«» 
 
 ^ 
 
f 
 
 PERKINS LIBRARY 
 
 Duke University 
 
 I^re Books 
 
THEOLOGICAL 
 TRACTS 
 
 No. II. 
 
 CONTAIMIKO 
 
 A 
 
 PRACTICAL INQUIRY 
 
 X»TO THE 
 
 AUTHORITY, NATURE, AND DESIGN 
 
 OF THE ^ 
 
 LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM BELL, D. D. 
 
AN 
 
 ATTEMPT 
 
 TO ASCERTAIN AND ILLUSTRATE 
 
 AUTHORITY, NATURE, AND DESK 
 
 THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST 
 
 COMMONLY CALLED 
 
 THE COMMUNION 
 
 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 BY WILLIAM BELL, 
 
 FREBEXDARY OF ST. PETER's, WESTMINSTER. 
 
 FROM THE SECOND LONDON EDITION. 
 
 VUBLISHBD BY W. WELLS, NO. 6, COURT STREET, BOS 10 
 
 Printed at Cambridge by Hilliard 0" Metcalf. 
 1809. 
 

 PREFACE 
 
 FIRST EDITION. 
 
 THE authority, nature, and effects of a rite institut- 
 ed by our Lord, as one of the two distinguishing rites of 
 his religion, must certainly be a subject of serious concern 
 to all who embrace the Cliristian faith : and the endeav- 
 our to acquire just and accurate ideas of the Lord's Sup- 
 per has been rendered a matter of still gi^eater necessity, 
 by the no less important than contradictor}- opinions, which 
 still continue to be entertained with respect to this partic- 
 ular institution. 
 
 The following treatise, which took its rise from the au- 
 thour's endeavours several years ago 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 know ledge 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 fallac}-, either in the 
 principles assumed, or the consequences drawn from them. 
 But as it is ver}- fiu- from impossible that he may have 
 been dcceiA-ed by some involuntary prejudice in favour of 
 his own conceptions, he now at ler.gth submits them to 
 the public ; that from the unbiassed judgment of others he 
 may either derive th.e 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 widi 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, draAVTi up in a close argu- 
 mentative form ; in order that every single principle upon 
 which it proceeds may plainly and fully appear, and die 
 truth or falsehood of every deduction be readily and clear- 
 ly determined. 
 
 From the ver}'^ 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 them may possibly 
 give offence to some, whose approbation the author would 
 be happy to obtain. Should this pro^^e the case, he still 
 flatters himself they Avill admit his apology, when he as- 
 sures them, that the treatise owes its existence, as well as 
 its publication, to what he apprehends ought to be the 
 leading motive of everj'^ such inquiiy ; a sincere desire of 
 ascertaining the true intention of Jesus in the institution, 
 concerned, and spreading the knowledge of what it is cer- 
 tainly desirable that eveiy one. who professes the faith in 
 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 me^ of tlie greatest name and most distmguish- 
 ed abilities, who ha^e MTitten professedly on tlie subject ; 
 the result of a conscientious pursuit of truth, in a point of 
 such importance to the religion of the gospel, will not, he 
 trusts, be imputed to voluntary prejudice, or still more 
 unbecoming presumption. 
 
 Attempts to rectily mistakes in points of considerable 
 moment, and especially when advanced and espoused by 
 writers of the greatest authority, it ^vill be readily agreed, 
 are endeavours to sene the cause of truth where it stands 
 most in need of support. And such is the acknoAvledged 
 eminence of those writers with whom we aie in this ques- 
 tion concerned ; that to show them to have fallen into any 
 mistake, should diat in the event be found tlie case, is lit- 
 
PREFACE. Vn 
 
 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, widi re- 
 spect to the nature and effects of tiie institution concern- 
 ed, die world has long been indebted to the well known 
 Mr. John Hales of Eaton ; and for a professed argument 
 in their support, to a very eminent prelate, several years 
 since deceased. But how clearly soever they have been 
 established by this distinguished WTiter ; in consequence 
 of objections which have been urged against some partic- 
 ulars of his reasoning in their defence, the subject itself 
 still remains involved in obscurity ; and not only the pub- 
 lic doctrines of each distinct protestant persuasion, but 
 the private opinions of individuals of perhaps every 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 w hich 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. 
 
 Wliether 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 gi-eat importance, they arc still absc 
 
viii ]*R£FAC£. 
 
 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 practical consideration relatmgto it, are here deduced in ' 
 the plainest and most direct manner, in the very short trea- 
 tise itself; wliile 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 far 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. 
 
VREFACE. IX 
 
 THE church of England, in her sixth article, declares, 
 — " Holy scripture containeth all things necessary to sal- 
 •' vation': so that ^v•hate^er is not read therein, nor may 
 " be pro\ed thereby, is not to be required of any niiin, 
 " that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be 
 *' thought requisite or necessiu-y to salvation." — 
 
 In the twentieth article it is declared — " The church 
 " hath ])o\ver to decree rites and ceremonies, and author- 
 " ity in controversies of faith : and yet it is not lawful for 
 " the church to ordain any thing that is contrary 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 uhich 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 ixre 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 en*ed ; 
 *' 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 die affirmative be- 
 fore he can be ordained. 
 
 " Are you persuaded, that the holy scriptures contain 
 " sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal 
 " sah'ation 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 Christ, 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 cku-ge with all 
 " diligence to keep and observe the same ?" 
 b 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 " Will you be read}-, with all faithful diligence, to ban- 
 '* ish and drive a\\ay all erroneous and strange doctrines 
 " contraiy 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 ?" 
 
 In the office for the consecration of Bishops, tlie 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 tlie 
 " 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 you 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 the same principles, which are the very ground- 
 work of these public ordinances of the church of England, 
 are no less conspicuous in the private statutes 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 particular 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 ; 
 " scriptiu'ae authoritatem hominum judiciis praepositu- 
 
 rum ; regulam vitae, 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 tlie 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 ; regiud as merely human whatever is 
 " not proved by the word of God ; — and exert my most 
 *' strenuous endeavours to refute such opinions as are con- 
 " trar}' to the word of God : in all points of religion, I 
 " will prefer what is true to whatever may hsLxe been re- 
 ♦* ceived, and what is written to whatever is not written." 
 
 From these authorities it appears, I presume, beyond 
 dispute, that tlie 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 cn'cd ; mindful that she 
 sepai'ated from the church of Rome on account of her er- 
 rors : and conscious that they who settled her o\\ti rule 
 of faith were not infallible ; she enjoins her ministers, \vith 
 the utmost solenuiity, to make the study of die scriptures 
 their most serious concern ; in order that by the tried and 
 approved result of their progressive inquiries the momen- 
 tous doctrines, and important rites of die gospel may be 
 the more accurately understood, and die 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 spirit, exerts his endeavours, A\ith becoming 
 deference and care, in brightening but a single ray of the 
 splendour of her reformation ; manifests a proper attention 
 to the engagements he has entered into ; and by a consis- 
 tent adherence to the original principles of her sepai'ation 
 from the church of Rome, pursues the \cry pUm she her- 
 self has pointed out for obtaining the great ends of her in- 
 stitution. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 TH£ general Inquiry into the Authority, Nature, and Design of the 
 Lord's Supper. . . . ' . . . . 1 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. I. Further proofs of the designed universality and peipetuity of 
 
 the Lord's Supper. . , , . . . 23 
 
 No. II. What conchisions may be justly drawn from the nature and 
 
 effects of tlie Paschal Supper to those of the Lord's Supper. 31 
 
 No. III. Inquiiy into tlie true me-aning of St. Paul in the 1st Epistle to 
 
 the Connthians from Chapter x. 14. to xi. 1. . . 35 
 
 No. IV. Inquiry into the apostle's meamng from verse 20 to 34, of the 
 
 xith chapter of the same epistle. . . . .52 
 
 No. V. Inquiry into tlie meaning of the 7th and 8th verses of the \\}\ 
 
 chapter of the same epistle, .... 59 
 
 No. VI. Inquiry, whether any information, relating to the natm-e and 
 effects of the Lord's Supper, can be derived from the discouse 
 of our Lord in the SjTiagogue at Capernaum ; recorded in 
 the vith chapter of the gospel of St. John. . . . 64 
 
 No. VII. Examination of Dr. Cudworth'.^ argument, in favour of his own 
 notion of the Lord's Supper ; as founded upon what St. Paid 
 has said of it in the xth chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Co- 
 rintliians. ....... 71 
 
 No. VIII. Argument to shew, that Dr. Cudwoilh's notion of the nature 
 of the 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 
 intended 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 argtmient by the blsliop of Meaux in favour of transub- 
 stantialion ; and Bishop Wai'builon's method of answer- 
 ing it ; considered. ...».- 102 
 
AN 
 
 ATTEMPT, &c. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 I. X HE obligation we are 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 die kno\vn will of God. 
 
 II. The true design of ever}^ 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 l)e Icamt from the declarations of the institu- 
 tor, considered jointly widi all such circumstances as he 
 must be supposed to have regarded at the time of the in- 
 stitution ; and from die 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 \\ liich it \\"as instituted, nor the 
 declarations of diose \\ ho alone are duly qualified to de- 
 clare its design, contain or imply a promise of any pecu- 
 liar rew^ards attending the performance, or a threatening 
 
 A 
 
2 The authority^ nature^ and 
 
 of an}" peculiar punishments attending the omission of it ; 
 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 christian rite, commonly called the Lord's 
 Supper,^^^/ Avasinstited 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 tlie 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 with the circumstances attending it ; and the 
 declarations of the writers of the New Testament relating 
 to it ; and from no other authorities whatever. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 VIII. The histor}^ of the institution of the Lord's 
 Supper is delivered by the wTiters of the New Testament 
 in the following passages, and in them only : viz. Matt, 
 xxvi. 26, &.C. Markxiv. 22, Sec. 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 breads 
 Mark. And as they did eat Jesus took breads 
 Luke. And he took bread, 
 '"-. . Paul. The Lord Jesus ^ the same night that he Was be- 
 trayed, took bread, 
 
 (a) See the note on this page at the end of the appendix! 
 
design of the Lord^s Supper. 3 
 
 Matt, jind blessed it, and brake it, and gave to his dis- 
 ciples, 
 
 Mark, ^nd 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. JFhich is given for you ; This do in remem- 
 brance of me ; 
 
 Paul. JFIiich is broken for you ; This do in remem- 
 brance of me. 
 
 Matt. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, 
 
 Mark. A7id he took the cup, and xuhen he had given 
 
 thanks, 
 Luke. Likewise also the cup, after supper, 
 Paul. Afier the same manjier also he took the cup^ 
 
 when he had supped, 
 
 Matt. And gave it to them, saying. Drink ye all of it ; 
 Mark. He gave it to them, and they all drank of it ; 
 
 Matt. For this is my blood of the New Testament ; (b J 
 Mark. And he said unto them. This is my blood of the 
 
 New Testament, 
 Luke. Saying, This cup is the New Testament in my 
 
 blood, 
 Paul. Saying, This cup is the New Testament in my 
 
 blood ; 
 
 (b) It may not be improper to remind the reader here, once 
 for all, of what has often been remarked, that in all passages whero 
 our translation adopts the term New Testament, it would have been 
 more proper to have used the word Covenant, as that expresses the 
 true sense of the word A«t^iix^ in the original, whicli the word Tes- 
 tament does not. Sec Bp. Peavce's note on Matt. xxvi. 28. vol i. 
 p. 183. 
 
The authority^ nature^ and 
 
 Matt. Which is shedjbr many^ 
 Mark. Which 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 \vhole 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 Covejiant ; or, this is the jYerv Covena?it in my 
 bhod ; 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. 
 
 XI. 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 rjou; 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. Tlie words, 
 Take, eat, accompanied with the action of giA'ingthemthc 
 bread, expressed the first ; and the additional injunction, 
 Do this in remembrance of me, the second ; since it is ev- 
 ident, tliat in order to eal bread in remembrance of him, 
 they must of necessit}- do it after he should be taken 
 from them. 
 
 And this i:)eing clear with respect to the bread, there is 
 not in reality any occasion for a distinct proof of the 
 same points with rej^d to the cup ; since it is manifest, 
 that die participation of the one was intended to be ac- 
 companied with that of the other. But the words of Je- 
 sus will equally pro\'e the certainty of the institution with 
 regard to the cup likewise. 
 
 When he gave them die cup he said. Drink ye all of 
 it ; for this is my blood of the .Yew Covenant, which is 
 shed for many for the remission of sins ; this do ye, as oft 
 as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. Here the words, 
 drink ye all of it, accompajiicd 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 tlie express injunction to drink at that time, as 
 \vell as the positive command to eat bread in remembrance 
 of him, was as positive a command to do tliis after he 
 should be taken from them ; clcai'ly signifying by die 
 new clause, as oft as ye dririk 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 detemiine how fre- 
 quendy they should do 'n.^dj 
 
 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 tlus pai^c at the end of the Appendix. 
 
6 The authority^ nature^ and 
 
 as a mere general remembrance of himself; but that they 
 should eat the bread, as a memorial of Iiis 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 jwoves it to have been the intention 
 of Jesus, that tlie rite should be observed after his death ; 
 since they were to regard the bread as a memorial of his 
 body given for them, and the \\'ine of his blood shed for 
 them ; which it was absolutely impossible for them to do, 
 till after he should ha\'e been actutdl}' 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 what has now been explained. 
 
 4thly, 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 any special 
 reward, that should attend the performance 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 \\^ho should ever 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 comniiuid to them to 
 celebrate it, that he meant it to be observed 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 ail 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 ; (^ej without adding any intimation that they were 
 ever to discontinue it ; and the reason he assigned for en- 
 joining it, that he suffered death yor Jimny^for remission of 
 sinsy 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 the ai)ostles ; and he commanded all who 
 were present to celebrate it, without any direction what- 
 ever, either to confine the celebration of it afterwards to 
 themselves, or to discontinue it at any future period ; it 
 would, I aj^prehend, be contrary 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 particulnr 
 circumstances in \\ hich the}- were delivered. At the time 
 when Jesus ga^■e the apostles these injunctions, he was cel- 
 ebrating with them the Paschal Supper, which was insti- 
 tuted by the law of Moses for a perj^etual memorial of the 
 deliverance of the Israelites out of I'lgypt, 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 ever)' Christian, as the Passover was enjoined 
 to be, and actually was, by every levf.fgj 
 
 (c) See pages 4, 5. 
 
 (f) See Exod. xii. U, 17, 25 — 27. xiii. 8 — 10. xxiii. 15. 
 xxxiv. 18. Deut. xvi. 1, 3, 6. 
 
 (g) For further arguments in proof of this fundamental point, 
 the reader will consult No. I of the Appendix. 
 
8 The autfiority, nature^ and 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 
 The Lord's Supper being established as a standing rite 
 of the rehgion 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 ai'e warranted in apprehending 
 from the omission of any rite instituted by Jesus, to the 
 omission of Avhich 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 threatening of any special 
 evils to punish the omission of it ; it must be gi-anted, 
 that there neither iu'e, 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 peculiai' meaning to the words 
 and actions of our Lord in the institution ; or, that the 
 apostles in their wiitings have communicated to us some 
 
design of the Lord^s Supper. 
 
 particulars of its nature and effects, which neither the 
 words nor actions of Jesus in the institution itself, nor 
 the circumstances attendmg it, imply. 
 
 SECTION VIIL 
 
 XVI. This peculiar circumstance attended the institu- 
 tion of the christian rite in question ; That the Supper at 
 which it w as 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 tliat Jewish rite, which Jesus was celebrating 
 with the tweh e at the time of its institution, we may rea- 
 sonably infer, that it was the design of our Lord to makd 
 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 
 XlV.rhJ 
 
 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 o\vn rite ; and there is no 
 other Jewish memorial to which it bears any resemblance. 
 This is so evident as to need no proof. 
 
 (hj For the proof of this assertioji see Appendix No. iL. 
 fi 
 
10 The authority^ nature^ and 
 
 SECTION IX. 
 
 XXI. It would be manifestly unreasonable^ and iiv 
 deed utterly unwarrantable to suppose, that it could be the 
 intention of Jesus, when instituting the christian rite in 
 question, to gi\'e it any resemblance to, or make its na- 
 ture and effects in any de^ee ^^'hatever corresponticnt 
 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 onvii 
 religion in imitation of any of theirs./^^/ 
 
 But if it had been possible for him to have entertained 
 this design, it is certain that in fact he did not. 
 
 It is self-evident Jesus could not but be mcU aware, 
 that when he was celebrating the Paschal Supper with the 
 twelve, in ol^edience to the law of Moses, their thoughts 
 must have been totally withdrawn from the consideration 
 of all heathen rites, \A'hich 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 OAvn 
 institution correspond with those of any heathen rite, he 
 must of necessity have explained tliis design to the 
 Twelve, either at the time or aftenvai'ds ; 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 history of the institution itself, in their 
 gospels. 
 
 Siiice therefore they have not recorded any thing of 
 this kind, it must be allowed, that Jesus neither had, nor 
 could have any design of making the nature and effects 
 
 (i) The rite itself which Jesus instituted, Avhich consisted of 
 nothing more than tasting bread and wine in religious commemo- 
 ration of some peculiar circumstances of his death, had not in 
 Teulity any resemblance to a feast, religious or not religious ; 
 though 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 w.is a meal eaten at that time, necessarily had. 
 
design of the Lord's Supper. 11 
 
 of the Eucharist in any degree similar to the supposed 
 nature and eftects of any heathen rites ; and consequendy 
 that tlie one cannot admit of any explanation from the 
 other. In fact, the opposite supposition appears so man- 
 ifestly inadmissible, that had it not been actually contended 
 for, it need not have been mentioned. 
 
 SECTION X. 
 
 XXII. Since from the histor}' 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 Jew'ish rite ; and 2dly, That he did not at 
 all allude to any Paj^n 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 tliis rite can be ascertained from the words of 
 the institution, considered jointly with all the peculiar 
 circumstances accompan}ing it, the Lord's Supper is 
 specihcaily, A memoriiil of our Lord ; but more especially 
 of his deadi, and the general purj:)ose for which he died ; 
 having no other benetits annexed to the celebration, nor 
 any other e\'ils to the omission of it, tlian those necessarily 
 attending the celebration or omission of any other pos- 
 itive rite under the christian dispensation ; explained al- 
 ready in propositions XIII mid XIV. 
 
 XXIII. But since it is certain that Jesus did l^y no 
 means completely instruct his disciples in the nature of 
 his religion, \vhile he was with them ; but left them to be 
 furtlier 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 w hich 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. il. 
 
\2 ^he authority^ nature, a?id 
 
 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 XI. 
 
