"Breaking of bread," in remembrance of the dying love of Christ, a Gospel institution. Five sermons. In which the institution is explained; a general observance of it recommended and enforced; objections answered; and such difficulties, doubts, and fears, relative to it, particularly mentioned, and removed, which have too commonly discouraged some from an attendance at it, and proved to others a source of discomfort, in the regard they have endeavoured to pay to it. / By Charles Chauncy, D.D. Pastor of the First Church of Christ in Boston.

Dr. Chauncy's FIVE SERMONS.

"Breaking of Bread," in remembrance of the dying Love of Chriſt, a Goſpel inſtitution. FIVE SERMONS.

In which the inſtitution is explained; a general obſervance of it recommended and enforced; objections anſwered; and ſuch Difficulties, Doubts, and Fears, relative to it, particularly mentioned, and removed, which have too commonly diſcouraged ſome from an attendance at it, and proved to others a ſource of diſcomfort, in the regard they have endeavoured to pay to it.

BY CHARLES CHAUNCY, D. D. PASTOR OF THE FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST IN BOSTON.

BOSTON: Printed by D. KNEELAND, in QUEEN-STREET, for THOMAS LEVERETT, in CORN-HILL. M,DCC,LXXII.

"Breaking of Bread," in remembrance of CHRIST, a Goſpel-duty. Acts. II. 42.

And they continued ſtedfaſtly—in breaking of Bread.

THE preceeding verſes contain an account of the ſermon, which the apoſtle Peter preached to a great auditory of Jews, by deſcent, or proſelitiſm, collected at Jeruſalem on the day of Pentecoſt. By means of this ſermon, multitudes had awakened in them ſuch a ſenſe of ſin and guilt, as, in good earneſt, to make that inquiry "men and brethren what ſhall we do"? Upon which, the apoſtle Peter directed them to "repent, and be baptiſed every one of them in the name of Jeſus Chriſt for the remiſſion of ſins." We are then told, that no leſs than "three thouſand perſons gladly received the word, were baptiſed, and added to the number of diſciples". It follows, in the words of my text, that they "continued ſtedfaſtly—in breaking of bread."

THE "bread" which they are ſaid to "break" undoubtedly means the ſacramental bread, that bread which is an inſtituted ſign or ſymbol, of the "body of Chriſt which was broken for us." Some indeed ſeem to think it was only common bread; but to me it appears ſtrange, they ſhould give it this ſenſe. It is true, "the bread" theſe chriſtians are ſpoken of, ver. 46, as "daily breaking from houſe to houſe," may mean common bread; for it is joined with their "eating meat" for their bodily refreſhment. And, if it is natural, from the things con-joined in this verſe, to underſtand by the "bread they brake," common bread; it is equally natural, in the verſe we are upon, to underſtand the ſame phraſe in a different ſenſe; not as meaning common, but ſacramental bread. For the other actions here mentioned are ſacred ones. And as this of "breaking bread" is joined with a "continuance in the apoſtle's doctrine and prayers," which are inſtances of communion in "things pertaining to the kingdom of God, and of Jeſus Chriſt," it would be unreaſonable to interpret it as ſignifying, in this place, nothing more than that "breaking of bread" which is common and ordinary: Eſpecially if it be remembered, that "breaking of bread," meaning hereby celebrating the Lord's-Supper, was a religious exerciſe, in which chriſtians, in apoſtolic times, joined together every Lord's day, with like ſteadineſs as in their attendance on the word preached, or prayer.

IT is accordingly not only ſaid, in my text, that they "break bread"; but that they "ſtedfaſtly continued" to do ſo. The meaning is, it was a conſtant part of their public worſhip, one of their ſtated religious exerciſes, a duty which they went on in the practice of; perſevering therein with the ſame ſteadineſs with which they obſerved the other inſtituted ſervices of piety. As "breaking of bread" in apoſtolic times, was one of the known chriſtian exerciſes on Lord's-Days, it may be aſked, is not this a duty now as truly as it was then? And are not chriſtian Churches to blame, that they do not "break bread" every Lord's-day, in remembrance of their Lord? In anſwer hereto, it is readily allowed, that on Lord's-days, it was the practice of chriſtians, in the age of the apoſtles, to "break bread", as well as to attend on other parts of goſpel worſhip. But I dare not venture to ſay, it will follow from hence, that chriſtian churches are all bound to do as they did. A diſtinction ought always to be made betwixt that which is eſſential, and that which is circumſtantial, in any article of duty. To "break bread" in remembrance of Chriſt, is eſſentially a chriſtian duty; the ſpecial frequency of doing this is a circumſtance only, which it may be proper ſhould be varied, according to the ſtate of chriſtian churches. Our Lord has ſaid, "This do in remembrance of me"; but neither he, nor any of his apoſtles, have ſaid, this do every Lords-day. The practice of chriſtian churches in the days of the apoſtles, eſpecially with them joining in it, is, it is acknowledged, a weighty conſideration, and every way ſufficient to put it beyond all doubt, that the ſupper of the Lord ought to be attended with frequency; and thoſe churches are herefrom juſtly, and ſtrongly rebuked, who "break Bread" not oftener than once, or twice, or thrice, in a whole year. But to argue from this practice of the primitive chriſtians, that it is an indiſpenſible duty to have the ſacramental ſupper every Lord's-day, may be carrying the argument beyond which it will fairly, or juſtly, bear. Perhaps, no practice of any church, or of any apoſtle, or of all the apoſtles united, ſeparate from a divine command, direct or implicit, is abſolutely binding upon any ſociety of chriſtians whatever. It may be of great ſervice in guiding their conduct, but not certainly obligatory in point of conſcience; to be ſure, not ſo in all caſes, and at all times. There may be ſuch a variety, yea, contrariety, in the ſtate and circumſtances of churches, as not to make that expedient, which is not commanded, though it ſhould have been a primitive practice, and a commendable one too. And it is, beyond all diſpute, true, that the command, reſpecting the ſacramental ſupper, relates to doing the duty itſelf, preſcribing nothing in particular as to the frequency of its being performed; whether every day, or week, or month, or year. In general, it may be juſtly collected from the practice of the firſt chriſtians, eſpecially when compared with thoſe words of the apoſtle Paul, "as oft as ye do this," that he ſupper of the Lord ought to be celebrated with ſuch frequency ▪ as that it may, with propriety, be ſaid, it is done often. I judge no chriſtian church for "breaking bread" every Lord's-Day: Neither ought they to judge other churches, who think, if they often do this, it is all they are obliged to, in virtue of any PRECEPT in the religion of Jeſus.

From the words, as they have been explained, I am obviouſly led to urge upon chriſtian profeſſors the duty of "breaking bread" at the Lord's table; and this I ſhall the more readily engage in, as it is a duty, to whatever cauſe it may be owing, that is greatly neglected in theſe days. Multitudes of thoſe who call themſelves chriſtians, inſtead of celebrating the ſacramental ſupper, go from it as though they had no concern in it, or as if it were a trifling inſtitution, not worth their regard. The neglect of "eating bread, and drinking wine," in remembrance of him who died for our ſins, is indeed grown a general fault, and juſtly chargeable upon baptiſed perſons arrived at maturity of age and underſtanding. It is a ſhame it ſhould be thus, a reproach upon chriſtians, a diſhonour to the religion they profeſs, and an open and ſcandalous affront to him whom they own to be their Maſter and Lord. How different is the practice of diſciples now from what it was in the days of the apoſtles! An attendance at the ſacramental table was then UNIVERSAL among thoſe who profeſſed faith in Jeſus Chriſt. Among the three thouſand perſons, ſpoken of, in the context, as admitted to baptiſm, there was not one that did not communicate alſo at the Lord's-Supper; and it was their conſtant practice to do ſo. This noble example of the primitive chriſtians, recorded to their honor by an inſpired pen, may, with all reaſon, be eſteemed a ſolemn rebuke of that negligence, in regard of the Lord's-Supper, which is now become almoſt univerſal. And I may properly, and not unſeaſonably, take occaſion from it to repreſent to all that "name the name of Chriſt" the ſinfulneſs of ſuch neglect, by opening to their view, in the plaineſt and ſtrongeſt manner I am able, the ſolemn bonds they are under to attend as gueſts at the ſacramental table.

THEY are obliged to this by the poſitive command of Jeſus Chriſt, the founder of our religion, and the author of ſalvation. He has ſolemnly enjoined it on all, who own themſelves his diſciples, to "break bread" in honor to him. THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME, are the words of his command: Nor could he have expreſſed his pleaſure upon this head in terms more plain and explicit. They lie level to the loweſt capacity, and may readily be underſtood by all that do not ſhut their eyes againſt the light.

SHOULD it be ſaid here, the mind of Chriſt, tis true, was plainly enough ſignified to his apoſtles, making it their duty to "break bread and eat it, to pour out wine and drink it in remembrance of him"; but it is not ſo evident, that this command to them was, in the deſign of Chriſt, an obligation upon diſciples in general.

IT is readily acknowledged, the words of inſtitution were originally ſpoken to the twelve apoſtles only; for which reaſon, it cannot be certainly argued, from the words themſelves ſimply conſidered, that chriſtians in general are obliged to celebrate this memorial of Chriſt's death. The apoſtles might be applied to in their proper character as ſuch, or as diſciples only; and whether it was in the former, or latter of theſe ſenſes, cannot be determined by the meer force of our Lord's words, as they were delivered by him. But this notwithſtanding, it is not, in any degree, uncertain, whether our Savior intended, by the words he ſpake to his apoſtles, to oblige chriſtians in common, as well as his apoſtles in particular, to attend at the ſacramental ſupper. For it is to be remembered, the apoſtles were infallible interpreters of our Lord's words; inſomuch that we may, with intire confidence, depend on the truth they conſtrue them in. And nothing in all the bible is more clearly and indubitably evident than this, that they accounted the Lord's-Supper an eſtabliſhed rite of goſpel-worſhip, an inſtitution of Chriſt, that all his profeſſed diſciples were as truly obliged to obſerve as they themſelves. Why elſe was it the practice of chriſtians in their day, and by their order, to join in partaking of the ſymbols of Chriſt's death? Three thouſand perſons, upon being baptiſed by the apoſtles, were, in one day, admitted to ſit down with them at the Lord's-Supper; and they "continued" to do ſo, wherever this ordinance was adminiſtred; as we read in my text and context. And it is beyond all diſpute evident, not only that chriſtians in common met together every Lord's-Day to join in prayer, and an attendance on the word preached; but in "breaking of bread" alſo, a phraſe that means the ſame thing preciſely with their celebration of the ſacramental ſupper. And they did this under the eye of the apoſtles, with them at their head, and as acting under their guidance and direction. Surely, they would not have thus put chriſtians upon partaking of the Lord's-Supper, and have joined with them in it, had they not known the mind of their maſter upon this head. It was unqueſtionably his intention, in the appointment of the ſupper, to oblige all the profeſſors of his religion to an obſervance of it: Otherwiſe, this conduct of the apoſtles, who were conſtituted by him infallible guides and teachers, will be abſolutely unaccountable. Beſides, it may be worthy of remark, when the apoſtle Paul found the chriſtians at Corinth in the uſe of this act of religious worſhip, he does not forbid their going on in it, as being a duty proper to apoſtles only. It is true, he blames them for the irregularities they had mixed with their uſe of this ordinance; but not for their uſe of this ordinance itſelf. Far from this, he ſolemnly aſſures them, as from Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, that the ſacramental ſupper was a ſacred rite of goſpel worſhip, inſtituted by our Saviour himſelf for the uſe of all chriſtians. And, as the beſt remedy to cure their diſorders, he relates to them the inſtitution itſelf, and directs them to manage their attendance on it in ſtrict agreement therewith.

So that, upon the whole, it will not admit of debate, whether "eating bread and drinking wine, in remembrance of Chriſt," is an eſtabliſhed rite of his religion. It is as obviouſly and certainly an inſtitution of the goſpel as baptiſm in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghoſt, or indeed any law recorded in the new-teſtament.

THERE is therefore, ſo far as we regard the authority of Jeſus Chriſt, the ſame reaſon why we ſhould "break bread," in remembrance of him, as that we ſhould obey him in any other inſtance of duty whatever. Why do we think ourſelves obliged to join as chriſtians, in obſerving the Lord's-Day, or in attending on the word preached and prayer? Is it that we might be obedient to Jeſus Chriſt, who is king in Sion? We are equally under obligation to celebrate the memorial of his death. This ordinance has the ſame ſtamp of his authority on it; nor are we any more at liberty to diſregard it in this inſtance, than in the other. Nay, if we knowingly, and habitually offend in this point, we may reaſonably call in queſtion the integrity of our hearts reſpecting the other. He that has ſaid, "repent and be baptiſed," neglect not the aſſembling yourſelves together "for the ſervices of piety, ſuch as prayer, reading and hearing God's word, has ſaid alſo, and in words equally authoritative, "this do in remembrance of me." And if we practically ſlight the authority of Chriſt in this latter inſtance, why ſhould we think our regards to it are pure and ſingle as to the former? The plain truth is, the Commands of Jeſus Chriſt are all given out with the ſame authority. And if this authority obliges us to obedience in any, it does in every inſtance. We have no right to make exceptions, doing one thing, and leaving another undone. The only queſtion here is, has Jeſus Chriſt, who is Head and Lord of his church, inſtituted the ſacramental ſupper? Has he commanded his diſciples to "eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of him"? If his will, in this matter, has been plainly made known, an end is at once put to all diſpute. It is our indiſpenſible duty to honour his authority, by readily complying with his Command.

AND, I may pertinently add here, there are ſome circumſtances attending this command in ſpecial, which are powerfully ſuited to awaken our conſideration, and excite in us a care of punctual obedience to it.

IT is a command that has been carefully preſerved, and faithfully handed down to us, by no leſs than three of the Evangeliſts. Surely, the Spirit of God, under whoſe extraordinary influence theſe holy men were moved to write the goſpels, eſteemed the ſacramental ſupper an appointment of no ſmall importance, and had it in view to bind the celebration of it upon the diſciples of Chriſt in the ſtrongeſt manner. Had the words, in which our Lord inſtituted the memorial of his death, been tranſmitted to us by one of the ſacred penmen only, they would have been obligatory upon all who own Chriſt for their maſter; But, as they have been repeatedly conveyed, the obligation is more unqueſtionable, we are more firmly bound to pay a religious regard to this inſtance of duty; and if we neglect to do ſo, the guilt hereby incurred will be greatly heightened. A ſerious thought this! and it were to be wiſhed it might be ſeriouſly attended to by all who profeſs themſelves chriſtians.

ANOTHER circumſtance attending the command we are upon, worthy of particular notice, is, the extraordinary manner in which it was conveyed to the apoſtle Paul. It ſhould be remembered here, he was not an apoſtle, nor ſo much as a believer, when our Lord injoined "the eating of bread, and drinking of wine" in commemoration of him. It was after this time, and years too, that he became a convert to the religion of Jeſus, and a fellow-laborer with the other apoſtles in the goſpel-kingdom. And now it was that he received the knowledge of the ſacramental inſtitution. But how did he receive it? "not of men, neither was he taught it but by the revelation of Jeſus Chriſt." So he expreſly aſſures us himſelf. Says he, 1 Cor. 11.23, I received of the Lord that which alſo I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jeſus, the ſame night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and brake it, and ſaid, take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. —The prefixed words, I received of the Lord, were evidently intended to point out the way in which he came by the knowledge of the ſupper, as a divine appointment; that it was, not by inſtruction from the other apoſtles, nor by any communication that was meerly human; but from Jeſus Chriſt himſelf. And may it not from hence be fairly concluded, that the ſacramental inſtitution was, in the eſteem of our Lord, a matter of ſolemn weight, and that he would by no means have it diſregarded? Why elſe ſhould he make a revelation of it to the apoſtle Paul immediately from heaven? His taking this extraordinary method certainly argues the ſingular importance of the duty, and renders it an inexcuſeable fault in chriſtians to live in the neglect of it.

THERE is yet another momentous circumſtance, accompanying the command to "break bread" in remembrance of Chriſt. And this is, the time when it was firſt given out. The apoſtle Paul takes notice of this circumſtance, and puts a ſpecial emphaſis on it. His words are, "THE SAME NIGHT IN WHICH HE WAS BETRAYED the Lord Jeſus took bread, and ſaid, take eat, this is my body which is broken for you: This do in remembrance of me." Surely, no matter of trifling conſideration would have engaged the attention of our Saviour at ſuch a time as this! He would not, at ſo ſerious and ſolemn a juncture, have injoined this duty, and by his own example have ſhewed his diſciples how to performi it, if he had not tho't it worthy of particular regard, and ſuppoſed that his followers would think ſo too. He too well underſtood human nature, not to mean ſome ſpecial recommendation of the ſacramental ſupper by inſtituting it at ſo critical a time. In a dying hour, the moſt earneſt deſires of the ſoul are wont to be expreſſed; and to ſuch deſires the greateſt regard is commonly paid. If a command, or requeſt, comes from a dying man, eſpecially if he is a friend, a benefactor, whom we love, honour and admire, it is apt deeply to impreſs our minds, nor can we eaſily hear it with indifference and neglect. Such now, though in a much higher ſenſe, is the command to "breek bread" at the ſacramental table. It is the fare-well-requeſt, the laſt injunction, the dying charge, not only of our beſt friend, and greateſt benefactor; but of him whom we call our Maſter and Lord. Shall we any of us, after this, habitually neglect the inſtitution of the ſupper? Shall we expreſs, in our practice, a diſregard to a duty, conſtituted ſuch by the bleſſed Jeſus, juſt as he was going to lay down his life for us? How ſhall we free ourſelves from the charge of baſe ingratitude to the greateſt lover of our ſouls, if we reckon it a frivolous rite, or are wanting in our care to pay all due honour to it? Eſpecially, as it was injoined under circumſtances, ſo peculiarly fitted to ſtrike our minds, work upon our paſſions, and engage our religious obſervance of it. May it not be reaſonably queſtioned, whether we mind our Lord's other commands, if we can eaſily, careleſly, and habitually forget, in our practice, this, which was his laſt and dying one, and delivered with ſo much particularity and ſolemnity?

I HAVE hitherto argued from the authority only by which the Lord's-Supper was inſtituted. If we go on, and conſider the deſign of this ordinance, and the good effects it is fitted to produce, we ſhall find ourſelves under ſtrong additional obligations readily to pay our dutiful regard to it.

WE may be apt to ſpeak of it as nothing more than an injoined ritual that has no intrinſic value in it. And it is acknowledged, it is not, in itſelf ſimply conſidered, a natural, eſſential, inſeperable part of religion, as the love of God and our neighbour; but a poſitive inſtitution, dependant on the will of Jeſus Chriſt. But it may notwithſtanding be an important uſeful appointment. We have ſeen, from ſeveral circumſtances already mentioned, that our Lord himſelf entertained this thought of it; and we may be further aſſured of this, from its being his appointment, though he had aboliſhed all the rites and ceremonies of the Jewiſh law. Surely, he would not have made the "breaking and eating of bread," in a certain way, a ſacred rite of chriſtianity, if he had not thought it highly expedient; if the deſign in view had not been valuable, and the tendency of the thing good likewiſe in itſelf.

AS to the deſign of the ſacramental inſtitution, it was to perpetuate, by viſible ſymbols, the memory of a crucified Saviour. "This do in remembrance of me". The thing meant is, not meerly that chriſtians, when partaking of the Lord's-Supper, ſhould employ their thoughts on the ſufferings of him who died for them. This, no doubt, was one thing intended, and expected; and it would be highly miſbecoming, if, while at this ſolemnity, they did not keep in mind, and ſeriouſly contemplate, the love of their Savior, who "died for ſin, the juſt for the unjuſt, that he might bring us to God." But more than this was in the view of Chriſt, when he appointed the Goſpel-Supper. His intention was, that this ſhould be celebrated, in the aſſemblies of chriſtians, as an open declarative repreſentation of his death. It is one thing, ſays an excellent writer, inwardly to remember, and another to celebrate, and ſolemnly to exhibit, a public mememorial, by which we not only remember a fact, but avowedly and triumphantly proclaim our remembrance, and our deſire to have that remembrance obſerved, upheld and propagated. In this ſenſe, the Lord's-Supper was appointed for a declaration, or "ſhewing forth of Chriſt's death." The ſeparation of bread and wine at the ſacrament, the breaking and eating the one, and the pouring out and drinking the other, do, according to the nature of ſigns, figuratively ſet forth, that Chriſt's body was broken and bruiſed, and his blood ſhed as an atonement for ſin. This is what is meant by theſe ſigns, and they are made eaſie and intelligible to the moſt vulgar capacity by the words themſelves, which not only relate the inſtitution, but explain its ſenſe; as in the paſſover, Exod 12.25—27, the memorial was exhibited, and the ſenſe of it given.

WHEN therefore our Savior appointed the breaking and eating of bread, and pouring out and drinking of wine, "in remembrance of him," he not only intended this as an occaſion for the meditation of chriſtians on his crucifixtion and death, but for preſerving, and tranſmitting, the memorial of ſo important an event from age to age, even to the end of the world. Thus the paſſover was a memorial throughout the whole time the Jewiſh law was in force. And thus the Supper of the Lord, celebrated by chriſtians in the manner he has preſcribed, is an open public declaration of his dying love, perpetuating the memory of that amazing event, which is the true baſis of all our hopes of forgiveneſs with God. By means of this monument, the memory of Chriſt's death for the ſalvation of a miſerable world has been hitherto preſerved. and will be handed down to the end of the world. So great and valuable a deſign was in the view of Chriſt, when he appointed the ſacramental ſupper!

