The Nature and Design of the Holy Eucharist: Part II

Havino 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.

I. 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, ivatflgug, having given thanks,” he divided it

among them. And though s^Xotfo, ‘^ having UeBsed,” is the comm<H^ reading (Matt. xxvL 16), yet ahnost all the best MSS. hitherto discovered have the former and not the Utter word. From thi9 word, £u;^a<^/a, the EuGHARii was formed; which, apiong the prinutive 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 Chrifrtians, and what they meant when they termed it the Eucharist: A/a dri rovro xai a ptxuin fLMCTT^oia xui ^oT^Xfii yifMiVra rrg tfAirjy/a;, ra xafsxaarTiv nXou/Aem (iuvaity Eupaftfr/a xoeXcira/, en ^oXKav frtv tveysrvifLartav ava/ivtiffig, xou to KefbcAUiov rra rou 0gov cryo/a; ifdiixvvrou, xar a iravrm vatLSxiMctCjn suatsrsuf. — Homil xzv. in Matth. ‘See Suiceri Thesaur. in voc. l&vxaiia. “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 Grod’s X^rovidence, 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, ‘WfL& coB8ider€4 as the $lxm total of all that the prescience of God had been planning md es^Guting 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 mighty God, for the sins of the world ;■ that in this sacrifice God had given ua all possible blessings; and that therefore the Jplucharist, by which these things were called to remembrance, is the means of replenishing /ithft partakers with the .plenitude of salvation by which they ai enabled ;to walk uprightly before God, and giv him due thanks for his unspeaklble 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 Fa<;hei?% as early as the times of Cyprian and TertuHian, UucharisHa meant what we term the Sacramen of the Lord’s Supper. But what is mpre surprising, the term itself prevail in the Oriental churches. Hence in Acts ii 42, where it is said the apostles continued in nj i)ioiau rw arou, “the breaking of bread,” the Syriac Version, the oldest an4 purest wtant, reads the plce thus lifinyoo]; i iOOOubekatsia cFauJcaristiay “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 afity. 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 LorcCs Supper. In very early times, the Christians, in imitation of our Lord, held a supper before the Eucharist, which was termed ayacnj, or hvefeast; and it is very likely that it is to this, and not to the Eucharist, that St. Paul refers, 1 Cor. zi. 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 sabject, 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 the matter may appear of small importance, I think, as it is not sufficiently designatory, it should be disused.

3. Sacrifice, 0u(r/a. 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 the place of the paschal lamb, which all acknowledge to be an expiatory victim. Secondly, Because it represented the atonement made by the passion and death of Christ, for the sins of mankind. This notion of it has been greatly abused; for in the Eonush church, the bare celebration of it has been held forth in the light of an expiatoiy 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 Christ, and consequently, an ^18 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURB

available oflFering and expiation for their sins. Thus they, most unhappily, put the signifier 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 belongs to Jesus, as dying for our offences, and thus purging pur sins by his own blood. From such an awful and destructive perversion of this divine institution, may God save them and preserve us!

Besides, it has already been proved, that in the Homan Catholic church the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is never really celebrated: they give not the cup, which is essential to the form and substance of the sacrament. See p. 195.

But though this ordinance should not be considered as a sacrifice, yet it should be well understood that it represents on. And that every communicant may derive all the profit from it which it is calculated to afford, he should partake of it in the spirit of sacrifice. As it represents a covenant sacrifice, in which the contracting parties mutually bind themselves to each other (God oflFering himself entirely, by and through Christ, not only to

6very 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. 201, that in sacrificing, the pouring out of the blood of the covenant victim always impUed 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/^a, judgment or condemnation, to himself;” i.e., he thereby forfeits his life according to the penal sanctions of the covenant, expressed by pouring 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, there-

19 — 2 fore, to your God, and your soul shall live for ever.

4. Breaking of bread, K>^ff/; rov aov. 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 bi-eady breaking the Eucharist, See what is observed on this subject, p. 216. I 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, xXatf/g tod a^Tou, That this appellative descended lower than the apostolic times, we learn from Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians, chap, xx., where, speaking of the Eucharist, he terms it sva aav xXoivrsiy 6 6<rrt fajtiaxov aava- (ftag, xa6a^Tryiov, aXsixaxor “breaking that one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the medicament which expels all evil;” and Tertullian, de Oratione, cap. 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 given thanks, he brake it; hice the Vhole act was termed the BREAKING OF 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, Ko/i/wv/a. In 1 Cor. x. 16, the Eucharist is called the “communion of the body and blood of Christ.” As the term xoimvia signifies not only communion or fellowship, but also participati(m, 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, and thus “they dwelt in

19 — 3 God, and God in them; were one with God, and God with them.”