 XXIV. The most remarkable passage in the New 
 Testament relating to the Lord's Supper, besides those 
 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 passage 
 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 we are furnished with by the his- 
 tory of its institution. /^w^ 
 
 XXVI. There still remains another passage of St. 
 Paul's 1st Epist. to the Corinthians, 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 relating to the design of the rite in question, 
 that in fact the Lord's Supper is not even so much as 
 alluded to in it. fnj 
 
 XXVII. It has by many been supposed, that the 
 most important benefits are attributed, even by Jesus 
 
 (f/J Fop the proof of this see the Appendix, No. Ifl. 
 ("mj For the proof of this see the Appendix, No. lY- 
 {nj For the proof of this see the Appejjdix, No. V. 
 
design of he Larcfs Supper. \St 
 
 himself, to the celebration of this rite, in some expreswons 
 of his recorded by St. John in tlie 6th chapter c^ his 
 Gospel : But no conclusions wliatever, relating to Uie 
 nature and effects of this rite, can be justly founded on 
 those expressions -jfoj nor are there any passages in 
 the writings of the Apostles, besides those which ha^'e 
 now been considered, from which any particulars of the 
 nature and design of the Lord's Supper can be learnt. 
 
 XXVIII. From a due consideration therefore of tlie 
 historj' of the institution of the Lord's Supper, including 
 tlie \vords and actions of our Lord in tlie institution itself, 
 and the peculiar circumstances attending it ; as well as 
 from an examination of all the passages in die writings 
 of the Apostles relating to it ; it appears, diat the Lord's 
 Supper is specificall}-, A religious memorial of our 
 Lord, but more especially of his death, and the general 
 purpose for \\ hich he died ; which has not any otlier 
 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 dispensiition, 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 apj^ears to 
 have been, that of obliging all, who should ever come to 
 believe in him, to meet together for the celebration of a 
 rite, which \\'ould not only be a solemn profession of die 
 Christian faith ; but a memorial of one of the most sig- 
 nal and important events, by means of which that faiSi 
 was established. 
 
 XXX. And as die celebration of this rite ; with those 
 serious and thankful acknowledgments, ^vhich tjie vol- 
 untarj^ sufferings and death of Jesus, for the redemption 
 of man, commemorated in it, evidently require ; has a 
 
 (o) In proof of this see the Appendix, No. VI. 
 
14 The authoritij, nature^ and 
 
 direct and strong tendency to strengthen our religious 
 principles and impro\'e 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 b}' it this beneficial effect. 
 
 In addiilon to these two designs, which cannot admit 
 of doul^t : as his ordaining a ceremony in commemora- 
 tion of his own death, for the remission of sin, before 
 his appreliension, and while he had it in his poAver to act 
 as he chose, is one ver}- 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 redemp- 
 tion of man ; it seems no unwarrantable supposition, 
 that the gi\ ing this collateral proof of the truth of his 
 divine character, might be another end he proposed to 
 answer by this institution. 
 
 SECTION XIII. 
 
 XXXI. The true nature of any religious rite being- 
 known, e\'ery t'hing necessar}' to the due celebration of it, 
 and all tlie 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 ; — \Vhoever 
 eats tlie bread and drinks the wine 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 tlie 
 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 ^vhich he died, 
 should naturally lead us to the most serious reflections 
 
design of the Lord^s Supper. 15 
 
 upon the goodness of God in appointing the plan for our 
 redemption, and tliat of our Lord in fulfilling die part he 
 sustained in it ; together with the accumulated obligations 
 we lu-e thus laid under to fulfil the terms of our salvation, 
 and die fatal consequence of disregarding them ; we are 
 bound to consider it as the unquestionable intention of 
 our Lord in ordainhig this rite, that Me should seriously 
 a])ply the celebration of it to this excellent purpose. 
 ^Vlloe^ er therefore joins in this rite, without being care- 
 ful to make this use of it ; though he may actu;illy eat die 
 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 drinking wine, with die intention prescribed; 
 A\ hate\'er prayers any Church may think fit to adopt, as 
 well as whatever form of \\ords they ma}- appoint for 
 the officiating person to make use of, in distributing the 
 bread and w ine ; in a word, whatever is said or done at 
 the celebration of this rite, except the distribution and 
 pai-takhig 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 rest entirely upon human 
 prudence and authority ; and is so far proper, but only so 
 far, as it may be w isely calculated to remind the partici- 
 pant of the particular 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 evidenUy ought 
 to be accompanied./^/;^ 
 
 (p) 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. 1 6, The cufi of blessing ivhich ive bless ;) that the Apos- 
 tles observed the same practice. Though therefore it does not 
 appear, that tliis thanksgiving was essential to the rite, as a com- 
 
16 The authority^ nature^ and 
 
 SECTION XIV. 
 
 XXXV. The Lord's Supper having been instituted 
 by Jesus, without his annexing any special benefits to the 
 celebration of it, the benefits certainly arising from the 
 due celebration of it can be no other than these : 
 
 1st, That approbation of the Almighty, which a 
 voluntary obedience to his commands, upon the sincere 
 principles of religion and piety, must certainly procure : 
 and, 
 
 2dly, Whatever strengthening of our principles and 
 habits of virtue will natunilly 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 puq^ose for which 
 he died, are the very things commemorated, (rj 
 
 XXXVII. The demerits of a thoughtless, light, un- 
 worthy manner of celebrating the Lord's Supper, must 
 whoUy depend upon the actual ill principles and inten- 
 tion ; or at least the culpable want of good principles, 
 and a good intention ; in every particular instance, and 
 in each particular person ; of which 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 Lorcfs Supper, 17 
 
 XXXVIII. The Lord's Supper havini^ been instituted 
 without an}' special punislinients 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 
 the 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 pimishment M'hatever will be incun-ed 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 diis opinion. 
 
 SECTION XV. 
 
 XL. It is in the power of God to produce 'whatever 
 ideas he may please in the mind of man ; and b}^ that 
 means to afford us such assistance as his w^isdom may see 
 fit, towai'ds 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 whate^■er, though no way immediately 
 connected with divine worship ; as often as the wisdom 
 jMid goodness of God shiill see fit to vouchsafe them : but 
 we have not an}' promise, or even any the slightest inti- 
 mation, either from our Lord himself, or any of the Apos- 
 tles, or E\ angelists, of their being peculiarly conferred 
 
 (s) That the temporal punishments which St. Paul informed 
 the Corinthians had overtaken them, for their disorderly behaviour 
 while assembled together for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, 
 are no way inconsistent with what is here advanced, see what is 
 Eaid relating to them at the 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 spmtual assistance the goodness of 
 God may at any time vouchsafe to man, the reason of the 
 thing forces us to beHeve, that it ^^"ill not be vouchsafed 
 us in the most ample degree, on account of the mere per- 
 formance of any reUgious rites, or any acts of religious 
 worship ; but on those trying occasions, in die Viirious 
 difficulties of active life, when the circumstances we are 
 jDJaced in bring the strength of our \irtuous and religious 
 principles to the severest proof; and when, under such 
 tiials, we actually exert the greatest degree of virtue ; 
 and at the same time apply, with the properest disposi- 
 tion, for the divine assistance to strengthen our own 
 \\'cakness, and enable us to support the part which virtue 
 and religion require. 
 
 XLIII. But compai'ing together our acts of religious 
 worship, with respect to the natural tendency of the acts 
 themselves ; die Lord's Supper, in which the sufterings 
 and death of Christ, and the general purpose for which he 
 died, ai'C the ^■ery things commemorated, is, of all mere 
 acts of religious worship, naturally, in itself, adapted to 
 possess our minds most strongly with religious reflections ; 
 and to induce as well as to enable us to strengthen most 
 effectually every virtuous resolution ; and so far to ren- 
 der us deserving of, and thus enable us to obtain, the 
 gi^eatest share of assistance from above. 
 
 SECTION XVI. 
 
 XLIV. Partaking of the Lord's Supper does so fai* 
 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 XLI. 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 other means, than the 
 virtuous eflfects we take care to make it productive of, in 
 our principles and our practice. — Refusmg to partake of 
 
design 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 voluntar}' disol)cdience/^^^ 
 to an acknowledged command of our Lord, naturally 
 productive of the evils described in Proposition XXXVI. 
 — And performing the outward actions of eating imd 
 drinking at the Lord's Supper, without seriously reflecting 
 upon the particular events commemorated in it, and the 
 influence they ought to have upon our oww conduct, 
 does so far endanger our salvation, as it contains, in each 
 distinct instance, a ceitiiin 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 disthict instance, God alone is 
 the proper judge. 
 
 XLV. If e^•er the bread and wine are received, 
 whether by die ^vell, 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 Vvhen seriously performed, as naturally con- 
 ducive to all such dispositions as that faith requires ; the 
 participant is deceived, and the right itself per\erted. 
 
 XLV I. 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 
 the Apostles alone ; is living, in this instance, in a vol- 
 imtary 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 \'oluntaiy contempt of an express 
 command of our Lord, extremely easy to be complied 
 with ; given at the ver}' time when he ^\•as going to suf- 
 fer fo'' our sakes ; expressly intended to recal to our re- 
 membrance <he sufferings he voluntarily underwent to 
 promote our good ; and on that account not only the 
 
 (t) See Proposition XXXIX. 
 
 C«JSce the Dote on this page at the end of the Appendix. 
 
20 Tite authority^ nature^ and 
 
 most solemn right of his religion, but that which gratitude 
 ought to render us peculiarly willing to celebrate. 
 
 XL VII. Neither our Lord himself, nor tlie Apostles, 
 having given us an}' precept to determine how often we 
 ought to piu-take of the Lord's Supper, no precise limits 
 can be assigned to our duty in this particuUu". But since 
 we are absolutely obliged to assist at this rite, by the ex- 
 press command of our Lord;/^x^ since the excellent, 
 moral and religious tendency of die rite itself is evident 
 beyond question ; and since \\e 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 we may 
 happen to be placed, as to sho\v plainly, that we regaixl it 
 as one positive duty of the religion of Christ ; and, for 
 tliat reason, ■'.ake pleasure in dischai'ging it. 
 
 XLVIII. Since the Lord's Supper is nothing more 
 than a religious commemoration of him, but more espe- 
 ciiill}' of bis death, and the genend 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- 
 r)% however useful we may make it, for the worthy par- 
 ticipation of the 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 thouglits, at the time, upon the business we are 
 about, will, in every instance, render our attendance upon 
 the celebration of the Lord's Supper, as well as our per- 
 formance of every other act of religious worship, an ac- 
 ceptable sendee. 
 
 XLIX. Since the partaking of bread and wine, in re^ 
 membrance of our Lord, is an absolute christian duty, 
 and the serious performance of it has a natural tendency 
 to produce a beneficial effect upon our lives ; every 
 
 fx^Except in tlie case mentioned in Prop. XXXIX. 
 
design of the Lord^s supper* 21 
 
 attendance \ipon it really 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 w or- 
 ship, in the same case. 
 
 L. But since tlie particulars to be peculiarly commem- 
 orated in this rite, ai'e such as, aboxe all otliers, ought to 
 penetrate the heart with the warmest sense of gi'atitude, 
 botli to our Creator, and Redeemer ; and excite the most 
 unVeser\ ed ackno\Nledgment of all our religious duties, 
 and the sincerest sorrow for our sins ; as well as induce 
 us to form and culti\ ate such ^'irtuous 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 piutaking of the Lord's Supper, in par- 
 ticular, though it is likewise our duty when we perform 
 any act of religious m orship in general, to reflect so much, 
 and so seriously, upon the particulars expressly com- 
 memorated in it, and die efiect they ought to have upon 
 us, as to make our celebration of it actually conduci\e 
 to that virtue, which the gospel terms of salvation require. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 IF the principles above laid do^vn are true, and the 
 consequences drawn from them just, it follow s, 
 
 'Jliat the Lord's Supper is a rite of the simplest and 
 plainest nature, perfoctl}' intelligible to every capacity. 
 
 That it is nothing more than what the 'words of the in- 
 stitution fully express, A religious commemoration of the 
 sufferings and death of Christ, and the general purpose 
 for which he died ; — w hich it is die absolute duty of ev- 
 er}' one who believes in Christ to celebrate, because he 
 himself enjoined it ; — and which requires nothing more 
 for its w orthy celebration, than tliat intentional obedience, 
 iind serious disposition of mind, which deliberate reflec- 
 tion upon the particulars commemorated in it will natu- 
 rally produce. 
 
22 The authority^ nature^ &?c. 
 
 That as the performance of it is not attended \\dth any 
 other benefits, than those wt ourselves take care to make 
 it productive of, by its religious influence on our princi- 
 ples and practice ; so notliing, 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 o\vn discre- 
 tion how often to celebrate it, notliing can so well mani- 
 fest our proper ideas of, and attention to it, as an habitual 
 performance of it, \vhenever an opportunity is purposely 
 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 obligation ; 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 Christian would 
 be understood to act. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 NUMBER I. 
 
 X HE considerations which have been already 
 alleged, founded upon the ver}- \\-ords of tlie institu- 
 tion, and the particular circumstances attending it, appear 
 to place the uni\ersal and perpetual obligation of this rite 
 beyond all doubt ; but if any can still remain, the conduct 
 of St. Paul, after he Mas miraculously converted to the 
 faith, and completely instructed in every particular of the 
 will of Jesus, by immediate rc\'elation from Jesus him- 
 self, and inspiration of the Holy Ghost;f^aJ as well 
 as that of all the other apostles, who likewise were 
 divinely inspired to enable them to preach the gospel, and 
 explain the intentions of Jesus, free from all mistake ;(^bj 
 must efiectually 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, \a hen he instituted 
 this right. This do in remonbrance of trie. Had it there- 
 fore been the intention of Jesus, that none but the apostles 
 who Mere present at the time, and to whom he spoke, 
 should obsei-\'e the rite he then instituted, St. Paul him- 
 self could not have celebrated it, when afterwards he be- 
 came miraculously converted, and professed the faidi. 
 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 re\ealed to him that he was to celebrate it 
 himself, though he had not been present at the institution ; 
 
 faj Acis'ix. 1 — 22; xxii. 14; xxvi. 15 — 18; Gal. i. 12; 11.2. 
 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. I, 
 
 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 tliougli he ^vas to celebrate it liimself, he was not to 
 permit it to be celebrated by the con\ erts he should 
 make ; and he must not only have made this the rule of 
 his practice, but he would likewise have informed all the 
 disciples whom he converted, of the revelation he had 
 recei\^ed, commanding him so to do, to account for tliis 
 extraordinary piu-ticular of his conduct. 
 
 What then do we find to liave been the fact ? Does 
 the Ne\v Testament sho^v us that he acted in this very 
 pai'ticular 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 was 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 pro^'e 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 blessing, which (saith St. 
 Paul) WE BLESS, w zY iiot the partaking of the blood of 
 Christ? The bread, which we break, e^ it not the 
 partaking of the body of Christ ? 
 
 17. Because the bread is one, we, being many, are one 
 body ; FOR we are all partakers of the one 
 
 BREAD. 
 
 This epistle was not written for the Corinthians alone, 
 though for them more espcciall}' ; but together with 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. 
 
\0. I.] APPENDIX. 25 
 
 fore to the weIl-kno\\Ti nature and celebration of this rite, 
 as being universally practised and understood by the 
 apostles, and all, cver\' where, who professed the faitli, 
 is an absolutely decisive proof, not only that St. Paul him- 
 self and all the aposdes celebrated it ; but that it \\^s the 
 established practice of all Clu'istians to break and eat bread, 
 and drink wine, in re lifi;ious remembrance of Jesus, as he 
 had enjoined the apostles to do, on the night on which he 
 was betrayed. Na\-, 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 Jewish sacrifices with Jews ; that the one 
 implied the profession of Christianit}', and die odier of 
 Judaism ; is in fact a full proof, that the eating bread ai.d 
 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 lav/ of 
 Moses. 
 
 And from the universiil practice of the right in question,, 
 completely established by this passage of Si. 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 die apostles, wherever they 
 planted the gospel, as a perpetual institution of the relig- 
 ion of Christ. A practice of tliis, or indeed any other 
 kind, had it been authorised by the apostles, could not 
 possibly ha\ e started up in everj' place at once, where 
 they had established a christian 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 chiu-ches to adopt it. St. Paul and 
 the other apostles were at this ver}- time preaching the 
 gospel, and carefully superintending all the churches they 
 had planted : and ceitainlv , while tliis was the case, it was 
 utterly impossilDle for any rite to be introduced, and be- 
 come estiiblished, even in any ojie cliurch, and much more 
 so for iuiy to have become the settled practice of all 
 'Churches, unless it had been authorised and enjoined by 
 
3& 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 con\'erted them. 
 They could not jiresume to introduce the celebration of 
 itny rite, as necessaiily belonging to it, which the apostles 
 Imd not directed them to celebrate ; nor could the apos- 
 tles have permitted them to continue the celebration of 
 imy such right, if they had ; and much less could they 
 liave sanctified any such rite, by even joining in the cele- 
 bration of it themselves, imd directing it to l>e universally 
 })ractised ; 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 comniimd from him, 
 which Jesus had neither instituted himself, nor by revela- 
 tion directed them to enjoin, for universal celebration, 
 would have been corrupting that religion, which they \vere 
 purposely selected to preach, and by inspiration enabled 
 to preach free from all corruption or mistake ; and theix?- 
 4bre impossible. 
 
 The universal established practice, therefore, of eating 
 bread and drinking wine in religious commemoration of 
 Jesu&, in the time of the 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, improperly introduced, 
 either by the Corinthians, or any other of the couA^erts to 
 Christianity ; but that it must have been every where en- 
 joined from the first by. all the apostles, as well as St. 
 Paul, as having been instituted by Jesus in his command 
 to them on the night on wMeh he was betrayed. And 
 this is still furtlier evident, from the manner in which St. 
 Paul writes to the Corinthians in tlie same epistle, to cor- 
 rect some great improprieties, which the)'^ had been guilty 
 of, M^ien met together to celebrate this rite. 
 
 To make them 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 manner in which Jesus directed the apostles to 
 celebrate it, the night on which he was betrayed \(dj — 
 
 (d)\ Cor. xi. 23— *5. 
 
NO. I.] APPENDIX. 27 
 
 mforms them, thnt tlie histor}^ of its institution had been 
 revealed immediately to himself from the Lord \(e) — 
 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 puqwse 
 which the celebration of this rite Avas calculated to answer, 
 that q[ shewing the horde's death till he slwukl come ;fgj 
 — shews tliem die 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, fkj. 
 
 Was it then possible for St. Paul to ^rite in this man- 
 ner to diose whom he had converted to die faith, in rela- 
 tion to any rite which had been properly introduced by 
 die con^'erts themsehes ; or any but Avhat he, aixl ail the 
 apostles, had originally enjoined the practice of, as a 
 standing institution of the religion of Jesus ? Unless the 
 original injunction of Jesus to die apostles had been in- 
 tended by him as a direction for the practice of all who 
 sliould ever profess the christian faidi, as \vell as for that 
 of the apostles themselves ; with wliat truth or propriety 
 could St. Paul hei-e press this original command upon the 
 Corinthians, and all odier Christians, without alledging any 
 other to explain or enforce it, as a proof of its being their 
 duty, as Clu'istiaiis, to celebrate the rite which that injunc- 
 tion ordained ? 
 
 If Jesus had intended to signify by tliat command, that 
 this right should be celebrated by the apostles, but by 
 the apostles alone, it Avould 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 die sake of argument, we for 
 
 (e)l\Aei. ver. 23. (f)l\iiA. ver. 23. (^g-J Ibid. ver. 26. 
 (h) Ibid. Y. 27—29. (i) Cor. xi. v. 30. (k)lh\^. ver. 33, 34. 
 