AND ſhall we any of us be backward in comporting with ſo glorious an intention? How dwelleth the love of Chriſt in us, if we have no perception of a readineſs to take occaſion, from the inſtituted ſigns of his body broken, and his blood ſhed, to keep up in our minds the memory of his death? If we can allowedly go out of the aſſemblies of chriſtians, not joining with them in recogniſing, and perpetuating the memorial of the greateſt event that ever took place in our world, and that is cloſely connected too with the ſalvation of it? We are obliged to nothing, if we are not obliged, in the way of Chriſt's appointment, to celebrate the memory of his death.

BUT beſides the bonds we are under to appear as gueſts at the Lord's-Supper from the valuable end deſigned by its appointment, we are further obliged to this duty in conſideration of its advantageous tendency, ſuitably regarded. It is an appointment of mercy, powerfully adapted to produce ſpiritually good effects; and cannot fail of doing ſo, unleſs it be our own fault. The bread which is broken at this ordinance is an inſtituted ſign that has this meaning, the body of Chriſt was wounded when he ſtood in our place, and bore our iniquities. The wine that is poured out is an emblematical figure ſignifying, that his blood was ſhed for the remiſſion of ſins. And can we eat of this bread, and drink of this wine, in this view of them, and not receive benefit herefrom? The greateſt occaſion is hereby given for the excitement, and exerciſe, of all the paſſions and affections of the human mind; and if our thoughts are ſuitably engaged and employed, great good will be the effect; and this, whether we are the ſubjects of a common faith only, or of that faith which is ſaving.

IF we have, at preſent, no other faith than that which is the reſult of ſerious inquiry, under the common influence of the divine Spirit, which was the only faith of multitudes who partook of the Lord's-Supper, in the days of the apoſtles, this ordinance is happily calculated and ſuited to promote our good. More powerful conſiderations to this end cannot be propoſed to us, than thoſe that obviouſly preſent themſelves at the ſacramental table. Here the love of the Father is figuratively ſet forth to us in the ſtrongeſt point of light. Wherein could he, in a more ſtriking manner, have commended his love to us, than by ſending his Son to die for us, while we were yet ſinners? And who, that is in a ſerious frame of mind, can think of this amazing love of God, and not feel the emotions of affection towards him?—Here alſo the love of Chriſt is kindly held out to our view. Would he have laid down his life for us, if he had not loved us with a love ſtronger than death? And what can conſtrain us to live, not to ourſelves, but to him, if this love of his in dying for us has no influence on us?—Here likewiſe the juſt deſert of ſin is, in the moſt lively manner, pointed out to us Would the only Son of God have had laid on him ſuch a load of ſufferings, if ſin had not been meritorious of the high diſpleaſure of almighty God? And if he ſuffered ſo much, while he only ſtood in our place, how ſhall we eſcape, if we will not be perſuaded to leave our ſins? The reaſoning of our Saviour upon this head is eaſie and juſt, and muſt ſtrike our minds with force, if we will attend to it, "if they do theſe things in a green tree, what ſhall be done in the dry"? Luk. 23.3 • . In a word, we have here preached to us with great plainneſs, though in figurative ſigns, reconciliation with God through the death of Chriſt, and complete ſalvation in eternal Glory, notwithſtanding all our paſt ſins, however multiplied, or aggravated, they may have been. And how loſt muſt we be to all ingenuity and ſenſe of gratitude, if, by ſuch conſiderations, that "godly ſorrow" for ſin is not produced in us, which is accompained with "repentance unto life, never to be repented of"? Many, without all doubt, in apoſtolic days, and in every age ſince, by means of what has been ſuggeſted to their minds at the table of the Lord, and impreſſed on them by his Spirit, have been turned from viſible chriſtians only, to thoſe that are chriſtians in the real temper of their hearts. And what has been may be again. The ordinance of the ſupper is admirably well adapted to promote the edification of all that come to it in the ſerious exerciſe of faith, though their faith, at preſent, ſhould not be ſuch as will argue their being "born from above".—

AND as to thoſe who are already partakers of the grace of God in truth, their is nothing in chriſtianity better ſuited to help forward their growth in the divine life, than their attendance at the ſacramental ſupper in a ſerious, devout and conſiderate manner. It is by the dying love of Chriſt, duly impreſſed on the mind by the Holy Ghoſt, that holy diſpoſitions are both begun, maintained, increaſed, and perfected in the Soul. And what more effectual means could have been deviſed to awaken in us a ſenſe of this love of Chriſt, and keep it in a vigorous lively ſtate, than our partaking of that bread and wine which are inſtituted ſymbols of his body broken, and blood ſhed, for our pardon and ſalvation? If, in the exerciſe of faith, we employ our thoughts on thoſe amazing objects that are here offered to contemplation, it muſt tend, in the ſtrongeſt manner, to ſoften our hearts, inflame our affections, ſtrengthen our graces, and eſtabliſh our minds in all chriſtian virtue; eſpecially, as we may here expect the preſence of Chriſt with us, by his Spirit, to guide our thoughts, aſſiſt our meditations, govern our views, encourage our hopes, comfort our hearts, and confirm in us the principles of goodneſs. Perhaps, the bleſſed Jeſus is never more preſent with the true chriſtian, to the purpoſes of ſpiritual light, love, joy and increaſe of holineſs, than when he is at his table in a right frame of ſoul. I doubt not, there are thoſe now preſent who can ſpeak of ſpecial manifeſtations of their Savior at this ordinance, enlarging their views of the divine glory, invigorating their graces, and ſtrengthening their feeble minds, ſo as that they have been able to run in the chriſtian race, and not be weary; to walk and not faint.—

So that if we have any concern for the welfare of our ſouls; if we deſire they ſhould be poſſeſſed of the grace of God, or improved and eſtabliſhed in it, we muſt needs think ourſelves obliged to celebrate the memorial of Chriſt's dying love; as this is an inſtituted mean ſo powerfully ſitted to produce theſe good effects.

IT is, I am ready to think very much owing to the neglect of the Lord's Supper, that there is ſo little religion to be ſeen among us. While chriſtians, ſo called, do generally, and allowedly expreſs, in their practice, a diſregard to their duty in this inſtance, it is no more than may be expected, that they ſhould neglect it in another, and ſo on until they are got into an habit of indifference to all religion. It is likewiſe very much owing to the neglect of this ordinance, or a careleſs ſlighty manner of attending on it, that there are ſo many ſpiritually poor, weak chriſtians among us. No wonder perſons ſhould continue "babes in Chriſt", if they do not uſe this mean of growth, or, if they uſe it, do it in an overtly ſuperficial manner.—It is owing to this ſame cauſe alſo, in a great meaſure, that there are ſo many chriſtians, who conflict with doubts and fears, being ſtrangers to that comfortable hope towards God without which there can be no true enjoyment of life; and how ſhould it be otherwiſe, if they will not wait upon Chriſt, in this way of his appointment, for thoſe manifeſtations of his love which ſhall ſcatter their fears, and ſet their minds at reſt? It may be juſtly queſtioned, whether religion will ever flouriſh among us, until this inſtitution of Chriſt is more generally attended, and with due care and conſideration.

I SHALL ſubjoin here ſtill further to excite our regard to the ſacramental ſupper, that it is a viſible mark, ſign, or badge of the chriſtian profeſſion. The wiſdom of God has always ſeen fit, under all the diſpenſations of his kingdom, to appoint ſome ſacred viſible rite, as a diſtinguiſhing mark pointing out his profeſſing people. Circumciſion was the inſtituted rite of diſtinction, to the ſeed of Abraham after the fleſh. In addition hereto, the paſſover, under the law, was appointed, among other ends to be a ſign between God, and the nation of the Jews, that is, a public ſolemn rite by which they might be known to be his people, in diſtinction from the other nations of the earth. And of ſuch importance were theſe inſtituted rites, to the eſteem of God, that the deſpiſers of them were peremptorily ordered by his authority to "be cut off from his people"; as not having their proper mark, and therefore no right to their advantages. Chriſtianity alſo has its diſtinguiſhing rites. Meeting together for "ſupplications, prayers, interceſſions, and giving of thanks," and the like public exerciſes of piety, are not peculiar to the religion of Jeſus, but common to every other. Baptiſm, and the Lord's-Supper, are the ſacred viſible rites by which Chriſt would have his diſciples and followers known to be ſuch in diſtinction from the reſt of the world. By baptiſm, which can be received but once, agreably to the mind of our Savior, they are initiated diſciples; but it is principally by celebrating the Lord's-Supper, and doing it frequently in a ſtated courſe, that they are diſtinguiſhed as his followers. By this they were known as ſuch in the days of the apoſtles. Their aſſembling together to "break bread" was their appropriate character, and pointed them out as the diſciples of Chriſt. And ſo it ought to be now. We ſhould be known to be chriſtians by having communion in the emblems of Chriſt's body and blood. A crucified Chriſt is the true baſis of the religion of Jeſus, in diſtinction from every other; and the public ſolemn celebration of him in this character, in the way he has appointed, is the proper diſtinctive mark of our profeſſion as his diſciples. By this we "glory in the croſs of Chriſt", proclaiming our adherance to him, and that we have no hope towards God but through him. But if we are neglecters of the Lord's-Supper, we declare virtually, and in reality of ſenſe, that we are aſhamed of the proper chriſtian badge. And what ever elſe we do in religion, we leave that undone which is the inſtituted viſible mark to diſtinguiſh us as Chriſt's diſciples.

I HAVE now ſaid all that I intended in illuſtration of the bonds we are under to "break bread" as Chriſt has commanded.

LET what has been offered, be ſeriouſly reflected on by thoſe who have made it their practice to treat the table of the Lord with neglect, not to ſay conſtructive contempt. You have violated the ſtrongeſt bonds, and muſt be convinced of it, if you will but conſider. Is not the ſupper of the Lord a plain inſtitution of the goſpel? Has not Jeſus Chriſt peremptorily ſaid "do this in remembrance of me"? Can you call in queſtion the truth of this command? Have you not as good reaſon to believe, that he has inſtituted the ſacramental ſupper, as baptiſm, or the duty of attending to the word preached? And will you notwithſtanding pay no regard to this goſpel ordinance? Is he not the conſtituted ſovereign in the kingdom of grace? Do you not call him Maſter and Lord? And is he not your Savior, as well as Lawgiver and Judge? Has he not died a ſacrifice to atone for your ſins? Have you any hope of the pardoning mercy of God, but through the merit of his blood, that blood of his, this inſtitution is a memorial of. And will you, in oppoſition to all theſe conſtraining motives, go on in the neglect of it? God forbid that you ſhould any longer diſregard the authority of his Son Jeſus Chriſt, and betray ingratitude to him for his aſtoniſhing love, by taking no practical notice of his dying requeſt to his diſciples and followers.

SERMON II. Acts. II. 42.

And they continued ſteadfaſtly—in breaking of Bread

I HAVE already taken occaſion, from theſe words, to lay before you, in a plain and faithful manner, the obligations chriſtians are under to "break bread" in obedience to Chriſt, and in commemoration of his dying love to ſinners.

WHAT I now propoſe is, a ſerious addreſs, relative to the ſubject we have been upon, to the following claſſes of perſons. To the ſecurely wicked; to the careleſs and indifferent; to thoſe who neglect the Lord's-Supper, though it is their care to obſerve the other inſtitutions of chriſtianity; to thoſe who call in queſtion the perpetuity of the command to "break and eat bread" at the ſacramental table; and, finally, to thoſe who are ſenſible of their duty in this regard, and would gladly attend it, but that they are hindred by various doubts, fears, and ſpiritual difficulties.

BY thus methodiſing this addreſs, it will obviouſly and naturally fall in my way to conſider the ſacramental neglect in every point of view, and to offer thereupon what may be thought proper; not leaving untouched any objection, ſcruple, fear, or perplexity, however minute, any have mentioned, within my knowledge, in excuſe of themſelves. It has been my purpoſe, for ſome, conſidering the great and general, and, I may ſay, ſcandalous diſregard that is practically ſhewn to as plain a duty as any in the religion of Jeſus Chriſt, to be particular and thorough in an attempt of this nature; and if, in proſecution of it, ſeveral diſcourſes ſhould be found neceſſary, the importance of what may be delivered will render an apology needleſs: You will the rather give the more earneſt and diligens attention to what may be diſcourſed. This may be expected of thoſe, at leaſt, whoſe minds are in anxiety reſpecting their attendance at the goſpel ſupper.

I AM, in the firſt place, to addreſs a few words to the ſecurely wicked, thoſe who lead a vicious and ungodly life, love the ways of ſin, and walk in them, not perceiving within themſelves an Inclination to ceaſe from doing evil, but a diſpoſition and reſolution rather to go on in the practice of iniquity. Would to God it were an abuſe of chriſtians, ſo called, to ſuppoſe there were any among them of this character. But it is a fact too glarringly evident to admit of a denial. To ſuch I would ſay,

IT is not expected of you, nor indeed deſired, that you would, in your preſent temper of mind, come to the table of the Lord. It would be a prophanation of that which is ſacred for perſons of your character to partake of the ſymbols of Chriſt's body and blood; and ſhould you attend any other ſervice of piety, it would be only for faſhion's ſake, and in hypocriſy. You are the wicked ones of whom it is declared, in the ſacred books, that "their prayers are an abomination to the Lord", You are the ſinners, of whom the holy God makes that demand, "when ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hands"? You are the perſons, as though pointed out by name, to them he applies, in that moſt ſolemn language, "what haſt thou to do, that thou ſhouldeſt take my covenant into thy mouth"? But remember, though the wicked ſtate you are allowedly in is a good reaſon, why you ſhould not dare to partake of the Lord's Supper, it is, at the ſame time, a reaſon that will render you ſpeechleſs, when you are called to ſtand before the bar of the coming judgment. Far from cancelling your obligations to this duty, it heinouſly aggravates your guilt in the neglect of it. You are the more inexcuſible, as your being altogether unfitted for this, or indeed any other ſacred performance, is owing to your vicious indulgences as willing ſervants of corruption. If any of you, my hearers, are conſcious to yourſelves, that you are the ſinners here deſcribed, be aſſured, your ſtate, religiouſly ſpeaking, is lamentably ſad. You will only mock God, ſhould you pretend to draw nigh to him in the exerciſes of piety. And yet, your guilt in not doing this, inſtead of being leſſened by your being thus ſinful, will be greatly inhanced. Is then the condition you are in a ſafe one? Can you be eaſie in it? The Lord take pity on you! Unleſs you are awakened to attention, and brought to a ſight of your ſinfulneſs and danger, you are undone for the future world. This is the firſt thing neceſſary in order to your recovery. If it ſhall pleaſe the father of mercies, and God of all grace, to alarm your fears, roufe your conſciences, and put you upon ſeeking to him in real earneſt to compaſionate your caſe, there will be hope concerning you. You may, if he ſhould graciouſly do this, with propriety uſe the appointed means in order to a "deliverance from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the ſons of God"; and you may do it, humbly hopeing for ſucceſs, through him who has been the propitiation for the ſins of men.

THE careleſs and indifferent are nextly to be applied to; by whom I intend, not thoſe who have no ſenſe of religion, and pay no regard at all to it, making ſin, in one ſhape or another, their habitual allowed practice: Theſe are not the perſons I have here in view; but thoſe, who, though they may have ſome perceptions of the bonds of God that are upon them, are yet the ſubject of them in a tranſient way only, and this in a low feeble degree, ſo as that they have no power to form their temper, or thoroughly touch their conſcience. Their proper character is, not that they are totally thoughtleſs, but inſufficiently ſo; not that they are altogether unconcerned about the affairs of their ſouls and another world, but their concern about theſe infinitely important matters is light and inconſiderable; not that they never have any religious motions working in them, but they are weak, fluctuating and ineffectual; inſomuch that they can indulge to careleſsneſs in regard of the duties of piety, and yet keep their minds in eaſe and peace; yea, they can live in the habitual neglect of them, or, which is as bad, a meer formal, cuſtomary performance of them, and perceive no uneaſineſs on this account. Many there are, and among thoſe too who would take it ill not to be called chriſtians, whoſe juſt character has been here delineated, To ſuch it may not be amiſs to ſay,

YOUR great unhappineſs is, that religion has taken no faſt hold of your hearts. You are not only ſtrangers to the power of godlineſs but to that ſtate of mind that is only introductory to it. It is ſeldom, if ever, that perſons take up the practice of religion with engagedneſs of heart, until they have firſt had excited in them ſuch perceptions of God, and their obligations to him, as are incompatible with that indifferency of ſpirit which diſtinguiſhes the perſons to whom I am now ſpeaking. Inſtead therefore of being chriſtians in truth, you have not as yet attained to that ſerious ſtate of mind, that ſenſe of God, of ſin and holineſs, which are common to thoſe who are but juſt entering upon the buſineſs of religion in good earneſt.

THE proper advice to you is, to endeavour, in all ſutable ways, to get awakened in you a becoming concern about the infinitely intereſting affairs of your ſouls, and everlaſting ſalvation. Without this, if you do any thing in religion it will be a lip-ſervice only. If you "honor God with your mouths, your hearts will be far from him". And, perhaps, duty thus performed, had as well been omitted. Be ſure, the ſupper of the Lord ſhould not be attended in this ſleighty, ſuperficial, not to ſay hypocritical manner. It would be a diſhonor to the memory of Chriſt's dying love, and of no ſervice to thoſe, who in this heedleſs way, ſhould join in the celebration of it. Not that perſons will be diſcharged from guilt, if they neglect duty in general, or the duty of partaking of the ſacramental ſupper in particular, on account of the inconſiderate unconcerned frame of mind they are habitually in. This would be to ſuppoſe, that one ſin might be an excuſe for another, than which nothing is more palpably abſurd. Your ſin, in neglecting your duty, will be the more heinous in God's ſight, as taking riſe from ſo bad a cauſe as that of a thoughtleſs ſtate of ſoul, rendering you unmeet for the performance of it.

THE firſt thing therefore proper for you is, to pay regard to that inſpired direction, "conſider, and ſhew yourſelves men". Make uſe of the power of reflection you are endowed with, and is your diſtinguiſhing glory as men, reaſonable creatures. And be much in the exerciſe of it; taking off your thoughts from the world, its vanities, gayities, amuſements, riches and pleaſures, and employing them on thoſe ſpiritual objects that will tend to ſoften your hearts, warm your affections, and animate your reſolutions and endeavors. Without this care, it will be impoſſible, humanly ſpeaking, but that you ſhould remain deſtitute of any lively ſenſe of God and religion, and indifferent to things of a ſpiritual nature. It is by meditation, ſerious, frequent, devout meditation, that the mind is impreſſed, and a concern about the "one thing needful" at firſt excited, and afterwards maintained and cheriſhed. And you can be at no loſs for objects, which, if ſolemnly meditated on, in the exerciſe of a rational faith only, would mightily tend to awaken your conſciences, and promote in you a becoming ſollicitude about your higheſt intereſt. Think of God, your relation to him, your dependance on him, and the inviolable obligations you are under to love, honor and ſerve him. Think on Chriſt, what he has done, and ſuffered, and is now doing at God's right hand in heaven for your ſalvation; what he expects from you in return for all this goodneſs, and what you may expect from him, if you treat it with ingratitude and baſe neglect. Think on the coming of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt a ſecond time, his coming in the glory of his father, and in his own glory, with the holy angels, to judge the world in righteouſneſs, when you ſhall ſtand before his tribunal, and, if you have not been careful to approve yourſelves his faithful and obedient ſervants, ſhall receive that ſentence from his mouth, "depart from me, ye curſed, into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Oh amazing object of contemplation! What can be more powerfully adapted to move your fear, awaken your concern, and engage your earneſt endeavours, that you may be found of your Judge, in that day, among thoſe, to whom he will ſay, "come ye bleſſed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world". Can you make preſent to your view, in ſerious contemplation, this awful day of the Son of God, and not be concerned that you may then hold up your heads with joy? Can it be ſuppoſed, that you have faith, ſo much as a common faith, in this moſt ſerious and important truth, unleſs, when you employ your thoughts on it, your indifferency to religion, your careleſsneſs in reference to the duties of it, receive ſome ſolemn check, unleſs they no longer operate as your habitual governing temper? If you are, any of you, to ſuch a degree thoughtleſs, and unconcerned, as that you will not reflect on theſe intereſting objects of revelation, or are able to think of them with ſo little attention as not to be moved by them, you are in an unhappy condition. The "god of this world" has blinded your eyes, and you will remain in this ſpiritually hazardous ſtate, until you are brought to conſider, and ſo to conſider as to be hereby thoroughly rouſed. And whenever this ſhall come to be your caſe, you will attend the duties of piety, and you will do it from the heart, and not in hypocriſy; in real good earneſt, and not as a matter of form: And by thus attending on the inſtituted means of grace, you may hope, under the concurring influence of the Spirit of God, to be trained up to a "meetneſs for the inheritance of the ſanctified by faith in Jeſus Chriſt".

