Sacrifice was the Antitype of the Paschal feast. So that the properest season we can conceive for the institution of the last supper, was the instant of time between the celebration of the Type, and the offering of the Antitype. This time likewise corresponded with Christ's usual practice, who was wont to deliver his instructions by actions and expressions, bearing allusion to what passed before his eyes, or presented itself, in the natural course of things, to his observation *. These considerations shew, that the action, in the celebration of this Rite, was so strongly declarative of its nature, that had Jesus only broken the bread and given the cup in remembrance of himself, without adding, this is my body and this is my blood, no ingenuous Hearer could entertain a doubt, whether this was designed by him as a Feast upon the Sacrifice: But when to this we add the remaining part of the explanatory words, in the consecration of the Elements--THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD-what is here contended for becomes almost self-evident.

In these feasts upon Sacrifice, the very body that had been offered was eaten for the repast. Now, as the last supper was to be instituted, and the Rite first celebrated, before the great Sacrifice was actually offered, (for the reason just now given) it was on that account (not to mention other reasons) necessary that some symbolic elements should be substituted in the place of the very body and blood. These elements were BREAD, AND WINE" on this occasion naturally, properly, and elegantly called,

THE BODY AND BLOOD.

For if the specific nature of the last supper was a feast upon Sacrifice, we must needs conclude, that the divine Institutor of the feast would give all possible evidence of so important a Truth.

But if (as was in fact the case) this evidence must arise from, and out of, the occasion, and through the words of the Institution, then the figurative terms of BODY and BLOOD became necessary, these only being fully de-clarative of the nature of the Rite. And as this made

* See Sir Isaac Newton's Observations on the Prophecies, p. 148; where he takes notice how Jesus, from the approach of harvest-fromi the lilies in bloom-from the leaves of the fig trees shot out-from the sheep kept in folds near the temple for sacrifice-was accustomed to take occasion of inculcating his spiritual Doctrines and Precepts.

the use of these terms to be necessary, so the necessity of them produced their ease and elegance. This is observed, because it has been usual amongst Protestants, even while they were opposing the portentous doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION, to acknowledge, either through ignorance of, or inattention to, the specific nature of the Rite, that the figure of body and blood was extremely violent and forced.

It likewise removes another difficulty, which the advocates for a real presence throw in the way of common sense. They pretend that, if the words of the institution were only FIGURATIVE, the Evangelist and St. Paul might, and probably would, have changed the figuré, in their narratives, five times repeated on different occasions; for that no reason can be given of the unvaried use of the same words, but because they are to be understood LITERALLY; and then as they were declarative of one of the greatest Mysteries in Religion, there was a necessity to record the very terms employed, whenever the history of the Institution was related. To this, it is sufficient to reply, that, indeed, were the words used figuratively, and the figure only expressive of a death commemorated, and no more, as the Socinians suppose it to be, it would be but reasonable to think, the terms would have been varied by one or other of the sacred Writers; because it is natural to believe, that Writers of so different genius and acquirements in language would not all have the same opinion concerning the use of these precise terms, so as to esteem them preferable to any other; as, in fact, on this idea of the Rite, they would not be. But we can by no means allow their consequence, that, therefore, they are to be understood i.ITERALLY; since, if we admit the Institution to be of the nature of a feast upon Sacrifice, there will be the same necessity for the unvaried use of the terms, although they be figurative, as there would have been although they were literal. For these precise terms are as necessary to denote a feast upon Sacrifice (the Rite we contend for) as to denote the Sacrifice itself; the enormous idea of the church of Rome.

All this reasoning on the nature of the Institution, from the words of the Institutor, receives additional *See note [1] at the end of this Book.

strength

strength even from what hath been supposed to invalidate it, namely, the conclusion of them-Do THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME-For although these words, when delivered alone, might enjoin no more than a remembrance of a dead benefactor, (which is the sense the Socinians: put upon them) yet, when preceded by-THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD-they are certainly an injunction to keep in remembrance his death and passion for our REDEMPTION. And could there be a feast upon a Sacrifice in which that Sacrifice was not to be kept in mind?

