act of religious worship. Whether he was an impostor, or not, they certainly knew. In their long familiarity with him, they could not fail of understanding the nature of all his conduct. It was impossible that they should have thus commemorated a person whom they believed to be a cheat; especially a persón who left them no worldly benefits; who was hated and despised by almost all their countrymen; and to follow whom was productive of unceasing obloquy, contempt, and persecution. No human being ever commemorated one whom he believed to be an impostor, in this manner.

The institution itself is a prophecy of the death of Christ, and of his death on the cross. He had also repeatedly prophesied the same event before, both to his apostles and to others. It was publicly known, as the Pharisees prove in their conversation with Pilate, Matt. xxvii. 62, &c. With equal publicity had he declared his resurrection on the third day, as is manifest in the same passage. If he did not thus die-if he did not thus rise he was beyond all controversy proved to be an impostor, and would have been remembered only with execration. No person believed to be an impostor has ever been remembered otherwise.

If this institution was introduced after the period specified, this fact is, in the first place, contrary to the united declarations of Ecclesiastical History.

Secondly: It is inexplicable: and, I think, plainly impos

sible.

If the Lord's Supper was not introduced at the time specified, those to whom it was first proposed could not but certainly know that they had never heard of it before. The Christians to whom it was first proposed must have been those at Jerusalem, or at some other place; and the time of this proposal must have been either before, or after, the publication of the Gospel.

If the Christians to whom it was at first proposed were those at Jerusalem, they perfectly well knew the life and death of Christ; and the evidences of his mission, miracles, and character. If he had not lived, taught, wrought miracles, died, and risen again, in the manner declared, it is impossible that these persons should not have known the falsehood of these declarations. If they had not believed him to be the Messiah, they must have believed him to be an im

postor; and would never have commemorated him in a religious service. It is to be remembered, that these persons were all Jews, whose bigotry to their own religion, and hatred to Christianity, are proverbial and wonderful; and who would no more willingly, to say the least, have commemorated Christ as the Saviour of mankind, after than before his crucifixion, unless they had become completely convinced of his resurrection, and consequently of his Messiahship. The very proposal of such a commemoration they would have received only with indignation and horror. This certainly would have been the state of facts, if the institution had been attempted antecedently to the publication of St. Matthew's Gospel, written in Hebrew for the use of these very people.

If this sacrament was introduced after this period, and, (what is necessary to give even plausibility to the supposition) so long after, as to infer some obscurity, and oblivion of the events commemorated, the attempt would have been attended with two insuperable difficulties. The first is, St. Matthew declares, that Christ himself instituted this sacrament. Those to whom the proposal was now made for the first time must, of course, have seen that the apostles themselves had not obeyed the injunction of their master, and therefore falsely professed to believe him to be the Messiah. The account given by Matthew must have contradicted any accounts which they could give, and clearly convicted them of gross and absolute disobedience to Christ, and in a capital point of Christian practice. With Matthew also agree the other Evangelists. There must therefore have been an entire opposition between Matthew and the other Evangelists on the one side, and those who attempted to form this new institution on the other. Such a schism must have been too dangerous to have been ventured upon for the sake of any institution, in so early a period of the church, and would not improbably have terminated its existence.

The second difficulty is, St. Luke declares that the disciples began the celebration of this institution on the day of Pentecost, ten days only after Christ's ascension, or just about that time; and asserts, that they continued this practice daily, and weekly, without ceasing. See Acts ii. 42, 46; and Acts xx. 7. The last of these passages asserts this to have been the practice of the apostles, on the first day of the week in the

year 56, twenty-three years after the crucifixion. The Book of the Acts appears to have been finished in the year 64. The last declaration therefore assures us, that the celebration of the Lord's Supper continued to be a weekly practice of Christians until that time. Thus we learn from St. Luke, that Christians, as a body, regularly celebrated the Lord's Supper, under the authority of the apostles, for twenty-seven years after the crucifixion.

St. Paul was converted about the year 37. He wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians in the year 56. In this Epistle, chap. xi. 20, &c., he teaches us in the most decisive manner, that the Lord's Supper was a standing ordinance in the church at Corinth, and, by necessary analogy, in every other part of the world. The same thing he indicates, also, in chapter x. 21. As St Paul was converted four years only after the crucifixion, and was at Jerusalem with the other apostles, three years afterwards, it is impossible that he should not have known whether this ordinance was universally celebrated, or not; and whether it had, or had not been universally celebrated in the earliest moments of the apostolic church. St. Paul is thus a decisive witness of the truth of St. Luke's account. Of both these testimonies it is further to be observed, that they are given incidentally, without any design of establishing this fact, and for purposes of a totally different nature. They are therefore absolutely unexceptionable, and undesignedly confirmatory of each other.