ANOTHER ſort of perſons to be ſpoken to are thoſe, who, inſtead of indulging to vice, are blameleſs in their lives. Their turn of mind is ſerious and conſiderate. They make it their practice to perform the other duties of religion, though not that of remembring Chriſt at his table. It is their care to "pray to their father, who ſeeth in ſecret"; the "morning and evening ſacrifice" is daily going up as "incenſe" from their houſes; they come to the "ſanctuary" at the ſtated times for worſhip, and join with God's people in the public offices of religion, the celebration of the ſacrament only excepted. Nor is this a meer cuſtomary buſineſs, a matter of form only. They eſteem it their duty, are conſciencious in the doing it, and it would occaſion uneaſy reflections on themſelves, ſhould they needleſsly neglect it. Some there are, it may be hoped a good number, of whom this is the juſt character. To ſuch I would ſay,

IT is to your commendation, that you attend theſe duties of piety. But what good account can you give of your leaving the other undone? Has Chriſt, the law-giver, King, and Judge of his Church, diſtinguiſhed between the ſacramental inſtitution, and the other duties of religion, excuſing your obſervance of the former, if you practically regard the latter? Has he not rather peremptorily required your obedience to them all? Is it not as truly his will, explicitly and ſolemnly publiſhed, that you ſhould celebrate the memorial of his dying love, as that you ſhould pray to God, or take heed to the word of doctrine or exhortation? And if it is proper you ſhould obey him in theſe inſtances, why not in the other? Is not his authority the ſame in all theſe requirements? And will you do juſt honor to it, if, while you are obedient in ſome inſtances, you are diſobedient in another? Your attending the other exerciſes of piety will not be accounted another day a good reaſon for the neglect of this. It will rather be eſteemed an evidence of deficiency in your regard to the government of him who is your profeſſed Maſter and Lord. It is not enough my brethren, that you give your attendance on prayer, and the word preached. You are as much obliged to "break bread" at the Lord's-Supper. You may no more omit the one than the other. They are equally your duty: or, ſhould there be any difference, your obligations to pay a becoming reſpect to the ſacramental inſtitution are the ſtrongeſt, and ſhould make you more eſpecially careful not to treat it with neglect. "This do in remembrance of me," is the dying command of your Savior, as well as Lord; and it is a command that enjoins your remembrance of the greateſt love of the beſt friend. You are bound therefore in gratitude as well as duty to yield a ready chearful obedience to it. It is ſtrange that any, who have upon their minds a ſerious ſenſe of religion, and are hereupon careful in other reſpects to do the duties of it, ſhould yet live month after month, and year after year, in the omiſſion of this. It is more ſtrange ſtill, that they ſhould be uneaſy in their minds, ſhould they neglect thoſe duties, while yet they can go on in the neglect of this, and meet with little or no diſturbance from the reſentments of conſcience. How far this conſtant omiſſion of duty, in ſo important an article, may conſiſt with the truth of grace, belongs only to Chriſt to determine. Unhappy miſtakes, ſcruples, and fears, relative to the Lord's-Supper, (which may come under conſideration in their proper place) will doubtleſs extenuate their fault: But when our Lord has ſo clearly and fully made known his will upon this head, it is difficult to conceive of any thing that will be ſufficient to diſcharge us from the guilt of ingratitude to our Saviour, and the want of a due regard to his authority, as our rightful ſovereign, while we make it our practice to turn away from his table.

ANOTHER claſs of perſons ſtill may be applied to; and they are thoſe who pretend that the ſupper of the Lord is a temporary appointment, deſigned for the apoſtolic days only, confined to them, and ceaſing with them as to its uſe and obligation.

To ſuch it muſt be ſaid, their notion of this matter is glaringly a miſtaken one. And it may with all freedom be thus ſpoken of, as the apoſtle Paul has expreſsly aſſured us, and upon previous inſtruction immediately from Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, that the "Lord's death" is to to be "ſhewed forth until he comes", 1 Cor. 11.26. What is the apoſtle's meaning in the phraſe he here uſes, "until he comes"? Surely he cannot intend the coming of Chriſt by his Spirit; for, in this ſenſe, he had already come, and remarkably too on the day of penticoſt, when the Spirit was poured out upon the apoſtles in miraculous gifts and powers. Neither could he mean the coming of Chriſt to deſtroy Jeruſalem. This event, however awful in its effects upon the jewiſh nation, had no immediate reference to the gentile church at Corinth. There would be no pertinency in the apoſtle's arguing with this church, in relation to their obſervance of the Lord's Supper, upon ſuch an interpretation of his words, And there is no other "coming of Chriſt", ſpoken of in ſcripture, but his "coming" at the end of the world, "in the glory of his father, with his holy angels" when a period will be put to the adminiſtration of God's kingdom in its preſent form. So that, if we may depend upon the apoſtle Paul, the ſacramental ſupper was not a temporary inſtitution, but a perpetual one; not deſigned for the primitive chriſtians in the firſt age only, but for all chriſtians in all ages to the end of the world. For the death of Chriſt is to be "ſhewed forth until he come", and he will not come until the "myſtery of God is finiſhed", and "time ſhall be no more".

BESIDES, the paſſages of ſcripture which treat of this ordinance injoin the obſervation of it, and point out the manner in which it ſhould be done, were wrote, in the divine intention, for the uſe and benefit of chriſtians throughout all ages, and not for their's only to whom they were immediately directed. There is no chriſtian, in any part, or age of the world, but is as truly concerned, as the chriſtians at Corinth, in that apoſtolic advice, 1 Cor. 1 • .25, "let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup".

THE end alſo propoſed by our Savior, in the appointment of this ſacred rite, is a clear and full proof that it is of perpetual continuance, and obligatory upon chriſtians in all ages until the end of time. Whatever other ends might be in the view of our Savior, this was certainly one, that the remembrance of his death, by a figurative repreſentation of it, publicly recogniſed, might not be forgot, but kept ſtrong and vigorous in the minds of chriſtians. And if it was at all needful, in this way, to keep alive the memory of Chriſt's death, it was ſurely as needful in after ages, as in the firſt days of chriſtianity. There was indeed leſs occaſion for this appointment at firſt, becauſe leſs danger of a forgetfulneſs of Chriſt's death. In ſucceeding ages, there would be increaſed danger leſt he ſhould be forgot. And that the remembrance of him might be preſerved, continued, and upheld, he inſtituted this memorial. So that it was more eſpecially deſigned for after ages, who, by this emblematical repreſentation of him as crucified and ſlain, might have the reality of this fact, the great foundation of the chriſtian ſcheme, lively in their minds. The longer it is ſince Chriſt's body was broken, and his blood ſhed, the more need there is of this memorial of it; and there will be need of it, and continually increaſing need, until time ſhall be no more. His death therefore muſt be "ſhewed forth," in the way of divine appointment, "until he comes." The obligation to this, in ſtead of being leſſened, grows ſtronger, in proportion to the diſtance from the time of his death, as a ſacrifice for ſin.

IT may be added to what has been ſaid, that the ordinance of the ſupper is as ſuitably and powerfully adapted, in its nature, to be beneficial to chriſtians in all ages, as in the firſt days of the goſpel. It offers the ſame occaſion, by figurative, yet expreſſive ſigns, for contemplation on the moſt affecting and intereſting objects. It has the ſame virtue it ever had, and will retain it, in all future time, to awaken the attention, to excite affection, to melt the heart, and, in a word, to beget and confirm every real principle of goodneſs in the ſoul. It has all along been productive of theſe happy effects, it ſtill produces them, and is equally fitted to anſwer ſo valuable an end in time yet to come. Why then ſhould the uſe of this ordinance be diſcontinued? Why ſhould it be thought a temporary one? There is the ſame reaſon for its being a perpetual appointment, as for its being an appointment at all. It is equally fitted for the uſe of chriſtians at all times, and may be, unleſs from their own faultineſs, of like benefit to them. It would therefore be a diſhonour to Chriſt, by putting an undue limitation on his goodneſs to his church, to ſuppoſe, that he ſhould deſign ſo uſeful, ſo beneficial an inſtitution for his diſciples only in the firſt age, when they all, in all ages, might reap the ſame ſpiritual profit therefrom.

THERE is yet an other ſort of perſons to be ſpoken to, the fearful and ſcrupulous, thoſe who labor of doubts, and have their minds perplexed with difficulties. But, as my deſign here is, to be particular and full, that I may, if poſſible remove out of the minds of this kind of perſons all ſcruples and fears, that they may come with comfort and pleaſure to the Lord's table, I muſt defer what I have to ſay, until ſome further opportunity, if God ſhall pleaſe to grant it.

IN the meam time, let us be thankful to Chriſt, that, before he left the world, he was ſo concerned for the good of thoſe, who ſhould be his diſciples, in all aftertime, as to inſtitute the ſupper, a mean happily calculated to promote their edification in faith, love, and all chriſtian graces. We ſhould not be ſo inſenſible of our own ſpiritual profit, or of the bonds we are under of gratitude to Chriſt, as to treat this appointment of his love with neglect.

LET us alſo, from what has been ſaid, be confirmed in our belief of the perpetuity of the chriſtian church. If the ordinance of the ſupper was intended for a perpetually continuing one, there will be a perpetual ſucceſſion of chriſtians to attend the celebration of it. As ſurely as Chriſt deſigned, that his death ſhould be "ſhewed forth until he comes", ſo ſurely will he have a church on earth to do this, until the commencement of this ſignal time. There may be a failure, a total failure, of chriſtians in name, as well as reality, in this and the other nation; while yet he may have a church in the world: And he will perpetually have a ſucceſſion of diſciples to recogniſe the memory of his death, in the manner he has appointed, who, by this, among other means, ſhall be built up in faith and comfort, until the conſummation of all things: Nor ſhall the combined powets of earth and hell be able to prevent it.

LET us likewiſe be firmly perſuaded, that thoſe are under the influence of deluſive error, who imagine they are above the uſe of the ordinance of the ſupper. Whatever meaſures of the Spirit ſuch may pretend to above others, they are not under his guidance in this matter. None among the followers of Chriſt ever yet attained to ſuch perfection in this life, as to have no need of this inſtitution of his, which will remain in force "until he comes". And is Chriſt already come, a ſecond time? Have we yet ſeen the deſcribed ſigns of his appearing? We muſt wait for this, before the Lord's-Supper may be put by, as having continued its appointed time.

IN fine, we may properly take occaſion, from what has been ſaid, to look and long for the happy privileges of heaven. There will, in that bleſſed place, be no uſe for thoſe means, and helps, that are neceſſary in this preſent ſtate. Even the ordinance of the ſupper will be no more celebrated after the coming of Chriſt. In conſequence of this, there will be an intire change in the manner of adminiſtration in God's kingdom. We "ſee now as through a glaſs darkly"; but then we ſhall "ſee face to face, and know even as we are known". We now enjoy God in the uſe of ordinances; we ſhall then enjoy him in a more immediate way. We are now, after our higheſt attainments, in the beſt uſe of appointed means, poor, weak, imperfect creatures; we ſhall then be advanced to ſuch a noble degree of perfection, as to be able to converſe with God, and Jeſus Chriſt, in another and far more exalted manner, ſo as to be completely, uninterruptedly and eternally happy. God grant it may be the portion of us all, through Jeſus Chriſt, to him be glory.

AMEN.

SERMON III. Acts. II. 42.

And they continued ſteadfaſtly—in breaking of Bread

SEVERAL claſſes of perſons have been applied to, from theſe words, in relation to an attendance on the ſacramental "breaking of bread."

IT remains to ſpeak to the ſcrupulous and fearful, thoſe who are kept from this ordinance, not from a thoughtleſs, careleſs temper of mind, much leſs an indulged contempt of the authority of Jeſus Chriſt; but by reaſon of doubts and difficulties that lie in the way of their obedience to it. Theſe are many and various. It ſhall be my endeavour to take due notice 〈◊〉 them all, ſo far as I am acquainted with 〈◊〉 not ſtudying to range them in any nice 〈◊〉 but rather bringing them to view as they 〈◊〉 occur to mind.

THE firſt ground of fear I would mention is, the apprehenſion many have of ſome peculiar kind of ſanctity in this ordinance. They imagine it to be holy in a ſenſe different from that, in which the other inſtitutions of chriſtianity are holy; and are therefore ſcrupulous, as to their attendance on it; while yet they can, without difficulty, attend the other appointments of goſpel worſhip.

In order to remove away this ground of fear, I would not ſay a word to leſſen, in the minds of any, a juſt ſenſe of that holy reverence with which they ſhould always approach to the table of the Lord; but it may, at the ſame time, be proper to put perſons upon due care to guard themſelves againſt ſuperſtitious notions, reſpecting the holineſs of the bread and wine, of which they eat and drink at the ſacramental ſupper. Theſe, it may be, are the ſource, at bottom, of the ſcrupulous fear I am now conſidering. It takes riſe, not from juſt ſentiments of the nature, deſign, or tendency of the Lord's-Supper; but from a mind tinctured with ſuperſtitious awe and veneration. This is certainly the truth, if we imagine, that holineſs, in any degree, is tranſmitted into the bread and wine by their conſecration to the ſacramental uſe. Many, I have reaſon to think, entertain this thought of the matter. But it is intirely a falſe notion. The bread and wine are no otherwiſe holy, after their conſecration, than as they are ſeparated to an holy uſe, and in this way become capable of being improved to promote holineſs in us. The ordinance of the ſupper is not therefore holy in a ſenſe any way different from that, in which the other inſtitutions of religion are holy. They are all holy, as intended, and adapted, to make men holy, and ought practically to be regarded without diſtinction, or diſcrimination. Surely we cannot, upon juſt and ſolid grounds, ſcruple the uſe of the ſacramental inſtitution, meerly becauſe it is an holy one, while we freely uſe the other inſtitutions of religion, all which are holy alſo, and in the ſame ſenſe preciſely too, in which the ſupper of the Lord is holy. Yea, if the "breaking and eating of bread" at the ſacramental-table, ſhould be eſteemed, even, more holy than any other acts of inſtituted religion, it would be ſo far from being a good reaſon why we ſhould not do this duty, that it ought rather more powerfully to conſtrain us to it. For why ſhould the Lord's-Supper be eſteemed more holy, than the other appointments of chriſtian worſhip? It can juſtly be ſo in no ſenſe but this, its being better fitted to promote holineſs in us. And ſhall any, who profeſs a ſerious ſenſe of God, and the obligations of religion, ſcruple the uſe of the ſacramental inſtitution for this reaſon. They ſhould rather look upon themſelves ſo much the more bound to a faithful, conſtant, conſciencious obſervance of it: Yea, ſo far as they have it in their view to become holy, or to be made more ſo, by their attendance on the inſtitutions of the goſpel, they ſhould be particular in their care not to neglect this, as it is the moſt powerfully ſuited to promote this good end.

I ſhall ſubjoin here a remark not unworthy of notice. It is this. Chriſtians, for many ages, by means of the popiſh doctrine of tranſubſtantiation, entertained ſuperſtitious, not to ſay idolotrous, notions of the ſacramental bread and wine; ſuppoſing that they were converted into the real body and blood of Jeſus Chriſt. And though the doctrine, from whence theſe falſe notions took riſe, has, ſince the reformation, been diſcarded by thoſe who are called proteſtants; yet may it be feared, whether ſome tincture of the old leaven does not ſtill remain in the minds of too many. Thus much, at leaſt, may naturally and reaſonably be ſuppoſed, that chriſtians, upon ſeperating from the church of Rome, retained ſo much of their former ſuperſtition, as to place too great a difference between the ſacramental ſupper, and other religious duties. For this reaſon they abſtained from an attendance at the Lord's table, while they obſerved the other inſtitutions of goſpel-worſhip; and, by this means, there might be propagated, in the minds of many, from that day to this, ſuch a notion of the peculiar holineſs of this ordinance, as that they are hardly brought to pay a practical regard to it. Whether this is a juſt account of the matter, or not, it is certain, however it comes about, that many ſerious good people entertain miſtaken apprehenſions of the holineſs of this ordinance; otherwiſe they would not be induced, from ſuch apprehenſions, to abſtain from the uſe of it. It can, with propriety and truth, be called an holy ordinance, only as it was appointed to an holy purpoſe and uſe, and as it is a proper and powerful means to make the obervers of it holy, according to man's meaſure, as God is holy. And ſurely, as has been ſaid, this is a good reaſon why we ſhould join in celebrating the Lord's-Supper; but a very bad one why we ſhould neglect to do ſo. Surely, the reaſoning cannot be juſt, the ſupper of the Lord is holy, as being a divine appointment happily calculated to make men holy; I ought not therefore to be a partaker at it, I may not approach to it. How glaringly abſurd is ſuch arguing as this! Whereas, the arguing, on the contrary, is ſtrictly right, and ſtrongly concluſive, the ſacramental-ſupper was inſtituted with a view to make men holy, and is powerfully fitted to ſuch a purpoſe, it is therefore my wiſdom, my intereſt, my duty, to be a partaker at it; and the more holy it is, on account of its tendency and ſuitableneſs to make men holy, the more wiſe I ſhall approve my ſelf, the more I ſhall conſult my trueſt intereſt, the more will my conduct agree with what is right, proper and fit, while I am inſtant, ſteady and diligent in paying a religious regard, in my practice, to this ſacred inſtitution of the goſpel.

SO that, upon the whole, the fear any ſerious, thoughtful, chriſtians may have on their minds, relative to their participation of the Lord's-Supper, as taking riſe from the holineſs of this rite of goſpel worſhip, has really no juſt foundation. You ſhould rather fear, my brethren, leſt you ſhould diſhonour Chriſt by neglecting a divinely appointed mean, and the moſt wiſely and powerfully adapted one, in order to your being holy, while you neglect to give your preſence at the ſacramental table. You cannot indeed expect to be holy, to be ſure not eminently ſo, while you difuſe this ſpecial and powerful means in order to it.

ANOTHER thing that keeps ſome from the goſpel-ſupper is, a fear leſt they ſhould not live as may be reaſonably expected of thoſe, who "eat and drink in Chriſt's preſence"; they think, and with great truth and juſtice, that all, who come to the table of the Lord, ſhould adorn their character, as the diſciples of Chriſt, by a well-ordered converſation; cauſing their "light to ſhine before others, that, ſeeing their good works, they may glorify their father in heaven". But they fear, leſt they ſhould not "walk worthy of the Lord". Others, they obſerve, are too frequently faulty, in this regard, to the reproach of Chriſt, and ſcandal of his holy religion; and, fearing leſt they ſhould be thus faulty, they are reſtrained from coming to the ſupper of their Lord; imagining they had better be non-attendants at it, than run the hazard of this guilt.

TO ſuch I would ſay, your fear is juſt, but does not operate in a right manner. You ought to be "jealous over yourſelves with a godly jealouſy"; encouraging a fear, leſt you ſhould act an unworthy part, and diſhonor your Savior, by a walk in the world unbecoming the goſpel, and the higheſt profeſſion of its bonds on you. But then, it ſhould be your care to govern the influence of this fear, ſo as that, inſtead of being an hindrance to you in duty, it may rather invigorate your endeavours to put it fully in practice. Your fear is, leſt you ſhould not honor your profeſſion; and it is a fear that well becomes all the profeſſors of chriſtianity. But what ought, in true reaſon, to be its operation? Surely, not to reſtrain you from making a profeſſion. This would be a counter action to its proper deſign, and genuine tendency. It ſhould rather put you upon greater watchfulneſs, and circumſpection. It ſhould quicken your zeal, and make you more earneſt and reſolute in your endeavours, under the bleſſing of God, to behave in the world with that ſobriety, purity, and righteouſneſs, which become thoſe who ſit down as gueſts at the table of Chriſt.

IT is obſervable, the holy apoſtles were afraid leſt thoſe who profeſſed faith in Chriſt, and were admitted to break that bread, which is the inſtituted memorial of his broken body, ſhould be unmindful of the bonds of God that were upon them, and live in a manner unworthy of their character as the diſciples of Chriſt. But how did their fear operate? Not by adviſing men to forbear profeſſing Chriſt, or eating and drinking with him at his table. Not a word of this tendency is to be met with, any where in the new-teſtament. But, in conſequence of this fear, their exhortations were, to "hold faſt the profeſſion of their faith"; to "take heed, watch and pray"; to be diligent and laborious, that their walk in the world might be "worthy of that God who had called them into his kingdom". And this ſhould be the influence of the fear I am now ſpeaking of; and this will be its influence, if duly regulated. It will not reſtrain any from remembering the dying love of their Lord, in the way of his appointment, but rather firſt urge them to it, and then make them earneſt and faithful in their endeavours to behave, in all reſpects, as thoſe ought to do, who are admitted to ſo near communion with their Savior and Lord.

I SHALL not think it either impertinent, or unſeaſonable, if I add a word here to thoſe communicants, who, by their unguarded, miſbecoming conduct, are the occaſion of that fear in the minds of many, which reſtrains them from joining with their chriſtian brethren in partaking of the ſymbols of Chriſt's body and blood. It is too glaring a truth to be diſowned, that, among the gueſts at the ſacramental ſupper, there are too many who live as though they were inſenſible of the bonds they are under to "order their converſation in ſimplicity and godly ſincerity, not by fleſhly wiſdom, but by the grace of God" Inſtead of being bright examples of thoſe virtues that are ornamental to chriſtians, and honorary to the religion they profeſs, they are too much conformed to this evil world, and appear too like the men of it. The plain truth is, the unhallowed lives of thoſe, who ſit down at the Lord's table, has been a ſtumbling-block to many ſerious, conſiderate, well-diſpoſed perſons. Far from exciting them to glorify God by the luſtre of theſe graces, they have rather, by their unchriſtian behavior of themſelves, made them afraid of profeſſing Chriſt, left they alſo ſhould be a reproach both to him, and his holy religion. This, my brethren, is utterly a fault. We who "call Chriſt Lord, Lord, and eat and drink in his preſence", ſhould above all things make it our care to "walk worthy of him unto all pleaſing". We ſhould keep at the utmoſt diſtance from every thing vicious and immoral; and not only ſo, but ſhould be found in the practice of all the virtues that are amiable and praiſe-worthy. We ſhould be grave and modeſt in our behaviour, ſober and uſeful in our diſcourſe, diligent and faithful in our reſpective callings, juſt and honeſt in our dealings. We ſhould daily live in the exerciſe of meekneſs, patience, faith, temperance, humility. We ſhould be courteous in our converſe, gentle, kind, peceable and obliging in our carriage; and, as we have opportunity, ſhould, according to our ability, "do good to all men, eſpecially to the houſhold of faith". In a word, "whatſoever things are true, whatſoever things are honeſt, whatſoever things are juſt, whatſoever things are pure, whatſoever things are lovely, whatſoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there be any praiſe, we ſhould think on theſe things", ſo think on them as to exhibit in our lives a conſpicuous example of them: So ſhall we honour ourſelves, and reflect glory on our Saviour and maſter Jeſus Chriſt; and, inſtead of deterring others from the table of the Lord, we ſhall, in the moſt conſtraining manner, invite and urge them to be preſent as gueſts at it.—But to leave this digreſſion, if any ſhould pleaſe ſo to call it.

