The Nature and Design of the Eucharist, or Sacrament of the Lord's Supper
PREFACE.
In the following discourse, I J*aye aimed, not at new discoveries in theology, but to do justice to a subject misconceived by most, and neglected by many. A subject of the utmost consequence to divine revelation, and to the edification of the church of God. I shall not say, in order to vindicate its publication, that it was done in consequence of the ardent, oft-repeated importunity of many respectable friends. — Whatever may be owing to private friendship, is undoubtedly a high and imperious duty to discharge; but no man can be excused in obtruding on the public any thing unworthy its notice, by such motives as these. The holy eucharist I consider a rite designed by God to keep up a continual remembrance of the doctrine of the Atonement. In this point of view, I thought it was not commonly considered by the generality of Christians: and as I saw various opinions subversive of its nature and design prevailing among professors, I said, I will also show my opinion; in doing which, though I have brought my knowledge from afar, I have endeavoured to ascribe righteousness to my Maker.
In looking over my work I feel but little pleasure’ at the appearance of so many quotations in strange characters. I can say in my vindication, I did not seek these; they presented themselves on the respective subjects with which they are connected; and I accepted their assistance, judging that with many their testimony would go’ farther than my own. The plain unlettered reader will have no reason to complain of these, as the sense of each is carefully given; and the man of learning will not be displeased to have the originals presented here to his view, which he might not have always at hand. These things excepted, *I have endeavoured to be as plain and as clear as possible. I have affected no elegance of style: this, my subject did not require; plain common sense was all I aimed at. I have not even given the work the form of a sermon; and by the rules of such compositions, I hope no man will attempt to judge of it. I began it in the name of God, and I sincerely dedicate it to his glory. May his blessing accompany the reading of it! And may the important doctrine of the atonement made by the death of Christ, which it is chiefly intended to illustrate and defend* have free course, run and be glorified, and mighty deeds be done in the name of Jesus!
My whole mind on the execution of this work, I may express in the following words of an ancient writer: “If I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I desired. but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto — and here shall be ah end,”
INTRODUCTION.
An examination of the question, Did our Lord eat the Passover with his disciples on the last year of his public ministry?
As I shall have occasion frequently to refer to this subject in the ensuing discourse; a subject on which the Christian world has been divided for at least 1 500 years, the reader will naturally expect to find some notice taken of the controversy concerning it; and although a decision on the case cannot be expected, yet a fair statement of the principal opinions which, at different times, have been held and defended by learned men should undoubtedly be given.
With no show of propriety could such a controversy be introduced into the body of a discourse on the nature and design of the Lord’s supper; and yet the view I have taken of this ordinance is so intimately connected with the passover in general, that to pass by the controversy in silence would by m’a*ny be deemed inexcusable. I shall therefore briefly state the principal opinions on this question, the reasonings by which they are supported, and take the liberty to notice that one especially, which I judge to come nearest to the truth. The chief opinions are the four following:
I. Christ did not eat the passover on the last year of his ministry.
II. He did eat it that year, and at the same time with the Jews.
III. He did eat it that year, but not at the same time with the Jews.
IV He did eat a passover of his own instituting, but widely different from that eaten oy.the Jews.
I. The first opinion, that our. Lord did not eat the passover, is thus maintained by Dr. Wall, in his critical notes on Matt, xxvi, 1 7
“Here occurs a question, and a difference between the words of St. John and the other three (evangelists,) concerning the day of the week on which the Jews kept the passover that year, 4746, (a. d. 33.) It is plain by all the four gospels, that this day on which Christ did, at night, eat the passover, (or what some call the passover) was Thursday. And one would think, by reading the three, that that was the night on which the Jews did eat their passover lamb; but all the texts of St. John are clear that they did not eat it till the next night, Friday night, before which night Chrtst was crucified’and dead, having given up the ghost about the ninth hour, viz. three of the clock in the afternoon. St John does speak of a supper which Christ did eat on Thursday night with his apostles, ch. xiii, 12; but he does not call it a passover supper, but, on the contrary, says, it was before the feast of the passover, irgo <njs §0^5 tou •raoa; by which, t think, he means the say before the passover, or the passover eve, as we should say. Now this was the same night and same supper, which the three do call the passover, and Christ’s eating’ the passover. I mean, it was the night on which Christ was (a4ew hours after supper) apprehended; as is plain by the last verse of that thirteenth chapter. But the next day {Friday, on which Christ was crucified) St. John makes to be the passover day. He says, ch. xviii, 28, the Jews would not go into the judgment hall on Friday morning, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover, viz. that evening. And ch. xix, 14, speaking of Friday noon, he says, it was the preparation of the passover. Upon the whole, John speaks not of eating the passover at all; nor, indeed, do the three speak of his eating any lamb. Among all the expressions which they use, of making ready the passover: prepare for me to eat the passover; with desire have I desired to eat this passover with you, &c, there is no mention of any lamb carried to the temple to be slain by the Levites, and then brought to the house and roasted: there is no mention of any food at the suprJer besides bread and wine.; perhaps, there might be some bitter herbs. So that this seems to have been a commemorative supper, used by our Saviour instead of the proper paschal supper, the eating of a lamb, which should have been the next night, but that he himself was to be sacrificed before that time would come. And the difference between St. John and the others is only a difference in words and in the names of things. They call that the passover, which Christ used instead of it.’ If you say, why then does Mark, xiv, 12, call Thursday the first day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed; we must note their day (or. vupc&jjjt,s£ov,) was from evening to evening. This Thursdayevening was the beginning of that natural day of twenty-four hoars, towards the” end of which the lamb was to be killed; so it is proper, in the Jews’ way of calling days, to call it that day,”
II. He did eat the passover that year, and at the same time with the Jews.
1. The late Dr. Newcome, archbishop of Armagh, is of a very different opinion from Dr. Wall; and, from a careful collation of the passages in the Evangelists, concludes, “that our Lord did not anticipate this feast, but partook of it with the Jews, on the usual and national day.”
“It appears,’ says he, “from the gospel history, see Mark xv, 42, xvi, 9, that our Lord was crucified on Friday. But the night before his crucifixion, on which he was betrayed, 1 Cor. xi, 23, he kept the passover, and that he kept it at the legal time is thus determined. In Matt, xxyi, 2, and in Mark xiv, 1, it is said that the passover, xai ra a£u/*a, were after two days, or on the day following that on which Jesus’ foretold his sufferings and ‘184 INTRODUCTION.
resurrection to his disciples, Matt. xvi5 21, &c, Mark viii, 31, &c, and Luke ix, 22, &e.
‘’The Evangelists, proceeding regularly in their history, Matt, xxvi, 17, and in the parallel places, Mark xiv, 12, &c, Luke xxii, 7, &c, mention is made of this day, and it is called tfce first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, i. e. by general custom .: and St. Luke says that the day came, which, ver. 1, was approaching, when the passover must be killed; i. e. by the law of Moses. The 14th of Nisan is therefore meant; which is called tfgor*] aufxwv, the first of unleavened bread.
“During the week, therefore, of our Lord’s passion, the law of Moses required that the passover should be slain on Thursday afternoon; but our Lord partook of it on the night immediately succeeding, Matt, xxvi, 19, 20; and the parallel places, Luke xxii, 14, 15; and therefore he partook of it at the legal time.
“Mark xiv, 1% Luke xxii, 7, ‘equally prove that the lews kept the passover at the same time with Jesus.
“To the objection, John xviii, 28, that the Jews avoided defilement that they might eat the passover, the bishop answers, that they meant the paschal sacrifices offered for seven days; and they spoke particularly in reference to the, 15th of Nisan, which was a day of holy convocation.
To the objection taken from John xix, 14, that the day on which our Lord was crucified, is called leagcufxsvn <rou tfatfxa, the preparation of the passover, he replies, that in Mark xv, 42, tfcaCxsurj, preparation, is Ihe same as *£o- <fa§§arov, the day before the sabbath; and so in Luke xxiii, 54; therefore by ^atfxsurj rou -jratfa we may understand the preparation before that sabbath which happened during the paschal festival.” This is the substance of what archbishop Newcome says, both in his harmony and notes. See the latter, pp. 42-45.
To this it is answered, that the opinion which states
INTRODUCTION. jg
that our Lord ate the passover the same day and hour with the Jews, seems scarcely supportable. If he ate it the same hour the Jews ate theirs, he certainly could not have died that day, as they ate the passover on Friday, about six o’clock in the evening; — if he did not, he must have been crucified on Saturday, the Jewish sabbath, and could not have risen again on the first day of the week, as all the Evangelists testify, but on the second, or Monday, which I suppose few will attempt to support. On this and other considerations, I think this point should be given up. But others argue thus:
“That Christ intended to eat a passover with his disciples on this occasion, and intensely desired it too, we have the fullest proof from the three first evangelists,. See Matt xxvi, 1, 2, 3, 17-20; Mark xiv, 1, 12-16; Luke xxii, 1, 7-13. And that he actually did eat one with them must appear most evidently to those who shall carefully collate the preceding scriptures, and especially what St. Luke says, ch. xxii, 7-1 8; for when Peter and John had received their Lord’s command to go and prepare the passover, it is said, ver. 1 3, they went and found as he had said unto them; and they made ready the passover; i. e. got a lamb, and prepared it for the purpose, according to the law, ver. 14. And when the hour was come (to eat it) he sat down, avee and the twelve apostles with him, ver. 15, and he said unto them, with desire have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: where, it is to be noted, that they had now sat down to eat that passover which had been before prepared, and that every word which was spoken is peculiarly proper to the occasion. With desire, says our Lord, have I desired touto to tfaoa <paysiv, to eat this very passover; not ecf&mv to tfoKfya, to eat a passover, or something commemorative of it, but toute to flrarfa, this very passover: and it is no mean proof that they were then in the act of eating the flesh of the paschal lamb, from the use of the verb <paysiv, which is most proper to the eating of flesh, a?
i o
gG INTRODUCTION.
stdisiv signifies eating in general, or eating bread, pulse, &c. The same word, in reference to the same act of eating the passover, not to the bread and wine of the holy supper, is used, ver. 16, For I say unto you I will not any more eat thereof, ou pi <payw eg aurou, / will not eat of mm or it, viz. the paschal lamb, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God; i. e. this shall be the last passover I shall celebrate on earth, as I am now about to suffer, and the kingdom of God, the plenitude of the gospel dispensation, shall immediately take place. And then, according to this evangelist, having finished the eating of the paschal lamb, he instituted the bread of the Holy Supper, ver. 1 9, and afterwards the cup, ver. 20, though he and they had partaken of the cup of blessing, (usual on such occasions) with the paschal lamb, immediately before; see ver. 17 Whoever carefully considers the whole of this account, must be convinced that, whatever may come of the question concerning the time of eating the passover, that our Lord did actually eat one with his disciples before he suffered.” What this passover most probably was, we shall see under the fourth opinion.
III. He did eat the passover that year, but not at the same time with the Jews.
3. Dr. Cudworth, who of all others has handled this subject best, has proved from the Talmud, Mishna, and some of the most reputable of the Jewish rabbins, that the ancient Jews about our Saviour’s time, often solemnized as well the passovers as the other feasts, upon the ferias next before and after the sabbaths. And that as the Jews in ancient times reckoned the new moons not according to astronomical exactness, but according to the <patfis, or moon’s appearance: and, as this appearance might happen a day later than the real time, consequently there might be a whole day of difference in the time of celebrating one of these feasts, which depended on a particular day of the month; the days of the month being counted from the <pa<ris, or appearance of the new moon
As he describes the whole manner of doing this, both from the Babylonish Talmud, and from Maimonides, I shall give an extract from this part of his work, that my readers may have the whole argument before them.
“In the great or outer court there was a house called Beth Yazek, where the senate sat all the 30th day of every month, to receive the witnesses of the moon’s appearance and to examine them. If there came approved witnesses on the 30th day, who could state they had seen the new moon, the chief man of the senate stood up, and cried anpD mekuddash, it is sanctified; and the people standing by caught the word from him, and cried, mekuddash! mekuddash! But if, when the consistory had sat all the day, and there came no approved witnesses of the phasis, or appearance of the. new moon, then they made an intercalation of one day in the former month, and decreed the following one-and-thirtieth day to be the calends. But, if after the fourth or fifth day, or even before theeitd of the month, respectable witnesses came from far, and testified they had seen the new moon, in its due time; the senate were bound to alter the beginning of the month, and reckon it a day sooner, viz. from the thirtieth day.
“As the senate were very unwilling to be at the trouble of a second consecration, when they had even fixed on a wrong day, and therefore received very reluctantly the testimony of such witnesses as those last mentioned, they afterWards made a statute to this effect — That whatsoever time the senate should conclude on for the calends of the month, though it were certain they were in the wrong, yet all were bound to order their feasts according to it This Dr. Cudworth supposes, actually took place in the time of our Lord, and” as it is not likely that our Lord would submit to this perversion of the original custom, and that following the true <pa,<hgt or appearance of the new moon, confirmed by sufficient witnesses, he and his disciples ate the passover on that day; but the Jews, following the pertinacious decree of the sanhe-
^gg INTRODUCTION.
drin, did not eat it till the day following.” Dr. C. farther shows from Epiphanius, that there was a contention, dopv&Si a tumult, among the Jews about the passover, that very year. Hence, it is likely, that what was the real paschal day to our Lord, his disciples, and many other pious Jews, who adopted the true <patfis phasis, was only the preparation or antecedent evening to others, who acted on the decree of the senate. Besides, it is worthy of note, that not only the Karaites, who do not acknowledge the authority of the Sanhedrin, but also the rabbins themselves grant, that were the case is doubtful, the passover should be celebrated with the same ceremonies, two days together: and, it was always doubtful, when the appearance of the new moon could not be fully ascertained.
Bishop Pearse supposes, that it was lawful for the Jews to eat the paschal lamb at any time, between the evening of Thursday, and that of Friday; and, that this permission was necessary, because of the immense number of lambs which were to be killed for that purpose: as in one year, there were not fewer than 256,500 lambs offered. See Josephus’s War, b. vii, c. 9, sect. 3. In Matt, xxvi, ver. 17, it is said, now the first dap of the feast of unleavened bread, (ttj Ss «garj) twv aufwov) the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? As the feast of unleavened bread, did not begin till the day after the passover, the fifteenth day of the month, Lev. xxiii, 5, 6; Num. xxviii, 16, 17, this could not have been properly the first day of that feast: but as the J,ews began to eat unleavened bread on the fourteenth day. Exod. xii, 18, this day was often termed theirs, of unleavened bread. Now it appears, that the evangelists use it in this sense, and call even the paschal day by this name, see Mark xiv, 12; Luke xxii< 7.
At first view this third opinion, which states that Christ did eat the passover with his disciples that year, but not m the same hour with the Jews; and that he expired on the cross the same hour in which the paschal lamb was killed, seems the most probable. For it appears, from what has already been remarked, that our Lord and his disciples ate the passover some hours before the Jews ate theirs; for they, according to custom, ate theirs at the end of the fourteenth day, but Christ appears to have eaten his the preceding evening, which was the beginning of the same sixth day of the week, or Friday, for the Jews began their day at sunsetting; we at midnight. Thus Christ ate the passover the same day with the Jews, but not on the same hour. Christ, therefore, kept this passover the beginning of the fourteenth day, the precise day in which the Jews had eaten their first passover in Egypt: see Exod. xii, 6-12. And in the same part of the same day in which they had sacrificed their first paschal lamb, viz. between the two evenings, i. e. between the sun’s declining west and his setting about the third hour, Jesus our passover was sacrificed for us. For it was about the thirdiour, Mark xv. 25, when Christ was nailed to the cross, and about the ninth hour, Matthew xxvii, 46; Mark xv, 34, Jesus knowing that the antitype had accomplished every thing shadowed forth by the type or paschal lamb; he said, it is finished, rsrsXeovai completed, perfected, and having thus said, he bowed his head and dismissed his spirit. ^apsJwxs to irvevpu, Jn. xix, 30.
Probably there is but one objection of any force that lies against the opinion, that our Lord ate his passover some hours before the Jews in general ate theirs; which is, that, if our Lord did eat the passover the evening before the Jews, in general, ate theirs, it could not have been sacrificed according to the law; nor is it at all likely that the blood was sprinkled at the foot of the altar. If, therefore, the blood was not thus sprinkled by one of the priests, that which constituted the very essense of the rite as ordained by God, was lacking in that celebrated by our Lord.
To this it may be answered: First, we have already seen that, in consequence of the immense number of sacrifices to be offered on the paschal solemnity, it was highly probable the Jews were obliged to employ two days for this work. It is not at all likely that the blood of 256,500 lambs could be shed and sprinkled at one altar, in the course of one day, by all the priests in Jerusalem, or indeed in the Holy Land; since they had but that one altar where they could legally sprinkle the blood of the victims.
Secondly, we have also seen that, in cases of doubt relative to the time of the appearance of the new moon, the Jews were permitted to hold the passover both days; and that it is probable such a dubious case existed at the time in question. In any of these cases, the lamb might have been killed and its blood sprinkled according to the rules and ceremonies of the Jewish church.
Thirdly, as our Lord was the true Paschal Lamb, who was, in a few hours after this time, to bear away the sin of the world, he might dispense with this part of the ceremony, and act as Lord of his own institution in this, as he had done before in the case of the sabbath. At any rate, as it seems probable that he ate the passover at this time, and that he died about the time the Jews offered theirs, it may be fully presumed that he left nothing undone towards a due performance of the rite* which the present necessity required, or the law of God could demand.
The objection, that our Lord and his disciples appear to have sat or reclined at table all the time they ate what is supposed above to have been the passover, contrary to the paschal institution, which required them to eat it standing, with their staves in their hands, their loins girded, and their shoes on, cannot be considered as having any great weight in it; for, though the terms avs«s<rs9 Matt, xxvi, 20, and avsxgiro, Luke xxii, 14, are used in reference to their eating that evening, and these words signify, reclining at table, or on a couch, as is the custom of
INTRODUCTION. jg.j
the Orientals, it does not follow that they must necessarily be restrained to that meaning; nor does it appear that this part of the ceremony was much attended to, perhaps not at all, in the latter days of the Jewish church.
IV He did eat a passover of his own instituting, but widely different from that eaten by the Jews.
