*i*^ft i*fc
h
I
XY
/
Vn
gaa
^
,*M
'■■
«&V..
lprescntco to
ft be Xibran?
of tbc
mntvereit^ of ftoronto
NOTES
ON
Qtf)t ^rrface
TO THE
KHEMISH TESTAMENT
(PRINTED IN DUBLIN, 1813.) .
i J
BY CATHOLIC US.
MODO TIB! PnoilX, AUTHOREM, QUEM> FIJfGJT0) ^^
Dublin:
W*
<&.'
PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR,
BY JOHN JONES, 40, SOUTH GREAT GEORGeU-SIREVT,
— -»©««~.
1817.
PREFACE.
The Preface to which the following Notes are
written, having accidentally fallen into the Author's
hands, arrested his attention by (he unwarranted
assertions it advanced in the first few lines,, and led
him to read the whole ; and such did he find it's
contents throughout, as induced him to compare
with the Original Greek and vulgar Latin, the
quotations therein made from the translation it
discovered an unrestrained disposition to vilify, as
well as those of the version it so highly extolled.
The result of that comparison, with a few additional
observations, are contained in the following Pages.
Many quotations, and other particulars, are pur-
posely passed over unnoticed, as, if all were to be
remarked, it would produce a large volume, instead
of that limited compass of a few sheets, which are
sufficient to shew the inconsistencies, misrepresenta-
tions, &c. of the Editors, which is the Author's ob-
ject, as well as to invite to a discovery of the truth,
A
IV
by an unprejudiced comparison of tlie two versions,
jiikI thus induce to a liberal reading of the Scrip-
tures ; of which the more we know, we shall be less
easily led into religious error, by yielding a blind
submission to the unsanctioned dictates of any cla«
of men, whose doctrines may differ from Holy
AY rit ; and be thus guarded against the vices which
follow from an ignorance or misrepresentation of
those sacred oracles, and which are the distinguish-
ing characteristic of modern times. The more we
are acquainted with the awful truths they contain,
the more regular are our lives likely to be ; we shall
probably be better members of society, and more
amenable to the laws of our country, as well as
obedient to the laws of God. That this, and not
a desire of public notice, is the writer's object, is
obvious from the withholding his name.
It may be necessary for the reader to be in-
formed that the quotations from Scripture are
made in the words of the Rhemish Translation,
(to which the subject of the following Pages is a
Preface) and the Douay version, published by
McNs in 1813; and that, as that Edition has
not yet been published farther than the Epistle to
nanSj tin quotations of any sul • *nt
part of tin »eM Testament, are made from AVo-
gan's Edition of 1810, which is sanctioned by
the authority of Doctor Troy.
If any words in the following pages seem harsh
to the Reader, he is to observe, they are the Editors'
own words quoted from the Preface, not originating
with the writer of the following sheets.
A T . II. The Reader should correct with his pern
the following
ERRATA.
Page Line
24 .... 14 for xvii. read ii.
25 '33 — ao\?.oyoi read crvXXoyoi.
37 2 I — attention read .attention.
-13. . . .21 read (, before the word as.
45. ... 10 read a comma after pastor.
53 . ... 4 read a comma after opinion.
5 4, 55, 57, for vgtsGvlegos read Tret7~vltgos.
57 3Sfor 21 read 2 4.
iy. . . . 15 — vaiHtriov read nriaaiov.
G2. ... 11 — (j.ilx)>ov,ssv read /xilxvo-ncnv.
64 4 dele comma after 1S13.
lb 15 for u(msi» read u/A.oaiv.
lb 31 — Sarbonne read Sorbonne.
65. ... 16 read ) before is.
69. ... 4 for eleptic read elliptic.
lb 20 — Cliolons read Chalons.
70 I — affroient read oflroient.
lb 2 3 — ceil! read cieux.
.S3 6" — word read words.
VO l — 7 read vi.
01 13 read ? after Church.
03 SO for Biblm read Biblios ,
104 31 read they before have.
Ill 14 for 98 read 93.
1-J 10 dele a before plena.
125 l> read : after forward.
That the Header may not be ignorant of the authority
by which < the Preface, and that Edition of the Rhemish
translation to which it is prefixed were published, the subjoined
title page will inform him.
THE
HOLY CATHOJLIC
NEW TESTAMENT,
PATRONISED BY
His Gkace the Most Rev. Dr. O'Reilly, Roman Catholic Lord
Primate of all Ireland, and Archbishop of Armagh.
His Grace the Most Rev. Dr. Troy,* Roman Catholic Archbishop
of Dublin.
His Grace the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, R. C. Coad. Archbishop
of Dublin, and President of the Royal College of St. Patrick's,
Maynooth.
The Right Rev. Dr. Moylan, R. Catholic Bishop of Cork.
The Right Rev. Dr. Power, R. Catholic Bishop of Waterford.
The Right Rev. Dr. Regan, R. C. Coad. Bishop of Ferns.
The Right Rev. Dr. Delany,R.C. Bishop of Kildareand Leighliu.
The Right Rev. Dr. O'Reilly, R. C. Bishop of Kilmore.
The Right Rev. Dr. Mansfield, V. C. of Ossory.
The Most Rev. Dr. Bodkin, R. C. Warden of Galway.
The Rev. Dr. John Murphy, Archdeacon of Cork.
The Rev. Dr. M'Carthy, Dean of Cork.
And near three hundred R. C. Clergymen in different parts of
Ireland.
TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN VULGATE,
And diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek, SfC
"i .-""ni-n" 88 " 1'""% — .
DUBLIN:
PRINTED BY JAMES CUM MING AND CO.
At the Ilibernia Press, No. 1, Temple-lane.
1813.
f Now li. C. Primate of all Ireland.,.
OBSERVATIONS
OV THE
FOURTH SESSION
OF THE
COUNCIL OF TRENT.
THE Editors having prefixed a translation of the
Council of Trent to that Preface, published by the autho-
rity of the Roman Catholic Primate and Hierarchy of
that Communion in Ireland, in 1813, whereby the autho-
rity of unwritten traditions is sanctioned, under the
penalty of an anathema, it is necessary to make a few
observations thereon, previous to the Notes on the
Preface itself as well as to give a copy of that Trans?
lation :
TRANSLATION.
SESS. IF.
Xi The holy Oecumenick and general Council of
Trent, in the Holy Ghost lawfully assembled,
the three aforesaid legates of the Apostolic See
presiding therein, having always this in view, that
all errors being taken away, the purity of the
Gospel should be preserved in the Church ; that
B
6
Gospel,* before' promised by the Prophets in the
Holy Scripture*, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, tirst promulgated with his own mouth,
and afterwards commanded his Apostles to preach
the same to allf nations as the source of every
saving truth and moral discipline : and the Synod
clearly seeing that this truth and discipline is
contained in the written word, and in the un-
written traditions, which the Apostles received
from the mouth of Christ himself, or from thej
Apostles themselves, being the dictate of the Holy
Ghost to them, and delivered as it were from hand
to hand, came down to us. Following the examples
of the Orthodox Fathers, with due veneration and
piety, receiving all the books as well of the Old
as of the New Testament, seeing that God is the
immediate author of both ; and also receiving
these traditions appertaining to faith and morals,
as coming from the mouth of Christ, or dictated
by the Holy Ghost, and held in the Catholic
Church by a continued succession. The Svnod
therefore thought proper to annex to this Decree,,
a catalogue of the Sacred Books, lest any doubt
might arise concerning those that were approved
of. They are the following : of the Old Testament,
the five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy ; Josuc, Judges,
Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Para-
lipomenon, iirst and second of Esdras, which is
called Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job,
* JfrrmiaSj chep. xx\\. toi\ 33.— + Mark, chap. xvi. yer. 15.
X 1 Tliessalonians, chap. ii. >t<r. 1 J.
7
the Psalter of David, in number one hundred and
fifty Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle ot
Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Je-
remias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve
minor Prophets, that is, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias
Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias,
Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias, two books of the
Machabees, first and, second. Of the New Testa-
ment, four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John, the Acts of the Apostles, written
by Luke the Evangelist ; the fourteen Epistles of
Paul the Apostle : to the Romans, two to the
Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to
the Philippians, to the Collossians, two to the
Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to
Philemon, to the Hebrews, two Epistles of Peter
the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of
James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and
the Apocalypse of John the Apostle. Now if any
one, reading over these books in all their parts, as
they are usually read in the Catholic Church, and
being in the Latin Vulgat Edition, does not hold
them for Sacred and Canonical, and knowing the
aforesaid traditions, does industriously contemn
them, let him be Anathema."
On the subject of this Council may it not be
asked,
Does ft the command of our Lord Jesus Christ,
given to his Apostles to preach the Holy Scriptures
to att nations, as the source of every saving truth,"
afford a reason for <c forbidding" the people (as
page 1. L. 7. of the Preface) " to road in the vulgar
la mil in lies lliose Holy Scriptures" which contain
sueh a truths a pearl of so great price? Is this
fulfilling the command of Christ the Son of God?
Surely nothing can be more directly in contra-
diction to it.
If " the Holy Scriptures are the source of every
saving truth and moral discipline/' (and that they
arc every Christian will join with that Council in
declaring,,) what occasion can there possibly be for
" unwritten traditions," which can never be proved
to be certain ; since., if they ever had existence,, the
period in which they must have been " received,
either from Christ or the Apostles/' (near eighteen
hundred years ago) is too distant for them to be
" handed down/' from one to another, through a
succession of so many generations as have inter-
vened since our Saviour's days, (and that too by
hearsay,) and still be preserved pure and incorrupt.
For it is certain, and the slightest observation will
be sufficient to prove, that every person who
repeats what he has been told, (generally, we may
almost say invariably,) relates it in different Avoids,
and, of course, renders it capable of a different
meaning, if not an opposite meaning, according to
the conception of the hearer, or the power of his
comprehension. How great then, may it not be
easy to conceive, the errors likely, (it might be said
certain,) to proceed through so long a series of
successional narration as that from generation to
generation, beginning in the first, and continuing
down to the nineteenth, century?
A modem writer of the Roman Catholic Com-
munion says,, " The words and writings of the
Apostles, by the distance of time, could not avoid
having- the fate of other authors, of being liable to
misrepresentations, false glosses, changes and cor-
ruptions."* And, in the same page, honestly
observes, that " the farther we are removed from
the source of any truth, which depends upon au-
thority more than natural reason, the harder it is
to trace our way back to it."
If then so great difficulty has existed to preserve
the " written word," as contained in the Holy
Scriptures, pure, (and numerous are the reasonings
of the Editors of the Rhemish Testament to shew
that they have not been preserved from errors, f) how
much more must " the unwritten oral traditions be
liable to false' glosses, changes and corruptions,"
and of course be uncertain, erroneous and impure ?
Under such circumstances, are these traditions, sup-
posing them to exist, to be preferred, or set in
opposition to the doctrines of a Saviour in the
Holy Scriptures, which, the Editors and Council of
Trent confess, " do contain every saving truth and
moral discipline?" Is our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, who commanded his Apostles to preach those
Scriptures to all nations, as " the source of every sav-
ing truth," and was the first to publish the Gospel
of Salvation with his own mouth? Is he less worthy
of bcinjr credited than fallible man ? Are the e van-
's
* Manning's short way to end Disputes, 33.
-f Page 7, ct alibi.
10
csccnt traditions of mortal creatures to be held
more authentic, and of greater moment as a means
of man's salvation, than the doctrines of that Re-
deemer, who purchased that salvation with his
own death, and scaled it with his blood, and
taught us how it is to be obtained ? Who, on this
very subject of traditions, sharply rebuked the
Scribes and Pharisees, telling them, in words appli-
cable to the abettors of the boasted, tho' unproved,
traditions of the present age, " You make void the
commandment of God, that you may observe your
own tradition."* May not this rebuke be applied
to those who reject the second commandment of the
decalogue, as is done, by leaving it out of Butler's
Catechism, " published by the authority of the Four
Roman Catholic Archbishops of Ireland, asageneral
Catechism for the kingdom ?" Is not this " making
void the commandment of God?" while theRhemish
Doctors teach that the unwritten traditions of the
Apostles, are no less to be received than their writ-
ten Epistles, which, (these Epistles being admitted
bv both Protestants and Roman Catholics to be
Canonical,) the Editors of the Rhemish Testament
would have to be believed and taken as Canonical
also.
They who make this declaration seem not be
aware of the meaning of the word Tradition in the
cited portion of this Epistle, by which St. Paul does
not mean any tradition delivered to himself by our
Lord Jesus Christ while on earth, for he had not
been his Disciple, but, on the contrary, an opposer
of Christ and his doctrines, as well as a persecutor
» St. Mark vii.9.
11
of his followers : He means, by that word, no more
than the doctrine which he himself preached to these
Thessalonians, desiring them to " stand fast and
hold the traditions/' (or things delivered, which is
the original signification of the Greek word) and
which they had learned from him " whether by
word/' (in preaching) concerning the time when
the wicked one was to be revealed ;"* (about
which, it appears, there were many curious in*
quiries, and fruitless conjectures and calcula-
tions among the Thessalonians and others of those
days ; and these preachings, or traditions, he might
readily suppose they, as zealous of the profession
they had lately embraced, might still retain in me-
mory, it not being long since he had delivered them
by word, " when with them,") or " by his" first
" Epistle," written not more than a year before.
If any Roman Catholic, or any other person, will
produce these alleged traditions, and adduce au-
thorities to prove them to have been received from
" the mouth of Christ himself, or his Apostles/'
then will they deserve credit, and obtain belief.
But this text is so far from being an argument, for
believing the unwritten doctrinal traditions of the
Church of Rome, that it is a stronjr argument
against them ; for if they have lost the preaching of
St. Paul, which Irenams, one of their fathers in-
forms us St. Luke wrote. f Can any one suppose,
. * 2 Thess. ii. 5, &c.
t Lucas Sectator Pauli Evangelium a Paulo prasdicatum Uteris
maudavit. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. L. r. c. 8. quoted from f ren.
L. 5. c. 1.
12
that " unwritten traditions" would be preserved
through such a succession of ages, and remain un-
corrupted i
This Council declares, that " God is the author
of the Scriptures, both of the Old and the New
Testament ;" and can any one be so presumptuous
as once to say or think, that his infinite wisdom has
not, by these stable Scriptures of his written word,
taken a better means of instructing man and pro-
viding for his salvation, than by the loose traditions
of any man or number of men, however high
their character for virtue and piety may have been I
or that the God of heaven, who delivered the law
in his own person, and sent his own Son to fulfil
it, would suffer that law to be superseded by, or
leave his glory, or the salvation of his creatures,
" made in his own image," to depend on the
fluctuating allegation of man's traditions I
But though the authority of Christ himself, which
was the highest that could be given, and who was
not silent on this subject, (having told the
scribes and Pharisees that " they made void
the commandment of God in their traditions,") may
not have weight with those who yield implicit belief
to this Council, the opinion and testimony of Ig-
natius, one of the apostolic fathers, and a disciple
of St. John the Evangelist, and companion of St.
Paul, may convince, by shewing that the traditions
of the Apostles were written traditions, and not
oral ; of which Eusebius informs us, that <c when
on his way to Rome, he addressed the Churches by
which he passed, and exhorted them to hold stead-
IS
fastly the traditions of the Apostles, which, as he
testified that they were now for their preservation,
committed to writing, he deemed it necessary
should be plainly inculcated."*
Is not this testimony of Ignatius a confirmation
that the traditions mentioned in 2 Thess. 11. 1^.
were the preachings of St. Paul, already noticed,
and stated by him to have been " delivered by word
or by his Epistles?" If such traditions, as the
members of the Roman Catholic communion allege
to have existed, had been delivered to the Apostles,
would they not have committed them to writing
(whatever the subject of them might have been)
for the g-ood of the Church, (as Eusebius proves to
have been done in other instances) instead of
trusting- them to such unfaithful depositories as
fleeting- words and unfaithful memories ? Is it to
be supposed that these very Apostles, in whose
presence Christ so sharply rebuked the scribes and
pharisees on the subject of their traditions, as
already mentioned, would presume to deliver tra-
ditions of their own .
And we may readily conclude, from the number
of Epistles St. Paul wrote, as well as his anxiety
wgiilgE'Tre re xnr$i% t%ss6xt ty,s luv AitoslaXcjv itx^x&oTzus %?
virtf xvpxXzixs xxi ErrPA<J>HS ^ ptzflvgotAevos AixIvttut-Qxi xvxpitxo*
r,yulo. Euseb. L. 11 1. (J. 36. P. 131. y.xi A 8 xa<r J £ xx.o\u9o^ IlatAg, % vtt
sxtitov Kzqvsso[x-c\iov cuxfycX'ov, rt (ZtGxiu KxltQslo. Lucas quoq ; sectator
Pauii, Evangelium a Paulo praedicatum Litefus mamlavit. Euseb.
L. 5. C. 8. P. 219, quoted from Irea. L. 3. C. 1.
C
14
that Timothy should " bring to him the parch-
ments (probably containing some of his writings)
which he had left at Troas with Carpus/' that he
would not have neglected to write any doctrines
which concerned the Church, instead of tearing
them to the uncertain vehicle of the vague oral
words of fallible men. And it may be farther
observed, that if these supposed traditions existed,
and contained any thing in support of the Roman
Catholic, and in opposition to the principles of the
Protestant communion, they would be produced.
NOTES ON THE PREFACE
TO THE
RHEMISH TESTAMENT,
PRINTED IN DUBLIN, 1813.
Page 1.— Line 1, 2. — u The Holy Scriptures are not the
words of men, but the word of God, which can save our souls."
What occasion is there for oral traditions, or
men's reports of hearsay stories and changeable
tales, when it is thus declared, as truly it ought to
be, that " the word of God can save our souls V
This doctrine of traditions, so much talked of, be-
comes nugatory and useless ; and, as God's wisdom
would not sanction a nullity, the very confession is
sufficient to prove how futile such traditions would
be.
Page 1. — Line 9, 10.— iC He that will not hear the Church."
Matth. xviii. 16.— (The Catholic Church) " the pillar and
ground of truth."
The Editors here take on themselves, persaltam,
to make that general, which is only mentioned as of
a supposed particular case, and, without farther ce-
remony or authority, assume that it is the Roman
Catholic Church that is here meant.
Taking the whole context together, it does not
appear that the word Church, made use of here,,
was ever intended to signify a body of men, such
as now exists under the name of the Christian
c2
Church, much less any sect or part of that Church,
which had no existence at the time these words
were spoken, (For " the Disciples were first named
Christians at Antioch," at a subsequent period,
after the crucifixion) but a number of respectable
men publicly assembled, who should be made ac-
quainted with the difference which existed between
the two persons alluded to in this quotation, and
appointed witnesses of the conciliatory disposition
of the one, as well as the obstinacy of the other.
The words are, " If thy brother shall offend
against thee, go and rebuke him, between thee
and him alone ; if he shall hear thee, thou shalt
gain thy brother, and if he will not hear thee, join
with thee, besides one or two other, that in the
mouth of two or three witnesses," (according to the
Law, Deut. xix. 15,) " every word may stand, and
if he will not hear them, tell the Church .") In
this supposed case of offence between two persons,
(one of whom is obstinate, the other forgiving,)
in order, if possible, to procure a reconciliation,,
the latter is directed to take every step he can pri-
vately, first by himself, then before one or two more,
instead of exposing the parties, by making their
difference a subject of public clamour, and if these
should fail, he was then to make it openly known
to a greater number, called together or selected for
the purpose, that his conduct towards his brother
may appear clear, and the reason be known why he
ceased to associate with him ; which is the obvious
sense of" let him be to thee as the heathen and
the publican," with whom the Jews did not asso-
17
ciate. Thus it is explained by Justin M * that
'•' telling it to the Church is admonishing him,
when his obstinacy needs, ««'* »«»» publickly."
Hence it appears that the word Church, here
made use of, cannot mean the Roman Catholic
Church, as the Editors in the very next line, with-
out farther ceremony, proof or authority, assume
for it that title, to the exclusion of every other,
though no such Church existed, and no such
appeal could be made to it at that time : for
Christianity itself was not then established ; and
no Catholic Church, of course, had then met in
council, (which is alleged to constitute a Church)
nor for the first three centuries, (the first being in
the 325th -of Christianity,) — so that the Roman
Catholic Church has no authority, from this text,
for assuming a title which is of a subsequent date.
Nor has it any better ground from that of 1 Tim.
iii. 15, for calling itself " the pillar and ground
of truth," which is nothing less than assumption
without authority, and arrogance unsanctioned.
If this be not that " pride and self-sufficiency" with
which the Editors wantonly charge others, (line 13)
what can deserve those epithets? As well might any
other sect assume this title of Catholic Church as the
Church of Rome, for any thing that is contained
in this quotation, or the chapter from which it is
taken ; as neither Catholic, nor Roman, nor any
word expressive of either, exists in its whole extent.
* Justin Mart. 508,
IB
It is the house of God which is there called the
Church of the tiring God, (iu the very words which
precede lliis misapplied quotation) that is " the
pillar and "round of the truth." It is not Roman
Catholic, which the Apostle never heard of, nor
Protestant, nor Mahometan, nor any sect of any
description or denomination whatever, but " the
congregation of faithful men, in which the pure
word of God was preached" by St. Paul and
Timothy, " and the sacraments duly administered
according to Christ's ordinance."* The Church
spoken of in this place is most evidently that of
Ephesus, over which Timothy (to whom this
Epistle was written,) was placed, by St. Paul, to
guard it against the pernicious doctrines of
Judaizing Christians, Gnostics, &c. &c. &c. ; and
in this sense the words do not mean the universal
or Catholic Church, but one most particular and
special, being limited to the Church at Epfiesus
alone, which he calls " the pillar of the truth,"
because in it were taught the doctrines of Chris-
tianity and knowledge of the true God, in contra-
distinction to the <c prophane novelties of words"
taught by the Greek philosophers, " and oppositions
of knowledge falsely so called," 1 Tim. vi. 20. And
beside this, it is to be observed that as the inani-
mate idol of " Jupiter's oftspringf was here wor-
* 39 Artie. .
+ The vulgate and Rhemish Doctors have mistranslated the
original word A*oWi»jj, which (being derived from Aim Jovis and
Tutfe cado) signifies u fallen from Jupiter," and is so trans.
luted, correctly, in the Protestant version: and to shew more
19
shipped in the temple of Diana :" (and idols are
called a lie by St. Paul, Rom. i. 25.) This Church
of Ephesus, therefore, where the true God was
" worshipped in spirit and truth" (it is fair to con-
clude) was therefore emphatically called the
" Church of the living God/' and " the pillar and
ground of the truth/' and designedly placed in
opposition to that heathen temple where such
idolatry was practised ; and this without the most
distant idea of having any general application of
his words made to the Christian Church at Iars-e,
and certainly not to the Roman Catholic, which did
clearly what it was that had been alleged to have thus " fallen,"
the translators give the word " image," printed in italics, to
mark that it is not expressed in the original, but included in the
sense and meaning of the word corresponding with the word
eeya^alos, which is the substantive understood ; the omission of
which in the Greek is indicated by the article %. St. Luke here
refers to the history of the little image of Diana, which Pliny
(page 491) relates was made by a famous artificer, Canitiae, and
was said to have dropt down from heaven into the city of
Ephesus : a story fabricated by the heathen isolators of that city,
as a miracle, such as those of the present age, to awe the people
and bind them to their superstitious tenets and idolatrous prac-
tices.
A farther error of this verse, in the vulgate and Rhemish Tes-
tament, is the omission of the word (Qsxs) goddess, for which
there appears to be no reason, except that if retained, it would
prove the error of the translators, as the masculine article %
cannot agree with the feminine &«<:.
It might be farther observed, that Diana was the object of
worship at Ephesus, and not " Jupiter's offspring," who were
very numerous, viz. Hercules, Apollo, Mars, Vulcan, the
Graces, Muses, Mercury,. &c. &c. &c. and were not worshipped
there.
20
not then exist. If wo take the word in its original
language, we shall the better be enabled to under-
stand what was meant by it when first used by the
Apostles. In the Greek the word is wnXnenat and
signifies the called, that is., they who were called
out of the vices and heathenish practices of the
Gentile nations, and became members of that body
of men who were called Christians, because they
believed in Christ, which St. Paul calls " the Church
of the first born"* (according to the Rhemish
translation) but in the Greek " the general assembly
and Church of the first born," (leaving " general
assembly" out of their translation ;) and who, in his
Epistle to the Romans, he says, (C Have the first
fruits of the Spirit,"f that is, the first fruits of the
spiritual worship of God, in contradistinction to the
corporal worship of dumb idols. Thus it appears
that the Church is the collective body of Christians,
or all those over the face of the whole earth, who
profess to believe in Christ, and acknowledge him
to be the Saviour of mankind. And the word Ca-
tholic (universal, general,) was emphatically given
by the Apostles to the Christian Church, in order to
shew that no particular sect or assembly of men, of
any denomination, were to assume a superiority
over others, nor arrogate to themselves the title, or
exclusive right of calling themselves the Church,
or the only Church ; but that those only are of the
Catholic, general, or universal Church of Christ,
who profess and bclio\c, and act according to the
* Heb. xii. 23.— -t Roro. viii. 23.