Suicer observes in his Thesaurus, under the word xoivmia, that this term meant communion or participation, in reference to the Eucharist (for it had besides, diflFerent 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: ‘Hay/a Koiveavta av/ioXov Trig (fv(f(fufiaTOti(f€(ii»g xai syxsvri(feug fifim *jrog rov svav&^u’srfiffavra vtov xai Aoyov rou 0SOV, dt ryg syxiVT^/tfsug di Xvrovfisda rov aiuviov Sava-TOW Tfig g/^Jj; yaf vytamv(ffig xa, au6aXXov<r7ig, ovx iffd* o’JTug firi xai Tovg xXadoug ffuvuyiavnv ravrti xat cvv6aXkitv bicfxavTog, Vid. Suic. Thesaur., voc. xoivtavia.” 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 firom eternal death; for while the root is

Bound 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 import 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.” — John xvii. 21, 23.

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 nowhere to be found in Smpture; yet it appears to have been in use veiy early in the primitiyQ church. The first time it is mentioned, probably in reference to this solemn act, is in the well-known epistle of Pliny the younger to the emperor Trajan. This very learned and eminent statesman was appointed by the emperor to the administration of affairs, in the province of Bithynia, a country of Katolia or Asia-Minor, bordering on the Euxine Sea, through different parts of whose vicinity the gospel had been preached by Paul and Silas, Acts xvi. 1, &c., and probably by others before them.

In this country, multitudes had 4)een converted to the Lord, so that when Pliny came to the government of the province, he found that multi omnis seiatis, omnis ordinis utriusque sesis 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, sed vices etiam atque agros superstitionis istius contagio 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 henmied in on every side by this state persecution, were obHged 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 govemors 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 of 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. “Afl&rmabant autem, banc fuisse summam vel culpse vel erroris, quod essent soliti state die ante lucem convenire; carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem; seque Sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed no furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria commiterent, ne Mem fallerent, ne 4qpositum appellati abnegarent: quibus peractis, morem sibi discedendi fiiisse mrsusque coeundi 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 to-, gether on a certain day {stato die, the Sabbath) before daylight; 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 be guilty of theft, robbery, 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 beUeve that Pliny refers here to the partaking of the Eucharist, and the solemn engagements they entered into with Grod when receiving the sacred ordinance, to depart from every appearance of evil, and render up in ajBfectionate obedience their bodies, souls, and sjmts to their Maker.

The word sacramentum properly means the military oath of fideUty and obedience to his general, which every Roman soldier was obliged to take. 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 enlisting 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 manftilly under his banner. Hence, as there was a continual reference to the sacramentum, or mihtary 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 MKN nEI0APXH2EIN KAI HOIH- 2EIN TO nPOSTATTOMENON ‘XHO THN AP-XONTflN RATA ATNAMIN. O/ di Xotvot Tarn; O/Mvvouffi xad* ha ‘jrooivo/ji.ivoi rou r’ auro dTiXouvrsg irt *jroiri6o)(Si, flravra xadaino 6 irurog’ —” SUBMISSIVELY TO OBEY AND PERFORM WHATSOEVER IS COM* MANDED 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 everything according to what the first had swom.” Vide PoLTB,, k Gronovio, 8vo., Amsterdam, 1670, vol. i. p. 660. 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 to Grod 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 ezert the uttermost powers of his body and soul in the service of his Redeemer.

The word sacramentum I have often met with in ancient deeds, charters, &c., signifying an oath, especially when, in swearing, the person laid his hand on the Holy Grospels. The promise then made was considered a holy obligation, which he was bound, at all events, to perform. This was still in reference to the military oath mentioned above.

