The Nature and Design of the Holy Eucharist: Part I

Do this in remembrance of me, is a commiand 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 one who professed faith in Christ JesuSy and sought for salvation through his blood

13 — 3 alone. Hence it was ever held in the highest estimation and reverence; and the great High-priest of his church has 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 ouu 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, 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 (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 Grod.

The abomination which maketh desolate had got into the holy place 3 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 affiedrs, the genuine followers of Grod showed themselves at once, hot in oi>08ition to a tyrannical government, but in opposition to a corrupt and unprincipled priesthoods They would not, because they could not, believe that a little flour and water kneaded together, and

1>aked in an oven, or anywhere else, were the body and blood of the Sayiour of the world — the God who made the heayeus and the earth, and the only object of rel%L0U8 adoration! ‘’Away,” said the murderous priests, ‘^ with sach fellows from the earth! th are not fit to.Jiye: let them. have judgmit without mixture of mercy, and anticipate -their final damnation by perishing m the, flames T And iiiey, rather than defile their conscience, or deny iheir Ood, embraced death in its most t- rific forms; and thresh the medium of Smithfield flamea. were .homed. into a ) distinguished rank among the ible army of martyrs! But their faU became the fall of .the sanguinary power by which they were slaughtered; and the blood of these martyrs was the seed of the duirch.

“God-like men! how firm they stood! Seeding their country with their blood I**

In this: most honourable contest, besides the vast numbers wbo suffered by. fines, confiseatn,laiid imprisonment, not less than .277 persons fell a sacrifice to tho ignorance,, bigoixy, and maleyolice (^ the papal hierarchy. Among these were ono archbishop, four Inshops twenty-one dergymen, eit lay gentletnen,.. eighty-four tradesmen ne hnndied hasbandmen, fifty-five women, and four children, who were all burtU aXm and this with drcmnstances of croelty and horror which surpassed the bloodiest persecutions of pagan antiquity! Bat they conquered, and were glorious in their death; and hare handed down to us, uncorrupted, those living oracles and that holy worship which were their support and exultation in the doudy and dark day. Do their descendants lay these things to heart, and prize that holy ordinance, on account of which their forefeers suffered the loss of all things? Are we indifferent whether, on this point orthodoxy or heterodoxy prevail 1 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 attaphes 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.

n. The manner of its celebration.

m. The proper meaning of the different edthets yen to it in the Scriptures, and by the primitiye church. And then —

rV. Add a few reasons to enforce the due and irdigiotts cebralaon of it, prindp&lij deduced from the preeedi% observations. ‘L As our blessed Lord celebrated this ordinance immediately after eating what St. Luke calls the ipassover with his disciples, and for which: I shaD by and by prore he intaided it to be the -substitute, it may be necessary to say A few words on that encient rite, in order the more psuiiicularly to discern the ‘connexi(Hi subsisting between thn, and the reference they have to each other.

The PASSOVER (riDbpesach) was a sacrifice ordained by the Lord in memory of Jehovah’s jmssing over {according to the import of the word) the houses of the Israelites, when he destroyed all the first-born in the land of Egjrpt; and was certainly designed to prefigure not only the true paschal lamb, the Lord Jesus C^uist, who was sacrificed fer tis (1 Cor. V. 7) but also the rection which those might expect who should flee for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before them by the sprinkling of

ASD DKSicar OF ran eucharist. I5ft

the lilbbd of Jesa. As this is a point of ednsiderable iiiifpoftaiice, in reference to aright ubderstsuidmg of the nature and design of the Lord’s Supper, it mas be necesfiaty to show more particularly, both from the Scriptures and the ancient Jewish and Christian’ writers, that the paschal lamb wa» cOBflidered by them as a sacrifice of a piacnlar nature.

Qbd had required that all sacrifices should be btoitght to’ the tabernacle or temple, and there’ offered to him; and this was particularly enjoined with 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 particulaiiy 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 anywhere but in that place where God had registered his name: thus Maimonides, in Halachah Fesach, ch. 1.

Dr. Cudworth, who has written excellently on tins subject, has proved at large, from the Scriptures and the ancient Jewish doctors, that the passover wad ever considered by them as a sacrificial rite; to which may be added, that Josephus considered it in the same light, by calling it 0wfia a sacrifice; and Trypho the Jew, in his conferice with Jnstin Martyr, speaks of ^rojSaroy rou vaa sly, sacrificing the paschal lamb. Maimonides, in the tract above referred to, written lexpressly on this subject, speaks of the lamb as a victim, and of the solemnity itself as a sacrifice. Another of their best writers, Rah. Bechaiy Com. in Levit. ii. 11, says, that ^’ the paschal sacrifice was instituted in order to expiate the guilt contracted by the idolatrous practices of the IsraeUtes in Egypt.” And St Paul puts the matter beyond dispute, by saying, ro raca 3j/&t«v vm fi/iuv iMn, X^tffrog, “our passover, Christ, is sacrificed for us;’* iwri i/twv,” on our account,’’ or “in our stead.” It is worthy of remark, that when the passover was first instituted, a lamb was slain in every family, not by the hands of a priest for that would have been impossible, as only one existed who had been divinely appointed; but by the first-bom in every family, who were all considered as priests, till the consecration of the whole tribe of Levi to this office, in consequence of which the first-bom were redeemed, i.e., exempted from this service, by paying a certain sum to the sanctuary.