21
faith which can save, that faith and confession of
Christ's Divinity, which Peter made, and which
Christ told him was the rock (Wfe*)* on which he
would build his Church. f And this disposition
we see sharply reproved by Paul, and severely con-
* That this is the sense of this verse, appears not only from
the Avord mi\§» y which is a rock, and not wflgos which is a stone ;
that is a piece of a rock, and not the rock itself, as Peter was no
more than a part of the foundation of the Churck, working toge-
ther with the rest of the Apostles ; Christ being the head. Had
Peter been the rock here meant, Christ would not have spoken in
the third person, as he did, but would have addressed him di-
rectly in the second, and said, " On thee, Peter, I will build my
Church," if it had been his intention to have it understood that
Peter was to have been the foundation of it.
The members of the Roman Catholic Communion have therefore
but a flimsy foundation for making Peter the head of their Church,
when they are reduced to the necessity of taking one word (ml^os)
for another, (ml^x.) And this the Editors admit in their note,
in locum, where they say, " Christ himself (nolPeter) being not
only the supereminent foundation, but also the founder of the
same" (the Church.) And they reluctantly admit, that St. Augus-
tine refers the word Petra to Christ, in this verse," which" they
add, " no doubt he did, because the termination of Petros and
Petra in Latin are diverse." And notwithstanding this intended
animadversion, there was good reason for what St. Augustine
said, for in 1 Cor. x. 4, Christ is formally called a " Rock," by
St. Paul, where he says, " they drank of that spiritual rock, and
that rock (w^a) was Christ.'.' But St. Augustine had still far-
ther authority in John xi. 19, where Christ says to ihe Jews,
u destroy this temple (vaoy lalov) and in three days 1 will raise it
up," by which the Evangelist tells us, verse 21, that " he spake
of the Temple of his Body." Does not Aug'usline clearly deny
the supremacy of Peter by what he said ?
+ Matth. xvi. 18.
D
L)C)
demncd, Where heccnsuresiheCorinthians * among
whom there were some arrogant sects, (similar to
thoife of the nineteenth century,) who said, ce I in-
deed am of Paul, and I am of Appollos, and I of
Cephas, and I of Christ," -with whom he reasoned,
and whom lie reprimanded, saying, " Christ is not
divided," that " not Paul, but Christ was cruci-
fied for all, and all are baptized in the name of
Christ." This is what the ancient writers call the
Catholic or Universal Church, which Theodoret
(one of the most learned and pious Fathers of the
Church, who lived in the fourth century) in locum
calls *vx\oyos r \m Trislivovluv c < the collection of believers."
This givesthe true meaning of the Christian Church;
not a certain number of bishops assembled in Coun-
cils, as the Papists would haveittobeunderstood;for
bishops are not the only believers, and of course are
neither the Church, nor " the pillar and ground of
the truth ;" (which the Editors of the Rhemish
Testament, and their patrons the Titular Bishops,
would have the world to believe,) where those
Councils were composed of bishops, not of the
Christian Church as a collective body, but members
of one particular Church only, and of that particular
Church too, which was prejudiced in favour of
every allegation that could contribute to support,
without the authority of Holy Writ, the tenets it
professed, and the practices it pursued.
But this will still farther appear when it is con-
aidered that by the Church, in the place cited, is
meant and expressed, " the House of God." And
* 1 Cor. i. 11.
23
it is well known, and the Scripture informs us, that
the Church, or assembly of Christians in St. Paul's
time, were accustomed to meet in the houses of pri-
vate persons, not in public buildings, as now, 1 Cor
i. 11, cc those who are of the house of Chloe ;" ?'. e.
of the Church assembled in Chloe's house. Also in
Coloss. iv. 15, cc salute Nymphas and the Church,
that is in his house." Also Rom. xvi. 5. — 1 Cor.
xvi. 19. Philemon 2. And in Col. i. 24,
i( Christ's body is called the Church/'
All these shew that the word Church does not mean
the Roman Catholic Church, and that the places'
quoted by the Editors, are not exclusively applica-
ble to that Church. And if we examine other places
of the New Testament, where this word occurs, it
will be found to have no better claim to this title.
For instance, in Acts xv. 3, 4, where Paul and
Barnabas were brought by the Church of Antioch
to Jerusalem, " they were received by the Church
and the Apostles, and the ancients." Which of
these will the professors of Popery call the Catholic
Church, in the acceptation of that word; for they are
both certainly admitted to have been Churches as
well as that of Rome, and they were Christian, and
prior to it ? The Church of Antioch, either here of
in Acts xi. 26, was not the Roman Catholic Church;
for Antioch was not Roman ; nor the Church of Jeru-
salem, for neither was that Roman; and certainly the
Apostles were not the Church under any descrip-
tion, for " they were received by the Church ;" and
the Apostles and ancients are expressly mentioned,
not as the one body, but three several and distinct
n2
9A
bodies. Hero (hen it is plain, that the Church of
Homo, which would establish itself as the only
Church, and as deriving its authority from the
Apostles, fails of proving itself to be a Church, or
Catholic Church on that foundation, since the Apos-
tles, whose successors they affect to be, were not
the Church ; nor were they a Church, as St. Luke
makes the clearest distinction between the Church
then established, and the Apostles whom he here
fully and clearly represents as two distinct bodies. If
the word signifies the Roman Catholic Church, why
does the Rhemish translation (by the Editors of
this Preface) leave it altogether out of the New
Testament, Acts xvii. 4??* And why does the trans-
lation published in Dublin, by P. Wogan, in 1810,
* Though the Editors have left the word Church out of this
verse, their annotation (in locum) says, " more and more were
added to the Church, (as the Greek more plainly expresselh)
that we may see the visible propagation and increase of the same."
If this be not admission of the superiority of the Greek, and defect
of the Vulgate, as well as the Rhemish translation, let the Reader
judge. It is worthy of a farther remark, that Doctor Troy while
he was no more than the Co-adjulor of the Roman Catholic Bi-
shop of Dublin, ventured to make no farther alteration of this
part of the New Testament, than to translate the original word
M Society," instead of " Church," as he did by his name sub.
cribed to P. Wogan's Edition, 1810. Out in 1813, when he is
placed at the head of the Irish Roman Catholic Hierarchy, by
being elevated to the primacy of that Church, as if he were
thereby created Pope of the Island, he sanctions the total omis T
sion of the word Church, which is now expunged from the
New Testament published by his authority, in imitation of Pope
Clement Vtir. who in the year 1592, condemned that Edition of
the Vulgate, which in the year 15f"), had been declared with no
95
sanctioned by Dr. Troy, translate it society* in (lie
same place, not Church, as in other places, if it sig-
nifies the Catholic Church ? And why in Acts ix. SI,
is e*xkv&i*i, which is plural, translated in the singular
number, by both vulgate and Rhemish, when every
verb and participle (no less than four) in this verse
agreeing with it are plural, why is it not translated
plurally, as it is in 1 Cor. xiv. 33, and other places ?
The Rhemish translation is, " Now the Church
had peace throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and
Samaria, and was edified walking in the fear of the
Lord, and was filled with the consolation of the
Holy Ghost."
The translation of the Greek is, u Then indeed
had the Churches peace through all Judea and Ga-
lilee, and Samaria, being edified and walking in the
fear of the Lord, and the consolation of the Holy
Ghost were multiplied." Here the original ex-
pressly recites that the several Churches which were
planted in Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, were
less than " the plenitude of Apostolic power, to be true, legiti-
mate^ and authentic^ and thai too by the i( same plenitude of
apostolical power," by which the former had been printed ani
published.
And with a similar authority and arbitrary power, Doctor
Troy admits " penance" in one of these Editions to be the same
as " penitence." — (See Note on the word Mfiavosu in the Tables of
Translations in this Work.) Thus the Pope of Rome in the six-
teenth century, and the Roman Catholic Piimate of the nine-
teenth century, make whatever alterations or omissions they choose
tnthe translations of the Holy Scriptures, delivered to the Roman
Catholic People over whom they have respectively presided.
* Is not this Theodoret's vohi.syos 1m visntnUw of page 22,
20
edified and multiplied ;" but the Rhemish Doctors
would have it, by this erroneous translation, to ap-
pear, that it was the Church, (the Roman Catholic
Church) not those " Churches" that was so " multi-
plied." Here is another attempt at deception. But
farther it may be asked, was the Church spoken of
in Acts vii. 38, the Catholic Church, in the sense
the Roman Catholics would wish to have that word
understood, was, " Moses who was voith the Church
in the wilderness" a Papist?* or the Israelites of
whom it was formed Catholics ? or the Church there
mentioned, the Catholic Church of Rome ? If it was,
the Church of Rome can not boast of St. Peter for
its founder, since it thus existed little less than 1500
years before Peter was born. If it is too absurd to
make such a supposition, relative to a congregation,
which the Rhemish Testament calls the Church in
this place, as expressly as it does the Church in
Matth. xviii. 17, and 1 Tim. iii. 15, quoted by the
Editors, it proves that it is not the Roman Catholic
Church which is meant, either by the Evangelist,
or the Apostle in those quotations, to say nothing of
St. Augustine's opinion, who in Page vi.— Line 40,
speaks of the Universal (not Catholic) Church, as
the Editors do.
* Perhaps llie Editors will say he was, and this they may do,
with as much truth, as in their" argument on the Epistles in gene-
ral, (page 212) they say the Jews who were addressed by Peter at
Jerusalem, Acts xi. were Catholics. The words are " such of
them as were Catholics, and therefore not obstinate, were sa.
tislied, when they understood by the Apostles that it was God's
pleasure," that " Christ should be preached to the Gentiles."
Here it may be farther observed, that the Roman
Catholics have no better foundation for arrogating:
to themselves, exclusively, the faith spoken of by
St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. 1. 8,
where he sl ys " your faith is spoken of in the
whole world," which they would have to be con-
sidered the Roman Catholic " faith," so much
boasted of by their annotation in locum, as well
as in other places. For it was not to the Romans,,
or citizens of Rome that Epistle was written, but to
the Jewish converts to Christianity,* who were then
residing- in that city ; and to these converts are the
* The truth of this appears from the internal evidence of
the Epistle itself, which was evidently written to guard them
against the erroneous notions they entertained of justification by
the law of Moses, and the election of their own nation to the
exclusion of all others, for which opinion they assigned as
reasons : 1st, their knowledge and keeping the law of Moses ;
2dly, the works of the Levitical law, particularly circumcision
and sacrifices, which they held were sufficient to expiate sin ;
and 3dly, that the merits and piety of Abraham, and the cove-
nant made with their fathers, entitled them to the favour of God.
All of which St. Paul proves to be ill founded, the first, chap,
ii. 13, 16, 25, &c. the 2nd, ii. 25.— iii. 20.— 28, 29. The
3rd, iv, throughout particularly 11th, 12th, 16th. And if any
farther proof were necessary to shew that it was to the Jewish
converts this Epistle was written, it may be found chap. xiii. 1. 7,
where knowing the Jews at that time to be given to sedition, he
exhorts them to be obedient to the Roman government,
an advice not necessary to be given to the Roman citizens.
To this disposition St. Peter also alludes, 1 Peter, 11. 16. And
Eleazar apud Joseph, L. 7. C. 34. P. 989, confirms the same,
where he says M»»7i P^xio/j, (jl^s ocKXu S'sAsue/v, v ©ew, that is, their
sentiments were " not to obey the Romans, nor any other, but
God only.
28
words to be applied ; for iho citizens of Rome were
not then converted from paganism : and instead of
having a " Christian faith to be spoken of," in the
year 57 or 58 (the date of this Epistle) we have the
authority of St. Lnke to say that, after St. Paul
arrived and was a prisoner at Rome, from the year
6l to 63, Christianity " was gain-said every where/'
and spoken against, as those Jews who visited him"
in Rome declared to St. Paid himself, (Acts xxviii.
22.) for the Emperor and citizens of Rome, as his-
tory proves, oppugned Christianity, and rigorously
persecuted the professors of that faith, not only
then, but even at a later period after the death
of St. Paul, who, St. Chrysostom informs us, was
imprisoned and beheaded in the year 66 by Nero,
for having- converted a cup-bearer and a concubine
of his, by preaching that faith which the Roman
people had not then adopted, but on the contrary
still disowned and rejected, and even denounced
at a period eight or nine years subsequent to the
date of this Epistle ; and yet the Roman Catholic
communion of the nineteenth century, who claim
to be the pure successors and followers of these
very Romans, would arrogate credit to themselves
from words which were never addressed to Roman
Christians, of course not to Roman Catholics.
How little the assumed boast of the annotators is
applicable to the principles of the Roman Catholic
Church under such circumstances, it requires but
little sagacity to determine, more especially when
)?i their note on this place the annotators admit,
in quoting the words of St. llierom, " that the
29
Romans have not another faith than the vest of
the Christian Churches ;" and in the same note, by
a strange perversion of language, without any
reason assigned or pretended, take on themselves
to assert " that it is all one to say the Roman faith
and the Catholic." By what rule, authority, or
idiom of the English, or any other language,
the words " Roman and Catholic" can mean the
same thing, is a discovery not yet adopted into
the republic of letters ; and how a particular city
can signify the whole world, (the universe) is un-
known to logicians, and is too bold a figure of
rhetoric, in such a case, to be admitted. It is
therefore evident that the Roman Catholics can
derive no authority from this text for assuming the
title of Catholic : and these annotators seem not
to be aware that the Church of Thessalonica had as-
good a claim, as that of Rome, to be called the Ca-
tholic Church on such a foundation ; (even though
the Epistle had been written to the people of
Rome at large) for St. Paul in his Epistle to that
Church says, " in every place your faith, which
is towards God, is gone forth."* Is this less Ca-
tholic, less general, than his words to the Romans,
** your faith is spoken of in the whole world?"
Can any impartial person, any one who under-
stands the English language, say, that the one is
more universal than the other ? Are not the words
*» irxvit roTiu r> mms viamv r, ttpqs lov &iov, tJpjXsjAt'Sen n,S Heild'cd
R'S 9 WstS/Vpwr xoilzyytXXslcct tv % °\<o to r.osiMtV
* I Thess. i, 8.
E
30
It is evident then that St. Paul did not intend,
nor in fact give, any Catholicity or universality
even to the Jewish converts to whom he wrote
this Epistle, much less to the Romans, in whose
city they were only sojourners ; and if such had
been his intention is it not fair to say, he would
have written and given it the title of a general,
or Catholic Epistle, as James, Peter, John, and
Jude, stiled the Epistles they wrote to the Churches
of Christ in general ? It may also be remarked,
that none of the Apostles ever addressed or wrote to
the Church of Rome as St. Paul did to the Church
of Corinth, Ephesus, Smyrna &c. ; nor is there a
Church of Rome general, or special, Catholic, or
particular or national, ever mentioned in the New
Testament, as those of Ephesns, Sardis, &c. &c.
are. Beside if he had written to Rome, as the head
of all Christian Churches, what occasion would he
have had to write to others, singly and separately,
as he did? For if that was the Catholic Church,
the one, supreme, universal head of all, the doc-
trines and instructions he, or the other Apostles,
judged it necessary to be given to the Christiau
Church, would, of course, have been diffused
through all the Christian Churches then in exist-
ence, without any necessity for the Epistles lie
deemed it proper to write separately to those
Churches, after he wrote that to the Jewish con-
verts at Rome. Reside all, this Epistle to these
converts was not the first he wrote, for he addressed
Epistles to other converts before he wrote to these,
31
viz. to the Galatians, Corinthians, &c. &c.;* so that
even the priority of chronology is not to be alleged
in favour of their assumption.
Page 1. L. 19. — " This translation we do not publish upon
the erroneous opinion of necessity that the Holy Scriptures
should alxzays be in our mother tongue, or that they ought or
were ordained by God to be read indifferently by all, or that
we absolutely deemed it more convenient in itself, and more
agreeable to God's word and honour, or education of the faith*
ful, to have them kept and studied only in the ecclesiastical
learned languages."
Why then did Jerome translate the Hebrew into
Latin, which Avas the vernacular language of
the age and country he lived in ? And why did
Sixtus V. publish an Italian translation of the
Bible in Italy? only because it was the mother
tongue of the country.
Is it becoming the pastors of the Roman Catholic
Church, who patronize the translation of the New
Testament to which this Preface is fixed, and who
should feed the flock of Christ with the word of
God, to make such a declaration, that cc they do
not deem it more convenient or more agreeable to
God's word and honour, or the edification of the
faithful, to have the Scriptures kept and studied in
the vulgar tongue ?" How else can the people be
taught or " the faithful edified ?" Can they be
taught in an unknown tongue ? In the Hebrew or
Greek, " the ecclesiastical learned languages," in
which they were written, when they know not one
letter in the alphabet of either ? Whoever speaks
* Rbem. Test. Introd. to the Rom. P. 214.
E 2
32
or writes in these languages to the people of this
country, must (as St. Paul says) " be a barbarian
to the hearer, and the hearer a barbarian to the
speaker;" and the Scripture, (" which was written
For our instruction/* and therefore speaks, or
ought to cc speak" to oil as te the source of every
saving truth") while not translated, is no better than
the barbarian to all in this country who call them-
selves Christians, and are ignorant of these " learned
languages." Do not the Editors admit, by quoting
Calvin's words, " that Satan has gained by keeping
the word from the people," P. v. L. 29. How
contrary is this to the direction of Christ himself, to
re search the Scriptures," the book of " our life
and salvation ?" A direction given, not to the
Apostles or priests alone, but to the people at large
assembled at Jerusalem at the Passover, the*
greatest feast in the ecclesiastical year, at which
the whole nation of the Jews were required, by
their law, to attend. And how could the people
obey this command if the Scriptures had been kept
locked up from them in a language they did not
know ? But the Scriptures were not kept concealed
from the Jews, as they are from some of those who
call themselves Christians ; they were given to
them in Hebrew, the language they spoke in their
own nation : when they spoke Chaldec, in their
captjvity at Babylon, they had them in Chaldee,
the language of that country, and when they spoke
Greek, (after the conquests of Alexander the
Great,), they were translated into Greek for the use
* Rom. xr. 4.
33
of the Helenists in the different countries they
inhabited in their dispersions, and were read in the
volume called the Septuagint, which was con-
stantly referred to and quoted by Christ, (in his
conversations and disputes with the Jews) who
thereby sanctioned that translation for the use of
all those who spoke that language.
But as the words of a Pope of Rome may have
more weight with some than those of Christ, let
them read the letter of Pope Pius the Sixth on this
subject, in the page which confronts the Preface on
which these notes are written, and immediately
precedes that containing the opinion of the
Editors and their patrons, who say that " the
Scriptures ought not and were not ordained by
God to be read by all."
This letter was written to A. Martini, Arch-
bishop of Florence, whose labour, in translating
the Scripture into Italian for the use of the Italians,
he commends and approves in these words : " you
judge exceedingly well that the faithful should be
excited to the reading of the holy Scriptures ; for
these are the most abundant sources which ought
to be left open to every one, to draw from them
purity of morals and doctrine ;" adding, (e this you
have seasonably effected, by publishing the sacred
writings in the language of your country, suitable
to every one's capacity." After this will any one
be hardy enough to say cc the Scriptures should not
be read in the vulgar languages ?" The Editors
themselves, with their Reverend patrons, feeling
that their voices or opinions have not weight
i
54
enough to resist such authority,, and with the most
reluctant necessity, have published a translation of
the holy Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, and, to
quiet the minds of the people, claiming a Christian
right, they say, you shall have a translation of the
Bible, since we must give it to you, but you shall
understand it only as we choose and dictate; you
shall not have it simple and unprejudiced and in
a literal state, as in the translation used in the
Protestant Church : you shall have it with sponsors
of Fathers, how r ever obsolete, and annotators of the
ages of ignorance, and the opinions of prejudiced
scribblers and novices in divinity, who hardly knew
the language they wrote,* much less the lauguage
of the Scripture. Thus cautiously do they unlock
the sacred treasure with all this host set round their
translation, like " the flaming sword placed before
Paradise, turning every way," that they may be
ready to exclude the reader from tasting the uncor-
rupted fruit of the Gospel, " the tree of knowledge
of good and e\il," which is our guide to eternal
life.
If the annotations of such men are to be taken
as the standard of Christian faith, and the traditions
of men for the word of God, the Scripture ceases
* The very Council of Trent, Sess. iv. at the beginning of the
Preface, is confused, ungrammatical language, having a nomi-
native case without a verb. The same occurs also in Page
>iii. 66; and the Editors have thought it necessary to apologise
for the language of the translators, v. L, 55. x. 36. To which
Tertulliau's words (in the Preface, P. iv. 67.) may be applied.
35
to be the Christian's guide ; salvation no lon«-er
depends on what Christ taught, but what men
teach.
Page 1. L. 22. — " Often through man's malice or infirmity
pernicious, and much hurtful to many."
\ '
A most uncommon kind of strange reasoning
this ; because some have unfortunately abused the
Scripture by committing 1 crimes, either through
inattention, or in wilful opposition to the doctrines
it teaches, and have thus been " much hurtful"
to themselves, is the Scripture the cause ? Is it
therefore to be withheld from all others, who
would extract from it those lessons of religion
and morality " which can save their souls ?" Be-
cause some men have died, by the abuse of the food
which God has been pleased to bestow on man for
the use of his creatures, is the .use of food, the
Almighty's gift, therefore to be altogether denied
to man ? Because some men have committed a
kind of suicide by gluttony, or the intemperate use
of wine or spirituous liquors, are these never to
be permitted to any ?
It is to be presumed the Editors, or their patrons,
would not subscribe to this mode of reasoning in
the practice of temporals, however they may
recommend it in spirituals, or where the holy
Scriptures are in question. Or if we should speak
of the laws of any country, and make a comparison
of them with the holy Scriptures, that code of
God's law, shall we say that because a man has
committed a murder, who knew that statutes existed
36
forbidding the horrid deed by which he forfeited
his life, shall we say a publication of those statutes
is therefore not to be made to the community in
the language of the country, for the government of
whose subjects they were enacted ? or, if pub-
lished, are the people to be forbid to read them,
" lest through man's malice or infirmity they
should be hurtful to many 1" If this were the case,
it is to be feared there would be still more culprits
in the world than there are.
Page 1. L. 24. — " To be kept and studied only in the eccle-
siastical learned languages."
These languages are the Hebrew, in which the
Old Testament, and Greek, in which the New
Testament was written. Why then does the
Church of Rome take it on itself to keep and study
the Scriptures in the vulgate, which is neither the
one nor the other, but a compilation of the old
Italic version and Jerome's translation, (both of
them translations from " these learned languages/')
and that not made till near four hundred years after
the New Testament was written, and more than
two thousand after the Old was written ? Is there
no contradiction, no absurdity in this ?
Page I. L. 36. — " They have not by public authority pres-
cribed, commanded, or authentically ever recommended any
such interpretation (vulgar versions) to be indifferently used by
all men."
See the Letter of Pope Pius the Sixth, which pre-
cedes the first page of the Preface, as already quoted.
37
Is it denied by Roman Catholics that the Pope
of Rome is public authority ? when he says to the
Archbishop of Florence, (a person of public autho-
rity also) '' you judge exceedingly well that the
faithful should be excited to read the holy
Scriptures, which ought to be left open to every
one, and this you have seasonably effected by pub-
lishing the sacred writings in the language of your
country?" Was not this the highest <c public
authority" of the age and country, in which this
letter was written, " for all men indifferently to use
the Scriptures in their vulgar tongues?" Here
the Editors and their patrons, the pastors of the
Roman Catholic Church of Ireland, in the present
age, are at issue with this Pope of Rome, as well
as St. Jerome, who translated the Bible into the
Latin, which was the vulgar version and tongue
of his Country.
Page 2. L. 16. — " Alleging St. Hierom for the difficulty and
danger of interpreting the holy Scriptures out of one tongue
into another."
This is a caution to which the Editors and
translators of the Rhemish Testament have paid but
little attention ; for instead of translating the Scrip-
tures directly from the Hebrew and Greek, the lan-
guages wherein they were originally wri tten, they
avowedly make their version from the vulgate, as a
standard preferable to the " ecclesiastical learned
lansruaires" though it is itself no more than a trans-
lation: thus producinga double "difficulty" andaddi-
tional " danger in the interpretation,' '(by which word
o'S
the Editors mean translation) and thus proving- the
just remark of a learned writer, who, speaking of
the languages into which the Old Testament has
been translated, says, '* the Hebrews drink at the
spring-, the Greeks of the stream, and the Latins
out of the fens." Reuchlin. Cap. 26.
Pa^e 2. L. 50. — " The translated Bibles into vulgar tongues
tv'ere not allowed in the hands of every husbandman, artificer,
&c. &c. &c."
