which he has founded whol- 
 ly upon this mistaken interpretation of the apostle, is abso- 
 lutely destitute of all foundation. But lest any confused 
 suspicion should still remain, that his notion of the nature 
 of the Lord's Supper may yet be true, notwithstanding he 
 has been mistaken in founding it on this passage of St. 
 Paul ; it will not perhaps be without its use to prove, a 
 priori, if we are able to do it, that Dr. Cudworth's notion 
 of the nature of the Lord's Supper must of necessity be 
 false ; or, in other words, that on account of the obvious 
 fundamental principles of the Christian religion, it is ab- 
 solutely impossible, that the Lord's Supper can be '' the 
 same among Cliiistians in respect to the Christian sacri- 
 fice, that among the Jews tlie feasts upon the legal sacrific- 
 es were, and among the Gentiles the feasts upon the ido 
 sacrifices." And this shall be the object of the remaining 
 article of this Appendix. 
 
 CfJ If so great a man as Cudworth shall be found to have been mis- 
 taken in a point, on ivhich he flattered himself with having arrived 
 at demonstration, it certainly behoves any one, who attempts to 
 point out his mistakes, to remember well his ovm liableness to er- 
 ror. But whether we have succeeded in detecting the particular 
 fallacies of Cudworth's argument- or not, it must not be forgotten, 
 that if the train of reasoning, which has been pursued in the pre- 
 ceding treatise itself, be just, certain it is, that Dr. I udworth's argu- 
 ment must be fallacious, and his notion of the Lord's Supper un- 
 true. 
 
 li the reader is desirous of seeing such arguments, as may be 
 drawn from the nature of the distinct sorts of the Jewish sacrifices,' 
 to prove that the Lord's Supper cannot be a feast upon sacrifice ; 
 he may consult " A discourse on the nature and end of the Lord's. 
 " Supper, wherein it is shewn th&t it neither is, nor can be^ a feast 
 " on the sacrifice. Published bv J. Payne, Pater-Noster Row. 
 1758. 
 
APPENBIX. [no.VIII. 
 
 NUMBER VIII. 
 
 IN every religion, the true nature and design of every 
 instituted rite must necessarily be confonnable to, and 
 perfectly consistent with, the great fimdamental principles 
 of the religion itself. 
 
 In religions therefore, whose fundamental principles 
 are in any respect different, all rites, dependent in any de- 
 gree upon those principles, must be proportionally differ- 
 ent from each other in their true nature and design. 
 
 If then the certain, acknowledged nature and design of 
 the Jewish and pagan feasts upon sacrifice was, in any 
 degree, inconsistent with the fundamental principles of 
 the religion instituted by Christ ; it will unavoidably fol- 
 low, that the true nature and design of the Lord's Supper 
 must be different from, and cannot be the same with, the 
 acknowledged nature and design of the Jewish and pagan 
 feasts upon sacrifice \fa) that is, the Lord's Supper can- 
 not be specifically a feast upon sacrifice. 
 
 To determine the point, therefore, nodiing more is ne- 
 cessary, than to compai'e the acknowledged nature and de- 
 sign of the Jewish and pagan feasts upon sacrifice, with 
 the fundamental principles of the religion instituted by 
 Jesus. 
 
 In the Jewish dispensation many particular sacrifices 
 were appointed to be offered up, on account of particular 
 legal offences ; and all these sacrifices were declared, and 
 understood, to be expiations of those particular offences ; 
 or, in other words, the appointed legal means of obtaining 
 
 (a) To prevent misapprehension, it may be proper to obscFve, 
 that what is here said with respect to the Jewish feasts upon sacri- 
 fice, is not in any degree applicable to the Passover or Paschal Sup- 
 per. For, not to inquire whether the Passover was in any sense a 
 aaei'ifice, most evident it is, that it was not an expiatory saci'ifice. 
 Instead of bein;^ appointed for an expiation of any offences, it was 
 expressly and solely appointed for a commemoration of a blessing ; 
 (as see No. II of this Appendix) and was so far a rite of exactly the 
 sanienatyi'e in the Jewi^. religion, that the Eucharist isip, the Chris- 
 tian. 
 
NO. VIII.] APPENDIX. 81 
 
 forgiv^eness and remission of the punishment incurred on 
 their account. 
 
 In the pagan religions Ukewise, particular sacrifices 
 were offered up on account of particular offences ; and 
 were designed for, and regarded as expiations of those 
 particular offences, and the immediate means of obtaining 
 forgiveness from the gods. 
 
 Hence in the Jewish dispensation, the sacrificers, in 
 all these cases, did really expiate their offences against the 
 law by offering up the sacrifices appointed in the law for 
 them ; and in the pagan religions were understood to do 
 the same. And as those who partook of the sacrificial 
 feasts, were understood, in both, to partake of all the ben- 
 efits of the sacrifices themselves ; hence partaking of 
 these feasts was considered, in each religion respectively, 
 as an expiation of those offences, for which the sacrifices 
 were offered up, and the formal cause of their being for- 
 given. ^^^^ 
 
 Such was the acknowledged nature and end of the Jew- 
 ish and pagan feasts upon sacrifice. And from hence it 
 immediately follows, that if the Lord's Supper is specif- 
 ically a feast upon sacrifice ; if " the Lord's Supper is 
 the same among Christians in respect to the Christian 
 sacrifice, that among the Jews the feasts upon the legal sac- 
 rifices were ; and among the Gentiles the feasts upon the 
 idol sacrifices ;" — Then our partaking of the Lord's Sup- 
 per, our joining in this feast upon his sacrifice, this very 
 action itself, must be an immediate atonement for our 
 sins ; and the appointed Christian means, or formal cause, 
 of their being forgiven, under the law of Christ ; since 
 Jesus himself expressly declared, at the very time of in- 
 stituting this rite, tliat his blood would be shed for the re- 
 mission of sins. 
 
 But this consequence, which must unavoidably be ad- 
 mitted, if the Lord's Supper is specifically a feast upon 
 
 (b) Thus is the nature of the Jewish sacrificial feasts described 
 by the commentator, whom Cudworth quotes for the propriety of 
 the description. See the passage quoted in page 72 of this Ap» 
 nendix. 
 
J^ APPENDIX. [no. VIII. 
 
 sacrifice, is, in the first place, absolutely unauthorised by 
 the form and circumstances of the institution ; and, in 
 the next, utterly inconsistent with the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of the religion of Christ. 
 
 It is absolutely unauthorized, because, as we have al- 
 ready seen, from an accurate examination of all the cir- 
 cumstances of the institution, and every passage relating 
 to it ; it is no where declared, or even so much as hinted, 
 throughout the New Testament, that the celebi-ation of 
 the Lord's Supper was appointed by Jesus, to be itself an 
 atonement for, or formal cause of the forgiveness of, sin j 
 as the Jewish expiatory sacrifices were to be declared un- 
 der the la^v, and the heathen sacrifices were understood to 
 be among the pagans. 
 
 And it is utterly inconsistent \vith the fundamental 
 principles of the religion of Christ ; because it is not on- 
 ly certain, that there is not any action whatever appointed 
 by the gospel, for us to perform, under the notion of an 
 expiation of, or atonement for, or formal cause of the for- 
 giveness of, sin ; but equally certain, that in the gospel all 
 forgiveness of sin is expressly attributed, and ^vholly con- 
 fined to the merits and mediation of Christ, through the 
 gracious appointment of God. 
 
 And with respect to the Lord's Supper in particular, 
 forgiveness of sin, as we have fully seen, is no more sig- 
 nified in the gospel to be the appointed consequence of 
 our celel)rating this rite, which it must have been, if the 
 Lord's Supper was a feast upon sacrifice, than of our of- 
 feriiig up our prayers, or our performance of any other re- 
 ligious act. Celebrating the Lord's Supper is itself one 
 act of our Christian duty, in consequence of its having 
 been expressly enjoined by our Lord ; but neither that, 
 nor any other religious act, is enjoined in the gospel, as in 
 any degree whatever ati atonement for sin. 
 '!^ The goodness of God has declaimed in the go^l, that 
 through the merits and mediation of Christ, our sins, if 
 properly repented of, shall be forgiven ; and our sincere 
 though imperfect obedience to his la^vs be rewarded with 
 rternal life. In consequence of this great fundamental 
 
ITO. VIII.] APPENDIX. 83 
 
 principle of our redemption, as it is revealed in the gos- 
 pel, nothing but repentance, productive of sincere though 
 imperfect obedience, can obtain for us the forgiveness of 
 our sins, through the merits and mediation of Christ ; and 
 this repentance and obedience must necessarily include, 
 and be estimated by, our whole conduct through life. 
 Celebrating the Lord's Supper therefore cannot possibly 
 be the means of applying the efficacy of the mediation of 
 Christ to ourselves, so as to atone for our sins ; since it 
 is nothing niore, than complying with one single com- 
 mand, out of very many more, which the gospel no less 
 enjoins, and to all of which, witliout exception, our obe- 
 dience is required. 
 
