Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

and fo to neglect, one of the capital arguments for a real facrifice; for it infinuates, that arguments for its reality are to be fought for elsewhere, and not in the inftitution of this Rite: Whereas it is our defign to fhew, that this very Rite of the last fupper conftitutes one of the capital arguments for the reality of the Sacrifice itself. And, therefore, let us now go on with it.

We have seen what may be naturally, and, indeed, what must be neceffarily, concluded from this part of the Evangelic Hiftory of the Inftitution of the LAST SUPPER, concerning Chrift's defign therein.

Let us fee next what may be collected of St. Paul's fenfe concerning the fame; who, although occafionally, yet hath at large fpoken of the nature of the LAST SUPPER.

And here we fhall find, that from this very fort of Feast (which the words of the Inftitution of it plainly alluded to) St. Paul exprefsly draws a comparifon; and, at the fame time, to explain the efficacy of the Rite, informs us of the end and purpose of those Feafts upon Sacrifice.

It is in that place of his first-Epistle to the Corinthians, where he reproves the profelytes to Chriftianity for the idolatrous practice of fitting with the Gentiles, in their feafts upon Sacrifice, and eating of the meats that had been offered to Idols.

[ocr errors]

His words are thefe" I fpeak -“I fpeak as to wife "men: judge ye what I fay. The Cup of Bleffing, which we blefs, 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? "For we, being many, are one bread, and "one body; for we are all partakers of "that one bread. Behold Ifrael after the "fleth are not they which eat of the Sa"crifices, Partakers of the Altar? What "fay I, then? That an idol is any thing,

or that that which is offered to idols is any "thing? But I fay, that the things which "the Gentiles facrifice, they facrifice to "Devils, and not to God: and I would "not that you should have FELLOWSHIP with Devils. Ye cannot drink the Cup ❝of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils : ye

[blocks in formation]

"cannot be Partakers of the Lord's Table, "and of the Table of Devils *."

The Apoftle here profeffeth to write to thefe Corinthians, under their own affumed Character of wife men. And, though, perhaps, he ufeth the term a little ironically -as wife in their own conceit-to reprove the divifions, before objected to them; yet the logical inference, drawn from an appeal to men of fuch a character, is not at all weakened by the farcafm under which it is conveyed. My meaning is, we may fairly conclude, that St. Paul's reasoning is fuch as, in his opinion, wife men would not difdain to weigh; and fo regularly con ducted, that wife men would acknowledge to be of force. In a word, pursued with that science and exactnefs, which leaves no room for the pretence of its having a loose, popular, or inaccurate meaning.

Whence we may collect, in the first place, that the Cup of bleffing is not merely a general commemoration of a dead Benefactor, but principally a commemoration of the

*

1 Cor. X. 15-21.

DEATH

t

DEATH AND PASSION of that Benefactor. It is the Communion of the blood of Christ; an expreffion, as we have fhewn, of the utmost elegance to denote a feaft upon facrifice.

The inference which the Apoftle draws from it, puts his meaning out of question. -For we, being many (fays he) are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread: i. e. Our being partakers of one bread, in the communion, makes us, of MANY (which we are by nature), to become (by grace) ONE BODY in Chrift. This inference is manifeftly juft, if the Rite be of the nature of a Feast upon Sacrifice; for then the Communion of the body and blood of Chrift unites the Receivers into one body, by an equal diftribution of one common benefit. But if it be merely the Commemoration of a dead benefactor, it leaves the Receivers as it found them; not one body, incorporated by a common benefit, but many separate individuals, profeffing one common Faith.

The Apostle having thus reprefented the LAST SUPPER to be of the nature of

[blocks in formation]

a Feaft upon Sacrifice, for the truth of which he appeals to their own conceptions of it— the cup of bleffing, is it not the Communion? &c.-the bread which we break, is it not the Communion? &c.

He then endeavours to convince them of the impiety of their behaviour, from the nature of those feafts, as it was understood both by Jews and Gentiles; who alike held, that they WHO EAT OF THE SACRIFICES WERE PARTAKERS OF THE ALTAR: i. e. had the benefits of the Sacrifice. But what had these eaters of the things facrificed, in common with the Partakers of the bread and wine in the LAST SUPPER, if this Supper was not a feast of the fame kind with the facrificial Feafis? If the three religious Feafts, Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, had not one common nature, How could the Apostle have inferred that this intercommunity was abfolutely inconfiftent ?—re cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils. For though there might be impiety in the promiscuous ufe of Pagan and

*See note [1], at the end of this Book,

Christian

« AnteriorContinuar »