Had not these souls to be saved as well as
learned men of profession? And where is the
means of their salvation but in the Bible ? which, by
a quotation from the Scripture, in the second line
of this Preface, the Editors properly call " the
word of God which can save our souls." Pius the
Sixth allowed them " to every one" of the Italians
in their vernacular tongue, making no distinction
between the " husbandman, artificer, apprentice,
boys or girls, &c. &c. &c." and men of profession,
where the purity of morals and " the salvation of
their souls" was concerned.
Page 2. L. 56. — " They were then in libraries, monasteries,
&c. &c."
Yet only three lines after the Editors say, " the
poor ploughman could then, in labouring the
ground, sing the hymns and psalms either in known
or unknown languages, as they heard them in the
Chnrch, though they could neither read nor know
the sense, meaning, and mysteries uf the same."
Where then is the boasted advantage of having;
the Scriptures ; kept only in libraries, and what is
39
Ihe edification to be derived from singing Psalms
in an unknown language, the sense and meaning
of " which they did not know ?" The Editors here
take credit for what they should blush to assert,
and which they applaud, only because this singing
of psalms and hymns was the act of Roman Catho-
lics, whose hearts, (they admit,) knew not what
their lips uttered. But in page 5. L. 18, they con-
demn Protestants for " saying or singing the Creed
and the Psalms in rhyme," (which they therefore
honour with the title of " the devil's word") and,
for so doing, call them " a poor deceived people."
Is there no inconsistence in this? The Popish
ploughman has credit for ec singing psalms or
hymns," though in an unknown tongue, while the
Protestant is condemned for cc singing psalms" in
a lans:ua2;e he understands !
Page 2 — Line 66. — " Then virgins meditated upon the places
and examples of chastity and modesty."
Do the Editors mean to say they act differently
now ? If they do not, is it not for want of the
Scriptures ? on which they cannot meditate if they
do not read them, as the Editors inform us " St.
Hierom in divers Epistles commanded." Page 2.
Line 61. " The married meditated on conjugal
faith and constancy." Do they not now ? If no]t it
is because they are denied the use of the Bible for
their guide. " Parents how to bring up their chil i
dren in faith and fear of God." Do the Scriptures
teach, those who are allowed to read them, the con-
trary at the present day ? " The prince how to rule.
40
and the subject how to obey." Has the Scripture
taught the contrary ? If these were read, and
their pure precepts and unadulterated doctrines in-
culcated, it is certain that a greater spirit of true
religion would pervade all classes of the commu-
nity, that vice would be less prevalent, and Rebel-
lion against the State would never have raised its
bloody head, as in this Country it has so often done.
Page 3.— Line 45. — Religion cometh not to us properly or
principally by reading the Scripture, but as the Apostle saith,
by hearing " the preachers lawfully sent."
The Editors have not ventured to point out
where those words are to be found in the Apostles'
writings, well knowing they do not exist in
the whole extent of Holy Writ, at least in this
form. This is some of the " guileful means" made
use of, " where it serveth for advantage of their
private opinions." Hut will any one say, with truth,
that " hearing another person read" can be more
instructive to him who can read, than to read for
himself? or, that words pronounced by the mouth
of a priest, of any denomination, sect or party, can
thereby acquire any secret power of giving more
information for the salvation of men's souls, than
the same words are capable of communicating
when read in the sacred word of God ? What is this
but another circuitous subtlety, contrived to dis-
suade the people from reading " this holy book,
Liber Saurdolalls, the book of priests ;"* cc from
whose hands only, and mouths they say they would
have it to be used."
* P?go 3— Lino 47
41
Page 3.— Line 52.—" The Church keeps the holy book from
the People, to keep them from blind ignorant presumption, and
from that which the Apostle catteth falsi nominis scientiam, know-
ledge falsely so called."
No, the Editors have stated this case wrong; the
tendency of the Preface throughout proves the con-
trary, thisis not the true cause, itis only another mode
of clumsy excuse, for keeping the Scripture from the
people, lest they should discover errors, which,
without a knowledge drawn from that fountain, they
cannot know. St. Chrysostom thought, and acted
differently from these Editors.* This veil is too
flimsy to cover such a deception, since neither the
Editors, nor their abettors, nor any other person, can
take it upon himself to say, that the sacred Scrip-
tures are " falsi nominis scientia, knowledge
falsely so called ;" while they have the authority of
their own Preface, if there were no higher, for the
true title of the Holy Scriptures, which justly calls
it " the Book of our Life and Salvation, and of the
knowledge of good and evil." Is leaving the peo-
ple in ignorance of these, by forbidding the) use of
them, a rational mode " of keeping them from
blind presumption and ignorance" in religion ? or
is it Christian Charity to leave them in that state ?
Are the Editors and their patrons aware that it is
not the Scriptures the Apostle alludes to in the
quotation here made from 1 Tim. yi. 25. The
"knowledge" (or science) he spoke of is not to be
+ See the comment on Page 4, Lice 15. in a subsequent page.
42
found in (lie Scriptures ;it was the philosophy of
the II (alliens, who taught idolatry and the wor-
ship of Diana, in opposition to that of the true God,
whose existence St. Paul taught in the Church at
Ephesus, over which he had placed Timothy to
whom he wrote this Epistle. It was this idolatrous
knowledge the Apostle wished to guard the Ephc-
sian Church against, not against the knowledge of
the Scriptures, which were made known to the
people, as much as they could be, by his own per-
sonal exertions, as well as by Timothy ; and the
Editors admit them " to be the word of God which
can save our souls."
Page 3 — Line 65*— " They would have such mere usurpers,
quite discharged from all occupying and possession of the Holy
Testament, which is her old and only right and inheritance."
By what authority does the Church of Rome ar-
rogate to herself, and assume an exclusive property
in the Holy Testament, or presume to seize on that
" as her only right and inheritance," which she
will not use herself, and would not suffer others to
use ? What right does she claim to Avritings, of
which she or any of her s »;is was not the author ;
which existed before her name was known or heard
of in the world ? What part of that Holy Testament,
Old or New, gives her such a right to this " Book
of life and Salvation," in which, "whatsoever things
were written, were written for our instruction ?"*
What charity this holy mother Church exhibits for
the souls of men, by this surreptitious monopoly of
* Rom. xv. 4.
43
God's sacred oracles ! ! She would not allow any of
her own pious sons "to read them, except in the man-
ner she chooses;"* nor suffer any other, in any way
whatever,, to have the use of those very Scriptures,
which we are ordered " to search ;" which St. Paul
tells us " are profitable to teach, to reprove, to cor-
rect ; which can instruct unto salvation."f Is not
this the charge made by Christ against the Scribes
and Pharisees, and hypocrites, " you shut the
Kingdom of Heaven against men *****
and those that are going in, you suffer not to
enter."J Happy is it for the world, that by a li-
beral dissemination of the Holy Scriptures, such
dispositions are disappointed in their desire of mo-
nopolizing the kingdom of heaven, into which
Christ has purchased an entrance, ** by the sacrifice
of himself once offered," iC whom God delivered up
for all"§ sects, nations, and people without excep-
tion : for " God so loved the world, as to give his
only begotten Son ; that whosoever believeth in
him may not perish, but have life everlasting. "|[
This is what the Holy Scriptures say ; and they
most explicitly declare this truth : " For God sent
not his Son into the world to judge the world," as
this holy Church does) but that the world, not a
a part of it, (not the Roman Catholic portion of
the world) e( but the" whole " world may be saved
by him ;"f who by an authority, far above what any
visible Church on earth can pretend to shew, has
* Page 4— Line 5, et alibi.— + 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16.— t Mat.
xxiii. 13. This deserves attention. § Rom. viii. 32. — |j St. John
iii. 16. to verse 36.— % St. John i. 17.
44
said, " Hani/ man enter by me, he shall be saved."*
This is ah authority superior to the arrogant,
and unauthorized, attempt at monopoly of the
Church of Home ; and of course " heaven can be
entered (without the interference of this selfish
Church) by every true believer, and every penitent
sinner will obtain admission there, throim-h the
merits of a merciful Saviour. But, supposing,
(contrary to all reason and scripture) this excluding
power and monopoly did exist, is it consistent with
that divine precept delivered by Christ to his Disci-
ples, with his own mouth, " As ye would that men
should do to you, do ye also to them m like man-
ner ? Would " they who measure thus to others,
wish to have it so measured to them again ?" or to
be told in that same blessed Saviour's words, " in
what judgment ye judge, you shall be judged. "f
Page 4 — Line 5. "She committed to the pastor of every pro-
vince and people, how and in what manner the reading of the
Scriptures is more or less to be procured or permitted."
This shews that even when surrounded with all
their studied fences, and partial annotations, they
are still sensible that their cause is so unsound,
as to require vigilant watchmen to be set over their
people, " who come in privately to spy out their
liberty," (of searching the Scriptures, " the book
of God which can save our souls" that liberty)
" which they have in Jesus Christ, that they may
bring them into bondage," by not suffering them
to read or understand that book in any other sense,
* John x. 9.— f St. Matthew vii. 2.
45
than what these provincial pastors choose ; and it
is not difficult to divine what constructions and
forced inferences will be made, and are deduced
from it, by men who hold not only the unwritten
traditions spoken of, but never supported, in the
Council of Trent, however erroneous and impure,
or unnecessary, or even contrary to the written
word of God; but who are also sworn, (as every
Roman Catholic Bishop, who is a provincial pas-
tor at his consecration is) " that to the utmost
they will maintain, increase, and promote the
rights, honours, privileges, and authority of the
holy Roman (not Catholic) Church, (however con-
trary these may be to Holy Writ) and that they
will observe, with all their might the rules of the
holy fathers, the Apostolical decides, ordinances, or
disposals, reservations and mandates, and cause
them to be observed by others ; and that they will
persecute and impugn, to the utmost of their power,
all heretics, schismatics, and rebels to their Lord
the Pope." And all who do not profess and prac-
tise the principles of the Roman Catholic Church
are held to be heretics, schismatics and rebels in
the Consistory of Rome ; and Protestants are so
denominated throughout the Annotations to the
Rhemish New Testament, to which the Preface
herein noted is prefixed. With what advantage,
or Christian information men, who may obtain per-
mission to read the Scriptures under these restraints,
will peruse the sacred volume, requiresbut little pe-
netration to decide, while it is clogged, as the Edi-
c
46
torsdiaye sent it among- their people, with additions,
detractions, and annotations, and presented it to them
in a mutilated state, by omissions* of essential por-
tions of the original text, as well as perverted l>y
unwarranted interpretations, and corrupt transla-
, ,tions,* designed for deception, and for the pui-poso
of leading the reader away from the true sense and
obvious meaning;.
Page 4— Line 12. — " St. Chrysostom declares that not only
Hermits and Religious, but secular men of all sorts might read
the Scriptures, and have often more need of them." And St.
Gregory Nazianzcn assigns the reasons^ " because they Mere
guilty of various vices, from their negligence and contempt of
God's Kord."
Here is authority from their own Fathers, for the
good effect to be expected from secular men read-
ing; the Scriptures ; and this admitted and reported
by the Editors of the translation of the Rhemish
Testament. Have the People of this Country less
need of the Scriptures for their guide, than those
of Constantinople (of whom Nazianzen spoke) had
in the time of St. Chrysostom ? or the People of
Italy, in the reign of Pius the Sixth? How contrary
is this to the sentiments expressed, and so earnestly
inculcated in Page 2, Sections 4, 5 ; and Page 3,
Section 3, and through almost the whole of Page
4, of the Preface, forbiddingthe use ofthe Scripture
* As mny be seen in the Index.
4?
*. Page 4—Line 33.—" The Epistle to the Romans, the Can;,
tica Carnticarum, the Apocalypse which have in them as many
mysteries as words."
Can any thing shew more clearly the premedi-
tated intention of prejudicing the Reader, and per-
verting his reason, than such misapplied hyperbole
and assertion ; by which the Editors would meau
to deter the Reader from the most distant hope, or
possibility, of understanding a book so thickly
sown with difficulties, as this Section would repre-
sent it, and thus circuitously discourage him from
reading if, only because it contains truths they
would not wish to be known.
Page 4 — Line 50. — " The Book of our life and salvation."
Very properly so called indeed, and yet that
book not fit to be read by all, as the whole
Preface labours to inculcate and impress, as well
as the vox una et eadem of the Roman Catholic
Clergy, who all decry scriptural information,
and discourage every step to freedom of en-
quiry, teaching their flocks from their infancy, and
compelling them, by denunciations, when of ma-
ture rage, to look up to, and take from them, not
only the Scriptures, but the sense of the Scriptures •
" and who hold themselves forth as living oracles
and speaking authority, in comparison of whom,,
that same Scripture is no better than a dead letter ;
" while, with St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzen,
they take care never to interpret it otherwise, than
" bv the uniform consent of their forefathers,, and
e2
48
Apostolic tradition;" I instead of theauthorityof the
Scriptures themselves, though these only are (he
sure guide for understanding the truths and doc-
trines they contain ; to which, however, the inter-
pretation of those Fathers, as well as the unwritten
traditions is held to be superior.
Page 4 — Line 53. — " Look whether your men be more vir-
tuous, &c. &c.
If the Editors would have the '.' people more vir-
tuous," and to practise pure religion, they would
not withhold from them the pure fountain of infor-
mation, they would not present them with an adul-
terated copy, or an incorrect and corrupt transla-
tion, instead of the pure Scriptures themselves, in
an unsophisticated state, which, w^th St. Paul,
" speak the truth in Christ,"* and " as the truth is
in Jesus. "f The pure " Scriptures were written
for our instruction ;"J and is not the use of these
given up by keeping from the People '•' the word of
God," (by which " as well the simple as the learned
might be much edified/ '§) while they substitute the
vague, uncertain, and changeable traditions, of the
soi disant, self-designated Catholic Church in its
stead ! Is not this " changing the laws,"|| extin-
guishing- the light of true religion, and drying up
that sacred fountain, from which ail are invited by
the prophet " to draw without money and without
price." Isaiah lv. 1.
II Pref. 4, 45, and Page G, 17.
* Rom ix. 1. — + Kphes. iv. 21. — % Rom. xv. 4 — § Page 4— »
Line 25, of the Khemish Prwface.— f) Dani&l vii. 2*.
49
Did not St. Hierom think it right to have the
Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, when he translated
them into Latin, which was the language written
and spoken in St. Hierom's day, and the country
in which he lived ? Did not Chrysostom, did not
Pope Pius the Sixth, James Archbishop of Genoa,
Charles the Fifth of France,* &c. &c. &c. give the
Scriptures to the people in their vernacular lan-
guages ? Among the nations, who had any know-
ledge of the true God of heaven, the Holy Scrip-
tures were not withheld from the people ; they were
written in Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, iEthiopic, Ar-
menian, Persian, &c. &c. &c. before the art of
printing was known. At Pentecost, soon after our
Saviour's Crucifixion, " every one heard," from the
Apostles, the doctrines of Christ, (C in their own
tongue, wherein they were born ; Parthians and
Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopo-
tamia, Judaea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
Phrygia and Pomphylia, and the parts of Lybia,
about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews also,
and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, all heard in
their own tongues the wonderful works of God."f
Yet the people who belong to the Roman Catholic
Communion, 1800 years after the birth of Christ
and establishment of his Gospel, are excluded from
the privileges those several countries enjoyed, when
Christianity was only in its infancy. In later times, of
the Christian M\\\ the Scriptures are published in as
jnany different versions of the modern languages, as
V
* Rbeumh Preface, Pajje 2 — Lin)^7. — + Acts ii. 8.
50
•
there arc nations professing the Christian religion.
Hence there are French, Italian, Spanish, German,
Flemish, Danish, Sclavonian, Polish, Bohemian,
Russian, Anglo-Saxon Bibles, which are given to,
and read by, the people ; while the subjects of the
British isles* (who are of the Romish communion,)
alone are prohibited the use of the sacred volume.
Are they not worse than the heathen who would
withhold the holy Scriptures from the people?
They disseminated their principles and inculcated
their doctrines on the minds of the people : how
rtuich more should the divine law r s of God and
doctrines of Christ be published, put into their
hands, and made universally known to them ? since
these are of far more value than the morality of
the Gentile world, being cc the word of God which
can save our souls;" of which we may say, in a
heathen poet's words :
Admonet Sg magna testatur voce per umbras,
Discite Juslitiam, moniti, fy non temnere divos.
These shew virtue in a more lovely form than
ever heathen principles could, or ever heathen poet
sung. And since our blessed Saviour's day, we
Christians can rejoice,, and of our merciful, divine,
religion say :
Gralior £ pulchro veniens in corpore virtus.
Instead of accusation without cause, and -charging
faults where none exist, this sets forth the great
golden rule for all to practise :
* * * * Veniam pclimusque damusque vicissim.
TO FORGIVE THAT WE MAY BE FORGIVEN.
51
But how can this be known so generally as it ought
to be, if the Bible is kept out of the people's hands 1
Or how are heretics to be reclaimed if ". the word
of God/' the means and source of information, be
kept back from their view and their knowledge ?
Or if they be received only at second-hand from
the mouth of those clergy, whose ordination oath
shews through what a prejudiced channel the infor-
mation they thus receive is carried, and how dele-
terious the stream. St. Peter tells us, as he told
the rulers of the people at Jerusalem, that " there
is no other name under heaven given to men
whereby we must be saved,* but only the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ." And St. Paul says, " God
our Saviour will have all men to be saved and come
to the knowledge of the truth :"f and where is
this knowledge to be found but in the holy
Scriptures, from which we may (C gather fruit unto
life everlasting.''^
Page iv. L. 53. — " Look whether your men be more virtuous,
your women more chaste, &c. &c. now than of old, when there
was not so much reading and talking aljput God's word."
Our blessed Saviour tells us, " every tree is
known by its fruit." If this is to be admitted as
authority, and l)is words a criterion of virtue, and
that we will only take the trouble of consulting the
calendar of the public prisons and convictions, for
capital crimes and other offences, at assizes and
1 Acts.iv. 10, 12.— t 1 Tini. % ,3, 4,— % John iv. 361
62
sessions,* we shall not be at a loss to deter-
mine whether they who arc permitted to fead
" God's word/' (as they of the reformed churches
are) or the other members of the community, from
whom it is withheld, " are more virtuous" or more
obedient to the laws of God, and better members
of society. The number of culprits on record
serves to defeat the intended force of this whole
section, so artfnlly designed to persuade the igno-
rant of the inutility of permitting " the book of
our life and salvation," (as the Editors expressively
call it) to remain in the people's hands.
Page iv. L. 66. — '* The Letter or text have no error."
How inconsistent is this declaration with that of
page 7. L. 13., &c. &c. which charges the Greek
text with many errors : and that the Latin or
Vulgate has errors, we have the authority of Bel-
larmine, who had a principal part in publishing
the Clementine edition, when he tells us, " that
intentionally they passed over many mistakes
for good reasons, "f though he does not expressly
say what these reasons were.
Page 5. L. 8.—*' The Protestants, and such as St. Paulcalleth
'* ambulantes in astutia, &c."
Conscious that the Rhemish translators " have
for Christ's written will and word given their own
wicked writing and fancies most shamefully in
* See Appendix.
+ " Scias relim," says his Eminence, " Biblia Vulgata non
esse a nobis accuratissimc castigate multa enim dc tndustria,
Justis de causis i pertransivimus t Butler's Hor. IJibl. 121.
53
(heir version, by false translations, adding,* de-
tracting, altering, transposing-, pointing, and all
other guileful means, where it serveth for the ad-
vantage of their private opinions. "f In order to
throw a veil over such shameful impositions, the
Editors and their patrons endeavour to bring this
charge against, the translators of the Protestant
bible, without venturing in a single instance to sup-
port their allegation, seeming not to be aware,
that without examples of their assertions, it is oidy
censure without evidence, and accusation without
a proof of guilt. Such vain attempts of imposition
cannot escape the notice of the most superficial
reader. The curses intended to be levelled at
Israel, by the king of Moab, were turned into
blessings : thus the Editors' calumnies, uttered
against the translation used in the Protestant
Church, serves only to prove its correctness and
its truth, and make its purity known.
These unfounded charges are in direct oppo-
sition to that Christian spirit which the holy
Scriptures contain as a Saviour taught and com-
manded, " not to calumniate any man.";;; While in
the words of St. Paul, when falselv accused of the
Jews, they subject themselves to be told, c< neither
can they prove the things whereof they accuse,"
while on the contrary a few instances, out of many
examples under some of these heads, will be suf-
ficient to prove the impositions practised by the
Rhemish translators.
* See Appendix. — t Page v. L. 10, these are their own wor<£».
% St. Luke iii. 14.
H
54
A TABLE
SHEWING INCORRECT TRANSLATIONS.
Greek
St. Matth. vi. 11. ETneovov
St. Luke xi. 3. EmHo-io*
Protestant Rhemish Vulgate.
daily supersub- supersubstan.
stantial* tialem
daily daily quotidianum
St. Matth. xv
2 2.
nPESBU-
TEPOI
Elders
ancients
seniores
xvi.
21.
•ngisQvligot
Elders
ancients
seniores
xxvii.
12.
"TrgtsGvlsgot
Elders
ancients
seniores
xxi.
23.
9rfEsCJ/Ef0f
Elders
ancients
seniores
xxvi.
47.
•ngtsQvkgot
Elders
ancients
seniores
xxvi.
59.
mgisQviigoi
Elders
omitted
omitted
xxvii.
1.
TigisQvligoi
Elders
ancients
seniores
xxvii.
20.
•ngzsQvltgoi
Elders
ancients
seniores
xxvii.
41.
"jrgtsGvitgoi
Elders
ancients
seniores
xxviii.
12-
•jrgtsQvlcgQi
Elders
ancients
seniorps
St. Mark vii.
3.
trgtsQvltgot
Elders
ancients
seniores
viii.
31.
irgtsGultgoi
Elders
ancients
seniores
* Without reciting the expositions of the most respectable
authorities, let it be sufficient to say that Suidas, Schleusner, and
Parkhurst, do not agree with this translation. That the Syriac
version renders it " Da nobis pane in necessitatis nostrce hodie :"
and it is so understood by Chrysostom, Basil, and Theophylact,
&c. This, therefore, has no similarity to the original, which the
Rhemish Doctors have correctly translated " daily," (as in the
Protestant translation,) St. Luke xi. 3. And every Roman
Catholic who repeats the Lord's Prayer, enjoined by the Church
whose faith he professes, proves this translation to be erroneous
every time he says his prayers ; for in that of the lloman Catholic
Church it is, " give us this day our daily bread," which are the
very words in which Christ taught the multitude in his didactic
sermon on the mount, as well as his disciples at another time,
■when " one of them asked him to teach them, how to pray. M
55
Greek Protestant
Rhemish
Vulgate.
St. Mark xiv.
43.
irgesGvlegoi
Elders
ancients
seniores
XV.
1.
irgtsGvltgot
Elders
ancients
seniores
St. Luke
XV.
25.
irgtiSvltgos
Elder
Elder
senior
ix.
22.
ir^tsQvit^ot
Elders
ancients
seniores
xxii.
52.
meisQv\3qat
Elders
ancients
seniores
*»
66.
•BgEsQvlzgot
Elders
ancients
seniores
John
viii.
9.
Hrges£vligoi
eldest
eldest
seniores
Acts
ii.
17.
nrqss&vltgoi
old men
old men
seniores
iv.
5.
TtqtsQvligot
Elders
ancients
seniores
8.
•nrgssGvlcgoi
Elders
ancients
seniores
23.
TlgtsQviiqOl
Elders
ancients
seniores
vi.
12.
irgSsGvltgOt
Elders
ancients
seniores
xi.
30.
TTgcsGvligoi
Elders
ancients
seniores
xiv. 23.)
©f the Vulgate 22.)
TTfErfeJ/EfO*
Elders
priests
presbyteri
XT.
2.
ir^tsCu/ffo/
Elders
priests
presbyteri
XV.
4.
•jrgssQvligot
Elders
ancients
seniores
6.
itgzsQvltgOi
Elders
ancients
seniores
23.
•jrgtsGvlegot
Elders
ancients
seniores
xvi.
4.
TTfEsCVlsfO*
Elders
ancients
seniores
XX.
17.
^rfEJt vieqoi
Elders
ancients
majores nalu
xxii.
5.
TtqtsQvltqai
Elders
ancients
major es natu
xxiv.
1.
'jrgesGviEgot
Elders
ancients
seniores
XXV.
15.
Trg£s£viegoi
Elders
ancients
seniores
1 Tim,
V,
, 1.
•ngzsQvltqos
Elder
ancient man senior
17.
Ti^ssQv%qoi
Elders
priests
presbyteri ;
19.
TtgisQvlsgos
Elder
priest
presbyter
Titus
•
1.
5.
trqesQvliqoi
Elders
priests
presbyteri
Hebrews xi,
. 2.
•ngts&vlsgoi
Elders
ancients
senes
James
V.
14.