 Since therefore the Jewish feasts upon sacrifice actual- 
 ly were, and the pagan were understood to be, to all, who 
 partook of them, actual atonements, or appointed means 
 of atonement, for those sins respectively, on account of 
 which the sacrifices themselves were offered up ; an4 
 since in tlie Christian dispensation there is not any rite, or 
 action, enjomed ; the celebration or performance of which 
 is there appointed, or considered, as an atonement for any 
 sins ; so as tiiat the remission of any sins is the proper, or 
 even the possible effect, of the performance of such action, 
 on the celebration of such rite ; it follows unavoidably, 
 that no rite of the Cliristian religion can possibly be of the 
 same nature, and have the same effects, with the Jewish 
 and Pagan feasts upon sacrifice ; and consequently, that 
 the Lord's Supper cannot be -" the same among Christians, 
 " in respect to tlie Christian sacrifice, that among the Jews 
 *' the feasts upon the legal sacrifices were, and among the 
 ** Gentiles the feasts upon the idol sacrifices ;" that is, 
 cannot be specifically a feast upon sacrifice, Q, £. D'fcJ 
 
 fcj See the subsequent note on this page. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 Page 2.] IT seems requisite to apprize the reader, that this 
 name is generally made use of throughout this treatise, only be- 
 cause it has been so generally adopted, not because it is in real- 
 ity a proper denomination of the rite concerned. The rite it- 
 self, when instituted by Jesus, though borrowed from a ceremo- 
 nial of his Supper, was totally distinct from it ; nor does it ap- 
 pear that at the first establishment of Christianity it was ever 
 called by this name. In the time of the apostles, when the dis- 
 ciples met together to celebrate this rite, they adopted a prac- 
 tice of eating together a common supper ; as a memorial most 
 probably of that Supper, at, and immediately after, which Jesus 
 instituted this rite : and, as appears at least extremely probable 
 from what St. Paul says relating to it, 1 Cor. xi. 20, 21 ; it was 
 this common supper of their own adopting, not the rite by 
 which the death of Jesus was commemorated, which was then 
 called by this name. The religious rite itself, which has since 
 been so generally, but as I apprehend improperly, called the 
 Lord's Supper, there seems great reason for believing, from 
 Acts ii. 42, 46 ; compared wiih Acts xx. 7 ; was then denomi- 
 nated the breaking' of bread, ■ 
 
 Page 4.] Which is .shed for many for the remission of sins,— 
 Bishop Pearce in his Commentary proposes to translate this pas- 
 sage, and the corresponding ones in St. Mark, St. Luke, and 
 St. Paul, in a different manner : and though perhaps no conse- 
 quence of any moment would follow from the alteration, yet as 
 these are the words, in which the institution of the rite is re- 
 corded, it may be requisite, in an express inquiry into its true 
 nature and design, to examine an alteration in the manner of 
 translating them, proposed by so very respectable an authority. 
 
 The words in question, as related by St. Matthew, are — 
 «r«T£ «| avTov 5r«VTi5 j revro y«g urTt t« u'lfix (jtv, ro tj)? x«;v»5 otxitiKrn, to 
 9rig< ToXXaiv iK^uvcfcuoi, uf u(pi<rtv ufix^Tiav.'—The exact literal transla- 
 tion of these words is — JDrink ye all out of it ; for this is my 
 bloody That of the new covenant^ That shed for many ^ for rC' 
 
Page 4.] NOTES. 85 
 
 mission of sins. — And this their literal sense, in the very order 
 in which they stand, is so clear, express, and pointed, that, as 
 no other translation of them can be wanted to give them mean- 
 ing ; so, I apprehend, none, which would require them to be 
 materially transposed, and when so transposed would either al- 
 ter their sense, or render their meaning less clear and pointed, 
 ought to be admitted. 
 
 Bishop Pearce however is inclined to be of opinion, that the 
 word iK.y(,vuft.vtm is not to be referred to ul^ot^ though that is ex- 
 pressed ; but to TTOTugwj, though only understood ; so as to make 
 the sentence signify — ••' This wine, which was just now poured 
 *' out of a larger vessel for you to drink it out of this cup, rep- 
 *' resents my blood." — Commentary, vol. i. p. 184, note P. 
 
 But if the wine in the cup, given by Jesus to the apostles, 
 had in fact been poured out of a larger vessel into that cup, 
 this circumstance was surely so utterly insignificant, and so for- 
 eign to the business which Jesus was then upon, the institution 
 of his new rite ; that it seems absolutely impossible he could at 
 that time have had his own thoughts upon it, or take any no- 
 tice of it to them. 
 
 And even if the insignificancy of the sense here proposed 
 did not render it incapable of being admitted, still, it is appre- 
 hended, the construction of the sentence would not permit it to 
 be received. For it appears evident on inspection, that the 
 clause, TO 7r£§« -xohy-m m^vvcfiivcv, must refer to the same thing, 
 whatever that may be, with the immediately preceding clause, 
 TO Tus Kxtvyti ^txi^KYii ; and that, to its own immediate preceding 
 clause, TO xl^d (Aov ; and consequently, TO 5reg< voXXm uc^weftiuit to 
 ulftx likewise. 
 
 Had St. Matthew meant to express, by t« iKy^wofiivov, the wine in 
 the cup, and not the blood of Jesus ; instead of writing as he has, 
 TflfT* y«g i<rrt ro xiftx ftov, Te Trj? x-ximi ^ixd/ixtn, to -tci^i voXXui ix,^viofAtyort 
 &c. he would surely have so placed the clause in question, as to 
 make it express that meaning ; and have written, tovto y«g, rowsg* 
 TeXXun SKjt^vvoftivov, ie-ri to xI(Ax ficv, ro ms xxin? ^ixh^f-my Sec. That is, 
 instead oi writing as he has done. For this is mij bloody that 
 of the new covenant^ that poured out for many^ &c. he would 
 surely have written. For this^ which is poured out for many^ is 
 my bloody That of the nezu covenant^ &c. And since he has not 
 placed his words in this obvious manner, we have all the evi- 
 dence that the position of the words can give, that he did not 
 intend them to be understood in this sense. 
 
 Besides, if by tKj^vtofctyet Jesus had meant the wine, and not 
 his blood ; after saying to them Trmt i| avrov Trxvns, he surely 
 Qould not have said, that it was- — Tn^t'nrohh.m ixxvyoftaoy i but must 
 
^ NOTES. [Pag-e 5. 
 
 bare said> m^t vfiuv, or 5«§< 7r»vTm vfMtv t)cx,vufiiv6v : That is, after 
 saying to them, Drink yk all oJ it^ he coula not have added, 
 that it was poured out for many j but must have written, pour- 
 ed out for you ; or, for t/ou all ; since, though his blood was 
 to be shed for many^ the wine in the cup was poured out for 
 them only. 
 
 The same observations are applicable to the words of St. 
 Mark, which arc as close and pointed as those of St. Matthew ; 
 and if translated agreeably to the Bishop's proposed interpreta- 
 tion, will stand as follows ; — And he said unto them^ this is my 
 blood of the nexo covenant^ That, the wine, poured out into this 
 tup for many : but this, it is submitted, is such a sense and po- 
 sition, as needs but to be stated in order to be rejected. 
 
 The woi*ds of St. Luke are different :— ref re ro Trcrmof n xmhh ^m- 
 tfijxtj £» ru ettfttiTi ftev, TO vvig vfiuv iKj^vvef^ivoy. Here iKj^vyeft,tii*v certainly 
 agiees with -x-or^ior -, and according to the syntax therefore the 
 clause must be translated, This cup is the neyv covenant in 7ny 
 blood, the cup, the wine, poured out fsr you ; — Or, lliis cupy 
 the 7i€rv coveiiant in my blood, is the cup, the wine, poured out 
 for you. But as neither of these senses appears capable of be- 
 ing admitted, the strict syntax must here, as in some similar 
 passages, which have been remarked, (^of J be given up j and St. 
 Luke be interpreted in a sense agreeable to the clear and point- 
 ed sense of St. Matthew and St, Mark. 
 
 The words of St. Paul, relating to the bread, ai'e vtvro /mv sa^t t« 
 vuft^y T« ia-{g l/ftuv x-Xaifiuov I This is my body^ that broken J or you : 
 — But if by broken was meant the bread, and not the body ; sure- 
 ty" he would have placed the wo^ds so as namrally to express that 
 meaning, thus :— — tovtc, t« wTrgg v^kv K'Kuft.iiitv, wt« ra (TKuut. ftcv :— • 
 This, which is broken for you, is my ouay : and since, he has 
 not placed them in this manner, which was just as easy and as 
 obvious as the other, we are bound to believe, that h« did not 
 intend to express this sense. 
 
 Notwithstanding the authority of Bishop Pearce therefore, 
 and what happened to appear probable to him, at the time wheii 
 he wrote his notes on these particular passages ; the received 
 translation, it is presumed, will approve itself, upon close in- 
 quiry, as their true meaning. 
 
 Pag'e 5.} That this is the obvious and true meaning of this 
 injunction, including the clause — as oft as ye drink it, is, I im- 
 agine, so dear as to require no proof. It has however been 
 contended, by those who do not allow that Jesus designed on 
 
 ^aj See Bowyer's pole, and a passage it refers to, from Bengelius, on the 
 place ; as well as Ephes. iii. 17, 18 ; Coloss. iii. 16 ; Apoc i- 4, 5 ; which 
 have likewise been rcfen-ed to on tbe same account. 
 
Pagr 19,28.] NOTES. ' 8T 
 
 this occasion to institute any r'lte^fbj that the word»-r-o* often'-* 
 import no command ; and in efFeet therefore prevent this in- 
 junction, as delivered by St. Paul, from having the force of a 
 command. But scarce any thing, I think, can be more clear, 
 than that in order to have this effect, the words in question 
 must have been — if ever ; instead of — as often as. Had Jesua 
 said — " this do ye, if ever ye drink it, in remembrance of me ;" 
 the objection would have been well founded. But the injunc- 
 tion, " this do ye, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of 
 me j" especially when delivered, as this was, after a positive 
 command to drink of the cup at that time, and to eat bread 
 both at that time, and in remembrance of him ; could not sig- 
 nify any thing less than a similar absolute command to drink 
 wine, as well as to eat bread in remembrance of him ; with 
 this additional signification, by the insertion of the words in 
 question, that it was left to themselves to determine how oftenr 
 to do it. 
 
 Page\^.'\ To the general rule here laid down one excep- 
 tion must be admitted. If any individual is sincerely persuad- 
 ed, that the method of administering the bread and wine, adopt- 
 ed in any particular church, is so erroneous and superstitious, 
 as to render it sinful for him to give countenance, by his exam- 
 ple, to such error and superstition ; his partaking of them in 
 that manner would then be sinful, and it becomes his duty t» 
 abstain from partaking of them at that church. — But in order 
 to secure him from all fault in this instance, it behoves him to 
 be particularly careful to make an honest and virtuous use of 
 his abilities, in forming the judgment, upon which he acts. 
 
 Page 28.] Thougli the universal and perpetual obligation 
 of the institution in question is now, it is hoped, abundantly es- 
 tablished, it may perhaps be attended with use to take notice 
 here of the argument principally relied on by those Christians, 
 who deny it to have been the intention of Jesus to institute such 
 a standing rite, and who therefore pay no regard to it. 
 
 It has been alledged, that there are other practices and in-- 
 j unctions of our Saviour and the apostles recorded in the New 
 Testament, which have at least as good a claim, as those relat- 
 ing to the bread and wine, to be regarded as standing institu- 
 tions of the religion of the gospel ; in consequence of which 
 however we do not celebrate any rite ; and therefore that the 
 ceremony of partaking of bread and wine ought not to be re- 
 tained. 
 