ANOTHER difficulty ſtill in the way of ſome is a fear, leſt, if they ſhould be overcome to commit ſin after they have ate and drank at the ſacramental ſupper, they ſhould never obtain forgiveneſs. This may not be a difficulty that has perplexed the minds of many; but ſome, I have reaſon to think, are kept from the Lord's-Supper through fear, taking riſe from this view of the matter.

BUT it is a fear altogether imaginary. Nothing in all the Bible gives the leaſt countenance to it. Far from this, we are aſſured, in that ſacred book, "that if any man ſhould ſin", be it before, or after, his breaking and eating bread at the ſacramental table, "we have an advocate with the father, Jeſus the righteous, who has been the propitiation for our ſins". And this Jeſus, who died a ſacrifice for tranſgreſſion, has himſelf moſt preremptorily declared, in terms too plain and expreſs to be eaſily miſunderſtood, that but one ſin, the ſin of blaſpheming the holy Ghoſt, is excepted out of the goſpel-grant of pardoning mercy. So that whatever our ſins may have been, and whenſoever committed, whether before or after a profeſſion of Chriſt, and eating and drinking in his preſence, they come within the reach of offered, and promiſed forgiveneſs, and ſhall certainly, upon our repentance, be pardoned for the ſake of Chriſt, and on account of that atonement he has made for the ſins of men.

IT is true, ſins that are committed after the higheſt profeſſion of love to Chriſt, and ſubjection to his authority, are aggravated in their guilt; but whatever aggravating circumſtances attend them, they are not ſuch as will obſtruct the beſtowment of God's mercy in the remiſſion of them, in regard of thoſe, who in the exerciſe of true repentance, repair to him for this bleſſing. Thoſe words of the apoſtle Paul contain enough in them forever to ſatisfy us of this, "where ſin has abounded, grace does much more abound"; though we ſhould take care we do not abuſe this grace, by encouraging ourſelves to ſin, that God's grace in the pardon of it may abound towards us. This would argue the baſeſt ingratitude. Shall we be evil, becauſe God is good? God forbid!

IT is true likewiſe, if any, after ſuch ſerious impreſſions as have put them upon an attendance "on the word, breaking of bread, and prayer", relapſe into thoughtleſsneſs and ſecurity, inſomuch that they can "ſin wilfully", and in an habitual courſe, "the latter end with them is worſe than the beginning"; the danger awfully great, leſt they ſhould "fail of the grace of God" and be "not again renewed to repentance". But the caſe even of this kind of perſons is not without all hope. It is poſſible they may be awakned to a juſt ſenſe of things, and be brought to that "repentance which is unto life, not to be repented of"; though their ſtate, it muſt be acknowledged, is hazardous; as they cannot be renewed by repentance, but with extreme difficulty.

THE apoſtle Paul ſometimes ſuppoſes, that profeſſors of religion, even thoſe among them who have been admitted to the higheſt privileges of God's viſible kingdom, may ſhamefully backſlide. And what does he ſay hereupon? Does he put any upon neglecting goſpel inſtitutions through fear, leſt they ſhould afterwards relapſe into ſin? Far from this, he adviſes them to be ſteady and perſevering in the uſe of them; and to take occaſion from fear of a relapſe, to be cautious and circumſpect, to look well to themſelves, to be upon their guard, and to hold out againſt all oppoſition in the way of well-doing, that, being faithful to the death, they may obtain the crown of eternal life. And this ſhould be the influence of our fear, reſpecting ſin after having ate and drank at the table of the Chriſt. Inſtead of keeping us from this duty, it ſhould keep us upon our guard, and make us the more watchful over our hearts and lives.

ANOTHER difficulty yet in the way of many to their attendance at the ſacramental ſupper is, a fear leſt they are not prepared for ſo ſacred an ordinance.

To this it might be ſufficient to ſay, the duty of this kind of perſons is ſo plain, as not to admit of diſpute. They ſhould inſtantly ſet about the work of preparation, and give themſelves no eaſe, until it is accompliſhed; and the rather, becauſe, if it is the real truth, that they are eſſentially wanting in a preparedneſs, in the frame of their minds, for an approach to the table of Chriſt, they can have no good hope towards God. They are unmeet for the kingdom of heaven, and ſhall not be admitted to ſit down there, at the eternal ſupper of the lamb. And, ſurely, this is not a ſtate to be continued in with peace and quiet of ſoul.

But, as this difficulty is the moſt common one, and keeps a great many from the ſacramental table, I ſhall be more particular and diſtinct in offering what may be ſufficient to remove it away.

YOU ſay, you fear whether you are prepared to eat bread and drink wine with Chriſt at his table; and your fear reſtrains you from attending this inſtance of duty.

PERMIT me to aſk you, what do you mean by this preparation, you are afraid you are deſtitute of? This is an important queſtion in the preſent caſe, and the true anſwer to it will make way for the removal of all the difficulty that is perplexing to you.

DO YOU mean, when you ſay you are not prepared for the ſacrament, that your ſtate in ſuch, as that, if you attend this duty, it muſt be done with ſome mixture of frailty and imp •••• ction? If this is what you mean, you are to be plainly told, that you will never be able to attend the memorial of your Saviour's death in a manner perfectly freed from all mixture of ſin. You will, as long as you live, continue frail imperfect creatures; and God has made no proviſion in the Goſpel to prevent it. If therefore you imagine, you muſt not come to the ſacrament, until you can attend there without any mixture of corruption, you muſt never come: And ſhould others think as you do, neither would they come; the conſequence of which would be, that the ſacramental ſupper would have no gueſts to attend it; nor indeed ought it to have any. The real truth is, our Lord appointed the memorial of his death for poor, weak, imperfect, and ſinful creatures, as the beſt of men always have been, and always will be to the end of the world. And if ſuch may not remember the dying love of their Lord, in the way of his ſpecial appointment, it muſt never be done in in this world, and ſo never done at all. For good men, in the coming world, will be above the need, or uſe, of this, or any other inſtrumental mean, as being perfect in their conformity to the image of Chriſt, as he is to the image of the inviſible God.

DO you mean, when you ſay you are not prepared for the ſacrament, that you have not as yet attained to a confirmed, well eſtabliſhed ſtate of goodneſs? Surely, this ſhould be no bar in your way. It ought rather to be a motive powerfully conſtraining you to give your inſtant and conſtant attendance on this inſtitution of the goſpel. For it was appointed by Chriſt, the head of his church, as a wiſely and ſuitably adapted, mean, among other things, to confirm the habits of grace, and make them well eſtabliſhed principles of all virtuous, and chriſtian good practice; and it is, by the uſe of this divinely appointed mean of grace, as well as by the word, that we are to grow, from the ſtate of babes and children, to that of complete men in Chriſt. You will therefore, not only diſhonour Chriſt, but wrong yourſelves, if, from ſuch a miſtaken notion, you neglect your duty. The more weak and imperfect you are in goodneſs, the more reaſon you have for the uſe of this mean of grace. How can you uſe a more proper or powerful method to grow up to the "fullneſs of Chriſt". You would, if you were conſtant, and conſciencious in this near approach to God, and intimate communion with Chriſt, be formed more and more to the temper of heaven, and a meetneſs for the imployments and injoyments of that bleſſed world. Sin would continually grow weaker and weaker, and grace ſtronger and ſtronger. In a word, by thus commemorating the love of your Saviour, you would uſe a divinely appointed mean, to ſtrengthen your pious reſolutions, invigorate your virtuous principles, and animate your upright endeavours to grow in a likeneſs to God, and Jeſus Chriſt, and every thing that is ſpiritually good.

DO YOU mean when ſay you are not prepared for the ſacrament, that you are ignorant of its nature, or of the manner in which you ſhould attend at it; and, not having ſufficient knowledge relative to this inſtitution of religion, you fear you ſhould do ill to come to it.

THE anſwer here is eaſie and ſhort. If you are in earneſt in ſpeaking of this as a difficulty, and it is the real truth that you are thus ignorant, there is no need you ſhould long continue ſo, and the fault will be your own if you do. You are favored with all advantages, in order to gain a ſufficiency of knowledge, with reference to the ſacrament. You have the bible in your hands, which records its inſtitution, explains its nature and deſign, and directs as to the manner of attending at it. You have likewiſe, within your reach, a variety of valuable books, purpoſely wrote by the beſt of men, for your help in underſtanding the ſcripture upon this head. You may alſo repair, whenever you pleaſe, to chriſtian friends and miniſters, for all needed inſtruction. And if under the enjoyment of ſuch advantages as theſe, you continue ignorant, the fault will be your own, and it will be inexcuſably great. It will indeed be evident, that this difficulty, with which you excuſe yourſelves from coming to the ſacrament, is a meer pretence. It will ſurely be ſo eſteemed by your Saviour, who will alſo be your Judge in the great day of reckoning.

DO YOU mean, when you ſay you fear whether you are prepared for the ſacrament, that your fear is, whether you are the ſubjects of the ſaving grace of God, and ſo think you had better ſtay away from this ordinance, until you are more free from doubt upon this head.

TO SUCH, as it is my deſign more largely to conſider this difficulty by its ſelf in its proper place, I ſhall only ſay at preſent, It may be your fear, leſt you have not been partakers of the grace of God in truth, is a falſe one. You may, notwithſtanding this fear, have "paſſed from death to life," and be known by Chriſt to be in the number of thoſe who are HIS in the ſpecial and eminent ſenſe. Many, among the true fearers of God, have lived, and died, under the prevailence of uncomfortable fears, reſpecting their ſpiritual ſtate. It is therefore no ſure argument, that you have not been formed to a likeneſs to God, in his moral glory, that you have no lively perceptions of it, but rather conflict with doubts and fears, leſt this ſhould not be the truth of your caſe. And let me further ſay here, the moſt likely way you can take for the removal of your doubts and fears, is, to give your attendance inſtantly, and to continue it ſtatedly, at the ſacramental table. What matter of wonder is it, you ſhould be in doubt about the goodneſs of your ſtate, while you habitually neglect your duty in as plain and evident an article, as any in all the bible? God may be diſpleaſed with this ſin of yours, and "hide his face" from you And what is alſo worthy of ſerious conſiderations while you neglect the ſacrament, you neglect a mean of grace happily and powerfully ſuited to give you ſuch views of the love of Chriſt, as may excite the exerciſe of love to him, in a degree enabling you to ſay, "Lord, thou knoweſt that I love thee." There are, among ſerious good chriſtians, who can tell you, they have come away from the ſacrament with a refreſhing ſenſe of their intereſt in the dying love of their Saviour, though they have gone to it in darkneſs and perplexity.

BUT let it be ſuppoſed, that you are not as yet in what the ſcripture calls a regenerate ſtate. Is there nothing, at the ſacramental table, that is fitted to beget in you the life of God, and true holineſs? Have there never been inſtances of thoſe, in whom the work of grace was begun with power, by means of a crucified Chriſt, here exhibited to open view? And why may not you alſo be thus effectually wrought upon, under the influence of divine grace? There is nothing, my hearers, that can operate upon the human mind, in a way of means, to ſaving purpoſe, but what is held forth plainly, though by figurative ſigns, at the ſacramental table. And the truths here preached may as well have their operation while you are here, as at any other time, or in any other place.

I would not, by what I now ſay, be underſtood to encourage thoſe to come to the ordinance of the ſupper, who are thoughtleſs and unconcerned, inſenſible of ſin, and unreſolved as to putting themſelves under the guidance, inſtruction, and government of Chriſt. But this is far from being the caſe of thoſe I am ſpeaking to. Their fear of coming to the ſacrament, leſt they ſhould come in an unprepared manner, ſufficiently diſcovers their temper of mind; indicating it to be religious, if not gracious. They would not offend God; they had rather omit duty, than do it under the apprehenſion they ſhould hereby diſpleaſe him. They are the ſubjects of a ſerious, if not a ſaving ſenſe of God and divine things. It is their concern, that they might honour and ſerve him; and that they do not do it in the article under conſideration is owing, rather to their reverence of the divine majeſty, that the want of regard to his governing authority.

And are perſons of this character eſſentially defective in their preparation for an attendance at the table of the Lord? It ought not to be ſuppoſed. It may rather be thought, they will be eſteemed by our Saviour welcome gueſts. They had certainly better wait upon Chriſt at this ordinance, with this preparation, than totally abſent themſelves from it.

YOU ſay, you are afraid to come to the ſacrament, leſt you ſhould come being unprepared for this ſacred duty. Let me aſk you hereupon, have you no fear upon your ſpirit, as taking riſe from a total neglect of this goſpel-appointment? Is there no ſin, or danger, in a continued courſe of practically throwing diſregard upon as expreſs an inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt, as any in the ſacred books? There certainly is, my friends, both ſin and danger in neglecting to remember the dying love of Chriſt in the way of his appointment; and both the ſin and danger of this neglect, continued in from one period of life to another, are much greater, and ought therefore to be much more feared, than a meer defect in the degree of preparation. Let it be acknowledged, it is a fault to come to the ſacrament, unleſs we are in ſome good meaſure prepared in the habitual frame of our minds; but it is a fault likewiſe, and a much greater one, totally to abſtain from it. Our wiſdom and duty therefore is, neither abſtain from it, nor to come to it, but with a mind ſo far prepared for it, as that it may be our ſerious and upright deſire and endeavour to honor our Savior, and reap advantage to our own ſouls. And let me add here, none are more likely to come in this prepared manner, than thoſe who fear to come, leſt they ſhould be unprepared. This fear will influence them to a becoming care, that they may eat of this bread and drink of this cup, not in a thoughtleſs, cuſtomary manner, but in a religious frame of mind, as thoſe who diſtinguiſh between the ſacramental, and common bread and wine, looking upon them as the ſymbols of Chriſt's body and blood, and partaking of them as ſuch, in the exerciſe of faith affection, zeal, and hearty deſires to be ſpiritually benefitted by them. It were to be wiſhed, all that come to this ordinance would come with this preparation of mind. It would, in this caſe, be better attended than it commonly is, more to the glory of God through Chriſt, and more to the edification of communicants in faith, and love, and comfort.

THERE are yet other difficulties to be mentioned. But theſe muſt be referred to ſome other opportunity. The good Lord bleſs what has been ſaid, that it may be beneficial to us.

AMEN.

SERMON IV. Acts. II. 42.

And they continued ſteadfaſtly—in breaking of Bread

I HAVE taken occaſion, from theſe words, to apply to ſeveral ſorts of perſons, in reference to their celebration of the ſacramental-ſupper. The laſt I ſpake to were thoſe, who would gladly remember their Savior and Lord in this way of his appointment, but that they are hindered by various perplexing doubts and fears. Some of theſe I have already mentioned, and endeavoured to remove.

THE next difficulty, which I now proceed to conſider, ariſes from a fear ſome have, leſt they ſhould not eat and drink at the ſupper of their Lord in that SPIRITUAL manner, without which they ſhould only ſin, if they ſhould be gueſts at it. They imagine, they muſt be the ſubjects of SPIRITUAL life, or they cannot take of the bread, or wine; or eat of the one, or drink of the other, in the exerciſe of that faith and love, without which they ſhould rather prophane the ordinance, than to attend on it to the honor of Chriſt, or the profit of their own ſouls. They had therefore, they conclude, better ſtay from it, until they are made ſpiritually "alive to God through Chriſt".

IT is obvious to ſay in reply here, that no one can pray to God, read, or hear his word, or perform any religious duty in a ſpiritual manner, unleſs he is the ſubject of ſpiritual life. Fear therefore, as taking riſe meerly from an apprehended want of this life, if conſiſtent and uniform in its operation, will reſtrain perſons from every inſtance of piety, as well as this of remembring their Saviour at the ſacrament. They ought indeed, upon this principle, no more to pray, or hear God's word, or attend on any inſtitution of religion, than this of the Supper. For, not being poſſeſſed of ſpiritual life, they can no more perform the former of theſe duties in the ſpiritual ſenſe than the latter. And what are we now brought to in real conſequence? Religion, in all its branches, muſt be neglected, by all who have not "paſſed from death to life". And does this comport, in any meaſure, with the requirements of the goſpel? Was it the view of God, in inſtituting the means of religion, that that they ſhould not be uſed, until one of the main ends, propoſed by them is effectually anſwered without them? Was it his deſign, that perſons ſhould ſit idle, and do nothing, until, by the power of his grace, they are changed into "new-men in Chriſt"? The holy Bible, that infallible rule of direction, no where ſuggeſts any thing to this purpoſe. On the contrary, it puts men upon the uſe of means as the way, and the only way, in which they may expect to be made "partakers of the divine nature". The "clean heart", and the "right-ſpirit", are, upon the goſpel plan of mercy, obtainable bleſſings. But how are they to be obtained? Says the anſwer of God himſelf, "I will be inquired of to do this for you". And that is the advice of our Savior Jeſus Chriſt, not to thoſe only who had grace already, but to thoſe alſo who had it not, "aſk, and ye ſhall receive; ſeek, and ye ſhall find; knock, and it ſhall be opened to you". And Simon Magus, though at preſent deſtitute of a principle of ſpiritual life, was yet directed by an inſpired apoſtle "to pray God if perhaps he might be forgiven". Meerly the want of a ſpiritual principle cannot therefore be a good reaſon, why we ſhould not be in the uſe of any inſtituted mean of religion. If it is, thoſe ought not to pray, who are not ſpiritually alive to God. For they can no more ſpiritually perform this duty, than any other; and if duty may not be performed, unleſs ſpiritually performed, they may no more pray than "break bread" at the Lord's table. But perſons, not ſpiritually alive, are not only allowed, but expreſsly directed, even by God himſelf, to pray to him: From whence it unqueſtionably appears, that meerly the want of ſpiritual life is not a valid reaſon, why duty, in any inſtance whatever, may not be attended.

THERE are, my brethren, other principles, beſides that of ſpiritual life, from which perſons may perform duty. They may do it from a principle of fear, "being perſuaded thereto by the terrors of the Lord"; they may do it from a principle of hope, expecting in this way to obtain the divine favour; they may do it from a principle of obedience, as having their minds impreſſed with a ſerious deep ſenſe of the bonds of God that are upon them; yea, they may do it from a principle of faith that is real, though it ſhould fall ſhort of that which is ſaving: All which are good principles of action, though not the higheſt, and beſt.

AND, in conſequence of theſe principles, that are good in themſelves, they may perform duty alſo in a manner morally, if not ſpiritually, good; they may do it heartily, in oppoſition to hypocriſy; they may do it earneſtly, in oppoſition to heedleſsneſs and formality; they may do it with awakened affections, in oppoſition to dulneſs and coldneſs; yea, they may do it in the exerciſe of a real faith in God, and in his Son Jeſus Chriſt, though their faith ſhould not be that precious faith, which is peculiar to the juſtified through the redemption that is in Jeſus Chriſt.

AND as duty in general, and as it reſpects the "breaking of bread" at the Lord's-table in particular, may be performed from ſuch principles, and in ſuch a manner, ſhall any live in the omiſſion of it meerly, or only, becauſe they cannot perform it from a principle, and in a manner, ſtill higher and more noble? This, ſurely, is not right. It cannot be juſtified, either upon the foot of reaſon, or revelation.