7Tf£s-CJ]£fo;+
Elders
priest si
presbyteri\
+ Is it not worthy of observation, that this word is translated
by the Douay " ancients" in the Old Testament, as in Exod.
xvii. 5, xviii. 12, xxiv. 1, Deut. xxxi. 9, Joshua xii. 6, &c. &c.
and in the New, by the Rhemish translators, throughout the
Gospels, by the same word *' ancients," till after the establish-
ment of Christianity, when they substitute the word " priest"
H 2
5G
1 Peter
2 John
3 John
Apocal,
U
Gi eek
Prutcsiant R/icm ish
Elders ancients
(also an ) also an
(Elder S ancient
Vulgate,
stiviore3
I
v. b.
i. 1.
i. 1.
iTgesQviegot Elders
ir^isQvliqocr Elder
Tgss£vltgo<r Elder
iv. 4. #!^esCi3sf4 Elders
10. TgesG-Slegoi Elders
v. 5. iiqssQvlc^i Elders
v» 5. irgesGvltgot Elders
6. ir%£sGvle%ot Elders
8» wgesGvligoi Elders
11. wfEsfculc^oi Elders
1-4. irgesGvlizot Elders
\ii» 11. 'TTgisGvlsgoi Elders
13. <agis£vlegoi Elders
xi. 16. ngssSvlegoi Elders
xiv. 3. irgtsGvlegoi Elders
xix. 4. irqisQSiieot* Elders
ancients
ancient
ancient
ancients
ancients
ancients
ancients
ancients
ancients
ancients
ancients
ancients
ancients
ancients
ancients
ancients
consenior
seniores
senior
senior
seniores
seniores
seniores
seniores
seniores
seniores
seniores
seniores
seniores
seniores
seniores
seniores
seniores
for it, as in the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles, while in the
Apocalypse they resume the word ancients; where it is (not
four and twenty priests, but) " four and twenty ancients," who
" sat round about the throne, clothed in white garments, and
golden crowns on their heads." Let the Editors, or their
patrons, say how they account for these differences and dis.
tinctions in their translation, while the original word is the same
in all these places, throughout the whole of the New Tes-
tament.
11 the sacred u riters intended this word should signify a priest,
why did not Peter, who was one of the holy penmen, call him-
self a priest, a title tie did not take to himself by this word, but
called himself " an ancient," (or Elder,) as the Rhemish Doctors,
by their own translation, admit. Peter v. i.
* Of this word, it appears, that we have four different trans.
fattens in the Rhemish Testament : forty.eight times ancients,,
(for which *£x«/0r, not *ir§tsGvligos } is the proper Greek word ;)
57
Greek
Protestant Rhemish
Vulgate.
St.Matt.ili. 2.
META-
NOEfi
Repent
do penance
poenitentiam agere
iv. 17.
(J.k\xV0l0J
repent
do penance
poenitentiam airere
St. Mark i. 15.
[AllxVOBbJ
repent
repent
penitemini
vi. 12.
(JLslaVOiCO
repent
do penance
poenitentiam agere
St.Lukexiii.3.
(J-ilXVOlOJ
repent
do penance*
pcenitentiarn habere
xv. 7.
[AtlxVOSCO
repent
do penance
poenitetitiara agere
xvi. 30.
(AclxVOECO
repent
do penance
pceaitentiam agere
xvii. 3.
[s.flxvosu/
repent
do penance
poenitentiam agere
4.
[Atlx'JOlU)
repent
repent
poenitere me
Acts ii. 28.
(JLllxVOEU
repent
do penance
poenitentiam agere
iii. 19.
/y^lxvosco
rep«nt
repent
poenitere
viii. 22.
[JLSIXVOEM
repent
do penance
poenitentiam agere
xvii. 30.
[AtlxVOlU
repent
do penance
poenitentiam agere
xxvi. 20
(AUXVOSUI
repent
do penance
poenitentiam agere
six times priests, (for which the proper word is is^va- ;) once old
men, once omitted, once Eldest and once Eider. By the last the
translators do, and the Editors must, admit, the Protestant trans-
lation to be correct ; for they give the same unvaried, faithful
translation throughout the whole Testament, which the llhemish
Doctors admit to be correct, by their own similar translation of
this word in St. Luke xv. 25, and Acts ii. 17, though they hans-
lated it differently in other places, for their own reasons.
* " Be penitent," in VVogan's Edition, Dublin, 1810, dili-
gently compared with former approved Rhemish, London, and
Dublin copies, again revised by D. Bernard Mahon, and approved
by F. John Thomas Troy." This is the very same person Avho
(now Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland) patronizes the trans-
lation to which this Preface is set, and thus approves " be peni-
tent" in the one place, as well as " do penance" in the other;
so that either of these two translations is the same in his Testa-
ments : and therefore, by the authority of the Roman Catholic
Primate of Ireland, " to do penance" is totally unnecessary,
since " to be penitent" is the same, and answers every purpose
of that solemn sacrament.
See the liberty taken with the sacred text by this same person,
and his assisting patrons and Editors, in the Note, page 21.
58
Greek Protestant Rhemish Vulgate.
Apocil. ii. 5. pfawm repent do penance pcenitentiam agere
16. ufam* repeat do penance pcenitentiam agere
(do penance (pcenitentiam agere
21. uLtixwu repent -J \ u
(repent (pcenitere
22. tJlant* repent do penance pcenitentiam agere
iii. 3. piW« repent do penance pcenitentiam agere
19. ptfco** repent do penance pcenitentiam agere
St. Matt. iii. 8. META- Repentance Penance pcenitentia
NOIA
11. ttlixwtx repentance penance pcenitentia
ix. 13. ptilxwix repentance omitted omitted
J Bxvliatut Baptism of Baptism of (Baptismum
') pflxmxs Repentance Penance* (Pcenitentia;
ii. 17. pAxvoix repentance omitted omitted
St. Luke iii. 3. ptlxvoix repentance penance pcenitentia
v. 32. pilxvoix repentance penance+ pcenitentia
xv. 7. ptlxvotx repentance penance pcenitentia
xxiv. 47. pilxwix repentance penance pcenitentia
Acts v. 31. pflxvoix repentance repentanceX pcenitentia
xi. 18. fxflxvotx repentance repentanceX pcenitentia
* What sense is there in this, can the Editors or their patroni
tell ? What connection is there between baptism aud penance ?
Did they who were baptized by John in the river Jordan,
" do penance ?" The Evangelists do not tell us they did. Or
do children newly born " do penance ?" Yet these are baptized.
Did Christ " do penance" when baptized by John ?
+ The Greek has the same word pflxvoix in this place as in
St. Matthew ix. 13, and Mark ii. 17, viz. " repentance," which
the Rhemish and Vulgate have omitted. What purpose can
such omissions answer, or why not retain the words here if
useful, and to be admitted in the other places ?
% The translators give the true translation here, knowing that
penance was uot enjoined to the Gentiles in the one, nor to the
Israelites iu the other. This Sacrament had not then been
thought of.
bd
Greek
Protestant
R hemish
Vulgate*
Acts xiii. 24.
IaeIxvoix
repentance
penance*
poenitentia
xtx. 4.
fj.slxv'jix
repentance
penance
poenitentia
xx. 21.
lJ.iia.voix
repentance
penancet
poenitentia
xxvi. 20.
lAtlxMX
repentance
penance
poenitentia
Rom. ii. 4.
(AilxHOlX
repentance
penance
poenitentia
2 Cor. vii. 9.
(AtlXVOIX
repentance
penance
poenitentia
10.
{/.tlxvotx
repentance
penance
poenitentia
2 Tim. ii. 25.
[ASlXVOlX
repentance
repentance
poenitentia
Heb. vi. 1.
fj.ilxioix
repentance
penance
poenitentia
6.
[AtlxVOIX
repentance
penance
poenitentia
xii. 17.
/XtlXVOIX
repentance
repentance
poenitentia
2 Peter iii. 9.
(itlxvotx
repentance
penance
poenitentia
To say nothing more (in this place) of the cor-
rupt translation of the words zvns<™v and vgesSvU^ to
which the translators have given no more than
two different versions, they have thought it proper
to give no less than three to the words n*l*'otu and
(jlcIxvoix. What authority can they or their abettors
give for taking such liberties with the sacred text ?
What defence can they make for this Protean man-
ner of translating, and wilful corruption, in words
of such peculiar import and essential significance
as the two last ? The clear, determinate, un-
changeable, and unchanged sense of which is of
such consequence to the pure principles of the
Christian religion : on the duplicity of the last of
which, by being so unwarrantably mistranslated,
the solemn ordinance of a sacrament has been
formed, under the name of penance ; consisting of
* See Note in table of the foregoing page on St. Mark i. 4.
t What meaning in penance toward God, in this verse?
Rppentauce toward God i» seuse.
60
external service, corporal punishment, and lip-
labour ; that sacrament declared, by the four
Roman Catholic Archbishops of Irelaud, in
their publication of Butler's Catechism,* to be
one of the " ?nost necessary" of the seven sa-
craments of the Church of Rome, though in the
whole extent of the New Testament a word is
not to be found to bear the sense or signification
of that word penance : whilst they have been
pi eased to assert, in their annotation on St. Mark,
1, 5, that the sacrament of " penance was instituted
by Christ," though they do not venture to say
where or when.
That the translator of this word v&n** in the
Rhemish Testament is incorrect is self-evident, as
it cannot bear the three significations given to it
by the translators. Either it is " do penance," or
" repent," or <c be penitent ;" it is one of these onty,
it cannot be all three, for all three do not mean
precisely the same thing ; for then the translators
would not have thought it necessary to give any
more than the one identical word for it, in English,
wherever it occurs in the Testament. Farther,
it is plain it cannot signify all three, for then they
must all three signify to " do penance." Yet to
do penance and to repent are different acts, other-
wise St. Luke xvii. 4, may as wen be translated
" do penance," contrary to the Rhemish trans-
lation itself, " I repent," where speaking of an
offending brother it would (in that way of trans -
* Butler's Catechism, P. :>i.
61
kiting,) be said : " if he sin against thee seven
times in a day, and seven times in a day be con-
verted unto thee., saying, / do penance, forgive
him." How absurd this translation would be is
too obvious for any rational man to attempt to de-
fend it. Can any one allow himself to suppose this
could be the meaning of our blessed Saviour?
For to say " he did penance/' even though he had
not time to do it, would in this case be sufficient
to obtain forgiveness; " for to do penance" so
often in a day is hardly to be supposed, whereas
to repent so often is easily conceived. Farther,
this word cannot signify all three, for then all three
must signify " be penitent," though " to be peni-
tent" and " to do penance" differ. If the three
translations of this word differ, (and that they do
the different meanings given to them by the
Rhemish translators prove) this identical word
as used by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, St.
John, and St. Paul, must have different meanings
in the writings of each of these holy penmen, and
thus the four Evangelists are made to contradict
each other, as well as be at issue with St. Paul : and
St. Paul is made to contradict himself by this mode
of translation ; for the Rhemish Testament renders
the word y&*™* " penance," in 2 Corinthians
vii. 9 ; and in 2 Tim. ii. 25, it renders the same
word repentance ; and St. Paul wrote both these
Epistles. Thus the Apostle in one place says
" repent," i. e. '" change your mind," (as this word
signifies,) be sorry for your sins, and correct your
life ; in the other " do penance," i. e. correct your
i
body, l)y inflicting' punishment for its crimes ; and
tliis ho is made to do, (by the translators) though
lie uses but one and the same word ^«w<* for the
different significations and directions they have thus
compelled him to give. Similar contradictions
would exist in St. Mark in chapters i. 15, and
vi. 12, where the same word is made in the Rhemish
Testament to bear these two different meanings.
See what confusion this would produce ! ! !
That " to repent" does not signify " to do
penance" js certain, from the manner in which it
is used in holy writ ; for in the Old Testament the
prophet Amos says, " the Lord repented of this/'
(fj.fixvonssv.) Yet no one will be so presumptuous as
to say that God " did penance :" and in Jeremiah
xviii. 8, lie says, i*il**o*>cru, « \ will repent of the evil
that I thought to do unto them." Is this an (C act
of penance in the God of heaven ?
If <c do penance" be the translation, it is thus
most evident that " be penitent" is not : if " be
penitent" is the translation, "to do penance" is
not ; and if " repent" be the translation, " to do
penance" cannot ; so that which ever way the
word is taken, the translators are wrong*, and the
translation wrong and corrupt. Since thLs word
cannot, and does not, bear the sense it is made to
assume in some parts of the Rhemish Testament,
the charge the Editors have attempted and
undertaken against others falls on themselves.
Beside, while they would have it believed that
pcrn.iicntiam agere" and " poenitere** are the
same, as in page 10, line 5, " doth he not say for
03
poenitentiam agite, in another place poenitemini/'
(and the Rhemish Doctors hold the same opinion
by translating the word pnenitentia of the Vulgate
repentance, in Acts v. 31, xi 18. — 2 Tim. ii. 25.
Heb. xii. 17, while in other places, as the table of
translations shews, they translate it penance,)
they do not seem to be aware that by this as-
sumption their sacrament of penance is destroyed ;
for repentance is admitted by all sects not only as
an imperative Christian duty, but also as the true
sense and meaning- of the word **fW/rfj and on this
principle, if they both signify the same act, to do
penance becomes superfluous and totally unneces-
sary, and of course a useless graft on the original,
universally approved word, " repentance." But it
is not probable that under such circumstances the
Roman Catholic communion, or the Editors, will
allow these words to have the same meaning.
Or
and yet they must either hold the one or the other.
They must either give up the sacrament of penance*
as useless, or admit these words to have a different
meaning, and, that of course, the Rhemish trans-
lation, which gives different meanings to the same
word, is unfaithful and incorrect. This proves how
little the Rhemish is to be depended on, whilst it
shews the steadiness, as well as the correctness of
the Protestant translation ; the faithfulness of which
is admitted by the Rhemish Doctors themselves, as
they use the word repent four times for t*£*iow and
repentance as often for t*An&*i though, for rea-
sons to answer no other conceivable purpose, ex-
cept " for the advantage of their own private opi-
i 2
G4
nions," they use these two words no less than forty-
nine times in an other sense unfaithfully and cor-
ruptly, besides excluding- them twice from the Edi-
tion published in 1813, with the Preface herein
noticed ; while the Protestant version gives, uni-
formly, and without deviation, throughout the New
Testament, the words " repent and repentance."
And not more faithful are the Rhemish Doctors to
(their own original) the vulgate in Acts vii. 1?,,
where confessus est of that version, (which the Edi-
tors vauntingly say, " they have translated before
all others) is translated " promised" which should
be <c confessed" according to the Latin. And the
vulgate is not less unfaithful to the Greek word
•f*°"» the translation of which is "juraucrat" he
had sworn, that is, " God had sworn" (not con-
fessed) " to Abraham," for there was no crime,
there could be no crime nor cause, for a pure God
to confess to sinful man. Thus we see the Rhemish
translation unfaithful to the vulgate, and the vul-
gate to the Greek.
If we wanted any farther evidence for the incor-
rectness and imperfection of the Rhemish, and pu-
rity of the Protestant translation, we would find it
in one of the latest publications on the Romish side
of the question, and that not illative but positive,
illustrated by quotations, and publicly avowed by
Doctor Walmsly, as violenlan enemy to the Pro-
testant Church, as he was a strenuous advocate for
the Roman Catholic Communion, a Doctor of
the Sarbonne, Vicar Apostolic in England, and Bi-
shop of Rama, a man highly extolled by those of
65
his Communion who have read his history of the
Church., published under the assumed name Pas/to -
rini, and esteemed as little less than a propl el on
account of the lucid interpretation {they *hmk) he
has given of the Revelation of St. John. Even this
great man has admitted that the Rhemish transla-
tion, not only differs from the Greek in more than
fifty places quoted within the compass of that
work, (published by Fitzpatrick, Dublin 1805,) but
he had the candor to declare, and prove, it to be er-
roneous in itself, and inferior to the Protestant ver-
sion, which, he acknowledges, litterally follows the
Greek. For instance, page 120, he says, " Irenaeus
and others, as well as he, admit that " with the
beast," (the Protestant translation) and not after
the beast," (the Rhemish translation's the true
version of the Greek. Page 5, he says, " kings,"
Rev.i. 6, (the Protestant translation) not "kingdom."
(as the Rhemists have it) is the true translation ;
and, in Page 6, continues to use the word et kings"
as the true version, by which he explains his sub-
ject. Page 20, (Revel, v. 12.) he rightly says,
" riches," (as the Protestant) not " divinity" (as the
Rhemish) is the correct translation, and in Page
21 he repeats and argues from the same.
How little is a translation to be depended on,
which is " neither bound by the Latin vulgate,
nor the original Greek," as these examples prove ;
and they themselves have declared Page xi. Line
39 of their Preface. That the translators have thus
te altered" the sense of the original it is easy to see.
After such proofs and examples of erroneous
translation, will the Editors and their patrons ven-
66
ture to tell the world, that the Rhcmish translation
is correct, or set it up as more pure than, or in any
degree so pure as, that used in the Protestant
Church ! ! Men who are so vulnerable themselves,
should be cautious how they bring' accusations
against others :
In sese redit crimen,
and therefore they should attend to the friendly
advice : —
Desinant malediccre malefacta ne noscant sua.
But if it should be alleged that to do " penance/'
is no more than to " repent," why then may it be
asked, do the professors of the Roman Catholic
Religion take it on themselves to order the inflic-
tion of corporal punishment, as the substance of a
sacrament they have chosen to institute on these
alleged different meanings ? Surely the sense given
to it, by them, is more than " to be sorry for sins,
and amend by abstaining from sin for the future,
which is the true, literal, primitive signification of
the original word f*fl«»*»j made use of by the author
of Christianity himself : viz. to change the mind,
as the opinion of the fathers, to be hereafter men-
tioned, will fully prove.
In Acts v. 31 ; xi. 18, 2 Tim, ii. 25, and Heb.
xii. 17, the vulgate has the word " penitent-tarn" for
^l«vo/«v, which in the Rhemish Testament, (in all
these places) is translated " repentance." Why
did the translators not use the word n penance here
as in other places, if" repentance" and penance be
synonimous ? The true reason is, that the absur-
dity of such a construction would be too glaringly
67
visible, to say, <c this prince and Saviour God hath
exalted with his right hand, to give penance to
Israel/' Acts v. 31 ; or God hath also to the Gen-
ties given penance unto life," Acts xi. 18 ; or if
possible still more absurd in 2 Tim. ii. 25, " If at
any time God gives them penance to know the
truth," instead of" repentance to know the truth."
Here is internal evidence, from the Rhemish Tes-
tament itself, of the erroneous translation of this
word. But if the opinion of one of the 19th cen-
tury has no weight with the professors of the Po-
pish Religion, in the persons of their Representa-
tives, the Titular Archbishops, Bishops, and Cler-
gy, who are patrons of this translation, let the sen-
timents of the early ages of Christianity convince
them of their error. A few quotations from them
will shew the acceptation of the word /^«v<»* in their
days, and prove that the sense in which they un-
derstood it, w as not to mean c f penance. "Of these
Athanasius in the fourth century says, A <* t«1o \ey{l<*i
IJ-iltZVOtat. oil {AtlxllQ-/)Tl TOV VUV tXTTO TS KXKH TTgOS % OCyxOov, j\ £ t (c \Y\\u
word is so called because it changes the mind from
evil to good." In the works of Hilarius of the same
century, we find pcenitentia (the word made use of
in the vulgate for M$vw t s and in Acts v. 31 ; xi. 18,
and 2 Tim. ii. 25, as well as other places trans-
lated repentance) per quam a peccatis desistitur.
And, to say nothing of St. Augustine, Aretas, and
others of different ages, Tertullian, at a still earlier
period of the Christian ^Era, considered this word
to signify a change of the mind, which he correctly
68
says it moans, from the very words of which it i>
compounded.*
Thus while the Protestant translation is proved,
by these fathers to be correct, it appears from the
Rhemish translation itself, (not from the assertion
of any individual, either friend or enemy, or of any
sect or party, but from the very words of the trans-
ition, as the tabic of translations shews) that the
latter is erron ;o is. And no better fate will it expe-
rience, when the other heads of iC adding', detract-
ing, &c." (the charges it has so unwarrantably made
against the English translation used in the Protes-
taut Church) are examined. Thus whilst it is
shewn that the words, such as " are" in St. Matth.
i. 17, " man" verse 17, "him," Matthew ii. 8,
(< for" in verse 18, &c. &c. do not contain any doc-
trinal meaning', nor are capable of perversion, it
is plain they are added merely for the more easy
understanding' the sense of the sentences wherein
they are inserted, and cannot be charged by any
rational, or any unprejudiced person, as being ad-
ded with the most distant idea of deception to the
Reader, or of rt serving- any advantage of private
opinion, nor can they serve such opinions ; for such
a purpose they are overtly disqualified in every in-
stance, where they are used, by being- printed in
Italics, while the text is in the Roman character, to
advertize the Reader of their meaning-, and give
him full notice that they are no part of the original
Text, and thus declare at first view what is the pure
* I» Grccco sono, pocnitentiae riomen, nonex Delicti confes-
&ione, sed cxanimi dcmutatioiK', com^Ositum est. Tertul. Lib.
11.653.
69
uncorrtipted Text, as well as mark the words neces-
sary for making- the sentence (when translated into
English) complete, which would otherwise in many
instances be eleptic and defective. And every one
who is in any degree conversant with the Greek,
Latin, Hebrew, and other languages (whether
dead languages, or those spoken at the present
day) knows, and cannot be ignorant, that they
cannot in many instances, be translated into En-
glish, or into any other language, without adding
words, in some places, for which there are no cor-
responding words in these languages. Of this we
have a convincing proof, and examples, in the trans-
lation of the New Testament in French, where we
find in almost every page, words which are not in
the Greek, E. G. in St. Matthew, i. 6, qui avoit etc
femme, &c. &c. &c. which (with many others) may
be seen in une Nouvelle Edition de Nouveau Tes-
tament de M. Martin; as also, that ofL'EvEquE,
et Compte de Cholons, pair de France.
But these additions are more conspicuous, and
for a different purpose, in another translation of the
New Testament, entitled " Le nouveau Testament
de not re seigneur, I. C. traduit de latin en Fran-
cois par les Theologiens de Louvain : imprime a
Bordeaux, chez Jacques Mongiron Milanges
imprimeur du Roi et du College, 1686," wherein
we have additions of a most extraordinary and un-
warranted sort, not as necessary to perfect the sen-
tence, but contrived and pnblished to support the
unscriptural doctrines of the Romish Church.
Among many of this kind are the following, Acts
K
70
xiii. 2, * or comma ilsajfroient an seigneur Le Sa-
crifice de la Masse." Now, as they were offer-
ing unto the Lord the sacrifice of the Mass. These
last words were added without authority, because
without this forgery they could not assign any
scriptural reason for the sacrifice of the Mass, 1 Cor.
iii. 15, " Mais il sera sauve quant a luy ainsi toute-
fois comme par lefeu du purgatoire."
" He shall be saved as to himself, yet so as by
the fire of Purgatory."
Here is an intended proof of the existence of
Purgatory, or Limbus Palrium ; for which in the
whole compass of Holy Writ there is no authority,
not even in the version of the vulgate, nor in the
English version of it, published under the Pa-
tronage of all the Romish Archbishops and Bishops
of Ireland, whosenoteon Johnchap.ix. v. 4, contra-
dicts the forgery, and defeats the design of that pub-
lication. " The time of working and meriting;" S av
the annotators, (C is in this life : after death we can
deserve no more by our deeds, but must only re-
ceive good or ill, according to the difference of our
works here." 1 Cor. vii. 10, * Mais a ciux qui
sontJoignics par le Sacrament de Marriage,
&c." But they who are joined by the sacrament of
marriage.
This is evidently added for establishing mar-
riage as a Sacrament.
1 Tim. iv. 1, " Quelqucs uns separeront de la
foy Homaix e." Some shall depart from the Roman
faith. Without enumerating anv more, these few
of many instances, in which this kind of imposition
71
and artifice is practised, will serve to shew the ge-
neral disposition of that fallacious Work, as well as
prove that this last additament is made, with a view
of establishing the assumption of the Romish Com-
munion, that the Roman Faith, and Roman Ca-
tholic Church only, are Christian and authentic :
notwithstanding neither that Church, nor the Ro-
nton faith was known to St. Paul ; (nor existed
when he wrote the Epistle to Timothy, in which
this unsanctioned addition is made a part of the
text, and thereby unblushingly, if not blasphe-
mously asserted, " to be manifestly said by the
spirit.")* It being certain that he had neither vi-
sited Rome, nor had any communication with it,
nor written that Epistle which is known by the title
of his Epistle to the Romans ;f (so called for no
other reason, but because it was written to the
Jews living in Rome, who were converts to Chris-
tianity, and not to the people of Rome,) who in-
stead of having a Christian Church or faith in
Chrisjt, persecuted his Church with fire and sword,
and '^exposed the professors of Christianity, and
followers of Christ to be torn by wild beasts, and
burned to give light to their persecutors in the
night,"J whilst not only idolatry, but the adoration
of a multitude of gods, was the religion of the Ro-
man city and nation at that period. If such arti-
fice, under such circumstances, be not " dishonesty
walking in craftiness, and adulteration of the word
* 1 Tim. \v. 1. — + Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans,
in the llhemish translation of the New Testament, 1813. — ^ Ta-
citi Aunal. P. 317.
k2
7^
4 m
of God/' as the Rhemish Testament expresses it ;
and the Editors Page 5, Line 8, also speak, it
would not be easy to say what is.