7. Paschal feast, 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,

20 the Lord’s Table, the Spiritual Passover, the Sacri ficial Feast, &c.; all of which seem to have had their origin in the consideration that the Eucharist succeeded to the passover, which was dearly founded on St. Paul’s words, 1 Cor. v. 7, 8: “Christ our Passover, is sacrificed for ns; therefore let us keep the feasts Dr. Cudworth, who has written a very learned discourse on “The true Notion of the Lord’s Supper,” has folly proved, chap, i., “That it was a custom among the Jews and heathens to feast upon things sacrificed; and that the custom of the Christians, in partaking of the body and blood of Christ pnce sacrificed upon the cross, in the Lord’s Supper, is analogical hereunto.” And he proves, in chap, ii., 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. iv. he demonstrates, “Thai! the Lord’s Supper in the Christianchurch, in reference to the true sacrifice of Christ, is a parallel to the feasts upon sacrifices both in the Jewish religion and heathenish superstition.” And concludes, in chap, v., “that the Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice, but a feast upon a sacrifice.” Dr. Cudworth properly divides the sacrifices tinder the law, iilto three kinds: “First, such as were wholly offered to God, and burnt upon the altars, as the holocausts, or burnt-offerings, rrhv 6loth. Secondly, Such as the priests ate a part of, besides a part offered to God upon the altar; as the sin-offerings, nKon clmUathy and the trespass-offerings, DVK 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 oobu shelamim, or peace-offerings.” That the Gentiles feasted on the sacrifices offered to their gods, every one knows who has 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:

.... Tot d*(aKa &i<p KXecri2V ixaTOfipriv

*£Ccti7C l<frtifTav tvd/itjrov vtpi P(*yfiov.

.... Then, before the shrine

Magnificent, in order due they ranged

The noble hecatomb. Ver. 447.

Wrap ivi p* ivlavrOf Kai ouXovrac ^poj3aXovro, le. r. K .... and with meal Sprinkling the victims, their retracted necks First pierced, then flayed them. Yer. 458.

20 — 2

M^/Dove r* tUTa/iov, Kara rt cvtffffy ccaXvav, c. r. X. •. the thighs with fire coiiBuined, Thej gave to each his portion of the maw. Then slashed the remnant, pierced it with the spits. And, managing with culinary skill, Thej roast; withdrew it from the spits again. Their whole task thus accomplished, and the board Set forth, they psastbd, and were all sufficed.

Yer. 460 — 468.

In the second Iliad, Agamemnon offers an ox to Jupiter, and invites several of the Grecian captains to partake of it:

Wrap 6 fiovv Upivvtv ava avdpiov jLyafitfiptov r. X. But Agamemnon in his tent prepared. For sacrifice to all-commanding Jove, A fifth-year fatted ox, and to his peass Summoned the noblest of the sons of Greece.

n. B., ver. 403 — 431.

In Odyssey r., Nestor sacrifices an ox to Minerva, in behalf of Telemachus and his friends, on which they all afterwards feasted.

Wrap evit Kara firip* tKarf, rac ffnXayxv* twavavro, r.r. X.

.... The tbigliB consumed.

They ate th* interior part, then slicing them,

The remnant pierced, and held it to the fire.

The viands dressed, and from the spits withdrawn,

They sat to share the feast.

Odyss. r., ver. 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 fiesh.

See Cowper’fl Homee — Odyss. III., ver. 1, &c.

Plato, in his second book, De Legibus, acknowledges such feasts under the name of *Eora, fura, St/ovy “Feasts after divine worship.”

Virgil refers to the same custom, Eclogue iii. ver. 77.

Cum faciam vitufa pro frugibus, ipso yenito.

“When, instead of ofifeiing fruits, I shall sacrifice a heifer, come thou to the feast.”

And thus in iEneid. viii., ver. 179, Evander entertains -^neas:

Turn lecti juven certatim, arteque sacerdos, Viscera tost a ferunt taurorum — Yescitur -^neas simul et Trojana juventus, Perpetui tergo bovis et lustraUbus extis.

“Then chosen youths, and the priests, with great dispatch, heap qn the altar the broiled intestines of bulls. — ^neas, and with him the Trojan youth, feast on the chine and hallowed viscera of an ox.**

The ancient Persians were accustomed to pour

20 — 3 on 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. Cudworth 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 scdntv uhm’koQuray 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 his table, which had not been offered to the gods, was deemed a profane person. Hence the Greek proverb, aOurasffdtstvj “to eat things which had not been sacrificed,” was used as a brand of a notoriously wicked man.