 But surely it needs very little consideration to perceive, that 
 
 C^) See Batclay's apology, page 47r. 
 
U NOTES. [Fa^e 28. 
 
 this objection, even granting that there are any other injunctions 
 in the New Testament so circumstanced, as is here supposed, 
 will by no means warrant the conclusion drawn from it. On 
 this supposition, it would indeed convict us of inconsistency in 
 our conduct, and error in some part of it ; but this alone could 
 never prove in which part of our inconsistent conduct we had 
 acted erroneously ; whether in retaining the rite we have re- 
 tained, or rejecting whatever practices we have rejected. We 
 are utterly destitute of all principles of judging before-hand 
 what rites our Saviour might think proper to institute. Wheth- 
 er therefox-e we ought to admit, or reject, any particular prac- 
 tice recorded in the New Testament, as having been intended, 
 or not intended for a standing rite of the religion of Christ, is a 
 point, that must be determined solely by the conduct or direc- 
 tions of Jesus or his apostles, with respect to such particular 
 practices independently of all others. And how clearly their 
 conduct and directions prove, that the pai-taking of bread and 
 wine in religious commemoration of the death of Jesus, was de- 
 signed by him to be a standing rite of the religion of the gos- 
 pel, has now, it is imagined, been fully seen. 
 
 But as there is one transaction in particular, which has been 
 insisted on with a degree of plausibility, as having at least as 
 strong a claim as his direction to eat bread and drink wine in 
 remembrance of him, to be regarded as a designed institution 
 of a standing rite of his religion, it will perhaps be satisfactory 
 to consider what has been urged in support of this opinion. 
 
 The transaction alluded to is the very remarkable behaviour 
 of Jesus, when he washed the feet of his apostles, as it was re- 
 corded by St. John.fcJ It has been alledged, that his com- 
 mand to the apostles on this occasion, to zvash 07ie another's 
 Jeety was given on the very same night with that " to eat bread, 
 and drink wine, in remembrance of him ;" the night, on which 
 he was betrayed. — That the several circumstances preceding it, 
 *' Jesus's rising from supper, laying by his garments, girding 
 " himself with a towel, pouring water into a vessel, washing all 
 " their feet, and wiping them with the towel," were in themselves 
 far more remarkable, than his " taking bread," when at the 
 paschal supper, and " blessing," and " breaking it," and " giv- 
 *' ing it to them, saying, take, eat, this is my body ;" and after 
 supper " taking the cup, imd giving thanks, and giving it to 
 *' them, saying, drink ye all of it ; for this is my blood of the 
 *' New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of 
 " sins." — ^That the command, " Do this in remembrance of me ;" 
 
 CcJ John xiii. 2 — 17: 
 
Page 28.] NOTES. 39 
 
 was not so striking, as his putting the question to them, when 
 lie had sat down again after washing their feet, " Know ye 
 *' what I have done unto you ?" and then adding, to explain 
 his design, " If I, your Lord and Master, haVe washed your 
 *' feet, ye ought also to wash one another's feet ;" and even 
 enforcing this conchision by adding still further, " I have giv- 
 " en you an example, that ye should do as I have done to 
 *' you." — That on the one occasion he said to Peter, *' If I M-ash 
 "" thee not, thou hast no part in me ;" but that on the other, he 
 made no mention of any ill consequence that would have aris- 
 en to them, if they had refused to eat of the bread, or drink 
 of the wine, as he commanded them. — And upon the whole, 
 that if v>'e consider the time, when this transaction took place, 
 the several particulars included in it, or the injunctions, which 
 followed it, it has as mvich to recommend it, as the appoint- 
 ment of a standing ordinance of the gospel, as Jesus's giving 
 the bread and wine to the apostles, directing them to eat of 
 the one and drink of the other, and enjoining them to " do 
 this in remembrance of him ;" or any other injunction record- 
 ed in the New Testament. (^i/J 
 
 Such are the particulars, which have been insisted on with 
 regard to this very striking particular in the behaviour of Jesus. 
 But that these considerations, notwithstanding the plausibility 
 of their appearance, will not warrant the conclusion drawn 
 from them ; a due consideration of what Jesus said upon the 
 occasion, joined with the subsequent conduct of the apostles, 
 will unanswerably prove. 
 
 When Jesus instituted the eucharist, he cleai'ly and expressly 
 directed the apostles to perform that action, which he meant 
 they should repeat. " Take, eat," — " Drink ye all of this ;" — 
 " This do in remembrance of me." And had he designed to 
 institute a ceremony of their washing each other's feet, he would 
 no doubt have commanded them todo that in a similar manner. 
 
 But in this instance, instead of giving them any such author- 
 itative command^ he only appealed to what they ought to do in 
 consequence of his example. " Know ye, said Jesus, what I 
 " have done to you ? Ye call me Lord and Master, and ye 
 « ** say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, 
 *' have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another's 
 . *' feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do 
 " as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, the 
 *' servant is not greater than his Loid, neither he, that is sent, 
 " greater than he, that sent him." 
 
 CdJ See Barclay's apology, p. 467—469. 
 
# ' NOTES. [Page 28, 
 
 If Jesus meant, by the action he had now performed, t6t 
 press upon the apostles the practice of the moral duties oif 
 brotherly love and humility, no action could be better adapt- 
 ed, nor could any stronger reason be alledged, to ex- 
 plain and enforce his design ; since the example of him, 
 tv^hom they acknowledged for their Lord and Master, in 
 so singular an exercise of humilit}% was certainly one of 
 the strongest proofs, that they ought to put in practice 
 even a less degree of the same virtue. But if his design was 
 to institute a ceren'ionial rite, what he now said was neither so 
 well calculated to signify that intent, as a simple and direct 
 command to observe such a practice would have been ; nor 
 »uch an explanation of his design as he would most naturally 
 Iiave given ; because his example in the action of washing their 
 feet, was no proof that they ought to adopt a ceremony of wash- 
 ing each other's feet ; for this plain reason, that nothing but an 
 express command from him could inform them, of its being his 
 intention that they should observe such a practice. Since, there- 
 fore, instead of giving them such a direct and absolute commandy 
 in the manner he afterwards did w^ith respect to the bread and 
 wine ; he only pressed upon them the proper influence of his 
 example ; it appears highly reasonable to conclude from this 
 ciixumstance, that his real design was only to inculcate the 
 practice of those virtues, which the action he performed, em- 
 blematically understood, was so strikingly calculated to enforce ; 
 not to enjoin a repetition of the action itself, as a rite of his 
 religion. And when it is likewise considered, that he closed 
 his admonition, founded on hiis example, with this reflection, 
 *' If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them ;" we 
 shall scarcely require any further proof, that the things he had 
 then in his thoughts must have been the obligations they were 
 under, and especially from his example in this instance, to 
 practice the virtues of brotherly love and humility ; not the 
 adopting a ceremony of washing each other^s feet, as a rite of 
 his religion. 
 
 And that this was the sense, in which the apostles actually 
 did understand the conduct and admonitions of Jesus on this 
 occasion, as well as that sense, in which he designed it to be 
 understood by them, some circumstances, considered joindj 
 with their subsequent conduct, v/ill unanswerably prove. 
 
 When Jesus came to Peter, after having already washed the 
 feet of some, and Peter, out of respect, refused to let him wash 
 his ; Jesus, to overcome his well meant refusal, said to him, 
 *' What I do," i. e. my design in this action, " thou knowest 
 
Page 28.] NOTES. 91 
 
 *' not now, but thou shalt know as soon as I have done."(^eJ 
 Accordingly " after he had washed their feet, and had taken 
 " his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, 
 *' Know ye what I have done unto you r" and immediately ex- 
 plained to ihem his design in this action, in the manner we 
 have seen. 
 
 It is certain therefore, that Jesus meant to make them under- 
 stand his design in this action at the very time ; and as they 
 were the persons, whom he had chosen to preach his gospel, 
 and by whom alone he intended it should be established in the 
 world ; whatever his meaning was in the action he had just 
 performed, and the explanation he now gave them of it, he 
 could not possibly leave them, in the end, under any ignorance 
 or mistake I elating to it. If therefore it had been his inten- 
 tion to inform the apostles by this transaction, joined with his 
 own explanation of it, that they were to establish a ceremony 
 of washing each other's feet, as an ordinance of his religion ; 
 he would certainly have taken care, either at this very time, or, 
 at the latest, when they were furnished with the necessary 
 knowledge for entering upon their office of preaching the gos- 
 pel, to make them lully acquainted with this design : in conse- 
 quence of this, they must actually have observed such a cere- 
 mony themselves, and directed the observation of it by all 
 their disciples ; and it would have been found, this rite, like 
 that of eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Je- 
 5us, was, from the heginning, an established practice of the 
 christian world. 
 
 Is this then the fact ? On the contrary, there is not even the 
 least shadow of reason for supposing, nor has any one ever 
 supposed, that the action, which Jesus on this occasion perform- 
 ed, was ever so much as imitated by the apostles themselves ; 
 and much less that they ever required the imitation of it, as an 
 ordinance of the Gospel, from those, whom they converted to 
 the faith. Nay, so far were the apostles from having any con- 
 ception, that Jesus intended by what he did and said on this oc- 
 casion to direct them to observe such a practice, and require 
 the obsei-vation o*' it by their disciples ; that neither Matthew, 
 Mark, nor Luke, who succeeded each other in writing their 
 gospelsjfyj have made the least mention of this whole transac- 
 
 CeJ We translate tliis, " Thou shalt know hereafter ,-" which, in the gen- 
 eral acception of that word, rathei- signifies, that Jesus would inform him at 
 some distant time : but the words in tlie original, uirx T«t»T<e, " ulVcr these 
 things," plainly signify here, " as soon as I have finished what I am now do-? 
 jng." 
 
 CfJ See Mr. Townson's late valuable xliscourses on the Four Gospels, 
 
92 NOTES. [Pa^e 28. 
 
 tion ; while they have each recorded the institution of the 
 Lord's Supper ; and had not John, who wrote his gospel after 
 them, made it his peculiar design to preserve a variety of the 
 private discourses of Jesus with the apostles, which related 
 more especially to him alone, and v/hich MattheAV, Mark, and 
 Luke had omitted ; we should never have been made acquainted 
 with any particular of his conduct in this instance. And since 
 it is unquesiionable, that while the apostles zealously inculcated 
 the virtues recommended by this action, none of them, not even 
 John, the very evangelist, v/ho has recorded it, even imitated 
 the action itself ; it must be admitted, that the allegorical sense 
 of it alone was that, in which they understood it, as well as 
 that, in which Jesus certainly designed it to be understood by 
 them. 
 
