plain this was fo far from being the cafe, that they were not fo much as fufpended. It follows therefore by the most natural confequence, that they were not guilty of drunkenness, and therefore, notwithstanding this excefs, might be truly good men.

But if it appeared ever fo clearly that fome of them were really drunken at the table of the Lord, it would be to no purpose in the prefent argument, for it would prove too much. If they drank to fuch excess as to be intoxicated, and are hereby proved wicked men, they were guilty of a fcandalous vice; and it would follow, not only that unholy men, but even fcandalous finners-drunkards, (and by parity of reafon all other openly immoral perfons) might attend this ordinance; a confequence which you are as much concerned to avoid as we are. Thus then it appears, that these Corinthians, notwithstanding their irregularity, might be truly pious perfons; fo that their not being forbidden to attend upon the Lord's Supper is no argument for the right of any unholy perfons to it, (as has been pleaded) and what the Apostle wrote to them concerning the guilt and danger of receiving unworthily, concludes against an unholy perfon's communicating, tho' it did not against their's.

I now go on to obferve further from this paffage, that the means which the Apostle recommends to avoid the fin and condemnation of unworthily receiving the Lord's Supper, viz. Self-examination, previous to the celebration of it, affords an additional argument in favour of the doctrine I am defending.

But let a man examine himself, and fo let him eat • of this bread and drink of this cup.' Your paraphrase upon these words I can by no means acquiefce in : "Let him confider with himself that be "comes" [I fuppofe you meant to say, that he should come, or, in order that he may come] "to this fupper 66 as to a remembrance of Chrift, and not as to a F 2 66 com

"common feast." By what authority you render Soniμalla Exulov confider with himself, I am at a lofs to find, and fhould have been glad if you had informed us. With all due deference to your known fkill in the Greek language, I must maintain, that the proper meaning of doxual is to prove, try, or examine, as gold is tried by the touchftone. Accordingly wherefoever it occurs in the New Testament it is tranflated by one or other of thefe words, (unless, when used metonymically, it fignifies to dif cern, approve, allow, &c. which fuppofe a previous trial) and often has a particular reference to a man's religious character. This is the cafe in Paul's Second Epistle to thefe Corinthians (xiii. 5.)

Exa

mine yourselves whether you be in the faith, prove your own felves, &c.' But I have another authority for thus tranflating the word in the paffage before us, which you cannot decently difpute, and that is your own. In another In another part of your work (forgetting your rendering of the word here) in order to ferve a different purpofe, you give it the fenfe I am pleading for. Speaking against the right of minifters or congregations to enquire into the lives of those that propofe themfelves to communion, "men are "directed (fay you p.33.) to examine themselves, but "the minifter is not directed to examine them;' where, by the word examine, you must neceffarily mean, enquiring into themfelves, or elfe it is not fenfe. You do indeed include in a parenthefis thefe words," tho' then only with a view to diflinguish "this ordinance from a common meal," but it matters not what is the thing enquired into, as the mean- ́ ing of the word examine is exactly the fame, whether it relate to a man's knowledge or his religious character. If you are willing to abide by your last tranflation of the word in queftion, but maintain that the paffage is only an exhortation to the Corinthians to enquire, whether they' diftinguished the Lord's Sup

per

per from a common meal, I will now give you my reafons for thinking that this is not and cannot be the Apostle's meaning. The firft is, that this exhortation is a general one, and no more confined to the Corinthians, than we have already feen the cafe of unworthy receiving was. The Apostle had juft before declared, Whofoever fhall eat this bread and drink • this cup of the Lord unworthily fhall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord;' q. d. let him do it in what way foever he may. Then follows the exhortation we are confidering: But let a man (i. e. every man) examine himfelf, and fo let him eat." As a further proof of the general nature of this exhortation, let it be obferved, that the motive immediately fubjoined is general: for he (q. d. whofoever he be) that eateth and drinketh unworthily (i. e. whatever be the particular manner of doing it) eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.' The meaning of the Apoftle, therefore, in this exhortation to felf-examination, must be this, that fince it was so dangerous a thing to receive the Lord's Supper unworthily, every perfon ought to examine himself, previous to his receiving it, in order to know whether there was any thing in him amifs of any kind whatsoever, which would expofe him to this danger, that so it might be rectified: Neither the words themselves, nor the connection of them, require any limitation; fo that this examination may as naturally be applied in reference to a perfon's religious character in general as to any thing elfe: it is therefore unwarrantable to confine it to the distinguishing the Lord's Supper from a common meal.