Justin Martyr, in Ids conference with Trypho the Jew, maintains this sentiment in a very strenuous maimer, showing, from the Scriptures, and the nature of this sacrificial rite, that it was a type of Christ crucified for the sin of the world. One circumstance which he asserts without contradiction from his learned opponent, is, I think, worthy of notice, whether the reader may think it of much consequence to the present subject or not: ‘< 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 ya om-ufuvov ^rofiarov cfl/iarttofiri¥Ov tfioiui r<f) ttrifMLrt rou (Trauou, ovrrarat, £/^ *ya o^/o; ofiiT^tffxog diU’inovarai a*xo rm xaTwrarm fito»¥ (i*iXV xspaXsjr, xa, ii vaKiv xoera ro /^ijra- “fyov, “Qtfarmrat xai as %f/ff( rou “ojSoerou. 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:” rid. Just. Martyri Opera, Edit. Oberther. Vol. IT., 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

158 A BiSCOtJKS£ to TH£ KAXUEE,

o’vrn Wftys, and be chooses often to confoimd the insdom of -^lie -wise, not’ojily 1^ the foolishneas of. preaching, but also by the rariOTis means he CDir ploys to br&g bout the great purposes of his grace and justice. Ilie manner of this roasting was <Jertainly singular, and of the fact we cannot doohty for Trypho himAelf neither a;ttempted to ridicule or deny it.

ButT^hile I’ im. cdhsidenng the testimony of Justin Martyr, there is another passage still pioreeixtraordinary which I wish to place before the reader. In hi3 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 suf. ferings 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 pasaover as is related Ezra vi. 19, &c., Justin says he spoke as follows: Ka, sivtv Bcdag rtff yatf/^ rwrnT. w iracyoL, o (fuTfi, rj/nuv xa, ti %ara(p)y i]fi*m’ xat cav dtavotidrirg; xa, ava’^fi vfiojv im rrv xadiav on /(6<XXofis¥ avrov ram/vow iv CfifitKf), xai fitra raura sXTtffu/LSf %n aurov, ou /tf sfieadp 6 rofrog ourog t/g rov aimvra

Xivov, Xs/f, 0fo; ruv iuvafAiw, Eav d$ fJ^n ^irnu tfqri avr(ft firidt Mtfaxoutfijri rou xijfu^aro; auroO| lifftff ttixot’iftM rotg t6vs(ft. ‘’And Ezra spoke unto the people, and said: This Passover is our Saviour and our Befuge: and if ye shall understand and ponder it in your heart, that we shall in time to coine affict HTM for a sign; and if afterwards we believe on him, this place shall not be desolated fqjc 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,” Vide Just. Martyri Opera, Edit* Oberther, 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 of 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 redemption of the first-bom, it was the custom ior the people to kill their own passovers; but the sacrificial aot»

14 — 2

160 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATiniE

the sprinkling of the blood, belonged solely to the priests. “Five things,” says Eab. 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. 6. Washing the intestines. Those done by the priest were, 1. Receiving the blood into a vessel. 2. Sprinkling it upon the altar. 3. Putting the q upon the altar. 4. Laying the wood in order upon the fire. 6. Putting the pieces ’ of the victim in order on the wood.” Here we see the part which both the people and the 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, nor burnt; it was roasted whole, and eaten by the offerer and his family.

The manner of celebrating th paschal sacrifice is particularly detailed in the Mishna, “a monument of such antiquity as cannot,” says Dr. Cudworth, “be distrusted in these rites.” Nothing, says 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, ie., half an hour after three. But in the evening of the passover, the day sacrifice was killed an hour sooner; and after tht hegm the killing of the passover, whici ^ras to le .done between the two evenings, ira-wn r bemhadrbfteem, Exod. zii. 6; the first of these evenings began at noon, from the sun’s declination towards the west, and the second at sunset. But the pachs.lamb might be killed before the daily sacrifice, provided there were a person to stir the blood, and kep it from coagulating, till the blood of the daily satarifice was sprinkled; for that was always sprinjded 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 congregatvon of Israel shall kill it i the evening’ understand the words ^? kahal, mjr edeth andptnur yishrad as implying three different companies; by the first, they meant the priests, by the seconcj the 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 rounds 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 then selves as did those who held the silver vesselc