28 APPENDIX. |]no. I. 
 
 a inoment suppose it possible, for in no other light can 
 the supposition be admitted, that Jesus miglit mean to 
 enjoin the celebration of it, as a duty, for none but the 
 apostles ; but at the 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 celebiation of it to their disciples, without at 
 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 
 witiiout tliis explanation, their apostolical authority would 
 certainly have caused it to be regarded as a general duty, 
 and thus have corrupted the religion they were appointed 
 to preach. 
 
 Since therefore it is certain, tliat the apostles, who 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 of 
 corrupting liis religion, in any paiticular ; 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 voluntary 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. TO 
 
 This arguioent, if I am not deceived, is conclusive : 
 but one paiticulai" of what St. Paul has said, not yet at- 
 tended to, will supply us with another argument in proof 
 of the same point. In explaining the use of this rite he 
 says ; as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye 
 do shew the Lord's death till he come. Cm) The comifig 
 
 COSee the note on this page at the end of the Appendix. 
 ftnjl Cor. xi. ?6. 
 
NO. I.] APPENDIX. 29 
 
 of the Lord in different passages denotes two different 
 e\'ents ; the destruction of Jerusalem, together with tlie 
 Je^\•ish polity ; (n) and the last judgment. foj Had St, 
 Paul therefore here meant, that this right was to be cele- 
 brated for tlie puipose 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 tliirty or forty years, 
 without any signification of its being ever to be laid aside, 
 nothing certiinly could induce any one to believe, that it 
 was then to cease, and be no longer observed. Had tliis 
 been the design tlierefore, St. Paul could not have written, 
 that by celebrating this rite they showed the Lord's death 
 till he shoukl come, without at the same time pointing out 
 WHICH coming of 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 diey came 
 to preach the gospel and enjoin tlie celebration of it, must 
 carefully have explained it ; and we should have found 
 each of the evangelists, who has recorded the manner of 
 its institution, su'ojoining to it some intimation to be ob- 
 served, and at the end of which it was to be abolished ; 
 or at least acquainting us that 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 liint 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 WTOte 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 
 
 fnjXs in Matt. xxiv. 30. Luke xviii. 8. xxi. 27. John xxi. 
 22. 23. Heb. X. 37. 
 
 (^o^As in John xiv. 3. Acts i. n. 1 Cor. iv. 5. 2 Thess. i. 10. 
 Rev. ii. 25. iii. 1 1. xxii. 7. 20. and, as -^ill be proved, in tlw; pas- 
 gage under consideration. 
 
00 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 
 tiie other three evangelists to have recorded as tliey have 
 done, tlie 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, tliat John 
 could in that case have omitted making mention of so 
 very singular a^circumstancc, which would have been ab- 
 solutely necessary to be made known. 
 
 Besides, John lived till after Jerusalem Avas 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, Avith those revealed 
 directions from the Lord, in obedience to w^hich he did 
 so. And it will readily be allowed, that the history of so 
 very singular an abolition of a rite, ordained in so particular 
 a manner by Jesus himself, must as certainly have come 
 down to us, as any particulars whatever relating to Jesus, 
 or his gospel. 
 
NO. II.] APPENDIX. 31 
 
 NUMBER ILfaJ 
 
 TO determine whether tlie particular occasion, 
 on which the Lord's Supper ^vas instituted, will warrant 
 us to conclude, that there are any other benefits or evils 
 attending the perform.ince or omission of it, tlian such as 
 ma} be deduced from the words and actions of our Lord in 
 tlie institution itself, we must consider in tiie first place, 
 wliat resemblance our Lord himself intended to give it to. 
 die Jewish Paschid Supjjer ; and then wliat consequences 
 may be jusdy deduced from that designed resemblance. 
 I. The form of die institution, and general nature of 
 the Lord's Supper, have a striking resemblance to diose 
 of the Passover. — As at the institution of the Passo^^er it 
 was said, It is the Lord''s Passover ;Ch) so our Lord, in 
 instituting his own rite, said, This is niy body ; this is my 
 blood of the New Covenmit ; or, this is the New Covenant 
 in my blood. — As at the institution of the Passo>er it was, 
 siiid, This day sluiU be unto you for a metnorial^Cc) &c. sa 
 our Lord said. This do in remembrance of or, for a me-, 
 ftiorial of ?ne, &c. — As the Paschal Supper was to be a 
 memorial of die deliverance of die Israelites out of Eg}'pt^ 
 and of the means by which it was acomphshed ;fdj so 
 the Lord's Supper was to be a memorial of the re- 
 demption of mankind, and the means by which that was 
 accomplished. /^^y* — So far the form of the institution of 
 the Lord's Supj>er, and its general natin*e as a memorial, 
 bears a striking resemblance to the form of the institution,, 
 and general nature of the Paschal Supper, as a memo- 
 rial, rfj 
 
 IL The Pascal Supper being an institution of tlie law 
 delivered by Moses, its true nature and effects, as a'pait 
 ofthe Jewish law, must be learnt from what is declared 
 concerning it in the book of Moses. 
 
 fa J See Prop. XIX, page 9. 
 
 fbj Exod. xii. 11, 27. 
 
 fcj Exod. xii. 14. (dj Exod. xii. 14, 17, 24, 27. 
 
 CeJ Matt.xxvi. 26, &c. 1 Cor. xi. 23. &c. 
 
 ffj See the note on this page at the end of the Appendix. 
 
S2 APPENDIX. [no* II. 
 
 Inthehistor}'^ofthe institution of the Paschal Supper, 
 after reciting the directions for the particular manner in 
 which the right itself Mas to be celebrated, /^^'>' it is im- 
 mediately added, fhj — " And this day shall be unto you 
 " for a memorial ; and you shiill keep it a feast unto the 
 ** Lord throughout your generations, and you shall keep 
 " 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 haxe I brought your 
 " armies out of Egypt ; therefore shall ye observe this 
 " day in your generations by an ordiiiance for ever.'YzV 
 — Agreeably to which, when Moses had commanded the 
 people to kill the Passover, and given them particular di- 
 rections for the manner in \vhich they Were to kill it, he 
 added, — " And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to 
 " the land t\hich the Lord will gite 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 ser\' ice ? that ye shall say, 
 " It is the sacrifice of the Lord's Passovel*, who passed 
 " over the houses of the childi"en of Israel in Egypt, 
 " when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our hous- 
 " es.'Y^^ — Again, " Thou shalt keep the feast of unleav- 
 " ened bread ; thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven 
 " days, as I commanded thee in the time appointed of the 
 " month of Abib ; for in it thou camest out from Eg}^pt.'* 
 flj — And thus again in the book of Deuteronomy, /^m^ 
 — " Observe the month Abib, and keep the Passover un- 
 " to the Lord thy God ; 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 fordi 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, f 71 J " Thou shalt 
 
 CgJ Exod. xii. S— 13. (^hj Ibid. ver. 14. CO Ibid. ver. 17, 
 CkJ Exod. xii. 25 — 27. flJ Ibid, xxiii. 15. 
 
 (mj Ch. xvi. 1,3. (nj Ibid. ver. 6. 
 
" sacrifice th^ Passover at even, at the going' downi of the 
 " suii, at the season tliat thou earnest forth out of Egypt." 
 -^And thus we find Moses ordaining a second time, very 
 soon after the institution of this rite,' — " And tliou shalt 
 " shew thy son in that day," (when they should celebrate 
 the Passover in tlie promised land ;) " saying, this is done 
 " because of tliat which the Lord did unto me, when I 
 " came forth out of Eg}-pt. 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 Eg}'pt. Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in 
 " his season from year to year.'''' Co J 
 
 III From all these repeated accoimts of the institution 
 of the Passo\'er, and the end for which it \\'Tis 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, 
 
 ist. That the Paschal Supper was expressly instituted 
 for a standing memorial of the miraculous deliverance of 
 the Israelites out of Eg}'pt ; purposely intended to make 
 them the more mindful of that law of the Lord which 
 Moses soon after delivered to them. 
 
 2dly, That this was the only design 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 ha\'e 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, 
 
 4thf)', That the Paschal Supper was precisely A re- 
 ligions meiuorial of the deliverance of the Israelites out of 
 Egypt, and the miraculous manner in which it was accom- 
 plished ; — and nothing more ; — and h:idno other benefits 
 attending the celebration of it, than those which attended 
 
 foj Exod. xiii. 8—10. 
 
 F. 
 
34 APPENDIX. [ifO.lIr 
 
 tJie celebration of all the other positive rites in general of 
 the Jewish law ; "\'iz. 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 
 ever}' sentiment of gratitude to God, and obedience to all 
 his commands contained in the hnv 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 threatened for the omission, or transgression 
 of any other of the great positive rites of the Jewish law. fp) 
 V. Since the Paschal Supjjer 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 annexing 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 teiTns 
 of the christian dispensation ; which have been explained 
 already in Propositions XIIL and XIV. 
 
 ffij For the proof of this compare Exod. xii. 15, 19. with Exod. 
 XXX. 33. xxxi 14. Levit. vii. 20, 21, 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 )uw, is given us in Numb. 
 XV. 30, 31. " The soul that doth ought presumptuously, whether 
 " he be bom 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." 
 
N'O. III.] APPENDIX. 35 
 
 NUMBER III. fa J 
 
 THE Cliristians at Corinth having allowed them- 
 selves in the practice of paitaking of the religious feasts 
 in the heathen temples, upon the flesh of tliose 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 harmlcssness of the practice, from their 
 full conviction of the foil}- 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 
 eml)raced 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 tendenc}' to idolatiy, who would be induced by theu' 
 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 
 regiu-d to the safety of their weaker brethren ; by enu- 
 merating several particulaj-s, in which he himself had al- 
 ways abstained from what 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 tliemselves, 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, 
 whicli the Corinthians had allowed themselves to frequent. 
 In conclusion, the Apostle finishes his argument > 
 
 C(tJ Sec Prop. XXIV, Paje 12. 
 
36 ^PJEKD^X. ^jSQ. Ill, 
 
 against the practice in question, from ver. 15 to 22, by 
 shewing, from one obvious consequence of assisting, as 
 well at the Je\\ish religious Feasts, as at the Christian 
 Euchiuist, tliut partaking of the idol feasts in the heath- 
 en temples, was an evident overt act of idolatry- ; aiid 
 therefore absolutely unlawful in all who embraced the 
 christian faith. 
 
 The passage itself, in which he makes this mention of thp 
 christian Eucharist, and m hich is here necessar}'^ to \)e. 
 considered ; in order to kiiow, 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- 
 rmthians, lor regulating their conduct with respect to eat- 
 ing meat, which had been offered in sacrifice to idols, even 
 in the houses of the heathens, is as follows. 
 
 1st Epist. Cor. ch. x. ver. 14, to ch. xi. ver 1. 
 
 14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 
 
 15.1 speak as to wise men ; judge ye what I say. 
 
 16. The cup of blesshig, 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 ? 
 
 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 I 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. 
 
 2 1. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils : 
 ye cannot 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. 
 
 25. 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. 
 
lilO. III.l APPENDIX. 9f 
 
 28. But if and man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice tp 
 idols, cat not ; lor his sake that shewed it, and for conscience salus ; 
 [For 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 judged of another man's conscience ? 
 
 30. For if I by ijracc be a partaker ; why am I evil spoken qi(, 
 for that, for which I give tliar>ks ? 
 
 3 1 . Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, dp 
 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 ^i^ all things, not seeHing mine own 
 profiti but the firofit of many, that they may be saved. 
 
 Ch. xi. 1. Be ye followers of me, even as I also a?« of Christ. 
 
 We liave here before us St. Paul's whole reasoning in 
 this passage concerning the Lord's Supper. And to de- 
 termine the true meaning of what he has here said relat- 
 ing to this rite, it is absolutely necessary, in the first place, 
 to fix the sense of some words in the original, wiiich 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 Ne^y" Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 Remark \. In ver. 15, the clause translated — Ispeqk 
 as to wise men — is in the original — ug (p^ovifjtjoig "Kiyot ; 
 and St. Paul always uses the word (p^ovifjuog for a perr 
 son of sense, judgment, or discretion : when he speaks 
 of a person of scientific knowledge, he uses the word 
 ffo<pog. 
 
 In this manner <p^ovif^og is used by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 
 iv. 10 ; 2 Cor xi. 19 ; Ephcs. i. 8."^ And so by Mat- 
 thew vii. 24 ; x. 16 ; xxv. 2, 4, 8, 9. And Luke ii. 4,2 i 
 xyi. 8. 
 
 St. Paul uses coipog 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. An^l sq M^tt. 
 xi. 25 ; xii. 42 ; Luke, x. 21 ; Acts, vii. 22. 
 
 He once uses pven — aoCpog — in the scuae of, prudcait, 
 sensible, discreet. Eplies. v. 15. 
 
 This clause tlierefore In ver. 15. oufrhi t^> ^f trjivilat- 
 
38 APPENDIX. [no. III. 
 
 ed, — / address myself to you as to as to men of sense and 
 discretion ; Judge yourselves of what I say. 
 
 Remark 2. The next words in the original vv^hose 
 meaning has been made matter of dispute, and upon the 
 supposed meaning of which, all the notions, which 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 — Ko/vwv/« in ver. 16 ; and Ko/v«vo? in 
 ver. 18 and 20 ; and [xsrexeiv in ver. 17, 21. and 30. 
 Koivuviu — Ko{vuvog-~^K.otva)tieco—— 
 
 1st, Signifies merely the connection, paiticipation, part- 
 nership, agreement, &c., of one person or thing with, in, 
 or of, another person or thing ; without any reference 
 wliatever to \ht joint participation, &:c. of more than one 
 in the same tiling. 
 
 As 2 Cor. vi. 14 ; viii. 23 ; Ephes. iii, 9 ; Pliilipp. ii. 1 ; 
 iii.lO; lTim.v.22; Phil.l7; andlPet.v.l; 2Joh.ll. 
 And this IS exactly the manner, in which it is used in the 
 ver}' 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 joitit participation of all ; but simply the 
 distinct participation of each : That is, in other words, it 
 expresses the general idea of participation, &.c. and noth- 
 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 ^vord it 
 self, the idea oitht joint partaking. Sec. of more than one 
 in any person or thing, he distinguishes his meaning by 
 perfixing to it the paiticle — (xuv. 
 
 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 xnviunx sometimes signifies benevolent assistance, 
 er charitable contribution towards those, who stand in need of it,. 
 As Rom. xii. 13 ; xv. 26 : 2 Cor. viii. 4 ; ix. 1, 13 ; Gal. vi, 6 } 
 
NO. III.3 APPENDIX, 39 
 
 fjLtrs^eiv — fjuiroyoi — fjuiroyri — 
 
 1st, Signifies merely one person's or thing's partaking 
 of, agreeing with, &:c. another person or thing ; without 
 any reference wliatcver to theyow^pai^taking, &.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 arc spoken of, 
 as partaking, Sec. of an}- thing, this word itself does not 
 express collectively the joint partaking, of all, but simply 
 the distinct partaknig, agreement, &c. of each, with the 
 thing spoken of: that is, it signifies the general idea of 
 pai'ticipation, &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 o^ the Joint partaking, Joint agreeing, &c. of sev- 
 eral together in any person or thing, he distinguishes his 
 meaning by prefixing to it the particle — aw. 
 
 As Ephes. iii. 6 ; v. 7. 
 
 4th]y, The words ixerijceiv and Hoivuveiv, (jLETOXog and 
 notv6^og, are used synonimously, as A\^ell 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 
 paiticularl}' Luke v. 7 ; compared with v. 10. And so 
 likewise in the ver\'^ passage under consideration ; as will 
 appeiir by compaiing 1 Cor. x. 16 with vcr. Yl.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 vcr. 16, it appears from these proofs, that 
 St. Paul having here made use of the simple Hc/vwv/flj, not 
 the compound (rvynoivuviu, its true and whole meaning in 
 this verse must be — each person^s partaking'^ or partici- 
 
 Philipp. i. 5 ; iv. 15 ; Heb. xiii. 16. And so Acts ii. 42. But 
 with this application of it \vc have here no concern, and when used 
 in this sense it is easily distinguished. 
 
 (cj See the note on tliis page at the end of the Appendix. 
 
40 APi^jgNiiix. yfo. III. 
 
 patioriy of the body and blood there miSitiiOfted, and noth- 
 ing ttiovt.fdj 
 
 And tlie true sense of vLOivmia in this passage being 
 thus asceitained from St. Paul's undoubted use of it in 
 other places ; it is of great moment, I apprehend, to ob- 
 serve fuj-ther, 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 tlie 
 first part of each question likewise. The cup or wine it- 
 sielf, 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 Clirist : in like manner the bread itself is the 
 body of Christ ; but it must be the partaldng of the bread, 
 that is, tlie partaking of the body of Christ. This is self- 
 e^'ident. And from tliis observation joined to the forego- 
 ing, in which the meaning of v.oi'jmiu was ascertained, it 
 necessarily follows, that in order to comprehend St. Paul's 
 true meaning, we must here understand by the cup and the 
 bready the wnyooviu^ or partaking of the cup and the bread, 
 in the first part of these questions ; to answer to the 
 xo/vwv/fi£, or partaking of the body and blood in the last 
 part of thtm.fej 
 
 There is still another particular, of the utmost imjwr- 
 tance to the meaning of St. Paul in this verse, and the 
 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 the' 
 bread and vmie are here styled the body and blood of 
 Christ. And this will appear extremely plain, merely 
 from considering the acknowledged meaning of the same 
 form of expression in the appointment of the jewisli 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' 
 Iamb killed and eaten in the manner prescribed, It is the 
 
 (d) See the note on this page at the end of the Appendix. 
 
 (e) See the note on this page at the end of the Appendix. 
 
NO. III.] APPENDIX. 41 
 
 LonVs passover ;(fj so in the institution of the right be- 
 fore us Jesus said, of the bread and wine taken as he di- 
 rected, Tim IS my body ; This is my blood of the New 
 Testament ; — or — 7%?^ is the New Testament in my 
 blood. 
 
 And as the Paschal Lamb, killed, dressed, and eaten as 
 enjoined, was not the action itself of the Lord's passing 
 over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt ; but precisely 
 a religious memorial of that tnuisaetion, called by its 
 name ; and expressly declared to be so at the very time 
 of the institution -jfgj — So the bread and wine, taken as 
 Jesus commanded, are not the body of Christ, and the 
 blood oj Christ in the Neiv Testament, themschTs ; but 
 precisely religious memorials of them, called by their 
 names ; and expressly declared to be so, by Jesus him- 
 self, in the words of the institutionY/'y' In this sense 
 therefore, and in no other, must St. P;iul have meant to 
 ask, whether the partaking of them was not the partaking 
 of the body a?id blood of Jesus, in the passage under con- 
 sideration. 
 
 From the several remarks now made it appears, that in 
 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 Ui, the partak- 
 ing of the memorial of the body of Christ ?fij 
 
 Remark 3. We translate ver. 1 7 thus ; — For xve, be- 
 ing many, are one bread, and one body ; for we are all 
 partakers oftlmt one bread, 
 
 (f) Exod. xii. II. 
 
