. Nay, St. Matthew and St. Mark themselves direct Us thus to interpret their own word, relating to the Bread, by their using the word [Euxapichoas, i. e. having given thanks] when They speak of the Cup; the very fame word which St. Luke and St. Paul use of the Bread. For no one, I fuppofe, will fay that Blefing the Bread, in any Sense different from what I have now laid down, was any more needful, or agreeable to our Saviour's Defign; than doing the fame to the Cup, which contained what He calls his Bloud: or that any thing was to be conveyed to the one, which was not to the other. If therefore, this fame Action of blessing, in fpeaking of the Cup, is expreffed, in St. Matthew and St. Mark, by a word which can fignify nothing but giving praise and thanks ; this is an Argument that nothing more than this was implied in the word Blessing, used of the Bread, by the fame Writers. And indeed, so many Manufcripts of good Note, read this very word [euxapishoas] in this paffage of St. Matthew, concerning the Bread, instead of [euroynoas,] that this latter word may well be thought to have been tranfplanted hither from St. Mark, by fome of the Tranfcribers. 2. We cannot but obferve the Different Expreffions, made ufe of by thefe Different Writers, in this short Account of the Words fpoken by our Lord Himself, in the very Inflitution of this Rite. Take, Eat, This is my Body, is all that St. Matthew and St. Mark relate, as faid by our Lord, concerning the Bread. St. Paul and St. Luke are larger, This is My Body which is given, (broken) for you: and both add, This do in remembrance of Me. In the Account of the Cup, Chrift is represented by St. Mark as faying, This is my Bloud, of the New Teftament, which is hed for Many: St. Matthew adds, for the remiffion of Sins. St. Luke expreffès it, This Cup is the New Teftament in my Bloud, which is fhed for You. St. Paul fays the fame ; and adds, as our Saviour's own words, This do yes as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. From this Different Manner of Expreffion it is evident that the Apostles and Evangelifts, even in giving an Account of an Inftitution, which depended entirely upon our Lord's own Declarations, and was to be a ftanding Rite in the Chriftian Church, were not fuperftitiously fcrupulous in numbering his Words; nay, nor follicitous to relate the very Words, and those only, which He made ufe of. Some record fewer Words, and fome more: and all plainly think it fufficient to reprefent exactly the Intent of the Whole. It was enough to record these Words concerning the Bread, Take, Eat, This is my Body; at a time, when all Chriftians could not but know, from the Mouths of the Apostles themselves, that this Rite was to be continued in the Church, as a Memorial of Chrift. But St. Luke's and St. Paul's addition of these Other Words, as fpoken by. our Saviour upon the fame occafion, This do in remembrance of me; which Words St. Paul adds alfo to the Inftitution of the Cup: This I fay, is of great ufe, to put that matter out of all doubt, in later ages. For, if This was appointed to be done in remembrance of Chrift, after his Death, or, after his Body fhould be broken, and his Bloud fhed; it follows that the Inftitution was defigned and ordained equally for all Ages of the Church, and for all Christians in every Age. If to this We add the Practice of the Corinthian Chriftians, who plainly thought Themselves obliged to meet for this purpose; and St. Paul's Inftructions al ready ready cited, with relation to the Original Inftitution and Design of fuch Meetings, the Truth of this will be ftill more confirmed. For, in these, He is fo far from permitting Them to lay aside their Attendance upon the Lord's Supper; that He urges the Authority and End of the Inftitution itself, as an argument for their attending upon it in fuch manner as to anfwer that End; and. indeed strongly in words afferts our obligation to shew the Death of Chrift, in this particular way, till his coming again to Judgment. Again, with regard to the Cup; Two of These Writers report the Words to have been, This is my Bloud of the New Teftament, or rather, Covenant. The other Two fay, This Cup is the New Covenant in my Bloud. Which of the two was the very Expreffion, is of little importance: fince They both (as will appear by and by) tend to the fame End; and defign the fame thing. And in the mean while, these inconfiderable Differences in Expreffion will furnith Us with an argument that the Apostles and First Writers did not understand the Words of the Institution to relate to Christ's Body and Bloud in a literal Sense. For, 3. This 3. This is particularly to be observ'd, That the whole Tenor and Form of this Inftitution, is in the Figurative Way of Speaking and that All Expreffions in it of the fame fort, ought to be understood in the fame manner. For instance, The Cup, in the Words recorded by St. Luke and St. Paul, is allowed not to fignify the Cup, but the Wine in the Cup. This Wine is allowed by All, not to be itself the New Covenant; nor to be changed (or tranfubftantiated) into the New Covenant; but only to be the Memorial of the New Covenant. If therefore, the Cup, in the words of the Inftitution, be not the Cup; but the Wine in it: If the Wine in it be not itself the New Covenant; tho' declared to be fo as expressly as the Bread is declared to be Chrift's Body, or the Wine his Bloud: it follows, by all the rules of Interpretation, agreeably to the Way of speaking throughout the Whole, that the Bread and Wine are not the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ, but the Memorials of his Body and Bloud. To fay the contrary, is to affirm that the fame manner of Expreffion, in the fame fhort Inftitution of a Religious Rite, in one part of it must be interpreted figuratively, merely to avoid Abfurdities; and in another part of |