It has been already remarked, that the Eucharist may be considered as a foederal 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 a fcederal rite between God and those who offered it, he considers as proved from the custom of the ancients, and Especially of the Orientals who eat 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 Eab. Moses Bar Nachman, 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 Eab. Isaac Abarbanel confirms this: “It was,” says he, “an ancient custom among them, that they who ate 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 victnals, and ajsked not counsel of the mouth of the Lord; ’ which Rabbi Kimchi thus e3q)ounds: “They took of their victuals, and ate with them by way of covenant.” The consequence was, <is the context informs us, “Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them.”

. Foederal rites, thus ratified and confirmed, were in general so sacredly observed, that Celsus, in its controversy with Origen, deems it an absolutely improbable thing, that Judas, who had eaten and drunk with his Lord and Master, could possibly betray him; and therefore rejects the whole account: *Or/, says he, av&^ciog fisv 6 xoivrnvcug raTt* trii ovx av avrtf) ez/^ouT^uirs/sv, iro(f) ^Xsov 6 0s ffuvfiicari&its ovx. av atiry fnovXog syivsro. “For if no man who lias partook of the table of another would ever lay snares for his friends, much less would he betray his God, who had been a 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 nnn herithy which signifies a covenant, or any foederal communion, is the root nna harahf 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 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 suflfer the SALT of the COVENANT of thy God to be lacking; with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.” So among the Greeks, AXf xa, T^ana, “salt and table,” were used proverbially to express friendship; and A?»a; xa, ro-Tiav flraajSa/w/v, “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 fgederal 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 denved from a proper consideration of the subject. If the covenant have been made according to the divine commandment (i.e., by lively faith in Christ, the real foederal sacrifice), on God’s part it is ever inviolate. Let him, therefore, who has thus entered into the Lord’s covenant, continue stedfast and immoveable, 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.

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;” which he proves from a passage in Scripture, 1 Cor. x., where all these three are compared together, and made exact parallels to each other.

Verse 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. 18: Behold Israel after the flesh; are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altarl

Ver. 20: But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils {Sai/nomig, demons), and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils (xatvmo’js TOiv da/juboviuv ymffdat, that ye should be participators with demons).

Ver. 21: Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils {daifioviuv, demons); ye cannot be partakers of the Lord*s table, and of the table of devils (daifioviuv, 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 difl’ering from other meats, yet morally and circumstantially to eat of things sacrificed to idols, in the idol’s temple, was to consent to the sacrifices, and to be guilty of them.

This he illustrates firsts 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 Grod 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 1 The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ f*

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 T — 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 body and blood were offered up in sacrifice to 6oD, and therefore they could not partake of both together the sacrifice of the true Grod, and the sacrifice of devils.

St. Paul’s argument here must necessarily suppose a perfect analogy between these three, and that they are all 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 ^ptUum mcrifidaie or epulum ex oblatis, that is, a feast upon a sacrifice. Q. E. D. — “True Notion of the Lord’s Supper,” fourth edition, p. 26.

Having thus sufficiently shown that the Euchar list is properly Skfeastupona samfice and dkfcederal rUe, I shall now consider it particularly in the light of a FEAST.

Aulus Gellius (NocTES ArnCiE, lib. xiii., c. 11, Edit. Bipont. vol. ii., p. 60) informs us, that Marcus Varro wrote a treatise, entitled Quid vesper serusvehat? “What may the close of the day produce?” in which he speaks of feasts, the proper number

21 and quality of GUESTS, and the custom and management of the ENTERTAINMENT itself.

A feast, says he, omnibus suis numeris absolutum est, is just what it should be, when made up of these four circumstances. 1. Si belli homimcolicollecti sunt. 2. Si locus electus. 3. Si tempos lectum. 4. Si apparatus non neglectus.

1. If there be decent respectable ^er5(m5.

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 point, it is when God provides the entertainment, and condescends to sit down with the guests. St. Paul has taken up the subject in a particular manner, 1 Cor. xi. 27, &c., and it is highly necessary that we should weigh his important advice.