1

It may here with propriety be added, that Justin Martyr, who flourished about, the year 130, and was born about the close of the first century, says, " All Christians, both of the city and the country, assembled on Sunday, because our Lord rose on that day; and then we hear read the writings of the prophets and apostles; then the person presiding makes a speech to the congregation, exhorting them to follow and perform the things which they hear. After this, we all unite in prayer, and then celebrate the sacrament; and such as are willing and able give alms." Here the celebration of this ordinance is declared by an unexceptionable witness to be the regular practice of all Christians throughout the world, on every Lord's day. The universality of this celebration at the period specified proves, beyond debate, that it was an original practice of all the apostles.

With these testimonies of the evangelists, and St. Paul before them, the primitive Christians would have cerainly seen that the institution was declared in the four Gospels, partienlarly in the three first, to have been instituted by Christ antecedently to his death; and accompanied by a command, requiring a continual celebration of it by all his followers. In the Acts, and the First Epistle to the Corinthians, it would be seen with equal certainty, that St. Luke and St. Paul declare the celebration to have corresponded exactly with this command, and to have been thus regular and universal from the beginning. Had the apostles then, the only persons who had sufficient authority to introduce an ordinance of religious worship, proposed the institution of this sacrament as a new thing, at any distance of time after the crucifixion, they would have been seen directly to contradict their own assertions; which declared it to be instituted by Christ before his death, and to have been celebrated regularly by themselves from that date. At the same time they must have attempted to impose another gross and impossible falsehood on their followers; viz. that they themselves had also regularly united in this celebration. It is obvious that an attempt to establish this institution in such circumstances would not only have been impracticable, but pre-eminently ridiculous; and equally evident, that no man who seriously made such an attempt could, in a religious service, have any followers.

Thus it is clear, that the Lord's Supper was instituted by Christ himself, at the time, and in the circumstances, specified; that it is a standing, unanswerable proof of his mission, and of the Gospel which records it; and that Christians, whenever they celebrate this ordinance, actually shew forth the Lord's death 'until he come.'

3. The Institution of this ordinance exhibits, in a strong light, the purity of Christ's character.

This sacrament was instituted by him as a commemoration of his death; and proves unanswerably, that he foresaw with certainty the time and the manner in which he should die. It proves therefore, beyond debate, the following things:

(1.) That he was a Prophet; because he foresaw, and foretold, his death, and the time, and the manner, in which he was to die.

(2.) That his death was voluntary: because, with this foresight, he might easily have avoided it.

(3.) That his death was intended to be an atonement for sin; or in other words, his body was broken, and his blood shed, for many.'

(4.) That he died without a crime.

No criminal, who can escape the death which rewards his crimes, ever yielded himself to such a death; particularly, to one so painful as that upon the cross.

At the same time, no person ever introduced, no person can be supposed to introduce, among any of mankind, much less among his friends and followers, a remembrance of himself as a malefactor, publicly convicted of an infamous crime, and put to death by an infamous punishment. No man ever wished to have any thing rembered concerning himself which was not creditable to his character. Much less would any man become the voluntary recorder of his own guilt, and the remembrancer of his own shame. But here, the death was in the highest degree infamous; solicited by a whole nation, and its government; awarded on the charge of a capital crime; and attended with circumstances of singular disgrace, as well as of unexampled suffering. The commemoration of it was instituted, by the sufferer, from his own choice merely, with the full knowledge and direct declaration of all these facts; and attended with such circumstances as to perpetuate the remembrance of them throughout every generation of his followers. He who can believe these things to have been done by an impostor, and to have been recorded and celebrated in a religious service by the followers of an impostor, can believe any thing.

4. The sacrament is intended to admonish Christians of the second coming of Christ.

ment.

For, as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come;' that is, to the judgThis passage is an explicit declaration of one of the purposes, accomplished by the celebration of the Lord's Supper; to wit, the exhibition of his death, both to themselves and to mankind, until his second coming. This exhibition therefore was intended solemnly to remind them of this great truth; that the same Saviour, whose death they thus celebrate, who was once broken on the cross, and is now symbolically broken