Will the Editors of this Preface be surprised to
be told that the translators of the Rhemish Testa-
ment, have added words in their translation which
do not exist in the Greek ! (as in St. Matth. i. 19,
" man/' iv. 20, " their/' v. 3, 4, 5, &c. " are/' x. 1,
ec together," xi. 8, " garments," 2 Peter i. 10,
" that by good works." And Doctor Walmsley,
under the name of Pastorini, before mentioned,*
admits the words cc the third part of the earth was
burnt up," (Apocalypse viii. 7.) to be an addition.
And this they have done without the candour or
honesty of the English translators, who have marked
such words as are not in the original Greek by
italics ; whilst in all these words in the Rhemish
Testament, the character (i. e. the Roman cha-
racter) is uniformly the same, without any note or
mark, or characteristic, to distinguish them from
the original iu which they do not exist ; and thus
(in their own words, page v. L. 8,) n walking in
deceitfulness abuse the people by adding," without
notice given of the utility or necessity, and other
guileful means, where it serverth for the " advan-
tage of their private opinion." But that which in
the English translators is guilt, (in the minds of
these men) is merit in the Rhemish version.
***** * * multi
commit/wit cadem, d'werso, crimina } falo. — Juv.
• Pastorini 30.
73
" For the same acts, such sentiments are found,
" One man's condemned to death, another's crowned."
Of " detracting" no instance is given, (though
charged,) in the Protestant version, while the
Rhemish translators are guilty of this charge in the
following and many other places : St. Matth. ii. 18,
weeping, (though this be a quotation from Jerem.
xxxi. 15, where this word is in the text ;) St. Matth.
v. 22, (in the Rhemish 23,) without a cause;
Matth. xxvi. 59, Elders or ancients; Romans
xi. 6, but if of works then is it no more grace,
otherwise work is no more work; Acts ii. 47,
Church.
Are not these examples sufficient, without adding
more, to shew that the Editors and their patrons
accuse the Protestants of " false translation, adding,
detracting, &c. &c. &c." which they have not
proved, while the Rhemish translators, the very
persons whom they wish to support, stand con-
victed of every charge they have made, and all
this evidently " to serve the advantage of their own
private opinions." Thus., as every one who un-
derstands the original must see, " walking in de-
ceitfulness, and abusing the people," (to make
use of the Editors' own words) <c instead of God's
law and Testament, and for Christ's written will
and words giving their own wicked writing and
fancies, most shamefully in their" Rhemish iC ver-
sion."
One of these fancies, which the Roman Catholic
Church indulges herself in, may be found in the
74
note on St. Mark vi. 13,* in the translation re-
luctantly published, under the patronage of the
Roman Catholic archbishops, bishops, and clergy
of Ireland, which admits, that " in the words of the
commission" (given by Christ to those whom he
sent forth to preach,) " oil is not mentioned ; and
yet it is certain, by their using of oil, that either
Christ did then appoint them to use it, or they
might take it up of themselves by virtue of the
general commission."
If this be not " a fancy" what is ? They say " it
is certain," and yet give not a shadow of proof or
authority for the assertion ; on the contrary, they
say " it makes no part of the commission" but
that the Apostles might " take it up of themselves."
So might they take up any thing else of them-
selves as a sacred rite, (and so did they take up
penance as well as this) and, with no farther autho-
rity, fancifully strained it into a solemn sacrament,
while it was no more than a remedy for healing the
corporal infirmity of the sick, as frequently used in
the eastern countries : which is confirmed by St.
Mark in the same verse, who says, " they anointed
with oil many who were sick and healed them."
And the same Evangelist tells us, c. xvi. 18, " these
signs" (and many oihers) " shall follow them that
believe ; they shall lay their hands upon the sick
and they shall recover." But this never was formed,
even by the Apostles themselves, into, nor estab-
lished with the solemnity or spiritual intention of
* Rhemlsb Testament, published in Dublin, 1813.
75
a sacrament, as the Editors and their patrons, by
their annotation, confess ; nor commanded to be
continued by the Apostles or their successors, in
the Church, (as the Eucharist was by the formal
words of Christ, ** do this, &c. &c") no not even
while the gift of healing was continued among them;
and the very word lc recover," shows it was corporal,
not spiritual, sickness of which they were healed.
And do not the annotators themselves admit this to
be the sense, by saying, in the same note, " creatures
also" (speaking of anointing with oil) " have a mi-
raculous medicinal virtue to heal diseases." But
still farther Christ says, that even lc they who
believe shall lay their hands on the sick, and they
shall recover." (St. Matth. xvi. 18.) Such were
the powers given to the Apostles for propagating
Christianity, and confirming their authority among
the nations to which they were sent ; that by visible
signs (not as sacraments) they might be enabled to
conquer their unbelief, and overcome the preju-
dices they possessed in favour of their own heathen-
ish idol Gods. Thus it was (as St. Luke tells us,
Acts xix. 12,) " that there were brought from his"
(St, Paul's) " body to the sick, handkerchiefs and
aprons, and diseases departed from them." Was
not the recovery of these persons, by the use of
" handkerchiefs and aprons," as much, if not more,
" a healing of the sick," and as effectual, as that
of" anointing with oil?" Why is it then that
the application of handkerchiefs and aprons have
not been taken up as a sacrament, since these pro-
76
duced the same effect as anointing with oil did ?
For it will not be denied that St. Paul was divinely
commissioned as well as the other Apostles, and
that he administered the two sacraments, ordained
by Christ, as well as they ? And as a farther proof
of the assumptions and the "wicked writings" of
the Rhemish Editors, we need only transcribe
part of their note on Matth. xxvii. 24, where
they say " Pontius Pilate is damned, for being
the minister of the people's will against his
own conscience, even as all the officers are, and
especially the judges and juries which execute the
laws of temporal princes against Catholic men,
for all such are guilty of innocent blood." If this
is not " for Christ's written will and word giving
their own wicked writing" and fancies, what can
deserve this charge ?
Page v. L. 14. — " Disauthorise and make doubtful whole
books, allowed for canonical Scripture by the universal Church
Of God those thousand years and upwards."
Certainly not " allowed by the universal Church
of God," for the Romish Church is but a part of
the Catholic or universal Church, the other portions
" of the Church of God" do not admit the Apocry-
phal books to be canonical. But will the Editors
and their patrons say, why were these not allowed
sooner than a thousand years ago ? It is now near
1800 years since the last of the holy Scriptures
were written ; why were these not admitted for the
800 years preceding the period at which the patrons
of this Preface say they were IC allowed?" The
77
reason is that they were not acknowledged as a
part of the Canon even by the Jews. And Du Pin,
a Doctor of the Sorbonne, and Ragius Professor of
divinity at Paris says that, the books ce disautho-
rized" by Protestants, such as (C Tobit, Judith, Ec-
clesiasticus, Maccabees, &c." were not held cano-
nical by the Council of Laodicea, which was held
long before the period the Editors mention : and
it should be observed, that Du Pin's history* was
approved by the Doctors of the Sorbonne, the
Royal Censor, and Doctors of Divinity of the
Faculty of Paris. But do these rejected, C( dis-
authorised," uncanonical books, contain any thing
more unfavourable to Protestant than to Popish
tenets ? If not, the Protestant Church could have
no reason, partial to themselves, nor inimical to
the professors of the Romish Church, or any other
sect of religion, for rejecting what " the Christian
Church was for some ages an utter stranger to."
And " Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusa-
lem, and all the orthodox writers, who have given
catalogues of the canonical books of Scripture,,
unanimously concur in rejecting these out of the
canon :"f and the Vulgate itself is not more than
1300 years old, as the Editors admit, page vi. L. 47,
while the Greek is more than 1800, and the He-
brew 3000. Surely then, these are better autho-
rities for the canonical books than the Roman
Catholic Church can pretend to ; and if not canoni-
* Du Pin's Eccles. Hist, in folio, vol. I. P. 614, Edition
1723.— t Ency. 11, 463.
L
* 78
cal before, ** how could they become canonical
since ?"*
Page v. L. 15. — li Alter all the authentical and ecclesiastical
words used since our Christianity, into new profane novelties of
speech, agreeable to their doctriue."
" Used since our Christianity/' that is the
Roman Catholic " Christianity." As the aera of
its commencement has not been mentioned by the
Editors, it is left unknown ; but it may be con-
cluded to be about " a thousand years" old, the
date of admitting the Aprocryphal " disauthorized
books" into the canon.f' The Editors should have
told what these " authentical and ecclesiastical
words" are, which are alleged to have been altered
as they say. It is to be supposed they would if
* The candour of the Editors and their patrons may be ad-
mitted, though it must be allowed they have been rather unfor-
tunate in choosing the epoch of 1000 years from the date of their
Preface and Edition as the aera of their canon, that being the
period of the Church commonly, and properly, denominated the
dark age ; that age of ignorance wherein superstition increased,
and numerons errors, such as trausubstantiation, &c. crept into,
and obtained a place among the tenets of the ignorant, and when
the use of images (by which the people became downright
idolaters, Dupin v. 11, 32,) was so much contended for by the
councils of those times.
It might be observed that this was the time when the Pope
first usurped the temporal power, by seizing the Exarchate
of Ravenna, throngh the assistance of Pepin, (an usurper
and regicide) by- Pope Zachary's aid and advice, as Buona-
parte did in France, by the assistance of the present Pope. Pius
VII.
+ Pref. v. 14.
79
they could ; and charge, without proof or example,
is censure without cause, and accusation without
guilt.
Page v. L. 17. — " Charge the very Evangelist with following
untrue translation."
How silly is it for any man, or any body of men,
who pretend to any education or knowledge of the
Scriptures, to allege that any one could ec charge
the Evangelist with following an untrue trans-
lation," when the writings of the Evangelists are
originals I ! Could the original follow what is
derived from it ? Here then is another palpable
fabrication.
Page. v. L. 17. — li Add whole sentences, proper to theif
sect, into their Psalms, in metre, even into their Creed, in
rhyme, all which the poor deceived people say and sirag as if
they were God's own word; being, indeed, through sacrilegious
treachery, made the Devil's word."
Have the Psalms or Creed in metre or rhyme
ever been set forth as Scripture? The Editors
admit they have not, by saying they are in rhyme :
and it is well known that no part of the English
translation used in the Protestant Church is in
rhyme ; " and the poor people are" neither " taught
to believe," nor do ec they say or sing them as if
they were God's own words.** What can be said
of such unmerited accusation, but that it is seeking
to reproach where no cause exists, and searching
for something to find fault with where none is to
be found.
And is there any crime or sin in (C the people
singing the Psalms in metre ?" If there is, the
l 2
80
{Editors and their patrons are not less culpable,
whoi (page 11, L. 59,) speak exultingly of " the
ploughman in labouring- the ground singing the
hymns and psalms, either in known or unknown
languages, though they could neither read nor
know the meaning of the same."
Page v. L. 20. — " The intolerable liberty and licence, in
changing the accustomed callings of God, angels, men, places,
things used by the Apostles and all antiquity in Greek, Latin,
and all other languages of Christian nations, into new names
taken from Hebrew."
Can it be charged as a crime, or is it a
matter of " ostentation," to retain (for it is not
** changing,") names as originally used in the
Hebrew, the language in which they were first
written ? Is it not the Rheinish translation that
has changed them where they differ from that
language ?
They who make such a remark, as an accusation,
seem not to know that the Old Testament was
written in Hebrew, and that the names of course
are Hebrew ; and that in many instances Hebrew
words or names are not translatable into English.
They who take on themselves the authority and
assume the right of censors, should not overlook a
similar practice in the Rheinish Testament, (Matth.
xxvi 19, et alibi,) where the word pasche (Hebrew
pesech) is retained, instead of translating it pas-
sover, a word not only instructive, (as it is ex-
pressive of the act, which was the cause of first
usifg th- word) but explanatory of the reason of
81
the institution of the solemn feast of Easter, as it
is derived of the Hebrew verb n=3£> which signifies
to (C pass over." To say nothing of the word
Amen, &c. of the same language being left in the
original Hebrew, though translated in the French,,
German, and other languages, as well as in the
English Protestant Testament. But' the Hebrew
words are not the only words left untranslated, for
with the Greek the same " intolerable liberty and
license" is taken by the Rhemish translators, as in
the word azymes, in Acts xii. 3, though they
have thought fit to translate it cc unleavened bread"
in other places, as in St. Mark xiv. 12, and St.
Luke xxii. 7, for reasons not explained.* Here
are examples of words unknown in the English
language ; and yet the Rhemish translators have
used them under the very circumstances the Edi
tors endeavour to find fault with in the Protestant
translation, without venturing to produce in this
whole section a single instance to support their
allegation.
Page v. L. 34.—" Wicked glosses, prayers, confessions
of faith, containing blasphemous errors and plain contradictions
to themselves, + authorised to be joined to the Bible, and believed
as articles of faith, and wholly consonant to God's word."
* Are not these two ways of translating this word, calculated
to make the ignorant believe there were two festivals at this
season, viz. the " feast of unleavened bread," as in Mark xiv.
12, and " azymes," in the first verse of the same chapter: while
one only existed and no more than one was meant, or intended
to be spoken of in these two places, by the word «£.//.« in Greek,
or azyma of the vulgar Latin, in English unfermented or un-
leavened.
+ These alleged contradictions not shewn.
82
These require no farther answer, to prove every
part of the assertion to be without foundation, than
the publication of the Bible without comment,
" gloss, prayer, or confession of faith," and deli-
vered in that uncommeuted and unadorned state
of purity to every Christian, who has the interest
of his soul and his eternal salvation at heart, to
draw from it, as the source of f c every saving truth
and moral discipline among all nations."
P^ge 5. L. 3S. — " We therefore having compassion to see our
beloved countrymen, with extreme danger of their souls, to use
or:!y such profane translations and erroneous men's mere fancies,
have set forth for you the' Old and New Testament, trusting it
may give occasion for you to lay away such their impure versions,
as hitherto you have been forced to make use of."
This section, still " walking in deceitfulness,"
by the hackneyed bug-bear of" their souls being
in danger, would terrify its readers from perusing
the word of God, as set forth in the pure and un-
adulterated Protestant translation, which is free
from the " errors, glosses, and false translations
and fancies," of " adding, detracting, altering,
&c."* frequent in the llhemish Testament : a work
more calculated to lead astray and " endanger the
Christian's soul," than any thing the Editors have
shewn, or can shew, in the translation they have
laboured so much, though in vain, to vilify and
discredit ; a truth which any impartial reader, who
is versed in the learned languages, cannot fail of
seeing : and the proofs adduced in the remarks on
* See Appendix.
S3
page v. L. 8, clearly shew and prove that trans-
lation to proceed from " erroneous men's mere
fancies/' on the subjects of penance, extremg
unction, &c. which their own annotators admit to
be without authority, not being* contained " in the
word of the commission given by Christ to the
Apostles," but '■' that they took, it up of them-
selves."* Are not these and such like conceits the
fC mere fancies of men/' instead of the pure, un-
adulterated and " blessed word of truth ?" And
are they not thus tc calculated to endanger men's
souls 1"
Another assertion, equally gross and unfounded
as that last mentioned is, that " they have been
forced to make use of these translations," (which,
though they are the very words of holy writ, from
their ignorance or a worse principle, the Editors
have been pleased to call " profane,") an assertion
which they have not, and cannot shew, has ever
been verified in a single instance ; notwithstanding
a wish has existed, and still does exist among the
people, voluntarily to have and peruse the Scrip-
tures, which have been so unwarrantably, and so
uuchristianly, withheld from them.
Page v. L. 43. — u We submit ourselves to be in part, or in
The whole, reformed, corrected, altered, or quite abolished, &c."
It is most devoutly to be wished that this decla-
ration, made with so much apparent humility and
candour, would be supported by fact instead of
* Note on Mark vi 13th,
S4
words ; and that, as iC their errors are discovered/'
and some, out of many, opened to them in the
preceding pages, they will not, for " defence of
their opinion, or out of pride and contention by
wrangling- words, persist in them, but correct them
and amend," in a case, as they say," that concerneth
no less than every one's eternal salvation or damna-
tion," (Page vi. L. 20,) " and correct their mistakes"
and errors as they have promised, (Page v. L. 47,)
considering this as the advice fC of a friend/' (out
of good will) ** sincerely desirous that they may
seek the truth and Gods honour/' both of which
will thus be supported, the true Christian will be
taught how, through a Redeemer's merits, and his
assisted endeavours, " to save," instead of " en-
dangering his soul," and then " all will be well."
This will prove (contrary to the whole tenor of
this Preface) " that they have used no partiality
for the disadvantage of their adversaries," (Line
52,) and that they are sincere in their declaration.
Page v. L. 52. — " We profess that we have used no partiality
for the disadvantage of our adversaries."
How far this is true, the numerous abuses, er-
roneous translations, and " false glosses," as well as
contradictions, subterfuges, &c* and the slander-
ous calumnies lavished throughout the Preface,
may serve to shew.
Page v. L. 57. — " In Scripture lest we miss the 6ense, we must
keep the very words."
* Page v. L. 8, vii. and viii. passim, x. 1. of the Preface, and the
Notes on page vi. 61, 65, and vii. 1 1.
85
How very differently the Rhemish translators
have acted, the words which are mistranslated
shew. See Pages 54, 58, &c. &c.
Page vi. Line 4.—" The text truly translated, might suffi-
ciently controul the adversaries corruptions, and prove that the
Holy Scriptures, * * * maketh nothing for their own opi-
nions, but wholly for the Catholic Church's Belief and Doc.
trines."
That the original text is not " truly translated"
in the Rhemish Testament, a simple comparison
with the original Greek will shew, as has been fully
proved by the Tables of erroneous translations, as
wellasby the Note on Page v. L.8, and the remarks
on Page v. Line 52, and Page x. Line 1, and
therefore it fails of serving the intended purpose of
" making for the Catholic" (they mean the Roman
Catholic) " Church's faith and doctrines, for it
does not make for that belief or those doctrines.
Beside the Rhemish Testament being itself cor-
rupt, is ill calculated to controul corruptions if they
existed in the Protestant Bible.
Nor can " the Holy Scriptures in the corrupted
dress of the Rhemish translation make any thing
against the opinion" of orthodox Protestant prin-
ciples which are founded on, and supported by "the
Holy Scriptures;" nor can they, in that dress, main-
tain, (however much the Editors struggle for that
purpose,) " the belief and doctrines of the Roman
Catholic Church," which being contrary to " the
Holy Scriptures" in several instances of sacraments,
&c. not only unauthorised, but not even mentioned
M
80
by Christ, are no more to be found there, than that
Church, itself, which the Editors complain the Pro-
testants " can not find in the Scriptures," without
once considering the obvious reason, viz : because
no one can find a thing' where it, is not.
Page 6, Line 15. — " We have also set forth reasonable
large annotations, thereby to shew the heretical corruptions, and
false deductions, and also the Apostolic Traditions."
The slightest attention will shew, that these
notes are, generally, no more than props to the
crazy fabrics of doctrines, otherwise unsupported,
and principles assumed on no better foundation ;
without which the Patrons of this Edition would
not venture the pure text into the world, nor trust
the plain word, even hi the partial dress of the
Rhemish translation, to the people, lest it should
not walk in the way its sponsors and patrons could
wish. But these annotations have a still farther
object in view, that of guarding them against dis-
covering the want of divine authority, for the ad-
mission of traditions and additional sacraments, so
constantly boasted of, but no where to be found,
which the annotators labour at by deductions, in-
ferences, conclusions, &c. &c. of so flimsy a texture,
that they are obliged to confess there is no autho-
rity for them, as in their note on St. Mark vi. 13,
already mentioned, Page 74.
How different is this conduct from the candour of
the Protestants, who have sent out the Bible in the
plain unadorned text, in a pure, literal translation,
without note or comment, carrying its weiffht. and
intrinsic value in itself, unaccompanied with the
87
props of fanciful expositors, or prejudiced and par-
tial interpreters standing by, and giving- it a conve-
nient gloss ; the truth and correctness, and purity
of which, all the wanton calumny, and gToundless
charges contained in page 5, et alibi of the Rhe-
mish Preface, can never invalidate in the minds of
learned, pious, and impartial men.
Page 6. Line 27. — " They that are negligent in matters of
study and learning, shaking off sluggishness, are stirred np to
diligent hearing, that the adversaries may be repelled.'*
Thus the spurious translation of the Rherrtish Tes-
tament, and its artful, insidious Preface, made up of
so many misrepresentations, and unblushing asser-
tions, draw forth just animadversions, and rouse
the spirit of those who had no inclination to contend
with the Roman Catholic Church on any subject,
to examine in their own defence, and confute the
cunning arguments, glossed subtleties, and un-
bounded liberties assumed by the Editors, Anno-
tators, and Patrons of the Rhemish Translation ;
which are such as would be unbecoming a common
novice, who had neither pretensions to biblical in-
formation, nor character to support : how much
more unworthy of the prelacy of any Church to
sanction, with their approbation and patronage,
a publication, the wanton and unprovoked calumny
of which, does no credit to the names of those
who abet it.
However satisfied the authors of it may be with
their production, or Hatter themselves that their
dogmatical glosses will pass for authoritative
m 2
88
truths, there are still men of sense, and pene-
tration enough to discover their intention throuo-h
all the veils thrown over it, and who will not take
for granted every assertion they have made, unsup-
ported by reason or scripture, only because a prelate
of their Church has given his name to it. Thus
by searching the scriptures, (to which the cunning
designs of the adversaries of protestantism, dis-
covered in the Preface, gave rise,) their insidious
artifices are exposed, and the principles of their
Church proved to be unsound, while those of the
protestant are defended from the unprovoked ca-
lumnies, so lavishly, and illiberally bestowed on it ;
and that too through the very means its adversa-
ries had devised for its destruction. So does it often
turn out that error detects itself, and malice defeats
its own purpose :
Frustraque, animis, elate, superbis,
Nequicquam patrias, tentasti lubricus, crtes
Necfraus te incolumem fallace perferet arte.
Page 6, Line 45. — " We translate the old vulgar Latin text,
not the "common Greek text," because it was used in the
" Church of God above thirteen hundred years ago."
Was there ever a less satisfactory reason, or
more absurd argument, advanced by any men who
pretend to learning or common sense ? The reason
alleged, is the very one why it should not be pre-
ferred to the Greek, whence it was taken, and of
course is of more ancient date in the Christian
Church, than that old vulgar Latin text, and can
any one be persuaded that a translation is, or can
89
be more authentic or proper to be " translated/'
than its original ? All men, who are but indiffer-
ently acquainted with the history of the Christian
Church, know that the Old Testament was written
in Hebrew, 3000 years ago, and the New in Greek,
little less than 1800 years since ; and will any one
suffer himself to be so grossly imposed on, as to be-
lieve that any Latin translation of these, (whether
it be denominated the vulgate, or known by any
other designation) can be preferable to the original
scriptures in those languages in which they were first
written, so long before the vulgate was, or could,
be in existence ; or that this vulgate, this Urim and
Thummim of the Roman Catholic Church, so much
talked of, could gain authority by its antiquity of
being used 1300 years ago, (as boasted of in Page
vii. Line 47) in preference to the Hebrew and Greek,
one of which was written near 1800, and the other
3000 years ago.* It might be observed that
neither the reason here assigned, nor these set
forth in the nine following sections, give the true
cause of the translation of the Vulgate being pre-
ferred by the Roman Catholic Church : it is be-
cause it affords an opportunity of introducing
doubtful meanings, and ambiguous different con-
structions, to answer the " advantage of their pri-
vate opinions/' and assist in their endeavours to
support the errors, whilst it propagates the princi-
ples, of a corrupted Church.
* Moses wrote about 3300, and Malachi, the last of the prophets,
2115 years ago.
Page 7. Line 49. — •' It is that (by the common received
opinion, and by all probability) which St. Hierom afterwards
corrected according to the Greek."
Here then it is confessed that the Greek, being;
the original, is of course the standard and test of
the New Testament, by which it was necessary to
Correct the Latin Vulgate, and which vii. 54, 57,
and vii. 64, is said to be " better than the Greek ! ! !"
and yet that translation is preferred by the Ro-
manists to that original standard, which the Evan-
gelists and Apostles penned ; only on the surmise
that, " by all probability/' (not certainly) " St.