He asserts, ver. 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 ungodly. Of the former class, there are multitudes among the different societies of Christians. They know not tho 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 ;onsidering what the sacred elements represent; and without feeling any hunger after the bread that endureth unto eternal life. These really profane the ordinance, either by 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 and friendly 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 cdebration of this ordinance is an absolute profanation ot it, forasmuch as they do it to another purpose than that for which Christ instituted it. It was a maTcim among tae rabbins, “that if the paschal lamb were slain in its own name, and the blood sprinkled as that of another sacrifice, the whole was polluted.” Or,” if the offerer changed

21 — 2 ins intention during the solemnity, and in Ijie purpose of his mind changed the sacrifice, it was polluted.” See MiSHNA, Tract. Pesachim. This was doubtless trae of the passover, and no less so of the antitype, for in Christ crucified, a greater than the paschal lamb was present. If the blessed God have instituted this solemnity to bring to remembrance the death of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, And a person, calling himself a Christian, come 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 1 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? 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 1 If they have not, they are greatly to be pitied; and greatly to be blamed if thejr have, and still refuse to acknowledge him who died for them — their case then 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 ar slaves of sin. Those who sin against the only 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. None 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 bo not profaned by the admission of such disreputable and iniquitous guests. In many Christian churches there is a deplorable want of attention to this drcumstance; professor and profane are often per xnitted to approach the sacred ordinance together;

21 — 3 in consequence of which the sincere followers of God are wounded, the weak stumbled, and the in- ^uences of the Spirit of Grod 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 1 The evils 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 an increase either 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 4ednS| 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. 2ndly. Every genuine penitent 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, nor 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 1” No. He has said nothing of the kind: he solemnly reprehends those who eat and drink unworthily y and consequently approves of those who partake worthily; but there is an essential diflference between eating and drinking worthily, and being worthy thus to eat and drink. He eats and drinks unworthily who does not discern the Lord’s 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 remembrance of the atonement which he has received, and of the blood which he expects is to deanse him from all unrighteousness; or to keep him clean, if that change have abeady taken place in his soul. The penitent should receive it in reference to the atonement which he needs, and ■mthout 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 of 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.

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 Gellius 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 affec« Hon, and the general happiness of the guests. 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, £xod. xxiii. 18, who meant thereby, not merely their removing all fermented substances fix)m 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 ia 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 yld leaven, that the lump may be entirely new and pure.

2. Locus dedus — ^A proper and convenient place.

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 uniforpaity might be observed in the divine worship, and idolatry be prevented. And although we know that God has not confined himself 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 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 roof 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 €0ul to the due performance of the diflferent 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 everywhere meets with in common life, and he will find it difficult to maintain the sphit of devotion. I 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 6od an be had, these alone should be used; and therefore the house of Grod, 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 ceremenial consecration of a place to Grod 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 baptism and 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 tiU it destroys both the form and power of religion. The private house is ever proper for family worship, and for pubUc 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, Philem. 2), and in these God manifested his power, and showedibrth his glory, as he had done in the sanctuary: but I would simply state, that such dwellings should not be preferred, when, by order of the state, or the consent of any religious people, a place is set apart for the purposes of divine worship. Thus much may suffice concerning the locus dectus of Yarro, 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, the Eucharist should 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 steadfestly in the apostle’s doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of 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 Christian’s 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. i, says they commemorated the body and blood of Christ oCfifM^ai, daily. And it is vry likely that many understood our Lor4’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, 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 tune, 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; for the heart is then better prepared to wait on God without distraction, worldly business b6ing then laid aside; and consequently, the mind is 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 most favourable time on which to celebrate this sacred ordinance. To«rards 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 frequently 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 proper medium between the first and lst 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 com-

22 — 2 memoration of the great facts shadowed forth bj 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 godlines& 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 th Lord’s table? They are either despisers or neglecters of the words and command of their dying 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 soul& Many, comparatively sincere, are detained in the background of Christian experience on this very account; and many whole churches labour under the divine displeasure, because of the general nleci 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, if not twelve times, 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 sucxjeeded 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 (Numb. ix. 13), “The man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and forbeareth to ^eep 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 «hall bear his sin.” Can anything be more solemn 4ihan this? The paschal lamb was an expiatory Tictim; he who offered it to God by faith was received into the divine favour, and had his sins remitted in virtue of that atonement represented by the paschal lamb. He who did nbt keep the passover bore his own sin; he offered no sacrifice,

22 — 3 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.

To multiply arguments in reference to the same subject, would, I apprehend, be absolutely needless. All 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, oi eating of this bread, and drinking of this cup, in remembrance that Christ Jesus died for them.