4. Mr. Toinard, in his Greek Harmony of the Gospels, strongly contends, that our Lord did not eat what is commonly called the passover this year, but another, of a mystical kind. His chief arguments are the following:
It is indubitably evident, from the text of St. John, that the night on the beginning of which our Lord supped with his disciples, and instituted the holy sacrament, was not that on which the Jews celebrated the passover; but the preceding evening, on which the passover could not be legally offered. The conclusion is evident from the following passages: John xiii, 1. Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knowing, &c, ver. 2. And supper (not the paschal, but an ordinary supper) being ended, &c, ver. 27. That thou doest, do quickly, ver. 28. Now no one at the table knew for what intent he spake this, ver. 29. For some thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy what we have need of against the feast, &c, chap, xviii, 28. Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas to the hall of judgment, and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover, “chap, xix, 14. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour. Now, as it appears that, at this time, the disciples thought our Lord had ordered Judas to go and bring what was necessary for the passover, and they were then supping together, it is evident it was not the paschal lamb on which they were supping; and it is as evident, from the unwillingness of the Jews to §o into the hall of judgment, that they had not as yet eaten the passover. These words are plain, and can be taken in no other sense without offering them the greatest violence.
Mr. Toinard, having found that our Lord was crucified on the sixth day of the week, (Friday) during the paschal solerpnity, in the thirty-third year of the vulgar era, and that the paschal moon of that year was not in conjunction with the sun till the afternoon of Thursday the 19th of March, and that the new moon could not be seen in Judea until the following day, (Friday) concluded, that the intelligence of the <pa<r<s, or appearance of the new moon, could not be made by the witnesses to the beth din, or senate, sooner than Saturday morning, the 2 1 st of March. That the first day of the first Jewish month, Nisan, could not commence that thirty-third year sooner than the setting of the sun on Friday March 20th; and, consequently, that Friday, April 3d, on which Christ died, was the 14th of Nisan (not -the 15th) the day appointed by law for the celebration of the passover. All these points he took care to have ascertained by the nicest astronomical -calculations, in which he was assisted by a very eminent astronomer and mathematician, Bullialdus (Mr. Bouilleau.)
These two last opinions, apparently contradictory, and which alone; of all those offered on the subject, deserve consideration, may be brought to harmonize. That Jesus ate the passover with his disciples the evening before the Jews ate theirs, seems pretty clearly proved from the text of St. Luke, and the arguments founded on that text.
All that is assumed there, to make the whole consistent, is, that the Jews, that year, held the passover both on the 13th and 14th of Nisan, because of the reasons already assigned; and that therefore Peter and John, who were employed on this business, might have got the blood legally sprinkled by the hands of a priest, which was all that was necessary to the legality of the rite.
But, secondly, should it appear improbable that such double celebration took place at this time, and that our
INTRODUCTION, jg3
Lord could not have eaten the passover that year with his disciples, as he died on the very hour on which the paschal lamb was slain, and consequently before he could legally eat the passover; how then can the text of St. Luke be reconciled with this fact? I answer, with the utmost ease, by substituting a passover for the passover; and simply assuming, that our Lord at this time instituted the Holy Eucharist in place of the Paschal Lamb; and thus it will appear he ate a passover with his disciples the evening before his death, viz. the mystical passover, or sacrament of his body and blood; arid that this was the passover which he so ardently longed to eat with his disciples before he suffered. This is the opinion of Mr. Toinard, and, if granted, solves every difficulty. Thus the whole controversy is brought into a very narrow compass: — our Lord did eat a passover with his disciples some short time before he died : — the question is, what passover did he eat — the regular legal passover, or a mystical one? That he ate a passover is, I think, demonstrated; but whether the literal or mystical one is a matter of doubt. On this point, good and learned men may innocently hesitate and differ: but, on either hypothesis, the text of the evangelists is unimpeachable, and all shadow of contradiction done away; for the question then rests on the peculiar meaning of names and words. On this hypothesis, the preparation of the passover must be considered as implying no more than — 1. Providing a convenient room — 2. Bringing water for the baking on the following day, because on that day the bringing of the water would have been unlawful — 3. Making inquisition for the leaven, that every thing of this kind might be removed from the house where the passover was to be eaten, according to the very strict and awful command of God, Exod. xii, 15-20, xxiii, 15, and xxxiv, 25. These, it is probable, were the acts of preparation which the disciples were commanded to perform, Matt, xxvi, 18, Mark xiv, 13, 14, Luke xxii, 8-11, and which, on their arrival at the city, they punctually executed. See Matt, xxvi, 19, Mark xiv, 16, Luke xxii, 13. Thus every thing was prepared, and the holy sacrament instituted, which should, in the Christian church, take place of the Jewish passover, and continue to be a memorial of the sacrifice which Christ was about to make by his death on the cross; for, as the paschal lamb had showed forth his death till he came, this death fulfilled the design of the rite, and sealed up the vision and prophecy.
All preparations for the true paschal sacrifice being now made, Jesus was immediately betrayed, shortly after apprehended, and in a few hours expired upon the cross. It is, therefore, very likely that he did not literally eat the passover this year; and may I not add, that it is more than probable that the passover was not eaten in the whole land of Judea on this occasion. The rending of the vail of the temple, Matt, xxvii, 51, Markxv, 38, Luke xxiii, 45, the terrible earthquake, Matt, xxvii, 51-54, the dismal and Unnatural darkness which was over the whole land of Judea from the sixth hour (twelve o’clock) to the ninth hour, (i. e. three o’clock in the afternoon,) with all the other prodigies which took place on this awful occasion, we may naturally conclude were more than sufficient to terrify and appal this guilty nation, and totally to prevent the celebration of the paschal ceremonies. Indeed, the time in which killing the sacrifices, and sprinkling the blood of the lambs should have been performed, was wholly occupied with these most dreadful portents; and it would be absurd to suppose that? under such terrible evidences of the divine indignation, any religious ordinances or festive preparations could possibly have taken place.
My readers will, probably, be surprised to see the preceding opinions so dissentient among themselves, and the plausible reasons by which they are respectively supported, where each seems by turns to prevail. When I took
19o
t:
up the question, I had no suspicion that it was encumbered with so many difficulties. These I now feel and acknowledge; nevertheless, I think the plan of reconciling the texts of the evangelists, particularly St. Luke and St. John, which I have adopted above, is natural, and I am in hopes will not appear altogether unsatisfactory to my readers. On the subject, circumstanced as it is, hypothesis alone can prevail; for indubitable evidence and certainty cannot be obtained. The morning of the resurrection is, probably, the nearest period in which accurate information on this point can be expected. “Je suis trompe,” says Bouilleau, “si cette question pent etre jamais lien eclaircie.” -~lf I be not mistaken, this question will nevev be thoroughly understood,
A DISCOURSE
Do this in remembrance of me, is a command by which our blessed Lord has put both the affection and piety of his disciples to the test. If they love him they will keep his commandments; for, to them that love, his commandments are not grievous. It is a peculiar excellence of the gospel economy, that all the duties it enjoins become the highest privileges to those that obey.
Among the ordinances prescribed by the gospel, that, commonly called the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, has ever held a distinguished place; and the church of Christ, in all ages, has represented the due religious celebration of it as a duty incumbent on every soul that professed faith in Christ Jesus, and sought for salvation through his blood alone. Hence, it was ever held in the highest estimation and reverence; and the great High Priest of his church showed, by more than ordinary influences of his blessed Spirit on the souls of the faithful, that they had not mistaken his meaning, nor believed in vain; while, by eating of that bread, and drinking of that cup, they endeavoured to show forth his death, and realize the benefits to be derived from it.
If Jesus, in his sacrificial character, met with opposition from the inconsiderate, the self righteous, and the profane; no wonder that an ordinance, instituted by himself for the express purpose of keeping up a continual memorial by means of the most expressive emblems, of his having died for our offences, was decried, neglected, and abused. The spirit of innovation and error left no means untried to pervert its meaning, restrain its influence, and decry its effects; but the true followers of God overcame all by the blood of the Lamb, and by their testimony; and, for holding fast faith and a good conscience in reference to this sacred ordinance, how many of them were cruelly tortured; and not a few, on this very account, gloriously maintaining the truth, were obliged to seal it with their blood.
The sanguinary persecutions, raised up in this land against the Protestants, in the days of that weak and worthless queen, Mary I. were levelled principally against the right use of this ordinance. It was not because our fathers refused to obey the then constituted authorities of the state, that they were so cruelly and barbarously oppressed and murdered; it was not because they were not subject to every ordinance of man, not only for wrath (for fear of punishment) but for conscience sake, that they had trial of cruel mockings; but because they believed concerning this divine ordinance as Jesus Christ had taught them, and boldly refused to prefer the ignorance of man to the wisdom and authority of God.
The abomination which maketh desolate had got into the holy place: the state, corrupt and languid in every department, had resigned the administration of all affairs into the hands of a church illiterate and profligate beyond all example and precedent. In this awful situation of affairs, the genuine followers of God showed themselves at once, not in opposition to a tyrannical government, but in opposition to a corrupt and unprincipled priesthood. They would not, because they could not believe, that a little flour and water kneaded together, and baked in the oven, were the body and blood of the Saviour of the world — the God who made the heavens and the earth, and the only object of religious adoration! — “Away,” said the murderous priests, “with such fellows from the earth! they are not fit to live: let them have judgment without mixture of mercy, and anticipate their final damnation by perishing in the flames!” — And they, rather than defile their conscience or deny their God, embraced death in its most terrific forms; and, through the medium of Smithfield flames, were hurried into a distinguished rank among the noble army of martyrs!
SACRAMENT OP THE LORD’S SUPPER, yu
“Godlike men! how firm they stood!
Seeding their country with their blood.”
In this most honourable contest, besides the vast numbers who suffered by fines, confiscation, and imprisonment, not less than 277 persons fell a sacrifice to the ignorance, bigotry, and malevolence of the papal hierarchy. Among these were one archbishop, four bishops, twenty one
CLERGYMEN, eight LAY GENTLEMEN, eigkty-foUT TRADES-MEN, one hundred rvsbanbme, ffty-fve women, and four children, who were all burnt alive, and this with circumstances of cruelty and horror, which surpassed the bloodiest persecutions of pagan antiquity! But they conquered, and were glorious in their death; and have handed down to us, uncorrupted, those living oracles, and that holy worship, which were their support and exultation in the cloudy and dark day. Do their descendants lay these things to heart, and prize that holy ordinance, on account of which their forefathers suffered the loss of all things? Are we indifferent whether, on this point, orthodoxy or heterodoxy prevail? Or, what is of infinitely worse consequence, have we so neglected or misused this holy ordinance, until we have at length ceased to discern the Lord’s body? Is it not to be feared that the sacrament of the Lord’s supper has fallen into disuse with many, because they do not understand its nature and moral obligation? And can it be deemed invidious to express a fear, that possibly, much of the blame attaches to the ministers of the gospel, because they are remiss in urging the commandment of their Lord, and showing the high privileges of those who conscientiously obey it? To remedy this defect, as far as it relates to myself, I shall endeavour to set before the reader some observations on
I. The nature and design of this institution,
II. The manner of its celebration.
III. The proper meaning of the different epithets given to it in the Scriptures, and by the primitive church. And,
IV And a few reasons to enforce the due and religious celebration of it, principally deduced from the preceding observations.
1. As our blessed Lord celebrated this ordinance immediately after his eating what St. Luke calls the passover with his disciples, and for which 1 shall, by and by, prove he intended it to be the substitute; it may be necessary to say a few words on that ancient rite, in order the more particularly to discern the connection subsisting between them, and the reference they have to each Other.
The passover (noa pesach) was a sacrifice ordained by the Lord in memory of Jehovah’s passing over (according to the import of the word) the houses of the Israelites, when he destroyed all the first-born in the land of Egypt; and was certainly designed to prefigure not only the true paschal lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was sacrificed for us, 1 Cor. v, 7, but also the reception which those might expect who should flee for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before them, by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. As this is a point of considerable importance, in reference to a right understanding of the nature and design of the Lord’s supper, it maybe necessary to show more particularly, both from the Scriptures and the ancient Jewish and Christian writers, that the paschal lamb was considered by them as a sacrifice of a piacular, nature.
God had required that all sacrifices should be brought to the tabernacle or temple, and there offered to him; and this was particularly enjoiried in respect to the passover: so Deut xvi, 5. Thou shalt not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, but at the place which the Lord thy God chooseth to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice. And this divine injunction was more particularly attended to in the case of the passover than in any other sacrifice; so that the ancient Jews themselves have remarked, that, even in the time when high places were permitted, they dared not to sacrifice the passover any where but in that place where God had registered his name. Thus Maimonides, in Halachah Pesach, c. l. Dr. Cudworth, who has written excellently on this subject, has proved at large from the Scriptures and the ancient Jewish doctors, that the passover was ever considered by them as a sacrificial rite. To which may be added that Josephus, considered it in the same light, by calling it, ©utfia, a sacrifice; and Trypho, the Jew, in his conference with Justin Martyr, speaks of f o&wov rev xutxa fosiv, sacrificing the paschal lamb. Maimonides, in the tract above referred to, written expressly on this subject, speaks of the lamb as a victim, and of the solemnity itself as a sacrifice. Another of their best writers, Rab. Bechai, Com. in Levit. ii, 11, says, that “the paschal sacrifice was instituted in order to expiate the *uilt contracted by the idolatrous practices of the Israeltes in Egypt.” And St. Paul puts the matter beyond dis- 3Ute, by saying, to tfoufya yluv umsg TjfAwv sMrt xSt<fT0S> our oassover, Christ, is sacrificed for us; wsg tjjwwv, on our iccount, or in our stead. It is worthy of remark, that ,vhen the passover was first instituted, a lamb was slain n every family, not by the hands of a priest, for that, would have been impossible, as only one existed who had jeen divinely appointed; but by the first-born in every amily, who were all considered as priests, till the consecration of the whole tribe of Levi to this ofiice; in consequence of which the first-born were redeemed, i. e. exempted from this service, by paying a certain sum to the sanctuary.
Justin Martyr, in his conference with Trypho the Jew, maintains this sentiment in a very strenuous manner; showing from the Scriptures, and the nature of this sacriicial rite, that it was a type of Christ Crucified for the nn of the world. One circumstance which he asserts, without contradiction from his learned opponent, is, I :hink, worthy of notice; whether the reader may think it if much consequence to the present subject or not. ,f This lamb,” says he, “which was to be entirely roasted, was a symbol of the punishment of the cross, which was inflicted on Christ. To jug osrrwjwsvov iroQarov, rfpcwryofASvovojuuoiwg tw ojxari <rou oVayou, oifrarai. E»£ ya% 0^105 oSsXkTxos Siarfspovarai atfo <rwv xarw<ra<rwv psguv f/^Xf r*ls xstpaXTjs, xai eig tfaXiv xa<ra to psraygsvov, w tfgotfagTuvrai xai ai %£«^5? <rou <7rgo§a<rou. “For the lamb which was roasted was so placed as to resemble the figure of a cross: with one spit it was pierced longitudinally, from the tail to the head; with another it was transfixed through the shoulders, so that the fore legs became extended.” Fid. Just. Martyri Opera ab Oberthur, vol. ii, p. 106. To some this may appear trifling; but it has seemed right to the wisdom of God to typify the most interesting events by emblems of comparatively less moment. He is sovereign of his own ways, and he chooses often to confound the wisdom of the wise, not only by the foolishness of preaching, but also by the various means he employs to bring about the great purposes of his grace and justice. The manner of this roasting was certainly singular; and of the fact we cannot doubt, for Trypho himself neither attempted to ridicule nor deny it.
But, while I am considering the testimony of Justin Martyr, there is another passage still more extraordinary, which I wish to place before the reader. In his dispute with this learned and captious Jew, he asserts, that the Jews, through their enmity to the Christian religion, had expunged several passages from the sacred writings, which bore testimony to Christ, and to his vicarious sufferings and death; and of which (at the challenge of Trypho, who denied the fact) he produces several instances, among which the following is the most remarkable: — When Ezra celebrated the passover, as is related Ezra vi, .19, &c. Justin says, he spoke as follows: — Kai eitfsv Erfag tw Xaw, touto ro tfaaa 0 (Surw *]|u,wv, xai 73 xttToupwyv) *i(Awv xai saw 5(avo*irs, xai ava§*j u/xwv sifi <r»jv xaMiav? on fAsXXofASv avrov rcwr’sivouv sv tf/AS/w, xai (jt,e<ra ravru sXttjo’wjui.sv gir’
rav Svvctpeuv. Eav 5s /xr) tfisutfiirs au<rw, f*j5s sisaxou(T7)TS <rou xrigvy* ^taroff aurou, stfsrfs saa rois svstfi. “And Ezra spoke unto the people, and said: — ‘This passover is our Saviour and our Refuge: and if ye shall understand and ponder it in your heart, that we shall afflict him for a sign; and if afterwards we shall believe on him, this place shall not be desolated for ever, saith the Lord of Hosts. But if ye will not believe on him, nor hear his preaching, ye shall be a laughing stock to the Gentiles.’” Vid. Just. Martyria Opera ab Oberthur, vol. ii, p. 196. This, Justin asserts, the Jews had blotted out of the Septuagint translation; and, if so they took care to expunge it from the Hebrew also; for, at present, it exists in neither. Allowing this passage to be authentic, it is a full proof ol my position, that the paschal lamb was an expiatory sacrifice, and that it prefigured the death and atonement of Jesus -Christ. But of this the proofs already produced are sufficient; particularly that from St. Paul; independently of the quotation from Justin Martyr.
It is also worthy of remark, that, even after the consecration of the tribe of Levi, and the redemption of the first-born, it was the custom for the people to kill their own passovers; but the sacrificial act, the sprinkling of the blood, belonged solely to the priests. “Five things,” says Rab. Abarbanel, “were to be done by those who brought a sacrifice, and five things by the priest. The first five were. 1. Laying on of hands 2. Killing. 3. Flaying. 4. Cutting up. 5. Washing the intestines. Those done by the priests were. 1. Receiving the blood into a vessel. 2, Sprinkling it upon the altar. 3. Putting the fire upon the altar. 4. Laying the wood in’ order upon the fire. 5. Putting the pieces of the victim in order on the wood.” Here we see the part which both the people and priests took in their sacrifices; and these circumstances will give us additional light in another part of this discourse: only we must observe, that the paschal lamb was never cut up, or burnt; it was roasted whole, and eaten by the offerer and his family.