 It appears therefore from the very different manner, in 
 which Jesus expressed his designs, in the two distinct instances 
 under consideration ; but more especially from the opposite 
 conduct of the aposdes with respect to the two transactions ; 
 that it certainly was the intention of Jesus, that all, who might 
 ever come to profess the faith in him, should partake of bread 
 and wine in religious commemoration of him ; but not his in- 
 tention that they should observe a ceremony of washing each 
 other's feet, in consequence of what he said to the apostles, to 
 explain his dt^sign in washing their feet. 
 
 Nor can the performance of this singular action by Jesus 
 with such an allegorical intent, or tUeir unrierstanding it in the 
 figurative sense he designed they should, give us any just cause 
 for surprise. Brotherly love and humility were the distinguish- 
 ing characteristics of Jesus himself, as well as of the religion he 
 came to establish ; and a very uncommon portion of these vir- 
 tues in particular was peculiarly necessary in those, who were 
 to preach it to the world. The apostles, on the contrary, were 
 so tar from possessing these virtues in the requisite degree for 
 the task they were intended to perform, that they had more than 
 once betrayed such a spirit of ambitious contention, as Jesus had 
 been obliged to reprehend them for in the most forcible terms, fg- J 
 After this, it cannot surely be matter of wonder, when Jesus 
 knew he was within two daysffij to be taken from them, that 
 
 CgJ See Math, xviii, 4 ; xx. 25 — 29 ; xxiii. 11 ; Mark ix. 33 — 55 ; x. 
 42—45 ; Luke ix. 46—48 ; xxii. 24—27. 
 
 fhj In the former edition of this U'ealisc I adopted tlie opinion of many 
 commentators and harmonists, thai Jesus waslied die feet of the apostles on 
 the night on which he was betru} ed. And it being- recorded by St. Luke, 
 xxii. 24 — 28, that tliere was on that night a strife among them, which of them 
 ^hoifid be accounted fhe greatest ; and Bishop Newcome having very jv;dif - 
 
Page 28.] NOTES. 93 
 
 he should perform some striking action to press upon them in 
 the strongest manner those particular virtues they would have 
 so much occasion for, and in which they were so deficient ; or 
 
 iously observed in his hai-mony, (see his note on section 122,) that this con- 
 tention caiuiotbe supposed to have ai'isen after so remarkable a lesson^ofhu^ 
 mility given tliem by Jesus on that very night ; I thence di-ew the conclusion, 
 which Bishop Nevvcome Ukewise mentions, that this strife between the apos- 
 tles must be supposed to have given occasion to that singular action of our 
 Lord. 
 
 But having since considered the relations of the evangelists with more ac- 
 curacy, it appears proper to lay before the reader some pailiculars which 
 have fully convinced me, that the Supper spoken of by St. John, chapter 13, 
 at which Jesus washed the feet of the apostles, was not his last supper, at 
 which he instituted the eucharist ; but that, wliich he partook of at the 
 house of Simon tlie leper at Betiiany, two nights, according to Lightfoot, 
 before his last. 
 
 St. Luke expressly relates, tliat the sU-ife above-mentioned arose among 
 the apostles on tlie evening of the last supper ; and likewise gives an account 
 of what Jesus said to tliem upon it ; ch. xxii. 24 — 30 : but he makes not the 
 least mention of his washing their feet ; and what he relates, as having been 
 said to them by Jesus upon occasion of this dispute, is very different from the 
 discom-se of Jesus, related by St. John, in ch. xiii. as having immediately fol- 
 lowed the washing their feet. And as that remarkable action, if it took 
 place on tlie same night with this contention between tlie apostles, must be 
 supposed to have been occasioned by it ; and it seems utterly incredible 
 that St. Luke could, in that case, have recorded the contention itself, with- 
 out mentioning so very singidar a transaction as following from it ; the total 
 silence of St. Luke v^ith regard to it appears a decisive proof, that it did not 
 take place on the same night. 
 
 And a similai- observation is equally applicable to the relation of St. John. 
 As St. Luke has recorded the contention between the apostles on the night of 
 the last Supper, without any mention of Jcsus's washing their feet ; so St. 
 John has very minutely related the manner, in which Jesus v\ ashed their 
 feet, at some Supper ; without making mention of any dispute, about which 
 of them should be greatest, as having arisen among tlie apostles on the same 
 evening. And as, if tliese two events came to pass on the same evening, the 
 one must be supposed to have been occasioned by the other ; and it seems 
 utterly incredible, tliat St. Jolui could have recorded the washing of the apos- 
 tles' feet, without taking any notice of tlic previous contention between them, 
 which must, in this case, have given rise to it ; his having done so affords a 
 decisive proof, that the wasliing of their feet, recorded by St. John, did not take 
 place on the same night with that contention between them, related by St. 
 Luke, and which he expressly describes as having happened on tlie night of 
 the last Supper. 
 
 This conclusion is Ukewise in no small degree confii*med by the following 
 very particular manner, in which St. John inti-oduces his account of Jesus's 
 ■washing the f^et of the apostles : — " Now before the feast of the Passover, 
 " when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this 
 " world unto the Father, having loved his ov/n, which were in the world, he 
 " loved them unto the end. And the time of Supper being come, (the devil 
 " having now put into tjie heai-t of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, vo betray 
 " him ;) Jesus knowmg that the Father had given all things hito liis hands, 
 '* and that he came fi-om God, and went to God ; he riseth from supper, and 
 '' laid aside his garm.ents, and took a towel, &c." John xiii. 1^-4. 
 
 This account of the motives, wliich induced Jesus to perform the smgiilar 
 
St NOTES. (Pag-e 28. 
 
 that they should understand any action he performed with thig 
 view, and accompauied with an explanation of his design, in 
 that sense, in which he intended it to be understood. 
 
 This point cannot stand in need of any further proof. But 
 there is still one particular oi the objection remaining unnotic- 
 ed, which, on account of the use that has been made of it, it 
 will be satisfactory to explain. 
 
 It has been aliedged, that when Jesus gave the aposdes the 
 bread and wine, he did not signify to any of them, that if they 
 did not eat of the one, or drink of the other, they Avould draw 
 on themselves any evil by refusing it ; but that, when he washed 
 their feet, he said to Peter, If Izvash thee not, thou hast no part 
 with me : and that, " this being spoken upon Peters refusing 
 ** to let him wash his feet, should seem to import not only the 
 " continuance, but even the necessity of this ceremony." (^? J 
 
 But in fact, what can be more evident, than that the words 
 in question relate only to the action, which Jesus himself was 
 performing at that very time, without reference to any repeti- 
 tion of it by them ? Jesus's words were — If I wash thee not ; 
 i. e. if you refuse to let me wash you^ now, at this time, as I 
 Was going to have done ; — Not, if you do not hereafter observe 
 a ceremony of washing one another ; as he must have said, to 
 warrant the inference here drawn : and accordingly, in return, 
 St» Peter immediately expressed his eager desire to be washed 
 by Jesus, at that time ; but without the least conception of any 
 future washing to take plaeie among themselves. — And what 
 was the evil, which Jesus informed Peter he would sustain, if 
 he continued to refuse ? If I wash thee not, thou hast no part 
 with me. The meaning of which is extremely simple and ob- 
 
 action, which St. John immediately relates, is very striking ; nor can any 
 thing be more cleai', than that the evangelist here represents Jesus, as hav- 
 ing been induced to act in the very remarkable manner he immediately did, 
 not by any ambitious contest tliat had arisen among tlie apostles, on tliat 
 night ; but by such secret reflections, as at that pailiculai* season naturally 
 took possession of his own mind, upon the very neai* approach of tlie time, 
 when he himself knew that he should be taken fi-om tliem, by being put to 
 ^eath. 
 
 These considerations alone appear decisive ; and when added to several 
 (Dtliers urged by Lightfoot (1) in proof of the same point, place it, I conceive, 
 absolutely beyond doubt, that it was not on tlie night of the last Supper, but 
 at the Supper in tlic house of Simon the leper in Bethany,(2) two nights be- 
 fore, as Lightfoot concludes, that Jesus washed the feet of tlie apostles. 
 
 ft J See Barclay's Apology, p. 468. 
 
 (1) See Lightfoot vol. i. 251, 252—254—258—261, and 709 ; vol. ii. 253 
 —254. 260, 261.— On John xii. 2. Ibid. 586, 587 ; and on-Jolm xiii. 2, Ibid. 
 594 ; and on verse 30, 597. 
 
 (2) Mentioned in Matthew xxvi. 6, &c. 
 
Page 31.] NOTES. 9Sf 
 
 ▼ious, and nothing more than this : — " If you refuse to comply 
 with my intention, you cannot really regard me as your Lord 
 and Master, nor can I consider you as my disciple ; and yoa 
 cannot therefore have any share in that dispensation, which it is 
 my business to establish." 
 
 As none of the apostles refused to partake of the bread and 
 wine, when he directed them to do it. no cause was given for 
 his saying any thing of this kind upon that occasion. But had 
 Peter, or any of the rest, refused in like manner to comply with 
 his direction, when he said, Take^ eot, &:c. a7id drink ye all of 
 this^ &c. his answer to them in that instance would, for the same 
 reasons, have been exactly similar to v, hat it was in this : ^ 
 thou eatest, er drinkest^ not^ thou hast no part with me ; and 
 this, even if he had only ordered them to eat and drink at that 
 time ; without adding the further command — Do this in remem- 
 brance of me ; and without intending to institute any standing 
 ceremony of that kind. For the mere eating or not eating, as 
 w^ell as the being washed or not washed, were circumstances in 
 themselves alone not productive either of good or harm ; but 
 their not complying with any injunction of Jesus must necessa- 
 rily convict them of not taking him for their Lord,^nd not being 
 his sincere disciples ; and must therefore unavoidably prevent 
 them from being permitted to have any concern in the estab- 
 lishment of his gospel. 
 