Hierom corrected it according to the Greek." What
learned reasoning and convincing argument for
this valuable adoption of the Vulgate ! !
The Editors seem to forget, or have not told us,
that " the translation first made by St. Hierom,
not pleasing the people, was rejected by them, and
that he was obliged to make another more conso-
nant to the wishes and sentiments of those he had
to please,"* and that it is from this last (which he
was compelled to make contrary to his own senti-
ments " marking* bv obeluses and asterisks where
it differed from the Hebrew,") and the Editio Italica
that the Vulgate*, the correctness of which has been
so much vaunted, is made. St. Hierom 's own un-
prejudiced and unbiassed sentiments were not re-
lished by the people, because, " by all probability,"
they were correct and his translation pure, therefore
he was compelled to translate anew into Latin,
* Butler Hor. Bibl. 116.
91
not the Greek as it stood, but so as to please the
people ! a wondrous tale for Editors to build the
correctness of their Vulgate on ! ! ! What " need
there any more witnesses, does not this condemn
them ?" Prom such a tree what must be the
fruit ?
Page vi. L. 51. — '* It is the same St. Augustin commendeth."
Will the Romanists themselves say that the
authority of St. Augustin is superior to that of the
Evangelists who wrote the Greek, or the Apostle
St. Paul, and other.?, who wrote in the same
language ; among whom is St. Peter, who is set up
by them to be the head of their Church. Or that
the opinion of St. Augustin is to be preferred to
that of St. Hierom, when he made such a trans-
lation as he knew to be correct, though it did not
<c please the people."
It might be observed that the Editors endeavour
to confound the Vulgate of the present day, (made
by Sixtus V. and Clement VIII. in the sixteenth
century) with the old vulgar Latin, which, it is
said, St. Augustin approved in the fourth century.
Page vi. L. 53. — " It is that which, for the most part, ever
since has been used in the Church service, expounded in sermons,
alleged and interpreted in the commentaries aud writings of the
aucient fathers of the Lalin Church."
For what reason is it " used only for the most
part ?" If authentic and correct, why not always ?
From this declaration is it not fair to conclude,
that it is used only so far as it can be made to
92
answer the object of defending the doctrines of
the sacraments, traditions, &c. of the Roman
Church. And surely a translation which is proved,
from the authority already mentioned, to have been
made only to " please the people" of St. Hierom's
day and country, (who, in the age he lived in, wereby
no means enlightened nor men of learning, nor well
versed in the original Scriptures, since a translation
in Latin was necessary for them,) can be no good
foundation of the Scriptures for the use of any
Church, nor fit to be the subject of " lessons and
sermons,", though well enough calculated " for
disputations," (P. vi. 55.) And nothing can be more
certain than that using this uncertain translation
in the Church could not possibly render it true.
No wonder then that the errors of " these ancient
fathers who used this translation," and their suc-
cessors and abettors, should be great as well as
numerous, since they draw their authority and de-
rive their doctrines, not from the pure fountain c< of
living waters," as taught by Christ, but from the
stagnant pool and impure stream of men, com-
pelled by the people to conceal the truth as origi-
nally penned by the Apostles. No wonder that
those errors should be thus propagated through
the whole length of the current to the present
day, among those who are carried down its course,
and not Buffered to derive information from the ori-
ginal source.
Page vi. L. 55. — " The holy Council of Trent hath declared
and defined this only of all other Latin translations, to be authen-
tical, and so only to be used and taken in public lessons, dispu.
tations, preachings, and expositions, and that no man presume.
upon any pretence, to reject or refuse the same."
93
Notwithstanding the authority and interdict of
this holy Council of Trent, it may be seen how far
some succeeding Popes thought the Vulgate au-
thentical or pure, by their having made alterations,
corrections, &c. &c. and issuing Bulls against each
other, one condemning what the other printed and
published, evidently proving that they wanted, or
at least did not use, the anchor of steadiness and
truth which is to be found in the original. For
the edition which Pope Sixtus V. (assisted by
Cardinal Caraffa, Flaminius Nobilius, Antonius
Agellius, Petrus Morinus, and Angelus Rocca,)
published by the order of the Council of Trent,
was condemned by Pope Clement VIII. in 1592,*
and by the same Pope, altered in 1593, Ci between
which two publications," as the celebrated Bellum
Papale sets forth, " there were 2000 instances
in which they differed. And Lucas Brugensis
has reckoned 4000 places in which, he says> the
edition of Clement the eighth wants correction. "f
Beside those, a heavy charge lies on the editions
of this Pope, not only that they have some new
texts added, but also many old ones altered, to
countenance and confirm the errors of what they
call the Catholic doctrine.^
It thus appears that the Vulgate differs from the
original Greek, and that too from the testimony
of the members of their own Church, who were
* This is the Edition used in the R. C. Church of the present
day. — + Horaj Biblia, 120. See also page 52,— X Encr.
Ill, 215.
N
94
principal agents in the publication of it. Yet thi*
is the translation that is imposed on the 1 members
of the Romish Church, and required to be re-
ceived as an unerring oracle, and ordered by
the Council of Trent " to be used and taken in
public lessons, disputations, preachings, and ex-
positions."
Page vi. L. 58. — " It is the gravest, sincerest, of greatest ma.
jesty and least partiality, as being without all re«pecf of contio.
versiesaiul contentions, especially these of our tinit asnppeareth
by those places which Erasnvi- nnd others at this day translate,
much more to the advantage of the Catholic cause."
*
Is the Vulgate "without all respect of contro-
versies and contentions," when it lays the foun-
dation for them by unfaithful translations,* ad-
ditions, detractions, and errors, retained uncor-
rected, as Bellarmine admits. f Is it then " without
partiality, or is it the more to the advantage of the
Roman Catholic cause, that Erasmus, (himself a
Roman Catholic to be presumed) and others,"
(probably favourers of that cause) " have translated
places of the Greek more favourably than the Vul-
gate has V' No one can be so blind as not to see
that the end and design of all this is to keep the
holy Scriptures, as they were in their primitive
purity, from the people, and to give them a trans-
lation that " makes for the advantage of the Roman
Catholic cause," without the authority of the ori-
ginal from which it deviates.
* v. Page 98.— + P. 52 & 93.
95
Page vi. L. Gl. — u It is exact and precise according to th<
Greek, both the phrase and the word, and it folioweth the Greek
far more exactly than the Protestant translation. We appeal
to thnse, Titus iii. 14, curent bonis operibus prceesse^ irgourlixaBxi.
Enijli-.! fjib!e, J 577, " to maintain good ••vorks," and Hebr. x.
20, viam nobis initiavit tKxaiMirai, English Bible, "he prepared."
To prove the first assertion, viz. that " it is exact
and precise according to the Greek," there is no
authority necessary but that of the Editors them-
selves ; who. in page vii. line 57, say " it is better
than the Greek text itself/' for if better it is neither
" exact nor precise according to the Greek/' as
better most certainly differs from what is worse ;
nor does it, for the same reason, " follow the
Greek more exactly/' for if better it does not follow
the Greek, bat becomes itself an original and not
a translation, whereinsoever it differs from it.
Beside that it does not ft follow the Greek so
exactly as the Protestant translation" is evident
from the several different versions of the word
{/.donnaf* in the different places in which it occurs
in the Ilhemish Testament, same of which are
mentioned in page 57, and in all which the Protes-
tant translation gives uniformly the same trans-
lation, as well as wherever else it occurs through
the whole New Testament. And thus it does not
contradict itself and prove its want of " exactness
and precision," as the Rhemish most manifestly
does.
How little successful the Editors and their abet-
tors have been in their boasted appeal on the trans-
* See the Table Pages 57 and 58.
n2
96
lation of the word tigvdmnfai Tit. iii. 14, " to excel in
good works/* according to the Remish, ( fl to main-
tain,"* i 1 tlie Protestant,) may be seen by con-
sidering'; the meaning of that word. In the best
\t xicons tliis conm Kind word is translated ante-
pono, defendo, antecello. That the translation of
the Protestant Testament is therefore no mis-
translation is certain, since according to these the
English word maintain is as much contained in
these Latin words as the word excel. The word
defendo, without any explanation, means to main-
tain ; and antepono, to place before, has clearly the
same signification : for to be before a thing is to
stand between it and danger, to defend or maintain
that thins: in its situation or rights. But the verb
prozsum is also one of the words by which this
Greek word is translated, and it is that which the
Vulgate uses : this signifies to preside over or
he placed before ; and is not such presiding for the
defence of, or maintaining, the thing presided
over ?
It should be observed, that in the sentence
" Cnrenl bonis operibus prteesse" of the Vulgate,
" bonis operibus" is not the ablative case, (as trans-
lated in the Rhemish Testament) but the dative
case, governed of the verb pr&esse : arid therefore,
by authority of the Vulgate itself, ^aW^ signifies
to preside over, to defend or maintain, not to excel
* The Apostl&'B -words to Timothy in chap. ii. v. 1, 15, serve
to confirm this version, where he says: " speak thou the things
that become sound doctrine, and exhort and rebuke with all
authority." Is not this to maintain?
. .. 97
in, for here is no ablative from which to draw such
a version. So that here the Editors have forgot
their grammar, and seem not to have known that
ireonflxtrBai when it is translated by the verb preesum,
always governs a genitive case, (as in this place it
does,) which clearly excludes it from being trans-
lated by the preposition in, and thus the version of
the Vulgate, " bonis operibus praeesse," is here
<c precise and exact," according to the Latin gram-
mar, as well as the Greek, both of which are
rightly, exactly, and precisely translated in the
Protestant Testament by the word maintain, and
not excel, as in the Rhemish Testament.
It may be farther considered, that had it been
the Apostle's intention to direct Titus to excel in
good works, he would probably have used the word
mgieypu oi* vtts^tyiiv ev kxXois Efyo<s-, instead of Wfo;<xW0*<, to
maintain good works; or, as in 2 Cor. ix. 8,
Trtgiaatviiv etg cgyx «y*6<z, or 1 TilU.vi. 18 v\itlsiv *v tgyois tcxXou.
But the Apostle's meaning and intention may be
further elucidated by an example, thus : the Lord
Lieutenant presides over the Government of
Ireland, to " maintain" the laws of the Consti-
tution, not to excel in them, and this he may do
effectually, he may maintain the laws to their ut-
most extent, though he should fail to obey them in
his own person. Or a clergyman set over a parish
presides over it to maintain the principles and
practice of religion, though he should not himself
be a man of good private morals, or excel in
virtue or religion. Here St. Paul would have
Titus and those he presided over, not only to excel
98
in good works themselves, but to maintain these
good works, as far as in their power, and their in-
fluence and labour could extend, in others. Thus
it appears that the Protestant translation is far
more comprehensive, as well as pertinent and
exact, than the Rhemish, which by it's word excel,
expresses no more than a part of the Apostle's
meaning and intention in this place, by the word
irfoiiflx<r6txi ) to maintain.
The disposition to cavil is pretty strongly shewn
in the Editors' criticism on the word wfo/oWfl*,, but
actual want of veracity and deceitful imposition,
are proved in the next quotation which they
make in this section. The word w«*^»^p», they
assert to be translated cc in the English Bible,"
he prepared, while a simple inspection of that
text (Hebrew x. 20,) will serve to prove the mis-
representation, for it is there translated " he
consecrated," and in the Rhemish f he hath dedi-
cated."
Here is another instance of the Editors' insidious
intention to deceive by imposing- on those misled
people, who are not suffered to have that trans-
lation in their possession, and are in that way de-
prived of the only means of detecting the artifices
made use of as an instrument for establishing the
Rhemish (in many places incorrect) translation,
by misrepresenting that of the Protestant, which
they, too sensibly, feel contains many original
truths, correctly, " precisely, and exactly" trans-
lated, which, by fair and candid truth, they cannot
invalidate ; and are therefore reduced to the neces-
99
sity of having recourse to false quotations, rather
than leave it miassailed ; and sometimes to <;uote
from some obsolete translation of no authenticity,
or ancient date, which the translation, published in
161 Land read by authority in the Protestant Church
supersedes, as effectually as the Clementine Vulgate
condemns all other Latin translations, by the order
of the Council of Trent, directing such to be " re-
jected and ret used," under the irrevocable penalty
of an anathematous curse. The Editors in this
section, in which they are convicted of so many
misrepresentations, go on in the same style, and
say :
Page vi. L. 65. — " In the words justifications, traditions,
idola, &c. &c. they" (the Protestants) " come not near the
Greek, but avoid it of purpose."
For what purpose the Editors do not venture to
say ; and indeed it would be impossible in truth,
to mention any iC purpose" it would serve, in the
Protestant principles or doctrines, to avoid these
words. But for what cc purpose" such an idea could
be fabricated, ingenuity must be at a loss to con-
ceive ; if not with the same view of the quotations
already confuted, since each and all of these words
will be found by inspection of the several places
where l hey occur, to be the accurate versions of the
corresponding Greek words, translated st exactly
and precisely according to the Greek" in the Pro-
testant translation, and, without the variation of a
single letter, as they are in the Rhemish Testament
as may appear by the following view.
I(X)
Original Protestant Rhemish wr ,
,, , " , . Vulgate.
6 reek translation translation
Rom. v. 6. A/k»w^« Justification Justification Justificatio
Gal. i. 14. nrx^cx^oa-its traditions traditions traditiones
SThess.11,15. ) Justiiica- Justifica- Justifica-
Koemisn 14.5 tions tions hones
Acts vii. 41. si^viu Idol Idol simulachro
Acts xv. 20. £/5*Aft/y Idols Idols simulachrorum
Horn ii. 22. t^uXx Idols Idols idola
1 Cor. xii- 2. fiW« Idols Idols simulachra
1 Thess. i. 9. ti$u>\ois Idols Idols simulachris
1 John v. 21. uSioXois Idols Idols simulaehri3
Rev. ix. 20. utuiKx Idols Idols simulachra
What reliance can be placed on the words, as-
sertions, or quotations of the abettors of the
Rhemish translation, in their animadversions on the
Protestant translation, when the very words which
they here, and elsewhere, hold forth as false trans-
lations, are proved to be precisely the same as the
Rhemish. What clearer conviction of calumny
and misrepresentation can exist ? Is not the sen-
tence and censure of St. Paul, Rom. ii. 1, applicable
to such persons : " wherefore thou art inexcusable,
O man, whosoever thou art, that judgest. For
wherein thou judgest another thou condemncst
thyself, for thou dost the same things which thou
judgest."
The assertion that the Vulgate is more exact
than the Protestant translation, which is the pro-
position this section sets out with, totally fails of
proof, being void of truth.
Page vii. L. .11, — " It is not only better than all other Latin
translations, but than the Greek itself, in those places where
they disagree."
101
A bold assertion this indeed ! But as proving too
much clearly proves nothing. Is it not a strange over-
sight that any man, much more a number of men, a
whole body of archbishops, bishops, and clergy, as
patrons of the edition, and of this Preface, would take
it on themselves to advance such a contradiction,
that a translation is or could be more authentic and
free from error than the original ? even though
this same Preface had not admitted, as it doss,
page vi. L. 49, " that it was corrected according
to the Greek by the appointment of Pope Da-
masus ;" and the title sets forth that it is " diligently
compared with the Greek." The Greek therefore
was the basis of correction ; and of course, without
a shadow of cavil or doubt, could not be worse
than the Vulgate, which was probably purified by
it from some of its errors by that correction, though
some still remain. But still farther it may be
argued, (as it is plain) that no man can write what
lie did not see, better than they who were witnesses
of the facts recorded. The Evangelists and
Apostles " spoke what they knew, and testified
what they had seen." They were witnesses of
what they wrote, in the language spoken in the
country where the transactions occurred. And
can the translators of the Vulgate out of the
Greek, or men of after ages in another country, of
a different tongue, and habits, and manners, and
customs, be considered more competent to write,
or deserve to be more credited, because they wrote
in another language? or that any translation in any
language whatever, could be made by any men,
o
102
under such circumstances, " bettor than that Greek
text," penned by such unexceptionable penmen
and inspired authors as the Evangelists and
Apostles.
Page vii. L. 25. — M The proof rs more pregnant out of the
adversaiies themselves."
This whole Section goes on the opinion of Beza,
and translations of 1562, &c. not used in the Pro-
testant Church ; of course it has no reference what-
ever to that translation, except where it states that
in 2 Tim. 11, 14, they add but, more than is in the
Greek, '' to make the sense more commodious and
easy, according as it is in the vulgar Latin. It is
somewhat strange, that the Editors and their pa-
trons, here give credit to the vulgate and Rhemish
versions, for what they charge as a fault in the Pro-
testanl translation, page 5, line 12 ; and in this place
they give credit to theProtestant, on the principle that
this translation is alleged by them " to follow the
vulgar Latin," which is contrary to fact, for in very
many places this translation has added words, (and
marked them in Italics, as not in the original) " to
make thesei isc more commodious and easy," where
tlie vnlgate or Rhemish has not, and of course without
consulting or depending on such authority for their
guide. This is another instance of the Editors, dis-
position, who are ready to seize on any circum-
stance, that they can distort, to answer their pur-
pose in one place, though it fell under their censure
in another, (to use their own words) "just as it
serveth for the advantage of their private opinions."
Here" the proof is more pregnant from themselves,"
and against themselves. Another error in this
103
section should not be passed unnoticed, as attempt-
ing to arrogate a superiority to the vuIgate, which
it does not deserve, by saying " they translate not
'the Greek text atrium quod intra templum est, the
Court which is within the Temple, but quite con-
trary, according- to the vulgar Latin, atrium quod
est foris templum, the Court which is without the
temple/' In this also the Editors expose themselves,
for the Protestant translation follows the original
Greek, whichis ^ u ^ without, not*""®™ within. So that
the Editors' willful misrepresentation, in this quo-
tation is detected, or their ignorance of the Greek
exposed. The very same is to be observed of the
other quotations, James v, 12 ; Rom. xii. 11, (not
xi, 21, as in the Preface) which was translated la-
terally from the Greek, and not from the vulgate,
as the Editors assert.
Page 7, Line 39. — " The adversaries follow the old vulgar
Latin, and the Greek copies agreeable thereunto."
Strange fertility of genius ! ! " Greek copies
agreeable to the Latin !" while the Latin are trans-
lations from the Greek, and the preceding note
proves how void of truth the* assertion is, that the
translation of the Protestant Church " follows the
vulgar Latin," whilst it is clear that it is translated,
in the instance there mentioned, from the Greek,
and no* from the Latin. And the Editors admit as
much here, when they say they translate from the
old vulgar Latin, cc and the Greek agreeable there-
unto," i. e. the Protestant translation is the same
as that of the vulgate, whenever " the vulgate is
agreeable to the Greek," from which the Protestant
* Apocal.xi. 2. Greek Text, by Griesbach and Whittaker, Londoi
104
translation is made. These shew that the Edi-
tors quote erroneously, or else quote from incor-
rect, unauthorized copies, procured for the advan-
tage of their own private opinions, and not from
that published in 161 1, which only is authentic.
Page vii. Line.46. — " Yea the Greek text condemns itself,
and justifieththe Latin text exceedingly."
Is not this a persevering in a chain of absurdi-
ties ? The Editors have said, page 7, line 11, that
" the vulgate," which is no more than a copy, " is
better than the Greek text itself, which is the origi-
nal ; andherethey say that original "condemns itself,
and thereby justifieth the vulgar Latin." The case
in question stands thus, either the Greek is the ori-
ginal, and of course not to be corrected by a trans-
lation, which can be no more than a copy of it, or
else it is a spurious copy, and not to be followed. In
either case ; it can stamp no credit on the vuhrate,
for if the vulgate differs from the Greek, as a correct
original, it is false ; and if it differs from a spurious
copy of the Greek, this gives it no positive or ascer-
tained authority, since that difference may as well
be from the correct original, wherever that is, as
from the incorrect, and thus both be wrong. And
the Editors say it is not the same as the Greek,
page 7, line 54, &c. ; and therefore it is acknow-
ledged to be incorrect, as having no original text ;
and the Editors admit it does differ in instancesthey
have given in this section, as in " superfluities" (or
re etitions they should say) " in the Greek" which
li venot proved to be superfluities and therefore left
them out without authority; beside the Editors
105
have not shewn any of the alleged superfluities, or
supposed omissions, to contain any thing contrary
to the tenor of the whole Scripture, or the doctrines
it maintains throughout. Do they contain any
thing unorthodox ?
The Editors may be asked is there no correct
Greek copy ? if there is not, how then can they say,
the vulgate came to be " exact, according to the
Greek'"* which has been translated from an incor-
rect copy. If the original be incorrect, how can a
translation of it be pure ? or if it be pure, it differs
from that which is impure, and thereby becomes an
original, which is not alleged. And if the fountain
be impure, what must the stream be ? But where
did the Editors or translators find the means of pro-
ducing a pure translation in the Latin, if the Greek
from which it is translated is not pure ? Is there any
autocracy or idiocratic virtue in the Latin ; any
secret agency, or self-creating, magic, power, more
than in any other language, by which it can purify
itself from errors received from the alleged spurious
Greek ? Was there any superiority bestowed on, or
mark of favour shewn to it, at the effusion of the
Holy Ghost and Gift of Tongues, more than to the
other languages, with which the Apostles were en-
dued on that occasion ; (before which their lan-
guage was Hebrew or Greek ?) Or any preference
shewn to the "strangers of Rome/' more than to the
other nations assembled at Jerusalem, who "heard,"
not in Latin, but " in their own Tongues tlic won-
derful works of God •" that is, in the tongues fall
* See Page 101, and Preface, Page v\. Line 61.
106
the nations there assembled and enumerated by
St. Luke? Or is the Lathi a m ccl (siastica!
lansrua^e than the Greek or the Hebrew? Are
these languages to be condemned and deemed in-
corrigible, in which Christ spoke and the Evan-
gelists and Apostles wrote ?
Page viii. L. 3. — " If it were not too long to exemplify and
prove this" (the justification of the old Vulgate translation)
" which would require a treatise by itself, &c."
Here the Editors candidly ('though it may be pre-
sumed inadvertently) confess,, that " it would re-
quire a treatise by itself to justify the old trans-
lation." And in the 5th line they say, " it com-
monly agrees with the Greek text," thus admitting
it does not always ; and while they pretend that
they could shew and prove by examples, from the
New Testament, reluctantly suppressed for bre-
vity, they argue largely in no less than nine
sections, by examples, the truth of which has
been confuted, Page SB, &c.
Page viii. L. 9. — M If it disagree here and there from the
Greek text, it agreeth with another Greek copy set in the margin."
(and liue IS.) " If these marginal Greek copies be thought less
authentical than the Greek text, the adversaries tell us the con.
trary, who * * * * follow (he marginal copies and forsake the
Greek, as Rom. xi. ^1 ; Apocalypse xi. 2 ; 2 Tim. ii. 14 ; James
t 12 "
It is first to be observed, that each of these
places is translated, in the Protestant version,
according to the Greek text, and not from the mar-
ginal copies. And in the next place, though the
lor
Editors' allegation, that the adversaries had so
translated, were true, that would not give any au-
thority to the Vulgate, as it only still proves that
the Greek is the criterion, and the Vulgate, which
differs from it in many, though not in all, places,
(otherwise it would not require so much pains to
defend it) is not pure, or in other words is a cor-
rupt translation.
What can be more strange than this, or more
absurd ! to expound the Greek, the archetype, so
as to make it agree with that which is, or ought to
have been, taken scrupulously correct from it, as
any true copy from its original. In this section the
Editors ask, " in what Greek copy extant at this
day is there this text, John v. 2, Est autem Hiero-
solymis probatica piscina? and yet St. Chrysostom,
'St. Cyril, #c. 8$c. read so in the Greek. And so
is the Latin text of the Roman Mass book justified,
and eight other Latin copies that read so. For
our vulgar Latin here is according to the Greek,
super probatica." The Editors, by their question,
would inform us that " no Greek copy exists, con-
taining the Greek of which " est autem Hieroso-
lymis probatica piscina" is a version, and yet thev
add that Chrysostom, St. Cyril, and Theophylact
read so in the Greek.
What consistence is there in this ? Here also
the Roman Mass book is set at variance with the
supposed Vulgate, the latter being alleged to have
ft super probatica" the former <c probatica piscina,"
according to the Editors, though the truth is, that the
Clementine edition of the Vulgate has not " super/'
108
as asserted. However the allegation that" super
probatica" is the correct reading, proves the faith-
fulness of the Protestant translation, which here,
as in all othe" places, follows the Greek ; and the
tthoiiiish version, patronised by the Roman Ca-
tholic Archbishops, Bishops, &c. &c. &c. of the
year 1813, to which the Preface herein mentioned \
is prefixed, translates it " a pond called probatic,"
contrary to the Greek, and the Vulgate alleged to
have super probatica.