The manner of celebrating the paschal sacrifice is particularly detailed in the Mishna, “A monument of such antiquity as cannot,” says Dr. Cudworth, “be distrusted in these rites.” Nothing, say the rabbins, was killed before the morning sacrifice, and after the evening sacrifice nothing but the passover. The evening sacrifice was usually killed between the eighth and ninth hour, i. e. half an hour after two in the afternoon, and offered between the ninth and tenth, i. e. half an hour after three. But, in the evening of the passover, the daily sacrifice was killed an hour sooner; and after that began the killing of the passover, which was to be done between the two evenings, a’a-^n pa been haarbayeem, Exod. xii, 6; the first of these began at noon, from the sun’s declination towards the west, and the second at sunset. But the paschal lamb might be killed before the daily sacrifice, provided there was a person to stir the blood and keep it from coagulating, till the blood of the daily sacrifice was sprinkled; for that was always sprinkled first. The lambs, says the Mishna, were always killed by three several companies: this they founded on Exod. xii, 6. And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening, understanding the words up kahal, mp edeth, and ^n*w yishrael, as implying three different companies; by the first they meant the priests, by the second he Levites, and by the third the people at large: when once the court was full, they shut to the doors, and the priests stood all in their ranks, with round-bottomed vessels in their hands, some of gold, and some of silver, to receive the blood. Those who held the golden vessels stood in a rank by themselves, as did those who held the silver vessels. These vessels had no rim at the bottom, to prevent them from being set on the ground, lest the blood should congeal in them. The priests then took the blood and handed it from one
SACRAMENT OP THE LORD’S SUPPER. oy
lo another, till it came to him who stood next the altar, who sprinkled it at the bottom of the altar. After the blood was sprinkled, the lamb was hung up and flayed. The hanging up was deemed essentially necessary, insomuch that if there was no convenience to suspend it, two men, standing with their hands on each other’s shoulders, had the lamb suspended to their arms till the skin was flayed off When flayed, it was opened, and the inwards taken out and laid on the altar; and then the owner took up the lamb with its skin, and carried it to his own house. The first company being dismissed, the second came in, and the door was shut as before; and after these the third company: and for every company they sang anew the hallel, S^n or paschal hymn, which begun with Psalm cxiii, praise ye the Lord, rr-Mn halleluyah, and ended with Psalm cxviii. This singing continued the whole time employed in killing the lambs. When they ended the hallel, they began it a second time, and so on till the third time; but it was never sung entirely the third time, as the priests had generally finished by the time they came to the beginning of Psalm cxvi. 1 love the Lord, because he hath heard my voice, &c. When the lamb was brought home, they roasted it on a spit made of the wood of the pomegranate tree; for iron was prohibited, and also all wood that emitted moisture when brought near to the fire; but, as the wood of the pomegranate tree was free of moisture, it was commanded to be used on this occasion. See Mishtia, by Surenhusius, vol. ii, p. 135. Tract, ddd Pesachim. These are the most essential matters mentioned in the Mishna, relative to this solemnity, some of which tend to cast much light on our Lord’s words and conduct on this occasion.
That the holy eucharist was instituted in/«ceofthe passover has been largely proved by many, as also that baptism succeeded to circumcision. Dr. Waterland, who has summed up the opinions of learned men on this subject, observes, that there are resembling circumstances common to the Jewish and Christian passover, which may be divided into two kinds — 1. Some relating to the things themselves — 2. Some to the phrases and forms made use of in both.
I. Of the first sort are these : — 1. The passover was of divine appointment, and so was the eucharist — 2. The passover was a sacrament, and so is the eucharist — 3. The passover was a memorial of a great deliverance from temporal bondage; the eucharist is a memorial of a greater deliverance from spiritual bondage — 4. The passover prefigured the death of Christ before it was accomplished; the eucharist represents, or figures Out that death now past — 5. The passover was a kind of fozderal rite between God and man; so is the eucharist, as it points out the blood of the sacrifice offered for the ratification of the covenant between God and man — - 6. As no person could partake of the paschal lamb before he was circumcised, Exod. xii, 43-48, so, among the early followers of God, no person was permitted to come to the eucharist till he had been baptized — 7. As the Jews were obliged to come to the passover free from all defilements, unless in case of burying the dead, which, though a defilement, was nevertheless unavoidable, Numb- ix, 6, 9: so the Holy Scripture commands every man to examine himself before he attempts to eat of this bread, or drink of this cup; and to purge out the old leaven of malice and wickedness, 1 Cor. xi, 27-29. 8. As the neglect or conteynpt of the passover subjected a man to be cut off from Israel, Exod. xii, 1 5; Numb, ix, 14; so, a contempt and rejection of, at least, the thing signified by the holy eucharist, viz. the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, must necessarily exclude every man from the benefits of Christ’s passion and death — 9. As the passover was to continue as long as the Jewish law was in force, so the eucharist is to continue till Christ shall come to judge the world.
SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. cjq;
II. The second sort of resembling circumstances concerns the particular forms and phrases made use of in the institution — 1. In the paschal supper, the master of the house took bread, and gave thanks to God, who had provided it for the sustenance of man. Our Lord copied this circumstance precisely in the institution of the eucharist — 2. It was also a custom for the master of the house to break the bread, either before or after the benediction offered to God; — that our Lord copied this custom, every reader knows — 3. The master of the house distributed this broken bread, for it does not appear that the family were permitted to take it themselves; so our Lord, after having broken the bread, gave it to the disciples, saying, Take, eat, &c — 4. In the paschal feast the master was accustomed to take a cup of wine, and pronounce a benediction to God, or thanksgiving over it, after which it was termed the cup of bless* ing; to this circumstance St. Paul particularly alludes, when he says, The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? 1 Cor. x, 1 6 — 5. At the institution of the passover, it was said, The blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, &c, Exod. xii, 13. The blood was a token or sign of the covenant, or agreement, then made between God and them, and ratified partly by pouring out the blood of the paschal lamb, and partly by feeding on the flesh of this sacrifice. In the institution of the eucharist, our Lord says, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins. The cup, here, is put for wine; and covenant is put for the token or sign of the covenant. The wine as representing Christ’s blood, answers to the blood of the passover, which was typical of the blood of our Lord; and the remission of sins here, answers to the passing over there and preserving from death — 6. At the paschal feast, there was a declaration of the great things which God had done for that people;
■2Qo SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER.
and our Lord makes use of the eucharist to declare and point out the great mercy of God in our redemption; for it shows forth the Lord’s death, (and, consequently, all the benefits to be derived from it,) till he himself shall come to judge the world — 7. At the paschal solemnity, they were accustomed to sing a hymn of praise to God, (see before, p. 32,) and this part of their conduct our Lord and his disciples exactly copied — And when they had sung a hymn, they departed. &c.
The many resembling circumstances, real and verbal, abundantly show, that this holy eucharist was in a great measure, copied from the paschal feast, and was intended to supply its place, only heightening the design, and improving the application. See Dr. Waterland’s Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, p. 64, &c.
Having now proved that the paschal lamb was a sacrifice, and seen that it prefigured the atonement made by Christ our passover; and that in his death, and the circumstances attending it, the whole typical reference of that solemnity was not only verified but fulfilled: and having also seen that it was in reference to the great atonement typified by the passover, and also that it was in the place of that ancient ordinance, that our Lord instituted the holy sacrament of his last supper; I shall now, more particularly,
II. Consider this divine institution, and the manner of celebrating it., v
To do this in the most effectual manner, I think it necessary to set down the text of three evangelists, who have transmitted the whole account, collated with that part of St.; Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, which speaks of the same subject, and which, he assures us, he received by divine revelation. It may seem strange that although John chap, xiii, v. 1-38, mentions all the circumstances preceding the holy supper, and, from chap, xiv, 1-36, the circumstances which succeeded the breaking of the bread, and in chapters xv, xvi, and xvii, the § s
Ah t-H Q r7 —
.3 .rt
«J t3 a «n
SS2.2
CO
CU
CO
8 •” w
45 — r*
6 s
a -a “H
:>
B
O
CO r3
2 s
5 <o
<u o
O O
O tsJO
V.. 3
r* — *
IS
. :-2c
O to
.
«3 “3
-Sc
CO
3§
LO
0 <o
£2
in
cB <,
C
T3
d 17th
e whole
, CO
S
*
. J3
<£
R-a
D T3
e
CO rt
0)
SO-S
S|
a
&
0
S S
bDO>
a J3
3
CO
“^ e
•S *»”
>»■?
a °
£ °
a
+j
-s-l
«3 e
ja Si
-a 1
r**a
T1 0>
scourse wh
zceed the Jo
V. 26. An
hymn, th
0.
0
?2
ei
s -a
3 *-
in
re .3
J=
a a
CO
6 G °
>’^”§
M 3 discourse which followed the administration of the cup; yet he takes no notice of the divine institution at all. This is generally accounted for on his knowledge of what the other three evangelists had written; and on his conviction, that their relation was true, and needed no additional confirmation, as the matter was amply established by the conjoint testimony of three such respectable witnesses.
From the preceding harmonized view of this importanl transaction, as decribed by three evangelists and ont apostle, we see the first institution, nature, and desigr of what has been since called The Lord’s supper. Tc every circumstance, as set down here, and the mode o’ expression by which such circumstances are described we should pay the deepest attention.
1. As they were eating, Matt, xxvi, 26, either an ordinary supper or the paschal lamb, as some think: see the introduction.
1. Jesus took bread. — Of what kind? Untpavened bread certainly, because there was no other kind to be had hi all Judea at this time; for this was the first day of unleavened bread, v, 17, i. e. the 14th of the month Nisan when the Jews, according to the command of God Exod. xii, 15, 20, xxiii, 15, and xxxiv, 25, were to purge away all leaven from their houses; for he who sacrificed the passover, having leaven in his dwelling, was consi< dered to be such a transgressor of the divine law as could no longer be tolerated among the people of God; and, therefore, was to be cut off from the congregation of Israel Leo, of Modena, who has written a very sensible treatise on the Customs of the Jews, observes, “That so strictly do some of the Jews observe the precept concerning the removal of all leaven from their houses, during the celebration of the paschal solemnity, that they either provide vessels entirely new for baking, or else have a set for; the purpose, which are dedicated solely to the service pfthe passover, and never brought out on any other occasiott”
To this divinely instituted custom of removing al Maven previous to the paschal solemnity, St. Paul evidently alludes, 1 Cor. v, 6, 7, 8, Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 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; 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.
Now, if any respect should be paid to the primitive institution, in the celebration of this divine ordinance, then unleavened, unyeasted bread should be used. In every sign or type, the thing signifying or pointing out that which is beyond itself, should either have certain properties, or be accompanied with certain circumstances, as expressive as possible of the tiling signified. Bread, simply considered in itself, may be an emblem apt enough of the body of our Lord Jesus, which was given for us; but the design of God was evidently that it should not only point out this, but also the disposition required in those who should celebrate both the antetype and the type; and this the apostle explains to be sincerity and truth, the reverse of malice and wickedness. The very taste of the bread was instructive: it pointed out to every communicant, that he who came to the table of God with malice or ill will against any soul of man, or with wickedness, a profligate or sinful life, might expect to eat and drink judgment to himself, as not discerning that the Lord’s body was sacrificed for this very purpose, that all sin might be destroyed; and that sincerity, siXixpivsia, such purity as the clearest light can discern no stain in, might be diffused through the whole soul; and, that truth, the law of righteousness and true holiness, might regulate and guide all the actions of life. Had the bread used on these occasions been of the common kind, it would have been perfectly unfit, or improper to have communicated these uncommon significations; and, as it was seldom used, its rare occurrence would make the emblematical representation more deeply impressive, and the sign and the signifiec have their due correspondence and influence.
These circumstances considered, will it not appear tha the use of common bread in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper is highly improper? he who can say, “This is c matter of no importance’ may say, with equal propriety the bread itself is of no importance; and another maj say, the wine is of no importance; and a tnird may say “.neither the bread nor loine is any thing, but as they leac to spiritual references; and the spiritual reference being; once understood, the signs are useless.” Thus we may through affected spirituality, refine away the whole ordinance of God, and, with the letter and form of religion abolish religion itself. Many have already acted in this way, not only to their loss, hut thp.ir ruin, by showing how profoundly wise they are above what is written. Let those therefore, who consider that man shall live by every worn which proceeds from the mouth of God, and who are conscientiously solicitous that each divine institution be not only preserved, but observed in all its original integrity, attend to this circumstance. I grant, that it is probable that their use of unleavened bread in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper may excite the. sneer of the profane, or the pretended pity of those who think, in spirituality, they are above that which is infinitely above them; yet, while the conscientious followers of God dare even to be singular in that which is right, and are not ashamed of Christ and his words, they shall be acknowledged by him when he comes in the kingdom and glory of his Father. However, in this opinion I am not singular, as the Lutheran church makes use of unleavened bread to the present day.
3. And blessed it. — Both St Matthew and St. Mark use the Word evXvynffas, blessed, instead of evxagwt*s, gave thanks, which is the word used by St. Luke and St. Paul. The terms, in this case, are nearly of the same import, as both blessing and giving thanks were used on these occasions. But what was it that our Lord blessed? Not the bread, though many think the contrary, being deceived by the word it, which is improperly supplied in our version. In all the four places referred to above, whether the word blessed or gave thanks is used, it refers not to the bread but to God, the dispenser of every good. Our Lord here conforms himself to that constant Jewish custom, viz. of acknowledging God as the author of every good and perfect gift, by giving thanks on taking the bread, and taking the cup at their ordinary meals. For every Jew was forbidden to eat, drink, or use any of God’s creatures, without rendering him thanks, and he who acted contrary to this command was considered as a person who was guilty of sacrilege. From this custom we have derived the decent and laudable one of saying grace, (gratias thanks) before and after meat. The Jewish form of blessing, and probably that which our Lord used on this occasion, none of my readers will be displeased to find here; on taking the bread they say;
Baruch, atta Eloheenoo, Melech ha olam, ha motse Lechem min haarets.
Blessed be thou our God, King of the universe, ivfto bringest forth bread out of the earth!
Likewise on taking the cup, they say;
Baruch, Eloheenoo, Melech, haolam, Bore peree haggephen.
Blessed be our God, the King of the universe, the Creator of the fruit of the* vine I
The Mohammedans copy their example, constantly
saying before and after meat.
Bismillahi arrahmani arraheemi.
In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate.
No blessing therefore of the elements is here intended; they were already blessed, in being sent as a gift of mercy from the bountiful Lord; but God the sender is blessed, because of the liberal provision he has made for his worthless creatures. Blessing and touching the bread, are merely popish ceremonies, unauthorized either by Scripture, or the practice of the pure church of God; necessary of course to them who pretend to transmute, by a kind of spiritual incantation, the bread and wine, into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ; a measure, the grossest in folly, and most stupid in nonsense, to which God, in judgment ever abandoned the fallen spirit of man. What under God, generated Protestantism? The protestation of a few of his followers in 1529, against the supremacy of the Pope, the extravagant, disgraceful, and impious doctrine of transubstantiation, and the sale of indulgences connected with it. But let the Protestant take care that while he rejects a doctrine teeming with monstrous absurdities, and every contradictious sentiment, he also avoid those acts and ridiculous rites, such as blessing and touching the sacred elements, by which it was pretended this fancied transubstantiation was brought about.
4. And brake it. — We often read in the Scriptures of breaking bread, but never of cutting it. The Jewish people had nothing analogous to our high raised loaf: their bread was made broad and thin, and was consequently very brittle, and to divide it, there was no need of a knife.
The breaking of the bread, I consider essential to the proper performance of this solemn and significant ceremony; because this act was designed by our Lord to shadow forth the wounding, piercing, and breaking of his body upon the cross: and as all this was essentially necessary to the making & full atonement fox the sin of the world; so it is of vast importance that this apparently little circumstance, the breaking of the bread, should be carefully attended to, that the godly communicant may have every necessary assistance to enable him to discern the Lords body while engaged in this most important and divine of all God’s ordinances. But who does not see that one small cube of fermented i. e. leavened bread, previously divided from the mass with a knife, and separated by the fingers of the minister, can never answer the end of the institution, either as to the matter of the bread, or the mode of dividing it? Man is naturally a dull and heedless creature, especially in spiritual things, and has need of the utmost assistance of his senses, in union with those expressive rites and ceremonies which the holy Scripture, not tradition, has sanctioned, in order to enable him to arrive at spiritual things through the medium of earthly similitudes.
5. He gave it unto his disciples. — Not only the breaking, but also the distribution of the bread are necessary parts of this rite. In the Romish church the bread is not broken nor delivered to the people that they may take and eat; but the consecrated wafer is put upon their tongue by the priest, and he is reputed the most worthy communicant who does not mastinafp. but swallow it whole.
“That the breaking of this bread to be distributed,” says Dr. Whitby,” is a necessary part of this rite is evident, first, by the continual mention of it by St. Paul, and all the evangelists, when they speak of the institution of this sacrament, which shows it to be a necessary part of it. 2. Christ says, Take, eat, this is my body broken for you, t Cor. xi, 24t But when the elements are not broken, it can be no more said, This is my body broken for you, than where the elements are not given. 3. Our Lord saidi Do this in remembrance of me: i. e. ‘Eat this bread broken, in remembrance of my body broken on the cross;’ now where no body broken, is distributed, there, nothing can be eaten in memorial of his broken body. Lastly, the apostle, by saying* The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? sufficiently informs us, oitj SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER.
that the eating of his broken body is necessary to that end, 1 Cor. x, 10. Hence it was, that this rite of distributing bread broken continued for a thousand years; and was, as Humburlus testifies, observed in the Roman church, in the eleventh century.” Whitby in loco. At present, the opposite is as boldly practised, as if the real scriptural rite had never been observed in the church of Christ.