 Page 31.] Notwithstanding these particulars, In which Jesus 
 gave his own manner of instituting the rite, he now ordained, a 
 resemblance to the manner in which the Passover, that he was 
 celebrating at the time, had been instituted ; to prevent misap- 
 prehensions it may be useful to observe, that the form of the rite 
 instituted by Jesus was not borrowed from any part of the Pas- 
 chal Supper itself, as instituted by Moses ; to which it had not 
 even the smallest resemblance ; but wholly from a custom es- 
 tablished by the Jews without any command, of blessing and 
 distributing bread and wine, at all the public festivals of their 
 religion, as well as the Passover. And to comprehend how 
 Jesus came to adopt this particular method of commemorating 
 his own death, nothing more is necessary, than to know what 
 that practice of the Jews was. 
 
 " Among the Jews," says Bishop Pearce, " in all their public 
 " festivals it was a custom for the master of the house, when 
 *' his guests were set down, to bless bread and then break it, 
 ** and give a piece of it to every one at table ; and so after sup- 
 *' per to take a cup of wine, and having blessed it, and drank of 
 " it himself, to give it round for the guests to drink likewise : 
 
96 NOTES. 
 
 " hence came the phrase of KX»rtf rev m^4Ut and hence that of 
 " ir»T>jgi»» fvXoytxg, the cup of blessing ; the same with the grace 
 " cup, and which was their closing cup. This ceremony among 
 *' the Jews was ritual only ; it was properly acknowledging God 
 *' in his creatm-es, thanking and praising him for his goodness 
 ** in vouchsafing to them the use of them. Now to this cere- 
 *' mony our Lord annexed the commemoration of his death ; 
 " requiring his disciples, when they broke that bread, to jein 
 " with their thanksgiving to God for the bread, a commemora- 
 " tion of his body broken on the cross ; and when they drank 
 " that cup, to join with their thanksgiving for the wine, a com- 
 *' memoration of the blood shed, or poured out for them.^^fkj 
 
 The professed writers on Jewish Antiquities inform us more 
 minutely — ^That as soon as the guests were placed at the table 
 to eat the Passover, the master of the family began with taking 
 a cup of wine, over which he said a certain appointed thanksgiv- 
 ing, and then gave it to be dra-ak of by all : — That when they 
 had eat a little of one fixed thing, they had a second cup, over 
 which certain appointed psalms were rehearsed : — That after 
 this the master of the feast took bread, over which he said an 
 appointed thanksgiving, aad then broke it, ate a bit of it himself, 
 and distributed it in the same manner to all present : — That when 
 they had eat of the paschal lamb itself, which was always the 
 last thing they did eat of, they had a third cup of wine ; which 
 from the particular thanksgivings said over it, was emphatically 
 called the cup of blessing- ; — And that after the rehearsal of 
 other appointed psalms and prayers, a fourth cup concluded the 
 feast, f /J 
 
 From these particulars, compared with the relations of the 
 Evangelists, we see in what manner Jesus acted on this oc- 
 casion, and how naturally he founded the institution of his 
 own rite upon this ceremonial. Upon delivering the usual 
 cup, in the accustomed manner, at the beginning as it should 
 seem, he added from himself, Take this, and divide it among- 
 yourselves ; for I say unto you, I xvill not drink of the fruit of 
 the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. Afterwards up- 
 on distributing the bread in the usual manner, as they were eat- 
 ing-, he added, in order to institute his own intended rite, Take^ 
 eat, this is ?ny body, which is given for you ; this do in remem^ 
 brance of me. And upon giving the customary cup, called em- 
 
 fkj Bishop Pearce's second letter to Dr. Waterland. Commentary, vol. 
 ii. p. 443. See likewise p. 423, 424 ; and Commeiitaiy on 1 Cor. x. 16. p. 253 ; 
 and on 1 Cor. xi. 24. p. 268. 
 . CO See Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 967 
 
Page 39, 40.] NOTES. ^7 
 
 phatlcally the cup tf blessing'^ when they h«d done eating, he 
 added in like manner, Drink ye all oj it ; for this is my blood 
 of the New Testament^ or, the New Testament in vty blood; 
 •which is shed for you^ or, for many^ for the remission of sins ; 
 this do ye^ as oft as ye drink it^ in remembrance of me. 
 
 Thus Avas the form of eating bread and drinking wine in the 
 Eucharist borrowed entirely from this established practice of 
 the Jews. But as this ceremonial was not a part of the Pas- 
 chal Supper itself, as it was instituted by Moses ; which con- 
 sisted of nothing more than eating the Paschal Lamb in a cer- 
 tain prescribed manner ;f/nj it is evident that the Christian 
 rite of eating bread and drinking wine, in memory of the death 
 of Christ, is not borrowed from the Passover itself, but merely 
 from a ceremonial which the Jews had thought fit to introduce 
 without any injunction of their law ; and which was common 
 to all their religious festivals, as well as the Passover, though 
 confined to their religious festivals alone. 
 
 Page 39.] Had Bishop Warburton happened to have ob- 
 served the perfectly corresponding meaning of these words ia 
 the several passages here referred to, he could not, it is presum- 
 ed, have inclined to the opinion, as hedoes,fj»J in opposition to 
 Bishop Hoadly,(^oJ that xcimytct was used to signify the inward 
 or spiritual part of the Lord's Supper, and f.6Ts%j<» the external 
 part only. In fact, it appears from the passages referred to, 
 that there is not any ground for such a distinction ; and xctmuet 
 here signifies nothing else than the participation of the bread and 
 wine, considered as the appointed representatives, or memorials, 
 of the body and blood. 
 
 Page 40.] Bishop Pearce in his Commentaries, and note Q, 
 on ver. 16 ; as well as in his Commentary, and note S, on ver. 
 18 ; and his Commentary^, and note W, on ver. 20 ; is very 
 particularly careful in repeatedly interpreting the word xenaua, 
 as signifying the common^ or Joint participation of several to- 
 gether in the same thing ; and Bishop Hoadly likewise has in- 
 terpreted it in the same manner. ^/?J But if they had happen- 
 ed to observe, what is so fully proved by the passages referred 
 to in page 38, that St. Paul uses xonun* itself to express 
 merely the participation, &c. of one only, of whatever it may 
 be ; and that when he designs to express by the word itself the 
 common^ or joint participation of several together in any thing, 
 he makes use of the compound word (rvyiunmiitt ; — they could 
 
 CmJ See Exod. xii. 3—11. 
 fnj Rational Account, &.c. p. 35 — 37. 
 foj Plain Account, p. 45, 46. 
 
 f^pj Sec Plain Account, &c. p. ZZ, 34, 39, 43.— 3d edit. 
 N 
 
QH NOTE S. [Pfl5^40. 
 
 not, it Is presumed, have interpreted xtntnut in these verses in 
 the sense they have. — Bishop Warburton rightly contends, that 
 .x*nmut itself does not include the ideaofy'om^ participation ,(9) 
 though he takes no notice of the use St. Paul makes of die 
 compound r«y»«««w«, when he would express that meaning. 
 
 The natural effect of prefixing-«;»-to any word seems ex- 
 tremely obvious, and is very remarkably exemplified in Rom. 
 viii. 17 ; 1 Cor. xii. 26 ; and 2 Cor. viii. 23 ; and in the last 
 passage in particular, the pointed use of kmuivs and wngyti puts 
 the matter beyond doubt. 
 
 But though the true meaning of the simple word Ketttnuc is 
 what these passages prove it to be ; and the great stress that 
 has been laid upon translating it in 1 Cor. x. 16, as if it there 
 had-rt»»-prefixed to it, has made it eligible to show which is its 
 true sense ; it is highly proper to remark, that this is not a 
 point of any importance to the nature of the right, which it is 
 the object of this treatise to ascertain. The only question of 
 moment relating to the nature and effects of the Lord's Sup- 
 per is. Whether x*trant» in this pasage signifies simply the extet' 
 nal participation of the bread and wine, taken as representa- 
 tives of the body and blood of Jesus ; or some internal spiritu- 
 al communication^ supposed to accompany the participation of 
 the bread and wine, by the divine appointment of him, who in- 
 stituted the rite. And to determine this point, the reader will 
 consider the whole of what is alledged from page 38 to page 
 41, and the following note on page 40. 
 
 Pag 40.] The obsei'vation that the word* xuttnuc must ne- 
 cessarily be understood in the first part of each of these quesr 
 tions, though St. Paul has actually inserted it only in the last 
 part of them, appears so obvious the moment it is suggested, as 
 to seem scarce requisite to be made : and yet the want of at- 
 tending to this particular, obvious as it is, appears to have 
 been one radical cause of all the variety of opinions which have 
 been entertained of the meaning of the word itself in these 
 questions j and of its having been supposed, thatSt. Paulmeant 
 to express by it some mysterious spiritual effects arising from, 
 or accompanying, the partaking of the bread and wine in this 
 rite. — Had it been observed, that the cup^ or wine itself, can on- 
 ly bc^ or answer to, the blood ; and the bread itself only to the 
 body ; aud consequently, that the Mutniee, of the cup and the 
 bread must here be supplied, or understood, to answer to the 
 xuiunx of the blood and the body ; had this been attended to, 
 it could not but have been seen likewise, that xMuuct must of 
 
 fqj Rational Account, &c. p. oS — 35. Edit. 12mo, 1741. 
 
Page 24.] NOTES. 99 
 
 necessity have the self same meaning as applied to each ; and 
 therefore that it could not signify any thing more than the ex- 
 ternal partaking of the representatives or memorials of the 
 body and blood ; since it is evidently impossible for it to signi- 
 fy any thing more than external partaking as applied to the bread 
 and wine. And thus the meaning of St. Paul in these ques- 
 tions ; which he thought so obvious, that the Corinthians them- 
 selves could neither mistake nor doubt about it ; and the sim- 
 ple nature of the rite, to which they relate, would have been 
 clearly understood, and effectually ascertained. But partly from 
 not attending to this particular, and partiy from not previously 
 -establishing the true sense of aonunit^ by observing in what man- 
 ner the Apostle uses it on other occasions ; it has here been 
 translated by the improper term communion^ instead of the prop- 
 er term participation. St. Paul as it has been shewn, here 
 means by xetmvix the participation^ or act of partaking of the 
 bread and wmc : whereas the word communion does not signi- 
 fy the participation itself, but the connexioJi or fellowship aris- 
 ing between the several partakers, in consequence ot their join- 
 ing in the same religious act : so that by translating kmuim by 
 the word communio?i, instead of the word participation^ aie sense 
 of St. Paul is misrepresented, and rendered extremely doubtful 
 and obscure. — This improper translation of mhuu* and the 
 not distinguishing between the sense in which St. Paul uses the 
 simple term x«ir«M«, and the compound wyKonunit^ pointed out in 
 
 pages 38 tu, seem to have been the immediate causes of all 
 
 the apparent difficulty of ascertaining the meaning of St. Paul 
 in these questions, which he himself thought so obvious as not 
 to need an explanation^ and of all the obscurity, with which the 
 nature and design of the Eucharist have been so much embar- 
 rassed, in consequence of it. 
 
