the sacrifices were partakers of the altar; and if now, under the Gospel, those who Sun at the table of the Lord profess to hold commun with their Saviour, then the Apostle's conclusion manifestly just -that the Corinthians, by partaking of idol feasts, did practically and openly profess themselves to be in real communion with their idols, in honour of whom those feasts were instituted.-Such is the place which the verses now under consideration hold in the Apostle's reasoning. They are introduced to illustrate and confirm the charge which he here brings forward against some of the Christians at Corinth. A careful examination of them, will perhaps aid us in forming distinct and accurate ideas of the nature and design of the Lord's Supper.

Let us in the first place, then, endeavour to ascertain the precise meaning of this portion of Scripture, and,

In the next place, consider what support it gives to the various opinions held concerning the Lord's Supper.

We are first, then, to ascertain the precise meaning of this portion of Scripture.

The cup in the sacrament is here styled "the cup of blessing," in allusion to a custom observed by the Jews in the celebra of the Passover, and their o public festivals. When the guests were sat down, it was usual for the master of the feast to take bread and "bless" it, that is, to give thanks to God for it, and beg his blessing to accompany it, and then break it and distribute it among all who were present. After supper, he also took a cup of wine, and after having blessed it and drunk of it himself, he handed it to the guests to drink of it likewise. Hence came into use this phrase-the breaking of bread and hence, too, the particular phrase of which we are now speaking-" the the cup blessing."-The cup in the Lord's Supper receives with propriety the same denomination, for in taking it, we give thanks and bless the Lord for his redeeming love to the children of men. By solemn prayer we hallow, we consecrate it, and beg of God to bless it for our spiritual nourishment and growth in grace. This cup of blessing which we bless, and the bread which wẹ break, are said by the Apostle to be the communion of the body and blood of Christ. The original word*, here translated Communion,

of

would have been better translated, Participation; because the English word Communion, generally involves fellowship one with another; whereas the orignal expresses only each particular Christian believer's fellowship with Christ. It does not signify a joint partaking, or the partaking of several together, but simply each individual's par taking. And when several persons or things are spoken of as partaking of any thing, this word does not of itself express collectively the joint participation of all; but simply the distinct participation of each; that is, it expresses the general idea of participation alone and here the soul's participation of the comforts and joys of salvation. addition to this remark on the word translated communion, or as it ought to be, participation, it may be proper also to observe, that though the Apostle inserts it only in the latter part of the questions which he here puts to the Corinthians, yet the meaning evidently implies that it should be understood in the former part of them also. The cup in the Lord's Supper is called the communion or partaking of the blood of Christ. But it must be the partaking of the cup, that is, the partaking of the blood of Christ.

In

The bread is styled the partaking of the body of Christ; but it must be the partaking of the bread, that is, the partaking of the body of Christ. The Cup and the Bread, then, must mean the partaking of the Cup and the Bread, in order to answer to the phrase partaking of the body and blood of Christ, which immediately follows.

In verse 17th it is added" for we being

many are one bread and one body, for we "are all partakers of that one bread." Now, though some sort of meaning may be gathered from these words; yet they seem to be an obscure and mistaken interpretation of the original. In their present form, they do not so properly connect either with the verse that precedes or with that which follows them. Besides, the metaphor by which communicants are styled "one bread," is rather a strange and unnatural one. Accordingly, St. Paul has never before introduced it in the course of his reasonings; but has always employed that plain, significant figure, by which Christians are called ONE BODY. But the meaning will be plain and unembarrassed, if the verse be translated thus, as it certainly ought to be," Since

"the bread is one, we who are many, or we "all are one body, for we all partake of the "one bread".-The object of our participation being one, we all become knit together as the constituent members of one frame.

"Behold Israel, (adds St. Paul,) after the "flesh,"—that is, consider the Jews under their carnal dispensation,-" are not they "which eat of the sacrifices partakers of "the altar?"-Do they not by feasting upon the remainder of the peace offerings presented upon it, publicly profess their adherence to it?-publicly avow that they revere that altar as holy, and therefore that they worship and hold communion with that God to whom it'is dedicated, and participate of its benefits. Doubtless such persons are justly viewed, as approving and cordially embracing the whole Jewish religion !—That this is the true import of the verse, will appear still more evident, if we consider what Josephus and other writers inform usnamely, that it was held lawful for persons who were not wholly converts to the Jewish religion, to offer sacrifices in the Temple of Jerusalem. But though they were not worshippers of other gods: yet that to such