IT is readily acknowledged, when men, beſides being deſtitute of a ſpiritual principle, have ſo little ſenſe of the nature and obligations of religion, as that they can attend it's duties in a thoughtleſs, careleſs, cuſtomary manner; or engage in the performance of them, only that they may be in the faſhion, or with a view to wear a cloak for reputation, or that they might the more advantageouſly carry on their worldly and carnal deſigns: I ſay, when, beſides the meer want of ſpiritual life, perſons are in a diſpoſition thus to attend duty, they had as well not do it all. Perhaps, it would be leſs diſhonorary to God, to omit it, than to perform it thus heedleſsly and hypocritically. But ſhall the ſame be ſaid of that performance of it before deſcribed? Shall thoſe, who, though they are not ſpiritually alive, yet have upon their minds a ſerious ſenſe of God and religion, and can attend it's duties with earneſtneſs, affection, and faith; ſhall ſuch as theſe diſcourage themſelves herefrom, or be diſcouraged by others? It ought not to be. There is certainly a wide difference between thoughtleſs, ſenſeleſs, ſecure ſinners, and thoſe who are earneſtly concerned about the great affairs of religion, who are diſpoſed to ſeek God with their heart, and to wait upon him in all the ways of his appointment, that they may be ſavingly enlightned, and quickned by him. The prayers of the former may be abomination to him, much more a participation of the ſymbols of Chriſt's body and blood; while he may regard the former, approving of their endeavours, in the uſe of the means he has appointed, in order to their being ſpiritually bleſſed by him. Did our Savior Jeſus Chriſt ever diſcourage ſuch from coming to him? Was he not rather moved with compaſſion towards them? Was he not particularly urgent with them to "to ſeek God that he might be found of them"? And were there none in the apoſtles days, not better qualified, who ſat down at the ſacramental ſupper? Thoſe holy men of God gladly admitted multitudes of this ſort to communion with them in "breaking of bread". And could they now ſpeak from the excellent glory, I doubt not but they would ſay, their fears were groundleſs; they ought to get the better of them, and not ſuffer themſelves, any longer, to be detained from ſo advantageous a mean of religion as that of the ſacramental ſupper. And this leads me

TO another difficulty in the way of ſome; and this is, an apprehenſion of the Lord's-Supper as intended, in it's appointment, for thoſe only who are partakers of the grace of God in the ſpecial, or ſaving, ſenſe. The ordinance, ſay they, is a privilege appropriated to perſons of this character. No other have a right to it; and ſhould they lay in a claim, it would be in the view of God nothing better than preſumption. And as we are in doubt, whether our faith is that by which "the juſt ſhall do live", we doubt our having a right to the ſacrament, and ſo had better ſtay from it, until we are well ſatisfied that we are believers unto life. This is a difficulty that has often layn heavy upon the minds of too many; either keeping them from the table of the Lord, or making their preſence there uncomfortable, if not, at times, greatly diſtreſſing. To ſuch I would ſay,

IF it is indeed the truth, that the ſacramental ſupper is deſigned for thoſe only who are endowed with ſaving grace, none but ſuch ought to come to it: Nor ought any other to be encouraged to do ſo. This is a plain caſe, ſo plain as not to admit of diſpute. And as their right to come, is, upon this ſuppoſition, eſſentially connected with their being the ſubjects of true grace, they muſt be well ſatisfied they have this grace, or they cannot, upon juſt and ſolid grounds, be ſatisfied that they have this right. Grace and right are, in the preſent caſe, ſo related to each other, that wherever there is the want of the one, there cannot be the other. And ſhould any be in doubt, as to the truth of their grace, they muſt, in the ſame degree, be in doubt as to the validity of their claim to this ordinance. And to ſpeak plainly, and without diſguiſe, I muſt freely confeſs, I cannot ſee how any, who connect a right to the Lord's-Supper with the real truth of Grace, can, with a good conſcience, come to it, unleſs they are clearly ſatisfied in their minds, that they are partakers of that unfeigned faith, which is proper only to the redeemed unto God by the blood of Chriſt. And was there no other reaſon to queſtion, whether it is a truth, that the ſacramental ſupper is appropriated to thoſe only who are believers in the ſaving ſenſe, inſomuch that none elſe may warrantably come to it, this I ſhould eſteem a very good one. For who then would eat and drink at the Lord's table, but thoſe who had ſome good degree of aſſurance, reſpecting the ſafety of their ſpiritual ſtate? And how few, alas, are theſe? It is truly a rare thing to meet with chriſtians that have got above doubts and fears, relative to the goodneſs of their character in the goſpel eſtimation. The table of the Lord muſt conſequently, upon the impleaded ſuppoſition, be ſurpriſingly thin of gueſts; unleſs thoſe ſhould appear at it, who had no right to be there, or, what amounts to the ſame thing, in the preſent caſe, who did not know that they had this right, or that were any other than bold intruders; for this they could no otherwiſe know, than by being beyond doubt as to the goodneſs of their ſtate God-ward. Surely, it was never the intention of our Savior, in appointing, the ſacramental ſupper, to limit an attendance at it to thoſe few only, who had got above doubt or fear, as to their being chriſtians in the ſaving ſenſe; and yet, this muſt have been his intention, if thoſe only may warrantably give their attendance, who are the ſubjects of true grace; becauſe they muſt know themſelves to be ſo, or they cannot know they have any divine warrant to eat of this goſpel-ſupper. The plain truth is, this reſtriction of a right to the ſacrament, will at once exclude multitudes from it who are real chriſtians, becauſe they are weak and doubting ones. None ſuch, if a right to this ordinance is connected with the reality of grace, ought to come to it. For, ſo far as they are in doubt of their being real good chriſtians, they muſt doubt of the lawfulneſs of their being gueſts at it. And if they doubt of their right to be at the ſacrament, they will incur the charge of guilt if they come to it. That ſaying of the apoſtle Paul, Rom. 14.23, is as applicable in the caſe of doubting as to a right to the Lord's-Supper, as in the caſe he particularly mentions, "He that doubteth is damned

The word, rendered here damnation, means the judgment of a man's conſcience, faſtening upon him the charge of guilt. And this it willdo, in the caſe the apoſtle is upon, if it does its proper office; "becauſe, (as he goes on to reaſon) he eateth not of faith," that is, he eateth, not being fully perſuaded in his mind, that he might lawfully eat. And this is ſin. For as it follows, in the next words, "whatſoever is not of faith is ſin"; that is, whatever a man doth, not being perſuaded, ſo as to be beyond doubt, that he might lawfully do it, he ſins in what he does. Faith ſtands here in oppoſition to doubting, and therefore means ſuch a perſuaſion of mind as leaves no room for heſitation, as to the lawfulneſs of an action. The greek word tranſlated here doubteth, is, as Mr. Look obſerves, in Rom. 4.20, tranſlated ſlaggered; and is there oppoſed to ſtrong in faith; or to fully perſuaded, as it follows in the next verſe: And this exhibits the true meaning of the apoſtle, in the text we are upon. His words, it is true, were ſpoken with reference to eating, or not eating, meat that had been offered to idols. If a man 〈◊〉 , whether he might eat of ſuch meat, he would be now condemned, in conſcience, if he did eat; becauſe he did that which he was not fully perſuaded in his own mind he might do. But his reaſoning will hold equally ſtrong in the caſe before us. If it is a man's profeſſed principle, that he ought not to be a partaker of the ſacramental ſupper, unleſs he is the ſubject of that faith which is connected with everlaſting life, he will ſtand condemned by his conſcience, if it judges rightly, as chargeable with guilt, if he partakes while doubting, whether he is poſſeſſed of this faith. If he is not ſo fully perſuaded that he is, as to have got beyond doubt "he ſins, becauſe he does not this in faith"; that is, with a perſuaſion of mind, excluding all doubt, that he acts in this matter, as divinely warranted hereto. Whenever a man doubts of the lawfulneſs of an action, it is not poſſible he ſhould do that action, believing that he may lawfully do it; that is, in the exerciſe of a faith that is oppoſite to, and excludes doubting, which means the ſame thing with a clear, full, and ſtrong perſuaſion of mind; and unleſs he has this faith, or full perſuation of ſoul, he "ſins", if we may believe the apoſtle Paul. Upon the principle therefore, that ſaving grace is a qualification, without which none have a right to partake of the Lord's-Supper, none ought to do ſo, until they are freed from all doubt as to their being thus qualified. Simple hope will not, in this caſe, be ſufficient; no, nor a prevailing hope. A man muſt be ſo fully perſuaded, as to have no doubt hanging about his mind. And ſhould he have been a partaker of the ordinance of the ſupper an hundred times, if he found himſelf to be in a doubting ſtate, with reſpect to the real truth of his character as one that was ſavingly converted, it would be his duty to obſerve this inſtitution no more, until his doubt was removed: otherwiſe he would ſin; for whoſoever eats and drinks at the ſacramental ſupper, according to the principle we are conſidering, not having a clearly full, and ſatisfactory perſuaſion in his own mind, that he is born of God, not only ſins, but his conſcience will tell him that the ſins, if it is faithful to do its office.

In this view of the matter, which is an apoſtolic one, thoſe who have not as yet been at the table of the Lord, ought not to appear there, neither ſhould thoſe dare to come again who have often been there, if in the ſtate David was in, when he prayed, as in Pſal. 51. "make me to hear joy and gladneſs—caſt me not away from thy preſence, and take not thine holy Spirit from me, reſtore unto me the joy of thy ſalvation, and uphold me by thy free ſpirit; or if in the ſtate of thoſe, Iſai. 50.10. who, though "fearers of the Lord, yet walked in darkneſs, and ſaw no light". In a word, if a right to the ſacramental ſupper, and that faith by which a man is juſtified, are inſeperably connected by the goſpel conſtitution, no one, whether he never has been, or now is a communicant at it, ought to appear a gueſt there, unleſs he is ſure that he is a believer to life, that is, ſo perſuaded of this as to have no doubt about it in his mind. If theſe now are all excluded, and exclude themſelves they muſt, or be condemned by their own conſciences as chargeable with guilt if they do not: I ſay if all theſe are excluded, how amazingly thin will be the appearance of gueſts at the ſacramental ſupper! By far the greater part in all our churches muſt no more come to this ordinance as communicants, until they are ſo ſatisfied of the goodneſs of their ſtate, in the ſpiritual ſenſe, as to be in no doubt about it: And, perhaps, there may be ſome churches to whom it ought not to be adminiſtred, there not being a ſufficient number in them that can "eat in faith"; that is, with ſuch a perſuaſion of their being the ſubjects of converting grace, as excludes all doubt from their minds. Perhaps, this may be the caſe with reſpect to ſome at leaſt of their paſtors; who then ſhall adminiſter the ordinance to them? Surely, our Lord could never intend to make an attendance at his table a matter of almoſt conſtant perplexity to his diſciples!

if he eat, becauſe he eateth not of faith"; that is, he ſtands condemned in his own conſcience, becauſe he eats, not being fully perſuaded it was awful for him to eat. Thouſands of thoſe who might be worthy communicants at the Lord's table, and receive great ſpiritual profit by being there, will be excluded from it, if thoſe only may rightfully come to it, who can come, not doubting of the goodneſs of their character as chriſtians. I cannot ſuppoſe our Lord has made the way to his table ſo ſtrait and narrow; neither can I bring myſelf to think, that he ever intended this appointment of his religion to be an occaſion of embarrasment to the minds of his diſciples, thoſe of them eſpecially that are weak, or fearful, and need rather to be encouraged to, than deter'd from, the practice of their duty.

THE moſt proper and direct anſwer therefore to the difficulty under conſideration is, a denial of the foundation on which it is built, namely, that ſaving grace is a qualification without which perſons may not come to the table of the Lord. If thoſe may warrantably come, as allowed by their Lord to come, who have not as yet attained to that faith which is ſaving, all ground of perplexity from this quarter is at once removed away. And that this is the real truth, I ſhall endeavour to make evident to you. And that I may do it in the moſt eaſie, and yet moſt ſatisfying way, I ſhall turn your view to the practice of the inſpired apoſtles, in admitting perſons to communion with them in "breaking of bread"

AND was this ſuch as will countenance the thought, that nothing leſs than a faith that is ſaving will qualifie for the ſacrament, or that none who are not thus qualified, ought to come to it? Far from this, their practice obviouſly and unavoidably leads us to think juſt the reverſe; namely, that the ſacramental inſtitution was deſigned for the uſe and benefit of profeſſing believers in general, whether their faith is of the ſpecial, or common kind. It is certain, the ſeveral communities of chriſtians, in apoſtolic times, were conſtituted of two ſorts of believers; believers unto life, and believers whoſe faith was not an abiding principles of good action. And it is as certain that they all, unleſs excluded for open ſcandal, were partakers at the Lord's table, and this under apoſtolic direction; yea, as having ſome or other of the apoſtles at their head, and leading in the adminiſtration. Nay, it is evident beyond diſpute, that it was the practice of the apoſtles to admit profeſſing believers to the ſupper of the Lord under circumſtances, wherein neither they, nor the perſons themſelves, could, upon rational evidence, know, whether their faith was any other than that common one which would conſiſt with their periſhing beyond the grave. The three thouſand perſons we read of, in my context, as admitted to "break bread" with the apoſtles, were admitted to this goſpel privilege, the very day they were convinced that Jeſus was the Chriſt, and profeſſed faith in him as ſuch. And it is the truth of fact, that it was their practice to receive perſons to communion with them, in all the privileges of God's viſible kingdom, upon a bare profeſſion of faith in Chriſt, without waiting for evidence from its fruits, that it was the faith by which "the juſt do live". We no where read, in the ſacred books, of their delaying to baptiſe any, or to admit them to fellowſhip in the Lord's-Supper, until it was made evident either to them, or the perſons themſelves, that they were the ſubjects of that faith which is connected with ſalvation. Far from this, they IMMEDIATELY baptiſed, and admitted to the ſacrament, all that profeſſed faith in the goſpel-revelation, and upon this profeſſion only. Surely, they would not have been thus haſty in their admiſſions to a participation in goſpel ordinances, if they had thought, that chriſtian profeſſors might not, with the allowance of their Savior, join together in "eating and breaking bread", until they were the ſubjects of that faith which is juſtifying. Had this been their ſentiment, it cannot be ſuppoſed, without diſhonouring their character, that they would at once, without any delay, have owned all that made a profeſſion of faith as diſciples, admitting them to fellowſhip with themſelves in all the privileges of the goſpel diſpenſation. It might rather, with all propriety, have been expected, that they would have taken time to adviſe, caution, and guard their hearers; waiting for credible evidence, in the judgment of rational charity, that they were believers in the ſaving ſenſe, before they allowed them to be partakers at the Lord's-Supper. Had they looked upon it as a truth, that this ordinance was intended by our Lord, in his appointment of it, for the uſe of thoſe only who were believers unto life, it is unacountably ſtrange, that they ſhould have encouraged, yea, directed ſuch numbers to the uſe of it, upon a bare profeſſion only, before there had been opportunity for the tryal of their faith, or the exhibition of reaſonable proof that it was of the ſaving kind. They knew that our Lord had ſaid to believers in him, "then are ye my diſciples, if ye continue in my word". And again, "not every one that faith unto me, Lord, Lord, ſhall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doth the will of my father which is in heaven". They knew alſo, from what they had ſeen themſelves, that, among thoſe who had profeſſed faith in Chriſt, there were ſome, yea, a great many, whoſe faith did not "work by that love", either to God or man, which the goſpel makes neceſſary to denominate it a faith that is ſaving. They could not therefore admit perſons to chriſtian fellowſhip in goſpel ordinances, meerly, or only, upon a verbal profeſſion of faith, looking upon this profeſſion as credible evidence, that they were truly ſanctified. For it was not in the judgment of the largeſt rational charity, good evidence in the caſe. Inſtead of being convinced, upon juſt and ſolid grounds, that it was a juſtfying faith, there was reaſon rather to fear, at leaſt, in regard of many, that it was no other faith than would leave them ſhort of heavenly ſalvation. It ought not therefore to be ſuppoſed, when the apoſtles ſo ſuddenly admitted perſons to baptiſm, and the Lord's-Supper, upon a bare profeſſion of faith in Chriſt, that they imagined, that this profeſſion gave credible proof that they were believers in the ſaving ſenſe, or that they eſteemed them as ſuch. It is far more reaſonable to think, on the contrary, that they underſtood, by the faith here profeſſed, no more than ſuch a conviction that "Jeſus was the Chriſt", as to be therefrom diſpoſed and influenced to a readineſs to own him as their Savior and Lord; and, in conſequence hereof, to put themſelves under his care, guidance and tuition; and to be found in the uſe of his appointments, as the beſt method they could take to be further enlightened, improved, and trained up in the way they ſhould go, in order to their finding eternal life. If goſpel inſtitutions are conſidered as a means wiſely and powerfully fitted to cultivate and improve ſuch a faith as this, and as deſigned by God for the uſe of thoſe who have it, in order to their becoming chriſtians, formed to a "meetneſs, for the inheritance of the ſanctified by faith in Jeſus Chriſt, the conduct of the apoſtles was exactly ſuch as it was proper and reaſonable it ſhould be. It is beyond all doubt with me, that this was their ſentiment concerning theſe inſtitutions; and that this alſo was their view in admitting theſe profeſſors to an attendance on them. Nor, unleſs they acted under the influence of this thought, and with this view, is it poſſible, as I imagine, to juſtifie either the wiſdom of their conduct, or its faithfulneſs to God, or the ſouls of men: Nor can they be juſtified, upon any other ſcheme of tho't, who encourage perſons in the uſe of goſpel inſtitutions, who are not clearly ſatisfied, upon proper tryal of their faith by its fruits, that it is of the ſaving kind.

THE plain truth is, no good reaſon can be given, why the inſtitutions of the viſible kingdom of God ſhould not be intended for the uſe and benefit of all profeſſing chriſtians, ſeriouſly concerned about their ſouls, and everlaſting ſalvation; though their faith, at preſent, ſhould be no other than that which is the effect of the ordinary illuminations and aſſiſtance of the divine Spirit. They are as ſuitably adapted to beget, as to increaſe, a faith that is ſaving. And it is, perhaps, in the ſerious, diligent, perſevering uſe of theſe ſtituted means of grace, that perſons, generally ſpeaking, are made holy, really and truly ſo, as well as improved in this gracious quality of their minds. Men, it is true, muſt have faith in the goſpel-revelation, before they can attend its inſtitutions, unleſs they ſhould do it from a principle of hypocriſy. Accordingly the apoſtles admitted none to chriſtian communion, until they profeſſed faith in Chriſt.

It may be worthy of remark here, as thoſe, to whom the goſpel was preached in the apoſtles days, were either Jews, or Gentiles, they could have admiſſion into the viſible kingdom of Chriſt only by baptiſm, with a previous profeſſion of faith in him as the Son of God, and Savior of the world. But then it ought to be conſidered, this profeſſion they might make from a real and ſtrong perſuaſion of mind that he was "the Son of God", and his religion that alone by which they could be ſaved; while, at the ſame time, their faith, which was the ground of their admiſſion into Chriſt's viſible kingdom, might fall ſhort of that which would intereſt them in eternal life. Our Savior himſelf has put this beyond diſpute, not only by declaring more than once, in expreſs words, that "many who believed on him" were not believers unto life; but by a variety of parables, which he ſpake on purpoſe to convey this ſentiment, that perſons might be viſible members of his kingdom, though their faith was not of the ſaving kind; as you may read at large, in the 13th Chap. of Matthew's goſpel. Nay, ſo far was he from ſuppoſing, that all that profeſſed faith in him, and had thereupon been admitted, as diſciples, into his viſible kingdom, were the ſubjects of that "faith by which the juſt do live", that he not only compares many of them to tares growing up with the wheat; but ſolemnly prohibits their being "rooted up", and publiſhes it as his pleaſure, that both be ſuffered to "grow together, until the time of the harveſt". One reaſon of this, without all doubt, was, that they might, by the cultivation of goſpel means, and advantages, be changed into good wheat. In the natural world this is impoſſible; but not ſo, in the ſpiritual kingdom of Chriſt. Tares may be, and often have been, converted into wheat: And one thing deſigned by our Savior in ſuffering tares to have a being in his church unqueſtionably was, that this converſion, under goſpel culture, might be effected. In this reſpect, there is an eſſential difference between God's kingdom that is above, and his kingdom here on earth. None but ſuch as have been partakers of the grace of God in truth ſhall have admiſſion granted to them into the heavenly kingdom. And proviſion has accordingly been made to bring this into event. For one that infalibly knows "what is in man", is the appointed judge, with whom it belongs to determine, who the perſons are that ſhall have entrance into heaven. And none but ſuch as he knows, beyond the poſſibility of miſtake, have been "ſanctified through faith in him", ſhall ſee his face there. And had it been, in like manner, the intention of God, that none but the "renewed in the ſpirit of their minds", ſhould be admitted into his viſible church on earth, and partake of its viſible privileges, he would, without all doubt, have taken ſufficient care, ſo to have guarded the affair of admiſſion as to have excludded all others. But this he has not done. There is no divinely conſtituted judge, or judges, on earth, either among the clergy or laity, conſidered ſingly, or as united in a body, who are qualified to make a certain judgment, reſpecting the real character of any of thoſe who may deſire to be admitted to fellowſhip in goſpel ordinances; neither are the perſons, who offer themſelves, always able to make a juſt judgment of their own character, and never an abſolutely certain one. Chriſt is the one only judge of the internal ſtate of men; nor will this be certainly known, until the day of the revelation of his righteous judgment. It is, therefore, highly reaſonable to think, that there is a difference between the terms of admiſſion into the church on earth, and the church in heaven. If they were the ſame, it would be abſurd to ſuppoſe, that no effectual proviſion ſhould be made to keep thoſe out of the church here, who are diſqualified for an admiſſion into the church of God that is above. The plain truth is, it is no where ſuggeſted, in any part of the old or new-teſtament, that all thoſe who are members of the viſible church here, and admitted to partake of its viſible privileges, are really and certainly ſaints; or that, as ſuch, they will hereafter be joined to "the general aſſembly, and church of the firſt-born, which are written in heaven". The intention of God, therefore, in erecting a viſible kingdom, here on earth, with a variety of viſible means, helps, privileges, and advantages, was not meerly, or only, to enlarge and brighten the qualifications of thoſe, who are already eſſentially qualified for heaven; but to form thoſe alſo to a meetneſs for it, who may as yet be deſtitute of this meetneſs: And the inſtitutions of this kingdom are all of them ſo contrived, as to be, at once, equally and powerfully adapted, both to begin, and carry on, the work of ſanctification in the ſouls of all that are members of it.

I MAY properly ſubjoin here, the divinely appointed way, in which perſons become members of the viſible church of Chriſt, is utterly inconſiſtent with the ſuppoſition, that, in order to their being ſo, they muſt be the ſubjects of ſaving faith, or judged to be ſo. A profeſſion of faith in Chriſt, in apoſtolic times, was that, without which, neither Jews nor Gentiles, of whom the world then conſiſted, could, by baptiſm, be admitted members of his viſible kingdom. But how was it poſſible, that even the apoſtles, much leſs their ſucceſſors in after ages, who could judge by the outward appearance only, not having it in their power to inſpect the hearts of others, ſhould be able to determine, whether the faith they profeſſed was of the ſaving kind? And it is certain, it was not always of this kind, neither in the firſt times of the goſpel, nor in any age ſince. Shall we ſay then, that thoſe were not members in the viſible kingdom of Chriſt, whoſe faith was ſhort of that which is ſaving? This muſt be ſaid, if ſaving faith is a neceſſary qualification in order to viſible memberſhip in the church of Chriſt. And will it not herefrom unavoidably follow, that it is impoſſible to know, who are, and who are not, members of Chriſt's viſible kingdom? Yea, whether he has any ſuch kingdom in the world?