 Page 42.] Bishop Pearce in his Commentary and note on ver. 
 17, supposes St. i'iiul to speak of the bread partaken of by each 
 person in the Lord's Supper as part ©f one and the same loaf; 
 and to urge, that the partakers are all one (5'Ofl'j/ because the bread 
 they all partake of is one loaf; and Bishop Hoadly(^rJ and Dr. 
 Waterland(^5j interpret the Apostle's reasoning in the same 
 manner. But this, it is apprehended, is neither true in fact, nor 
 the meaning of St. Paul. The apostle is not here speaking of 
 any one congregation of Christians only ; or of separate con- 
 gi\^^gations as united in themselves, though distinct from each 
 other } but of all Christians universally. He expressly addres- 
 
 (r) Plain Account, &c. p. 34. 3d edit. 
 {s) iieview of the doctrine, &c. p. 465. 
 
100 NO T E S. iPagr S3. 
 
 ses himself in this Epistle not only to the church of God which 
 xvas at Corinth^ but at the same time to all that in every place 
 called np07i the name of Jesus Christ.CtJ And he affirms that 
 because the bread partaken of by all universally is one, all are 
 one body, since they all partake of the one bread. But it is 
 by no means true, that the bread partaken of by all universally 
 is one loaf; since in different places it always is, and even in the 
 same place sometimes may be, taken from different loaves ; ani 
 in different countries the loaves may often consist of ver}'^ differ- 
 ent kinds of bread ; and yet the rite is properly celebrated, and 
 all Christians become one body in the sense of St. Paul, by cel- 
 ebrating it, notwithstanding these differences ; and this conse- 
 quence would be just as true, if it should be celebrated with some- 
 thing else instead of bread in any place where no bread was to 
 be had. When St. Paul therefore said, that the bread partaken 
 of by all, in all countries, was one, and that all were on that ac- 
 count one body ; he did not, because he could not, mean, that 
 the bread itself partaken of by all every where was one loaf; 
 and the partakers one body, because partakers of ofie loaf; or 
 even because the food partaken of by all in this rite was of one 
 and the same general nature, dread; but that the bread 
 was partaken of by all every where as the representative or me- 
 morial of one and the same thing, the body of Jesus ifiij which 
 he had particularly reminded them it was, by his questions in 
 the immediately preceding verse ; and therefore, that all uni- 
 versally, who partook of bread in this rite, on this one religious 
 account, shewed themselves by the celebration of this rite to be 
 one body, viz. of professed Christians, or believers in Christ. 
 Pag-e 55.'] The fault which the Corinthians had been guilty 
 of, as plainly appears from what St. Paul has said upon it, was 
 that of eating and drinking their common supper, not only with- 
 out a common seriousness and decorum, but even with much 
 indecency and disorder, at those very times when they were as- 
 sembled purposely to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance 
 of Jesus ; and either had just assisted at the celebration of 
 that rite, or were just about to do it. This no doubt was ex- 
 tremely blameworthy ; but blameworthy as it was, nothing 
 surely can warrant us in supposing, that this offence was equal 
 
 (0 1 Cor i. 2. 
 
 (u) Notwitlistanding tlie reason above-mentioned is given by Bishop Hoad- 
 1)', as that on account of w iiich the bi-ead is called one, in the Plain Account, 
 &c. p. 34 ; he afterwards takes notice, in his Appendix, p. 187, that St. Paul 
 mig'ht call it one, for the very reason here assigned. We have seen, it i,s 
 presumed, that there was not any other reason for which he could call it one. 
 
Page 66.] NOTES. 101 
 
 to the sin of those who actually put Jesus to death, or that St. 
 Paul could mean to assert that it was. But the great Grotius, 
 in his short note upon the passage, has interpreted the apostle 
 as if he did ; and the very eminent author of the Rational Ac- 
 count &c. citing St. Paul's word^, that those who partook of 
 the Lord's Supper unworthily^ were guilty of the body ayid blood 
 of the Lord ; explains their meaning by saying expressly— 
 '* i. e. his murderers." (^x J In another passage likewise he 
 explains St. Paul as in this place — " ranking these criminals 
 with the murderers of the Lord of life.'^fyj — And to account 
 for this supposed " severity" of the apostle ; (of which he ac- 
 knowledges " we can hardly see the justice," (^2 J " if the 
 Lord's Supper was instituted only to commemorate a dead ben- 
 efactor ;")('a^ and at the same time to support that notion of the 
 Lord's Supper for which he contends, his lordship says, " But 
 " let us only suppose, that St. Paul considered the last Supper 
 " as a feast upon sacrifice ; that is, as a Rite in which the ben- 
 " efits of Christ's death and passion were conveyed, and at the 
 " same time slighted ; and all becomes easy and natural. The 
 " profanation of such a rite, by rendering his death ineffectual, 
 " was indeed aiding the purpose of his murderers ; and there- 
 " fore might be fitly compared, ^nA justly equalled to the pro- 
 •' digious enormity of that crime."r^J 
 
 With all due respect for so veiy eminent an author, when 
 the point in question is of such importance, as the nature of the 
 most distinguishing institution of our Lord, it may I hope be 
 permitted to observe, that if indeed this consequence would 
 follow from the notion of the Lord's Supper here contended 
 ior, this consideration alone would be a decisive proof, either 
 that the Lord's Supper is not a feast upon sacrifice, as is here 
 contended ; or, that the Christian religion, of which it is ar in- 
 stitution, is not from above. For this doctrine, that the guilt of 
 the Corinthians in the instance under considei-ation, was equal 
 to the guilt of those who actually put Jesus to death, appears 
 so plainly repugnant to truth, that it cannot be received as com- 
 ing from God ; and St. Paul, as we apprehend it has been fully 
 proved, is entirely innocent of any such assertion. 
 
 Page 66.] Thus when the Jews required a sign from Jesus, 
 to vindicate the authqrity he assumed in driving the buyers and 
 sellers out of the temple, and he in answer to their demand re- 
 plied, — Destroy this temple^ and in three days Ixvill build it up i 
 
 fxj See a Ralional Account of Uie Nature and End of tlie sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper, small 12mo, — 1761 — page 42. 
 fyj Ibid, page 13. fzj Page 14. ("aj Page 13. 
 fdj See a Rational Account, &c. page 11. 
 
i02 NOTES; [Pa^e 83. 
 
 — to prevent his readers from supposing, as the Jews at that 
 time did, that he meant the temple itsch ; Jolin takes care to 
 inform us, that Jesus meant the temple of his body. Gosp. ii. 
 19. — So upon relating that Jesus stood in the temple, and cri- 
 ed^ sayings If any ma7i thirsty let him come unto me and drink : 
 He that believeth on me^ as the scripture hath said, out of his 
 belly shall flow rivers of living water : — John immediately 
 adds, to explain these figurative expressions. But this spake he 
 of the Spirit^ which they that believe on him stisuld receive^ &c. 
 — Ibid. vii. ^7 — 39. — When Jesus had said, in the presence of 
 the people, not long betore he was put to death,— -4n^ /, i/' / 
 be lifted up from the earthy will draxv all ?nen wito me ; — which 
 his hearers did not understand ; John immediately adds from 
 himself, — This he said, signifying what death he should die. 
 Ibid. xii. 33. — When, speaking to Peter, in relation to the 
 apostles, just before he washed their feet, he said, Te areclean^ 
 hut not all ; John immediately adds to explain his meaning, 
 ''^ For he knew xvho should betray him ; tnerefore said he, Te 
 are not all clean^^ John xii. 10, 11. — So after relating several 
 particulars which Jesus, not long before his ascension, foretold 
 to Peter, as what would happen to him j John explains them 
 by saying — Ihis spake he, signifying by what death he (Peter) 
 should glorify God. — Ibid, xxi 19. — So likewise in the begin- 
 ning of the very chapter, in which is recorded what Jesus said 
 to the Jews at Capernaum, about eating his fish, and drinking 
 his blood ;'no sooner has John related, that Jesus, upon seeing a 
 great multitude coming to him, said unto Philip, whence shall 
 tve buy bread, that these may eat ? than he adds, to prevent all 
 misapprehension ; — And this he said to prove him^ fow he him' 
 self knezv zvhat he would do. Ibid. vi. 5, 6. 
 
 Page 83.] Bishop Warburton having introduced in his Ra- 
 tional Accovmt, &c. an argument urged by the bishop of Meaux 
 in favor of the real Presence ; and having acknowledged the 
 objection on which it is grounded to be a great difficulty iCcJ 
 and even himself asserted, that this difficulty *' has long embar- 
 " rassed all the several opposers of the doctrine of 1 ransub- 
 sTANTiATioN ;"f^J ^^^ having likewise employed several 
 pages in endeavouring to shew, that this objection is entirely re- 
 moved, by the discovery that the Lord's Supper is a feast upon 
 sacrifice ;("t?J And it having now been proved, if we nave reas- 
 oned right, that the Lords Supper cannot be a feast upon sacri- 
 fice i it will afford us satisfaction, though it is not necessary, to 
 
 rcj Rational Account, &c. Edit. 12mo— 1761— page 59. 
 \d) Ibid, page 61. ("ej From page SZ to page 65. 
 
Page 83.] NOTES. 103 
 
 shew, upon this occiasion, that Mr. Bossuet's argument Is real- 
 ly destitute of all foundation and truth ; and the supposed dif- 
 ficulty upon which it proceeds purely imaginary ; as well as, 
 that if it was real, the notion of the Lord's Supper being a 
 feast upon sacrifice woujd not even in the least degree enable 
 us to remove it. 
 
 The Bishop of Meaux's argument, against interpreting the 
 words of the institution of signifying nothing more, than that 
 the bread and wine were to be taken as representatives and me- 
 naorials of the body and blood, is as follows, in Bishop Warbur- 
 ton's own translation of the passage. 
 
