by no means the signification of the original. The Greek word (oyos) here rendered guilty, has a variety of meanings, which depend on the connexion in which it stands. In Mark xiv. 64, it is properly translated guilty,—“ And they all condemned him to be guilty of death." But in Mark iii. 29, Hebrews ii. 15, and some other passages, it cannot be so rendered. Take for example the verse in Hebrews; "And deliver them who through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage." Here the same Greek word is translated subject to, and will not bear the other sense. In the passage before us, it has precisely the same force as in James ii, 10, where it has been in the same manner mistranslated. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." That St. James did not intend to say what our translators have made him express, is apparent both from the nature of the case, and from the context. How can he, who breaks one law of God, be actually as guilty, as he who breaks them all, or five, or two of them? The writer had no intention of advancing so strange a proposition; and in the next verse he supplies us with a commentary, and fixes the meaning of the word which we are considering. He continues, "For he that said, do not commit adultery, said also, do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, -thou art become a transgressor of the law." By disobeying one commandment of God, the offender shows a disregard to that divine authority, which is the source of all of them, and is consequently guilty of disrespect to them all. This is exactly the meaning of the same word as used by St. Paul. By partaking of the communion in an indecent manner, the Corinthians gave evidence that they were unmoved by the remembrance of their Saviour's sufferings, which the Supper was designed to commemorate, and thus became guilty of disrespect to the body and blood of the Lord.

"But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." That is, let him seriously consider the purposes and signification of the rite, and the affecting circumstances of its institution, and in. this manner bring himself to a fit state of mind for its observance.

“For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." By "not discerning the Lord's body," is meant, not making that distinction between the common and sacramental use of bread and wine, which the design of the ordinance requires not respecting them as the symbols of Christ's body and blood. The word damnation is not to be taken in its theological sense, but in that of condemnation or punishment; and what the punishment was, is declared in the following verse-" For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep," The penalty, therefore, was a temporal one, necessary to preserve the purity and respectability of a new religion, and inflicted in order to save the guilty from a more terrible and lasting chastisement, or as is said in the thirty-" second verse, that they "should not be condemned with the world."

The remainder of the passage may be easily understood, with the assistance of the foregoing explanations.*

* To give a connected view of it, however, I will here subjoin the paraphrase of Locke, commencing with the verse which immediately precedes it." So that the eating of this bread, and the drinking of this cup of the Lord's Supper, is not to satisfy hunger and thirst, but to show forth the Lord's death till he comes. Inasmuch that he who eats this bread, and drinks this cup of the Lord, in an unworthy manner, not suitable to that end, shall be guilty of a misuse of the body and blood of the Lord. By this institution therefore of Christ, let a man examine himself, and according to that let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. For he who eats and drinks after an unworthy manner, without a due respect had to the Lord's body, in a discriminating and purely sacramental use of the bread and wine that

It relates entirely to circumstances in the Corinthian church, which cannot be expected to take place at the present time, and in the present state of Christianity. .There is nothing in it to alarm the conscientious, or to affect the conclusions which we have asserted with regard to the qualifications of communicants. The rite of the Supper was instituted by our Lord a short time previous to his mournful death. It was intended as a memorial of the sufferings which he underwent for our sakes, and to excite those affections and determinations within us, which result in holy living and charity. Let all therefore who acknowledge the mission of Jesus Christ, and desire to imitate his character, and live according to his precepts, assemble around his table with reverence and soberness, but without scruple and without fear.

SECTION V.

Historical Sketch of various Opinions concerning the Lord's Supper.

HAVING endeavoured, in the foregoing sections, to give a strictly scriptural account of the authority, nature and design, efficacy and obligation of the rite of the Lord's Supper, I shall now attempt a rapid view of the different

represents it, draws punishment on himself by so doing. And hence it is many among you are weak and sick, and a good number are gone to their graves. But if we would discriminate ourselves, i. e. by our discriminating use of the Lord's Supper, we should not be judged, i. e. punished by God. But being punished by the Lord, we are corrected, that we may not be condemned hereafter with the unbelieving world. Wherefore, my brethren, when you have a meeting for celebrating the Lord's Supper, stay for one another, that you may eat it altogether, as partakers all in common of the Lord's table, without division or distinction. But if any one be hungry, let him eat at home to satisfy his hunger, that so the disorders in these meetings may not draw on you the punishment above mentioned. What else remains to be rectified in this matter, I will set in order when I come."

opinions which have been entertained on the subject, from the earliest ages downward. It will present a humiliating picture of the weakness and waywardness of the human mind; and will show in what wildernesses and labyrinths faith may lose itself when it leaves the direct path of simplicity and the gospel. We may thus be led to prize more highly than before the plain histories of this institution, which the sacred writers have preserved to us; to esteem more lightly than ever, mere human forms, traditions and authority; to be more and more satisfied that Christianity is an intelligible system; and to resolve with added earnestness to acknowledge no other rule of belief and practice, than the word of God.

We gather from Paul's account, that this rite was in his time generally observed in the church; that it was celebrated in remembrance of Christ; and that all who believed in Christ partook in it. No intimation is given that any were forbidden its use, though complaint is made of disgraceful circumstances attending its observance.

After the date of the epistle to the Corinthians, we have no further intelligence of the Supper, till we come to the fathers of the second century; and they begin to talk a very different language from St. Paul. We now find it called a mystery. The heathens had their mysteries and secret ceremonies, and the Christians were too fond of imitating them. The Lord's Supper was naturally fixed upon for such a purpose, and was pressed into the service of superstition. This first great step being taken, there is no cause that we should wonder at any extravagances which might follow; for the idea of mystery a and concealment being once attached to a doctrine or a ceremony, the imagination is left without restraint, to indulge itself in all its errantry. No matter what the errors are, for they all take a subordinate rank under the grand and

leading error, that there can be any mummery or mys ticism in a pure and perfect religion.

Being established as a mystery, therefore, one of the first abuses of the communion, was the denial of it to those who had incurred the censures of the church. It was also concealed with great care from the pagans and the uninitiated. In this way it came to be regarded with an indefinite awe and superstitious reverence. The opinions concerning it, however, had not yet assumed a systematic form; though they were expressed in an exceedingly obscure and figurative style. Even now we are presented with outlines of the strange doctrines which were afterwards established. The Logos was supposed to be united in a supernatural way with the bread and wine; and the communicants were thought to partake in some mystical sense of the body and blood of our Lord. These views may be met with in the works of Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and Clemens Alexandrinus, who use particularly strong language, and justify it by the words "This is my body," and "This is my blood." But Tertullian held those words to be figurative.

It was also at this early age that the Lord's Supper was spoken of as a sacrifice, by some in aurative, by others in a literal sense. Cyprian, who wrote in the third century, asserted that it was a real oblation, offered up to the Deity by the minister, who stood in the capacity of priest.

Many superstitious notions and practices were the natural offspring of such opinions as these; and they multiplied from year to year. A divine virtue was almost of - course attributed to the mysterious elements; and they were supposed to operate as a direct charm, and to possess an intrinsic sanctifying influence. An idea of this kind could not fail to be of a dangerous moral tendency. The communion-and the same was the case with the rite of baptism-was soon considered as essential to sal