Beſides, it ought to be remembered, that the children of thoſe, who are members of Chriſt's viſible church, are, by the conſtitution of God, from their firſt coming into exiſtence, members of this kingdom in common with their parents. So it was under the Jewiſh diſpenſation. And ſo it is now under the chriſtian; if there is any validity in one of the principal arguments, by which we vindicate our practice, in baptiſing the infants of thoſe, who are members of Chriſt's church. We baptiſe them, becauſe they are born diſciples, members, in common with their parents, of the ſame viſible kingdom, under the adminiſtration of Jeſus Chriſt. Baptiſm is the badge, ſign, or token of this privilege, by which they are diſtinguiſhed from the children of thoſe parents, who are without the pale of the church. With reſpect to theſe, who are by far the greater part of the viſible kingdom of God, none will ſay, they were, when they firſt commenced members of this kingdom, the ſubjects of ſaving faith. A memberſhip in the church of Chriſt was their birth-right, an abſolute grant of the favor of God towards them. And members of this church they will be, whether their parents bring them to baptiſm, neglect to do ſo, or are hindered by the invented requirements of man. For baptiſm with reſpect to infants, is the mark of Chriſt publicly owning them as members of his kingdom, not a rite by which they are admitted into it.

IT will, perhaps, be ſaid here, ſhould it be allowed, that the infant ſeed of believers are, in common with their parents, members of the kingdom of Chriſt, yet it muſt, at the ſame time, be affirmed, that this gives them no right, when they come to years, to ſpecial goſpel ordinances. In order to this, they muſt profeſs ſaving faith in Chriſt, and explicitly covenant to be his: It is this, and this only, that inſtates them in this right. The reply is, if the goſpel was to be preached to our native Indians, or to other pagan people, or to the Jews in any place whither they have been ſcattered, they would have no right, any more than thoſe the apoſtles preached to, in their day, to ſpecial goſpel ordinances, until, by a previous profeſſion of faith in Chriſt, they had been admitted, by baptiſm, into that viſible church of which he is head. But this cannot, with truth, be applied to thoſe, who are already members of this church; as is the caſe, with reſpect to ſuch adults as had, in their infancy, the mark of diſciples put upon them by the water of baptiſm. How far it may be expedient, as tending to edification, for theſe previouſly to their coming to ſpecial ordinances to profeſs faith in Chriſt, and openly covenant to be his, I diſpute not at preſent. But thus much I will venture to ſay, that, their right to ſpecial ordinances is not at all founded on any ſuch profeſſion or covenant, but on their memberſhip in the church of Chriſt. Being members of this church, as truly ſo as thoſe who communicate at the table of the Lord, they have a divinely eſtabliſhed right, when they come to years, to all the viſible means, privileges, and advantages of the goſpel viſible kingdom: Nor has any church on earth a power delegated to them, from him who is head over all, to hinder them from the exerciſe of this right, unleſs their behavior is ſuch as that, in a way of chriſtian diſcipline, a ſtop is put to it conformably to the directions of the goſpel. The plain truth is, they are either members of the viſible kingdom of Chriſt, or they are not. There is no medium here. If they are members at all, they are as much ſo as they can be. It is not in the power of man to make them more ſo then they are already. The owning the covenant, as it is called, that they may have baptiſm for their children, according to the manner of theſe churches; or their owning the ſame covenant, or a like one, that they may be admitted, as we commonly ſpeak, to full communion, makes no alteration as to their memberſhip in the kingdom of the Son of God. They were before as truly, and as much members in this kingdom, as they are now. There are no half members in the viſible kingdom of Chriſt. Whoever are members at all, are whole members; and, as ſuch, have a right, at mature years, to a ſeat at the table of the Lord, unleſs, by their unchriſtian conduct, they have forfeited it. The churchs of Chriſt, I fear, are generally and greatly wanting in their duty to thoſe, who are viſible members of the ſame body with themſelves, while they take little or no care, that they pay due honor to the ſpecial inſtitutions of chriſtianity. Inſtead of laying obſtacles in their way, preventive of this, they ſhould remove them ſo far as it is in their power; giving them all the encouragement, and aſſiſtance they may need. If they ſee their way clear to bring their children to baptiſm, and are ſeriouſly deſirous of it, they ſhould be permitted to do it; though religious fears and ſcruples ſhould reſtrain them from coming to the table of the Lord; in which caſe, they ſhould be inſtructed in meekneſs, with all long-ſufferring and forbearance. But, if their neglect of this ordinance ſhould appear to ariſe from habitual careleſſneſs and inattention, diſcovering their contempt of it, they ſhould be reproved and admoniſhed; and, if finally obſtinate in their contempt, they ſhould, in the goſpel way, be cut off from their relation to Chriſt,—But I may not carry this note to a greater length: Nor ſhould I have ſo enlarged it, had it not been my view to ſignify my ſentiments, with reſpect to ſome of the diſputes of the preſent day; which appear to me founded on groſs ignorance of the real na-nature of Chriſt's viſible kingdom.

Since the penning the above note, and putting it into the printer's hands, I obſerved, upon occaſionally looking over the records of the firſt church in Boſton, of which I am paſtor, the following queſtions, with an affirmative anſwer to them.

"Whether the relation of immediate children of church members be ſuch, as giveth the church a church-power over them? And, conſequently, whether it is the duty of the church to exerciſe that power regularly upon them, that their knowledge and life may be anſwerable to the engagements of their relation? And whether it be the church's mind, that ſolemn notice be given to them ſeaſonably? Voted by the church in the affirmative, on the 29th of the 11th month 1656. In agreement with this declared ſenſe of the church, ſeveral acts of diſcipline are recorded; particularly, the two following.

—"Son of our brother—of the age of 16 years, born and baptiſed into the fellowſhip of the covenant, for his chooſing evil company, and frequenting a houſe of ill report, and that at unſeaſonable times, with bad perſons, was called before the church, and admoniſhed, the 3d of the 1sd month 1653".

—"Being of the age of 21 years, born and baptiſed in the fellowſhip of this church, for his committing the ſin of fornication, and his contempt of the church, that he would not come to hear them, was, in the name of the Lord Jeſus, and with the conſent of the church, excommunicated, on the 28th of the 4th month 1657.

I have here inſerted the ſenſe of this church, reſpect-their duty towards baptiſed perſons, and their practice thereupon, in a way of diſcipline; becauſe, as I imagine, they are truly ſcriptural, and if copied after, with due care and wiſdom, would ſerve the church of God vaſtly more, than all that has ever been controverſially wrote, about the right of perſons that have been baptiſed to bring their children to baptiſm, or to "break bread" themſelves at the table of the Lord.

But, upon doing this, they received them into the kingdom of grace; not waiting for evidence that they were already fit for the kingdom of glory, but putting them at once under the enjoyment of all goſpel means, privileges, motives, and advantages, that they might, by a wiſe and good uſe of them, be made "men of God," formed to a "meetneſs for the inheritance of the ſaints in light." And it was doubtleſs, the deſign of God, in erecting the goſpel diſpenſation, with ſo many powerful, well adapted means and advantages, to train up all that are under it, as in a ſchool, "from faith to faith," from a common faith to a ſpecial one, and from a ſpecial one in a lower degree, to an higher, until the ſubjects of it are complete in Chriſt.

ENOUGH has now been ſaid to make it evident, that ſaving grace is not a qualification, without which perſons may not come to the ſupper of the Lord.

Two things are commonly objected againſt what has been ſaid, which it may be proper and needful to take ſome notice of here.

THE firſt is, the caſe of the Ethiopian eunuch, who, upon deſiring to be baptiſed, received that anſwer from Phillip, who had been expounding the ſcripture to him, "if thou believeſt with all thine heart, thou mayeſt." The plea here is, ſaving faith was, in regard of this perſon, made neceſſary in order to his being admitted to the ordinance of baptiſm. And if he might not be baptiſed without this faith, to be ſure be might not be a partaker at the Lord's-table.

THE anſwer is eaſie. It is ſaid, without ſufficient reaſon, that "believing with all the heart" means the ſame thing with ſaving faith. Many, in the days of Chriſt, and his apoſtles, heartily believed; yea, their whole heart was in their faith, inſomuch that they received the word with joy, yea, a ſtrong motion in all the paſſions and affections of their heart; while yet, their faith was not as an abiding principle, as appeared afterwards, by their falling away in a time of temptation, or by their being led aſide by the cares of the world. And this might have been the caſe, of this eunuch, for ought any thing that is known to the contrary: Beſides, the eunuch, in anſwer to Phillip, did not ſay that he "believed with all his heart." His words import nothing more than ſingle naked belief. Said he, "I believe that Jeſus is the Son of God"; upon which he was ſtraitway baptiſed. But if his anſwer had been, "I believe with all my heart, that Jeſus is the Son of God", it would not have been evident, that he was the ſubject of a faith that would have argued his being born of God: To be ſure, he could not know that he was, upon juſt and ſolid grounds, unleſs by inſpiration from above; and without this, he would have been too haſty, and indeed raſh, if his declaration concering his faith was intended to convey this thought.

IT may poſſibly be thought by ſome, that "believing with all the heart" is too ſtrong a mode of ſpeech to mean any thing ſhort of a faith that is connected with life. But it is a certain truth, that perſons may believe in Jeſus as the Son of God, and Savior of the world; really in oppoſition to deceit, and hypocriſy; heartily, in oppoſition to the want of affection; and "with all their heart", as ſignifying the paſſionate emotion of their whole ſoul; while yet their faith may have no depth of root, and may leave them ſhort of that renovation of mind without which they cannot be ſaved. It may be worth remembering here, it is ſaid 2 Cron. 15.12, that "all Judah entered into a covenant to ſeek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart, and with all their ſoul". It follows in the 13th v. "and all Judah rejoiced at the oath; for they had ſworn with all their heart: and God was found of them". Surely, no one will ſay, that, by "all the heart", in this paſſage, we are to underſtand a heart that had been renewed by the grace of God. The moſt the phraſe can be ſuppoſed to import is, that they entered into this covenant in real earneſt, as having in motion the ſeveral paſſions and affections of their heart. So this eunuch believed, before he was baptiſed; and yet, neither he, nor they, might be the ſubjects of that ſanctifying grace, without which they could not enter into that life which is eternal in heaven.

THE other objection is taken from thoſe words of the apoſtle Paul, which he ſpake with immediate reference to a participation at the Lord's-Supper, 1 Cor. 11.28. "Let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup". Now, a man's having, or not having, that faith which intereſts him in the purchaſes of the redeemer's croſs, being an affair of the greateſt importance, it is ſuppoſed, that this is the faith about which we are directed to examine our ſelves, and ſo go, or forbear to go, to the Lord's-Supper, as we find ourſelves to be, or not to be, the ſubjects of it.

IN anſwer whereto, I would ſay. It is readily acknowledged to be a matter of great importance to examine into our faith, that we may know, whether it is a faith that is connected with ſalvation; and it may be fit and proper, as it would anſwer ſome very good ends, thus to examine ourſelves, when we are about to go to the table of the Lord; though this is not the examination the apoſtle has here in his view. The examination he directs to, does not ſo much relate to the chriſtian's character as ſavingly converted, as to his knowledge and faith, with reference to the ſacramental ſupper. The famous Henry Stephens, to whom our greek lexicographers are greatly indebted, and from whom they have greatly copied, affixes to dolimazô, as expreſſive of its meaning, the words, exploro, probo, experior, examino, aeſtimo; and exhibits a number of examples, from the beſt greek writers, of theſe ſeveral meanings of the word. And in all theſe ſenſes, and perhaps in ſome other, it is uſed in the new-teſtament-books; examples of which might eaſily be pointed out. But, inſtead of this, I would rather obſerve, that its more ſpecial ſenſe is always to be determined by its connexion in the diſcourſe of which it is a part. It may alſo be worthy of remark, whether it ſignifies, in any place, to prove, approve, eſteem, or the like, the baſis of this meaning is, the true meaning of the engliſh word, examine. I would further ſay, to examine, explore, fift a matter by thorough inquiry, is moſt frequently the ſenſe in which dokimazô is uſed; though this ſenſe is ſignified in our bible-tranſlation, by various engliſh words of one and the ſame import. And this, as I judge, is its proper, or more ſpecial, ſenſe in the text we are upon. When the apoſtle ſays, Dokimaz • tô de anthrôpos eauton", the tranſlation in our bibles, "let a man examine himſelf", is, I imagine, as proper and juſt an one as could be given. For, let it be remembered, in order to rectify the diſorders of the church at corinth, in relation to their obſervance of the ſacramental ſupper, he had particularly recited to them the original inſtitution, as he had received it from Chriſt himſelf: Upon which he immediately ſubjoins, "let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat." To what end could he here ſet, before the view of the Corinthians, the pure, uncorrupt inſtitution of the ſupper, if it was not, that, by examining their conduct by it, they might be influenced to behave better for the future. Surely, the duty here injoined them can be no other, than a trial of their "eating" the Lord's-Supper by the inſtitution itſelf, in order to their comporting with the end propoſed by it. His meaning may, I think, be clearly and fully expreſſed in the following paraphraſe, let a man bring himſelf to the teſt of the inſtitution, as I have given it in the words of Chriſt himſelf; let him examine, explore, try, and fift himſelf by it: In this way, he can be at no loſs to determine, that his conduct will be greatly to blame, if he eats and drinks at the ſacramental ſupper in that irreverent manner I have deſcribed, and am endeavouring to reform; but will ſee himſelf obliged to do this in agreement with the nature, and deſign, of this ſacred appointment: "And ſo let him eat"; that is, conforming the manner of his eating to what upon examination. he finds it ought to be; as what he does in this matter is, in obedience to a ſacred appointment of Jeſus Chriſt. And this ſame trying, exploring, examining, a man's ſelf, by comparing his thoughts, his views, and his temper of mind, with the nature and deſign of the ſacramental inſtitution, as here recorded by the apoſtle, will, at all times, and with reſpect to all chriſtians, in all places, have an happy and powerful tendency, not only to guard them againſt all irreverence and indecency in their celebration of the Lord's-Supper; but to excite their care to eat of the bread, and drink of the wine there, ſo as that they may do this in a manner becoming ſo ſacred a rite of the religion of Jeſus Chriſt. The caſe was this, The Corinthians, to whom he was now writing, had been very irregular and diſorderly in their celebration of the Lord's-Supper, for which the apoſtle, in this 11th chapter of his epiſtle to them, ſharply reproves them; and, in order to rectify their diſorders, he particularly relates to them the inſtitution of the ſupper, as he had received the account of it immediately from Chriſt himſelf, that, knowing its nature and deſign, they might obſerve it in a more worthy manner. In order whereto, his direction follows "let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup". As if he had ſaid, I have laid before you, in plain eaſie words, the nature and deſign of the ſacramental ſupper, as inſtituted by Jeſus Chriſt. Examine yourſelves by this rule, and do it ſeriouſly, carefully and faithfully. This I adviſe you to, as a proper and ſuitable expedient to prevent your coming to this ordinance in the irreverent, indecent manner you have formerly done. In this way, you may come in a more worthy and becoming manner, to the honor of Chriſt, and your own ſpiritual profit. What the apoſtle aims at is, to put them upon duly diſtinguiſhing between this ſupper of the Lord, and their own, which they ate previous to it; looking upon it, not as a common meal, and partaking of it as ſuch, but as an inſtituted memorial of Chriſt's dying love. This they might do, though their faith as yet was no other than that, which is the effect of the ordinary influence of the divine Spirit. Doubtleſs, a very conſiderable number of theſe Corinthians had no higher a faith than this; and if the apoſtle intended, that they ſhould ſo examine themſelves as not to come to the ſacrament any more, unleſs they could find that they had ſaving faith, a very great part of this church muſt have abſtained from the uſe of this ordinance. But this the apoſtle had not in view. His only deſign was, to direct to ſuch an examination, more eſpecially in relation to the ſacramental ſupper, as might happily influence them to come to it in a more becoming manner, and as might reaſonably be expected of thoſe, who eat and drink of thoſe ſymbols, which figuratively repreſent the dying love of Chriſt towards ſinners.

BUT the deſign of the apoſtle in this chapter will be more largely illuſtrated, when I come to conſider the next difficulty that hinders many ſerious chriſtians from an approach to the Lord's table. This is an important difficulty, and the occaſion of perplexing fear to a great many. The conſideration of it muſt therefore be left to ſome other opportunity.

I SHALL only ſay further at preſent, It is not an eaſie matter for chriſtians, eſpecially chriſtians that are weak in faith, or that are but beginners in religion, to determine concerning their faith, that it is, not of the common, but ſaving kind. It would therefore be inconvenient and unfit to put them upon making this determination, previous to their going to the ſacrament, and as a qualification in order to it, and without which they might not attend at it. It would unavoidably throw the minds of many that are real chriſtians, as well as other ſerious well-diſpoſed perſons, into perplexity and fear, and keep them from coming to this ordinance, though they might otherwiſe come to it with profit to themſelves, and ſo as to honor their maſter Jeſus Chriſt. I cannot ſuppoſe, the apoſtle would have given this occaſion of diſtreſſing concern, as he muſt have done, in thouſands of inſtances, if the examination he directs to, in this text, refers to a determination of our faith as ſaving, in order to our going to the ſacrament.

THE good Lord bleſs what has been now ſaid to the removal of thoſe fears, which keep any from the table of the Lord; and may there, for the time to come, be ſeen a greater number of welcome gueſts at it!

AMEN.

SERMON V. Acts. II. 42.

And they continued ſteadfaſtly—in breaking "of Bread"

I HAVE taken occaſion from this text, to ſpeak to thoſe whoſe minds are perplext with difficulties, which keep them from attending the ſacramental "breaking of bread." Several of theſe difficulties have been already mentioned, and that ſaid which was thought ſufficient for the removal of them.

I NOW proceed to another difficulty, and that which, perhaps, has been the greateſt obſtacle in the way of many ſerious well-diſpoſed chriſtians to the Lord's-table; and this is, a fear of "eating and drinking unworthily", and hereupon becoming "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord", and ſealing "damnation to themſelves". This fear has unhappily taken riſe from a miſtaken apprehenſion of thoſe words of the apoſtle Paul, 1. Cor. 1 • .27, "whoſoever ſhall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, ſhall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord". And again, ver. 29, "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himſelf, not diſcerning the Lord's body."

THE readieſt, and moſt effectual way, as I imagine, to obviate this difficulty, and give eaſe to the minds of thoſe who may be perplexed with it, will be to be particular and diſtinct in aſcertaining the preciſe meaning of the apoſtle, in the phraſes he uſes in theſe texts, "eating and drinking unworthily"; being "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord"; and "eating and drinking damnation to himſelf"; and then in applying what may be offered to the caſe of thoſe, who may be under perplexing fear, from theſe paſſages of ſacred writ, in a few remarks, or obſervations, ſuited to give them relief and help.

I SHALL, in the firſt place, endeavour, with all plainneſs, to open the meaning of the apoſtle in the above recited words, that have been the occaſion of difficulty to ſerious chriſtians.

ONLY, before I come to this, I would make a previous note, and deſire it may be particularly attended to, and all along remembered, in the following diſcourſe. It is this. The paſſages we are going to explain are not independant ſentences, the proper meaning of which is to be gathered, from the meer force of the words, in themſelves ſimply, and nakedly, conſidered, but parts of a well cohering diſcourſe; and can therefore be explained in no way, but by conſidering the deſign in view, the part they bear in the diſcourſe, and how they ſtand connected with it. The not duly conſidering theſe things is, I believe, the reaſon their true meaning has ſo often been unhappily miſunderſtood. "Eating and drinking unworthily" at the Lord's table, conſidered in general, will never lead one into the true meaning of it in this place; becauſe the apoſtle is ſpeaking of a ſpecial caſe, and the particular unworthineſs of a particular number of chriſtians, which can be known in no way, but by conſulting the context. The nature and meaning of this "unworthineſs" and the "ſpecial puniſhment" incurred by it, muſt be meaſured by that, and by that alone; unleſs it may be thought allowable to break in upon the apoſtle's courſe of reaſoning, and put a ſenſe on his words that has no pertinency to the deſign he is upon; which is certainly an unfair treatment of an human writing, and ought much leſs to be practiſed in regard of one that is ſacred, as being of divine inſpiration.

HAVING made this remark, the way is clear to look into the context, as the only proper method to underſtand the apoſtle, in the phraſes we are about to explain. And by doing this we ſhall find, that great diſorders, particularly with reference to the ſacramental ſupper, had crept into the Corinthian church. It was on account of theſe diſorders, that the apoſtle wrote this chapter; and if we would know, what that "unworthy eating and drinking" is, which he blames theſe Corinthians for, and would rectify for time to come, we muſt know what the indecences, and diſorders were, that prevailed among them. For this "unworthineſs" muſt be explained by theſe diſorders.

THE apoſtle, before he comes to particular inſtances of their miſconduct, declares in general, as in the 17. ver. "I praiſe you not, that you come together not for the better, but for the worſe". More is intended in theſe words than is expreſſed. Their meaning is, far from commending you, I think you are greatly to be blamed. What I rebuke you for, and with ſeverity too, is, that, when you aſſemble together for the performance of the public offices of religion, you behave ſo as that your coming together, inſtead of being for your ſpiritual advantage, tends rather to the increaſe of your guilt.