 *' When Jesus Christ said. This is my body^ This is my 
 *' blood, he was neither propounding a parable, nor explaining 
 *' an allegory. — The words, which are detached and separate 
 " from all other discourse, carry their whole meaning in them- 
 " selves — The business in hand was the institution of a Nexv 
 *' mitey which required the use of simple terms : and that 
 *• place in scripture is yet to be discovered, where the sign hath 
 " the name of the thing signified given to it at the moment of 
 " the institution of the rite, and without any leading frep- 
 
 " ARATION."(7'J 
 
 Whether any such Instance has yet been observed in scrip- 
 ture or not, certain it is, that scripture will supply us with one. 
 The passover is an instance of exactly the same nature with 
 that here required ; and the unquestionably figurative form of 
 its institution answers exactly to that of the Lord's Supper fig- 
 uratively understood. At the very first institution of it, the 
 Lord, having instructed Moses in what manner to direct the 
 people to choose out, kill, dress, and eat, a lamb ifg^J immedi- 
 ately declared, without any leading preparation. It is the Lord^s 
 Passover ; and then added the reason, on account of which the 
 rite was instituted, and distinguished by this naxncChJ 
 
 This Is certainly a case in point. When the Lord said, on 
 this occasion. It is the Lord^s Passover, he was neither pro- 
 pounding a parable, nor explaining an allegory. — 'I'he words, It 
 is the Lord^s Passover, in the institution of tliis rite, were as 
 much detached and separate from all other discourse, and did 
 as much carry their whole meaning in themselves, as the words, 
 This is my body. This is my blood, did In the institution of the 
 Lord's Supper. — ^The business In hand was here likewise the 
 institution of a New Rite ; and if that circumstance would have 
 required the use of simple terms, as opposed to figurative, in 
 
 ffj Rational Account, &c. as before, page 55. 
 
 ^^J Exod. xii. 3 — 11. ^AJ Ibid. ver. 11 — 14. See the passage. 
 
104 NOTES. 83 
 
 the institution of the Lord's Supper ; it must equally have re- 
 quired the use of simple terms, as opposed to figurative, in 
 this prior institution of the Passover. — And evident it is, that 
 in this instance the sign, the lamb killed and dressed, &c. as 
 commanded, had the name of the thing signified, the action of 
 the Lord's passing over the houses of the Israelites, given to it 
 at the moment of the institution of the rite ; and as much with- 
 out any leading preparation, as the bread and wine had the 
 name of the body and blood of Jesus given to them, in the in- 
 stitution of the Eucharist. 
 
 Here therefore we have a direct and complete refutation of 
 the argument before us, which will admit of no reply. Not 
 even the Bishop of Meaux himself would have allowed, much 
 less contendid, that the words of the institution of the Jewish 
 Passover ought to be understood literally ; though he contends 
 for disgracing the religion of Christ with all the absurdities of 
 a real presence and Transubstantiation in the Lord's Sup- 
 per. And yet the instituting forms ©f words in both these 
 rites are so exactly similar, in the point concerned, that the 
 same mode of interpretation must of necessit^'^ be applied to 
 both. If the declaratory words of the institution of the Passo- 
 ver must be figuratively understood, so must those of the 
 Lord's Supper ; and vice versa, if the declaratory words of the 
 institution of the Lord's Supper must be literally understood, so 
 must those of the Passover likewise. The necessary conse- 
 quence of which should be, that what the Jews ate at the Pas- 
 chal Supper, and that as often as they celebrated it, was not 
 really the lamb itself, that they had killed and dressed in the 
 manner they were commanded ; but was actually the Lord 
 himself ; and not only so, but it was the Lord, employed at 
 the very time in the act of passing over the houses of the Israel- 
 ites, and that in Egypt ; and smiting the first-born both of man 
 and beast in those of the Egyptians. 
 
 These are such extravagant absurdities as even they, who 
 contend for a real presence and transubstantiation in the Lord's 
 Supper, will by no means admit the possibility of in the Passo- 
 ver ; and yet the principles of the argument in question would 
 force them to receive the one, as well as the other : for if the 
 Lord's Supper must be understood literally, because a new 
 rite cannot be instituted in figurative terms ; the Passover 
 must likewise be understood literally for the self same reason. 
 And if the sign could not have the name of the thing signified 
 given to it at the moment of the institution, without any leading 
 
Page 83.] NOTES. \0S 
 
 preparation, in the Lord's Supper, neither could it in the Pas- 
 so ver.fi J 
 
 It appears then, that the figurative form of the institution of 
 the Passover supplies us with a direct and full refutation of this 
 argument of the Bishop of Mcaux :igainst the figurative inter- 
 pretation of the declaratory words in the institution of the 
 Lord's Supper. 
 
 But to remove all obscurity from this subject, which has been 
 so unhappily obscured ; to establish the protestant doctrine re- 
 lating to it upon its true piinciples, and vindicate the figurative 
 interpretation of the Lord's Supper from all objections whatev- 
 er ; it will be useful to shew, that the very Drinciples upon 
 which this argument of Mr. Bossuet proceeds, and which Bish- 
 op Warburton has admitted, are destitute of all foundation in 
 truth, and the reason of the thing ; so that if no other rite of a 
 figurative kind had ever before been instituted, the figurative 
 institution of the Lord's Supper would have been just as unex- 
 . ceptionable and proper as it now is ; and that, without .any re- 
 course had to the supposition, that the Lord's Supper is a feast 
 upon sacrifice. 
 
 *' We see," says Bishop Warburton, " that Bossuet rests his 
 *' objection upon the force of the words ; which, in his opinion, 
 " can admit of no figurative sense, without doing extreme vio- 
 *' lence to human language and expression." And he directly 
 adds from himself — " Indeed as far as regards the fwrdness of 
 " the figure, I believe most protestant doctors have been ready 
 ^' enough to join with him."fij 
 
 Whether most protestant doctors have in fact been ready to 
 join with the popish Bishop in this particular, or not ; a point 
 of which I confess myself ignorant ; to determine the merits of 
 the question, it must be our business to inquire into the reality 
 of this supposed " hardness of the figure ;" and this " extreme 
 " violence here supposed to be done to human language and 
 " expression ;" by understanding our Saviour's words, This is 
 my body^ £s?c. This is 7ny bloody ^c. as meant to signify, — I 
 appoint this for a representative or memorial of my body. Sec. 
 — and this for a representative or memorial of my blood, &c. 
 
 The proper use of language is to convey our thoughts. 
 
 ("ij It is a fact well worthy of remark, and such as deserves the most seri- 
 ous reflection of all M'hom it concerns, that wliile a very great proportion of 
 the Christian world have been required to believe, and actually have believed, 
 a real Presence and Transubstantiation in the Lord's Supper ; no Jew was 
 ever yet wild enough to conceive the thought, or dishonest enough to incul» 
 catethe belief, of a real Presence or Ti-ansubstantiation in the Passover. 
 
 fkj Rational Account, &c. page 59. 
 
 O 
 
toe NOTES. [Pa^e 83. 
 
 When therefore language is so used, as to shew whether it is 
 intended to be understood in a literal, or a figurative sense ; it 
 is used as properly, and is as perfectly free from having any vi- 
 olence done to it, when made use of figuratively, as when used 
 in the most literal sense. 
 
 But in making use of language, our thoughts may be convey- 
 ed not only by the words we deliver, but likewise in some 
 measure by the particular situation and circumstances in which 
 they are delivered. 
 
 When therefore an expression is made use of in a figurative 
 sense, but in such circumstances as clearly show, that the speakr 
 er does not intend it to be understood literally ; whatever the 
 words themselves may be, and whatever the occasion on which 
 they are delivered, the words- «re used properly ; nor is any 
 violence done to human language and expression, by their be- 
 ing used in a figurative, instead of their literal sense. 
 
 These positions, I presume, must be granted ; and from 
 them it will immediately follow, that if the words made use of 
 by Jesus, in instituting the rite in question, were spoken by 
 Kim in such circumstances as sufficiently shewed to those, to 
 whom he addressed them at the time, that he did not intend 
 them to be understood in their literal sense, but figuratively ; 
 ihen the words under consideration must be understood fig- 
 uratively ; and Jesus's making use of them in such a figura- 
 tive sense, upon this particular occasion, could not be doing any 
 ^^iolence whatever to human language and expression. 
 
 After all, therefore, the only particular to be considered, in 
 order to determine the point in question, is, whether the words 
 of this institution were spoken by Jesus in such circumstances, 
 as mv^st have plainly shewn at the time, that they were not inten- 
 ded to be understood in their literal sense, but figuratively. And 
 evident it is, that the circumstances in which they were spoken 
 were so very particular, as far as relates to them that it was abso- 
 lut<>ly impossible for those to whom they were addressed to imag- 
 ine they were designed to be literally understood. The bread 
 he gave the apostles to eat, and the wine he gave them to drink, 
 were part of the veiy same with those they hadjust been partak- 
 ing ol in the Paschal Supper itself ; and had nothing in them 
 peculiar or uncommon : and this bread, he told them,' was his 
 body green for them ; raid this wine his blood of the New Tes- 
 tament shed for them ; when they saw him, at the very time, 
 3-et whole and unhurt before them ; and knew intuitively, that 
 his body was not given, nor his blood shed. So that unless 
 ihey had been real ideots, or absolute madmen, it was utterly 
 impossible for them to consider the words in question, as spoken 
 to theitt in any other than a figtirative sense. 
 
Page 83.] NOTES. 107 
 
 Instead therefore of being obliged to have recourse to the 
 notion of a feast upon sacrifice, or any other particular idea of 
 the Lord's Supper, to rescue the figurative interpretation of the 
 words of the institution from the charge brought against it bj'- 
 the Bishop of Meaux, and readily joined in by the author of 
 the Rational Account ; it appears, merely from considering the 
 words themselves, and the circumstances in which they were 
 spoken, that the figurative interpretation of them must be 
 their true interpretation ; and that to understand them in the 
 literal sense, when delivered in such circumstances, would in- 
 deed be doing such extreme violence to human language and ex- 
 pression, as could not possibly be admitted. 
 