6. This is my body. — Here it must be observed, that Christ had nothing in his hands at this time, but part of that unleavened bread which he and his disciples had been eating at supper, and therefore he could mean no more than this, viz. that the bread which he was now breaking represented his body, which, in the course of a few hours, was to be Crucified for them. Common sense, unsophisticated with superstition and erroneous creeds; and reason, unawed by the secular sword of sovereign authority, could not possibly take any other meaning than this plain, consistent, and rational one, out of these words. “But, says a false and absurd creed: Jesus meant, when he said hoc est corpus meum, (this is my body) and hic est cai.ts: sANftTtiNis mp.i, This is the chalice of my blood, that the bread and wine were substantially changed into his body, including flesh, blood, bone, yea, the whole Christ, in his immaculate humanity, and adorable divinity!” and for denying this what rivers of righteous blood have been shed by state persecutions, and by religious wars! Well, it may be asked, “Can any man of sense believe, that when Christ took up that bread and broke it, that it was his own body which he held in his own hands, and which himself broke to pieces, and which he and his disciples eat?” He who can believe such a congeries of absurdities, cannot be said to be a volunteer in faith: — for it is evident, the man can neither have faith nor reason.
Let it be observed, if any thing farther is necessary on this subject, that the paschal lamb is called the passover, because it represented the destroying angel’s passing over the children of Israel, while he slew the iirst-born of the Egyptians: and our Lord and his disciples call this lamb the passover several times in this chapter; by which it is demonstrably evident, that they could mean no more than that the lamb sacrificed on this occasion was a memorial of, and represented the means used for, the preservation of the Israelites from the blast of the destroying angel.
Besides, our Lord did not say, hoc est corpus meum., (this is my body) as he did not speak in the Latin tongue; though as much stress has been laid upon this quotation from the Vulgate version, by the papists, as if the original of the three evangelists had been written in the Latin language. Had he spoken in Latin, following the idiom of the Vulgate, he would have said, panishic corpus meum significat, or, symbnlum est corporis mei — hoc poculum sanguinemmeum representat, or, symbolum est sanguinis mei: this bread signifies my body; this cup represents my blood. But let it be observed, that in the Hebrew, Chaldee and Chaldeo-Syriak languages there is no term which expresses to mean, signify, denote, though both the Greek and Latin abound with them: hence the Hebrews use a figure, and say, it is, for it signifies. So (jen. xli, 26, 27, The seven kine are (i. e. represent) seven years. This is (represents) the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt. Dan. vii, 24, The ten horns are (i. e. signify) ten kings. They drank of the spiritual Rock which followed them and the Hock was (represented) Christ, 1 Cor. x, 4. And following this Hebrew idiom, though the work is written in Greek, we find, hi Rev. i, 20, the seven stars are {represent) the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks are {represent) the seven churches. The same form of speech is used in a variety of places in the New Testament, where this sense must necessarily be given to the word. Matt, xiii, 38, 39, The field is (represents) the world: the good seed are (represent or
28 signify) the children of the kingdom: the tares are (signify) the children of the wicked one. The enemy is (signifies) the devil: the harvest is (represents) the end of the world: the reapers are (i. e. signify) the angels. Luke viii, 9, What might this parable be? nS EIH n vragaSokvi au<nj; what does this parable signify? John vii, 36, tis E2TIN ouroff o “&>yos; what is the signification of this saying? John x, 6, They understood not what things they were, <nva hn, what was the signification of the things he had spoken to them. Acts x, 1 7, ti av EIH to o£a|*a, what this vision might be; properly rendered by our translators, what this vision should mean. Gal. iv, 24, For these are the two covenants: avrou ya-i EI2IN ai 5vo &ad*jxai, these signify the two covenants. Luke xv, 26, He asked, <n EIH raura, what these things meant: see also ch. xviii, 36. After such unequivocal testimony from the sacred writings, can any person doubt that, This bread is my body, has any other meaning than, This represents my body ?*
That our Lord neither spoke in Greek nor Latin, on this occasion, needs no proof. It was, most probably, in what was formerly called the Chaldaic, now the Syriac, that our Lord conversed with his disciples. Through the pro-
* The Latins use the verb sum, in all its forms, with a similar latitude of meaning; so, esse oneri ferendo, he is able to bear the burthen; bene esse, to live sumptuously: male esse, to live miserably: recte esse, to enjoy good health: est mihi fistula, I possess a flute: est hodie in rebus, he now enjoys a plentiful fortune.
In Greek also, and Hebrew, it often signifies to live, to die, to be killed: ovk EIMI, I am dead, or a dead man. Matt, ii, 18, Rachel weeping for her childrenj on ovk EIEI, because they were murdered. Gen. xlii, 36, Joseph is not, )yy$ spy Yoseph einennu, itaonQ ovk ESTIN, Sept. Joseph is devoured by a wild beast. Rom. iv, 17, Calling the things that are not, as if they were alive. So Plutarch, in Laconicis — “This shield thy father always preserved: preserve thou it, or may thou not be” — n p) ESO, may thou perish, l Tim. i, 7, Desiring to be teachers of the law- — Bekovres EINAI vojiodiSavKaXoi, desiring to be reputed teachers of the law, .i. e. able divines — ra ONTA, the things that are, i. e. noble and honourable men: ra fw ONTA, the things that are not, viz. the vulgar, or those of ignoble birth.
vidence of God, we have complete versions of the gospels in this language; and, in them, it is likely we have the precise words spoken by our Lord on this occasion. In Matt, xxvi, 26 and 27, the words in the Syriac version
are — *-*r>S^ Q”J^> honau pagree, this is my body, CuJbOl Q-I0) henau demee, this is my blood, of which forms of speech, the Greek is a verbal translation; nor would any man, even in the present day, speaking in the same language, use, among the people to whom it was vernacular, other terms than the above to express, this represents my body, and this represents my blood.
But this form of speech is common, even in our own language, though we have terms enow to fill up the ellipsis. Suppose a man entering into a museum, enriched with the remains of ancient Greek sculpture; his eyes are attracted by a number of curious busts; and, on inquiring what they are, he learns, this is Socrates, that Plato, a third Homer; others Hesiod, Horace, Virgil, Demosthenes, Cicero, Herodotus, Livy, Cesar, Nero, Vespasian, &c. Is he deceived by this information? Not at all: he knows well that the busts he sees are not the identical persons of those ancient philosophers, poets, orators, historians, and emperors, but only representations of their persons in sculpture, between which and the originals there is as essential a difference as between a human body, instinct with all the principles of rational vitality, and a block of marble. — When, therefore, Christ took up a piece of bread, brake it, and said, this is my body, who but the most stupid of mortals could imagine that he was at the same time, handling and breaking his own body? Would not any persen, of plain common sense, see as great a difference between the man Christ Jesus and apiece of bread, as between the block of marble and the philosopher it represented, in the case referred to above? The truth is, there is scarcely a more common form of speech, in any language, than, this is, for, this represents, or signifies. And as our Lord refers, in the whole of this transaction, to the ordinance of the passover, we may consider him as saying, “This bread is now my body, in that sense in which the paschal lamb has been my body hitherto; and this cup is my blood of the New Testament, in the same sense as the blood of bulls and goats- has been my blood under the old, Exod. xxiv; Heb. ix, i. e. The paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of blood, represented my sacrifice to the present time; this bread and this wine shall represent my body and blood through all future ages: therefore, Do this in remembrance of me.”
Perhaps, to many of my readers, it may appear utterly improbable, that in the present enlightened age, as it is called, any people can be found who seriously and consistently credit the doctrine of transubstantiation. Lest I should fall under the charge of misrepresentation, I shall here transcribe the eighth lesson of the “Catechism for the Use of all the Churches in the French empire.” published in 1806, by the authority of the emperor Napoleon Buonaparte, with the bull of the pope, and the mandamus of the archbishop of Paris.
“Q. What is the sacrament of the eucharist?
A. The eucharist is a sacrament which contains really and substantially, the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the forms or appearance of bread and wine.
Q. What is at first put on the altar, and in the chalice? Is it not bread and wine?
A. Yes: and it continues to be bread and wine till
THE PRIEST PRONOUNCES THE WORDS OP CONSECRATION.
Q. What influence have these words? A. The bread is changed into the body, and the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord.
Q. Does nothing of the bread and wine remain?
A. Nothing of them remains except the forms.
Q. What do you call the forms of the bread and wine?
A. That which appears to our senses, as colour, figure, and taste.
Q. Is there nothing under the form of bread except the body of our Lord?
A. Besides his body, there is his blood, his soul, and his divinity; because all these are inseparable.
Q. And under the form of wine?
A. Jesus Christ is there as entire, as under the form of the bread.
Q. When the forms of the bread and wine are divided, is Jesus Christ divided?
A. No: Jesus Christ remains entire under each part of the form divided.
Q. Say, in a word, what Jesus Christ gives us under each form?
A. All that he is, that is, perfect God, and perfect MAN.
Q. Does Jesus Christ leave heaven to come into the eucharist?
A. No: he always continues at the right hand of God, his Father, till he shall come at the end of the world, with great glory, to judge the living and the dead.
Q. Then how can he be present at the altar?
A. By the almighty power of God.
Q. Then it is not man that works this miracle?
A. No: it is Jesus Christ, whose word is employed in the sacrament.
Q. Then it is Jesus Christ who consecrates?
A. It is Jesus- Christ who consecrates; the priest is only his minister.
Q. Must we worship the body and blood of Jesus
Christ in the eucharist?
A. Yes, undoubtedly; for this body, and this blood, are inseparably united to his divinity.”
To show that this is consistent with the canon of the mass, I shall translate the consecration prayer from the Roman Missal. When the priest receives the bread and wine, he thus prays, making the sign of the cross where this mark t appears:
“We beseech thee, O God, to render this oblation in all things bless t ed, approv t ed, effect t ual, reasonable, and acceptable, that it may be made to us the bo t dy and bl t ood of thy most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ! who, the day before he suffered, took bread into his sacred and venerable hands, and having lifted up his eyes to thee, O God, the Father Almighty, and giving thanks to thee, bless t ed, brake, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, and eat ye all of this, for this is my body. (HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.)”
[Then the priest adores, and elevates the consecrated host]
“In like manner after he had supped, taking also this excellent chalice into his sacred and venerable hands, giving thee, also, thanks, he bless t ed and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, and drink ye all of this, for this is the chalice of my blood, (HIC EST ENIM C AL1X SANGUINIS ME1) of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith which shall be shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins, as oft as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of me.”
[Here the chalice is elevated and adored, and the Lord is besought to command his angel to carry these offerings into the presence of his Divine Majesty.”] — Order of the Mass, vol. i, p. xxiv, &c.
In “The divine office for the use of the laity,” the person who is to communicate is ordered to “go up to the rails, kneel down, and say the confiteor, (confession) with true sorrow and compunction for his sins.” After the priest has prayed that God may have mercy upon him, and pardon all his sins,” he takes the sacred host (i. e. the consecrated zoafer) into his hand, and again turns about, and says, Behold the Lamb of God !* Behold
* Sovereign of heaven and earth! here the adoration that is due to thee alone is paid to a piece of bread!
him who taketh away the sin of the world! Then he and the communicant repeat thrice, “Lord, I am not worthy thou shouldst enter under my roof; speak, therefore, but the word, and my soul shall be healed,” the communicant striking his breast in token of his un worthiness. ‘Then,” says the Directory, “having the towel raised above your breast, your eyes modestly closed, your head likewise raised up, and your mouth conveniently opened, receive the holy sacrament on your tongue, resting on your under lip; then close your mouth, and say in your heart, A men: I believe it to be the body of Christ, and I pray it may preserve my soul to eternal life.” — Ordinary of the Mass, page xxxiii.
Believing that these extracts are sufficient to expose the shocking absurdity of this most monstrous system, 1 forbear either adding more, or making any comments on those already produced.
7. St. Luke and St. Paul add a circumstance here which is not noticed either by St. Matthew or St. Mark. After, this is my body, the former adds, which is given for you: the latter, which is broken for you: the sense of which is, “As God has in his bountiful providence given you bread for the sustenance of your lives, so, in his infinite grace, he has given you my body to save your souls unto life eternal. But as this bread must be broken and masticated, in order to its becoming proper nourishment, so my body must be broken, i. e. crucified for you, before it can be the bread of life to your souls*.. As, therefore, your life depends on the bread which God’s bounty has provided for your bodies, so your eternal life depends on the sacrifice of my body on the cross for your souls.” Besides, there is here an allusion to the offering of sacrifices — an innocent creature was brought to the altar of God, and its blood (the life of the beast) was poured out for, or in behalf of the person who brought it. Thus, Christ says, alluding to the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, This is my body, to wsg vjxwv StSopsvov, which is given in your stead, or in your behalf; a free gift from God’s endless mercy for the salvation of your souls: This is my body, to ucre u/*wv xXw/aevov, 1 Cor. xi, 24, which is broken, sacrificed in your stead, as without the breaking {piercing) of the body, and spilling of the blood, there was no remission.
In this solemn transaction we must weigh every word, as there is none without its appropriate and deeply emphatic meaning. So it is written, Ephes. v, 2, Christ hath loved us, and given himself, w«S£ *)/xwv, on our account, or in our stead, an offering and a sacrifice, (durfia,) to God for a sweet smelling savour, that, as in the sacrifice offered by Noah, Gen. viii, 21, (to which the apostle evidently alludes,) from which it is said, the Lord smelted a sweet savour, nmn m riach hanichoach, a savour of rest, so that he became appeased towards the earth, and determined that there should no more be a flood to destroy it; in like manner, in the offering and sacrifice of Christ for us, God is appeased towards the human race; and has, in consequence, decreed, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
8. (v. 27.) And he took the cup, psra to foirfvojCai, after having supped, Luke xxii, 20, and 1 Cor. xi, 25. Whether the supper was on the paschal lamb, or whether it was a common or ordinary meal, I shall not wait here to inquire, having considered the subject at large in the introduction. In the parallel place in Luke xxii, we find our Lord taking the cup, v. 17, and again, v. 19; by the former of which was probably meant the cup of blessing, nananoo kos haberakah, which the master of a family took, and after blessing God, gave to each of his guests by way of welcome: but this second taking the cup, is to be understood as belonging peculiarly to the very important rite, which he was now instituting, and on which he lays a very remarkable stress. With respect to the bread, he had before simply said, Take, eat, this is my body: but concerning the cup, he says, Drink ye all of this; for as this pointed out the very essence of the institution, viz. the
•
blood of atonement, it was necessary that each should have a particular application of it, therefore he says, drink ye all of this. By this we are taught that the cup is essential to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; so that they who deny the cup to the people, sin against God’s institution; and they who receive not the cup, are not partakers of the body and blood of Christ. If either could without mortal prejudice be omitted, it might be the bread; but the cup as pointing out the blood, poured out, i. e. the life, by which alone the great sacrificial act is performed, and remission of sins procured, is absolutely indispensable. On this ground it is demonstrable, that there is not a popish priest under heaven, who denies the cup to the people, (and they all do this) that can be said to celebrate the Lord’s supper at all; nor is there one of their votaries that ever received the holy sacrament. All pretension to this is an absolute farce, so long as the cup, the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied. How strange is it, that the very men, who plead so much for the bare literal meaning of this is my body, in the preceding verse, should deny all meaning to drink ye all of this cup, in this verse! And though Christ has in the most positive manner enjoined it, they will not permit one of the laity to taste it! O what a thing is man! a constant contradiction to reason and to himself. The conclusion therefore is unavoidable, — the sacrament of the Lord’s supper is not celebrated in the church of Rome.
9. I have just said, that our blessed Lord lays remarkable stress on the. administration of the cup, and on that which himself assures us, is represented by it. As it is peculiarly emphatic, I beg l§avej|et down the original text, which the critical reader will do well minutely to examine y Touro ya.g egi TO cti/jw* (*ou TO rris xcuvvig &a0»jx*j£, TO tfsi tfoXXwv sxuvoixsvov stg acpeffiv apu’gnuv. The following literal translation and paraphrase, do not exceed its meaning.
For THIS is THAT blood of mine, which was pointed out by all the sacrifices under the Jewish law, and particularly by the shedding and sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb. THAT blood of the sacrifice slain for the ratification of the new covenant. THE blood ready to be poured out for the multitudes, the whole Gentile world as well as the Jews, for the taking away of sins; sin, whether original or actual, in all its power, and guilt; in all its internal energy, and pollution.
It will be of considerable consequence to ascertain what this cup contained. Wine is not specifically mentioned, but what is tantamount to it is, viz. what our Lord terms ysva <njg afjwrsXou, the offspring or produce of the vine. Though this was the true and proper wine, yet it was widely different from that medicated and sophisticated beverage which goes now under that name. The p yayin, of the Hebrews, the eivos oinos, of the Greeks, and vinum of the ancient Romans, meant simply the expressed juice of the grape, sometimes drunk just after it was expressed, while its natural sweetness remained; and then termed mustum: at other times, after fermentation, which process rendered it fit for keeping, without getting acid or unhealthy, then called oivo?, and vinum. By the ancient Hebrews, I believe it was chiefly drunk in its first, or simple state; hence it was termed among them jflin na peree haggephen, the fruit of the vine, and by our Lord in the Syriac, his vernacular language, l-S-^J ft N i yalda dagephetha, the young or son of the vine, very properly translated by the evangelist Xsv*jfj,a <nis afwfsXou, the offspring or produce of the vine. In ancient times, when only a small portion was wanted for immediate use, the juice was pressed by the hand out of a bunch of grajpflydimmediately drunk. After this manner Phara,ons butler was accustomed to squeeze out new wine into the royal cup, as is evident from Genesisxl.il.
Were there not a particular cause, probably my descending to such minuteness of description might require an apology. I have only to say, that I have learned with extreme regret, that in many places a vile compound, wickedly denominated wine, not the offspring of the vine, but of the alder, gooseberry, or currant tree, and not unfrequently the issue of the sweepings of a grocer’s shop, is substituted for wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper! That this is a most wicked and awful perversion of our Lord’s ordinance, needs, I am persuaded, no proof. The matters made use of by Jesus Christ, on this solemn occasion, were unleavened bread and the produce of the vine, i. e. pure wine. To depart in the least from his institution, while it is in our power to follow it literally, would be extremely culpable. If the principle of substitution be tolerated in the least, innovations without end may obtrude themselves into this sacred rite, and into the mode of its administration; then the issue must be, what alas, it has already been in numberless cases, a perversion of the sacred ordinance, so that the divine blessing no longer accompanies it; hence it is despised by some, neglected by most, and by a certain class utterly rejected, and the Lord’s body and blood little discerned even by its sincere votaries. How truly execrable must that covetousness be, which, in order to save a little money, substitutes a cheap and unwholesome liquor instead of that wine, of which God is particularly styled the Creator; and which, by his own appointment, is the only emblem of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; even of that blood which was shed for us to make atonement for our sins, and preserve our bodies and souls unto eternal life! These things considered, will not every reader conclude, with me, that at least genuine bread and unadulterated wine should constitute the matter of the elements in the Lord’s supper?