14 — 3

These vessek had no rim at the bottom, lest they should be set on the ground, and the blood congeal in them. The priests then took the blood, and handed it from one to another, tiU 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 were 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 flrst 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 Vyn haJld, or paschal hymn, which begun with Ps. cxiii.: “Praise ye the Lord,” rrhbn hdUeluyah, and ended with Psalm cxviii. This singings continued the whole of the time which was employed in killing the lambs. When they ended the hallely they began it a second time, and so on tin 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 Pb. czvL: I 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 was free from moisture, it was commanded to be used on this occasion. See Mishna, by Surenhusius, vol. ii., p. 135. Tract. 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 eu<^harist was instituted in place of the 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 circumstance? common to the Jewish and Christian passover, which may be divided into two kinds. I. Some relating to the things themselves. II. 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 eucha>

list. 2. The pafisover was a sacrament, taxd sq is the eacharifit. 3.. The passover was memoiial of a groat deliverance from temporal bondage ;/the euchaiist is a memorial of a greater ddiyerance 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 federal rite between €kpd and man so is the eucharist, as it points out the blood of the Sacrifice offered for the ratification of the covenant, between Grod 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 comie 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, i 6, 9; so the Holy Scripture commands every ma to examine himself before he attempts to eat of this bread, or drink of this cup; and tp purge oit the old leaven of malice and wickednesp, 1 Cor. ad. 27 — 29. 8. As the neglect or contempt of the passover subjected a man to be cut off froia Isiicael, Exod. xii. 15, Numb. ix. 13; so a contempt au4 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 d death. 9. As the passover was to continue as long as the Jewish law was in force, so the eucharist is to continue tin Christ shall come to judge the world.

n. The second sort of resembling circumstances concerns the particular forms and phrases used 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, eveiy 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 blessing. To this circumstance

St. Paul particulariy alludes, when lie says, “Thue cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ f 1 Cor. x. 16. 5. At the institution of the passover it was said, “The blood shall be to you for a token upon the .houses Inhere you are; and when I see th blood, I will pass over you,” i&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 f ot 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, ae representing Christ*> blood, answers to the blood of the pasover, which was typical of the blood of our Lord; and the remission of sins here answers to the jpassmg 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 ,; 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,

eoAseqnently, all tibe benfita to be derived ftom it), till he himself shall come to judge the world. 7. At die paschal solemnity, they were accustomed to smg a hymn of yraise to €kpd (see before, p. 162); 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 yerbal, abundantly show that this holy euoharist was in a great measure copied &om the paschal feast, and was intended to supply its place; only heightening the design, and improving the applica tion. 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 institation, and the manner of celebrating it.

To do this in the most effectual manner, I think it necessary to set down the text of the three evangelists, who have transmitted the whole account, collated with that part of St. PauVs 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. 1 — 38) mentions all the circumstances preceding the holy supper, and from chap. adv. 1 — 36, the circumstances which succeeded the breaking of the bread, and in chapters XV., xvL, and xvii., the 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.

I

iriiii

•2 “^ -

B a>

5 5 S*

<j* -Is”

Si 152

S’§1 = «a

9 fi Q a

ps S 9 >3

S22

a=5

P.U:

II

.J

S’i

•S 3

g
•”2

11
I!

14
15
en

* 2

C J

S5 .-.^-

g a 2 o

E-.2

e

I& si

.a E o

= Ǥ

mS25

lg-lgjl

5|555|?

S 5 = •?;■::

B &

0S

‘.1!^

s*

“5S|
SSfS
!.*•”

-•^ja o

*2
«»2

§5^
: — s

^Nl
nil

««

oi”-’3

S5

og:,?

sas

a”
tis

&Sj

JSt

Is?

jas.

e a
9«

ii:

“°<S
.a

HI

II

r Prom the preceding harmonised view of this important transaction, as described by three Evan-GELISTS and one Apostle, we see the first institution, nature, and design of what has been since called The Lord’s Supper. To every circumstance, as set down here, and the mode of expression by which such circumstances are described, we should pay the deepest attention.

1. “As they were eating” (Matt. xxvi. 6), either an ordinary supper, or the paschal lamb, as some think. See the Introduction.

2. “Jesus took bread.” Of what kind? Unleavened bread, certainly, because there was no other kind to be had in all Judea at this time; for this was the first day of unleavened bread, ver. 17, i.e., the 14th of the month Nisan, when the Jews, according to the command of God (Exod. xii. 15 — 20, X3dii. 15, and xxiv. 25), were to purge away all leaven from their houses; for he who sacrificed the passover, having leaven in his dwelling, was considered 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

Amp DESIGN OF THE EUCHABIsf. 171

do some of the Jews observe the precept eonceming the removal of all leaven &om 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 of the passover, and never brought out on any other occasion.”