HAVING ſpoken thus generally, he now comes to particulars; mentioning the ſpecial inſtances, wherein they were blame worthy. And they are theſe that follow.

THE firſt is, their having diviſions among them. Says he, (ver. 18.) "when ye come together in the church, I hear there are diviſions among you; and I partly believe it." It ſhould ſeem it was by report from others, and not perſonal knowledge, that he became acquainted with this diſorder in the church at Corinth. But ſuch was his intelligence, that he believ'd it "in part", or rather fully "of part" of the church. And a ſcandalous diſorder this was. The word, (in the original Schiſmata) here tranſlated diviſions; means, not meerly, or only, diviſions in their affections towards each other, but diviſions in their outward conduct. It is true, they met together in the ſame place for communion at the Lord's-Supper, but it was in a ſchiſmatical manner, dividing themſelves into parties, and not appearing, as they ought to have done, as one body, affectionately united in commemorating the dying love of their common Lord. It cannot be deduced from any thing that is ſaid in this chapter, or in any part of the epiſtle, that they had as yet ſeparated from each other under the form of different ſects, meeting in different places for worſhip: but the apoſtle tells them, that ſo it might be expected it would be. The prejudices, the luſts, and unſubdued tempers of men would lead to this, and God in his righteous providence might permit it, that it might be made to appear who, upon trial, would be approved as ſtedfaſt and immoveable. So his words run, ver. 19, "For there muſt be alſo hereſies [in the original, Air • ſeis ſects THE engliſh word, hereſie, is, by eccleſiaſtical writers, moſt commonly, if not always, reſtrained in its meaning to doctrinal tenets, ſuppoſed to be dangerouſly corrupt; but this is not the ſenſe of the greek word, airefis from whence it is derived, as uſed in the new-teſtament-books. It rather means what we call a ſect, or people in a ſtate of ſeperation from others, and meeting together as a different denomination. I have looked over all the places in the new teſtament, where the word is uſed, and find that this is the ſenſe in which it is to be underſtood, in every text, one only excepted, which may admit of diſpute.] among you, that they which are approved may be made manifeſt among you". But though this corinthian church was not at preſent divided into two, or more ſeparate ſocieties, but continued one chriſtian community, meeting together in the ſame place, yet they behaved in their aſſemblies in an unbrotherly, factious and ſchiſmatical manner. The apoſtle, accordingly, applies to them, as in the 20 ver. "when ye come together therefore into one place, THE phraſe, in the original, epi to auto, being of the neutral kind, may as well ſignifie with the ſame deſign, for the ſame thing, as to one place; and it is accordingly often ſo to be underſtood. But the tranſlation here, to one place, beſt ſuits the connection, as I imagine. this is not to eat the Lord's-Supper." As if he had ſaid, though you aſſemble, as a chriſtian ſociety, in one and the ſame place, and there eat; yet you do it after ſuch a manner, that it would be a diſhonour to a ſacred inſtitution of Chriſt, to ſpeak of it as eating the Lord's-Supper. This leads to

A NUMBER of other faults, theſe Corinthians are obviouſly charged with, and ſeverely reproved for; as we may ſee, in the 21, and 22d ver. in which they are thus addreſſed, "in eating every one taketh before other his own ſupper, and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What! have ye not houſes to eat, and to drink in? or deſpiſe ye the church of God, and ſhame them that have not? ſhall I praiſe you in this? I praiſe you not"?

THEIR having a "ſupper of their own" in the houſe of God, when about to celebrate the ſupper of the Lord, is here evidently ſpoken of as indecent and irregular. When the apoſtle ſays, "every one eateth before other his own ſupper", it is eaſie to perceive, that he alludes to a cuſtom which had obtained among them, whatever gave riſe to it, namely, that of having a common feaſt in the place of worſhip, here called "their own ſupper,"

THERE is no room to queſtion, whether chriſtians, in the apoſtolic age, and afterwards, had their feaſts, their agapae, that is, their love or charity feaſts. Jude ſpeaks of theſe feaſts; ſo does Ignatius, which may give ſome a favorable opinion of them; ſo do Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others. It does not appear, from any thing that is ſaid in any paſſage in the new-teſtament books, that theſe feaſts were a divinely inſtituted preface, or appendix, to the Lord's-Supper. They were, without all doubt, the invention of man. Probably, they might take riſe, with reſpect to both Jewiſh and Gentile converts to the chriſtian faith, from the ſame general cauſe.

WE all know it was after our Lord had eat the paſſover-feaſt with his diſciples, that he eat with them his own ſupper; and he did it with what remained of the paſſover bread and wine, firſt ſolemnly ſeparating them to the ſpecial uſe of remembering him. The Judaizing chriſtians, under the guidance (it is likely) of Judaizing teachers, introduced of their own heads, tinged with jewiſh ſuperſtition, a ſupper previous to the Lord's as the Lord's-Supper, when firſt inſtituted, was preceeded with the paſſover-ſupper. And this previous ſupper of their's might, as to the principles of its introduction, favor ſo much of that which was Jewiſh in religion, as to give occaſion of offence to the Gentile chriſtians.

ON the other hand, the Gentile chriſtians, as the Lord's-ſupper was conſequent upon a feaſt, ſome of the meterials of which were ſet apart and conſecrated in remembrance of Chriſt, might think it proper to preface the ſupper of the Lord with one of their own, making uſe of the bread, and wine of their own ſupper in their obſervance of our Lord's. And there may be the more reaſon to give this riſe to this previous ſupper among the greeks, as it is known to have been their cuſtom to have ſocial feaſts or ſuppers. I would add here, this previous ſupper, thus differenced as to the cirumſtances attending its riſe, with reſpect to the Jewiſh and Gentile chriſtians, might be one occaſion of the (Schiſmata) diviſion: there were among them, and complained of by the apoſtle in the 18th ver.

either previous to, or mixed with, the "Lord's-Supper." This he plainly condemns, and would repreſent as a diſorder unhappily introduced among them. What elſe can be the meaning of thoſe ſeverely reprehenſive interrogatives, "what, have ye not houſes to eat and to drink in? or deſpiſe ye the church of God"? As if he had ſaid, Is it not to your diſgrace, and can you do any other than think ſo, that you make the houſe of God a place for common feaſting, when you have houſes of your own, you may uſe to this purpoſe, as proper occaſions may be offered therefor? Your conſciences, duly enlightened, will reproach you for ſuch unſuitable conduct. I cannot but ſuppoſe, that theſe ſuppers, in the place of worſhip, and conjoined, as it were, with the Lord's, let them be called love-feaſts, or by whatever other name, are here ſolemnly prohibited by the apoſtle; eſpecially, when he adds, "ſhall I praiſe you in this? I praiſe you not." He could ſcarce, in any way of diction that was more ſtriking, have expreſſed his condemnation of this practice among them.

ANOTHER irregularity they are rebuked for, is, their confounding, or ſo mingling, "their own" with the "Lord's-Supper," that they were neither properly, nor ſufficiently diſtinguiſhed from each other, as they ought to have been. It is with ſpecial reference to this diſorder, that the apoſtle charges them, ver. 29, with "not diſcerning the Lord's-body", or, as the original words, [mê diak • i • ôn] might, perhaps, be more properly rendered, " •• t differencing So the original word means, and is tranſlated to mean, in the following texts, Act. 15.9. 1. Cor. 4.7. Jude ver. 22. And this, undoubtedly, is its more ſpecial meaning here; leading us to think, eſpecially comparing this 29th with the 33d ver. that one thing the Corinthians are blamed for is, their eating the Lord's-Supper as a part of their own, or ſo mingling them together, as not to preſerve a due diſtinction between them; which moſt certainly they ought to have done., not diſcriminating, the Lord's body," that is, the ſacramental bread, figuratively called by our Savior in the inſtitution of "his ſupper,", and by the apoſtle Paul in this chapter, "the body of Chriſt", from the bread of "their own ſupper" And in their way of celebrating the "ſupper of the Lord", it is plain it was not ſuitably differenced, or diſcriminated, from their "own ſupper"; not did it appear, as it ought to have done, an open, ſolemn, religious declaration, or ſhewing forth, of his death.

ANOTHER fault ſtill they are charged with is, their ſo eating their own ſupper as to betray a want of that kindneſs, yea, that common decency, which would have been blame-worthy in thoſe who knew nothing of chriſtianity. By comparing the 21ſt with the 33d ver. we ſhall find, that they did not "tarry for one another", but as they came to the place of worſhip fell to, as the vulgar phraſe is, and eat every one of what he had brought; by which means thoſe who had brought a plenty were ſatiated, while thoſe who, being poor, had brought nothing, were made aſhamed, not having wherewithal to keep them from hunger. A ſtrange manner of conduct this! It not only diſcovered the preſent inoperation of that brotherly kindneſs, which is the glory of a chriſtian, but downright incivility; and they are both aggravated, as they were now purpoſely aſſembled, and aſſembling, that they might unite in celebrating a ſacred rite of the religion of Jeſus. THE diſorder complained of, in the above paragraph, always appeared unaccountable to me, until I had the opportunity of reading Raphelius's "philological annotations"; where I met with theſe words, vol. ii. pag. 344, "moris fuit athenis"—that is, "it was a cuſtom among the athenians, in the age of Socrates, for perſons who came to a ſupper, to bring every one of them ſomething for himſelf; which was not made common to all, but for the moſt part every one eat that which was his own. An example of this he holds out to view from Xenophon, in his "memorab". lib. 111. pag. 623; which is as full an illuſtration of this diſorder among the Corinthians as can be deſired. The words are theſe; "Opote de"—In engliſh thus, "when of thoſe who came together that they might ſup, ſome had brought with them a very little, others a great deal of proviſion, Socrates ordered a lad to put the little in common, or to diſtribute to each a part: In conſequence of which, thoſe who had brought a plenty with them were both aſhamed not to partake of what was ſerved up in common, and not to produce their own. They therefore put down their proviſions in common, and becauſe they enjoyed no more than thoſe who had brought but little, they defiſted from expending much in procuring victuals". It ſhould ſeem, from this citation, that even a Socrates was aſhamed of that diſorderly conduct among the pagan Greeks, at their collation ſuppers, which appears to have been continued among the Corinthians after their converſion to chriſtianity.

THE laſt, but greateſt diſorder, among theſe Corinthians, was their exceſs, or intemperance; which, at any time, is highly criminal, but eminently ſo when about to eat bread, and drink wine, at the ſacramental ſupper. The charge againſt them, in the 2 • ſt ver. is, not only that, "in eating every one taketh before other his own ſupper", but that, while "one is hungry, another drunken". It has been thought ſcarce poſſible, that theſe chriſtians, eſpecially while together in order to celebrate ſo ſolemn a rite as that of the Lord's-Supper, ſhould be chargeable with drunkenneſs, literally and groſsly ſpeaking. Expoſitors therefore have commonly underſtood the word here in a more lax ſenſe; ſuppoſing the moſt that can be meant by it is, that they had uſed too great freedom at their "own ſupper", eating and drinking to a degree of exceſs; and that, in this unſuitable frame, they partook, ſome of them, of the ſacramental bread and wine. And this was the thought I was led to entertain of this matter, until I had given it a more critical examination; ſince which I imagine, it may juſtly be ſuſpected, that ſome, among thoſe who had brought a ſufficiency for a full repaſt, were guilty of intemperance in too groſs a ſenſe of the word.

THE principal reaſon inclining me to judge, that ſome of the chriſtian profeſſors at Corinth, were chargeable with intemperance in a worſe ſenſe than expoſitors commonly ſuppoſe, is this. The word, M • thuci, here tranſlated, is drunk, really means, in all its grammatical variations, throughout the new teſtament, and is accordingly tranſlated in our bibles ſo as to mean, this kind of intemperance, one place only excepted; which, perhaps, had as well been tranſlated, ſo as to carry a ſenſe more nearly agreeing with that, in which all the others are taken, as we may ſee preſently. In the mean time I would obſerve, the ſubſtantives, Methuê, and Methuſos, are to be met with in five texts: the former in three, Luk. 21.34. Rom. 13.13. Gal. 5.21.; the latter in two, 1 Cor. 5.11. and 6.10. The verb paſſive, Methuskomai, is found in three places, Luk. 12.45. Eph. 5.18. 1 Theſ. 5.7. The verb active, Metheuô, is uſed, beſides in John 2.10, the excepted place, in Matt. 24.49. Acts 2.15, in the text we are upon, in Theſ. 5.2. Rev. 17.2, and in the ſixth verſe: In all which texts, it not only ſignifies, but by our tranſlators is made to ſignifie, a groſſly faulty exceſs in drinking. It would therefore carry with it the appearance of a deſign to ſerve a cauſe, ſhould we depart, in this place, from the invariably tranſlated, as well as genuine ſenſe of the word, wherever it is to be met with in the new-teſtament books: Not is it eaſily ſuppoſeable, the apoſtle would have uſed this word, which has ſo bad a meaning, if he had in tended only ſome light degree of exceſs. It will, probably be ſaid here, it would be too great a reflection on any of theſe chriſtians to ſuggeſt, that they were intemperate to the exceſs that has been mentioned; and that the want of candor only could influence any to put ſo ſevere a ſenſe on the word uſed by the apoſtle. The plain anſwer is, the apoſtle would not have uſed this word, if he had not intended to convey by it the ſenſe it is always taken in, and by himſelf too, every where in the ſacred books. The charge therefore of too great ſeverity in reflecting upon theſe chriſtians, if juſt, muſt light upon the apoſtle, and not on thoſe who interpret his words according to their invariable uſe, both in the goſpels, and epiſtles. The only way to expreſs candor towards them is to obſerve, in mitigation of their fault, which was a very groſs one, that intemperance at collation ſuppers, among the Greeks, had been common; and the paſsover meal, among the Jews, was allowed to be a full one; and too often it was carried into exceſs. If therefore ſome of theſe chriſtians, whether from judaiſm, or gentiliſm, through the force of habit not fully eradicated, and by being off their guard, had been unhappily betrayed into what may be juſtly called intemperance in drinking, it ought not to be looked upon as incredible. Dr. Whitby's note on the word, Os de metheuci, and another is drunken, I ſhall think proper to inſert here. Says he, "This may either refer to the Gentile converts among the corinthians, retaining ſtill their heathen cuſtom of drinking liberally after their ſacrifices, whence methuci • to be drunk, is, by grammarians, thought to have its original from meta to thuein, becauſe of the free drinking they indulged to after their ſacrifices; or to the judaizing concerts,, who thought themſelves obliged to drink plentifully at their feſtivals, four large cups of wine, ſays Dr. Lightfoot, at the Paſchal-ſupper, and to be quite drunk, ſays Buxtorf in the feaſt of Purim".—I have now given my opinion. Let every one judge for himſelf.

IT was ſaid juſt now, there was a text, John 2.10, in which the ſame word, that is here uſed by the apoſtle, is tranſlated in our bibles, well drank"; not importing any criminal degree in drinking. There was no need of giving the word ſo low a ſenſe, and ſo different an one from that in which it is every where elſe taken in the new-teſtament. For, let it be obſerved, what is here ſaid was ſpoken, not by our Savior, nor as inſinuating a charge againſt any of the preſent gueſts, but referring to what had been a cuſtom upon ſuch occaſions. The word, methusthôfi, might therefore here have well enough been tranſlated in a ſenſe nearer to the genuine import of the word, in other texts of the new teſtament. The "new verſion of the new-teſtament", by an anonymous author, has it thus, "when the gueſts had drank pretty freely". Harwood, in his late "tranſlation of the new-teſtament", gives it this ſenſe, "when the taſte of company was blunted with drinking". And if it had been literally and ſtrictly tranſlated, "when they were overcome with drink", It would, as I imagine, have been but a fair and juſt verſion; nor would ſuch a one have carried with it the leaſt reflection, either upon our Savior, or any of the gueſts with whom he was now at a wedding. The word refers wholly to a cuſtom, in that day at wedding-feaſts; when if ſome of the company had drank too much, it would not have been ſtrange; and, perhaps this was no uncommon thing.

THESE now were the indecencies and irregularities of the Corinthian chriſtians, with reference to the holy ſacramental ſupper. Accordingly, that ſpecial unworthineſs, I am explaining, which the apoſtle would faſten upon them, muſt be conſidered in connection herewith, and interpreted hereby. It accordingly means, in one word, the ſame thing preciſely with their celebration of the Lord's-Supper in that diſorderly, irreverent, and prophane manner that had been mentioned. The apoſtle is to be underſtood, as if he had ſaid, he that eateth and drinketh in the manner I have pointed out, is the He that "eateth and drinketh unworthily". Theſe things are connected in his diſcourſe, and explain each other.

BUT ſome, perhaps, will ſay, is this all the unworthy eating and drinking at the Lord's-table, that gueſts there may be chargeable with? I anſwer at once, without the leaſt heſitation, no, by no means. There are other ways, wherein perſons may bring upon themſelves this guilt. All ſuch do ſo, who eat and drink of the ſacramental bread and wine in a careleſs. thoughtleſs, inattentive, cuſtomary manner; much more may unworthineſs be charged upon thoſe, who come to the ſupper of the Lord to ſerve their reputation, or that they may be under better advantage to carry on their worldly deſigns; and it may in a worſe ſenſe ſtill, and in as bad an one as can eaſily be conceived of, be faſtened on your irreligious, prophane men, who, without any becoming ſenſe of God, or regard to his Son, but ſolely with a view to qualify themſelves for ſome poſt of honor, or profit, kneel before the altar, and take into their polluted mouths the ſacred ſymbols of the body and blood of Chriſt. In a word, it may juſtly be ſaid of all, that they eat and drink unworthily, who do not do it conformably to the nature and deſign of this inſtituted rite, and as it is fit and reaſonable it ſhould be done. But all this notwithſtanding, the ſpecial unworthineſs, the apoſtle is here ſpeaking of, is that ſchiſmatical, diſorderly, non-differencing, and intemperate attendance at the ſacramental ſupper, which he had been blaming, and condemning, the Corinthians for: Nor can any be guilty of "unworthily eating and drinking" in that ſpecial ſenſe, in which this fault is charged upon this chriſtian ſociety, unleſs they eat and drink at the holy ſupper of the Lord, in the like indecent, irregular, and prophane manner which they did.

HAVING thus explained the firſt words, that have been the occaſion of difficulty to ſerious minds, "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily", I go on to do the ſame by the next, "ſhall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord". Some, through weakneſs, the undue influence of fear, or a mind unhappily tinctured with ſuperſtition, have been kept from the ſacramental ſupper, being led, by theſe words, to imagine, that, ſhould they unworthily partake of it, they would be chargeable with the very ſin the Jews were, when, literally ſpeaking, they "wounded the body, and ſhed the blood of Chriſt". But this is ſo vain an imagination, ſo groſs a contradiction not only to the known uſe of theſe words in ſcripture, but to common ſenſe, that the bare mentioning of it is ſufficient to expoſe it as ridiculouſly abſurd. "The body and blood of Chriſt", here ſpoken of, are to be interpreted, not in the literal, but figurative ſenſe. They mean, not "his real body and blood", but theſe ſymbolically conſidered, or as repreſented under the emblematical ſigns of "bread and wine", at the ſacrament. So the words were meant by our Savior in the inſtitution of the ſupper, and ſo they are underſtood by the apoſtle Paul in this very chapter, in the account he has given of the original conſecration of "the bread and wine".

ACCORDINGLY, when it is ſaid of thoſe, who "eat and drink unworthily" at the ſacrament, that they are "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord", the true meaning is, that they juſtly expoſe themſelves to that judgment God will inflict upon thoſe, who make an undue, ſinful, and prophane uſe of that "bread and wine", which, ſacramentally, figuratively, or ſymbolically, are "the body and blood of Chriſt". What this judgment in ſpecial is, as threatned in this chapter, we go on to ſhow, under the laſt words we propoſed to explain, namely,

"EATING and drinking, damnation to one's ſelf", in caſe of eating and drinking "unworthily" at the Lord's table. The engliſh word, damnation, does not anſwer to the true import of the greek word (Krima) here uſed by the apoſtle. And it is a thouſand pities it was thus tranſlated, as it has been, unhappily, the occaſion of much perplexity to many ſerious good chriſtians. Says the excellent Dr. Doddridge, in his note upon this word, "I think it the moſt unhappy miſtake in all our verſion of the bible, that the word, Krima, is here rendered damnation. It has raiſed a dread in tender minds, which has greatly obſtructed the comfort, and edification, they might have received from this ordinance". I fully join with this great and good man in the ſentiment here expreſſed; and the rather, becauſe, having conſulted all the expoſitors, and writer, upon the ſacramental ſupper, I could come to the ſight of, I find, that they unite as one in ſpeaking of the "judgment", more eſpecially intended here by the apoſtle, as of the temporal kind, not of "damnation" in the future world. It is true, this word (Krima) is ſometimes uſed to ſignify the damnation of hell; but it oftner means judgment in this preſent ſtate. The apoſtle Peter ſays, (1. Epiſ. 4.17.) "The time is come, when judgment (Krima) is to begin at the houſe of God". Will any one ſay, damnation to future wrath is the judgment here meant? It cannot be ſuppoſed. The evangeliſt Luke (chap. 23.40.) brings in one of the malefactors, who were crucified with our Lord, rebuking the other in theſe words, "doſt thou not fear God, ſeeing thou art (en to Krima) in the ſame condemnation"; that is, adjudged to one and the ſame temporal death: Yea, in the 24th chap. 20th ver. he ſpeaks of the chief prieſts, and rulers, as having delivered our Lord (en Krima thanaton) to be condemned to death: Not ſurely to damnation in a future world. It would be blaſphemous to ſuggeſt ſuch an untruth. From theſe texts it appears, that the word (Krima) we are now explaining, may, agreeably to its uſe elſewhere in ſcripture, mean, not puniſhment in hell, but temporal evil in this world.