4. Ajpparatus non neglecitis — Proper cheer and

ACCOMMODATIONS.

After what has been said in order to prove, that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper represents a feast upon a sacrifice; and that this sacrifice is no less than the body of our Lord Jesus Christy which has been broken for us, and the blood of the new coviant sacrifice which has been shed for us; there is no need to attempt to prove, that the proivision which Gk)d has made for the entertainment of his guests is of the most exalted and excellent bind; and that every person may think himself highly fftToured indeed, who, with proper dispositions, is permitted to sit down at the table of the Lord. In order, therefore, that each may fedi 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, acid or vapid wine, make upon the mind 1 Are these fit symbols of this most precious sacrifice 1 Would we have at our own tables, even on ordinary times, such abominable aliments as those sometimes laid on the Lord’s table 1 Churchwardens, and superintendents of this ordinance in general, should take good heed, that not only everything 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 Htter herbs, in remembrance of their former bondage; but the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is a commemoration of the most glorious and auspicious pevent 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, ascetftion, 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 circum- ;stance is tmworthy of serious regard, show thereby how little they know of human nature; and. how .apt some are to affect to be wise above what is written, and to fSmcy themselves above that which is, in reality, above them. Let, therefore, not only the elements, but the whole apparatus, and even the mode of administering, be such as shall meet and please all the senses, and, through their medium, a£fect 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.

But has not every private Christian a right to administer this sacred ordinance? In a pamphlet not long ago published, a good mistaken man says, ‘’ Any sincere Christian has a right to administer the Lord’s Supper to himself or to others.” Where is this written in the annals of the church of Christ I Nowhere. Nor was there ever any decent, regular sect of Christians that acted so. The accredited minister, the man who was set apart according to the custom of his community, was the only person who was ever conceived to have a right to admir nister this ordinance; as he alone could judge of the persons who were proper to be admitted. Where private persons have assumed this important function, they have brought the ordinance of God into contempt; and they, and their deluded partisans, have generally ended in confusion and apostasy. Wherever there is a religious people, who hav« their regular accredited ministers, they, and they only, should administer this ordinance. No private individual, no man who has not authority from come particular branch of the church of God, through the proper oflScers whose business it is to watch over and feed the flock of Christ, should re to take upon himself such an awful and responsible function. The self-appointed man in this ordinance is an intruder into the sacred fold; is the parent of indecency and disorder; and will have a fiolemn account to render to God for disturbing the peace of a Christian society, and leading the simple «^tray from the paths of their companions. We may safely state that nothing like this was ever :allowed or practised in the primitive church; and the doctrine of the pamphlet on this point to which I have already referred, is a doctrine replete with mischief, and totally unsupported by God’s word, or the practice of the purest ages of Christianity. But the inquiry is of great importance, “Who are they who should administer this sacred ordinance f I answer, — every minister of Jesus Ohrist; for every man who is called to preach the gospel is called to feed the flock of God. If a man who professes to preach the gospel can prove that he has no authority to administer the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, I can prove to him that he haa no authority to preach; for how can he bear proper testimony to the atonement, who qanaot legitimately use the sacred symbols which best represent it? But this is both an idle and foolish conceit; for ho who is called to preach the gospel, is called to administer all the ordinances of the church of Christ. But it has been further asked,” May not any truly Christian man or woman deliver the sacred element* to others after consecration f I answer. The ministers of the gospel alone should dispense the symbols of the body and blood of Christ; every truly reHgious person will feel it much more edifying to receive this bread and wine from the hands of his pastor than from any member of the churchy hew holy soever he may be. The minister alone consecrated the elements in all 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.

I shall not dispute here about the manner in which a man may be appointed to ofl&ciate in any branch of the church of God. The pure church of Christ exists exclusively nowhere. It lives in it« aniversality in the various congregations and societies which profess the gospel of the Son of Grod; therefore, I contend not here for this or that mode of ordination. But I contend that the man alone who is appointed to minister in holy things according to the regular usages of that church of God to which he belongs, has a right to attempt to preach God’s holy word, and to administer his sacraments.