To this divinely instituted custom of removing all leaven previously 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 tlung signifying or pointing out that which is beyond itself, should either Jbave certain {Hxpperties, or be accompanied with certain circumstances, as expressive as possible of the thing signified. Bread, simply coti-

15 — 2 sidered 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 antitype 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, ttXtxtvua, 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 unconmiondgnifications; and, as it was seldom used, its rare occurrence would make the emblematical representation more deeply impressive, and the sign and the thing eignified have their due ootreqKmd- 61196 and influence*. These dicmxigtaaces conaidered, will it not ap-

. pear that the use of conuaon. bread .in the. saotament of .the Lord’s Supper is highly improper 1 He who wn say, This is a matter of noimpor-

•taace” may say, with equal propriety, the bread itself is of no importance; and another may say, the win is of no importanoe; and a third may say, “neitr bread nor wine is anything, but as they lead to spiritual references; and the spiritual reference being once understood, the signs are. useless.’’ Thus we may, through aSi&cted spirituality, refine away the whole ordinance of Ood;. and, with the letter and form of religion, abolish religion itself. Many have already acted in this way, not only to their loss, but to their ruin, by showing how profoundly wise they are above what is written. Let those, therefore, who consider that man shall live by. every word which proceedeth 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

15 — 3 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 conscientions 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. I leave these remarks with the conscientious reader: but 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 Mark use the word ivXoyn<f<^g, Messed, instead of ivai(fTfi(fas, 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 Grod, the dispenser of every good. Our Lord here conforms himself to that constant Jewish custom, viz., of acknowledging Gkpd as the author of every good and perfect gift, by giring thanks on taking the bread and taking the cup at the 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 the 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, Mdeeh hadkan, hamotae Uekem min haar

“Blessed be thou our GK>d, Xing of the uniyene, who bringest forth bread out of the earth;”

likewise on taking the cup, they say:

Baruch, Eloheenoo, Mdech hadlam, Sori peree haggefhm,

‘* Blessed be our God, the King of the uniyerse, the Creator of the fruit of the Tine V

The Mohammedans copy their example, constantly saying before and after meat,

BismiUahi arrahnumi tarraheemi. “In the name of God, the most merciful, the aiost eompassionate.”

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, unauthorised either by Scripture, or the practice of .the pure church of God; necessary of course to them who pretend toi 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 was it that 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, purgatory, and the sale of indulgences con* nected with it. But let the protestant take care that, while he rejects a doctrine teeming with monstrous absurdicies, and every contradictious sentiment, he ako avoids those acts and ridiculous rites, such as blessing and touching th sacred elements, by which it was pretended that 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 highly necessary 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 all this was essentially necessary to the making a full atonement for 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 Lord’s 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 fully 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 Scriptures, 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 masticate, 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, 1. By the continual mentton of it by St. Paul, and all the erangelists, when they speak of the institution of this sacrameht, which shows it to be a necessary part of it. 2i Christ saysy ‘Take, eat; this is my body, broken for you, 1 Cor. zi. 24. But when the elements are not broken, it can be no more said, * This ia my body, broken for you,’ than where the elements are not given. 3. Our Lord said, Do this in remembrance of me:’ i.e., Eat this bread broken, in reinembrance 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 f sufficiently informs us, 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 Humbertus testifies, observed in the Roman church in the eleventh century.” — ^WnrrBY 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 tune, but part of that unleayened bread which he and his disciples had been eating at supp, 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 GAUX SANGUINIS MEI, This is the chalice of my blood, that the bread and wine were substantially changed into his body, including flesh, blood, bones, 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 piooes, and which he and his disciples ate f* He wLo 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 anything further be necessary on this subject, that the paschal lamb is called the ^assover, because it represented the destroying angeFs passing over the children of Israel, while he slew the first-bom of the Egyptians; and our Lord and his disciples caU 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 REPBESENTED, 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, Panis hie corpus meum significat; or, Symbolum est corporis mei. Hoc poculum sanguinem meum representat; or, Symbolum est sanguinis mei. This bread signifies my body; this cup represents my blood. But let

16 it be observed, that in the Scriptures, as they stand in the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldaeo-Syriac languages, there is no term which expresses to meaUy sigrdfy, denote, though both the Greek and Latin abound with them; hence the Hebrews use a figure, and say, it is, for it signifies. So Gren. 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 that rock WAS (represented) Christ;” 1 Cor. x. 4. And following this Hebrew idiom, though the work is written in Greek, we find, in Rev. i. 20: “The seven stars ARE (represent) the angels of 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. xiiL 38, 39: “The field IS (represents) the world; the good seed are (represent or 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 bel” r/; EIH ri raajSoXjj aunj;

what does this parable signify 1 John viL 36: Tia E2TIN ohrog 6 Xoytg; what is the SIGNIFICATION of this saying? John x. 6: They understood not what things they were,” nm HN, what yras the SI0NIFICATI6N of the things he had spoken to them. Acts X. 17: rt av EIH ro oafia; what this vision MIGHT be? properly rendered by our translators, what this vision should MEAN. Gal. iv. 24: “For these are the two covenants; aura, ya EI2IN au duo diahixat, these SIGNIFY the two covenants. Luke XV. 26: “He asked n EIH ravra, what these things meant.” See also chap, 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 bodyl*

* The Latins use the Terh sum, in all its forms, with a Bixnilar latitude of meaning; so, esse oneri ferendo, he is able to bear the burden: bene esse, to live sumptuously: male esse, to live miserably: recte esse, to eiyoy good health: est mihi fistuala, I possess a flute; est hodie in rebus, he now etyoys a plentiful fortune: est mihi namque domi pater, I have a father at home: esse solyendo, to be able to pay: Fuimtts Troes; Juit Ilium, The Trojans are extinct; Troy is no more.