AND that this was the judgment the apoſtle had directly in his eye, when he made uſe of the word Krima, which, in our bibles, is tranſlated "damnation", he has taken all proper care to put beyond all reaſonable diſpute. For, let it be particularly minded, in the verſe immediately following that wherein he ſays, "he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himſelf", he adds, as though on purpoſe to prevent our miſtaking his meaning, in the uſe of the word tranſlated damnation, "FOR THIS CAUSE, many are weak, and ſickly among you, and many ſleep". As if he had ſaid, your diſorderly, prophane manner, at the ſacramental ſupper, has brought down upon you the judgments of God. For this cauſe, on account of this your unworthineſs, he has viſited you [perhaps, a miraculous viſitation may be here intended] with bodily diſeaſes, and temporal death itſelf: And this you have had exemplified among you, in many inſtances of thoſe, who have been ſick, and died. But to make it yet more certain, that by this Krima, which has been unhappily tranſlated by the engliſh word "damnation", in our bibles, we are to underſtand temporal judgment, and not the miſeries of hell, the apoſtle, in the 32d ver. has expreſsly aſſigned, the reaſon of the infliction of the puniſhment (Krima) he had ſpoken of. His words are theſe, "when we are judged, we are chaſtened of the Lord, that we might not be condemned with the world". You obſerve, the evil, or puniſhment, be it what it may, to which theſe Corinthians had been adjudged, for their unworthy behaviour at the Lord's table, is here conſidered, by the apoſtle himſelf, as diſciplinary only, a "divine chaſtening"; and as inflicted too, with a view to prevent their damnation in the other world. It is impoſſible therefore, the puniſhment, he here connects with this unworthineſs, ſhould mean, being of the medicinal kind only, any other than temporal judgment. In a word, the apoſtle, far from giving the leaſt countenance to the ſenſe of the word Krima, as tranſlated "damnation", and meaning the "damnation of hell", has ſaid that which is obviouſly and abundantly ſufficient to lead every intelligent reader to underſtand by it, temporal puniſhment; 〈◊〉 as had been inflicted upon ſome of theſe Corinthians, but in a way of diſcipline only, and in order to prevent their damnation, beyond the grave, with the wicked world.

IT will, perhaps, be aſked here, does not unworthy eating and drinking at the Lord's table expoſe to damnation in the other world? I anſwer; without all doubt it does. And ſo does unworthy hearing of God's word, unworthy praying to our father who is in Heaven, and unworthy performing any duty whatever in religion. The exact truth is, every ſin, of whatever kind, or in whatever degree, whether it be a ſin of omiſſion, or commiſſion, does as really expoſe to damnation, as unworthy eating and drinking at the Lord's-Supper.

BUT this notwithſtanding, future damnation is not the puniſhment, the apoſtle more immediately intends, in the paſſage we are upon; but, as has been ſaid, temporal evil, which he explains by theſe words, "weakneſs, ſickneſs, and the ſleep of death". Neither does he connect, even, this temporal judgment with every ſort, or degree, of unworthy receiving the ſacrament; but with that groſsly irreverent, and prophane manner, in which the Corinthians received it. So that none have any juſt reaſon to apply that ſpecial puniſhment, here ſpoken of, be it what it may, to themſelves, unleſs they can charge themſelves with attending on the ordinance of the ſupper in the like wicked manner, which theſe Corinthians did; which is not much to be feared at this day. Their ſcandalous irregularities, eſpecially their diviſive, intemperate manner at the Lord's-Supper, for which God, perhaps beyond the ordinary courſe of nature, ſent ſickneſs and death among them, are not the faults we are in preſent danger of falling into the commiſſion of. Thoſe, to be ſure, are at the utmoſt diſtance from this unworthineſs, who come not to the ſacramental table from a conſciencious fear, leſt they ſhould be chargeable with it. They, of all perſons in the world, have the leaſt reaſon to apply this text to themſelves. Their caſe as widely differs from that of theſe Corinthians, as light differs from darkneſs. And as their caſes are thus altogether different, it is quite beſide the apoſtle's intention, and a downright abuſe of his words, to perplex their minds, and diſcourage themſelves from duty, in conſideration of that, which is no ways applicable to them.

I MAY not improperly ſubjoin a few words here, in order to undeceive thoſe, who ground a fear, from this paſſage of the apoſtle we have been upon, leſt they ſhould be certainly and unavoidably damned, ſhould they happen to eat and drink at the ſacramental ſupper, in an unworthy manner. This, I have reaſon to think, has given perplexing uneaſineſs to ſome ſerious ſouls, reſtraining them from remembering Chriſt in the way of his appointment. But they have herein groſsly impoſed upon themſelves. Should it be ſuppoſed, that the apoſtle was ſpeaking, in this text, of damnation in the coming world, which we have ſeen abundant reaſon to think he is not, he ought by no means to be underſtood, as meaning, that it would inevitably prove damnation to a perſon, ſhould he come to the table of the Lord, and eat and drink there in an unworthy manner. For the goſpel of the bleſſed God has provided, through Chriſt, and promiſed, pardoning mercy to repenting ſinners, however many, or heinous, their ſins may have been. Unworthily receiving the ſacrament may therefore, in common with all other unworthineſs, be forgiven by the intervention of repentance, and ſo damnation be prevented. Should a perſon unhappily come to the ſupper of the Lord, ſo as to be an unworthy gueſt there, through negligence, careleſsneſs, or any other faulty cauſe, he might, by the grace of God, be brought to repentance; and this would as certainly ſecure him from damnation, as it is true, that God is "ready to pardon", and embrace penitent ſinners in the arms of his mercy. Without all doubt, many are now in heaven, and many will, in time to come, have admiſſion into this bleſſed place, who have often been at the ſacramental table in an unworthy manner: not becauſe it was not their ſin; but becauſe, by repentance, they obtained the forgiving mercy of God.

I HAVE now particularly, though as briefly as I well could, explained thoſe words of the apoſtle Paul, which have been the occaſion of fears and ſcruples in the minds of many, with reſpect to their attendance on the inſtitution of the ſupper, and reſtrained them from coming to it. It only remains, as was propoſed,

II. To make a few remarks, upon what has been offered, tending to remove away theſe fears and ſcruples, and make the way of thoſe clear to the table of the Lord, who have been kept from it, by the influence of them. And,

1. IT is obvious to collect, from the explanation we have given of the apoſtle's words, which have been the occaſion of perplexity to too many, that their fears and diſtreſſes, taking riſe therefrom, are altogether groundleſs.

Are any of you afraid to come to the ſacramental ſupper, leſt you ſhould "eat and drink unworthily"? There is no reaſon for fear, leſt you ſhould come unworthily in the ſenſe, in which this fault is charged upon the Corinthians. It is indeed morally impoſſible, that perſons, in your ſerious, concerned ſtate of mind, ſhould come in that gr ••• ly indecent manner, which gave occaſion to the words, which have been perplexing to you. However, 'tis commendable in you, as there are other ways, in which you may eat, and drink unworthily at the Lord's table, to be ſo far afraid as to uſe all due caution, that you may be welcome gueſts there. This is the only reaſonable operation of fear, reſpecting this article of duty. It ought not to keep you from communion at the ſacramental ſupper; but ſhould rather put you upon your guard, and ſuch endeavours as may be proper in order to your avoiding that, which is the ground of your fear. Should your fear reſtrain you from your duty, its operation would be faulty. It would not, in conſiſtency with what is right and fit, anſwer the deſign of its excitement in you, unleſs it ſhould prompt you to your duty, and to a care to ſee that it be well done.

Are any of you afraid, if you ſhould come to the ſacramental ſupper, that you ſhould be "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord"? You cannot be thus guilty, unleſs you ſinfully eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, which are divinely inſtituted ſigns of "the body and blood of Chriſt." For this is the only meaning that can, with propriety, or truth, be applied to theſe words. And you do well to be afraid of ſin, whether it relates to the ordinance of the ſupper, or any other ſervice of piety. Only, you ſhould remember, and impreſs your minds with a ſerious ſenſe of its being true, that this very fear of your's will become ſinful, if, inſtead of ſtirring you up to the performance of duty, and a due care to perform it in a ſuitable manner, it at all reſtrains you from it; much more, if it influences you to an habitual, and total neglect of it. You ſay, you fear to come to the ſupper of the Lord, leſt you ſhould be "guilty of his body and blood". You cannot eaſily be thus guilty, in the ſenſe, in which the Corinthians were. There is no danger of your uſing the ſacramental bread and wine, which repreſent figuratively, "the body and blood of Chriſt", in the rude, factious, prophane manner they did. Any, at this day, would be aſhamed of ſuch conduct: Nor need you be afraid of being chargeable with the guilt of it. You may, it is true, be faulty in the uſe of the "bread and wine", which are inſtituted ſigns of the "body and blood of Chriſt; and you may reaſonably fear, leſt you ſhould be thus faulty. But what ought to be the effect of this fear? Moſt certainly, not diſobedience to as plain, and peremptory, a command as any in the bible; but caution, watchfulneſs, and circumſpection, that you may comply with it, in the beſt manner you can.

ARE any of you afraid of being chargeable with the guilt of "not diſcerning the Lord's body" ſhould you come to the ordinance of the ſupper? You muſt be groſsly ignorant, if you do not know, that there is a great and wide difference betwixt ſacramental and common bread and wine. And the way, now in uſe, of eating and drinking ſacramental bread and wine, is ſo different from that in which it was done by the Corinthians, when theſe words were wrote, that it cannot be ſuppoſed you could be guilty of "not diſcerning the Lord's body", in the ſenſe that they were: For which reaſon, a fear of this guilt, in the minds of any, is wholly groundleſs. Not but that there may be fear, and juſtly too, leſt the ſacramental bread and wine ſhould not, in the exerciſe of faith, be diſcriminated from that which is common, ate and drank in a manner becoming their conſecration to ſo ſolemn a uſe as that of remembering the dying love of Chriſt. But it would be altogether beſide the proper and juſt tendency of this fear, to keep any from partaking of this bread and wine. Its only influence ſhould be to diſpoſe, and engage all to a due care to eat, and drink of them, agreably to the nature, and end, of ſo ſacred an inſtitution.

IN fine here, are any of you afraid of coming to the holy ſupper, leſt you ſhould "eat and drink damnation to yourſelves? Your fear, ſo far as it takes riſe from the engliſh word, damnation, has no juſt reaſon for its ſupport. For, it is not expreſſive of what the apoſtle Paul means by the greek word Krima, he here uſes; as has, I truſt, been already made abundantly to appear.

NOT but that "eating, and drinking unworthily", at the Lord's table, expoſes to "damnation", meaning by it damnation to wrath in the future world; and you may reaſonably fear ſo eating and drinking, as to render yourſelves liable to this awful puniſhment: Not indeed becauſe this puniſhment is the ſpecial judgment intended by the apoſtle; but becauſe it is the puniſhment elſewhere, in ſcripture, threatned againſt ſin in general, be its kind, or degree, what it may. For the ſame reaſon, therefore, that you are afraid of coming to the Lord's-Supper, leſt by doing this unworthily, you ſhould "eat and drink damnation to yourſelves", you ſhould fear leſt, by an unworthy neglect of this ordinance, you ſhould expoſe yourſelves to this ſame puniſhment. For the truth is, there is as real danger of incurring damnation by a neglect of this inſtance of duty, as by an unworthy performance of it. You, who fear to come to the ſacramental ſupper, leſt you expoſe yourſelves to damnation, while, at the ſame time, you have no fear upon your minds, leſt, by the neglect of this ſacred inſtitution, you ſhould as juſtly make yourſelves liable to the ſame puniſhment, would do well ſeriouſly to conſider this. There is like danger in both caſes; and you will only delude yourſelves, if you think to avoid the danger of eating and drinking unworthily, by not eating and drinking at all.

IT may, perhaps, be ſaid here, the apoſtle Paul has particularly denounced damnation againſt unworthineſs at the Lord's-Supper, while neither he, nor any of the ſacred penmen, have, with like particularity, pointed out this puniſhment, in caſe of not coming to it. The anſwer is obvious, and, as I imagine, intirely ſatisfactory. The apoſtle, in the words referred to, is ſpeaking, as has been made evident, of temporal judgment, and inflicted only with a ſalutary view, in a way of fatherly chaſtiſement; not of damnation, meaning by it puniſhment beyond the grave: Nor is this kind of puniſhment denounced any where, in the bible, againſt unworthy receiving the ſacrament, but in thoſe texts which denounce this ſame wrath againſt the neglect of duty, as well as the unworthy performance of it. So that a diſobedient neglect of that ſupper which has been ſolemnly appointed by Jeſus Chriſt, does as really expoſe to damnation, as an undue attendance at it. Why then ſhould any abſtain from ſacramental eating and drinking, through fear, leſt they ſhould eat and drink unworthily? Sin lies at the door in either caſe, and danger too. And it is, without all doubt, both more ſinful, and more dangerous, with reſpect to the perſons whoſe fears I have been endeavouring to remove, to neglect coming to the ſacramental ſupper, than to come to it with that imagined unworthineſs which keeps them from it.

2. ANOTHER remark is this, that, ſhould any have unhappily attended the ordinance of the ſupper in an unworthy manner, the beſt advice to them is, not to ceaſe from attending their duty in this ſpecial inſtance; but to take proper care to perform it better for time to come. This remark naturally ariſes from the general tenor of the apoſtle's diſcourſe, in the chapter we have been conſidering. He had been blaming, and rebuking, the church at Corinth for their rude, diſorderly, and prophane manner of celebrating the holy ſupper. And what does he hereupon adviſe them to? Does he forbid them the uſe of this goſpel ordinance? Does he ſay any thing tending to diſcourage them from going again to it? Not a word of this nature is to be ſeen in any part of what he has wrote to them. Far from this, though they had come to the ſupper of the Lord with ſuch indecency, and irreverence, as are not known in the preſent age, he ſuppoſes it to be their duty ſtill to come to it; and what he endeavours is, to engage them, by proper arguments, to reform what had been amiſs, and to attend their duty in a ſuitable manner in time to come. Chriſtian profeſſors would act wiſely in taking due notice of the apoſtle's care, that the holy ſupper might not be neglected, and, at the ſame time, that it might not be unworthily celebrated. Should they be conſcious, that they have waited upon Chriſt at his table in an unbecoming manner, they ſhould not be diſcouraged, through fear, from waiting upon him again; but ſhould rather be excited to give the more earneſt heed, to get their unworthineſs removed, that they may attend their duty conformably to the will of their Lord for the future.

I MAY not improperly add here, if any of thoſe are ſeriouſly thoughtful of coming to the ſupper of the Lord, who have never as yet been there, they ſhould not be diſcouraged from their duty, in this reſpect, by the influence of fear, leſt they ſhould come unworthily. Their fear ſhould not drive them away from this ordinance, but rather put them upon the uſe of proper pains, that they may come in a worthy manner. The Corinthians had been guilty of ſchiſm, rudeneſs, and intemperance in their celebration of the ſacramental ſupper; and yet, the apoſtle does not adviſe them to lay aſide the uſe of this ordinance, but to take care to come to it, for the future, in worthy manner. And this is the beſt adviſe that can be given chriſtians at this day. It is not allowable for them to treat this ordinance with conſtructive contempt, by abſtaining from the uſe it; and if they are afraid of coming to it unworthily, the effect of their fear ſhould be, their more diligent endeavour to come in the manner they would deſire, and as may be for the honor of their Lord.

3. ANOTHER remark ſtill may be, that it ought not to be ſuppoſed, that the apoſtle Paul, in the chapter we have been explaining, had it in his heart to diſcourage thoſe chriſtians, from an attendance at the ſacramental table, who diſcourage themſelves, and from what he has ſaid too. Let us attend a little to their character, more eſpecially as drawn from the ground of their diſcouragement. Why are they kept back from remembering their Lord, in the way of his appointment? Is it not becauſe they fear, leſt they ſhould not do this with that faith, love, humility, and holy reverence, which become a ſacred inſtitution of goſpel worſhip? Is it not becauſe they have worthy ſentiments of Jeſus Chriſt, who has appointed the ſacramental ſupper, and would willingly be communicants at it, but that they have ſcruples in their minds, as to their fitneſs to be ſo? Is it not becauſe they are jealous over themſelves with a Godly jealouſy, jealous of the honour of their Lord, and would ſerve him with their beſt? Is it not becauſe they are heartily deſirous of pleaſing Chriſt, and are afraid, leſt they ſhould fail of doing ſo, ſhould they come to his table?

CAN it now be imagined, with any face of reaſon, that it was the deſign of the apoſtle, by any thing he has ſaid, in this chapter, to diſcourage this kind of perſons from giving their preſence at the ſacramental ſupper? Could it have entered his heart to block up their way to the table of the Lord? It ought not to be ſuppoſed. Surely, if he did not diſcourage the Corinthians from attending this ordinance, though they came to it in ſuch an irreverent manner, as that they were viſited by God, FOR THIS VERY CAUSE, with "weakneſs, ſickneſs and death," he could never intend to throw any diſcouragement in the way of the perſons I have deſcribed. And if he could know how they have miſconſtrued his words, and taken occaſion, from them, to neglect the ſupper of the Lord, he would ſcarce be able, though in heaven, to refrain from grief. And could he now ſpeak to them from the excellent glory, it would be to adviſe them forthwith to lay aſide their fears and ſcruples, and honor their Lord by celebrating the memorial of his death.

4. THE laſt remark is, that it ſhould be the ſerious endeavor of all to come worthily to the table of Chriſt. The apoſtle Paul aimed mainly at this, in all that he ſaid to the Corinthians, in that part of his epiſtle to them we have been conſidering. To this end he ſet before them their faults, and gave them the directions proper, in order to their rectifying them, that they might come to the ſupper Chriſt had appointed, not to condemnation, but to praiſe and honor. And this ſhould be the care alſo of all, who profeſs themſelves the diſciples of Jeſus. They ſhould not eſteem it a matter of trifling concern, how they partake of the ſymbols of their Lord's death, but ſhould endeavor to do it, ſo as to glorify God, and promote their own ſpiritual advantage.

MANY, I am ſenſible, would be glad to come to the ſacramental ſupper who were never there; and what has kept them back is, this matter of worthily partaking there. Being convinced, that they ought to come worthily, they are reſtrained from coming, becauſe they fear they ſhall not be able thus to come. But this is a difficulty that will as truly hold againſt all the other duties of religion. They ought all to be performed in a worthy manner; and if perſons ſhould imagine they cannot thus perform them, why may they not as reaſonably leave them all undone, as this of remembering their Savior at his ſupper? Is this right? What muſt be the effect of ſuch conduct but a total diſregard to all the ſervices of piety? The exact truth is, the influence of fear, reſpecting the ſupper of the Lord ſhould never be, to keep us from it, but to excite our care that we may be welcome gueſts at this goſpel feaſt; and thus we ſhall be, if the ſubjects of that meetneſs, which is ſuited to the nature and deſign of the duty. And this meetneſs, I will venture to ſay, thoſe are certainly poſſeſſed of, who are moſt ſenſible of their unworthineſs, and moſt fearful leſt they ſhould diſhonour Chriſt, by an undue attendance at his table. With reſpect to perſons of this character, there is no danger of their rudely, or irreverently, ruſhing upon this ordinance. They are the men, who are moſt concerned, that they may be prepared for a due approach to it; and there is no doubt but they ought to be ranked among thoſe, who would be moſt welcome to it.

I have now ſaid all that I had in view to ſay, in the choice of the ſubject I have been ſo long upon. I have, in as plain and faithful manner as I could, laid before you the obligations chriſtians are under to celebrate the inſtituted memorial of their Lord's dying love. I have been particular in ſpeaking to the careleſs and ſecure; the lukewarm and indifferent; the conſcientious and careful, in regard of their attendance on the other inſtitutions of goſpel worſhip; and, in fine, the ſcrupulous and fearful: endeavouring to conſider, and remove, all the doubts, difficulties and fears, which have kept any from an attendance at the table of Chriſt, ſo far, at leaſt, as they have come within reach of my knowledge.

WHAT will be the effect of my having been thus large, and full, in treating upon this ſpecial article of chriſtian duty, is known to God only. If what has been diſcourſed may, under the divine bleſſing, be influential upon any to do honor to their Savior, by remembering him in the way he has preſcribed, it will be labor ſpent to good purpoſe. It will occaſion joy of heart to all the friends of Jeſus; yea, it will be pleaſing to him, who loved us, and died for us; yea, it will be a pleaſure to that God, who ſo loved us, even while we were ſinners, as to give his only begotten Son to be ſlain a ſacrifice to atone for our tranſgreſſions. But if what has been ſaid ſhould prove labor in vain, as being followed with no good effect, as having no influence to prevail upon any to join with their chriſtian friends in breaking of that bread, which is the ſymbol of Chriſt's broken body, it will be remembered another day, that you have been faithfully entreated, warned, directed, and encouraged to the practice of this article of duty; and you will be the more inexcuſable on this account. I ſhall only ſay, I have delivered my ſoul, and have done it faithfully in this inſtance, however defective I may have been in others. The good God grant, that this chriſtian point of practice, which has been ſeriouſly and ſolemnly urged, may prove a ſavor of life unto life unto many, and not of death unto death—to any one ſoul.

FINIS.