10. And when he had given thanks. See the form used on this occasion, in p. 213, and see the Mishna Tract. niTtt Beracoth.
1 1. For this is my blood of the New Testament. This is the reading in St. Matthew and St. Mark; but St. Luke and St. Paul say, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This passage has been strangely mistaken: by New Testament, many understand nothing more than the book commonly known by this name, containing the fdtir gospels, Acts of the apostles, apostolical epistles, and bodk of the Revelation; and they think that the cup of the: New Testament means no more than merely that cup whfch the book called the New Testament enjoins’ in the Sacrament of the Lord’s supper. As this is the case, it is highly necessary that this term should be explained. The original pj *aiv?j Aiaxrj, which we translate The New Testament, and which is the general title of all the contents of the book already described, simply means The New covenant. Covenant, from con together, and venio I come, signifies, an agreement, contract, or compact between two parties, by which both are mutually bound to do certain things, on certain conditions and penalties. It answers to the Hebrew ma berith; which often signifies, not only the covenant, or agreement, but also the sacrifice which was slain on the occasion, by the blood of which the covenant was ratified; and the contracting parties professed to subject themselves to such a death as that of the victim, in case of violating their engagements. An oath of this kind, on slaying the covenant sacrifice, was usual in ancient times: so in Homer, when a covenant was made between the Greeks and the Trojans, and the throats of lambs were cut, and their blood poured out, the following form of adjuration was used by the contracting parties:
All glorious Jove, and ye, the Powers of heaven!
Whoso shall violate this contract first,
So be their blood, their children’s, and their own,.
SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER, Q^B
Pow’d out as this libation, on the ground:
And let their wives bring forth to other men!
Iliad, 1. iii, t. 298-301.
Our blessed Saviour is evidently called the Aiatojx*], jv’O berith, or covenant sacrifice, Isa. xlii, 6, xlix, 8; Zech. ix, 11. And to those scriptures he appears to allude, as in them the Lord promises to .give him for a covenant (sacrifice) to the Gentiles, and to send forth, by the blood of this covenant (victim,) the prisoners out of the pit. The passages in the sacred writings, which allude to this grand sacrificial and atoning act, are almost innumerable.
In this place, our Lord terms his blood, the blood of the new covenant; by which he means that grand plan of agreement, or reconciliation, which God was now establishing between himself and mankind, by the passion and death of his Son, through whom alone, men could draw nigh to God: and this new covenant is mentioned in contradistinction from the old covenant, *) tfaXaia Aiadxrj, 2 Cor. iii, 14; by which appellative all the books of the Old Testament were distinguished, because they pointed out the way of reconciliation to God by the blood of the various victims slain under the law: but now, as the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, was about to be offered up, a new and living way was thereby constituted, so that no one henceforth could come unto the Father but by him. Hence, all the books of the New* Testament, which bear unanimous testimony to the (Joctrine of salvation by faith through the blood of Jesus, are termed H xaiv») Aiaflrjxy), The new covenant.
Dr. Lightfoot’s Observations on this are worthy of serious notice.” This is my blood of the New Testament. Not only the seal of the covenant, but the sanction of the new covenant. The end of the Mosaic economy, and the confirming of a new one. The confirmation of the old covenant was by the blood of bulls and goats.
Exod. xxiv; Heb. ix; because blood was still to be shed: the confirmation of the new was by a cup of wine; because under the new covenant there is no farther shedding of blood. As it is here said of the cup, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; so it might be said of the cup of blood, Exod. xxiv, That cup was, the Old Testament in the blood of Christ: there, all the articles of that covenant being read over, Moses sprinkled all the people with blood, and said, This is the blood of the covenant which God hath made with you; and thus that old covenant, or testimony, was confirmed. In like manner, Christ, having published all the articles of the new covenant; he takes the cup of wine, and gives them to drink, and saith, This is the New Testament in my blood, and thus the new covenant was established.” Works, vol. ii, p. 260.
12. Which is shed (sxuvofi-evov, poured out) for you and for many. Exx£«, and sxxuwp to pour out, are often used in a sacrificial sense in the Septuagint, and signifies to pour out or sprinkle the blood of the sacrifices before the altar of the Lord, by way of atonement. See 2 Kings xvi, 15; Lev. viii, 15, ix, 9; Exod. xxix, 12; Lev. iv, 7, 14-17, 30-34; and in various Other places. Our Lord, by this very remarkable mode of expression teaches us, that, as his body was to be broken, or crucified, vtfeg yjfi-wv, in our stead, so here the blood was to be poured out to make an atonement, as the words remission of sins sufficiently prove; for without sheddiitg of blood there was no remission, Heb. ix, 22; nor any remission by shedding of blood, but in a sacrificial way. See the passages above, and pages 223 and 224.
The whole of this passage will receive additional light when collated with Isa. liii, 11, 12. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities — because he hath poured out his soul unto death, and he bare the sin of many. The pouring out of the soul unto death, in the prophet, answers to, This is the blood of the new covenant which is poured out for you, in the evangelists: and the nrai rabbim, multitudes, in Isaiah, corresponds to the many, tfoXXwv, of Matthew and Mark. The passage will soon appear plain, when we consider that two distinct classes of persons are mentioned by the prophet. 1. The Jews, v. 4, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; v. 5, But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him; v. 6, All we, like sheep, have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity ofvs all; 2. The Gentiles, v. 11, By his knowledge, vuna bedaato, i. e. by his being made known, published as Christ crucified among the Gentiles, he shall justify crm rabbim, the multitudes, (the GENTiLEs)ybrAe shall (also) bear THEiRqeracesaswellas ours, the Jews, v. 4, &c. It is well known that the Jewish dispensation, termed by the apostle, as above, v *alaiu diaArlxy, the old covenant, was partial and exclusive. None were particularly interested in it save the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob; whereas the Christian dispensation, n xajv*) &afojx*i, the new covenant, referred to by our Lord, in this place, was universal; for, as Jesus Christ by the grace of God, tasted death for every man, Heb. xi, 9, and is that Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, John i, 29; who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, 1 Tim. ii, 4; even that knowledge of Christ crucified, by which they are to be justified, Isa. liii, 11; therefore he has commanded his disciples to go into all the porld, and preach 4he gospel to every creature, Mark xvi, 15. The reprobate race, those who were no people, and not beloved, were to be called in; for the gospel was to be preached to all the world, though it was to begin at Jerusalem, Luke xxiv, 47. For this purpose was the blood of the new covenant sacrifice poured out for the multitudes, that there might be but one fold, as there is but one shepherd; and that God might be all and in all.
13. All this was to be done, stg a<pstfiv afxawv, for, (or, in reference to) the taking away of sins, ver. 28. For, although the blood is shed, and the atonement made, no man’s sins are taken away, until as a true penitent he returns to God; and feeling his utter incapacity to save himself, believes in Christ Jesus, who is the justifier of the ungodly.
The phrase cupsftg ruv afiagnuv, remission of sins, (frequently used by the Septuagint,) being thus explained by our Lord, is often used by the evangelists and the apostles; and does not mean merely the pardon of sins, as it is generally understood, but the removal, or taking away, of sins; not only the guilt, but also the very nature of sin, and the pollution of the soul through it; and comprehends all that is generally understood by the terms justification and sanctification. For the use and meaning of the phrase cupstis ajwcpriwv, see Mark i, 4; Luke i, 77, iii, 3, xxiv, 47; Acts ii, 38, v, 31, x, 43, xiii. 38, xxvi, 18; Col. i, 14; Heb. x, 18.
14. Both St. Luke and St.lfpaul add, that, after giving the bread, our Lord said, Do this in remembrance of me. And, after giving the cup, St. Paul alone adds, This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. The account as given by St. Paul should be carefully followed, being fuller, and received, according to his own declaration, by especial revelation from God. See 1 Cor. xi, 23. For I have received of the Lord that which also J delivered unto you, &c.
As the passover was to be celebrated annually, to keep the original transaction in memory, and to show forth the true paschal lamb, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world; so after the once offering of Christ our passover on the cross, he himself ordained that bread and wine should be used, to keep “that, his precious death, in remembrance until his coming again.” Now, as the paschal lamb annually sacrificed, brought to the people’s remembrance the wonderful deliverance of their fathers from the Egyptian bondage and tyranny, so the bread and wine, consecrated and received according to our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, was designed, by himself, to keep up a continual remembrance, and lively representation of the great atonement made by his death upon the cross. The doing this is not intended merely to keep up a recollection of Christ, as a kind and benevolent friend, which is the utmost some allow; but to keep in remembrance his body broken for us, and his blood poured out for us. For, as the way to the Holiest was ever through his blood, and as no man can ever come unto the Father but by him, and none can come profitably who has not faith in his blood, it was necessary that this great help to believing should be frequently furnished; as, in all succeeding ages, there would be sinners to be saved, and saints to be confirmed and established in their holy faith. Hence we may learn, that God has made, at least, an annual celebration and partaking of the Lord’s supper, as absolutely binding upon all who expect salvation through the blood of the cross, as he did the annual celebration and partaking of the passover on every soul in Israel, who desired to abide in the Lord’s covenant, to escape evil, enjoy the divine approbation, and be saved unto eternal life. Those, therefore, who reject the Lord’s supper, sin against their own mercies, and treat their Maker with the basest ingratitude. He, in condescension to their weakness, has been pleased to point out to them a very easy way by which they may ‘recall to their minds, and represent to their senses, in a most lively manner, the meritorious death and passion of the Redeemer of the world; who, although he could not suffer on the cross more than once, has instituted an ordinance, by which that sacrificial act may not only be commemorated, but even represented as often as his followers may think proper; and all the blessings purchased by his real passion and death be conveyed to the souls of sincere communicants, through the medium of this blessed ordinance. The command, This do in remembrance of me, leaves us no choice. He who will have us to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, will have us to use, as a mean of salvation, the setcrament of his supper. He, therefore, who refuses to obey, boldly but awfully relinquishes his right to the tree of life; and either ignorant of the righteousness of GodJ(his method of justifying sinners) or going about to establish his own righteousness, (his own method of obtaining salvation) rejects the divine remedy, in rejecting the means by which it is conveyed.
Let no man deceive his own soul, by imagining he can still have all the benefits of Christ’s death, and yet have nothing to do with the sacrament: — it is a command of the living God, founded on the same authority as, Thou shalt do no murder; none, therefore, can disobey it and be guiltless. Again, let no man impose on himself by the supposition, that he can enjoy this supper spiritually, without using what too many impiously call the carnal ordinance; i. e. without eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of the death of Christ: Is not this a delusion? What says the sovereign will of God? Do this. What is this? Why take bread, break, and eat it: Take the cup, and drink ye all of it: — this, and only this, is fulfilling the will of God. Therefore, the eating of the sacramental bread, and the drinking of the consecrated wine, are essential to the religious performance of our Lord’s command. It is true, a man may use these, and not discern the Lord’s body; not duly and deeply consider, that these symbols point out the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which were offered up to God for him: i. e. he may, possibly, not keep the eye of his faith upon the atonement, while he is using the symbols, and thus the sacred ordinance be no more to him than a common thing; but does not he who rejects the symbols, put it absolutely out of his power to celebrate the divine ordinance? A man may rest in the letter, and not attain the spirit; but can a man, who has it in his power to avail himself of the letter, and does not do it, consistently with the appointment of God, expect the spirit? The letter may be without the spirit; but can the spirit, in this case, be without the letter. In other words, is not obedience to the literal meaning of our Lord’s words’ essential to the attainment of the spiritual blessings to which they refer? And is it not as absurd to expect spiritual blessings without the use of the appointed means, as to expect to hear sounds and see objects without the medium of the sun and atmosphere?
15. I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine — These words seem to intimate no more than this: We shall not have another opportunity of eating this bread and drinking this wine together; as, in a few hours my crucifixion shall take place.
16. Until that day when I drink it new with you — i. e. I shall no more drink of the produce of the vine with you; but shall drink new wine, — wine of a widely different nature from this, — -a wine which the kingdom of God alone can afford. The term new, in Scripture, is often taken in this sense. So, the new heaven, the new earth, the new covenant, the new man, — mean a heaven, earth, covenant, man, of a very different nature from the former, It was our Lord’s invariable custom to illustrate heavenly things by those of earth; and to make that which had last been the subject of conversation the means of doing it. Thus he uses wine here, of which they had lately drunk, and on which he had held the preceding discourse, to point out the supreme blessedness of the kingdom of God. But, however pleasing and useful wine may be to the body, and how helpful soever, as an ordinance of God, it may be to the soul in tlje holy sacrament; yet the wine of the kingdom, the spiritual enjoyments at the right hand of God, will be infinitely more precious and useful. From what our Lord says here, we learn, that the sacrament of his supper is a type of and pledge to genuine Christians of the felicity they shall enjoy with Christ in the kingdom of glory.
1 7. And when they had sung a hymn — upviitravreg means, probably, no more than a kind of recitative reading, or chanting. As to the hymn itself, we know, from the universal consent of Jewish antiquity, that it was composed of Psalms 113, 114, 115, 116, 11 7, and 118, termed by the Jews V7H halel, from rr-Mn halelu-yah, the first word in psalm 113. These six psalms were always sung at every paschal solemnity.
Having thus minutely considered all the circumstances relating to this institution, and distinctly noted the manner in which our Lord and his disciples celebrated it, I come now,
III. To consider the proper meaning of the different epithets given to this sacred ordinance in the Scriptures and among the early Christians.
1. The most ancient, and perhaps the most universal, name, by which this sacred rite has been distinguished, is that of the eucharist. This certainly had its origin from our Lord’s first celebration of this holy mystery. For St. Luke and St. Paul both say, that, when our Lord took bread, &>xai,&&a6> having given thanks, he divided it among them. And though suXoyTjtfas, having blessed, is the common reading, Matt, xxvi, 16, yet almost all the best MSS. hitherto discovered have the former and not the latter word. From this word, Euxogigia, the eucharist was formed; which, among the primitive Christians, meant solemn thanksgiving to God for the many mercies received, and particularly for those conferred by the death of our blessed Lord. The following quotation from St. Chrysostom will show in what light this divine ordinance was viewed among, the early Christians, and what they meant when they termed it the eucharist: — Am Sri touto xai <ra <p£ixw&j fi.vgi)£ia xai ifoTO^is ys/tovra tijs tfwnjpictff, rot xafl’ sxaftv rsXoufjisva tfuvagiv, Euxa£1<fna xaXsirai, on ffoXXw* sgiv suepysraTwv avapvqtfiff, jtai <ro Ke<paXa»ov cijc «rov teou ffgovwag ev<Jsixvu<ra», xai dia tfavrwv rfagad ‘xsuasi suaeiv. — Homil. XXV,
in Matt. See SuiceriThesaur. in voc. Euarfna. Besides this,” says he, “those tremendous mysteries, replenished with abundance of salvation, which we celebrate in every congregation, are called the eucharist, because they are the memorial of many benefits, and point out the sum of God’s providence, and prepare us to give thanks in all things.”
From this we learn, that the eucharist among them, as representing the body and blood of Christ, was considered as the sum total of all that the prescience of God had been planning and executing for them, from the foundation of the world; that it was an exhibition of tremendous mysteries, such as the necessity of the incarnation and death of Jesus Christ, the Almighty’s fellow, for the sins of the world; that, in this sacrifice, God had given us all possible blessings; and that, therefore, the eucharist, by which these things were called to remembrance, is the means of replenishing faithful partakers with the plenitude of salvation, by which they are enabled to walk uprightly before God, and give him due thanks for his unspeakable gift.
This appellative was not only general in the Greek church, from whose language it had its origin, but it was also common in the Latin church; for among the western Christians and Latin Fathers, as early as the times of Cyprian and Tertullian, eucharistia meant what we term the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. But what is more suprising, the term itself prevailed in the oriental churches. Hence in Acts ii, 42, where it is said the apostles continued in <rv xkatfsi <rou agrou, the breaking of bread, the Syriac version, the oldest and purest extant, reads the place thus; I & ft>| OQ|t V^jH^O ubekatsia d’aukaristia, “and in the breaking of the eucharist;” where the reader sees the Greek word introduced into a language with which it has no kind of affinity. This, as being the general name by which it was known through all the churches of God, and being perhaps the most expressive of its nature, design, and end, should still be retained in preference to any other.
2. Lord’s supper. — It does not appear that this name was anciently used to signify the eucharist. As our Lord instituted the sacrament after supper, both have been confounded; and, through inadvertence, the eucharist has been blended with this last supper, and called by way of emphasis, The Lord’s supper. In very early times, the Christians, in imitation of our Lord, held a supper before the eucharist which was termed Aya**], or love feast; and it is very likely that it is to this, and not to the eucharist, that St. Paul refers, 1 Cor. xi, 20: but it appears, also, that both the Lord’s supper and the eucharist were celebrated by the primitive Christians at the same meeting, and thus they became confounded; and it is evident that St. Paul refers to both of these: and, from his manner of treating the subject, we are led to infer that they were celebrated at the same meeting, and were, as Dr. Waterland observes, different parts or acts of the same solemnity.
Though this name is now a pretty general appellative of the eucharist, I cannot help thinking it a very improper one: and, though jthe matter may appear of small importance, I think, as it is not sufficiently designatory, it should be disused.