In Greek also, and Hebrew, it often signifies to live, to die, jto be killed: ovk EIMI, I am dead, or a dead man. Matt. iL 18: Bachel weeping for her children, dn ovk EI:SI,

16 — 2

That our Lord neither spoke in Greek nor in Latin on this occasion, needs no proof. It was, most probably, in what was formerly called the Chaldaic, now the Chaldseo-Syriac, that our Lord conversed with his disciples. Through the providence of God, we have complete Versions of the gospels in this language; and in them, it is likdy we have the precise words spoken by our Lord on

because they were murdered. Gen. zliii. 36: Joseph U not, XO’H fpp Yoseph einennu Iwati ovk £:gTIN, Sept. Le., Joseph is devoured by a wild beast. Horn. iv. 17: Calling the things that are not, as if they were alive. So Plutarch, in Laoonicis. “This shield thy father always preserred; preserre thou it, or may thou not be” — ij /ttj E50, may thou perish. OYK 0NTE2 KOMOI, abrogated laws: KIMl cv enoi, I possess a soimd understaoding: tie vartga vfiiv E20MAI, I will. perform the part of a father to you: EIMI rc iroXc«»c rqc, I am an inhabitant of that city.

Tertullian seems to have had a correct notion of these words of our Lord, when he said, “Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus illimi suum fecit, hoc est corpus meum diccndo, id est, Figura, corporis mei.” Adyers. Marcion., lib. v., c. 40. Having taken the bread and distributed it to his disciples, he made it his body by saying This is my body; i.e., a figure of my body. 1 Tim. i. 7. Desiring to be teachers of the law, OiXovtiq EINAI vofiodida<rKaloif de-Buring to be reputed teachers of the law, i.e., able divines. Ta ONTA, the things that are, ie., noble and honourable men: ra fifi ONTA, the things that are not, viz., the vuigar, or those of ignoble birth.

this occasion. In Matt. xxvi. 26 and 27, the words

in the Syriac Version are — ^igyiffi oj cri this is my

lodyy aiaId) oaoi this is my blood: of which forms of

speech, the Greek rouro gcr, ro tfw/^a [iod — rouro gtfr, TO atfia fiovy 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 enough 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 is Plato, a third IS Homer; others ARE Hesiod, Horace, Virgil, Demosthenes, Cicero, Herodotus, Livy, Caesar, 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

16 — 3 is as essential a difference as between a human body, instinct with all the principles of rational yitality, 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 I Would not any person of plain common sense see as great a difference between the man Christ Jesus and the piece 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 -^ommon 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: ’ 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; which on this subject is exactly a counterpart to all that have been published from time immemorial, in the popish churches.

Q. What is the sacrament of the Eucharist f

A. The Eucharist is a sacrament which contains BEALLT 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 1 Is it not bread and wine 1

A. Yes: and it continues to be bread and wine TILL THE PRIEST PRONOUNCES THE WORDS OF CON-SECRATION.

Q. What influence have these words 1,

A. Thei 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 f

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 divide, is Jesus Christ divided f

A. No: Jesus Christ remains tire 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 Qojp and

FSRKBCrr MAN.

Q.” Db Jesus Christ leave heaven to come into the Eucharist?

A. No. He always continues at the right hand

AND DESiaN OF THE KUOHABIST. 189

of Ood, 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 <ian he be present at the altar?

A. By the almighty power of (Jod.

Q. Then it is not man that works this miraclel

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 18 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 Soman MissaL When the priest receives the bread and wine, he thus prays, making the sign of the cross where this mark 4- appears:

We beseech thee, God, to render this oblation in all things bless 4-ed, approv-f-ed, effect +ual, reasonable, and acceptable, that it may be made to us the bo-hdy and bl-f-ood of thy most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ 1 who, the day before he suffered, took bread into his sacred and venerable hands, and having lifted up his eyes to thee, O €kpdy the Fiather Almighty, and, giving thanks to thee, bless +ed, brake, and gave it to his discipls, 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 -hed and gave it to his disciples, saying. Take, and drink ye all of this, for this is the chalice of my blood (HIO EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI) 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 ofb as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of me.”

[Here the chalice is elevated and adoredy and the Lord is besought to command his angel to carry these offerings into the presence of his Divine Majesty.] About 1218, Pope Honorius HI. ordered kneding at the elevation of the hosti — Order, of the Mass, Vol. I., p. 24, &c.