But I muft further obferve, it appears to me very irrational to refer it to this at all, for the two following reafons. The one is, that there could be no neceffity for any perfons to examine themfelves whether they confidered the Lord's Supper as a remembrance of Chrift, or only as a common meal; fince this might eafily be known without examination, and will fearce

F 3

ly

ly admit of it. What can be named that is more properly the fubject of intuition than this? Befides, (as was before hinted,) it is not to be fuppofed that the Corinthians were, (or indeed that any Chriftians fhould be) fo grofsly ignorant, as really to confider the Lord's Supper as only a common meal; and not to know that it was a religious inftitution in remembrance of Chrift: efpecially fince Paul himself had refided amongst them a year and half, in which time he doubtlefs had often administered this ordinance to them, in doing which he must have given them at least a general idea of its nature and defign. This is fuggefted, ver. 23. where he speaks of his having before delivered to them what he had received of the Lord Jefus. Nay, you find he exprefsly commends them for their knowledge (among other attainments) which he certainly would not have done if they had been fo ignorant as you fuppofe them to have been; not to infiit that all further examination on this head muft have been fuperfeded by the knowledge which the Apoftle now gave them in this epiftle. But I must further remark, that your account of the object of this felf enquiry makes the Apostle guilty of a manifeft abfurdity in exhorting them to it; fince it supposes them to have the previous knowledge of what he exhorts them to examine themselves about, viz. that the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Chrift and not a , common meal. For a man to examine himself whether he knows this, in order to judge whether he has knowledge enough to receive the Lord's Supper, is making that to be the rule of judgment, which is the object of enquiry.

In order to make the Apoftle fpeak rationally, we muft fuppofe, that what he exhorts perfons to examine themselves about, is fomething with which they are not fufficiently acquainted already; fomething which is not obvious to them without felf-examination; fomething about which it is poffible and easy to deceive themselves; neither of which agree with

their

their understanding the Lord's Supper to be the Lord's Supper and not a common meal; whereas all these well agree with the fuppofition of his referring to the state of the mind with regard to religion, and with no other that I can think of but this: Which indeed I should imagine to be the first that would offer itself to an indifferent enquirer, as it appears in itself highly rational and well to fuit the connexion of the difcourfe. Now if it be true that the Apoftle in this paffage meant to exhort perfons, previous to their coming to the Lord's table, to examine themselves whether they are in the faith, or whether they are real Christians, we have here a full proof that such are the only perfons who have a right to attend it *. • Let a man examine himself, and SO let him eat.' It cannot with any fhadow of reafon be fuppofed that

*Mr. Locke's paraphrafe on the words is this: "By this infti"tution therefore of Chrift, let a man examine himself; and ac

66

cording to that let him eat."-To which he adds the following note : Thefe words (a Tws) as to the letter, are rightly "tranflated and fo. But that tranflation, I imagine, leaves gene"rally a wrong fenfe of the place in the mind of an English rea"der, as if they fignified no more, but that examination should

precede, and eating follow, q. d. Let a man examine, and then lit "him eat; which I take to be quite different from the meaning of "the Apoftle, whofe fenfe the whole defign of the context fhews "to be this :" "I have here fet before you the inftitution of "Chrift; by that let a man examine his carriage, and according "to that let him eat; let him conform the manner of his eating "to that." The ufe which I have made of this text is not at all. inconfiftent with this interpretation of it; for if the ordinance be of fuch a nature as to require real holiness, thofe who examine themselves by it, will fee the neceffity of holiness in order to the worthy receiving of it, and infer that they ought to receive it, or abstain from it, according as they find themselves holy or unholy. If it should be faid that Mr. Locke only meant, and the paffage only fignifies, that every one thould ask himfelf what is the nature of the ordinance, in order that he may attend it suitably to its nature; I anfwer, this were not fo properly a man's examining himself, as examining the ordinance; the former of which is what the paffage enjoins; whereas if the Apoftle had intended the lapter, he would doubtlefs have used fome fuch expreflion as Dr. Priestley has put into his mouth, Let him confider with himjeif, &c.