It is true, that the Disciples of Christ being commauded to do this in remembrance of him, the Command shews that the celebration of this Feast was continually to be repeated, which was not the practice in the Pagan and Jewish feasts after the sacrifice. But, in this particular, the reason of the difference is apparent-The GREAT SACRIFICE itself (of which the Jewish were Types) put an end to that mode of Religious Worship amongst the Followers of Jesus.

Jewish and Pagan oblations had, or were supposed to have, a passing and temporary Virtue. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices, which they offered year by year continually, make the Comers thereunto perfect: FOR THEN WOULD THEY NOT HAVE CEASED TO BE OFFERED*.

But the sacrifice on the CROss is the very image or the thing itself; and therefore has more than a passing and temporary effect, it continues operating till the consummation of all things; because it makes the comers thereunto perfect: we being sanctified through the offering of the body and blood of Christ, ONCE FOR ALL † for where remission of sins is, there is NO MORE OFferING FOR SIN . It seemed expedient, therefore, that the operating virtue of this Sacrifice, offered once for all, should be continually set before our minds, in repeated celebrations of the Feast upon it.

What hath been here reasoned, on the Institution of the last supper, appeared so strong to a late eminent Person, famous for his Socinian notions on this Subject,

Heb. x. 1, 2.

+ Ver. 10.

U 4

Ver. 18.

that

that (as I have been told) he used to confess, that if the death of Christ could be proved to be a real Sacrifice, the last Supper was undoubtedly of the nature of the Feast after the Sacrifice. This was said with his usual address, to make his Reader overlook, and so to neglect, one of the capital arguments for a real sacrifice; for it insinuates, that arguments for its reality are to be sought for elsewhere, and not in the institution of this Rite: Whereas it is our design to shew, that this very Rite of the last supper constitutes 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 necessarily, concluded from this part of the Evangelic History of the Institution of the LAST SUPPer, concerning Christ's design therein.

Let us see next what may be collected of St. Paul's sense concerning the same; who, although occasionally, yet hath at large spoken of the nature of the LAST SUPPER.

And here we shall find, that from this very sort of Feast (which the words of the Institution of it plainly alluded to) St. Paul expressly draws a comparison; and, at the same time, to explain the efficacy of the Rite, informs us of the end and purpose of those Feasts upon Sacrifice.

It is in that place of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he reproves the proselytes to Christianity for the idolatrous practice of sitting with the Gentiles, in their feasts upon Sacrifice, and eating of the meats that had been offered to Idols,

66

66

His words are these-" I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 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? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of "that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh "not they which eat of the Sacrifices, Partakers of the "Altar? What say I, then? That an idol is any thing, or that that which is offered to idols is any thing? But say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they

66

are

"sacrifice

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

66

The Apostle here professeth to write to these Corinthians, under their own assumed Character of wise men. And, though, perhaps, he useth the term a little ironically-as wise in their own conceit,-to reprove the divisions, before abjected to them, yet the logical inference, drawn from an appeal to men of such a character, is not at all weakened by the sarcasm under which it is conveyed. My meaning is, we may fairly conclude, that St. Paul's reasoning is such as, in his opinion, wise men would not disdain to weigh; and so regularly conducted, that wise men would acknowledge to be of force. word, pursued with that science and exactness, which leaves no room for the pretence of its having a loose, popular, or inaccurate meaning.

In a

Whence we may collect, in the first place, that the Cup of blessing is not merely a general commemoration of a dead Benefactor, but principally a commemoration of the DEATH AND PASSION of that Benefactor. It is the Communion of the blood of Christ; an expression, as we have shewn, of the utmost elegance to denote a feast upon Sacrifice.

The inference which the Apostle draws from it, puts his meaning out of question-For we being many (says 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 Christ. This inference is manifestly just, if the Rite be of the nature of a Feast upon Sacrifice; for then the Communion of the body and blood of Christ unites the Receivers into one body, by an equal distribution 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, professing one common Faith.

* 1 Cor. x. 15--21.

The