20. The Things which the Gentiles facrifice, they facrifice to Devils, and not to God: and I would not that you fhould have Fellowship with Devils.

21. Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils; ye cannot be Partakers of the Lord's Table, and

the Table of Devils.

the Sacrifice as if it were offered for them?

The Things which the Gentiles facrifice they facrifice to Devils, and not to God; and I would not that you should have Fellowship, and be in League with Devils, as they who by eating of the Things offered to them, enter into Covenant, Alliance, and Friendship with them.

You cannot eat and drink with God as Friends at his Table, and entertain Familiarity and Friendship with Devils, by eating with them, and partaking of the Sacrifices offered to them.

Now if Mr. Locke thought eating of the Sacrifices offered up to Devils to be a Declaration of their being in League, or in Covenant with them, he must think that eating the Bread and Wine at the Lord's Table is a Federal, or Covenant Act also; and, confequently, it was this great Man's Opinion, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is more than a bare Memorial, or calling Chrift's Death to mind, by the outward Signs of Bread and Wine. But St. Luke and St. Paul, when they cite the Words of the Inftitution, instead of faying, with St. Matthew

P 2

and

and St. Mark, This is my Blood, expreffly ftile the Bread and Wine the New Testament, or Covenant: So does the Confecration Prayer in the Communion Service. And in the Collect immediately following, the Church plainly fupFofes, that in this Act of Communion with Chrift, as we do in our Baptifmal Covenant, we dedicate curfelves, our Souls, and Bodies to his Service. And a very comfortable Thing it is to all ferious Perfons, conscious of their daily Lapfes, whereby they forfeit their Title to Pardon, and all the other Benefits of the Christian Covenant, which God made with us at our Baptifm, to have the Opportunity of renewing it, and being restored to God's Favour, by thus federally partaking of his Body and Blood.

The next thing to be confidered is, the Frequency of receiving this Sacrament. In the Words of the Inftitution there is nothing that either exprefes, or implies it. It only fays, as often, &c. which only proves that it is not like the Sacrament of Baptifm, but an Inftitution to be repeated. If this Point could not be cleared up any other Way, it might be done to Satisfaction by the Practice of the Apostles and firft Chriftians, who could not be ignorant of the Intention of our Saviour. Were we in any doubt about the meaning of any old Act of Parliament, and the Intention of the Legislature in enacting it, if we had any authentic Hiftory of the Senfe of the Judges, and moft eminent Lawyers, and the Practice of the Nation immediately after it was enacted; I prefume every reasonable Man would

think this Evidence fatisfactory. Now, we have the most authentic Hiftory of the Senfe and Prac tice of the Apostles and primitive Chriftians, immediately after the Inftitution of the Sacrament, and they received it, at firft, every Time they met together for publick Worship. Time has not at all altered the Nature of the Inftitution, The only Alteration is in Chriftians, who have not fo much Piety as they then had. But there is in the Nature, and Ends, of it sufficient Proof that it ought frequently to be repeated.-As it is a federal Rite, whereby we renew our baptifmal Covenant, which we are fo frequently breaking, and recover the Privileges which we are fo frequently forfeiting by thefe Breaches; this fhews, not only the Expediency, but the abfolute Neceffity, of a frequent Renewal of our bro. ken Covenant.-As it is, on God's Part, a publick Pledge, or Afurance, that if we rightly, and with Faith, partake of the Reprefentatives of Chrift's Body and Blood, we thereby partake of all the Benefits of his Paffion, Can this be done too often? Can a difconfolate Sinner too often see this Token of his Pardon? Can a weak Creature too often fee this vifible Affurance of spiritual Strength? Can he too often ufe this great Means of obtaining it? For, if by receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, we partake of all the Benefits purchafed by his Blood, one of which is the Affiftance of his Spirit, this Act must be, in a more particular Manner than any other can be, a Means of Grace.-To entertain a Perfon at

our Table, and to entertain him Bandfomely, is an Act of Familiarity and Friendship. When we receive the Sacrament of CHRIST, our dearest Friend, our greatest Benefactor, entertains us at his Table, and entertains us in the kindest and nobleft Manner that can be conceived. Lord Jefu! How can I express, what I cannot conceive! Yes, Lord, I can exprefs this aftonishing, and inconceivable Inftance of thy Love in thine own Words, He that eateth the Bread, and drinketh the Wine at my Table in Remembrance of me, eateth and drinketh my Body and Blood: And can we too often do ourselves this high Honour? Can we too often partake of this reviving, this heavenly Food?

But many People will acknowledge the great Comfort and Advantages of receiving the Sacrament worthily, but they dread the Danger of receiving it unworthily. This is a Point that deferves a particular Confideration, but it is a Point that may cafily be fettled; fo eafily, that it may juftly be thought ftrange that fo many People of common Senfe fhould miftake it. But before I enter upon this Head I muft remind the Reader of one thing that I have already proved, which is this; that let the Danger be ever fo great, it is impoffible that it fhould be greater than the Danger of living in the wilful Neglect of it. Receiv ing unworthily may relate to the Manner of receiving, or to the Unfitness to receive it.

Some Expreffions of St. Paul, unhappily inferted in one of the Exhortations in the Commu

4

nion Service, without a fufficient Explanation, has occafioned great Errors and Scruples in the Minds of many well meaning People; and, therefore, I fhall cite the Texts, and be farther beholden to Mr. Locke, for his Comment upon them, it being impoffible for me, or any Body elfe, to explain them more clearly. I fhall firft cite Part of the Argument, or Contents of this Paffage, which he has prefixt to his Comment. "The

cr

celebrating the Paffover amongst the Jews, was plainly the eating of Meat, diftinguifhed "from other ordinary Meals by feveral peculiar Ceremonies; two of thefe Ceremonies were, eating of Bread folemnly broken, and drinking a Cup of Wine, called the Cup of Bleffing: Thefe two our Saviour transferred into "the Chriftian Church, to be used in their Af

femblies for a Commemoration of his Death "and Sufferings. In celebrating this Inftitution "of our Saviour, the jndaizing Chriftians fol"lowed the Jewish Custom of eating their Pafs"over; they eat the Lord's-Supper as a Part of "their Meat, bringing their Provifions into the

Affembly, where they eat divided into distinct Companies, fome feafting to Excefs, while others, ill-provided, were in Want. Their eating thus in their publick Affembly, and mixing "the Lord's-Supper with their ordinary Meal, "as a Part of it, with other Disorders and In"decencies accompanying it, is the Matter of "this Section."