The Editors seem not to make here a distinction
between the nominative case and the dative ; for
the word wgtf**l«*», in the original, is not only
marked with the dative sign 0) but has the pre-
position *w before it, which it might be supposed
would guard against a possibility of mistake : but
this the Editors and Rheinish Doctors seem to have
overlooked when they translated it " probatica/'
in the nominative case, differing herein from An-
tonius Nebrisssensis, a man of universal learning,
of the sixteenth century, who wrote dictionaries of
Latin, Greek, and Hebrew,* as well as from the
obvious meaning of the passage ; for the pool or
pond was not called cc probatica," (as the Editors
by a part of their annotation, in locum, would have
believed) because the sheep for sacrifices were
washed therein ; for sheep were not the only sa-
crifices washed in that pool, but bullocks also and
goats, and all other sacrifices ; so that the pool
might as properly be called " Boutica" or " Aigi-
* DupiH ?. iii. p. SGI.
109
tica/' as probatica. It is worth notice that An-
tonius Nebrissensis has given weight to the Pro-
testant translation, when he says : '\ It was the
place where sheep were kept in readiness for sa-
crifice, which was probably the market place/' (as
rendered by the Protestant translation) fl for sheep
brought to be sold to those who came annually
from remote parts of the Jewish tribes, and who
could not bring the beasts they were to offer in
sacrifice without great inconvenience, as well as
risk of injury, which would have rendered them
useless : it being part of their law that their " of-
fering was to be without blemish."* And it is not
unreasonable to conclude that this market place
and pool were both contiguous to that gate of the
city noticed in the second book of Esdras, (Nehe-
miah) chap. iii. 1, rendered by the Septuagint
" vvm vgoGximv," the sheep-gate, and by the Vulgate
(C porta gregis." But exclusive of this, do not
the Editors admit their translation to be unfaithful
by their own annotation on the place which says,
" by our Latin text and the Greek this miraculous
pond was in or upon probatica." Where then is
their authority for a translation avowedly differing
from the Vulgate as well as the Greek ? The nu-
merous inconsistencies of this section cannot escape
the reader's notice.
Page viii. L. 45.—" If all such conjectures, and all the Greek
fathers, help us not out, yet the Latin fathers, with great consent,
will easily justify the vulgar translation, which for the moat
part they follow and expound."
* Levit. xxii. 20.
P
i no
The Greek fathers not being found sufficient,
an appeal is now made to the Latin fathers ; but
even among these, it seems, a difference of opinion
exists ; for it is admitted that they do not always
agree with the Vulgate, but that it is only C( for the
most part" they follow the old translation. Is noti
this an admission that it is erroneous in some
places. When neither " the conjectures" of the
Greek fathers nor the sentiments of the Latin
fathers, for want of unanimity, are found to sup-
port its authority or ff help the Editors out," what
authority is there for their Vulgate to rest on ?
When in page viii. 64, they confess that " these
fathers did not always exactly cite the words,
but followed some commodious and godly sense
of them." Can it be necessary after such a con-
fession, to use any more words to shew, or argu-
ments to satisfy even partiality itself, that the
Vulgate is not to be admitted as the standard of the
holy Scriptures, or that from which a translation
should be made into any language, for the in-
struction of the people speaking such a language '(
Or is it necessary to say that the Greek text is the
only sure foundation and authority, " the pillar
and ground of truth," the prototype which alone is
to be depended on as the sure " word of God which
can save our souls ?" <c the fountain of living
water," of which whoever drinks needs no help of
the Vulgate, or of any other guide, and he " shall
not thirst for ever."
Page ix. L. 3G. — " We translate uot the Greek, we preftr
the Latin, and have translated it."
Ill
In this section the same disposition is manifested
as in the foregoing, viz. to discredit the Greek, and
set up the Latin in opposition. What authority
is there, under such circumstances, for the New
Testament ? It was not written in Latin ; whence
then does the Vulgate proceed ? What foundation
has it ? Will any one pretend it was given by in-
spiration ! That which did not appear, nay could
not appear, till after the Gospel and Epistles were
written and published, and known in different parts
of the world, and concerning the authenticity or
purity of which the Popes themselves have differed
so much and been at variance, even to issuing their
Bulls against each other, see page 98. What au-
thenticity Can any one persuade himself such a
translation possesses, or believe that it has no errors,
when the existence of errors have been both
proved* and admitted.f Are these reasons for
believing that " it is as good, or better, than the
Greek itself,";}; or reasons why it should be trans-
lated, as it is, under the form of the Rhernish Tes-
tament ? Whoever can bring himself to believe this
believes direct contradictions, one of which must be
false. He believes more than Christianity requires
of him, for he believes without any principle, or
guide for nis belief, or authority, human or divine ;
and rests satisfied that Gospels and Epistles
may be fabricated, and altered and corrupted at
* Page 54, Sec. pt alibi of this. — + Page viii. L, 9, ix.
7, et alibi of the Preface, and 95 of this- — ^ Preface P. ?iii,
L. 64.
P 2
112
the will of individuals, or soots, in the seventh or
eighth century, (the period when the canonical
books of the Vulgate are alleged to have com-
menced,*) or in the nineteenth, in which the Edi-
tors and their patrons labour to establish its autho-
rity ; and that he is bound to receive it as a sub-
stitute for, and, even, " better than the original
Greek itself;" though the Greek was written by
the Evangelists and Apostles in the very beginning
of Christianity, and with no other design or in-
tention but that of being faithful historians, re-
cording unadorned facts, and unperverted doc-
trines, for the benefit of all Christians to the end
of time. Can such a fountain send forth a pure
and unpolluted stream? Yet this is the source
from which the Rhemish Testament flows, that
which the Editors publish, avowing that " it is this
they have translated, and not the Greek, "f and been
so hardy as to allege that " the Greek is less sin-
cere than the vulgar Latin/'J of which it is, not-
withstanding all they have said, or can say, tlio
archetype. In this declaration they seem to be
little aware of the contradiction they are here
guilty of, (as in other places) for, in order to acquire
credit to, and stamp authority on their Rhemish
translation, they set forth in their prospectus that
" it is diligently compared with the Greek." Of
what use then can such a comparing be, since it is
confessed " they do not. translate it ?"j| Is there
* See Nolo v. L. 14, page 76 of this.— + Pref. P. ix. L. 3S
and 40.—;. P. vii. L. 55. & ix. 37. — 1| P. ix. L. 36 and 38.
113
no contradiction here, no deception in this ? The
Editors may contribute much toward sapping- the
foundation of the Christian religion, but cannot
establish any thing in favour of what they profess,
by condemning all others, declaring the Greek to
be incorrect,* and admitting " errors evidently
crept into their own Vulgate," P. viii. 67.
Page ix. L. 39. — " When they cannot answer our reasons
aforesaid."
Still the Editors unblushingly affirm, without a
semblance of authority, (as if all readers were
weak enough to believe their ipse dixit) that which
they themselves are conscious cannot be true ; and
the proof that the assertion is unfounded is mani-
fest in the confutations given to their unsupported
(though here alleged et unanswerable") reasons, as
may be seen in the Note (on page viii. line 9,)
Page 106.
Page ix. L. 42. — " Being assured that they have not one, and
that we have many, advantages in the Greek more than in the
Latin, as by the annotations of the New Testament shall evi-
dently appear."
The sponsors are now brought forward to answer
for the text : it has existed long enough to answer
for itself, but this would not answer the Editors'
purpose to leave it in a state of purity. It must
bear no construction but what these sponsors and
annotators choose to put on it, witness pfwoia a nd
nrc^ v %qos, vvith their different translations, penance
* Page vii. 46, 55, u. 37, et alibi,
114
and priest, according to the sense the annotators
wish they should convey,* as well as the adoption
of Extreme Unction, f an d supersubstantial bread, t
as the English of «*'«<™»s &c. &c. &c. Such are the
advantages they have in " the Greek more than in
the Latin !" that they make it assume such form
or forms as may best suit their designs.
Page ix. L. 44. — w Namely in all such places where they
dare not translate the Gn ek, because it is for us and against
them, as Atx-xii-fAtx., ttxg&lioaiis, EtouXat.'"
That in the Rhemish Testament there are many
words of Greek and Hebrew left untranslated, the
edition of the Editors shews. Whether it were
fear of exposing their errors, or ignorance operated
on them and the Rhemish Doctors as the cause,
it is not necessary to say, but neither of these has
had any effect on the translators of the version
used in the Protestant Church, for every word
which it is here said they dare not translate, is not
only translated but will be found (in the table in
page 100,) in the identical words of the Rhemish
Testament.
For what purpose, in the name of reason, may
it be asked, do the Editors introduce the word
i,W« here ? Can their assertions be admitted in
contradiction to the recorded translation, which
shews that * they dare translate/' and have trans-
lated * it." This charge, like others equally void
* Page 53 and 54 of this.— + Note on Mark vi. 13.— J Matth.
\i. 11. — 1| As Parasceve, Neophyt, Pascha, Paraclete, A.
zgmes, Sfc.
115
of truth, thererefore stands confuted. But why
do they so object against the word being trans-
lated image ? Are not idols images, simulachra,
the very word used by St. Jerom for th« word sfab*-
And were not the idols of the idolatrous heathen
nations, as well as those of the Jews, images?
Was not the idol of Dagon's temple an image ?
And was it not an imajre which Nebuchodonosor
set up in the plain of Dura? But the original
languages are the best criterion by which to decide
on this subject. What is the Greek for image?
The best lexicons give the word u ^, from whence
e&»\o», an idol, the theme of which is «5«, video to see.
What then is *<Wov but a thing seen, any visible
object, which represents the Deity, (as will appear
from the Greek Scapula lexicon and others,) by
which, or through which, worship is paid to God,
who is not visible, whether that image or represen-
tation be in the form " of a corruptible man or of
a bird, or four footed beast, or of- any creeping
thing, whether it be in heaven above or in the earth
beneath ;" whether it be molten or graven, fusile
vel sculptile, it matters not, it is still an image, still
an idol : and all are equally forbidden, whether
under the general term idol, or the more special
word image. And the Editors in their note on
Exodus xx. 4, call idols image Gods. In what
does this differ from the word images ?
But their fears of this word are expressed in the
New Testament as well as the old ; for in Rom.
i. 23, where they are unavoidably necessitated
to use the word image, they endeavour to do away
lid
its meaning by an artful annotation : Lo these and
the li.'ic, say they, are the images or idols so ojleji
condemned in the Scriptures, and not the holy
images of Christ and his saints.
That the Jewish idols or images were very gene-
rally sculptilia, is plain from Isaiah xliv. 17/* and
Acts xix. 24, f and therefore the word "jcm expres-
sive of those kind of idols most in use among them,
is very properly the word chosen by Moses in
writing the Decalogue, as by it he expresses idols
of a particular sort, not idols of any kind what-
soever, such as their groves or high places, (which
they could not bow down to nor worship) but that
kind which were particularly pointed out as made
with a graving (or some other) tool, as Robertson's
lexicon on the word says ^=2 is idolum, simula-
chrum, from ^=>3 dolabra, the tool with which the
image was engraved ; this Hebrew word ^aa (cor-
responding with the Greek word E*S«*oy,) which
they object to and translate a graven thing, in one
of the Commandments, (Exod. xx. 4,) translated
idols by the Douay Doctors, in 2 Paralipomenon
(Chronicles) xxxiv. 3, the Protestant translators
have not been afraid of translating image,
(which is the true signification of it) because
they are neither idolaters nor image-worshippers.
Their enemies cannot accuse them of this odious
sin.
* Graven imaje. — + These vxot were little chapels or temples,
(generally portable) within which were little images of the God
to whom they were dedicated. — Chrysostom and Amian. Marcel.
Lib. 22.
117
Can the Roman Catholics say why they them*
selves dare not translate the word rag « image 1"
Is it because they have statues and images in their
places of public worship and private houses, some
of which are carried about, publicly and privately,
in the people's hands, in honour of their saints ? Is
this the reason why they avoid this word, and
rather than make use of so frightful a term, deviate
from their favourite Vulgate, which usee simula-
chrum an image, not idolum, an idol, in many
places of the New Testament. See page 100.
Is this the reason also for which the second com-
mandment of the Decalogue (contained in Exod.
xx. 4,) is excluded from their catechism, because
it condemns the worshipping, or even the making
of images, (idols if they prefer the word, or eveu
graven thing,) though they have not yet ventured
to leave it out of their Bible, in which there is less
danger of exposure, because that is withheld from
the people, whilst they are allowed the use of the
catechism alone in this mutilated state ; and by
that means are not only kept ignorant of this com-
mandment, which was so expressly enjoined, and
the violation of which was so severely punished
among the Jews. We may therefore use the
Editors' own words* and say, ", what need these
absurd surmises and false dealings with the Greek"
(or Hebrew) " text," (or the Protestant translation?)
If it makes for them more than for the translation
used in the Protestant Church why do they not
* Page ix. L. 49,
9
118
translate the original fairly throughout? And this
the rather when the}' have the arrogance to say,
" they have advantages in the Greek more than in
the Latin."* Can any one believe this while they
still translate it in preference, except where some
ambiguous term in the Greek can be perverted to
answer some particular purpose of their principles.
What end can such groundless assertions answer ?
Among candid readers, who can see the fabrica-
tion, confusion must fall on the cause for which
such aspersions are framed and sent into the w orld,
and that in a Preface to the Holy Scriptures, those
sacred oracles, which are " the ground and pillar of
truth ;" which are truth itself, and inculcate truth
in every page. Who can give credit to those who
set out such misrepresentations at the very threshold
of the temple, and hold out such an advertisement
to be read by those who are to enter and worship,
there, those fictions of men's invention, contrary to
recorded facts.-
Page ix. L. 67. — " The holy Scripture of the .New Testament
is Papistical."
To the conclusion drawn in these words, the fair
answer is, that the pure Scripture is not Papistical,
but the Khemish Doctors have endeavoured to
make it so by their mistranslations, (see Tables.
Page, 54, &c.) and tortuous annotations, (as Rom.
C. 1 . V. 23,f et alibi) as well as their desultory pre
ft renco, making it agree in some places to the
* Page 9. L. 43.— ' See quotation. P. 116.
119
Vulgate, (not the old vulgar Lathi as they would
have believed) in others to a Greek copy, according ,
as it may seem best suited to accord with their
own principles or opinions, P. 64. 110.
Page \x. L. 67.— " Again, if the rulgar Latin* be Papistical,
Popery is very ancient, and the Church of God for so many
hundred years,+ wherein it hath used and allowed this trans-
lation hath been Papistical."
This sort of sophistical reasoning will never b?
sufficient to persuade any rational, unprejudiced
man, that the Doctrines of the Roman Catholic
Church are pure and incorrupt, or consistent with
the Holy New Testament, only " because it hath
allowed this translation for many hundred years."
Vice grown hoary with age is not to set itself up for
a law, since perseverance in error for hundreds of
years cannot be an extenuation of guilt, nor con-
tinuation in wickedness a palliation of crimes. As
well may the followers of Mahomet claim a pre-
ference and superiority over all other professors of
religion, because they have for many hundred years
held and professed the doctrines of their prophet,
and practised the errors which he taught. If such
a mode of argument be admitted, and such con-
elusions drawn by those who say they take the
Scriptures for their guide, the Jews must bear away
ihe prize, and supersede not only the boasted an-
tiquity of the Roman Catholic Church, but even
that of Christianity itself; since it is not only " very
* N. B. This is not the Yulgate.^t See Note in page 78.
<*2
120
ancient/* but the most, ancient of all the systems of
religion professed, or practised, by any nation,
sect, or party, who have had the holy Scriptures for
their guide, and existed " so many hundred years"
before Popery had a name, and, of course, before
the Roman " Catholic Church had used or allowed
this translation." But a still farther step might be
advanced in shewing this fallacious mode of as-
suming authority to the Roman Catholic Church,
so artfully attempted. For if antiquity be admitted
as the criterion of purity, or perfection, or superio-
rity of a Church, Popery, Christianity, and Judaism,
must all yield to the idolatry of the heathen nations,
which preceded " the call of Abraham, the father
of the faithful," and Theocracy itself be considered
as having been a nullity in the religion of the
people of God, though prescribed to the nation of
the Jews by the God of heaven himself. The
Editors were perhaps not aware that such a mode
of reasoning, instead of serving the cause of any
religion, would powerfully contribute to destroy
religion altogether.
Page x. L. 1. — u Wherein it ft" (the Vulgate) (i Papistical ?
Forsooth in these phrases and speeches, punitentiam ngite, &C." 1
Were it not that it might be pretended thai
these " phrases and speeches" are unanswerable
they would hardly be worth notice in this place,
after what has been said in the foregoing pages
This, it is hoped, will be an apology for taking up
any more of the reader's time on this part of the
subject.
121
". Fust," say the Editors, " doth not the Greek
say the same ?" To which the answer is decidedly
in the negative, for the Greek does not say the
same ; it uses but one word t*fynoui throughout the
whole New Testament, by which repentance and
penitence are expressed.*
Page x. Line 4 — " Doth he" (the yulgate) " not say for poeni.
tentiam agi) ,, in another place pcenitemini."
This werd pomitemini, which the Editors boast of,
is in Mark i. 15, where the absurdity of " pceniten-
tiam agite," in the sense wherein the vulgate takes
that phrase, (and the Rhemish Doctors translate" do
penance,") would be too obvious to be admitted.
The former used " pcenitemini," instead of " pceni-
tenliam agite ;" and the Rhemish Doctors for the
same reason translate it " repent," as <c do penance
and believe the Gospel," would be too ridiculous.
Having translated the original faithfully in this
place, and exulted in having done so, why, will they
say, have they not done the same in all other places
where that word occurs ? Were no deception in-
temW, by their arbitrary version, they would have
no oc vision, nor even a wish to make use of more
than one of the two translations they have given,
and that would be the true simple word pcenitere,
repent. But that would not have given the oppor-
tunity of fabricating the sacrament of penance, for
which the ambiguous translation of the Greek word
into Latin, as well as of the Latin word into English,
(in which it signifies pcenitence, or repentance) af-
forded some semblance of foundation, by abridging
See Tables Page 54 and 57.
122
it into penance, thus distorting it from its ancient
and primitive signification repentance, (as under-
stood by Athanasius and Tcrtullian, and others,
mentioned in page 67,) into that of a painful
satisfaction for sin, by Corporal punishment, under
ecclesiastical censures, unconnected with repent-
ance. And, under such circumstances, they are found
hardy enough to assert, (in their annotation on St.
Mark i. 5,) that " the sacrament of penance was in-
stituted by Christ/' without a shadow of foundation
for the assumption.
Is it not worthy of observation, that instead of
poenitemitri, repent, (as in this other place which the
Editors boast of as a faithful, correct translation,
and therefore not papistical ;") the same original
wordsf tE *'"» o '*and/*«'* WEft ' are translated by penance, and
do penance, in not less than 49 places of the Iflie-
mish Testament ; that is, 49 times erroneous, un-
faithful, and corrupt.
Is not this a lasting monument of obstinacy and
imposition, practised on those who are taught to
give implicit credence to what is thus imposed on
them, and compelled to believe, under the terror of
unscriptural punishments, which are the offspring of
these very errors.
Is there not the influence of these 49 instances of
erroneous translation, put in the scale of competi-
tion with the one " other place," which only is men-
tioned by the Editors to be correct ? Is this not
likely to lead a similar number of persons astray,
for one who will be left without error: the weight of
such a number of erroneous translations tending to
123
this effect ? Is it any compensation that one ma}
be saved, while forty-nine have been led into error ?
See how this would appear in, the temporal con-
cerns of mankind, and what effect it would have in
society ? Could the mixing of poison in 49 cups
be defended on the allegation, that pure and un-
tainted beverage had been left in one ? Would
standing between one man and danger, be consi-
dered an excuse, or atonement, for the destruction
of 49 persons? Is it a merit in the translators or
the Editors, that, of 50 persons, every individual is
not deceived by the Rhemish translation ? What
cause of joy that some may escape from the errors
of that version ! ! by seeing this <e other place" cor-
rectly translated. If they boast of one correct trans-
lation, in " that other place" they speak of, what
foundation for Protestants to rejoice, that not only
in one place but, in every place of both the Old and
New Testament, the word ^**m is by them trans-
lated uniformly the same, {repent ;) and what cause
of blame to themselves ! What shame tp men who
are guilty of such errors, and persevere in them !
W r hat heavy responsibility to Such translators and
Editors ! What ruin to those who have so Ion"' suf-
fered.. themselves to be kept in darkness ? deceived
by errors which the Editors, in those words of their
Preface, (which admit repent to be the true transla-
tion) do not pretend to conceal.
That the words * Gratia plena" of the Vulgate
" full of grace" in the Rhemish Testament, are not
correctly translated from the Greek uxfaliipm is ob-
vious to any one acquainted with that language, for
the proof of which we need go no farther than the
124
Rhcmists themselves, who in Ephes. i. 6, rightly
translate the verb, " made acceptable ;" hence it is
plain, that the original word signifies ?nade accep-
table, or gratiam consccuta, as the Lexicons trans-
late it ; that is, having- obtained favour, ex
actly corresponding with the Protestant rendering
highly favoured, i. e. of God : the sense in which
Chrysostoin explained it. How greatly should we
admire the wisdom of the Holy Spirit ! Which, in-
stead of using an ambiguous phrase, (as a plena
gratia,) has given one determinate word, inti-
mating the divine agency, and shewing, as the great
Athanasius observes, that " those graces and gifts
were freely given to her, and not inherent, not
vouchsafed on account of her oxen merit."
It is thus certain that " the Greek does" not " say
the same," as the Editors, by their vaunting ques-
tion, would assert, and expect to be believed, whilst,
with ill-founded confidence, theydirectthe*Reader to
"seethe annotations," as if these annotations, which
are only accomplices in their impositions, could
make that correctly right, which is manifestly
wrong. Will any one allow himself to be persuaded
that annotations can change the meaning of the
original Greek, or the Greek itself, which stands
sure and steadfast, and unaiteredly the same, ex-
cept through wilful corruption it is changed. So
that the annotations of any Church, or Sect, or per-
suasion, partial or impartial, liberal or illiberal,
cannot change (however they may wish or labour
to pervert) the meaning of a language, established
among the nations who spoke and wrote it for ages
beforej as well as since the Christian /Era.
125
Page x. Line 3 — et Could they translate these things papis-
tically, or partially, or rather prophetically so long, " before they
were in controversy."
Here that unmeaning argument of the antiquity
of error, as a reason for continuing it, is onee more
brought forward a mode of arguing, which if it
proves any thing, proves the weakness of the cause
it would attempt to defend, since it stands in need
of so slender a proof.
But that the words are " papistically translated,"
is certain, because they endeavour to maintain pa-
pistical doctrines, and are not the translation of the
Greek : and how far they are, or can be, " prophe-
tical" under these circumstances, let any Reader
judge ? Beside it is only by their being "papisti-
cally," and partially, not " prophetically trans-
lated," that they come into controversy. What
prophecy is there in this, from which to arrogate me-
rit, or claim credit ? By such a mode of argument,
any man may elevate himself into the prophetic
office ; he has only to translate erroneously, lay a
foundation for impartial men to expose the errors
of his spurious production, and then say, " he trans-
lated prophetically," because he translated so be-
fore that, to which his unfaithful translation had
given rise, was or could be in controversy ? What
credit can the Rhemish Doctors claim for translating
the words of tliis Section correctly in some places,
while they give them an incorrect signification in
others? or is there any merit in using the words
digni habeamini, because they are better, instead
of mereamini, or qui digni habebuntur, for mere-
R
126
buntur, only because they might have used the
latter instead of the former if they chose ?
They haughtily ask, (Page x. L. 15,) " was Pri-
masius a Papist for using this text, talibus hostiis
promeretur Deus ? or St. Cyprian for using so
often this speech : promereri Demn justis operibus?
Who can say what Primasius did ? Has not the
Vulgate undergone innumerable alterations and
changes, and additions, by Sixtus V. Clement the
VIII* and others, since the days of Primasius and
St. Cyprian ? Even that ordered to be held au-
thentical by the Council of Trent, under the pe-
nalty of an anathematous curse, has been altered
by Pope Sixtus, commanding, by his Bull, that it
be taken, not only as the Vulgate, but as the Vul-
gate which was extant when that Council was held,
which preceded the Vulgate of Pius by twenty -one
years ! To these and all the other similar questions
of this section, the answer is, that all were Papists
who translated Papistically , and so as to dissent
from the Greek text, only to favour Papistical
doctrines, as in many instances the Rhemish trans-
lators have most flagrantly done, as «*»/«»» broken,
in the present tense, by tradetur, shall be delivered
or betrayed, in the future.
Pas;? x. L. 17.' — il Was it Popery to say senior for pres-
byter V*
Certainly not. This is the true meaning as well
as correct translation of the original Greek, (*&<£*"
''?<») in which it is " a word of age" (a senior or
* Se« James's Bellum Papale,
127
Elder) cc instead of" (a priest) " a calling* of office,"
as it is rendered in many places of the Rhemish
versiort, and contrary to the Editors' annotation on
Acts xiv. 22. Indeed the translators have shewn
some prudence in translating it senior (Elder) in.
the one place of which the Editors boast ; for were
they in that place (Luke xv. 25,) to have trans-
lated it otherwise, their ignorance would have been
as much exposed as their duplicity is, by their ar-
bitrary version of this and other words, and both be
too easily discovered. It would then be not " hig
Elder son was in the field/' but his priest son,
though the person mentioned was a layman.