 After what has now been seen, it is scarce possible to avoid 
 enquiring, what " the hardness of the figure," so much com- 
 plained of by the author of the Rational Account, as if contain- 
 ed in the words in question, may mean, and in what it can 
 consift ? — The figure is nothing more, than the appointment of 
 one thing for the representative or memorial of another, by af- 
 firming it to be that other ; at such a time, and in such circum- 
 stances, as indisputably shewed, that the name of the thing sig- 
 nified was given to the sign, not in the literal, but in a figura- 
 tive sense. — What hardness is there in this figure, or in what 
 can it possibly consist ? If there is any hardness or difficulty 
 at all in it, it must arise from one of these two circumstances ; 
 either that bread and wine are things exceedingly unlike aman*a 
 body and blood ; or, that the bread and wine are here said to 
 be the body and blood ; instead of being said explicitly, and at 
 length, to be represeiitatives or menwrials of the body and blood. 
 But from neither of those circumstances can the least hardness 
 or difficulty arise in this particular instance. 
 
 With respect to the first, if one thing be appointed to repre- 
 sent, or be a memorial of another, it is not of any moment how 
 unlike that other it may in itself be ; provided only it he tlear- 
 ly signified, that it is appointed to represent, or be a tfiemorial 
 of it. Nothing could in itself be more unlike the action of the 
 Lord's passint; over the houses of the Isratlites in Egypt, when 
 he smote the first born, both of man and beast, in those of the 
 Egyptians, than a lamb killed, dressed, and eaten, in any man- 
 ner whatever. Yet the Paschal Supper, when once positively 
 appointed for a memorial of that transaction, was as clear and 
 indisputable a memorial of it, and did as elFectually preser%'e 
 the memory of it, as any supposed representation of the trans- 
 action itself could have done. And in the same manner, though 
 bread and wine had not in themselves any natural resemblance 
 to the body and blood of Jesus, yet in consequence of being 
 expressly appointed by hira to be taken as memorials of them, 
 
108 NOTES. [Pa^e 83. 
 
 they are in fact as clear and certain memorials of his sufferings, 
 as any representation of his suft'erings could be. >Jo hardness 
 of figure therefore can be justly complained of in the institution 
 of the Lord's Supper, on account of the want of a natural resem- 
 blance between the bread and wine and the body and blood of 
 Jesus, which they are appointed to represent in it. 
 
 Neither can any arise from the particular manner in which 
 the appointment of these memorials was expressed. When one 
 thing is intended to be made the representative, or memorial 
 of another, if instead of saying explicitly, — '' This is a repre- 
 sentative of That," — it should be said concisely — " This is 
 That ;" — and if, at the same time, the particular circumstances, 
 in which this form of expression is made use of, shew infallibly, 
 that the One thing concerned can in no other sense be the Oth" 
 er, than as a representative or memorial of it ; then the form 
 of expression made use of — "■ This is That," — must be known 
 to signify — " This is a representative or memorial of That ;" — 
 and no hardness of figure can be justly objected to it ; nor can 
 any violence whatever be done to human language and expres- 
 sion by it ; as we have seen already, from considering the na- 
 ture and end of language, in this note. And this it is obvious 
 was the very case, in the institution of the rite under consider- 
 ation. 
 
 The notion therefore of any " hardness of the figure ;" or of 
 any " violence done to human language and expression," by in- 
 terpreting the declaratory words of the institution of the Lord's 
 Supper in the figurative sense, instead of the literal ; is utterly 
 destitute of all foundation in truth, and the plain reason of thq 
 thing. And when it is considered, that Jesus, and they to 
 whom he addressed himself on this occasion, had just been cel- 
 ebrating the JeM' ish Passover, the most signal memorial in that 
 religion, at the very time when he instituted this nte, for a me- 
 morial of himself in his ow^n ; it must surely be confessed 
 nothing can be more natural, than that he should institute Thi^ 
 in a form of expression, similar to the form which had been made 
 use of in the institution of That, and which every Jew without 
 exception understood in an exactly similar figurative sense. 
 
 The Bishop of Meaux indeed has asserted, and even without 
 any attempt at a proof, as if it was a point not to be questioned, 
 that "" the institution of a new rite required the use of simple 
 terms ;"f /J but the assertion is destitute of all foundation in 
 truth. In instituting a new rite, as Avell as upon ever)' other 
 occasion, it is requisite we should use our words in such a man- 
 
 ClJ See the passage q^iioted from him, page 103. 
 
Page 83.] NOTES. 109 
 
 ner, that the sense in which we mean them to be understood, 
 whether literal or figurative, should appear : but this is all that 
 is required ; and when this point is pi'operly taken care of, fig- 
 urative expressions are just as proper in instituting a new rite, 
 as the most literal. 
 
 When in the first institution of the Passover it was said of 
 the lamb killed and dressed, &c. as enjoined, — " It is the Lord's 
 Passover ;" — the rite itself was as properly instituted in this 
 figurative form of expression ; and its nature as well under- 
 stood to be figurative, as they could have been, if it had been 
 said, simply and at length, — " It is a memorial of the Lord's 
 Passover ;" — and for this obvious reason, because it was self 
 evident, that the lamb so eaten could not he the action of the 
 Lord's passing over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt, in 
 any other sense than as a memorial or commemoration of it. 
 
 And the same figurative form of expression was, for the self 
 same reason, just as allowable and proper, in the institution of 
 the Lord's Supper. When Jesus broke the bread and gave it 
 to the apostles, saying at the same time — Take^ eat ; this is my 
 body ; this do in remembrance ofme; — and when he gave them 
 the cup, and said — Drink ye all ofit; this is my blood of the 
 New Testament; — or, This cup is the New Testameiit in my 
 blood ; — this do^ as oft as ye drink ity in remembrance ofme ; 
 — the words he made use of were as properly used, and the 
 sense, in which he designed them to be understood, was as eifect- 
 ually shewn to be figurative, as they would have been, if he had 
 said explicitly of the bread, — This is the memorial of my body ; 
 — and of the cup, — This is the memorial of my blood,' &c. — ^be- 
 cause it was self evident at the time, that they could not be, 
 literally, either the one or the other, (^mj 
 
 It appears then, merely from considering the use and intent 
 of language, that all the difficulty, supposed to attend the figu- 
 rative interpretation of the words of Jesus in instituting the rite 
 in question, is purely imaginary ; and that a figurative form of 
 
 Cm J But let it not be imagined it is here meant to be inferred, that the 
 apostles comprehended at the time the further design of Jesus in what he 
 said and did on this occasion. It is only contended, that the circumstances, 
 in which Jesus called the bread his body, and the wine his blood, were such 
 as fully authorised him to call them so, in a ligiu",itive sense ; without being 
 guilty of even the smallest impropriety in the use of language ; because those 
 circumstances must certainly have convinced the apostles at the time, that it 
 was a figurative sense only, in which he so denominated them. — As to the 
 further design with which Jesus spoke and acted as he did in this instance, 
 that it was impossible for them to comprehend till by inspiration they were 
 fully instructed in the piu'pose, for which he appeared upon cartli, and in that 
 religion they had been selected to preach in his name. 
 
119 NOTE S. [PageSS, 
 
 expression, when used in such circumstances as clearly shew it 
 is intended to be figuratively understood, is just as proper in in- 
 stituting a new rite, as in propounding a parable, or framing an 
 allegory, or on any other occasion whatever. 
 
 But to close this subject, which has carried us so far, it is 
 highly necessary to take notice, that if the difficulty complained 
 of had any real existence, it would unavoidably remain an insu- 
 perable obstacle to the figurative interpretation of this rite, in 
 any sense whatever; would absolutely prevent its being a feast 
 upon sacrifice, or even a simple commemoration ; and oblige us 
 to interpret the words of the institution in their strict literal 
 ^ense only. 
 
 Bishop Warburton c()ntends,(^wj that " the difficulty, great as 
 it is, is entirely removed ;" and that the words of the institution 
 *' suffer no violent conversion" from being understood figura- 
 tively ; if the Lord's Supper is specifically a feast upon sacrifice ; 
 because, if Jesus meant this rite to be a feast upon sacrifice, the 
 words of the institution must of necessity have been made use 
 of by him in a figurative sense ; and the bread and wine natur- 
 ally would, nay and necessarily must, stand for, or be the sym» 
 bols of, his body and blood. 
 
 Now if there was any real difficulty in the case, and if these 
 considerations would remove it, supposing the rite in question 
 was intended by Jesus to be a feast upon sacrifice ; they will 
 equally remove it, supposing Jesus to have designed it for a 
 commemoration only. For in this case, as well as the other, 
 the words of the institution must of necessity have been made 
 use of by him in a figurative sense ; and the bread and wine 
 naturally would, nay and even necessarily must have stood for, or 
 have been the symbols of, his body and blood. So that if these 
 considerations prevent the words of the institution from " suf- 
 fering any violent conversion" by being used figuratively in the 
 one case, they likewise prevent it in the other ; and no peculiar 
 advantage whatever can be derived from the supposition of the 
 Lord's Supper's being specifically a feast upon sacrifice. 
 
 But the truth is, that if there really was any such difficulty 
 attending the figurative use of the institution, these considera- 
 tions would be so far from removing it, as Bishop Warburton 
 contends, that they would in reality strengthen and confirm it. 
 For if, in the first place, it is granted, as Bishop Warburton 
 grants, that the words of the institution, if here used in a figu- 
 rative sense, really do extreme violence to human language and 
 cxpr^ sion ; — and if, in the next, it cannot be supposed, that Je^ 
 
 Cn ) Rational account, &c. page 59 — 61. 
 
fage 83.] NOTES. Ill 
 
 sus in instituting a rite could use words in such a manner as to 
 do extreme violence to human language and expression ; (which 
 is here the fundamental principle all along understood and ar- 
 gued upon ;) then must it unavoidably follow, that Jesus could 
 not mean to make the rite he instituted, in this form of expres- 
 sion, either a feast upon sacrifice, or even a commemoration ; 
 because in either case his words must of necessity be under- 
 stood figuratively ; but that, on the contrary, he must have de- 
 signed the words to be understood in, and the nature of the 
 rite to be determined by, their strict literal sense alone. And 
 thus the admission of the reality of this difficulty ; which the 
 Bishop of Meaux has taken for granted, and Bishop Warburton 
 readily allowed, but which, I apprehend, we have seen has no 
 real existence ; would effectually preclude all defence of any 
 figurative interpretation whatever of the rite in question, and 
 drive us unavoidably into all absurdities of a real presence and 
 absolute Transubstantiation. 
 
 FIJVIS. 
 
•M^ 
 
<*i. 
 
 m^