 (g) Sec 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 
 
42 APPENDIX. [no. III. 
 
 Now though a meaning may be collected from it, even 
 thus translated, certainly the figure by which we are call- 
 ed one 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 
 arguod 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 ; e\'idently 
 because it is partaken of by all, as the representati\'e of one 
 and the same thing 'r 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, fkj 
 
 Remark 4. To remove all obscurity from St. Paul's 
 meaning in this whole passiige, it is necessary to'observe, 
 that Satfxovioig and ^uii/^oviuv, in v;pr. 21, 22, which we trans- 
 late, devils, ought to be rendered, diemons ; that is, fiUse 
 idol lords, worshipped by the heathens as mediators be- 
 tween their superior gods, Sfo<, and men. 
 
 Where the word ^aiiioviov 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, d(ff- 
 7non,flJ signifying the intermediate object of their wor- 
 ship. i\nd that it ought to be so translated here is fur- 
 
 (k) See the note on this page at the end of the Appendix 
 CO As Acts xvu. 18, 23. 1 Tim.iv. ly 
 
VO. III.] APPENDIX. 43 
 
 ther manifest from hence, that the whole force of the argu- 
 ment, which St. Paul here urges to deter tlie Corinthians 
 from all ajjproaches to idolatry, by frequenting die feasts 
 upon those sacrifices, which were offered by the heathens 
 to their SccifLoviu, does not in any degree depend upon their 
 being evil beings, or devils ; but merely upon their being 
 idols, or fiUse objects of worship ; so that no one could 
 with propriet}^, or even iuiiocence, ofler worship to the 
 only true God, and to tiiese daemons, or vain idols, like- 
 wise. /^wi^ 
 
 These points settled, the whole passage before us, con- 
 taining die ai'gument St. Paul here insists on, and some 
 consequences he draws from it for the direction of the 
 Corintliian disciples in the point to wliich 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 somedijng 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 Avith 
 ver. 18. And, of the other verses, part require, and all 
 will admit, some insertions, to make them express their 
 whole 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. JF/iei'efore myi beloved brethren^ Jlee from 
 idolatry. 
 
 15. I address myself to you as to men of sense and dis- 
 cretion ; pass sentence yourselves upon the force and pro- 
 priety QS.ivlmt I advance. 
 
 16. "^J'he partaking of the cup of blessings which we 
 bless, is it not to each of us the partaking of the mcmoriaJ 
 of the blood of Christ, slied for us ? The partaking of the 
 bread, which we break,is it not to each of us the partaking 
 of the memorial of the body of Christy given or broken for 
 
 (m) It is likewise evident that ixiututi in verse 20 refers to the 
 same object as itJwAejr in verse 19. 
 
44 APPENDIX pNO. III. 
 
 US ? — And is not our partaking of these memorials of the 
 body and blood of Clirist, in the manner in which he com- 
 manded his disciples to paitake of them, a public virtual 
 declaration that we are his disciples ? This must cer- 
 tainly be allowed ; for — 
 
 17. Because the breads dius taken by us all, is One ; 
 i. e. is the memorial of one and the same thing, the body 
 of Clirist ; 7ve, 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 paitaken of,Hs to each of us the memorial of one 
 and the same thing, — Chiist's body broken for us. 
 
 It is pkiin then, that our partaking of the bread, wliich 
 we break in this manner, and of the cup, ^vhich 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 tliis chris- 
 tian rite alone ; the case is exactly the same in the Jewish 
 worship. 
 
 18. Behold Israel after the flesh : consider how the 
 case stands with respect to the Jews : Are not they which 
 eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar ? Is not every 
 one, who 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 }t\\s ; to \\hom the sacri- 
 fice he eats of is offered up, and the altar professedly con- 
 secrated ? 
 
 19. What say I then ? What then need I assert to 
 make good the point, of which I would convince you ; 
 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 ojfered in sacrifice to idols is any thing ? any 
 thing of such a nature in itself, after having been offered 
 to idols, that eating it can pollute }ou ; and that you ought 
 not to frequent the idol feasts on tliat 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 aU mistaken prejudices of tliis 
 
NO. III.] APPENDIX 45 
 
 sort, caiinot possibly be aiiy answer to my objections to 
 your frequenting the idol feasts. 
 
 20. Buty wh.it I assert is, that the things, which the 
 Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to dcemons, and not to 
 God : — to false, imaginary-, intermediate lords, not to 
 the one true God : — 4nd I rvould not that ye should have 
 connexion with diemons : — And w hat I contend for is, 
 that you, who profess yourselves worshippers of the one 
 true God, ought not to have any connexion whate^'er 
 with false imaginary gods ; — \\hich } ou must necessari- 
 ly appear to some to have, so long as } ou frequent those 
 idol feasts, which are considered as acts of religious wor- 
 ship to the idols, or imaginary dsemons, in honor of 
 wl>om they are held. 
 
 The reason why I oppose 3our allowing yourselves to 
 appear thus connected \\'ith idols, or false imaginary gods, 
 is nothing more than tlie plain self-evident impropriety of 
 tlie thing. 
 
 21. Ye catiriot drhik the Lord'^s cup, and the cup of da- 
 vwns : — If ye diink the cup professedly consecrated to 
 the Lord in the right instituted by Jesus, and !:»}' so doing 
 profess yourselves disciples of Christ, and worshippers of 
 the one true God ; CA'idcnt 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 
 Ijord''s table, and the table of damons : — If ye piu'take of 
 the table consecrated to the Lord, in tlie rite instituted by 
 Jesus, and by so doing profess yourselves disciples of 
 Christ, and \\orshippers of tlie one true God ; e^'ident it 
 is, that you cannot either consistentl}', or innocently, pai*- 
 take of a table consecrated to false imaginary gods, in the 
 temples of those gods ; by doing which }'ou appear to 
 profess yourselves worshippers of those idols, or false 
 gods. 
 
 You cannot indulge yourselves in this pj-actice without 
 provoking the jealous anger of the Lord, by this appar- 
 ent act of idolatiy ; for by idolatry more especially, ^'ou 
 
46 APPENDIX. NO. III. 
 
 very well know, the jealous anger of the Lord will certainly 
 be Gxcittd.f7iJ Let me then ask you — 
 
 22. Do we provoke die lord to jealousy ? — Do you re- 
 ally choose to stir up tlie jealous VingevfoJ of tlie Lord 
 against }ou, by being guilty of this act of apparent idola- 
 tiy ? — Are we stronger tlian he ? — Are }-ou 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 ^id^fp) to you, who fiave knowledge ; 
 who know that an idol is nothing ; no real God ; (q) and 
 that what 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 hiu"m in 
 the mere action of partaking of things oiFcred to idols. 
 I grant tlierefore, that if the matter was to be considered 
 with respect to yourselves only, it would 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 
 expedient : — Because an action is such, that, considered 
 with respect to myself only, it would not be criminal to 
 me ; it does not follow, that therefore it must be profitable, 
 or expedient. — All things are lawful for me, but all things 
 edify ?iot : — Because an action is such, that, considered 
 with respect to myself only, it would not be criminal in 
 me ; it does not follow, that therefore my 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 knoivledge 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, Avith peculiar propriety translate 
 it, jealous anger, in this particular passage ; where the giving 
 countenance to idolatry is the very offence, against which the apos* 
 tie is cautioning the Corinthians. 
 
 (tO 1 Cor. viii. 1. (cj) Ch. viii. 4. 
 
 (r) Ch. X. 19. 
 
NO. III.] APPENDIX. 47 
 
 vent it •,('sj yet may your example in this instance, as I 
 have already told you, T^ J be of great prejudice to such of 
 your fellow Christians, as have not an equal degree of 
 knowledge in these particulars ^\'itll yourselves. The 
 immediate consequence of which can be no otlier than 
 this ; that you must regulate your conduct in this pai'tic- 
 ular, as in all others, by the extensive principles of that 
 sincere bene\ olence enjoined in the law of Christ. 
 
 24. Let no man seek his own^ but every man mmthefs 
 good. — Let no man, in any instance, for a satisfaction to 
 himself, do Avhat he knows will be attended ^itli a real 
 mischief to others ; but forego any such pleasure to him- 
 self, for the sake of promoting the good of otliers. Let 
 no man therefore frequent idol feasts in the heathen tem- 
 ples for his own gratification ; ^but absolutely abstain from 
 them, diat 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 }'ou what 
 course you have to pursue, \\ ith regard to this matter, 
 upon all occasions. As first, 
 
 25. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking 
 no questions for conscience sake. — Whate^Tr meat you 
 find publicly exposed for sale, in the customar}' manner, 
 make no scruple of eating, without making any inquirj^ 
 into the paiticuUu- occasion, on which it was killed. For 
 though it should ha\ e 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 JLoirPs, and thefulbiess thereof. 
 — For, as every good thhig widi which the earth abounds 
 is created by the one true God ; certainly ^ve may par- 
 take of them all, where no particular circumstance inter- 
 feres, as given us by him. — Ag-ain, 
 
 27. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, 
 and ye be disposed to go, xvhatsoever is set before you^ eat 
 
 (a) 1 Cor. viii. 1, 4. (t) Ch. viii. 7, 2— 13. 
 
48 APPENDIX. [no. III. 
 
 asking no questions for conscie?ice sake, — By this means, 
 as before, your eating what is set before you cannot mis- 
 lead, or gi^•e offence to any one. 
 
 28. But if any one say unto you. This has been o^ered 
 in sacrifice unto idols^ eat not ; for his sake that shewed it, 
 and for conscience sake. — For by eating in this case, you 
 ma}' 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 tlie Lord'^s^ and the fulness there- 
 of. — For, since every thing with which the eaith abounds 
 is created b}' the one true God, )0u 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 fi|lse imaginary gods.j-^wj 
 
 29. Conscience, I ^^.y-, ^'^ot thine own, but of the other'* s. 
 — 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 l^ene^•olence, that you may not give offence to liim 
 who told you, or be the means of leading him into eiTor. 
 — For, why is my liberty judged of another man^s con- 
 science ? — For certainly there cannot be any good reason, 
 why I should abridge myself of a libert)-, which is inno- ' 
 cent in me, but tliis ; That I ought to avoid shocking 
 tlie prejudices of another, and leading him into evil. — 
 That there is no reason respecting m} self only, why I 
 ought to abstain from eating, in this case, is plain : — 
 
 30. J^or if I by grace(x) be a partaker ; why am I 
 evil spoken of for tJiat,for which I give thanks ? — For if 
 I partake of any thing with proper thankfulness to God, 
 from Avhom it origindly 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 interruptiou 
 to the reasoning of the passage. 
 
 fx) It ouglit to be trr^nslsted — nvith thanksgiving .•—See B-?7 
 Pe^rce on the place. Comment, vol. ii, p. 259. 
 
\0. III.] APPENDIX. 49 
 
 evil spoken of, for partaking of that, for which I am prop- 
 erly tliankful to the Creator of all thing's. 
 
 It is exidcnt there cannot be any ; and theixforc, the 
 rule, b3Mvhich you must conduct yourselves in this whole 
 affair, is the great law of c:hristian charity just mention- 
 ed. 
 
 3 1 . JVhether therefore ye eat or drinks or xvhatsoever ije 
 do^ do all ta the glory of God. — A\ ith rcgai'd therefore to 
 the ])oint under consideration, as well as to every other, be 
 cartful to act in such a manner, upon every occasion, as 
 plainl}' to shew yourselves sincere worsliippers of the one 
 true God ; in opposition to e^•er^■, the least appearance of 
 idolatr}'. . 
 
 32. Give none offence ; neither to the Jews, nor to the 
 Gentiles^ nor to the church of God. — Be careful not to 
 place any stumbling-block in the way of the unbelieving 
 Jews and Greeks, which may prevent their conversion to 
 the faith in the one true God, in tlie gospel ; and neither 
 to give offence to your weaker christian bretliren ; nor to 
 be the means of leading them into any practice, whicli 
 they themselves esteem sinful. 
 
 33. Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking 
 mine own prof t, but that of the many, that they may be 
 saved. — In acting thus you A\"ill do jio 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. 1. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am oj 
 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 ^hole passage before us, 
 which, if I mistake not, renders St. Paul's method of ar- 
 guing in it clear, pertinent, and conclusive ; and wliich 
 is founded on the true meaning of his \\ords, as they are 
 used by St. Paul himself, and the other sacred writers, 
 throughout the Ne^v Testament ; it is obvious, that through 
 this whole passngc, tlie apostle has not either expressly 
 asserted, or said w hat implies, any thing concerning the 
 
 G 
 
50 APPENDIX. [no. III. 
 
 nature of the Lord's Supper, more than this ; — That tlie 
 celebration of this rite was necessiuily to be considered, 
 and always actually was considered, as a public profession, 
 by ever}' person, who assisted at it, that he himself was a 
 believer in Clirist, and a \\or shipper of the one true 
 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 
 dra'ws requires no other principle to be allowed, to make 
 it \alid 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 tlicrefore, 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 
 ever)'' species of idolatr}'. — 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 own con- 
 duct. 
 
 After the full inquir}^ we have now made into the true 
 meaning of St. Paul in his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 ch. X. 14, Sec. no suspicion, it is hoped, can still remain, 
 that any pai'ticular information, relative to the specific na- 
 ture and design of the Lord's Supper, can possibly be 
 drawn from what St. Paul has 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 fyj him, as an absolute demon- 
 
 fyj See in particular a treatise, entitled, " A rational account of 
 ihe nature and end of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper," bjr 
 'Bishop Warburton. 
 
 W> 
 
I 
 
 NO. III.] APPENDIX. 51 
 
 stration, that the Lord's Supper is a rite of a verj^ different 
 nature from wliat we have } et 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 has 
 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. 
 
52 APPENDi::. [no. iv. 
 
 NUMBER lY.CaJ 
 
 THE Cliristicins at Corinth having been guilty of great 
 improprieties in their beha\ ior, when asr^embled together 
 to celebrate the Lord's Supper ; St. Paul reproves them on 
 this account, in Ibt Epist. Cor. xi. 20 — 32. 
 
 Of this passage ver. 23, 24, 25, contain St. Paul's his- 
 tory of the institution of the Lord's Supper, and have been 
 already considered ;CbJ 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 liitherto been forced 
 to assent, is a true and complete account of it or not, are 
 tlie 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 Lloodof 
 the Lord. 
 
 28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him cat of the 
 bread, and drink of the cup. 
 
 29. For he that eateth and drinketh \mworthily, 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, we 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 unworthily ; or, as 
 it may be translated, iimvorthily of the Lord^ ver. 27 ; is 
 precisely meant, eating and drinking in the Lord's Supper, 
 without seriously considering, and by that means without 
 beha\ ing, as becomes those, who do seriously consider, 
 that this rite is ahvays 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. 
 
 CbJ Sec Sections IV. and V. of the Treatise itself. 
 
NO. IV. 3 APPENDIX. 5S 
 
 cannot 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, \\ hich our translation has adopted in \qy. 29, is here 
 improperl)' made use of, instead ot the more general term 
 judgment, or condemnatw?i ; imd that it here refers express- 
 ly to nothing more, than the temporal piuiishmcnts made 
 mention of in ver. 30 ; and which St. Paul informs tliem 
 were inflicted on them as merciful chastisements ; in ver. 
 32. And it is further certain, that by not discerning the 
 Lord's body, as a\ e 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 tlie religious memorials of the body and blood of 
 Jesus ; which the nature of such a commemoration requir- 
 ed. 
 
 The only particular, therefore, ^^•hich can lead us to 
 doubt, whether the Lord's Supper has not something 
 more in its nature, than we have yet been able to discov- 
 er, must be this ; that it is heie declared, Whoever shall 
 eat and drink unworthihj, or \\ ithout 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 \vords themselves is, 
 being guilty of wounding his body, and shedding his blood ; 
 or, in other words, guilty of putting him to death. 
 
 But certain it is, that the}' among the Corinthians, who, 
 when met togetlier to paitake of the Lord's Supper, had 
 behaved in that irre\'erent and indecent manner, which St. 
 Paul in this letter to them has informed us the}- did, had 
 neither been guilt}' of putting our Lord to death, nor of 
 any sin equal to tliat ; but only, of shewing themselves, in 
 tliat instance, in a ver}- high degree culpably destitute of 
 idl serious reflection on ilie goodness of our Lord, so sig- 
 nally displayed in his sufteriTigs and death ; which want 
 
54 APPENDIX. Lno.IV. 
 
 of serious reflection, thoughextremely blameable, and wor- 
 thy of punishment, was by no means to be compared to 
 the crime of actually putting Jesus to death. So that tlie 
 first and ob^'ious 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 behaviour, they had been guilty of, at their 
 meetings to celebrate the Lord's Supper, St. Paul, having 
 first repeatedrc-J the history of its institution, which clos- 
 es with this command, Do this m remembrance of me ; in 
 order to make them properly sensible of the solemn na- 
 ture of this rite, immediately adds, from himself, — -for 
 as often as ye eat this hread^ anddrmk this cup^ ye do shew 
 (proclaim) the Lord''s deaths till he come.(d) — Having 
 thus reminded them, that it was the death of Christ in 
 particular, for tlie commemoration of which this rite was 
 more especially enjoined, he directl}' draws this conse- 
 quence from that consideration-; — Wherefore^ xvlwsoever 
 shall eat this breads and drink this cup of the Lord, unwor- 
 thilyy (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 I^ord. 
 
 St. Paul says, -wherefore, whosoever shall eat, &.c. If 
 we ask why ? it is evident he means, because this rite 
 w^as designed, more especially, to shew the LojrPs death ; 
 — to be a religious commemoration of his sufferings and 
 death in particulai'. So that whoever beha^ ed 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 
 that particular misbehaviour, unavoidably shew a disregard 
 and want of serious attention to the sufferings and death of 
 om* Lord ; in some small degree similar to, though by ijo 
 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 bc- 
 
 CO Ver. 23—25. fdj Ver. 26. 
 
NO. IV.] APPENDIX. SS 
 
 came guilty^ as we translate tlie word, of the body and 
 blood of the Lord, 
 
 Thus interpreted, 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 cither intelligible, just, or 
 true.f<?J And the fact is, that this is the true meaning 
 of the apostle's o^vn words ; and that the obscurity of the 
 passage arises wholly from an imjiropriety in the transla- 
 tion. 
 
 The original is, fvo%o? fra/ ra auixecrog, &:c. and the word 
 svoxogjiS 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. — evojcog ^scvurov sjre ; and 
 Mark, ch. xiv. 64. — stvui svcxov ^avarcv ; it may with 
 ])ropriety be translated guilty of; because, guilty of 
 deaths is an elliptical expression, which use has render- 
 ed familiar ; and the meaning of which answers exactly 
 to the meaning of the word in these two passages. 
 
 But in Matt. v. 21, 22. — evczog sn tvj h^ktsi — t» avvs^^iv 
 —eig rviv yeevav ; — and Mark iii. 29. — evoxog e^iv uiaviov 
 y^iceug; — and Heb. ii. 15. — tvowi Vi<Tci'j ^ovKeiug -, — in all 
 these passa.s^es it must of necessity be translated — subject 
 to, exposed to, liable to, obnoxious to, &c. ; and cannot pos- 
 sibly be rendered — guilty of. 
 