In “The Divine Office for the Use of theLaity;’ 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 wafer) into his hand, and again turns about, and says, * Behold the Lamb of God 1 Behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world T 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 unworthiness.” “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, Amen: ‘I believe it to be the body of Christ, and I pray it may preserve my soul to eternal life.’” — Ordinary of the Mass, p. 33. Believing that these extracts are sufficient to expose the shocking absurdity and idolatry of this most monstrous system, I 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 bountifol providence given you bread for the sustenance of your lives; so, in his infinite grace, he has given you my bodjp 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 i«r«g v/nuv dido/nevov, which is GIVEN in your stead, or in your behalf; a fiee GIFT from God’s endless mercy for the salvation of your souls. This is my body, ro vts vfikut xXu/Afivov (1 Cor. ad. 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 un fifim, on our account or in our stead, an offering and a sacrifice, tfutf/a, to God for a sweet-smelling savour;” that as in the sacrifice offered by Noah, (Jen. viii. 21, to which the apostle evidently alludes, from which it is said, “The Lord smelled a sweet savour, nrran m riach hanichoachy 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 should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

8. Ver. 27: “And he took the cup, fitra r« 3i/Tvij(ra/, after having supped,” Luke xxii.* 20, and’ 1 Cor. xL 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,

17 having considered the subject at large, in. the introduction. In the parallel place in Luke xsii, we find our Lord taking the cup, ver, 17, and again ver. 19; by the former of which was probably meant the “cup of blessing,” na-ian tna Icoshaheracah, 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 of the cup is to be understood as belonging peculiarly to the very important rite which he was now imstituting, and on which he lays a very remarkable stress. With respect to the bready he had before simply said, “Take, eat; this is my body;” but concerning the cupy 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 outp ie.,

the Bfe by which the great siacriftcial act, is per* formed, and remission of sins procured, is abso* littelj indispensable. On this ground it is demon* Btrable, that there is not a popish priest- under heaven who denies ilie cup to the peode (aQd thpy ^rdd tjiis), that can be said to celebrate the Lcnrd’s Supper at all; nor is there one 6f their votaries that ^’et rceiyied the holjf- sacrament! All pretenision to this is an absolute farce,: so long as the eup/^e. emblem of the atoig bloody is denied. HowL’stradgeisit, that the rerj men wjia plea4 io nmch for the bsfxe literal meaning of, tMs is my body m’ the preceding verse,, should deny al meaning to drink ye all of this cup,” in this verse! And though Christ hass in the tJxot positive tuanner enjoined it, they wfll-oot -permit’ one of the’ laity to taste it f O what a thing is man! a constant contradiction to reason and to himself. HhSb conclusion, therefore, is una^oidable. The sacttmeht of the Lord’s Supper is ^OT celebrate4- in the church of Eonle. Should not’ this be mad known to the miserable deluded CslthoUcs over tho face of the earth?

’ 9. I have just said, that our blessed Lord, lay remarkable stress on the administration of the <;npbi and on that which himself assures us is repre

17-2 sented by it. As it is peculiarly emphatic, I beg leave to set down the original text, which the critical reader will do well minutely to examine: Touro ya Kfr, TO aifiM fiovy TO nj; xatvtig dtafixg TO «if/ fi’oXXaiv txuvofiivof tig aft(ft¥ &fiaiuK 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. That 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, viz., what our Lord terms ytvri/ia rra afi/icikov “the offspring or produce of the vine.” Though this was the true and proper wihe, yet it was widely different from that medicated and sophisticated beverage which goes now under that name. The

r* yayin ottheHehT&ws, the moi of the Grjrodk, and the vmum of the ancient Romans, meant simply the “expressed juice of the grape,” sometimes drank 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 cms and vintm. By the ancient Hebrews, I believe it was chiefly drunk in Hs first or simple state; hence it was termed among them is on na peree kaggephen, “the fruit of the vine”; and by our Lord in the Syriac, his vernacular language, 12!dh 1^ the “young or son of the vine,” very properly translated by the evangelist, yiffifia rrig asXou, “the offq)ring or produce of the vine.” In ancient times, when only a small portion was wanted for immediate use, the juice W)A8 pressed by the hand out of a bunch of grapes, amd immediately drank. After this manner Pharaoh’s butler was accustomed to squeeze out new wine into the royal cup, as is evident from Gen. xL 11.

Were there not a particular cause, probably niy descending to such minuteness of description, might require an apdiogy. I have Only to say, that I have learned with extreme regret, that in many churches

17 — 3 and chapels a vile compound wickedly denominated vme, not the offspring of the vine, but of the alder, gooseberry, or currant-tree, and not unfrequently the issue of the sweepings of the fruit-bags, jars, and baskets 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 oup 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 firom 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 Grod 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 liord’s Supper 1

10. “And when he had given thanks.” — See the form used on this occasion, in p. 175, and see the MiSHNA, Tract, maa beracoth.