3. Sacrifice — ©utfia — I have already produced some proofs from Justin Martyr, that the eucharist was termed a sacrifice among the primitive Christians; and this they did — First, because it took place of the paschal Lamb, which all acknowledge to be an expiatory victim. — Secondly, because it represented ftie atonement made by the passion and death of Christ, for the sins of mankind. This notion of it has been greatly abused, as, in the Romish church, the bare celebration of it has been held forth in the light of an expiatory sacrifice; so that all who received it were considered as having their sins thereby cancelled; and they still boast that no church but theirs enjoys the benefits of the eucharist, because they alone believe it to be the very body and blood, humanity and divinity, of Jesus CKrist, and consequently an available offering and expiation for their sins. Thus they, most unhappily, put the sign ifi er in the place of the thing signified; and, resting in the shadow, they lose the substance, and do not discern the Lord’s body. He that considers the eucharist in this point of view, must necessarily attribute to bread and wine that infinitely meritorious and atoning virtue which belong to Jesus, as dying for our offences, and thus purging our sins by his own blood. From such an awful and destructive perversion of this divine institution, may God save them, and preserve us!
But, though this ordinance should not be considered as a sacrifice, yet it should be well understood that it represents one. And that every communicant may derive all the profit from it, which it is calculated to afford, he should use it in the spirit of sacrifice. As it represents a covenant sacrifice, in which the contracting parties mutually bind themselves to each other, (God offering himself entirely, by and through Christ, not only to every true believer, but to every sincere penitent) the communicant should consider, that, in return, and in order that the covenant may be thoroughly ratified, he must give up his body, soul, and spirit unto the Lord, as a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice; firmly purposing to devote every power and faculty to glorify his Maker and Redeemer, as long as he shall have a being. He, who is not fully determined to be wholly on the Lord’s side, should not intermeddle with this sacred ordinance. We have already seen, p, 228, that, in sacrificing, the pouring out of the blood of the covenant victim always implied the imprecation, that his blood who should first violate the conditions of the covenant, might be shed in like manner as that of the sacrifice. Hence that saying of St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi, 29
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation, x£jfwx, judgment or condemnation to himself i. e. he thereby forfeits his life, according to the penal sanctions of the covenant expressed by pouring out the blood, which is the life of the victim. “For this cause,” says the apostle, “many are weak and sickly among you; and many sleep” — some of you are dying, and others dead; God having thus exacted the penalty of a broken covenant. Be faithful therefore to your God, and your soul shall live for ever.
4. Breaking of bread. Kkatfts tou Aprou. — This I had long scrupled to admit as a legitimate appellative of the eucharist, till I observed that the Syriac Version has rendered the passages, Acts ii, 42, xx, 7, instead of breaking of bread, breaking the eucharist. See what is observed on this subject p. 237. 1 therefore suppose, that this was a common name for this sacred rite during the apostolic age; but I think it was always used with a peculiar emphasis — breaking of the bread, or breaking of that bread, KXac rou Agrov. That this appellative descended lower than the apostolic times, we learn from Ignatius’s epistle to the Ephesians, chapter xx, where, speaking of the eucharist, he terms it sm agwv xkuvrsg, o s& <pa£|*axov aflavatfias xada£<n»)giov aXefixaxov, “breaking that one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the medicament which expels all evil;” and Tertullian de Oratione, chap, xxiv, speaking of St. Paul breaking bread aboard the vessel, Acts xxvii, 35, says — In navi coram omnibus eucharistiam fecit. In the ship he celebrated the eucharist, in the presence of them all. It is very easy to discover how this appellative arose; for at the original institution, our Lord is said to have taken bread, and having giv§% thanks he brake it, hence the whole act was termed the breaking op bread. But this name, as not sufficiently expressive, seems soon to have given place to other terms, by which the nature and design of this institution were more forcibly expressed and better understood. It is evident, however, that a principal design of this name was to point out that unity and fellowship which these primitive disciples had among themselves, the highest proof of which in those eastern countries was, their frequently breaking bread, or eating with each other.
5. Communion. Koivuvia. — In 1 Cor. x, 16, the eucharist is called the communion of the body and blood of Christ. As the term Koivwvia signifies not only communion ox fellowship, but also participation, it evidently signifies that the faithful partakers had thereby fellowship or communion with the Lord Jesus, being made partakers of the benefits of his passion and death: so that as truly as their bodies were made partakers of and were nourished by the bread and wine, so truly were their souls made, partakers of the grace, mind, and spirit of the Lord Jesus, so that “they dwelt in God, and God in them; were one with God, and God with them.”
Suicer observes in his Thesaurus, under the word xoivwvia, that this term meant communion or participation, in reference to the eucharist (for it had besides, different meanings) for the following reasons: 1. Because of the union of the faithful with Christ and with each other. 2. Because believers are thereby not only united to Christ, but are also made partakers of his kingdom. 3. Because, through this fellowship or communion they are deemed worthy of partaking of all that appertains to Christ.
In the confession of faith of the oriental churches quoted by him, We find the following remarkable exposition of this communion or participation. H ayia xoivwvia tfufj-^oXov tt]s fl’utfa’wfKXTWfl’e&js xai syxevr gitfeus iwv ifpog <rov evavdpw- ■ffTjrfavfa uiov xai Xoyov <rou Osou, $» rls syxswrgufriug 8s Xurgouftsda rov aiwviou Oavarou’ <rrls guffys /«£ uyiaivoutfg xai aeiaXXoutfr, oux etffl’ oTfwg (jwj xai touj xkaSovg tfuvuyiavsiv Taurrj xai tfuvaXXsiv diarfavrog. vid. Suic. Thesaur. voc. xaivuvia,
“The holy communion is a symbol of our being incorporated and engrafted in the incarnated Son and Word of God; by which engrafting we are delivered from eternal death: for as the root is sound and always flourishing, it is not possible that the branches united with it, should not be sound and ever verdant.”
A two-fold communion is here pointed out. 1. Communion with Christ. 2. Communion with each other. For 1. The branches to continue flourishing, must have communion with the root, i. e. must be nourished by those very juices imbibed by the root; and 2. As the branches, being all equally partakers of the root, have their common support and verdure from it; so believers being all equally united to Christ, and deriving all their nourishment and support from him, stand in the same relation to each other, as the branches do in the same tree. This is the purport of the following words of our blessed Lord: I am the vine, ye are the branches. I pray for them that they may be one, even as thou Father art in me, and I in thee. I in them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.
6. Sacrament — Sometimes called the holy sacrament and the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. The reason and true meaning of this appellative being, I conceive, very little known, I shall endeavour to consider this subject more minutely than I have done in any of the preceding cases. Though this term as applied to the eucharist is no where to be found in Scripture, yet it appears to have been in use very early in the primitive church. The first time it is mentioned, probably in reference to this solemn act, is in the well known epistle of Pliny Secundus, to the Emperor Trajan. This very learned and eminent statesman was appointed by the emperor to the administration of affairs, in the province of Bythinia, a country of Natolia or Asia-Minor, bordering on the Euxine sea; through different parts of whose vicinity the gospel had been preached by Paul
SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. J4.)
and Silas, Acts xvi, 1, &c, and probably by others before them.
In this country multitudes had been converted to the Lord, so that when Pliny came to the government of the province, he found that multi omnis cetatis, omnis ordinis, utriusque sexus etiam, many of every age, rank, and sex, had embraced the Christian religion; for “the contagion of this superstition,” as he terms it, “was not confined to cities, but had diffused itself through all the neighbouring villages and country,” Neque enim civitates tantum, sect vicos etiam atque agros superstitionis istiuscontagio pervagata est. Finding the Christian cause rapidly gaining ground, and the temples almost entirely deserted and the rites and ceremonies of heathenism abandoned, desolata templa et sacra solemnia intermissa, he published a decree, by order of the emperor, forbidding the Christian assemblies on pain of death. The followers of Christ being hemmed in on every side, by this state persecution, were obliged to relinquish their meetings very generally, so that those which were held, were confined to the sabbath, and then only before day.
This subjected so many to accusation and consequent death, that the governor’s heart began to relent, and he wrote to the emperor proposing a number of questions for direction in this important business; transmitting to him at the same time, the sum of all the charges that could be legally substantiated against the Christians. This most important piece bf church history, so honourable to the followers of Christ, and disgraceful to their persecutors, and in which we find the first mention of sacrament, is still extant in Pliny’s Epistles, lib. x, Epist. 97, vol. ii, p. 127, Edit. Bipont. 1789, 8vo. Affirmabant, autem, hanc fuisse summam vel culpm vel erroris, quod essent soliti state die ante lucem convenire ‘, carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicer e secum invieem: seque SA CRAMENTO non in scelusaliquod OBSTR1NGERE, sednefurta,nelatrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, nefidemfallerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent: quibus peractis, morem sibi discedendifuisse rursusque cocundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen, et innoxium. “They affirmed, that the whole of their fault or error was this; that they were accustomed to meet together on a certain, day (state die, the sabbath) before day light; and sing a hymn by turns, (viz. a responsive song) to Christ as their God, and to bind themselves by a solemn oath, (by a sacrament) not for any wicked purpose, but not to be guilty of theft, robbeiy, or adultery: not to violate their faith, nor to deny any deposit when called on to deliver it up: having done these things, it was their custom to separate, and afterwards to re-assemble to eat in common an inoffensive meal.”
There is every reason to believe that Pliny refers here to that partaking of the eucharist, and the solemn engagements they entered into with God, when receiving that sacred ordinance, to depart from every appearance of evil; and render up, in affectionate obedience, their bodies, souls, and spirits to their Maker.
The word sacramentum properly means the military oath, which every Roman soldier was obliged to take of fidelity and obedience to his general. From this we may learn both the reason and meaning of the term sacrament, as applied to the eucharist. Considering the various oppositions which the disciples of Christ might expect to meet with from the devil and his servants, and which they were expected to resist, continuing faithful even at the hazard of their lives; all that embraced the gospel were represented as erdisting themselves under the banner of Christ, whose faithful soldiers they promised to be. And, as the captain of their salvation, was made perfect by sufferings, they were expected to follow him in the same path, loving not their lives even unto death. Now, as in the holy eucharist their obligations to their divine leader were set before them in the most impressive and affecting point of view, they made this their covenant sacrifice an occasion of binding themselves afresh to their Lord, to fight manfully under his banner. Hence, as there was a continual reference to the sacramenlum, or military oath, the blessed ordinance itself appears to have been termed the sacrament, because in it they took the vows of the Lord upon them; and as often as they celebrated this sacred ordinance, they ratified the covenant engagements which they had made at their baptism.
What was the matter, and what the precise words of this oath, is a subject of inquiry at once both curious and useful. The very form and matter of the oath are both preserved in Polybius, and a careful view of them cannot fail to cast much light on the subject now under consideration. In Histor. lib. vi, s. 1, where he is giving an account of the manner of raising, embodying, and enrolling the Roman troops, he observes, that when all the proper arrangements were made, and the different companies formed, the Chiliarch, or military tribune, selecting a proper person from all the rest, propounded the sacramentum, or oath of fidelity and obedience, who immediately swore as follows: H MHN nEI0APXH2EIN KAI nOIHUEIN TO IIP02TATTOMENON TIIO TQN APXON-TfiN KATA ATNAMIN. 0» 8s Xoirfoi ifavrss ofMuoutfi xad’ eva tf£atf0££UOJA?V0l TOU T’otUTO 5*)XouVT££ OTI tfOJTJfl’outfl, “JfaVTa XaAasKS? 0 VfPU-T0£:” SUBMISSIVELY TO OBEY AND PERFORM WHATSOEVER IS COMMANDED BY THE OFFICERS, ACCORDING TO THE
uttermost of his power. The rest all coming forward, one by one, take successively the same oath, that they would perform every thing according to what the first had sworn.” — Vide Polyb. a Gronovio, 8vo. Amsterdam, 1670, vol. 1, p. 650. Here, then, is the meaning of the word sacrament, so frequently used in the primitive church, and still common among the major part of Christians, who acknowledge the divine obligation of the eucharist, and who break bread and drink wine in remembrance that Jesus Christ died for them. He, therefore, who comes to this ordinance in the true primitive spirit, binds himself
SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER.
to God by the most solemn vow, that he will acknowledge him for his leader and director; submit implicitly to his authority, perform his righteous commands, and exert the uttermost powers of his body and soul in the service of his Redeemer.
7. Paschal feast, or passover. This was a very ancient title, and out of it many others of a similar import grew, such as God’s feast, or banquet, the Lord’s
TABLE, the SPIRITUAL PASSOVER, the SACRAMENTAL FEAST,
&c; all of which seem to have had their origin in the consideration that the eucharist succeeded to the passover, which was clearly founded on St. Paul’s words, 1 Cor. v, 7, 8. Christ our passover is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast. Dr. Cud worth, who has written a very learned discourse on “The true notion Of the Lord’s supper,” has fully proved, chap. 1, “That it was a custom among the Jews and heathens to feast upon things sacrificed; and that the custom of Christians in partaking of the body and blood of Christ once sacrificed upon the cross, in the Lord’s supper, is analogical hereunto.” And he proves, in chap. 2, from Scripture and from Jewish authors, that “the passover was a true sacrifice, and the paschal feast, a feast upon a sacrifice.” And in chap. 4, he demonstrates, “That the Lord’s supper in the Christian church, in reference to the true sacriftce of Christ, is a parallel to the feasts upon sacrifices both in the Jewish religion and heathenish superstition.” And concludes, in chap. 5, “That the Lord’s supper is not a sacrifice, but a feast upon a sacrifice.”
Dr. Cud worth properly divides the sacrifices under the law into three kinds; first, Such as were wholly offered to God, and burnt upon the altars, as the holocausts, or burnt offerings, moloth. Secondly, Such as the priests ate a part of, besides a part offered to God upon the altar; as the sin offerings, nstan chattath, and the trespass offerings, qwx ashem. Thirdly, such as the owners themselves had a part of, besides a. part bestowed on the priests, and a portion offered to God: these were termed the rzrntJ’ shelamim, or peace offerings.”
That the Gentiles feasted on the sacrifices offered to their gods, every one knows who lias read the Greek and Roman classics; of this, the following proofs cannot be unacceptable to any intelligent reader. In Iliad A. Homer describes a hecatomb sacrifice, which Agamemnon offered to Apollo, by his priest Chryses, and a feast that immediately followed: —
Then before the shrine
Magnificent, in order due they ranged
The noble hecatomb! * Ver. 446.
and with meal
Sprinkling the victims, their retracted necks
First pierced, then flayed them. Ver. 458.
-t the thighs with fire consumed,
They gave to each his portion of the maw,
Then slash’d the remnant, pierced it with the spits,
And, managing with culinary skill,
They roast; withdrew it from the spits again.
Their whole task thus accomplish’d, and the board
Set forth, they feasted, and were all sufficed.
Ver. 460-68.
In the second Iliad, Agamemnon offers an ox to Jupiter, and invites several of the Grecian captains to partake of it:
Au<ra£ 0 /3ouv jssutfsv aval; avogwv Aya/xsjjwwv, x. <r. X.
But Agamemnon in his tent prepared
For sacrifice, to all-commanding Jove,
A fifth-year fatted ox, and to his feast
Summori’d the noblest of the sons of Greece.
II. B. v, ‘403-43 1.
In- Odyssey, r. Nestor sacrifices an ox to Minerva, in behalf of Telemachus and his friends, on which they all afterwards feasted.
Au<ra£ eirsi xara fW]£’ sxarj, xai oVXayv’ stfatfavro, x. <r. X.
The thighs consumed,
They ate the interior part, then slicing them,
The remnant, pierced and held it to the fire.
The viands dress’d, and from the spits withdrawn,
They sat to share the feast.
Odyss. Tv, 461-471.
In the same book, the Pylians are represented sacrificing eighty-one black bulls to Neptune, at which were present 4,500 persons, who, having offered the thighs to their god, feasted on the entrails, and the rest of the flesh.
See Cowper’s Homer. — Odyss. Ill, v. 1, &c.
Plato, in his second book, De Legibus, acknowledges such feasts under the name of Eqtcii fxera 8ewf Feasts after divine worship.
Virgil refers to the same custom, Eclogue iii, v,
ver. 77.
Cum faciam Vitula, pro frugibus, ipse venito.
“When, instead of offering fruits, 1 shall sacrifice a heifer, come thou to the feast.” And thus in iEneid. v. 179, Evander entertains iEneas:
Turn lecti juvenes certatim, aneque sacerdos-,
Viscera tosta ferunt taurorum — Vescitur iEneas simul et Trojana juventua,
Perpetui tergo bovis et lustralibus extis.
“Then chosen youths, and the priest, with great despatch heap on the altar the broiled intestines of bulls — .Eneas, and with him the Trojan youth, feast on the chine and hallowed viscera of an ox.”
The ancient Persians were accustomed to pour out the blood of the victims to their gods, and then feast on the flesh. And the ancient Arabians did the same in their camel feasts. And, as Dr. Cud worth properly observes, from this custom of the heathens of feasting upon sacrifices, arose that famous controversy among the primitive Christians, (noticed in the New Testament) “whether it be lawful (etfdiejv ei5wXodu<ra) to eat things sacrificed to idols.” Indeed, this custom was so common among the ancient heathens, that he who made use of any flesh at
SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 24(J
his table, which had not been offered to the gods, was deemed a profane person. Hence the Greek proverb, o6ut<x, stf&siv, to eat things which had not been sacrificed, was used as a brand of a notoriously wicked man.
I cannot deny myself the pleasure of laying the substance of Dr. Cudworth’s “Demonstration, that the Lord’s supper in the Christian church, in reference to the true sacrifice of Christ, is a parallel to the feasts upon sacrifices, both in the Jewish religion and heathenish superstition;” whch he proves from a passage in Scripture, 1 Cor. x, where all these three are compared together, and made exact parallels to each other.
Ver. 14, Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
Ver. 15, I speak as to wise men: judge ye what I say
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 not the communion of the body of Christ?
Ver. 1 8, Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?
Ver. 20, Now, I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, (Saovm$ demons) and not to God; and 1 would not that ye should have fellowship with devils, (xoivwvouj twv 5ai(j.ovicjv ymdbou, that ye should not be participators with demons.)
Ver. 21, Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils, (5aiy,oviwv demons:) ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and the table of devils, (Souoviuv demons.)
In these passages, the design of the apostle is to convince the Corinthians of the unlawfulness of eating things sacrificed to idols; and he does this by showing that though an idol is nothing in the world, and things sacrificed to idols physically nothing, as differing from other meats, yet morally and circumstantially to eat of things sacrificed to idols, in the idol’s temple, vyas to consent to the sacrifices, and to be guilty of them.