“Let all things,” says the apostle, “be done decently and in order;” this command should be felt in its most extensive sense in everjrtliing 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 all his words solemn and impriBssive; 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 be 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 600 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, avaxeirOf with his disciples. Some choose to sit, as at their ordinary meals: when this is a custom

23 among a whole religions sect, no man is anthoiised 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 in 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 Borne, 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 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 that 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. Nothing can be more devout, more solemn, more impressive than this. The passages of Scripture suitable to the occasion are here well chosen, and are connected with remarks, observations, petitions, and ejaculations, that at once breathe the most pure and sublime spirit of devotion. No truly godly man can use this form without deriving the highest spiritual advantages from it. This is my opinion, but I leave others to follow their peculiar customs.

From the great respect that was paid to this ordinance in ancient times, it is sufl&ciently evident that uncommon influences of the Spirit of God accompanied the celebration of it. Hence those epithets applied to it by St. Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, ‘’ Brethren, stand fast in the faith of Jesus Christ, — in his passion and resurrection; BREAKING that one bread which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, and the means of living in God by Christ Jesus; the medicament that expels all evil.’’ In those times, the communicants discerned the Lord’s body; they

23 — 2 perceived that it represented the sacrifice which was offered for them, and pointed out the Lamb, newly slain, before the throne; they partook of it, therefore, with strong faith in the atoning efSicacy 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 occions, 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 unprofitably.

IV. 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 insure their effect.

1. Jesus Christ lias commanded his disciples to do this in remembrance of him; and, were there no other reason, this certainly must be deemed sufficient by all those who respect his authority as their teacher and judge.” He who breaks one of the least of his commandinents (and certainly this is not one of the least of them), and teaches others (either by precept or example) so to do,

23 — 3

270 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURti:

shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” What an awful reproof must this be to those who either sjrstematically reject, or habitually neglect, this holy ordinance!

2. As the ofb-repeated sacrifices in the Jewish church, and particularly the passover, were intended to point out the Son of Qod 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.

I 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 institttted by divine appointment among men, im which anything 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.

3. As it is the duty of every Christian to receive the Holy Eucharist, so it is the duty of every Christian minister to see that the people of Gtoi neither neglect nor lose sight of this ordinance. They should not only strongly inculcate the duty of frequently communicating, but they should lead them to those green pastures, and deliver to them the sacred symbols. How can any ministers answer it to Grod, who preach from year to year without once administering the Lord’s Supper? This is a sinful innovation of modern times; the ancient church of Gtod knew nothing of this, nor of the no less flagrant absurdity of obliging genuine Christian converts to go to strange communions to receive the symbols of their Lord’s Bacrifice, refusing, either through Toluntary humility, or a base man-pleasing disposition, to administer to those who have been gathered out of the corruption that is in the world, an ordinance by which they may be most blessedly built up on their most holy faith. How such ministers can answer for this to God, I cannot tell; but to such, “the hungry sheep look up, and are not fed I”

4. 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 pubHcly. 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 &om 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 world. 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 incontestable 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 Grod 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 carefully 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 i:eligion 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 master-piece 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 i Such is the wisdom of God, and such his watchful care over his church I Sincerely I thank Gk)d 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 vL 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.

In this place a question of very great importance should be considered, “Is the ungodliness of the minister any prejudice to the ordinance itself, or to the devout communicant f’ 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 ever 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 Grod has disproved this by ten thousand instances, in “vrhich 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 Grod into contempt, and are intruders into the fold of Christ.

“But supposing a man has not the opportunity of receiving the Eucharist from the hands of a holy man, should life not receive it at all f I answer, I hope it will seldom be found difficult to meet with iihis ordinance in the most unexceptionable way; but should such a case occur that it must be either Teceived from an improper person, or not received .^t all, I would then advise. Receive it by all means i 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 you to get this 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 particu* lar 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. It is an abomination that maketh desolate, and has been often found in the holy place. Profanity and sin will certainly prevent the Divine Spirit from realizing the sign in the souls of worthless ministers and sinful communicants; but the want of episcopal or presbyterial 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 and precipitation. Scarcely anything is more imbecoming 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 g’^neral thanksgiving to Grod for the benefits conferred by the passion and death of Christ, by means of this blessed ordinance. All the conmiiinicants, unless absolute necessity oblige 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 pf 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 1 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 hurrying away as soon as they have received the sacred elements, must answer to God for an act that not only betrays their great want of serious godliness; but borders, I had almost said, on profanity and irreligion. Judas, of all the disciples of our Lord, went out before the Holy Supper was concluded! Reader, wilt thou go and do likewise I God forbid 1