11. “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 four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Apostolical Epistles, and book of the Revelation; and they think that the cup of the New Testament means no more than merely that cup which the book called the New Testament enjoins in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. As this is the

£00 X msoouBSB on ^ihs nature

ease, it is highly neoessajy that this tenn should 1)6 explained. The original *H Kaiffi JSuetx, which we translate “The New Testament,” and which is th6 general title of all the contents of the hook already described, simply means “The new COVENANT.” Covenant, from couy together, and venia, 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 rra herith, which often signifies, not only the eovenani 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 ehgagements. An oath of this kind, on slaying the covenant sacrifice, was usual in ancient times j fio in Homer, when a covenant was made between the Greeks and the Trojans, and the throats of lambs wee cut, and their bloo(y poured out, the following form of abjuration was used by the contracting paities: —

Zcv KvlMTt, fifftffrt, Km aOavaroi 9tot aXXoi *Oir«rorcpot vportpoi vjrtp opcia wruiriviiav,

AvTuVf Kai riKHoP’ aXoxot S* aWoitri fiiytuy»

All-glorious Jove, and ye, the powers of hearen! Whoso shall violate this contract first, So be their blood their children’s, and their own Poured out, at this libation on the ground; And let their wives to other men be joined!

luAD, lib. iii, yer. 298.

Our blessed Saviour is evidently called the A/axjj, rtna heriih or covenant sacrifice, IsaL zliL 6y zliz. 8; Zech. iz. 11. And to those scriptures he appears to allude, as in them the Lord promises to ‘’ give him for a covenant (sacrifice) to the Gtentiles, 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 Gk)d; and this new covenant is mentioned in * contradistinction from the old covenant, n f(xXata AtaMxn (2 Cor. iiL 14); by which appellative all the books of the Old Testament were distinguished becaiffie 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 dflfered 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 wlfibh bear unaidmous testimony to the doctrine of salvation by faith through the blood of Jesus, ‘are termed ‘H Ka/vjj Atahixij, “The new covenant.”’

Dr. lightfoot’s observations on ‘this are worthy of serious notice. * This is my blooii of the New Testament.’ Not onl the seal of the old covenant, but the sanction of the new covenant. The end of the Mosaic economy, and the con&rming of a mw one. The confirmation of the old covenant was by the blood of bidls and goats (Exod. xxiv., Seb. ix.), becaiisfe blood was still to be shed; the confirmation of the new was by a cup of wine, bef. cause under the new covenant there is no farther shedding of blood. And as it is here said of the ’ cup, * This Clip is the New Testament in my blood / BO 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 bipod of the covenant which God hatyi made wiili you;’ and thus that old covenant, or testimony, was confirmed. In.like manner Christ,, having pablished all the articles of the v£w covenant, he takes the cup of wine, and gives them to drink, and th, *This is the New Testament in my blood,* and thus the new covenant wftS; established.” — ^orfo, voL ii, p. 260.

12. “Which is shed (x8;^uvo«Koy, ]^oured out) for you, and for many.” E*;^fia and ixyw, toyow out, are often used in a sacrificial sepipe in the Septua* gint, and signify to jpowr out or sprinkle the bload of the sacrifices before the altar of the Lord by way of atonement. See 2 Kings xvi. 15; Lev. viiL 15, ix. 9; Exod. xxix. 12; Lev. iv. 7,. 14 — 17, 30 — 34; and in various othei: places. Our Lord, by this very remarkable mode of expression, teache« us, that as his body .was to be broken or crucified vm ht(piv, in our stead; so here, the blood was to be poured out to male an atonement, as the words remission of sins sufficiently prove;. for without shedding 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 p. 200.

The whole of this passage will receive additional light when collated with IsaL liiL 11, 12: ‘’By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify ICANY, for he shall bear their iniquities — because he hath POUBED 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 evangelist; and the »^i rdbUm, muUiiudes, in Isaiah, corresponds to the MANY, v-oXXar, 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, ver. 4: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.” Ver. 6: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for ova’ iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him.” Ver. 6: “All we, like sheep, have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” 2. The OerUUes, ver. 11: “By his knowledge,” imna bedato, by his being made hnovm — published as Christ crucified among the “Gentiles,” he shall justify o*a-j rdbbim,*’ the multi’ fjji — the Gentiles; “for he shall (also) bear their offences,” as well as ours — the Jews, ver. 4, &c. It is well known that the Jewish dispensation.

termed by the apostle, as above, 4 vaXeua dmhixti 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, ti xami diahixfi the new covenant, referred to by our Lord in this place, was universal; for as ‘’ Jesus Christ, by the grace of Grod, tasted death for every man,” Heb. zi. 9; and is that ‘^ Lamb of Gkpd that taketh away the sin of the world,” Johni 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, IsaL liii. 11; therefore he has commanded his disciples to ‘^ go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creaiu/re” Mark xvi 16. 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 zxiv. 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 Gk)d might be all and in all.

13. All this was to be done, vg afttfiv afiurtuff “for (or in reference to) the taking away of sins,’* Ter. 28. For allhongh the .blood is shed, and thB iktonneat made, no num’s sins are taken away tmtil, as a tni3 pemtent he retnm to Grod; and, feelkig his, utter incapacity to save himself, belieyes in Chmt.Je§tt8^.w)io.is.ith0 Jostifier f the ungodly.”