This he illustrates first, from a parallel rite in the
Christian religion; where the eating and drinking of bread and wine in the eucharist, as representing the body and blood of Christ, offered to God upon the cross for us, is a real communication 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 not the communion of the body of Christ?
Secondly, from another parallel of the same rite among the Jews, where they who ate were always accounted partakers of the altar, that is, of the sacrifice offered on the altar. Behold Israel after the flesh; are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? ver. 18.
Therefore, as to eat the symbols of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist, is to partake of his sacrifice offered up to God for us; and, as to eat of the Jewish sacrifices under the law, was to partake in the legal sacrifices themselves: so, to eat of things offered up in sacrifice to idols, was to be partakers of the idol sacrifices, and therefore was unlawful: for the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, but Christ’s hody and blood were offered up in sacrifice to GOD, and therefore they could not partake of both together, the sacrifice of the true God, and the sacrifice of devils.
St. Paul’s argument here must necessarily suppose a perfect analogy between these three, and that they are a parallels to each other; or else it has no force. Therefore, I conclude that the Lord’s supper is the same among Christians in respect of the Christian sacrifice, as the Jewish feasts or sacrifices were among them; and the feasts upon idol sacrifices were among the Gentiles; and consequently, that the eucharist is Epulum sacrificiale, or epulum ex oblatis, that is, a feast upon a sacrifice, q. e. d. — True notion of the Lord’s supper, fourth ed. p. 26.
Having thus sufficiently shown that the eucharist is properly a feast upon a sacrifice, 1 shall now consider it particularly in the light of a feast.
Aulus Gellius, (Noctes Attics, lib. xiii, c, 11, edit Bipont. vol. ii, p. 60,) informs us, that Marcus Farro wrote a treatise, entitled, Quid Vesper serus Vehat. What may the close of the day produce? in which he speaks of feasts, the proper number and quality of guests, and the custom and management of the entertainment itself.
A feast, says he, is just what it should be, omnibus suis numeris absolutum est, when made up of these four circumstances. 1. Si belli homunculicollecti sunt. 2. Si locus electus. 3. Si tempus ledum. 4. Si apparatus non ntglectus.
1. Decent respectable persons.
2. A convenient and proper place.
3. A suitable time. And,
4. Proper cheer and accommodations.
I shall take these things in order, and apply them to a proper celebration of the eucharist, considered in the light of a religious feast.
1. Decent, respectable persons. If ever attention should be paid to this subject, it is when God provides the entertainment, and condescends to sit down with the guests. St. Paul has taken up this subject in a particular manner, 1 Cor. xi, 27, &c, and it is highly necessary that we should weigh his important advice.
He asserts, v. 27, Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ. From this we learn, that improper communicants are in a very awful state. These may be divided into two classes, the inconsiderate and the ungodly. Of the former class, there are multitudes among the different societies of Christians. They know not the Lord, and discern not the operation of his hands: hence they go to the Lord’s table from a mere sense of duty or propriety, without considering what the sacred elements represent, or feeling any hunger after the bread that endureth unto eternal life. These really profane the ordinance, by either not devoting it to the end of its institution, or by perverting that end. Among these may probably be ranked those who believe not in the vicarious sufferings and death of the blessed Redeemer. They also receive the Lord’s supper, but they do it as a testimony of respect andfriendly remembrance — these do not discern the Lord’s body; do not see that this bread represents his body which was broken for them, and his blood which was spilt for the’ remission of sins. Their celebration of this ordinance is an absolute profanation of it, forasmuch as they do it to another purpose than that for which Christ instituted it. It was a maxim among the rabbins, “That if the paschal lamb was slain in its own name, and the blood sprinkled as that of another sacrifice, the whole was polluted.” — Or, “if the offerer changed his intention, during the solemnity, and in the purpose of his mind, changed the sacrifice, it was polluted.” See JVIishna Tract. Pesachim. This was doubtless true bf the passover, and no less so of the antitype, for in Christ crucified, a greater than the paschal lamb is here. If the blessed God has instituted this solemnity to bring to remembrance the death of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, and a person calling himself a Christian, comes forward to the sacred feast, with a creed determined against this scriptural, and indeed only religious use of it, does he not in heart change the sacrifice? are not the crucifixion of the body, and the spilling of the blood, perverted from their grand purpose; and the awful solemnity polluted in his hands 1 He pretends to remember Christ crucified, but he commemorates the sprinkling of his blood not as an atonement for sin, but “as a necessary consequence of Jewish malice, and of the unshaken integrity of the founder of Christianity, who, to convince the world that he was sincere, and that his doctrines were all true, submitted to a painful and ignominious death!” Is not this eating and drinking unworthily? Can such persons have ever carefully examined the book of God, relative to this matter? If they have not, they are greatly to be pitied, and greatly to be blamed: if they have, and still refuse to acknowledge Him who died for them, their case is peculiarly deplorable.
Of the ungodly, as comprehending transgressors of all descriptions, little need be said in proof of their unworthiness. Such, coming to the table of the Lord, eat and drink their own condemnation, as they profess by this religious act to acknowledge the virtue of that blood which cleanseth from all unrighteousness, while themselves are slaves of sin. Those who sin against the remedy must perish; and it is their condemnation, that God had provided a ransom for their souls, but they refused to accept it; and preferred the bondage of sin to the liberty of the gospel. JNone such should ever be permitted to approach the table of the Lord: if they (through that gross ignorance which is the closely wedded companion of profligacy) are intent on their own destruction, let the ministers of God see that the ordinance be not profaned by the admission of such disreputable and iniquitous guests. In many Christian churches there is a deplorable lack of attention to this circumstance — professor and profane are often permitted to approach the sacred ordinance together; in consequence of which the sincere followers of God are wounded, the weak stumbled and the influences of the Spirit of God restrained. For, can it be expected that God will manifest his approbation when the pale of his sanctuary is broken down, and the beasts of the forest introduced into the Holy of Holies? The evil consequent on this cannot be calculated: and these are justly chargeable to the account of those who have the management of this sacred ordinance. No man should be permitted to approach the table who is not known to be a steady, consistent character, or a thorough penitent. If there be an indiscriminate admission, there must be unworthy communicants, who instead of receiving the cup of salvation, will wring out the dregs of the cup of trembling; for we may rest assured that this ordinance is no indifferent thing: every soul that approaches it will either receive good or evil from it — he will retire a better or a worse man — he will have, either an increase of the Spirit of Christ or of Judas — -on him the Lord will graciously smile or judicially frown. It may be here asked, “Who then should approach this awful ordinance?” I answer, every believer in Christ Jesus who is saved from his sins, has a right to come. Such are of the family of God; and this bread belongs to the children. On this there can be but one opinion. 2dly. Every genuine penU tent is invited to come, and consequently has a right, because he needs the atoning blood, and by this ordinance, the blood shed for the remission of sins is expressively represented. “But I am not worthy.” And who is? There is not a saint upon earth, or an archangel in heaven, who is worthy to sit down at the table of the Lord. “But does not the apostle intimate that none but the worthy should partake of it?” No: He has said nothing of the kind; he solemnly reprehends those who eat and drink unworthily i and consequently approves of those who partake worthily — but there is an essential difference between eating and drinking worthily, and being worthy thus to eat and drink. He eats and drinks unworthily, who does not discern the Lords body; i. e. who does not consider that this bread represents his body, which, in a sacrificial way, was broken for him; and this cup his blood, which was poured out for the multitudes, for the remission of sins. The genuine believer receives the Lord’s supper in the remembrance of the atonement which he has received, and of the blood which he expects is to cleanse him from all unrighteousness, or to keep him clean, if that change has already taken place in his soul The penitent should receive it in reference to the atonement which he needs, and without which he knows he must perish
everlastingly. Thus, none are excluded but the impenitent, the transgressor, and the profane. Believers, however weak, have a right to come; and the strongest in faith need the grace of this ordinance. Penitents should come, as all the promises of pardon mentioned in the Bible are made to such; and he that is athirst may take the water of life freely. None is worthy of the entertainment (though all these will partake of it worthily;) but it is freely provided by Him who is the Lamb of God, who was slain for us, and is worthy to receive glory and majesty, dominion and power, for ever and ever I
In the same tract of Varro, mentioned above, he says that “in a feast well constituted, (convivarum numerum incipere opportere a gratiarum numero, et progredi ad musarum;) we should begin with the graces and end with the muses;” by which he did not merely mean, as Gellitis says, that in a feast there should never be fewer than three, never more than nine; but that every feast should be commenced with order, decency and gracefulness, and should terminate in the increase of social affection, and the general happiness of the guest. All those who come to this gospel feast, should come in that spirit in which they may expect to meet and please their God, have thereby their brotherly love increased, and their happiness in God considerably augmented. It is in reference to this point, (the increase of brotherly affection and communion with God,) that the apostle says, 1 Cor. v, 7, 8, to the contentious and unloving Christians at Corinth, among whom were dissensions and schisms, Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new and unleavened lump: for even 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. We have already seen with what care the ancient Jews purged their houses of leaven; and what pains they took to have themselves, their houses, and their utensils pure. This they did by the express command of God, Exod. xxiii, 18, who, meant thereby not merely their removing all fermented substances from their houses, but as the apostle properly observes, the leaven of malice and wickedness from their hearts, without which they could neither love one another, nor in any respect please God. Hence the church -of England very properly requires, in all her communicants, that they should “steadfastly purpose to lead a new life, have a lively faith in God’s mercy through Christ, and be in charity with all men.” This is, indeed, purging out the old leaven, that the lump may be entirely new and pure.
2. A proper and convenient place. Locus electus.
From the beginning God has appointed a place where he chose to register his name; and this was necessary, in the infancy of revelation, that a proper uniformity might be observed in the divine worship, and idolatry prevented. And, though we know that God is not confined to temples made by hands, yet he does condescend to dwell among men in such places as are set apart for his worship, and are consecrated to his name. Hence, the place of public worship must be the most proper for this and every other sacred ordinance. Hither men come to wait upon their God; and, in the sanctuary, his power and glory are often shown forth. As the house is the house of God, on entering under the rpof a sacred awe, exceedingly helpful to the spirit of true devotion, is generally felt. Whatever we see and hear calls to our mind different religious acts, and as nothing in the place has been devoted to common or secular uses, every association of ideas relative to what we see and hear only serves to deepen each serious impression, and excite the soul to the due performance of the different parts of divine worship.
Those who have pleaded that every place is equally proper for the worship of God, because he fills the heavens and the earth, have not considered the powerful influence of association on the mind of man. Let a man only see, where he worships, a series of objects which he every where meets with in common life, and he will find it difficult to maintain the spirit of devotion. 1 grant that, in the beginning of the kingdom of Christ, the first converts were obliged to worship in private houses, and even in such the holy eucharist was celebrated; Acts ii, 46: and in every age since that time many excellent Christians have been obliged to use even the meanest dwellings for the purposes of religious worship; but where buildings consecrated solely to the service of God can be had, these alone should be used; and therefore the house of God, whether it be church or chapel, ceremonially consecrated or unconsecrated, should be preferred to all others. And here I hope I may, without offence, say one word, — that it is not a ceremonial consecration of a place to God that can make it peculiarly proper for his worship; but the setting the place apart, whether with or without a ceremony, for prayer, praise, preaching, and the administration of the Lord’s supper. By this means it becomes properly the house of God because solely set apart for religious purposes. The lax teaching that has said, Every place is equally proper, has brought about with thousands that laxity of practice which leads them to abandon every place of worship and every ordinance of God. Innovation is endless; and when it takes place in the worship of God, it seldom stops till it destroys both the form and power of religion. The private house is ever proper for family worship, and for public worship also, when no place set apart for the purposes of religion can be had; for in ancient times, many of the disciples of Christ had a church in their houses, see Rom. xvi, 5; Phil. 2; and in these God manifested his power, and showed forth his glory, as he had done in the sanctuary: but I would simply state, that such dwellings should not be preferred, when, by the consent of any religious people, a place is set apart for the purposes of divine worship. Thus much may suffice concerning the locus electus of Varro, as far as it can be applied for the .illustration of the present subject.
3. Tempus lectum. A suitable time.
How often in the year, and at what time of the day, should the eucharist be celebrated, are questions to which considerable importance has been attached. How often the first Christians received the holy sacrament cannot be exactly ascertained. In Acts ii, 42, it is said that they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking o/”bread; and in ver. 46, they continued daily in breaking bread from house to house. We have already seen that the forty-second verse probably refers to the eucharist: of the latter this is not so obvious. However, some have supposed, from this passage, that the holy sacrament was celebrated every day, in one or other of the Christians’ houses; and that, therefore, the eucharist was the daily bread of the first Christians. And there is some reason to think that this was the case at a very early period of the Christian church; for Eusebius (Demonstr. Evangel, lib. 1,) says, they commemorated the body and blood of Christ, oo^ae, daily. And it is very likely that many understood our Lord’s command in so general a sense, that whenever they brake bread, they did it in a sacramental remembrance of him. If this were really the case, and it is not improbable, it did not long continue so, as it soon became a set ordinance, and was not associated with any other meal; though, at a very early period, a love feast often preceded it. From Justin Martyr, and others, we learn that it was celebrated at the conclusion of public worship, sometimes in the morning, and sometimes in the evening; and both Pliny and Tertullian speak of its being celebrated before day light. So that it does not appear that any particular part of the day was, at any time, deemed exclusively proper.
As the Lord’s day is devoted to public worship, that day above all others, must be the most proper for the celebration of this ordinance; as the heart is better prepared to wait on God without distraction, worldly tpusjbness being then laid aside, and consequently the mind more free to enter into a consideration of such important mysteries. And, as the Lord’s day is the most proper among the days, so the morning of that day is the mos’t favourable time on which to celebrate this sacred ordinance. Towards the close of the day, a man may be comparatively indisposed towards a profitable commemoration of the passion of our Lord, by the fatigue attendant on the different religious duties performed during its course; which exhausting the animal powers, renders the mind incapable of such sublime and pathetic acts of devotion as certainly belong to a due performance of the last command of our blessed Lord. But no rule can be given in this case, which will not admit of exceptions; and it must be left to those whose business it is to conduct the worship of God, to determine, in several cases, what is the most proper time, as well as which is the most proper place.
With respect to the frequency of celebrating this divine ordinance, it may be observed, in general, that a medium between seldom and frequency should prevail, Some have received it daily, others weekly — some once in the month, others once per quarter, and some only once in the year:” There is surely a medium between the first and last of these extremes. Few are so spiritually minded, as to be able to discern the Lord’s body in a daily, or even weekly use of the sacrament. Those who receive it only once in the year, cannot sufficiently feel the weight of the divine command. The intervals between the times of celebration are so long, that it is almost impossible to keep up the commemoration of the great facts shadowed forth by this ordinance. On the other hand., those who take it daily, or once in the week, become too much familiarized with it, properly to respect its nature and design. I believe it will be found, that those who are thus frequently at the Lord’s supper, do not in general excel in deep and serious godliness. Were I permitted to advise in this case, I would say, let every proper communicant receive the holy sacrament once every month. Once a year, or once in the quarter, is too seldom; once a day, or once in the week, is too frequent: once in the month, or once in six weeks, is the proper mean.
But what can we think of those who call themselves Christians, and very seldom or never are found at the Lord’s table? They are either despisers or neglecters of the dying words and command of their Lord, and are unworthy of the benefits resulting from a due observance of this divine ordinance. If the omission of a prescribed duty be a sin against God, and who dares deny it? then these are sinners against their own souls. Many comparatively sincere, are detained in the back ground of Christian experience on this very account; and many whole churches labour under the divine displeasure because of the general neglect of this ordinance among their members. Every soul, who wishes not to abjure his right to the benefits of Christ’s passion and death, should make it a point with God and his conscience to partake of this ordinance at least four or six times in the year; and continue thus to show forth the Lord’s death till he come.
We have already seen that the eucharist succeeded to the passover, and have proved that the passover was intended to typify and point out this new covenant rite: the same authority that made it the bounden duty of every Israelite to keep the passover, has made it the duty of every Christian to receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. Who has not read, Numbers ix, 13, The man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same shall be cut off from the people; because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season: that man shall bear his sin. Can any thing be more solemn than this? The paschal lamb was an expiatory victim; he who offered it to God by faith was received into the favour of God, and had his sins remitted in virtue of that atonement represented by the paschal lamb. He who did not keep the passover, bore his own sin; he offered no sacrifice, therefore his sins were not remitted. He who does not receive the holy sacrament, in reference to the atonement made by the passion and death of Christ, shall also bear his own sin. Let no soul trifle here: if a man believe that the due observance of this ordinance is divinely authorized, he cannot refrain from its celebration and be guiltless.