 And in 1 Cor. xi. 27, the passage under consideration, 
 EMoy^og es-xi Tov aruiLUTog ; as well as in James ii. 10. — 
 yeyo\/e xavrwv £vo')(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, — ojfends against — 
 qff7'onts — shews a disrespect to, &c. — Or still more fully, 
 is guilty of offending against — guilty of affronting — 
 guilty of shelving a disrespect to, &.c. — Not absolutely, 
 guilty of the body and blood of Christ, in the one instance ; 
 or, guilty of all the commandments, in the other. 
 
 The necessity there is for translating the word in this- 
 manner, in these two perfectly similar passages, is not 
 
 e) See the note on this pag;e, at the end of the Appendix. 
 
56 AtTLKDlS, [no. IV.. 
 
 only e\'iclent from the reason of tlie thing, but likewise 
 from St. James' explanation of his own meaning. 
 
 St. James ssivs, {[fj Whosoever shall offend against one 
 commandment of the law — ysyove 'kuvtuv evojiog ; which 
 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 al)so- 
 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 onhj^ is, that he offends against^ or shews ct 
 disrespect fo, all; b}' offending against, in one instance, 
 that authority, which equally enjoins all : and this the 
 apostle himself has informed us, was exactly what he 
 rae^nt.{'gj Here therefore it is manifest, that fvo%o? 
 yf/ovf 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 tlic self same reasons, in the passage before us, 
 svo')(^oi yeyove rov a-uy-uroi ought not to have been translat- 
 ed, absolutely, z,y^'w?7/'yo/'?/7e6or/y, ^"c, but should have 
 been rendered by some such expression as, offends against, 
 affonts, shows a disrespect to ; Or, more fully, is guilty of 
 qffemling 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 
 Qhrist.fhJ 
 
 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. 
 
 ^h) The reader may have the satisfaction of finding this inter* 
 pretation confirmed by the authority of Bp. Pearce, in his Com- 
 mentary and note upon the passage, vol. II. p. 270. Though there, 
 in the note, by filling up the words of St. .lames 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. 
 
that thb obscure expression, w gtiilfy of the bocly arid 
 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 ui^ture 
 and design of the Lord's Supper, luiy thing more than, or 
 different from, what we ha\'e found it to be, by consider- 
 ing the history of its institution, and all the peculiar cir- 
 cumstances attending it. 
 
 Should it nevertiieless be imagined, that even those 
 temporal punishments, which St. Paul here tells the Co- 
 rinthians had actually oveitaken them, on account of 
 their unworthy, indecent behaviour, ^\hen 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 tlie institution it is indisputably 
 certain, that our Sa\iour 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 necessaiily 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 A\eakness, 
 sickness, and death ; and this with a special design to 
 chastise tlie 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 tlie Corinthirjis, were not any established 
 punishments, annexed to the uuworth}- celebration of the 
 Lord's Suppc) , and always accompanying it, on account 
 of any thing peculiar in the nature and effects of the 
 
5d A1»?ENDIX. NO. IV. 
 
 rite itself; but extraordinary punishments, inflicted on 
 diem 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. 
 
NO. V.3 APPENDIX. S9 
 
 NUMBER V.CaJ 
 
 THE passage here referred to is 1st Epist. Corinth, 
 chap. 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 with 
 " the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the 
 " 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 pai-ticuhu- manner ; 
 it may possibly at first \aew^, and while considered merely 
 by itself, excite a confused suspicion that it relates to the 
 Lord's Supper ; and tliat it is founded on something m 
 the nature of that rite, Mhich ^ve have not yet discovered. 
 But if ^ve consider it, as it stands connected with what 
 goes before it, m hich is absolutely nccessaiy to ascertain 
 its true meaning, we shall be satisfactorily convinced, that 
 the Lord's Supper is not so much as alluded to in it ; and 
 tliat it is not even capable of being applied to that rite. 
 
 St. Paul is here addressing the Corinthian disciples 
 upon a \try 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 wile. 
 
 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, concerning him that hath 
 so done this deed : — i 
 
 4. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered 
 togetiier, and my spirit, with the power of the LamxI Jesus Christ ; 
 
 5. To deliver such an one to Satan, for the destruction of the 
 flesh ; that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, 
 
 6. Your glorying i« not good : know ye not that a little leaven 
 leavcneth the whole lump? 
 
 7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new- 
 lump ; as ye are unleavened. For even Christ, our Passover, is 
 sacrificed for us : 
 
 faj See proposition XXVI, page 12, 
 
60 Ap^BNBix. [iro. V. 
 
 8 . Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither 
 with the leaven of cyUfbJ and veickedness ; but with the unleav* 
 encd bread of sincerity and truth. 
 
 Such is the whole connected passage : and if for a moment 
 we suppose St. Paul to have alkided 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 
 atnong you without reproof ; and I command }ou, by 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 kaveneth the whole mass in which 
 it is siiflered to remain ; and you ought therefore to be 
 solicitous to separate from you every one, who is guilty of 
 such enormities, as tend natunilly to destroy in others that 
 purity of manneis required of you by the gospel. For 
 as Clirist, who may be called our Passover, is sacrificed 
 for us ; we ought (to do what ?) to celebrate the Lord^s 
 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 meiuiing is surely 
 
 (b) So the word tutKiet should be translated, instead of malice ; 
 ^vhjch is foreign to the meaning of the passage. 
 
yO. v.] APPENDIX. 61 
 
 SO manifestly improper, and even absurd, that there is no 
 possibility of admitting it as tiiiL'. 
 
 Evident it is, that St. Paul does not here object to the 
 person, whom he orders them to put a\\"ay from them, that 
 he had been guilty of profaning the Lord's Supper ; but 
 that he was guilty of such inimoral conduct, as was ut- 
 terly inconsistent with the puritj- required of a disciple of 
 Christ. In all that St. Paul says, both of the person and 
 the oftence,/^Cy/ his thoughts are wholly taken up with the 
 vicious and moral nature of the offence itself ; without 
 even the least glance at an}- remote effect of it, in profan- 
 ing either his celebration of die Lord's Sui)per, or any oth- 
 er act of religious woi^ship, a\ hich it equally prophancd. 
 And since it is certain, that there is not even the remotest 
 hint at tlie Lord's Supper, in tlie five first verses, in which 
 he insists upon the enormity of the offence, and directs 
 them to sepai-ate from them the person who was guilty of 
 it ; it would be absurd to imagine, that in the three next 
 he should mean to tell them, and this n ithoiit any thing to 
 introduce it, that they must scpaj'ate from the person in 
 question, for this strange reason above all otliers, — lest 
 they should come, like him, to proplianc the Lord's Sup- 
 p^. 
 
 By a figurative expression of keeping the Jea^t^ and the 
 manner in which they should keep it, it is plain St. Paul 
 meant the due regulation of their li\ es as disciples of 
 Christ; without an} 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 
 themselves ; 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 Corindiians to purge out the old 
 leaven; because, as Christians, they wero unleavened; 
 and bound to keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with 
 the leaven of e\il and wickedness ; but with the unleaven-^ 
 ed bread of sincerity and truth. But how could St. Paul 
 choose out this figure, above all others^ ^hen speaking 
 
 (c) From ver. 1 to 5. 
 
62 APPENDIX. [no. V, 
 
 of the Lord's Supper ; or how caii It be applied to tliat 
 rite ? As far as relates to the Lord's Supper, most cer- 
 tain it is, that Cliristiaiis 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 tiierefore impossible that St. 
 Paul could ha^'e 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 tlie 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 
 familiar, — Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the 
 whole lump ? Having put this question, he immediately, 
 and very naturall}', styles those sins, in which they had 
 been accustomed to allow themselves l^efore their comer- 
 sion to the faitli in Christ, th£ old leave?! ; and directs 
 them Xo purge it out^ or to keep themsches pure from all 
 such corruptions for the future ; in order that they might 
 he a nenv lump ; as they were unleavened ; that is, in plain 
 terms, that they might wow 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 diem 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 indisi:)ensably requir- 
 ed to be unleavened ; and there 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 through Christ ; he goes on to strength- 
 en Avhat he liad already said, by reminding them, that 
 Christ fhnr passover had been sacrificed for them ; and that 
 tiierefore they ought to keep thefeast^ not with old IcaveUy 
 
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 and 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 ; so they, who professed themselves Christians, 
 should as it were celebrate their redemption through 
 Christ, by abstaining from all sin and wickedness, and 
 by practising sincere holiness and virtue ; agreeably to the 
 precepts of die law of Clirist. 
 
 This appears so manifestly the tnitli, and the .whole 
 meaning of St. Paul in this passage, that we may venture 
 to affinn, in exhorting the Corinthians to keep the feast 
 with the ujtleavened bread of sincerity and truth, it ^vas 
 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, diat no in- 
 formation concerning die 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 
 ii,CdJ 
 
 (d) The reader may see other arguments to prove the 'same 
 point with respect to this passage, in the treatise intitled, "A plain 
 J^pcount of the Lord's Supper," by Bishop Hoadly. 
 
64 * APPENDIX [no. VI« 
 
 NUMBER VI. 
 
 ST. JOHN, in the 6th chapter of liis 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 persons with five barley loaves and t\vo small fishes. 
 Notwithstanding tliat miracle, they required from him a 
 sign, in order to believe in him, adding, tlmt God Iiad giv- 
 en them bread from heaven ; in consequence of which, 
 alluding particularly to the miracle they had mentioned as 
 superior to that he liad so lately worked, he expressed 
 himsel in the followiiig very striking manner. 
 
 " I am the living bread \vhich came do\vn fiom 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, saymg, how can tliis 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 Avill 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. 'Y^^ 
 
 These remarkable expressions, having a very strong 
 resemblance to those, which Jesus made use of, when at 
 length he instituted the rite of eating bread and drinking 
 wine in remembrance of him, and of his death in particular; 
 (on which occasion he styled the bread to be eaten his body^ 
 and the wine to be drank his blood ;) it has by many been 
 supposed, that in this discourse, he really, though covert- 
 fa^ Gospel of John, vi, 5 1— 58. 
 
IKG. VI.] APPENDIX. 0$ 
 
 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 are, by the spec- 
 ial a])pointment 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 privileges as annexed to 
 tlie rite in question, uixjn the strength of the expressions 
 he made use of at this time, two distinct points are ncces- 
 siwy to be proved ; die one, that Jesus certainly did al- 
 lude to this rite upon this occasion ; the other, that if he 
 did, he piust certainly have meant, by what he siiid, to at- 
 |tril)ute to die celebration of it such spiritual benefits, as 
 have beeii supjiosed. If either of these particulai's 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 lx>th tliese fundamental points 
 lies ujx>n those who assume U\em, and attribute peculiar 
 benefits to the celebration of die Lord's Supper, as found- 
 ed upon them. But the truth is, that even of die allusion 
 itself we are so far from having any proof, diat except the 
 turn of the expressions diemselves, there is not the least 
 evidence in its support ; and tlie 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 diis occasion, 
 apijeared so stnuige to his hearers, and gave them so gieat 
 offence, that, in order to remove it, he thought proper im- 
 mediately to signify to them, that his flesh itself could not 
 do them an}' service ; and that what he had said of his 
 flesh must be figuratively understood. /^/"^^ But though 
 the disgust conceived at what he had said, about eatiug 
 hisjles/iy and drinking his bloody was so strong, that Jrom 
 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 woi'ds that I speak unto you, 
 " they are Spirit, and they are life." Ver. 61, 63. 
 
 I 
 
k 
 
 66 APPENDIX. [no. VI. 
 
 more with him ;(c) and this desertion induced him to ex- 
 postulate with the Twelve upon it ; yet neither then, nor 
 at any time afterwards, 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 M'ho 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 m ine to be taken in it, any of those 
 extraordiniiry effects, which in i his discourse he attributed 
 to eating his flesh and drinking his blood ; and without 
 informing the Apostles, that it was to the institution of 
 this rite he had formerly alluded, when he so much oftend- 
 cd the Jews ; by speaking to them of giving them hii 
 jiesh to eat^ and of the benefits to be derived from eating 
 his fleshy and 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 meimt ; 
 when his expressions are such as his hearers either did not, 
 or might not rightly understand -ffdj 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 drinking liis 
 blood, at which so great oflfence 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, with respect to his supposed allusion in this dis- 
 course, it must ever remain a matter of doubt imd uncer- 
 
 (c) John, vi. 66. 
 
 (dj See the note on this page at the end of the Appendix. 
 
^O. VI.] APPENDIX* 67 
 
 tainty, whether Jesus had in reality any such alhision in it. 
 And on tliis account alone, were there no other, we are 
 fully waiTantcd in assuming, that no doctrines whatever, 
 relating to the nature and eftlcts 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, notwithstanding these considera- 
 tions, that he might allude, in what he now said, to the 
 rite in question : still we siiall have abundant reason to 
 convince us, that he ceitainly did not mean to ascribe any 
 such privileges, as those, ^^ hich have been supposed, to it. 
 
 Those interpreters indeed, a\ ho have taken it for grant- 
 ed, that Jesus alluded at this time to the rite he afterwiuds 
 instituted at his last Supper, and likewise to certain sm- 
 guUu", spiritual benefits, which \\ere to be positively an- 
 nexed to die celebration of it, hme in general been ex- 
 tremely cautious of pointing out, with any precision, what 
 those beriefits are. The}- speak of them liowever 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 very-^ 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 commvmica- 
 tions of divine grace, or gi-ants of divine favor, as would 
 secure to the piuticipant an inheritance of eternal \ik.(^ej 
 
 Was it then possible for Jesus, was it consistent with the 
 moral doctrines he all along tiuight, and the fundamental 
 doctrines of the Gospel, to annex such privileges as these 
 to the celel)ration of any rite '? Or, if this had been possi- 
 ble, and it" such had been his real meaning in this dis- 
 course ; must he not at some time afterwards have caus- 
 
 ("ej See Gosp. of John vi. 54, 55, 56, 57, in particular. 
 
68 APPENDIX. [no. VI. 
 
 ed this extraordinary meaning to be signified to the 
 Twelve, so as that they should clearly comprehend it ? 
 Could he make so very singular an appointment, as this 
 "vvould have been, a part of his religion, without revealing 
 a iuLl and exact explanation of it to those persons, to ^^hom 
 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 \\'as removed from them ; must not 
 each of those, who thought it right to leave the world an 
 authentic history of his woids 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 sifr- 
 gular discourse, as well as that necessary explanation of 
 its important meaning, with Avhich they had been made 
 acquainted ? 
 
 Is this then the case ? So far from it, that neither 
 Matthew, Mark, nor Luke, have made the least mention 
 of any part of this discourse ; though they have each giv- 
 en a particular 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 
 John, on the contrar}', the only evimgelist, who at last 
 preserved this discourse, has neither taken any notice of 
 the institution of the rite at the last Supper, ^^yy nor given 
 us any intimation that this discourse related at all to it ;^ 
 Nor lias any one of the Evangelists left the least hint of 
 
 (f) Should this silence of St. John, with regard to the Lord's 
 Supper, appear, 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 writing his Gospel in these circumstances, af- 
 ter the other three Evangelists had written theirs ; and principally, 
 as his Gospel itself shows, with a view to relate many particulars 
 which they had passed over ; he made no mention of the institu- 
 tion at the last Supper, of which they had e&ch given a minute ac- 
 count. 
 
NO. VI.] APPENDIX. 69 
 
 aiiy special benefits, of any kind, as annexed to tlie 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 tliree 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 ; b}' 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 consequeix:e of its being misunder- 
 stood ; could have omitted to add an explanation of the 
 true meaning of Jesus hi it, and of those speciid benefits, 
 to which it alluded, as positively annexed to the rite he 
 afterwards instituted at his last Supper. 
 
 And tlie same conclusion, which we are obliged to 
 draw from this remarkable silence of all the Evangelists, 
 is no less strongly confirmed by tliat of St. Paul. 
 
 Had it been possible lor 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, ^\ hen repro\ing 
 the Corinthians for some great improprieties, ^vhich they 
 were become guilty of, at the time of being met together 
 to celebrate it.^^^ Any peculiai' spirituiil benefits ac- 
 company ing it, but more esjx:cially of so important a nzt- 
 ture as those which have been supposed, would certainly 
 have afforded the Apostle the strongest, as well as the 
 most obvious of all arguments, for a perfectly serious be- 
 haviour at the celebration of it. When therefore we find 
 St. Paul, though sharply reproving the Corinthians for a 
 very difterent conduct, not making the least mention of 
 any special benefits \\'hatever as annexed to this rite ; but 
 insisting merely on the command of Jesus at the institu- 
 tion, to prove the duty of celebrating it ;f/ij and pointing 
 
 C^J 1 Cor. xi. 20, &c. (/ij 1 Cor. xi. 2 3—2 J. 
 
5to APPENDIX. NO. VI. 
 
 out to them notliing more to shew its nature and effects, 
 tliaii that, as often as they did celebrate it, they shelved forth 
 the JLord''s death till he slioukl come ;(ij we have before 
 us, if 1 am not exceedingly deceived, an absokitely deci- 
 sive proof, that the great Apostle to the Gentiles knew of 
 no special benefits of any kind aiwexed to the celei^ration 
 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, abundantl}^ 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 ; — 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 
 tlie celebration of it ; — And on the whole therefore, that 
 no doctrine whatever, relating to the nature and eft'ects of- 
 this rite, can be authentically deduced from any thing 
 said by Jesus upon this occasion. ^A*^ 
 
 (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 Lord, 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 i-emoved by the present 
 publication ; but having been publicly called upon to account for itj 
 it seems requisite to inform the reader by what means it arose; 
 
NO. VII.] APPENDIX. 71 
 
 NUMBER VU.('aJ 
 
 TO preclude the possibility of misrepresenting- Dr. 
 Cudworth's argument concerning the nature of the Lord's 
 Supper ; founded on what St. Paul has said relating lo it, 
 in the 1st Ep. to the Corinthians, ch. x. 14, &:c. and diat 
 we may have it completely before us, it will be proper to 
 insert it at length. 
 
 .4 Discourse concerning the true notion of the Lord\'i 
 Supper, clmptei' iv. 
 
 " But lest we should seem to set up fancies of our own, 
 and then sport with them, we come now to demonsti-ate 
 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/JwAoSura, things 
 offered to idols, among the heathens. And that from a 
 place of scripture, where all these shall be compared to- 
 gether, and made exactly parallels to one anotlier." 
 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. 
 
 1 6 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 ^-(b) 
 
 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- 
 rindiians of the unlawfulness of eating things sacrificed to 
 
 (a) See page 5 1 . 
 
 f'b) It is remarkable that Cudworth leaves out ver. 17 and 19 j 
 as if they embarrassed the argument St. Paul is here upon. 
 