The phrase apcti ru¥ a/M^tw.’’repiission of 4sms,” (fireqttently used by the Septoagint) being thus exiained 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 nnd- stood but the. removal: or taking .awayo£ sins.; ;aot. only. the guilt, but also the very natuie of sin, .and the pollution of the soul through it; and comprehends all that is generally undeistood by the terms justificaition and sanctification. For the use and meaning of the phrajse apg afUL^fuv, see Mark i 4f’, Luke i 77’, iii; 3, zziv. 47; Acto it 58, V. 31, X,, 43, xiii. 38, xsyi. 18;, G6L L 14; Heb. X. 18.

14. Both St. Luke md St. Paul add, that after giving the bread, our Lord said, “Do this in .re membrance of me.” And after giving the cup- St; Paul alone adds, “This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembranoe of me.” The account, as given by St. Paul, should be carefully followed, being ioIleF, and xeceiyed; according to bis own dearn tion, by especial reyelatdon from God. See I Cor. xL 28: “Fot I have received of the Lord that which also I 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 wqrld; so, after the once offering of Christ our passovei5 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. ITow, as the paschal lamb, annually sacrificed, brought to the people’s remembrance the wonderful deliverance of their fathers from the Egyptian bondage and tyzanny; 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 ttpon the cross. The doing this is not intended merely to keep a recollection of Christ, ais a kind sod benevolent Mend, 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 hia

18 — 2 bloody and as no man can ever come unto the Father bat by him, and none can come profitably who have 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 partaidng 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 Bedeemer of the world; who, although he could not sufifer on the cross more than once, has instituted an ordinance, by which that sacrificial act may not only be commemorated, but even

Amp DBStGK OriHB EUCHARIST. 209

iS^refiented, as often as ids followers msy tlmikproperj’aad all the blessittgs pmrehased by his Tdal piuEHsdon and death be Conveyed to the souls of ssncere commanicahts, through the medium of this bksded ordinance.. The command, ^’^Hus do in; nfemembrance of me,” leaves us no choice. He wh6 mil haire iis t6 lie saved,’ and come to ‘the knowledge of the truth, will have ns to use, as & meant of salvation, the sacrament of his supper. He, therefore, who refuses to obey, -boldly but awftdly relinquishes bis ’ fight to the tree of life ;: and, either ignoriant’ of the righteousness of God (his method of justifying sinners), or going about to establish his’ own righteousness (his own method’ of obtaining salvation), rejects the.drvine remedy in rejecting the means by which it is conveyed.

Let no man deceive his own 6oul, bjr imagining he can still have all the benefits d£ Christ’s deaths and yet have nothing to do with the sacrament’: it is a command of theUving Ood, founded on thet same authority as <’Thou shalt do ho”murd«r;’^’ none, therefore, can disobey it and be ’ guiltless. Again, let no man iDipkpse on himself by the sup position, that he can enjoy this supper spiritually without using what too many impiously call thfr carnal ordinance; i.e., without eating bread and

18 — 3 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 f 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 Gtod. 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 (Jod 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 iSfymbols put it absolutely out of his power to celebrate the diving ordinance? A man may rest in the lettOT, 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 (rod, 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 attamment of the spiritual blessings to which they refer) And is it not as absurd to expect spiritual )Iessings 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 i;L0t 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.” — q. d. I shall no more drink of the produce of the vine with you; but shall drink new wine — wine of a widely diflFerent 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

whioh he had held the preceding discourse, to pbint out the supreme blessedness of the kingdom c God. But however pleasing and useful wine niay be to the body, and how helpful soever, as an ordinance of God, it may be to the soul in the holy sacrjuent; yet the wine of the kingdom, the spiritual eryoyments at the right hand of God, procured by the sacnflce of Christ, will be infinitely more- .precious aad useful. Frotn what our Lord says:herp, we leahi that the sacrament of his supper is a type of sitd a pledge to genuine Christians of the felicity they shall enjoy with Christ in the kingdom of ^ry.

’ 17. “And when they had sung a hymn.” — *Tft¥nttams means probably no moTQ than a kind of recitativfe reading or chanting. As to the hymn itself, we know, from the universal consent of Jewish aaitiquity, that it was composed of Psalms didii., C3tiv., cxv., cxvi, exvii., and cxtiii., termed by the Jews bbn hallely from my?n haMtlupah, the first word in Psalm cxiiL These six: Psalms were fdways sung at every pasdial solemnity; they g the great Hillel on account of the five great benefits referred to in it; viz., 1. The exodus from Egypt, Ps. cxiv. 1: “When Israel went out of Egypt,” &c» 2. The miraculous division of the

Bed Sea, ver. 3: “The sea saw it and fled.” S. The promulgation of the law, ver. 4: “The mountains skipped like Limbs.” 4. The resurrection of the dead, Ps; cxvL 9: ‘< I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living.” 5. The passion of the Messiah, Ps. czv. 1: “Not unto us, Lord, not unto us,” &c.