4. Apparatus non neglectus. Proper cheer and accommodations.
After what has been said in order to prove, that the sacrament of the Lord’s supper represents a/east upon a sacrifice; and that this sacrifice is no less than the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which has been broken for us, and the blood of the new covenant sacrifice which has been shed for us, there is no need to attempt to prove, that the provision which God has made, for the entertainment of his guests, is of the most exalted and excellent kind; and that every person may think himself highly favoured indeed, who, with proper dispositions, is permitted to sit down at the table of the Lord. In order, therefore, that each may feel himself thus honoured and privileged, it is of vast importance that the symbols of this sacrifice speak, as much as possible, to the heart, through the medium of the senses. Hence, the bread used should be the purest and best that can possibly be procured, and the wine should be of the same quality; that, as far as possible, the eye, the taste, and the smell, may be pleasingly gratified. What a most unfavourable impression must stale or bitter bread, acrid or vapid wine, make upon the mind! Are these fit symbols of this, most precious sacrifice? Would we have at our own tables, even on ordinary times, such abominable aliments as those sometimes laid on the Lord’s table? Church wardens, and superintendents of this ordinance in general, should take good heed, that not only every thing be done decently and in order, but that the elements be of the most excellent kind. If a man’s senses be either insulted or tortured by what is recommended to him as a mean of salvation, is it likely that his mind will so co-operate with the ordinance, as to derive spiritual good from it? Certainly not. In such a case, he may attend the ordinance as a duty, and take up the performance as a cross: but it will be impossible for him to derive real benefit from it. Besides, a sensible, conscientious man must be disgusted with the slovenly and criminally negligent manner in which this sacred ordinance is celebrated. The passover, it is true, was to be eaten by the Jews with bitter herbs, in remembrance of their former bondage; but the sacrament of the Lord’s supper is a commemoration of the most glorious and auspicious event that ever took place since God laid the foundation of the universe. It is, in a word, a synopsis, or general view, of all that is called the glad tidings of salvation, through the incarnation, passion, death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession of Jesus Christ, the world’s Saviour and the sinner’s Friend. In the primitive church, it was always esteemed a feast, and never accompanied with any act of mortification. Those who think this circumstance is unworthy of serious regard, shew thereby how little they know of human nature; and how apt some are to affect to be wise above what is written, and to fancy themselves above that which is, in reality, above them. Let, therefore, not only the elements, but the whole appa* ratus, and even the mode of administering, be such as shall meet and please all the senses, and through their medium, affect and edify the soul. With such helps, under the influence of the blessed Spirit, devotion must be raised, the flame of pure gratitude kindled, the hungry soul fed, and believers built up on their most holy faith. “Let all things,” says the apostle, “be done decently and in order:” this command should be felt, in its most extensive, sense, in every thing relative to this ordinance. To cut off all occasion of offence, and to make every part of the ordinance edifying and salutary, every minister should take care that his whole deportment be grave, and his words solemn and impressive; not only the sacred elements should be of the purest and best quality, but also
the holy vessels, of whatever metal, perfectly clean, and decently arranged on the table, The communicants, in receiving the bread and wine, should not he hurried, so as to endanger their dropping the, one, or spilling the other, as accidents of this kind have been of dreadful consequence to some weak minds. The pieces of bread should be of a convenient size, not too small, (which is frequently the case) as it is then impossible to take them readily out of the hands of the minister. No communicant should receive with a glove on: this is indecent, not to say irreverent. Perhaps the best, way of receiving the bread is to open the hand, and let the minister lay it upon the palm, whence it may be taken by the communicant with readiness and ease.
As to the posture in which it is received, little need be said, as the subject is of no great importance. Our Lord and his disciples certainly took it in a reclining posture, as this was the Jewish custom at meals; and where there are only ten or twelve communicants, the reclining mode, though contrary to the custom of all western countries, may be literally and innocently copied; but where there are from 500 to 1000 communicants, this would be impracticable. There is no evidence, in the sacred text, that they stood with their staves in their hands, and their loins girded, as the ancient Israelites did at their first celebration of the passover. The reverse seems indicated in the accounts given by the evangelists, as they particularly assert that he sat down, or reclined, avaxsiTo, with his disciples. Some choose to sit, as at their ordinary meals; when this is a custom among a whole re° Jigious sect, no man is authorized to blame it. Provided it can be done in a proper spirit of devotion, it may be as profitably received in that as in any other way. In the primitive church, it was generally received standing, and always so on the Lord’s day, and on the interim between Easter and Whitsuntide; as, on those times, it was deemed unlawful to kneel in any part of divine worship. In the church of Rome, and in the church of England, all the communicants receive kneeling: the former kneel, because they worship the consecrated wafer; the latter, who reject this sentiment with abhorrence, nevertheless kneel, the better to express submission to the divine authority, and a deep sense of their own unworthiness. The posture itself of kneeling, it must be confessed, is well calculated to excite and impress such sentiments; and perhaps, upon the whole, is preferable to all others. It is, however, a matter of comparatively small moment, and should never be the cause of dissension among religious people; only, in every church and congregation, for the sake of order and uniformity, all should sit, or all should kneel Let the former consider, they sit not at a common meal; and let the latter reflect, that they are bowed before that God who searches the heart. The words used in consecration should, undoubtedly, be taken from the sacred Scriptures; and the form used in the church of England is, beyond all controversy, the best of its kind.
From the great respect that was paid to this ordinance, in ancient times, it is sufficiently evident that uncommon influences of the Spirit of God accompanied the celebration of it.* In those times, the communicants discerned the Lords body; they perceived that it represented the sacrifice whJGh was offered for them, and pointed out the
* Hence those epithets applied to it by St. Ignatius, in his epistle to the Ephesians, (see the motto to this Discourse,) “Brethren, stand fait in the faith of Jesus Christ — in his passion and resurrection; breaking thai one bread which is the medicine o/immortality, the antidote against death, and the means of living in God by Christ Jesua .; the medicam ent that evpets all evil”
Lamb, newly slain, before the throne: they partook of it, therefore, with strong faith in the atoning efficacy of the death of Christ, which they had thus represented, at once, both to the eyes of their body and those of their mind; and the natural consequence was, that the glory of God filled the place where they sat, and the souls that worshipped in it. Those were the days of the Son of man, and might be again amply realized, were the holy eucharist rightly administered and scripturally received.
In the apparatus of this feast, a contribution for the support of the poor should never be neglected. This was a custom religiously observed from the very remotest antiquity of the Christian era. This is the only way we have of giving a substantial form to our gratitude, and rendering it palpable. The poor, and especially the pious poor, are the proper representatives of him, who, though he Was rich, yet for our sakes became poor, that we, through his poverty, might be rich. He, then, who hath pity on the poor lendeth to the Lord. Let no man appear at this ordinance empty handed, and let every man give as God has prospered him.
It might be deemed necessary by some, that, at the Close of such a discourse, proper directions should be given how to receive profitably, and how to behave before and after communicating. But this is so generally well provided for, in the sermons commonly preached on such occasions, and by books of devotion, that it may well be dispensed with here. Besides, much may be collected from the preceding pages themselves, the grand object of which is to teach men how to discern the Lord’s body in this holy institution; and they that do so cannot use it unprofitable
IVr It may be just necessary to state a few reasons for frequenting the table of the Lord, and profiting by this ordinance which either have not been previously mentioned, or not in a manner sufficiently pointed to ensure their effect
1. Jesus Christ has commanded his disciples to do this iii remembrance of him: and, were there no other reason, this .certainly must lie deemed sufficient by all those who respect his authority as their Teacher and Judge. He loho breaks one of the least of his commandments, (and certainly this is not one of the least of them) and teaches others, either by precept or example, so to do, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. What an awful reproof must this be to those who either systematically reject or habitually neglect this holy ordinance.
2. As the oft-repeated sacrifices in the Jewish church, and particularly the passover, were intended to point out the Son of God till he came; so, it appears, our blessed Lord designed that the eucharist should be a principal mean of keeping in remembrance his passion and death; and thus show forth him who has died for our offences, as the others did, him who, in the fulness of time, should die.
T believe it will be generally found, that those who habitually neglect this ordinance, seldom attach much consequence to the doctrine of the atonement, and those kindred doctrines essentially connected with it.
Though I am far from supposing that the holy eucharist is itself a sacrifice, which is a most gross error in the Romish Church, yet I am as fully convinced that it can never be scripturally and effectually celebrated by any but those who consider it as representing a. sacrifice, even that of the life of our blessed Lord, the only available sacrifice for sin; and that the eucharist is the only ordinance, instituted by divine appointment among men, in which any thing of the ancient sacrificial forms yet remains; and that this, in its form, and in the manner of its administration, partakes so much of the ancient expiatory offerings, literally considered, and so* much of the spirit and design of those offerings, as ever to render it the most lively exhibition both of the sign and the thing signified; and consequently, a rite the most wisely* calculated to show forth the death of the Son of God, till he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 0gj
3. But there is another reason why this duty should be considered as imperiously binding on every Christian soul. It is a standing and inexpugnable proof ‘of the authenticity of the Christian religion. An able writer of our own country has observed, that a matter of fact, however remote, is rendered incontestable, by the following criteria: 1. “That the matter of fact be such as men’s senses, their eyes and ears may be judges of. 2. That it be done publicly. 3. That both public monuments be kept up in’memory of it, and some outward actions be performed. 4. That such monuments and such actions or observances be instituted and do commence from the time that the matter of fact was done.” Now all these criteria, he demonstrates, concur in relation to the matters of fact recorded of Moses and of Christ. The miracles of our Lord were done publicly, and in -the face of the wrorld. Three thousand souls at one time, and five thousand at another, were converted to Christianity on the evidence of these facts. Baptism, and the Lord’s supper, were instituted as perpetual memorials of these things, at the very time in which they were said to have been done; and these have been observed in the whole Christian world from that time until now. Therefore, the administration of these sacraments is an incontestible proof of the authenticity of the Christian religion. See Leslie’s Easy Method with the Deists.
It is not, therefore, merely for the purpose of calling to remembrance the death of our blessed Lord, for the increase and confirmation of our faith; it is not merely that the church of Christ should have an additional mean, whereby God might communicate the choicest influences of his grace and Spirit to the souls of the faithful, that Christians should conscientiously observe, and devoutly frequent the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; but they should continue conscientiously to observe it, as a public, far-speaking, and irrefragable proof of the divine authenticity of our holy religion. Those, therefore, who neglect this ordinance, not only sin against the commandment of Christ, neglect that mean by which their souls might receive much comfort and edification, but as far as in them lies, weaken those evidences of the religion they profess to believe, which have been one great cause, under God, of its triumphing over all the persecution and contradiction of the successive ages of infidelity, from its establishment to the present hour. Had all the followers of Christ treated this divine ordinance as a few have done, pretending that it is to be spiritually understood, (from a complete misapplication of John vi, 63,) and that no rite or form should be observed in commemoration of it, where had been one of the most convincing evidences of Christianity this day ‘. What a masterpiece was it in the economy of Divine Providence, that a teaching like this was not permitted to spring up in the infancy of Christianity, nor till sixteen hundred years after its establishment, by which time, its grand facts had been rendered incontrovertible! Such is the wisdom of God, and such his watchful care over his church.
Sincerely I thank God that this sentiment has had but a very limited spread, and never can be general while the letter and spirit of Christianity remain in the world.
The discourse which our Lord held with the Jews, John vi, 30-63, concerning the manna which their fathers ate in the wilderness, and which he intimates represented himself, has been mistaken by several for a discourse on the holy sacrament. The chronology of the gospels sufficiently proves, that our Lord spake these words in one of the synagogues of Capernaum, at least twelve months before the institution of the eucharist. Nor has it any reference whatever to that ordinance. No man has ever yet proved the contrary.
To multiply arguments in reference to the same subject, would, I apprehend, be absolutely needless. AH who truly fear God, and whose minds are not incurably warped by their peculiar creed, will feel it their highest duty and interest to fulfil every command of Christ, and will particularly rejoice in the opportunity, as often as it shall occur, of eating of this bread and drinking of this cup, in remembrance that Christ Jesus died for them.
It has often been inquired, “Who are they who should administer this sacred ordinance? May not any truly Christian man or woman deliver it to others?” I answer, the ministers of the gospel, alone, should dispense the symbols of the body and blood of Christ; and to act differently would necessarily produce confusion in, and, ultimately, contempt of this blessed institution. The minister alone consecrated the elements in all the periods of the Christian church, though sometimes the deacons delivered them to the people: but even this was far from being a common case, for, in general, the minister not only consecrated but delivered the elements to each communicant.
Another question of greater importance, is the following: —” Is the ungodliness of the minister any prejudice to the ordinance itself, or to the devout communicant V I answer — 1. None who is ungodly should ever be permitted to minister in holy things, on any pretence whatever; and in this ordinance, in particular, no unhallowed hand should be seen. 2. As the benefit to be derived from the eucharist depends entirely on the presence and blessing of God, it cannot be reasonably expected that he will work through the instrumentality of the profligate* or the profane. Many have idled away their time in endeavouring to prove, that the ungodliness of the minister is no prejudice to the worthy communicant: but God has disproved this by ten thousand instances, in which he has in a general way, withheld his divine influence, because of the wickedness or worthlessness of him who ministered, whether bishop, priest, minister, or preacher. God has always required and ever will require, that those who minister in holy things shall have upright hearts and clean hands. Those who are of a different character bring the ordinance of God into contempt.
“But supposing a man has not the opportunity of receiving the eucharist from the hands of a holy man, should he not receive it at all V I answer, I hope it will seldom be found difficult to meet with this ordinance in the most unexceptionable way; but, should such a case occur, that it must be either received from an improper person, or not received at all; I would then advise, Receive it by all means; as you will thereby bear a testimony to the truth of the new covenant, and do what in you lies to fulfil the command of Christ: if, therefore, it be impossible for on to get the ordinance in its purity, and properly administered, then take it as you can, and God, who knows the circumstances of the case, will not withhold from you a measure of the divine influence. But this can be no excuse for those who, through a blind or bigoted attachment to a particular place or form, choose rather to communicate with the profane, than receive the eucharist, according to the pure institution of Jesus Christ, from the most unblemished hands; and in company with saints of the first character! Of all superstitions, this is the most egregious and culpable. Profanity and sin will certainly prevent the divine Spirit from realizing the sign in the souls of the worthless ministers and sinful communicants: but the want of episcopal ordination in the person, or consecration in the place, can never prevent Him, who is not confined to temples made by hands, and who sends by whom he will send from pouring out his Spirit upon those who call faithfully upon his name, and who go to meet him in his appointed ways.
But even serious Christians may deprive themselves of the due benefit of the eucharist by giving way to hurry andLprecipitation. Scarcely any thing is more unbecoming than to see the majority of communicants, as soon as they have received, posting out of the church or chapel, so that at the conclusion of the ordinance, very few are found to join together in a general thanksgiving to God for the benefits conferred by the passion and death of Christ, by means of this blessed ordinance. All the communicants, unless absolute necessity obliges them to depart, should remain till the whole service is concluded, that the thanksgiving of many may, in one general acclamation, redound to the glory of God and the Lamb.
In many congregations, where the communicants are very numerous, this general defection is produced by the tedious and insufferable delay occasioned through want of proper assistants. I have often seen six hundred, and sometimes one thousand communicants and upwards, waiting to be served by one minister! Masters and heads of families are obliged to return to their charge, mothers are constrained to hurry home to their children, and servants to minister to their respective families. And who, in this case, could blame them? Religion was never intended to break in on family obligations, nor to supersede domestic duties.
In all large congregations, there should be at least three ministers, that hurry may be prevented, and the ordinance concluded in such a reasonable portion of time, that no person may be obliged to leave the house of God before the congregation is regularly dismissed. Those who have no such calls, and indulge themselves in the habit of posting off as soon as they have received the sacred elements, must answer to God for an act that not only betrays their great lack of serious godliness, but borders, I had almost said, on profanity and irreligion. Judas, of all the disciples, went out before the holy supper was concluded! Reader wilt thou go and do likewise? God forbid!
CONCLUSION.
I have already remarked, p. 238, that the eucharist may be considered as ^faderal rite; for in this light the ancient feasts upon sacrifices were generally understood: but, as this subject was but barely mentioned, and is of great importance to every communicant, I shall here consider it more extensively.,..
Dr. Cudworth, to whose excellent Discourse on the true nature of the Lord’s supper, the preceding pages are not a little indebted, has, in his sixth chapter, some excellent observations on this head. That the eating of God’s sacrifice was %.fazderal rite between God and those who offered it, he considers as proved from the custom of the ancients, and especially of the orientals, who ate and drank together in order to ratify and confirm the covenants they had made.
Thus, when Isaac made a covenant with Abimelech, it is said, Gen. xxvi, He made him, and those who were with him, a feast; and they did eat and drink, and rose up betimes in the morning, and sware to one another. When Laban made a covenant with Jacob, Gen. xxxi, 44, it is said, They took stones and made a heap, and did eat there upon the heap; on which text Rab. Moses Bar Nacham makes this sensible comment — “They did eat there a little upon the heap for a memorial; because it was the manner of those who enter into covenant, to eat both together of the same bread, as a symbol of love and friendship.” And R. Isaac A barbanel confirms this: “It was,” says he, “an ancient custom among them, that they who did eat bread together, should ever after be accounted for faithful brethren.” — In Josh, ix, 14, we are informed, that when the Gibeonites came to the men of Israel and desired them to make a league with them, The men of Israel took their victuals, and asked not counsel of the mouth of the Lord; which Rabbi Kzmchi thus expounds: They took of their victuals, and ate with them, by way of covenant.” The consequence was, as the context informs us, Joshua made peace with them.
Foederal rites, thus ratified and confirmed, were in general so sacredly observed, that Celsus, in his controversy with Origen, deems it an absolutely improbable thing, that Judas, who had eaten and drank with his Lord and Master, could possibly betray him; and therefore rejects the whole account: o« says he, wdgwru jasv o xmuvvigas rpews J«jf oux av aurw ErfiSouXeutfeisv, tfoXXw tfXsov 0 osw tfuvsuwflsis oux av aurw s-jrouXos syivsro. “For if no man who has partook of the table of another, would ever lay snares for his friend; much less would he betray his God, who had been partaker with him.” Origen, in his reply, is obliged to grant that this was a very uncommon case, yet that several instances had occurred in the histories both of the Greeks and barbarians. From these examples Dr. C. concludes, that the true origin of the word ma berith, which signifies a covenant, or any fader al communion, is the root ma barah, he ate, because it was the constant custom of the Hebrews, and other oriental nations, to establish covenants by eating and drinking together
Nor was this the case among these nations only; all heathen antiquity abounds with instances of the same kind. They not only feasted on their sacrifices, (see p. 79, &c.) but they concluded covenants and treaties of all sorts at these feasts: and as salt was the symbol of friendship, it was always used on such occasions, both among the Jews and among the heathens; hence God’s command, Lev. ii, 13, Thou shalt not suffer the salt op the covenant of thy God to be lacking; with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt. So among the Greeks, AXss xai T^cwrsga, salt and table, were used proverbially to expressfriendship; and AXag xai <rga«e?M <apa-Saivsiv, to transgress the salt and table, signified to violate the most sacred league of friendship. From these premises, Dr. Cudworth concludes, “As the legal sacrifices, with the feasts on those sacrifices, were fcederal rites between God and men; in like manner, I say, the Lord’s supper under the gospel must needs be a federal banquet between God and man; where, by eating and drinking at God’s own table, and of his meat, we are taken into a sacred covenant, and inviolable league of friendship with him.”
This is certainly true “of every faithful communicant; and much consolation may be derived from a proper consideration of the subject. If the covenant have, been made according to the divine appointment, (i. e. by lively faith in Christ, the real faderal sacrifice,) on God’s part it is ever inviolate. Let him, therefore, who has thus entered into the Lord’s covenant, continue steadfast and immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord; then, “neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate him from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Amen,
London, Jan. 1, 180S.