J^ APPENDIX f iro. VII. 
 
 idols, he doth it in this manner ; — Shewing, that though 
 an idol were ti^uly notliing, and things sacrificed to idols 
 physically notliing, as different from other meats ; as it 
 seems tliey ai'giied, 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 dotli illustrate, First, 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 Supi^er, is a real communica- 
 tion in his death and sacrifice : — Ver. 16. — The cup of 
 blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the 
 blood of Christ ? The bread, which we break, is it twt the 
 communion ojthe 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 they, which eat of the 
 sacrifices, partakers of the altar ? — In veteri Lege, qui- 
 cunque admittebantur ad edendum de hostiis oblatis, cen- 
 sebantur ipsius sacrificii, tanquam pro ipsis oblati, fieri 
 participes, et per illud sanctificaii ; ^ a late commenta- 
 ipr fully expresses it," 
 
 *' Therefore, as to eat the body and blood of Christ in 
 the Lord's Supper, is to be made partaker of his sacrifice 
 offered up to God for us ; — as to eat of the Jewish sacri- 
 fices under the law, was to partake in the legal sacrifices 
 themselves ; — So io eat of things offered up in i^crific^ 
 to idols, was to be made partakers of the idol sacrifices ; 
 and therefore was unlawful." 
 
 ** For, the things, which the Ge?jtiles sacrifice, they sacri- 
 fice to devils : but Christ's body md blood were offered 
 up jji sacrifice unto God ; and therefore t.l>ey could not 
 partake of both together ; the sacrifice of the true God, 
 and the sacrifice of devils : — Ye carmot drink of the cup of 
 the Ixrrd, and tfie cup of devils ; y€ cannot he partakers of 
 the Jjyrd^s table, and the table ofdevik. — St. Paul's argil- 
 
STO. VII.] APPENDIX. 73 
 
 ment here must needs suppose a perfect aniilogy beUveen 
 these three, and that they aie all piirallels to one another, 
 or else it hath no strc nj^h. W hereforc, I conclude from 
 tience, — That the Lord's Supper is the same among 
 Christians, in respect of the Christian sacrifice, that among 
 the Jr^ws the feasts upon the legal sacrifices were, and 
 amopig the Gentiles the feasts upon the idol sacrifices ; 
 and tiierefore, Kpulum sacrificiaie, or, Epulum ex Obla- 
 tis. — 'Oxf^ fJfo/ Je/H«^." 
 
 Thus reasoi.s Dr. Cudn'orth. To enable ourselves to 
 determine satisfactorily, whether his reasoning is really 
 conclusive, the best method will be, to consider first, liis 
 explanation of St. Paul's argument ; and then the con- 
 clusion, which he himself draw s from that explanation of it. 
 
 In the first place he Uiys it down, that the point St. 
 Paul here intends ^q proAC is. That goir.g to the pagan 
 feasts upon sacrifice was " morally and circumstantiaJly 
 to consent with the sacrifices, and be guilty of them." 
 
 And tlien, That in order to prove this point, St. Paul 
 alledges these two consideratioiis : 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 sacriiices, 
 were accounted partakers of die 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 " morallv and circum- 
 " stiintiall} to consent with the sacrifices, and be guilty of 
 " them :" That is, for I knoAV not what other meaning 
 to give the words, That as being seen at the idol feasts 
 was a circumstance, from which every one ^^■as n:orally 
 sure it would be concluded by some, who saw him there, 
 that he was an idolater ; so every one, who notw ithstand- 
 ing this, frequented idol feasts, must be supposed un- 
 concerned at its being thought he was an idolater ; and 
 consequently must be considered as virtui;lly guilty of an 
 act of idolatry before those, who sa\y him th./e. 
 
 K 
 
74 APPENDIX. [no. VII. 
 
 This then is the point, according to Cudworth himself, 
 which St. Paul here intended to prove ; and in this we 
 are perfectly ai^ced : let us now consider the two reasons, 
 which, according to his representation of diem, St. Paul 
 aJledges 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 
 eftects or benefits of his death and sacrifice. 
 
 But how could this particular consideration answer St, 
 Paul's purpose in tliis lu'gument, 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 consequently a vir- 
 tual profession of idolatry ; how could St. Paul possibly 
 alledge, that partaking of the Lord'^) Supper among Chris- 
 tians was (not, virtually joining in an act of Christian Avor- 
 ship, and consequently a virtual profession of Christianity ; 
 — but) " a rejil 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 ha^'e been urging what was quite 
 foreign to his purpose, and manifestly useless and improp- 
 er. 
 
 To prove the j3oint, which it 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 of bread and wine at the 
 celebration of tne Lord's Supper, was apparently partaking 
 of them in compliance with the institution of Christ, imd 
 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, aiid be- 
 ing guilty of, the idol sacrifices ; and consequently a vir- 
 tual profession of idolatry. 
 
 Thus interpreted, 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 
 
NO. VII.] APPENDIX. 75 
 
 prove the point he certainly had in view. Whereas, if we 
 interpret it as Cud worth does, it necessai'ily becomes im- 
 proper, and utterly incoiiclusiAe. 
 
 The second argument which St. Paul urges, is drawn 
 from whut obtained among the Jews : — Behold Israel af- 
 ter the jicsh ; are not they^ which eat of the sacrifices^ par- 
 takers of the altar ? — And according to Cudwortli iiis 
 meaning in this question is, — Among the Jews, are not all, 
 who eat of the legal Svtcriiices, accounted partakers of die 
 effects, or benelits, 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 thosQ 
 sacrifices ; as it was to allege, in the former instance, 
 That partaking of the Lord's Stipper was a real commtmi- 
 cation in the effects of Christ's death. 
 
 On the other hand, it is evidently as jxrrtinent to St. 
 Paul's design, to urge. That among the Je^vs frequenting 
 the Jewish feasts tipon sacrilice was virtually assenting to 
 those sacrifices, and consequently a virtual profession of 
 Judaism ; as, to urge from the Christiiui, That partaking 
 of the Lord's Supper was \'irtually assenting to the Chris- 
 tian rites ; and consequently, a virtual profession of Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 For the same reasons therefore, which oblige us to re- 
 ject Cudwordi's interpretiition of the argument drawn by 
 St. Paul from the Christians, we must likewise reject his 
 similar interpretation of die similar argument dra^n from 
 the Jews. And the meaning of tliis qu'^stion put by the 
 2i^o%\\c^Behold Israel after the fesh; are not they^ which 
 eat of the saciifices^ partakers of the altar ? can be no 
 other than this ; Is not eating of the Jew ish legal sacrifices 
 with the Jews, virtually giving assent to those sacrifices j 
 and consequendy a virtual profession of Judaism ? 
 
 Thus, it is presiuned, we see cleai'ly, that Cudworth's 
 interpretation of St. Paul's two premises is founded on a 
 mistake ; \\q must now examine liis representation oftht 
 
76 Af'I^ENblX. [no. VII. 
 
 manner, in which St. Paul argues from them ; ^hich, ac- 
 cording to him, is as follows. 
 
 " TlK-refoit, — As to eat the body and blood of Christ 
 in the Lord'b Supper, ib to be made partaker of his sacri- 
 fice offered up to God for us ; — As to eat of the Jewish 
 sacrilices under the law, was to partake of the legal siicri- 
 fices themselves ; — so to eat of things offered up in sacri* 
 ficeto idols, is to be made partakers of the idol sacrifices j 
 and therefore is unlawful." 
 
 Here first it is absolutely necessar}^ to observe, that this 
 stating of St. P.iul's argument requires to have the riiean- 
 ing of each of its propositions precisely ascertained, to en- 
 able us to determine whether the argiunent it contains is 
 conclusive or not : for unless the identical terms, in 
 which it is dra^v^l 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 necessaiily 
 prove inconclusive ; or, in reiility, no argument at all ; 
 though by means of having its premistsand corclusion ex^- 
 pressed in the same terms, it wears at first sight the ap- 
 pearance of complete demonstration. 
 
 To discover th€refo)-e with certainty Avhether St. Paul's 
 argument, as it is here stated by Cudworth, is really, as 
 well as apparentlj% conclusive, we must strike out the 
 idertical terms themselves, in which the premises and con- 
 clusion are *. xpressed ; and substitute in their stead that, 
 precise meaniiig, which Cudworth here designed to ex- 
 press hy them. And when we have done this, his state 
 of St. PauPs argument, as appears from what he says iii 
 his three prt ceding paragraphs, will stand thus : — 
 
 " Therefore, 
 
 *' As to eat the body and blood of Christ in tlie Lord's 
 " Supper, is a real communication in his death and sacri- 
 *' fice ;" that is, in the effects or benefits of it ; — 
 
 " As to eat of the Jewish sacrifi eti under the law is to 
 share in the effects or benefits oi mose sacrifices ;"per ilia 
 sjiictiucari ; — 
 
»0. VII.] APPENDIX. 77 
 
 " So, to eat of tilings offered up in sacrifice to idols is,'* 
 (what ? not, " to share in the eftccts of those idol s.i'.Tihc- 
 es ;" the onh- conclusion that can possibly be drawn from 
 these premises ; but) " to consent with tiiose sacrifices, 
 and be guilty of them ;" that is, notliing more than to be 
 virtually guilty of an act of idolatn,-, and therefore, to be 
 virtually a professed idolater. 
 
 B) thus substituting in the room of the identical terms 
 themselves in each proposition, that meaning, in which 
 Cudworth uses them in the two premii es, and that very 
 different nieaniiig, in which he uses them in the conclu- 
 sion ; we see at once, tliat the conclusion by no means fol- 
 lows from the prcn.ises, as he understood tliem ; and in 
 fact has no depchdence upon them ; and consequently, 
 that his inteq^retation of St. Paul's method of arguii^.g, 
 from what obtaii.ed auiong the Christians and the Jews, 
 must be false ; because it renders the apostle's conclusion 
 not pertinent, and his metl od of reasonir.g improper. 
 
 In reality, St. Paul's own argument, unobscured by any- 
 thing foisted into it, is as simple and plain as possible,, and 
 is I'.othir.gmore tiian this : — 
 
 As, to eat bre:id and drink w ine ^A*ith Christians, when 
 tliey professedly eat the one, and drink the other, as the 
 ap]5oirited memorials of the bod}' and blood of Christ, is 
 virtuiilly eating and diinking with tlie siune apparent de. 
 sign that the}' professedly eat and ckink with ; and con- 
 sequendy, is a virtual, appai-ciit professiod of Ctiristianity ; 
 And, 
 
 As, to eat of the JcAvish sacrifices a\ ith die 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 fa'ofes- 
 sion of idolatry. Wherefore, 
 
 Since as I saidyf^cj it is your duty as Chris^uns to flee 
 from idolatry; and of course from all apparent professions 
 of idolatr} ; it must of necessity be improper in } ou as 
 ChiTstians to frequent idol feasts. Q. E. D. 
 
 We may now, I imagine, clearly see the falsehood of 
 
 (c) 1 Cor. X. 14. 
 
78 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 ssi.ys/dj " St. Paul's argument here must needs 
 " suppose a perfect analogy between these tliree actions, 
 ** and that they arc all pai-allels,fcj 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 comparing them togeth- 
 er really conclubive and just ; but it does not suppose the 
 analogy between them to extend further, or that they are 
 parallels to each other in any greater degree, than this may 
 require. 
 
 2dl}', 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 
 oiiiy. That each is a virtual, apparent profession of that 
 religion, to which it respectively belongs ; without taking 
 it at all into consideration, whether the Lord's Supper is 
 exactly the same sort of rite in the Christian religion, that 
 the Jewish and idol feasts upon sacrifice in the Jewish and 
 P igan religions ; that is, without considering at all wheth- 
 er the Lord's Supper is specifically Epulum sacrificiale, 
 or Epulum ex oblatis, or not. Therefore, 
 
 3diy, St. Paul's argument does not suppose a perfect 
 analogy between the specific natures of the 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 does not afford any ground Avhatever for con- 
 
 -(d) See the passage in page 7 1 . Ce) See the same page.- 
 
NO. VII.j APPENDIX. 79 
 
 eluding, that the Lord's Supper is specifically Epulum 
 sacrificiale, or Epulum ex oblatis. Q. E. ^-(f) 
 
 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 
 tlie passage on which he has foimdcd his OAvn notion of 
 the Lord's Supper, is by no means tlic true sense of St. 
 Paul ; iind consequentl}-, 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 \^•ill 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 Christians in respect to the Christian sacri- 
 fice, diat among the Jcavs the 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. 
 
 (^fj If so great a man as Cudwoilh shall be found to have been mis- 
 taken in a point, on which he flattered himself with having arrived 
 at demonstration, it certainly behoves any one, who attempts to 
 point out his mistakes, to remember well his own liableness to er- 
 ror. I^ut whether we have succeeded in dclecling 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. Cudworth's argu- 
 ment must be fallacious, and his notion of the Lord's Supper un- 
 true. 
 
 II 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 shown that it rcivhcr is, nor can be, a feast 
 •' on the sacrifice. Published by J. Payne, Pater-Noster Ro^r. 
 1758. 
 
80 A.fP£NDIX. [no. VIII. 
 
 NUMBER VIII. 
 
 IN €very religion, the true nature and design of every 
 instituted rite must necessarily be conformable to, and 
 |)erfectly consistent with, the great fundamental principles 
 of the religion itself. 
 
 In religions therefore, whose fundamental principles 
 are in any respect different, iill 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 tlie certain, acknowledged nature and design of 
 the Jcwi^ah and pagan feasts upon sacrifice was, in any 
 degree, inconsiscent with the fundamental principles of 
 the religion instiiiitt.l by Chii^t ; 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 ',faj that is, the Lord's Supper can- 
 not be specifically a feast upon sacrifice. 
 
 To determine the point, therefore, nothing more is ne- 
 cessiiry, than to compare 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 particuUir offences ; 
 or, in other words, the appointed legal means of obtainii:ig 
 
 (a) To prevent misapprehension, it may be proper to observe, 
 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 
 sacrifice, most evident it is, that it was not an expiatory sacrifice. 
 Instead of being 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 T.^r a rite of exactly the 
 same nature in the Je^vish religion, that tne Eucharist is in the Chris- 
 tian. 
 
NO. VIII. j APPENDIX. \ 81 
 
 forgiveness and remission of tlie punishment incuir^d on 
 their account. 
 
 In the pagan religions likewise, particular sacrifices 
 were offered up on account of pai'ticular offences ; anil 
 iv;ere designed for, and regarded as expiations of those 
 pai-ticular offences, and tlie immediate means of obtaining 
 forgiveness from the gods. 
 
 Hence in the Jewish disj^nsation, the sacrificers, in 
 all these cases, did really expiate their offences against the 
 law by offering up the sacrifices appointed in tlie law for 
 them ; and in die pagan religions were understood to do 
 die same. And as diose who pai'took of the sacrificial 
 feasts, were understood, in both, to partake of all the ben- 
 efits of the sacrifices themselves ; hence partaking qf 
 these feasts was considered, in each religion respectively, 
 as an expiation of tliosc offences, for which the sacrifices 
 were offered up, and tlie formal cause of their being for- 
 given, ^^y/ 
 
 Such wsLS the acknoT^'ledged 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 " die Lord's Supper is 
 the same among Christians in respect to die Cliristian 
 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, diis 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 Clirist ; since 
 Jesus himself expressly declared, at the very time of in- 
 stituting diis rite, diat his blood would be shed for the re* 
 mission of suis. 
 
 But this consequence, which must unavoidably be a(i» 
 mitted, if die Lord's Supper is specifically a feast upon 
 
 CbJ 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- 
 pendix. 
 
 L 
 
82 APPENDIX. [no. VIII. 
 
 sacrifice, is, in the first place, absolutely unauthorized 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, 
 tliroughout tlie New Testament, that the celebration of 
 the Lord's Supper was appointed by Jesus, to be itself an 
 atonement for, or formal cause of the forgiveness of, sin ; 
 as the Jewish expiatory sacrifices were to be declared un- 
 der the law, and the heathen sacrifices were understood to 
 be among the pagans. 
 
 And it is utterly inconsistent Avith the fundamental 
 principles of the reUgion 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 expressl}' attributed, and wholly 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 celebrating this rite, which it must have been, if the 
 Lord's Supper was a feast upon sacrifice, than of our of- 
 fering 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 neidier tliat, 
 nor any other religious act, is enjoined in the gospel, as in 
 any degree whatever an atonement for sin. 
 
 The goodness of God has declared in the gospel, that 
 through the merits and mediation of Christ, our sins, iC 
 properly repented of, shall be forgiven ; and our sincere 
 though imperfect obedience tq his laws be rewarded with 
 etemsd life. ' In consequence of this great fundamental 
 
JIO. 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 tlirough life. 
 Celebrating the Lord's Supper therefore cannot possibly 
 be the means of appiymg the efficacy of the mediation of 
 Christ to ourselves, so as to atone for our sins ; since it 
 is nothing more, than complying with one single com- 
 mand, out of very many more, which the gospel no less 
 enjoins, and to all of which, without 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 thtni, actuij atonements, or appointed means 
 of atonement, for those sins respectively, on account of 
 which tiie sacrifices themselves were offered up ; and 
 since in the Christian dispensation there is not any rite, or 
 action, enjoined ; the celebration or performance of which 
 is there appointed, or considered, as an atonement for any 
 sins ; so as that tlie remission of any sins is the proper, or 
 even die possible effect, of the performance of such action, 
 on the celebration of such rite ; it follows unavoidably, 
 tliat no rite of the Christian religion can possibly be of the 
 same nature, and Ivdve 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 the Christian sacrifice, that among the Jews 
 *' the feasts upon the legal sacrifices were, and among tlie 
 " Gentiles the feasts upon the idol sacrifices ;" that is, 
 cannot be specificiilly a feast upon sacrifice. Q, E. ^'fcj 
 
 (c) See the subsequent note on this page. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 Page is.] IT seems requisite to apprize the reader, that this 
 h'lme is g6hftrally 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. T ; was then denomi- 
 nated the breaking of bread. 
 
 Page 4.] Which is shed for many for the remission ofsins,^-^ 
 Bishop Pearce in his Commentary proposes to translate this pas- 
 sage, and th/; 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 ^n 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 — 
 vriiTi 1% uvTtv 7F»trti ; T6vr6 ya^ im t« cc'ifix fiv, to t»)j xenm oiet6yjxfii, r» 
 sTfgi ToPiAwn iK^viefctioHi tii a<pi<ri» itfAet^rtw. — The exact literal transla- 
 tion ol these words is — Drink ye all out of it ; for this is my 
 blood, That of the new covenant^ That shed for many, for re- 
 
Page 4.] NOTES. 85 
 
 mission of *t;z**-»-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 vixvr»fMf»t is not to be referred to »iftett though that is ex- 
 pressed ; but to trvrn^i**, 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 wtg* -rtxxmi «;(jt;»»/t<£r«», must refer to the same thing, 
 whatever that may be, with the immediately preceding clause, 
 TO Ttjf k.etm'i hxfiijKtii i and that, to its own immediate preceding 
 clause, TO aifMc fcov ; and consequently, TO *i{» t«AA«i» ixj^vytfttref, tO 
 u'l/nx likewise. 
 
