Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

T

HO' you have thought proper to affert, that there is nothing in the whole New Testament which requires any other qualification for receiving the Lord's Supper than a belief of christianity, and a freedom from fcandalous vices; I have attempted to draw, from thofe writings, feveral arguments to prove that none but truly pious perfons ought to attend that institution. This point I apprehend will receive further confirmation by attending clofely to what the Apostle Paul had occafion to write to the Corinthians, on account of their unbecoming behaviour at the Lord's table. Let us distinctly confider what he says with refpect to unworthy receiving, and the means he recommends in order to prevent it, viz. Self-examination previous to the celebration of it.

[ocr errors]

As to the former; the Apoftle declares concerning those in general who eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily' (whatever be the particular manner of doing it) that they are 'guilty of the body ⚫ and blood of the Lord, that they come together 'unto condemnation, that they eat and drink judgment to themselves.' I have already fhown that all unholy perfons who attend the Lord's Supper are guilty of this, as they do not and cannot attend

it

[ocr errors]

it worthily; and that therefore they are exposed to this condemnation *. By which I mean, that they incur a degree of guilt proportioned to their unworthy manner of celebrating the ordinance, and are liable to a proportionable punishment. Even good men, as far as there is any thing unworthy in their manner of attending, do fo far ftand chargeable with guilt before God, and are liable to be, fome way or other,chaftened of the Lord,' or to bring fome kind of judgment to themselves' of a fpiritual nature, tho' not to be finally condemned with the world.' But all unholy perfons are exposed to final condemnation; and as by their unworthy receiving the Lord's Supper, they increase their guilt, (particu larly, as we have seen, by folemnly declaring a falfehood) it follows that they aggravate their future punishment in proportion to the nature of their crime, (as they certainly do by every other fin), unless they repent. Now the juft and natural inference from hence appears to my reafon to be, that they ought to refrain from the Lord's Supper, while they remain unholy, in order to avoid this additional condemnation; for it is most unreasonable to fuppofe, that it is a man's duty to do that, the doing of which will enhance his guilt and add to his future mifery. Why then (may it probably be asked) "did the Apoftle leave us to infer this, fince he had "fo fair an opportunity of afferting it in his address "to this Corinthian church? But he did by no means "declare them unfit for the ordinance, much lefs "forbid their attending upon it any more, as might "have been expected he would have done, if unholy "perfons had no right to it; tho' they gave plain "proof that they were not truly pious, but on the

[ocr errors]

66

contrary, very profane; fince they not merely "turned this facred inftitution into a common meal, "but were guilty of fuch indecency and excess as "were unbecoming and criminal on any occafion, be

* See Letter IV. p. 42.

ing

"ing charged even with drunkenness itself; a fin which "Chriftianity threatens with damnation." As this has been often urged as an argument against the neceffity of real holiness in order to the worthy receiv ing the Lord's Supper; it is requifite that I fhould take fome notice of it here, tho' you have not urged ; which I the rather do, as I know not that it has ever been refuted.

it

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

It must be acknowledged, if it could be clearly proved that these Corinthians were bad men, it would afford a plaufible argument against the doctrine which I am defending; but the proof of this does not fufficiently appear. On the contrary, to me it seems abundantly evident that they were in general, to appearance, pious perfons, or that they had a vifibility of godlinefs. What else can we reafonably conclude from the character which the Apostle gives of them in the beginning of his epiftle, part of which we have already quoted. He not only calls them the fanctified in Chrift Jefus,' but tells them that he thanked God always on their behalf, that in every thing they were enriched by him, and in all utterance, ⚫ and in all knowledge, and that they came behind in no fpiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jefus Chrift, who (fays he) fhall confirm you ⚫ unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day ' of our Lord Jefus Chrift." I am quite at a lofs to know the Apostle's meaning, if he does not intend in thefe words to reprefent them as real Christians. Nor can I fee any thing in his account of their manner of celebrating the Lord's Supper inconfiftent with the fuppofition that they were truly pious, or that could have been fufficient to ground a charge upon any individuals as ungodly perfons. It cannot reasonably be thought that they really confidered the Lord's Supper as defigned in no other view than as a publick entertainment, or that they had utterly forgot that it was a memorial of Chrift and a religious infti

tution.

tution. Their fault I apprehend to have been precifely this they did not fufficiently diftinguish the external part of this religious rite from a common meal, but eat and drank, and most probably converfed together in the fame manner as was customary in their other publick feafts. This is called by the Apostle, not difcerning (or difcriminating) the Lord's body.' But this, tho' in fome degree criminal, was by far more excufable than it would be in any chriftian fociety in the prefent day, and was greatly alleviated by the confideration of their not having a written account of the original inftitution, the gospels not being at that time penned ; and was the lefs to be wondered at, as it was neceffary for the Apostle himself to have an exprefs revelation. from heaven concerning the true nature and defign of this ordinance. Befides, they might the more eafily fall into this impropriety of conforming the Lord's Supper to a common meal, as it was ufually celebrated immediately after one, and was fo in the firft inftitution of it.

As to the indecency thefe Corinthians are faid to have been guilty of at the Lord's table, fome beginning to eat before others came, &c. this was the natural confequence of their not distinguishing the Lord's Supper (as to the outward form of it) from one of their common entertainments, at which the like rudeness frequently obtained in thofe times, which were (as you justly obferve) remarkable for the want of modern politeness at their focial meals, of which Grecian hiftorians have complained. But what is laid the greatest ftrefs upon in this argument is, that it is faid of fome of these communicants, that they were drunken. To this I aufwer, that the Greek word udever does not neceffarily fignify being intoxicated with liquor, but will eafily admit of a fofter term, and may be translated drinks to excess, or drinks plentifully; meaning, that they had drank a larger quantity F

of

of wine than was neceffary or proper at the table of the Lord; tho' no more than was lawful at their own*. This fenfe of the word well agrees with the general accufation brought against them, viz. their attending this rite as if it had been a common entertainment. And this is confirmed by the manner in which the Apostle reproves them: What, have ye ⚫ not houses to eat in? Shall I praife you in this? I praife you not.- -Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another, and if any man hunger, let him eat at home.’ How different is the Apoftle's language from what we may naturally fuppofe it would have been if they had been guilty of the fin of drunkennefs, tho' only in their own houfes, much more in the house of God and at the table of the Lord. Nay, if that had been the cafe, they would have been guilty of one of thofe fcandalous vices which you fay deferve excommunication, and therefore the Apoftle would not merely have reproved them with the utmost severity, but ordered them to be cut off from the church; for in this very epiftle he had before given orders for the excommunication of the incestuous perfon, and warranted their proceeding to the exclufion of any members of their church who fhould be guilty of any immoralities, among which it is obfervable he mentions drunkennefs. According to this warrant then, the perfons in queftion, if they had been guilty of drunkennefs at all (much more at the table of the Lord) would not only have deferved excommunication, but would in fact have been excommunicated. But it is

[ocr errors]

"

plain

In this fenfe the word is evidently ufed John ii 10. • Every man at the beginning doth fet forth good wine, and when men • have Bobo well drunk [pub. tranf. i. e. drank pretty freely, fo as to exhilarate the spirits :- Otherwife we make our Lord to encourage, by his firit miracle, a drunken revel. Gen. xliii. 34. Cant. v. 1. and Hag. i. 6. are inftances to the prefent purpose, the LXX making ufe of the word in question in each of thefe places. See DODDR. Fam. Exp. on John ii. 10. note.

« ПредишнаНапред »