 Had St. Matthew meant to express, by t« lx;^Jvv«,^tfy•)', the wine in 
 the cup, and not the blood of Jesus ; instead of writing as he has, 
 r«VT6 y«g tm r« tiifttc fitu, Tt tj)< xcmti ^locirtxrn, to -xi^i trohXuf tK^v*cfCt¥off 
 S.CC. he would surely have so placed the clause in question, as to 
 make it express that meaning ; and have written, t»vr« yx^y rt jrig; 
 TtXXuf tKj^vvofUye*, tor* t« ttifta fttv, t» tdj *«<»«? iuc9ti/itii, &C. That isj 
 instead ot writing as he has done, lor tJiis is my bloody that 
 of the new coveiiojit, that poured out for inany^ &c. he would 
 surely have written. For this, which is poured out for many, is 
 my blood. That of the new covenant, &c. And since he has not 
 placed his words in this olnious 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 ixj^vtefitrtt Jesus had meant the wine, and not 
 his blood ; after saying to them xitrt 1% xvtev Trxrrtf, he surely 
 could not have said, that it was — fn^t7re?\?,»/t (K^duftfttm t but must 
 
86 NOTE S. [Pa^e 5, 
 
 have said, n^t lfiu)i, or -tti^i Trxyrm vf^ui tK^tatfttvtv : That is, after 
 saying to tiicm, Dnnk yl all oJ it^ he could not have added, 
 that it was poured out for many ; but must have written, pour- 
 ed out lor you ; or, for you 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. 
 Mariv, which are 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 thcm^ this is my 
 blood of the iierv covaiant^ That, the wine, poured out into this 
 cup 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 words of St. Luke are different :—^ovro to -Trorri^ioi ii xxivn ?<«- 
 (n*ri IV T<y ei'ifiXTt ^ov, to vTTi^ vf*u* tKj^vvefitvey. Hcie tx,^viitfAiv»y certainly. 
 
 ag-ecs wun 5reT«g«a» i auu accorduig to the syntax therefore the 
 clause must be translated, This cup is the 7inu covenant in my 
 blood, the cup, the wine, poured out for you ; — Or, 'This cup, 
 the Utw co-oeyiant 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 sti'ict syntax must here, as in some similar 
 passages, which have been remarked, (^aj be given up ; and St. 
 Luke be interpreted in a sense agreeable to the cleai' and point- 
 ed sense of St. Matthew and St. iVIark. 
 
 The words of St. Paul, relating to the bread, are to^to (mv t<m t« 
 F6)p6, TO v?r£g l^m x^itofAivcv : This ts my bodij, that broken Jor you : 
 — But if by broken was meant the bread, and not the body ; sure- 
 ly he would have placed the words so as na^^urally to express that 
 meaning, thus :— rauTo, to tursg vci.m xXufAivov, tirrt ro <ruux fctv :— < 
 This, which is broken for you, is my body : ana sinct 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 ot Bishop Pearce therefore, 
 and what happened to appear probable to him, at the time when 
 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. 
 
 Page 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 clear as to require no proof. It has however been 
 contended, by those who do not allow that Jesus designed on 
 
 CaJ See Bowyer's note, and.a passage it refers to, from Bengclius, on the 
 jflace ; as well as Ephes. lii. 17, 18 ; Coloss. ill. 16 ; Apoe. i. 4, 5 ; whic.h 
 have likewise been referred to on the «aine account 
 
Page 19,28.] NOTES. 87 
 
 this occasion to institute any r\x.t^(b) that the words — as often — 
 import no command ; and in effect 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 — jfever ; instead of — as often as. Had Jesus 
 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 ;" cspeciallv 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 often 
 to do it. 
 
 Page 19.] 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 to 
 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.] Tliough 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 rtlied on by those Christians, 
 who deny it to have been the intention of Jesus to institute such 
 % standing rite, and who therefore pay no regard to it. 
 
 It has been alledgcd, that there are other practices and in- 
 junctions of our Saviour and the apostles recorded in the New 
 Testament, wliich 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 lo perceive, that 
 
 i^AJ See Barclay's ecology, page ^77 < 
 
tf NOTES. [Page 28. 
 
 this objection, even granting that therfe 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* Whethr 
 cr therefore wc 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 direations prove, that the partaking of bread and 
 wine in religious commemoratirn 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 ia 
 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.feJ It has been alledged, that his com- 
 mand to the apostles on this occasion, to wash one another'^ 
 feety 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 aftett" 
 supper " taking the cup, and 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 ;" 
 
 (cj John xiii. 2—17. 
 
Page 28.] NOTES. 89 
 
 was not so striking, as his putting the question to them, when 
 he had sat down again after washing their feet, " Know ye 
 " what I have done unto you V and then adding, to explain 
 his design, " It" I, your Lord and Master, have washed your 
 " feet, ye ought also to wash one another's fe«t ;" and even 
 enforcing this conclusion by adding still further, " I have giv- 
 " en you an example, that yc should do as I have done to 
 " you." — That on the One occasion he said to Peter, •■' If I wash 
 " thee not, thou hast no part in me ;" but that on the other, he 
 made no mention of any ill conse<iucnce 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, 
 tliat if we consider the time, when this transaction took place, 
 the several particulars included in it, or the injunctions, which 
 followed it, it has as much 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. (^^J 
 
 Such are the particulars, which have been insisted on with 
 regard to this ver>' 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 clearly 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 to do that in a similar manner. 
 
 But in this instance, instead of giving tliem any such author- 
 itative cofnmand, he only appealed to what they ot/g-ht to do in 
 consequence of his example. " Know ye, said Jesus, M'hat 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 oug-ht 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 imto you, the 
 " servant is not greater than his Lord, neither he, that is sent, 
 " greater than he, that sent him." 
 
 fdj See Barclay's apologj-, p. 46? — 469. 
 M 
 
90 NOTES. [Page 2g; 
 
 If Jesus meant, by the action he had now performed, to 
 press upon the apostles the practice of the moral duties of 
 brotherly love and humility, no action could be better adapt- 
 ed, nor could any stronger reason be alledg* d, to ex- 
 plain and enforce his design ; since the exainple of him, 
 whom they acknowledged for their Lord and Master, in 
 so singular an exercise of humility, was certainly one of 
 the stronjrest proofs, that they ought to put in practice 
 * even a less degree of the same virtue. But if his design was 
 to institute a ceremonial 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 
 such an explanation of his design as he Avould most naturally 
 have 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 command^ 
 in the manner he afterwards did v^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 
 circumstance, that his real design was only to inculcate the 
 practice of those virtues, which the action he performed, em- 
 blematically uYiderstood, 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 his 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 mu<^t 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 w^ell as that sense, in which he designed it to be 
 understood by them, some circumstances, considered jointlj" 
 with their subsequent conduct, will 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," 1. e. my design in this action, " thou knowest 
 
Parens.] NOTES. 91 
 
 " not now, but thou slialt know as soon as I have done.'VO 
 Accordingly " after he had washed their feet, and had taken 
 *' his garments, and was set doAvn again, he said unto them, 
 " Know ye what I have done unto you :" and immediately ex- 
 plained to ihem his design in this action, in the roaiuier 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 cliosen to preach his gosi^el, 
 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 relating to iu 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 diis very time, or, 
 at the latest, when they were furnished with the necessaiy 
 knowledge for entering upon their office of preaching the gos- 
 pel, to make them fully acquainted \viih this design : in conse- 
 quence of this, they nmst actually have observed such a cere- 
 mony themselves, and directed the observation of it by ;Ul 
 their disciples ; and it would have been found, this rite, like 
 that of eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Je- 
 sus, was, from the beginning, an established practice of the 
 christian world. 
 
 Is this then the fact ? On the contrary, there is not even the 
 least shadow of reason f(>r supposing, nor has any one ever 
 supposed, that ti\e action, which Jesus on this occasion perform- 
 ed, was ever so much as imitated by the apostles themselves ; 
 and much lesr that they ever required the imitation of it, as an 
 ordinance of the Gospel, from those, nhom they converted to 
 the faith. Nay, so far were the apostles from having any con- 
 ception, that Jesus intended b}' what he did and said on this oc- 
 casion to dn-ect tliem to observe such a practice, and require 
 the obser\ation o*" it by their dist iples ; that neither Mattl^w, 
 Mark, nor Luke, who succeeded each other in writing their 
 gospels,(^J huve made the least mention of this whole transac- 
 
 fej We translate this, " Tiiou shall know hereafter ,'' which, in tlie g-cn- 
 eral acception of'Uiat word, raUicr signifies, tliat Jesus would inform him .-.i 
 some distant time : but tiie words in the orig-nial, uiTXTecuTx, " :iftcr tlKn 
 tilings," plainly signify here, " as soon as I have hniolied %\ hat I am now do* 
 ing." 
 
 jC/J Sec Mr. Townson's Lite valuable discourses on the Four Gospels. 
 
92 NO T E S. [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 fliscourses of Jesus with the apostles, which related 
 more especially to him alone, and which Matthew, Mark, and 
 Luke had omitted ; we should never have been madeacquainted 
 with any particular of his conduct in this instance. And since 
 it is unquestionable, that while the apostles zealously inculcated 
 the virtues recommended bv this action, none of them, not even 
 John, the very evangelist, who 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 
 imder consideration ; but more especiallv from the opposite 
 conduct of the apostles 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 design in washing their feet. 
 
 Nor can the performance of this singular action by Jesus 
 with such an allegorical intent, or tHeir understanding 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 far 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. Cg'J 
 After this, it cannot surely be matter of wonder, when Jesus 
 knew he Avas within two daysf AJ to be taken from them, that 
 
 fgj See Math, xvili, 4 ; xx. 25—29 ; xxiii. 11 ; Mark ix. 33—35 ; x. 
 42—45 ; Luke ix. 46—48 ; xxii. 24— 2r. 
 
 fhj In the former edition of this treatise I adopted tlie opinion of many 
 commentators and harmonists, that Jesus waslicd the feet pf the apostles on 
 the niglit on which he was boLiayed. And it being recorded by St. Luke, 
 xxii. 24 — 28, tliat there was on that ni,£^ht a strife among them, which of them 
 should be accounted the greatest ; and Bisliop Newcomc Laving very judic- 
 
Page 28.] i 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 
 
 iovisly observed in his harmony, (see his note on section 122,) that tliis con- 
 tention cannot be supposed to have arisen after so remarkable a lesson^of bu- 
 rn Uty given them by Jesus on tJiat very night ; I thence drew tlie conclusion, 
 wliich Bisliop Ncwconic likewise mentions, that this strife between the apos- 
 tles must be supposed to have given occasion to tliat singuiar action of our 
 Loixi. 
 
 But having since considered the relations of the evangelists witli more ac- 
 curacy, it appears proper to lay before the reader some paiticulars which 
 have fully convinced me, that the Supper sjioken of by St. John, chapter 13, 
 at which Jesus waslied the feet of the aposdcs, was not his last supper, at 
 wliich he instituted the eucharist ; but tliat, which he partook of at the 
 house of Simon tJie leper at Bethanj', two nights, according to Lightfoot, 
 before his last. 
 
 St. Luke expressly relates, that the strife above-mentioned arose among 
 tlie apostles on the evening of the last supper ; and likewise gives an account 
 of what Jesus said to them upon it ; ch. xxli. 24 — 30 : but he makes not the 
 least mention of his washing tlicir feet ; and what he relates, as having been 
 said to tlicm by Jesus upon occasion of this dispute, is veiy dificrent I'rom Uie 
 discoui'se of Jesus, related by St. John, in ch. xiii. as having immediately fol- 
 lowed tlie washing their feet. And as that remarkable action, if it took 
 place on the same night with this contention between the 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 with reg:u"d l) it appears a decisive proof, tliat it did not 
 take place on the same niglit. 
 
 And a similar observation is equally applicable to tlie relation of St. John. 
 As St. Luke has recorded the contention between tlie apostles on the night of 
 tlic last Supper, without any mention of Jesus's washing their feet ; so St. 
 John has very minutely related the manner, in which Jesus v ashed their 
 feet, at some Supjier ; without making mention of any dispute, about which 
 of tliem should be greatest, as having arisen among tlic apostles on the same 
 evening. And as, if tlicsc two events came to pass on the same evening, the 
 one must be supposed to haw been occasioned by the other ; and it seems 
 utterly incredible, tliat St. Jolm could have recorded the washing of the apos- 
 tles' feet, williout taking any notice of tJic prc\ious contention between them, 
 wliich must, in this case, have given rise to it ; his ha\-ing done so affords a 
 decisive proof, that the washini; of their tect, 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 tlic night of 
 tlie last Supper. 
 
 This conclusion is likewise in no small degree confirmed by the following 
 very particular manner, in which St. John introduces his account of Jesus's 
 washing the feet of the apostles : — " Now before the feast of the Passover» 
 " when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he siioukl depart out of this 
 *' world unto the Father, having loved hi;, own, wliich were in the world, he 
 " loved tliem unto the end. And the time of Supper being come, (the devil 
 " having now put into tlie heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray 
 " hhn ;) Jesus knowing Uiat tlie Father had given all things into his hands, 
 " and tJiat he came from God, and went to God ; lie ri.<eth from supper, and 
 " laid aside his garments, and took a towel, Sic." John xiii. 1 — 4. 
 
 This account of the motives, which induced Jesus to perform tlie singular 
 
§4 NOTES. [Pa^e 28. 
 
 that they should understand any action he performed with this 
 vicAv, and accompanied 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 of the objection remaining unnotic- 
 ed, which, on account of die use that has been made of it, it 
 will be satisfactory to explain. 
 
 It has been alledged, that when Jesus gave the apostles the 
 bread and wine, he did not signify to any of them, that if daey 
 did not eat of the one, or drink of the other, they would draw 
 on themselves iiny evilby refusing it ; but that, when he washed 
 their feet, he said to Peter, If Ixvush thee not^ thou hast no part 
 zvith me : and that, " this being spoken upon Peter's refusing 
 " to let him wash his feet, should seem to import not only the 
 " continuance, but even the necessity of this ceremony." (^7 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 verj'^ time, without reference to any repeti- 
 tion of it by them ? Jesus's words were — If I xvaah thee tiot ; 
 i. e. if you refuse to let me xuash you^ now^ at this tinie^ as I 
 was going to have done ; — Not, if you do not hereifter observe 
 a ceremony of xuushing 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 place among themselves And what 
 
 was the evil, which Jesus informed Peter he would sustain, if 
 he continued to refuse I 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 ; noi- can any 
 thing be more cleai", than tliat the evangelist liere represents Jesus, as hav- 
 ing been induced to act in the very remarkable manner he immediately did, 
 not by any ambitious contest that had arisen among the apostles, on tliat 
 night ; but by such secret reflections, as at that particular season naturally 
 took possession of Jiis own mind, upon the very near approach of t)ie time, 
 when he liimself knew that he slioidd be talien from them, by being put to 
 death. 
 
 Tliese considerations alone appear decisive ; and when added to several 
 others urged by Lightfoot (1) in proof of the same point, place it, I conceive, 
 absolutely beyond doubt, that it was not on the niglit of tlie last Supper, but 
 at the Supper in tlie liouse of Simon the leper in Bethany,(2) two nights be- 
 fore, as Lightfoot concludes, that Jesus waslied the feet of the apostles. 
 
 CiJ See Barclaj 's Apologj-, p. 468. 
 
 (1) See Lightfoot vol. i. 251, 252—254—258—261, and 709 ; vol. ii. 252 
 —254. 260, 261.— On Jolin xii. 2. Ibid. 586, 587 ; and on John xiii. 2. Ibid. 
 594 ; and on verse 30, oJT. 
 
 (2) Mentioned in MatJicw xxvi. 6, &;C. 
 
Page 31.] NOTES. 9^ 
 
 vions, 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 you 
 cannot tlierefore 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 anv 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^ eat, he. atid drink ye all of 
 this., &c. his answer to them in that instance would, for the same 
 reasons, have been exactly similar to what it was in this : If 
 thou eatcst^ or dr'inkrst^ not, then host 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 iji remem- 
 brance of me ; and without intending to institute any standing 
 ceremony of that kind. For the mere eating or not eating, as 
 well 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, and 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.] Notv.idistanding these particulars, in which Jesus 
 gave his own manner of instituting the rite, he now ordained, a 
 resemblance to the manner in which tlie 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 ai.y j^art of the Pas- 
 chal Suppti itself, as instituted by Moses ; to which it had not 
 even the smallest resemblance ; but wlioUy 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 carue 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 eveiy one at table ; and so after sup- 
 " per to take a cup of wine, and having blessed it, and drank cf 
 " It himself, to give it round for the guests to drink likewise : 
 
96 NOTES. 
 
 " hence came the phrase of xXcini t«» «^«t)f and hence that of 
 " T0ni^i»f tvXcyKti, 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 creatures, thanking and praising him for his goodness 
 " in vouchsafing to them the use of them. Now to this cere- 
 " monv our Lord annexed the commemoration of his death ; 
 " requiring his disciples, when they broke that bread, to join 
 *' with their thanksgiving to God for the bread, a commemora- 
 *' tlon 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."(^ij 
 
 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 drank of by all : — That when they 
 had eat a litde of one fixed thing, they had a second cup, over 
 which certain appointed psalms weie 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. (^/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 
 oivn 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 thisy and divide it among 
 yourselves ; for I say unto you^ I will 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 xoere eat' 
 ingy he added, in order to institute his own intended rite, Take^ 
 eaty this is my body^ which is given for you ; this do in remem- 
 b ranee of me. And upon giving the customary cup, called em- 
 
 CkJ Bishop Pearce's second letter to Dr. Waterland. Commentai'y, vol. 
 ii. p. 443. See likewise p. 423, 424 ; and Commentary on 1 Cor. x. 16. p. 253 ( 
 and on 1 Cor. xi. 24. p. 268. 
 
 CO See Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 967. 
 
Page 3S, 40.] NOTES. 97 
 
 phatically the cup of blessings when they hftd done eating, he 
 added in like manner, Drink ye all of it ; for this is my blood 
 of the Neiv Testame7it, or, the New Testament in my blood; 
 ■which is shed for you^ or, for many^ for the remission of sins ; 
 this do ye^ as oft as ye drink it^ in remembra?ice of me. 
 
 Tlius was 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 bv Moses ; which con- 
 sisted of nothing more than eating the Paschal Lamb m a cer- 
 tain prescribed manner ;CmJ it is evident diat the Christian 
 rite of eating bread and drinking wine, in memor}' of the death 
 of Christ, is not borrowed from the Passover itself, but merely 
 from a ceremonial which the Jews had thought fit to intioduce 
 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 VVarburton happened to have ob- 
 served the perfectly corresponding meaning of these words in 
 the several passages here referred to, he could not, it is presum- 
 ed, have inclined to the opinion, as he does, (^« J in opposition to 
 Bishop Hoadly,(^o^ that Ktivtnut was used to signify the inward 
 or spiritual part of the Lord's Supper, and fttn^M the external 
 part only. In fact, it appears from the passages referr<^d to, 
 that there is not any ground for such a distinction ; and xtnaitut 
 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 4C.] 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 Commcntaiy, and note W, on ver. 20 ; is very 
 particularly careful in repeatedly interpreting the word tuiwrut, 
 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. f/? J But if they had happen- 
 ed to observ'e, what is so fully proved by the passages referred 
 to in page 38, that St. Paul uses x.»nomit itself to express 
 merely the participation, 8cc. of one only, of whatever it may 
 be ; and that when he designs to express by the word itself the 
 common^ or joi7it participation of several together in any thing, 
 he makes use of tiie compound word vvyKniMfw ; — they could 
 
 Cm) See Exod. xji. 3 — H. 
 fnj Rational Account, he. p. 35 — 37. 
 Co J Plain Account, p. 45, 46. 
 
 CpJ Sec Plain Account, &c. p. 33, 34, 39, 43.— 3d cdi*. 
 N 
 
98 NOTES. IPa^eAK). 
 
 not, it Is presumed, have interpreted Kttmm in these verses in 
 the sense they have. — Bishop Warburton rightly contends, that 
 xtnuiM itself does not include the idea oi joint participation ',C^) 
 though he tak'- ro notice of the use St. Paul makes of the 
 compound rvyKonuiM, when he would express that meaning. 
 
 Thenatuial ill.ci of prtfixing-e-w-to any word seems ex- 
 tremely obvious, and is very remarkably exemplified in Rom. 
 viii. 17 ; i Cor. xii. 26 ; and 2 Cor. viil. 23 ; and in the last 
 passage in particular, the pointed use of xonuiui and wn^y^ puts 
 the matter beyond doubt. 
 
 But though the true meaning of the simple word xetfMu» 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-rvir-pre fixed 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 xc»uft» in this pasage signifies simply the exter- 
 nal participation ot 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. 
 
 Page 40.] The observation that the word *wnn%et must ne- 
 cessarily be understood in the first part of each ol these ques- 
 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 ; and of its having been supposed, that St. Paul meant 
 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 be^ or answer vo, the blood ; and the bread itself only to the 
 body; aud consequently, that the xcnania. of the cup and the 
 bread must here be supplied, or untlcrsiood, to answer to the 
 x,onuux of the blood and the body ; had this been attended to, 
 it could not but have been seen likewise, that xtnmuc must oi 
 
 '"qj Rutlonal Account, &c. p. 33—35. Edit. 12mo, 1741* 
 
Page 24.] NOTES. 99 
 
 Jiecessity, have the selfsame meaning as applied to each; and 
 therefore that it could not signify 'icay thing more than the ex- 
 ternal partaking of the representatives or memorials of the 
 body and blood ; since it is evident!}^ impos£il)le ibr it to signi- 
 fy any thmg more than external partaking as applied to the bread 
 and wine. And thus the meaning ot 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 v^^hich they relate, would have been 
 clearly understootl, and effectually ascertained. But partly trom 
 not attending to this particular, and partly from not previously 
 establishing the true sense of »«<»«»<«, by observing in what man- 
 ner the Apostle uses it on other occasions ; it has here been 
 translated by the improper term communwn^ instead of the prop- 
 er term porlicipaUon. St. Paul as it has been shewn, here 
 means by >c.»tytt»t» the participation^ or act of partaking of the 
 bread and wine : whereas the word commiunon does not signi- 
 fy the participation itself, but the connexion or fellowship aris- 
 ing between the several partakers, in consequence of their join- 
 ing in the same religious act : so that by translating Mitunct by 
 the \s or >\.' communion^ instead of the word participation^ the sense 
 of St. Paul is misrepresented, and rendered extremely doubtful 
 and obscure. — This improper translation of xcnonut ; and the 
 not distinguishing between die sense in which St. Patd uses die 
 simple term Ktnmiut^ and the compound ff-t;y*o<»«»««, pointed out in 
 pages 38 — 40, seem to have been the immediate causes of all 
 the apparent difficulty of ascertaining the meaning of St. Paid 
 in these questions, which he hinisell thought so olnious as net 
 to need an explanation ; and of aii the obscurity, Avith 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 vei% 
 17, supposes St. Paul to speak of the bread partaken of by each 
 person in the Lord's Sup])er as part of one and the same loaf; 
 and to urge, that the partakers are all one bcdij because the bread 
 they all partake of is one loaf; and Bishop YloAtllyfrJ and Dr. . 
 WaierlandfjJ interpret the Apos.de's reasoning in the same 
 manner. But this, it is apprehended, is neither true in fact, nor 
 the meaning of St. Paid. The apostle is not here speaking of 
 any one congregation of Christians onlj' ; or of separate con- 
 gregations as united in themselves, though distinct from each 
 other ; but of all Christians universally, lie expressly addres- 
 
 (r) Plain Account, &c. p. 34. 3(1 edit. 
 (*) Review of the docUine, &c. p. 46 J. 
 
loo NOTES, [Pa^e 55. 
 
 ses himself in this Epistle not only to the church of God which 
 rvas at Corbith^ but at the same time to all that in every place 
 called iipo)i the 7iame ofjesus Christ. ft J And he affirms that 
 because the bread partaken of by all universally is o;ir, all ^e 
 one body, since they all partake of the one bread. But it is 
 by no means true, that the bread partaken of by all uni\-ersany 
 is one loaf; since in different places it always is, and even in the 
 same place sometimes may be, taken from difierent loaves ; and 
 in different countries the loaves may often consist of very differ- 
 ent kinds of bread ; and yet tlie 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 one loaf ; or 
 even because the food partaken of by all in this rite was of one 
 and the same general nature, bread; 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 ;fwj 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 religion^ 
 account, shewed themselves by the celebration of this rite to be 
 one body, viz. of professed Christians, or believers in Christ. 
 Page 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 
 
 (f) 1 Cor 5. 3- 
 
 (,:() Notwithstanding the reason above-mentioned is given by Bishop Hoad- 
 ly, as that on account of which the bread is called one, in the Plain Account, 
 &c. p. 31' ; he aftei"w;u(ls takes notice, in liis Appendix, p. 187, that St. Paul 
 might call it one, for the very reason here assigned. We ha^e seen, it is 
 presumed, that there was not any otlier reason for which he could call it one. 
 
Page 66.] NOTES. 101 
 
 to the sin of those wlio 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 8«c. citing St. Paul's words, that those who paitook of 
 the Lord's Supper umvorthibj^ were guiltij of the body and hlood 
 of the Lord ; explains their meaning by saying expressly— 
 " i. c. his murderers." f^A'J In another passage likewise he 
 explains St. Paul as in this place — " ranking these criminals 
 with the murderers of the Lord of life."(^yj — And to account 
 for this supposed " severity" of the apostle ; (of which he ac- 
 knowledges " we can hardly see the justice," fzj " if the 
 I^ord's Supper was instituted only to commemorate a dead ben- 
 efactor ;")f'a J 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 cotisidered 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 ineflectual, 
 *' was indeed aiding the purpose of his murderers ; and there- 
 *' fore might be fitly compared, and jiistli/ equalled to the pro- 
 •' digious enormit}' of that crimc."^'^^ 
 
 With all due respect for so ver\' 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 
 Ibllow from the notion of the Lord's Supper here contended 
 lor, 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 reKgion, of which it is an in- 
 stitution, is not from above. For this doctrine, that the guilt of 
 the Corinthians in the instance under consideration, was e^ual 
 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 entirel}- innocent of any such assertion. 
 
 Page 66.] Tluis when the Jews required a sign from JesUS, 
 to vindicate the authority he assumed in driving the buyers and 
 sellers out of the temple, and he in answer to tiieir demand re- 
 plied, — Destroy this temple j arid in three days lu-ill build it up; 
 
 CxJ Sec a Rational Account of the Nature and End of the sacrament of 
 die Lord's Supper, small 12mo, — 1T61 — pagfc 42. 
 CyJ Ibid, pajje 13. f zj Page 14. faj Pajrc 13. 
 C^J Sec a Rational Accoimt, &c. pa^ 14. 
 
102 NOTES. [Page 83, 
 
 — to prevent his readers from supposing, as the Jews at that 
 time did, that he meant the temple itselt" ; John takes care to 
 inform us, tnat Jesus meant the temple of his bodij. Gosp. ii. 
 19. — So upon relating that Jesus stood in the temple, and cri- 
 ed^ saying., If any man thirst., let him come unto me and drink : 
 He that bflicveth on me^ as the scripture hath said., out of his 
 belly shall floiv rivers of living water : — John immediately 
 adds, to explain these figurative expressions, But this spake he 
 of the Spirit., which thty that believe on him should receive., &c. 
 — Ibid. vii. 37 — 39. — \VTien Jesus had said, in the presence of 
 the people, not long before he was put to death, — And I., if I 
 he lifted up from the earth., will draxv all men unto me ; — which 
 his hearers did not understand ; John immediately adds from 
 himself, — This he said., signifying what death he should die. 
 Ibid. xii. 3'o. — When, speaking to Peter, in relation to the 
 apostles, just before he washed their feet, he said, T'e are clean., 
 but not all ; John immediately adds to explain his meaning, 
 *' For he knew xuho should betray him ; therefore 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 Pet^, as what would happen to him ; John explains them 
 by saying — Fhis spake A.-, signifying by what death he (Peter) 
 should glorify God. — Ibid, xxi 19. — bo likewise in the begin- 
 ning of the veiy chapter, m which is recorded what Jesus said 
 to the Jews at Capernaum, about eating his fesh., and drinking 
 his blood; no sooner has John related, that Jesus, upon seeing a 
 great multitude coming to him, said unto Philips whence shall 
 we buy bread., that these may eat ? than he adds, to prevent all 
 misapprehension ; — And this he said to prove him., for he him' 
 self knew xvhat he would do* Ibid. vi. 5, 6. 
 
 Page 83.] Bishop Warburton having introduced in his Ra- 
 tional Account, &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 ;(^cj 
 and even himself asserted, that this difficulty " has long embar- 
 " rassed all the several opposers of the doctrine of I'ransub- 
 STANTiATiON ;"(^^J and having likewise employed several 
 pages in endeavouring to shew, thatthis objection is entirely re- 
 moved, by the discovery that the Lord's Supper is a feast upon 
 sacrifice -,(6) And it having now been proved, if we have reas- 
 oned right, that the Lords Supper cannot be a feast upon sacri- 
 fice ; it will afford us satisfaction, though it is not necessar}', to 
 
 rcj Rational Account, &c. Edit. 12mo— 1761 — page 59. 
 \d) Ibid, paije 61. C'J Froni page 53 to page 65. 
 
Page 83.] NOTES. 103 
 
 shew, upon this occasion, 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 heing 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 betaken as representatives and me- 
 morials of the body and blood, is as follows, in Bishop Warbur- 
 ton's own translation of the passage. 
 
 " When Jesus Christ said, This is mrj l^odij. This is ?ntj 
 *' blood, he was neither propouiiding a parable, nor explaining 
 ** an allegorv. — 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 New 
 " Rite, 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 prep- 
 
 " ARATION.'Y/; 
 
 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 unquestionabl}' 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 instructf d Moses in what manner to direct the 
 people to choose out, kill, dress, and eat, a lamb ;CS'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 name.C/i^ 
 
 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 this 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 mif body. This is my blood, did in the institution of the 
 Lord's Supper. — I'he business in hand was here likewise the 
 institution of a New Rite ; and if that circumstance would have 
 required the use of simple terims, as opposed to figurative, in 
 
 (7/1) Rational Account, &c. as before, page 65. 
 
 f'^J Exod, xii. 3—11. (^/jJ Ibid. vcr. 11 — 14. See the passage. 
 
104. K O T E 5. 85 
 
 the institution of the Lord's Supper ; it must equally have re- 
 
 Suired the use of simple terms, as opposed to figurative, in 
 lis 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 pi-eparation, as the bread and wine had the 
 name of the body and blood of Jesus given to them, in the in- 
 stitution of the Eucliarlst. 
 
 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 contended, 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 of v.-ords in both these 
 rites are so exacdy similar, in the point concerned, that the 
 same mode of interpretation must of necessity 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 Lond 
 himself ; and not only so, but it was the Lord, employed at 
 the very time in the act of passing over the houses of die Israel- 
 ites, and that in Egypt ; and smiting the first-born both of mw 
 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 pignified 
 given to it at the moment of the institution, without any leading 
 
Fage 83.]" NOTES. 105 
 
 preparation, in the Lord's Supper, neither coiild it in the Pas- 
 sovcr.f^i^ 
 
 It appears then, that the figurative form of the institution of 
 the PiissovcT supplies us with a direct and full refutation of this 
 argument of the Bishop of Mcaux against the figurative inter- 
 pretation of the declarator)' words in the institution of tlie 
 Lord's Supper. 
 
 But to remove all obscurity from this subject, which has been 
 so unhappily obscured ; to establish the protcstant doctrine re- 
 lating to it upon its true principles, and vindicate the figurative 
 intei-pretation of the Lord's Supper from all objections whatev- 
 er ; it will be useful to shew, that the very nrinciples 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 Imrdness of 
 " the figure, I believe most protestant doctors have been ready 
 " enough to join with him.'Y/^J 
 
 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 realitj'^ 
 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^ £ffc. This is my bloody ^c. as meant to signify, — I 
 appoint this for a representative or memorial of my body, &c. 
 — and this for a representative or memorial of my blood, &c. 
 
 The proper use of language is to convey our thoughts. 
 
 fij It is a fact well worthy of remark, and such as desenes the most seri- 
 ous i-eflcction of all whom it concerns, tliat while a very great proportion of 
 the Christian world have been required to believe, and actually liavc 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- 
 cate Uie belief, of a real Presence or Transubstantiation in the Passover. 
 
 C^J Rational Account, &c. page 59. 
 
 O 
 
10& N O T E 9r [Page 85^. 
 
 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 speak- 
 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 are used properly ; nor is any 
 violence done to human language-and-expression, by their be- 
 ing used in a figurative, inbtead of their literal sense. 
 
 These positions, I presume, must be granted ; and from 
 them it will immediately follow, that if the words made vise of 
 by Jesus, in instituting the rite in question, were spoken by 
 him 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 ; 
 then 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 
 riolence 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 must 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- 
 lutt'ly impossible for those to whom they were addressed to imag- 
 ine they wfere 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 ver^' same with those they hadjust been partak- 
 ing ot in die Paschal Supper itself ; and had nothing in them 
 peculiar or uncommon : and this bread, he told them, was his 
 body given for thtm ; and this wine his blood of the JSciu Tes- 
 tament shed for them ; when they sav/ him, at the very time, 
 yet whole and unhurt before them ; and knew intuitively, that 
 his body was not given, nor his blood shed. So that unless 
 they had been real ideots, or absolute madmen, it was utterly 
 impossible for them to consider the words in question, as spoken 
 tQ them in any other than a figurative sense. 
 
Page 83.] NOTES. lOjT 
 
 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 by 
 the Bishop of Meaux, and readily joined in by the author of 
 the Rational Account j it appears, merely from considering the 
 words diemselves, and the circumstances in which they were 
 spoken, that the figurative interpretation of them must be 
 their true intci-pretation ; and that to understand them in the 
 literal sense, v/hen 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 
 consist ? — Ihe figure is nothing more, than the appointnvent of 
 one thing for the representative or memorial of another, by af- 
 firming it to be\.\\?a. 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 ; 
 cither that bread and wine arc things exceedingly unlike a man's 
 body and blood ; or, that the bread and wine are here said to 
 ^tf the body and blood ; instead of being said explicitly, and at 
 length, to be representatives or memorials of the body ;md blood. 
 But from neither of those circumstances can the least hardnc^' 
 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 clear- 
 ly signified, that it is appointed to represent, or be a memorial 
 of it. Nothing could in itself be more unlike the action of the 
 Lord's passinc? over the houses of the Israelites in Egvpt, when 
 he smote the first born, both of man and beast, in those of the 
 Kg\-ptians, than a lamb killed, dressed, and eaten, in any man- 
 ner whatever. Yet tlxe Paschal Supper, when once positively 
 appointed for a memorial of that transaction, was as clear and 
 indisputable a memorial of it, and did as effectually preserve 
 the memory of it, as any supposed representation of the trans- 
 action itself could have done. And in the same manner, though 
 bread and uine had not in themselves any natural resemblance 
 to the body and blood of Jesus, yet in consequence of being 
 expressly appointed by him to be taken as memorials of them, 
 
loa NOTES. [Pa^c 8ii, 
 
 they are in fact as clear and certain memorials of his sufferings, 
 as any representation of his sufferings could be. No 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 rhat," — 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 hardtjess 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 rita 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 the 
 thing. And when it is considered, that Jesus, and they to 
 whom he addressed himself on this occasion, had just been cel- 
 ebrating the Jewish Passover, the most signal memorial in .nat 
 religion, at the very time when he instituted this rite, for a me- 
 morial of himself in his own ; it must surely be confessed 
 nothing can be more natural, than that he should institute I'his 
 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 bt questioned, 
 that " the institution of a tiew rite required the use of simple 
 terms CYO '^^^t the assertion is destitute of all foundation in 
 truth. In instituting a new rite, as well as upon every other 
 occasion, it is requisite we should use our words in such a man- 
 
 rij See the passage quoted from him, page 103, 
 
 . V 
 
Page 83.] NOTES. 109 
 
 ner, that the sense in which we mean them to be understood, 
 whether Hteral or figurative, should appear : but this is all that 
 is required ; and when this point is properly taken cai-e 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, a« 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 tlie lamb so eaten could not be the action of the 
 Lord's passing over the houses of the Israelites in Egj-pt, in 
 any odier 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 — Takcy eat ; this is }?i^ 
 body ; this do in remembrance of me ; — and when he gave thtm 
 the cup, and said — Drink ye all of it; this is my blood of the 
 Nerv Testament ,• — or. This cup is the New Testament in my 
 blood ; — this do, as oft as ye drink it, tn remembrance of me ; 
 —the words he made use of were as properly used, and the 
 sense, in which he designed them to be understood, was as effect- 
 ually shewn to be figurative, as they M'ould have been, if he had 
 said explicitly of the bread, — This is tht memorial of my body ; 
 — and of the cup, — This is the memorial of my bloody Sec— be- 
 cause it was self evident at the time, that they could not be, 
 literally, either the one or the other.^mj 
 
 It pppears dien, merely from considering the use and intent 
 of language, tnat 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 fonn of 
 
 ^mj But let it not be imagined it is here meant to be inferred, that the 
 apostles comprehended at the time tlie 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 
 .TS fully authorised him to call them so, in a figurative sen«e ; widiout being 
 guilty of even the smallest impropriety in tlie use of language ; because those 
 circumstances must certainly liave convmccd the apostles at the time, that it 
 was a figurative sense onlv, in which he so denominated them.— As to the 
 furth- r design with which Jesus spoke and acted as he did in tliis instance, 
 that it was impossible for them to comprehend till by inspiration they were 
 fiilly instructed in the purpose, for which he appeared upon eartlij and in that 
 religion they had been selected to preach in his name. . 
 
110 NOTES. [PoffeSi. 
 
 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 
 sense only. 
 
 Bishop Warburton contends, ^n^ 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 ; 
 becau!>e, 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 Wai"burton 
 grants, that the words of the institution, if here used in a figu- 
 rative sense, really do extreme violence to human language and 
 expression ; — and if, in the next, it cannot be supposed, that Je- 
 
 fn ) Rational account, &c. pag« 59—61. 
 
' • 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 Page 83.] NOTES. Ill 
 
 sus in instituting a rite could use words ift 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. 
 
3;.-:::