The vaunting question, asked only for the pur-
pose of imposition, as if such a translation had ever
been censured by any Protestant, is thus answered :
And if a fair translation, true and incorrupt, as this
is, were given throughout the whole of the Rhemish
Testament, gloriously happy would the union of
all Christians be, the causes of controversies would
be at an end, schisms and dissensions would
cease, all would be gathered together as one flock,
and there would be, " one fold under one shepherd,
Jesus Christ, all things would work together unto
good to them who" would thus shew that they
<c love God," acting in union and communion as
brethren ill love, without " bitterness of strife or
indignation, and the Church would then be a glo-
rious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, but holy
and without blemish." The earth cc would be full
of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover
the sea." The holy Spirit of God would not be
r 2
128
grieved at seeing- the children of his creation armed
against each other, as they are, by mistranslations
and distorted constructions of Holy Writ, proceed-
ing from selfish, temporal motives, perverting the
(ruth in numerous instances, for private purposes,
without any colour of authority : thus destroying
that unity of spirit and bond of peace which should
ever exist among the members of the Christian
Church, the direct reverse of which is the conse-
quence of the licentious, desultory, and unwar-
ranted translation of the word wf«*W*f« and
others in different parts of the Rhemish Testament,
which, contrary to the original meaning of
that word, is made to signify a priest, as may most
evidently appear by reference to the word priest in
any of the " ecclesiastical learned languages/'
When we look into these we find that the He-
brews had ana (Cohen) a priest, the Greeks had
«!«* (iereus) a priest, and the Latins Saccrdos, to
express that holy profession. But the Rhemish
translators were not satisfied with these terms,
which are the established words whereby the
sacerdotal order is expressed in the sacred writings,
but would have **«?<»* and w^o-CJJ^wj- also to be
clergy and priests, which the Greeks never thought
of. " Ancients" (or Elders) and possession ov pa-
trimonies, which these words signify, must be
" priests or clergy," too ; iii other words the pro-
perties and qualities belonging to each of them is
to be assumed by the Roman Catholic Clergy under
* 1 Fetor v. 3.—+ Acts xv. 2, et alibi.
129
the will, claim, and pleasure of the translators and
Editors of the Rhemish Testament, without any
authority, either of the original languages or Holy
writ. The word v^a€is senex, an old man, v^vie^os
senior (or an elder man or Elder) by their own
translation, both in the Old Testament and the
New, is an ancient, (in one place " Elder.") How
can this be applicable to priests of all ages, how-
ever young ? And some are not more than twenty-
three or twenty-four years old, perhaps younger
than either of these ages. And this word is even
used in the comparative degree (not in the positive
as the Rhemists translate it) to guard against a
possibility of mistake, by shewing that the persons
designated by this word are men of an advanced
age, that is, really Elders, not ancients, or men of
former distant ages, as the English word ancient
signifies, for which the corresponding Greek word
is «?%«'0J not vearSiriEgos.
If we have recourse to the Hebrew on this sub-
ject, we there find Jpt (zekeen) senior, from the
verb Jpf (zakeen) senesco, and this from apt (zakan)
barba quam seniores gestare solebant, the beard
they usual!?/ wore. Does not this shew that old
persons (barbati) were the persons who were se-
lected and nominated Elders and not priests, who
may be, and often were, and are, young ; and
therefore that priests and Elders were not synony-
mous, nor interchangeable terms in that language
among the Jews. And this very word is invariably
used in the Pentateuch, the Psalms and Prophets,
whenever the sacred penmen speak either of El-
130
ders simply and alone, or the " Elders (or ancients;
of the city. Elders of Israel, or Elders of the
people." If the Hebrews had two distinct signifi-
cations and unambiguous words, namely priest and
Elder, for the words^na and apt and the Greeks two
distinct meanings, viz. priest and Elder for «$««* and
vptrCvlefos ( iin d that they had is most evident,) why
do the Rhcmists take it on themselves to change,
and the Editors and their patrons to abet the
change, of that signification ? Is their authority
superior to that of the holy penmen who wrote the
holy Scriptures, and spoke the language thereof,
as their own respective vernacular languages ?
Are not the chief priests and ancients (Elders)
frequently used as present together, as in Matth.
xxvii. 20, 41, Mark xv. 1, &c. &c. Of course
priests and Elders (or ancients) are different per-
sons, and not to be taken, at the will of any trans-
lator, as the same, much less to be a priest in one
place and an ancient in another, and Elder in a
third, just as the translator's whim, or his limey, or
partiality for assumed errors and prejudiced prin-
ciples, may direct.
The Hebrews never confounded the word ana a
priest, with apt an ancient, (or Elder ;) the Greeks
never confounded «*«» a priest, with wprfJegos an
ancient, (or Elder;) the Latins never confounded
sacerdos a priest^ with senior an ancient, (or Elder)
words which have no affinity, no likeness, and never
were made use of, the one for the other, but were
always distinct, and expressive of separate offices,
and so widely different from each other, withoi
131
relation or similarity, that the one was always ap-
plied to a layman, and the other to a clerical office.
The former was such as did not, and unauthorised
dare not, enter into, nor assume, nor even interfere
in or touch the duties of it with impunity * Yet
in the English language, (which, with respect to
precision, accuracy, and distinctness of expression,
enjoys a superiority, in many respects, above other
languages, and possesses words as distinctly ex-
pressive of the two characters priest and ancient,
(or Elder) as either of the " ecclesiastical learned
languages,") these two words are confounded by
the Rhemish Doctors ; though they are as little
capable of being mistaken or misused, one for the
other, as any two words either in the English
language or any of the languages above mentioned,
except through design, and in violation of the rule
of all languages in existence, namely, that of pre-
cision and exactness in distinguishing one thing
from another. Would any man, acquainted with
the English language, in often meeting the word
ancient in any author, think himself at liberty to
understand and interpret it a priest in one place,
* " Aaron and his sons were appointed to wait on the Priest's
office : and the stranger that came nigh zoas to be put to death."
Numbers iii. 10, 38. The confirmation of the penalty is marked
in the punishment of " Oza (Heb. Uzza) who zoas smitten to death
because he put jorth his hand to hold the Ark of God." 1 Paralip.
(1 Chron.) xiii. 10. " Witness ?lso the case of Core, Dathan,
and Abiron," (Numbers xvi. 17. 31,) ze/io, (not being priests)
" offered incense bej ore the Lord," and for so doing " the earth
broke asunder under their feet, and opening her mouth devoured
them, with their tents and all their substance." 1
1 32
and an Elder or ancient in another ? Or a priest
in any place whatever ? Why then is it that St.
Paul is made by the Rhemish Testament, when
writing to Timothy and Ti* is, by the same Greek
word *f«o£t3egor, to call these priests,* whom all the
Evangelists uniformly and without exception, even
in the Rheuiish as well as the Protestant Testa-
ment, nil ancients (or Elders) ? Was St. Paul (a
man of acknowledged erudition and eloquence)
ignorant of the word n i^ used by the Greeks for a
priest ? Did he not use this word in nine placesf
of his Epistle to the Hebrews, in every one of
which the Rhemish Testament has it translated (as
it ought) priests ? Did he not use the word
evktkovo: for a bishop, to distinguish the different
offices and ranks of the clergy ; and would he not
have used the word «?«« for a priest in his first
Epistle to Timothy, chap. v. 17, 19, and to Titus
i. 5, if he intended to say a priest, and not an
ancient, (or Eider) which the word v^Cl^s ex-
presses, which it always has expressed, and must
unchangeably express and signify as long as any
Greek writing remains in existence ? Or would he
have used the same word in 1 Tim. vi. for an
ancient (or Elder) and in I7th and 19th verses of
the same chapter to signify spriest, as the Rhemists
have done ? Can any one who is ever so slightly
acquainted with the character of St. Paul, believe
* Tables, 54, 55. — + He and the other writers of the New-
Testament, have used it in 1G3 places, and the Vulgate has sucer-
tlos in 110 places.
133
*
this? By what authority does St. Paul (in the
Rhemish translation) make those persons priests
whom the Evangelists, with one consent, held to
be ancients, (or Elders) ? Or why do the Evange-
lists strip of their sacerdotal order those whom St.
Paul made priests, according to the Rhemish Tes-
tament, and that by the same word ir^^s ? Here
St. Paul is made to differ from all the Evangelists,
and St. Peter and St. Paul also to disagree, (by the
Rhemish translation) and St. Paul (under Rhemish
authority,) differs from himself. In the Greek they
all agree with the most perfect harmony ; but in the
English, under the guidance of the Rhemish
Doctors, as well as the Vulgate, they are set at
variance, one saying v^^t" is a priest, the other
that it is an ancient, one affirming what the other
denies, contrary to the spirit of that Holy Scripture
which they all taught, and which still teaches har-
mony, truth, and mutual love.
The absurdity of the capricious translation made
use of in the Vulgate and Rhemish Testament,
would be very conspicuous if any one were to
translate the word rprivkgos in St. Mark vii. 3, as the
Rhemists have translated it in 1 Tim. v. 17, and
the authority is just as good for the one as the other,
the sentence would thus be Ci holding the traditions
of the priests" Would such a translation please
the Roman Catholic communion ? And similar ab-
surdities would follow from such a licentious mode
of translation in other places of the holy Scripture.
This can never proceed from the Protestant Tes-
134
tamcnt, which has Elder, the invariable version of
w£«rCJiifM throughout the whole of the Gospels and
Epistles.
Page x. L. 21. — " Again, was he a Papist in these kind of
words only, and was he not in whole sentences as tibidabo claves,
&c. ^uicquid solveris interra erit solutum in coelis, &c. &c."
These and such like correct translations are not
Papistical, (but the Editors have thought proper to
put Papistical constructions on them, by distorting
annotations, fabricated to favour the doctrine of
absolution given by man, and an ideal Purgatory,
which are no part of the pure text.) They contain
the words of Christ and his Apostles, and the senti-
ments of the true Catholic Church, not the perver-
ted doctrines, or extra Scriptural practices, already
mentioned.
The Editors might, in their turn, be asked, why
did the Rhemish Doctors, or the authors of the
Vulgate, not translate the Greek correctly in other
places, as well as in these few sentences of which
they so loudly boast? Why exult in the cor-
rectness of these examples ? Is not such an exulta-
tion an acknowledgment of their errors elsewhere
committed, when they make such a merit of not
being incorrect in these, and are so rejoiced in
being able to say they are correct in some places ?
Page x. L. 28. — " Lastly, are the ancient Fathers, general
Councils, all the Western Churches, that use all these speeches
and phrases, now so many hundred years, are they all Papis-
tical?"
135
Here comes the same old story of antiquity for-
ward again, as if length of time, or an accumulation
of years could be a sanction for error. If this be
allowed., the worship of the sun should be preferred
to that of God himself, since the Persians continue
that idolatry to the present day, which begun long
before Christianity existed. The futility of such
puerile arguments has already been shewn, in the
note on page vi. L. 45. (Page 88 & 119.)
Page x. L. 34. — " We are very precise and religious in fol-
lowing our copy, the old vulgar approved Latin : not only in sense,
which we hope we always do, bat sometimes in the very words
also and phrases."
That the old vulgar Latin is approved by the
translators, did not require the Editors' authority
to prove : but who has approved, or who can ap-
prove it, except those whose tenets and practices
are favoured by its errors ? What then can be ex-
pected from the Rhemish Testament, which is only
a translation of this translation, though here called
a copy, and what, after the example of Doctor
Milner, may be called a " hear-say" translation.
The Doctor, in a letter published in the Dublin
Chronicle, in September, 1815, signed J. Milner,
D. D. complains in these words : A celebrated
orator has grossly misrepresented my principles,
by pronouncing on hearsay evidence ; namely,
that he heard a Prelate say, that he heard another
Prelate read a letter from me, which in his opinion
bore such a sense, but how many mistakes might
have occurred as to this letter, between the learned
s 2
136
Gentleman and the Prelate his friend, and between,
this Prelate and the reading Prelate, Sgc. #c.. ? How
many mistakes may have occurred, and how many
errors have actually occurred , between the Rhemish
translation and the vulgar Latin, and between the
"vulgar Latin and the original Greek text, (as shewn
in the foregoing pages) may as well be asked with
respect to a second-hand or hear-say translation of
the Greek Testament, exhibited in that version,
which the Editors have sent into the world ? And
indeed with more propriety and interest may this
question be asked, as the New Testament, (which
is not " the word of men but the word of God which
can save our souls/') is of much higher moment than
any disputes or calumnies between a " Reverend
Prelate and the learned orator/' Here are the
original text of Holy Scripture, the vulgar Latin
and Rhemish translation in one scale, and the
writing prelate, the reading prelate, and the listen-
ing celebrated orator in the other : which is of the
greatest consequence or weight to religion or so-
ciety, let 'the reader judge.
Here we learn from the words of a prelate, and
Father of the Church of Rome, a writer who boasts
of his zeal in defence of the Roman Catholic faith,*
and a missionary to his Holiness the Pope on the
interests of that Church, the credit that is due
to a secondary translation, as well as the estimation
in which this translation of a translation should be
* See his Lettpr to Doctor Troy, published in the Dublin
Chuonicle, September, 1 8 1 /> ,
137
held. And what can be more rational and correct
than Doctor Milner's argument? He justly ad-
heres to the practice of the Courts of Law in the
instance before us,, namely, that of not admitting'
hear-say evidence : and it is fair to conclude,, that
he would, or ought as strenuously to support the
practice as well as principle of the Laws in a similar
case, viz. that of not admitting a copy of a copy in
evidence : which is not admissible where nothing-
more than perishable property is concerned, and, by
parity of reasoning, he or any other, may draw the
conclusion, that the Rhemish Testament, which is
at best but a copy of a copy, being a translation of
a translation, is not to be acknowledged as a fit
substitute for the Holy Scripture, nor made use of
as a safe guide, on so serious a subject as that of a
Christian's salvation, instead of, and to supersede,
the written word of God.
Since so many mistakes may arise between
" only three persons, one of whom writes, a second
reads, and a third hears a letter read ;" how many
mistakes, how many errors, may we be certain, must
have arisen among the repeaters of unwritten tra-
ditions, (supposing them to have existed) " handed
down from hand to hand" for 18 centuries : (even
though, for greater safety, this " handing down"
should be alleged to have come through the Popes
of Rome as their proper depositaries,) they must
have passed through a succession of no less than
248 persons since the beginning of Christianity. If,
under these circumstances, the very just reasoning
of the learned Vicar Apostolic is made the criterion
138
by which we are to decide on the identity, (at the
piesent day) or even the existence of unwritten
traditions, (that palladium of the Romish Church)
and say " what mistakes may have occurred be-
tween" 248 relaters on this subject, how soon must
the fabrick fall to the ground, and all the super-
structure, with so much labour, raised thereon.,
tumble into nothing.
The Editors say, that " they sometimes follow the
very words and phrases of the Vulgate ;" so it
" follows the words and phrases of the Vulgate
sometimes" only : and that " it does not translate
the Greek" is admitted by the Editors, page ix. 36,
it is, of course, like neither of the learned eccle
siastical languages, but a production sui generis.
The Editors make an apology for the rudeness of
their translation, confessing it may " seem strange,"
but that all sorts of Catholic readers will esteem it
more when they shall otherwise be " taught to un-
derstand it, than if it were common known English."
So that, ex confesso, the reader "■> must be taught
to understand it." What then is the use of this
translation? Might it not as well be left in the
original if it is not to be understood without " being
taught?" and when the Editors themselves say that
f to some prophane or delicate ears the words and
phrases may seem harsh and barbarous/'* it gives
too great cause for the charge, that the translators
have contrived to render it unintelligible, or, as
me have expressed themselves, " a translation
* Page 5. Line 55.
139
that requires to be translated/' It is to be admit-
ted that the Editors bring similar charges of retain-
ing Hebrew words untranslated against the Protes-
tant translation. But does not that translation re-
tain such words as are unintelligible to one who
knows nothing of Hebrew or Greek, as parascue,
Didrachms, paraclete, Gazophylace, azymes, &c.
&c. ail which are translated in the Protestant
version ; from the last of which, viz. azymes, they
take occasion to charge the Protestant version with
having translated it falsely, asserting (without
truth) that the word *&** is translated " the feast
of sweet bread/' whereas the words " sweet bread"
are not found to exist in the whole extent of either
the Old or New Testament used in the Protestant
Church, but is truly, literally, and intelligibly
translated (c unleavened bread."
Such unfounded fabrications shew the intentions
of the Editors, viz. when they h-ave no just cause of
accusation, they descend to untruths, and forge
fictions, rather than not say something against that
bulwark of candour and correctness which they
feel they have to combat in the faithful, fraudless,
translation of the Bible, used in the Protestant
Church, in which they would try to find faults where
they do not exist. In their own words they may-
be asked, " what need these absurd surmises and
false dealings with the Greek text," (and the trans-
lation of it used in the Protestant Church,) " if it
did not make for the principles taught in that
Church and against them?"
140
Page ri. L. 12.— iC To signify to the people that these and such
names" (above mentioned) " come out of the very Latin text of
the Scripture. So did penance, doing penance, chalice, priest,
traditions, altar, &c. (which we exactly keep as Catholic terms)
proceed even from the very words of Scripture."
Surely not one of all the words or names here
mentioned, except the word Deacon, " proceeds
from the words of Scripture," which was written in
Greek, whence these and other words should be
derived, " to shew the people that they came out of
the Scripture." If they are to be retained with a
sound derived from any dead language., it should be
from the Greek, and not from the Latin, which is
only a secondary language of the Scriptures, and
to which all the arrogated and vainly boasting
powers of the Roman Catholic Church will never
be able to give a pre-eminence over the Greek, the
original Scripture language, in which the New
Testament was Evangelically and Apostolicallv
written. But in contradiction to the Editors' as-
sertion, it is to be observed that the word priest has
not the smallest similarity to the Greek «gw* (iereus)
nor even to their favourite language the Latin,
(sacerdos.) So that here, again, are the Editors
detected in assumptions they cannot maintain, and
of course must fail of their attempt to impose on
any except the ignorant alone.
And herein they go on still to manifest in the
last page of their Preface, and keep up the principle
of animosity against the Protestant translation, an 1
of unsupported assertions taken up in the first, and
unremittingly carried on through every page.
141
Page x'u L. 15. — M We presume not in hard places to raolttfy
the speeches or phrases, &c."
In the whole of this section the Editors labour
to throw blame on the Protestant translation, and
extol the Rhemish version. With what truth or
authority may appear to any impartial reader. To
mention one of the sentences alleged to be incor-
rectly translated, John iii. 8, cc We translate the
spirit breatheth where he will, &c." leaving it in-
different to signify either the Holy Ghost or wind,
which the Protestants translating wind, take away
the other sense."
Can any good reason be assigned why the mean-
ing of this word or phrase, should be left cc indif-
ferent" to every reader ? j Is every reader more
capable of deciding or discriminating, which of the
two significations is to be preferred, than the
translators ? If so they were prudent in leaving
the subject undecided. It may be asked when
«***« i s alone, as here, without *v«» in Greek , or
spiritus, without sanctus, in the Vulgate, and spirit,
without Holy joined to it, in the English trans-
lation, is it usually understood to mean the Holy
Ghost ? If so, Moses must have meant that it was
ihe Holy Ghost, and not a Kind, (as the Douay
Doctors translate) that " was brought upon the
earth," When he Said tirxyxytv • ©s»s irvcvftx ifti rw yyv.
Gen. via. ].. and in i. John iv. 3, »<*» wvs^« o w o^aMyu
to* iv™, (translated, erroneously,* in thfe Rliemish
Testament, ci every spirit that dissolveth Jesus
is not of God,") that Apostle must mean the Holy
Ghost also. Similar instances must follow, by such
* As admitted by the Bishop of Rama, (Pasiorini) P. 314.
T
142
a mode of translating, in Coloss. ii. 5 ; Matth, xxii.
43 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6, 8.
It is plain that Christ, in this place, intended to
satisfy and convince Nicodemns of the possibility
of a thing- which he did nol comprehend, by a si-
mile or example which he could comprehend, and
for that purpose represents a spiritual operation,
not obvious to our external senses, by an act which
every day presents itself to our ears. Or as, in the
quotation, it is said that as the motion of the wind
is sensibly felt, though it cannot be seen, nor be
known how it acts, so are the operations of the
spirit, or spiritual birth equally certain, though not
perceptible in substantial form. In this way the
simile, by the word wind, is clear, and has its in-
tended effect, that of rendering the subject intel-
ligible to every reader, as well as to Nicodemus :
whereas if spirit be made the translation, no simile
exists, for the word spirit cannot be a simile for
itself, as in this way we should reason in a circle,
and never come to a conclusion. Wind is there-
fore the true translation, which the sense requires,
and not spirit, otherwise we must suppose Christ
(whose parables through the whole of the New
Testament are clear and intelligible) incapable of
conveying his meaning, or elucidating what he
asserts. We make him, who was wisdom itself,
guilty of obscurity, and hold him forth as the
author of ambiguity: whilst we represent the Son of
Cod without a power of illustrating his own
doctrine by example. What blame, or whether any
is or can be, attached to the Protestant translation,
143
may be inferred from this one instance, without
intruding on the reader's time by detailing more ;
as well as what judicious critics the learned Editors
are. Ex uno disce omnes. Is it not somewhat
misplaced that the Editors should be so ready to
censure others, without cause, for the use of words
most applicable to the sense, and the very words
of the original, whilst they* declare in line 37,
cc that they should not be squeamish at new words
or phrases," themselves? And in the next line
following except one, they say.
Page xi. L. 39, " We do not bind ourselves to the point-}
of any one copy, print, or edition of the vulgar Latin, in
places of no controversy, but follow the pointing most agreeable
to the Greek and to the Fathers' commentaries."
Is not the authenticity and correctness of the
Latin Vulgate thus given up by the Editors, since
they are not bound by it ? and even the Anathema
pronounced by the Holy Council of Trent is set
at nought by them : and the Greek itself, the cor-
rectness of which they have taken so great pains to
decry, is in the end of their labours admitted to
be a better standard than their favourite Latin to
copy after, since " they do not bind themselves to
the points of any copy, print, or edition of it,"
except " 37. Confuted, 8. Those spoken of
by St. Paul were his writings, 11, 13. Not necessary, 8, 15.
Trent, Council of, the absurdity of, 126.
Vulgate, differs from the Greek, 64, 90,93,95, 106, 107, 110,
123, 14 4. Not better than the Greek, 105. Alleged to be cor-
rected by the Greek, 101. Popes differ about it, 24, (note)
93,111. Not proved to be correct, as alleged, 1 19, 125. Proved
erroneous, 54, 57, 111, 133. Editors admit it has errors, 110,
113.+ The same by Cardinal Bellarmine, 52,| 93. Not more
exact than the Protestant translation, 95, 100,103, 104, 105,
107, 110, 121.
* Since it does not agree with the Greek, (54, &c.) the true and original
standard, and differs from the Vulgate, (64, &c.) its own assumed standard,
(S8) what has it to depend on ? Wliat authority lias it to produce ? Certainly
none, for that of die Jlditois will not hear it out ! ! !
'{'Therefore not a standard tit to he translated, as proved also, 'JO, 91, 92,
101,110, 111.
J See the quotation there cited from his Epistoh Xuncvpa'.ona Antwerp;.!,
tuls, quoted by I.e L'.>.no Biblioth. sacr, v. ii. 264.
/
^DISCOURSE
ON THE
NATURE, INSTITUTION, AND DESIGN
OF THE
HOLY ]EUCHAJRI§T 9
COMMONLY CALLED
THE
SACRAMENT OF THE LORDS SUPPER.
BT
ADAM CLARKE, LL. D. F. A. S.
THE SECOND EDITION,
Much enlarged and improved.
acvrov xai xvxrcccrsi — iva xprov xXooyts^ 6 £$~t tpxppxxov xQxvx-
ffictg, xvnSoros toy p; xirodxvsiv, xXXa '(>r t v sv Qsuj Six Irpou
Xpirou, xotQapTrjpiov xXs^ikxkov.
Ignat. Epist. ad Ephes. Cap. xx.
Ye are my Friends, if ye do whatsoever I command yon.
John xv. 14.
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR; AND SOLD BY J. BUTTERWORTH AND SON, FLEET-
STREET ; T. BLANSHARD, CITY-ROAD; W. BAYNES, PATERNOSTER-ROW;
NUTTALL AND CO. LIVERPOOL: JOHN COOKE, ORMOND QUAY, AND MARTIN
KEENE, COLLEGE GREEN, DUBLIN.
1814.
Printed by J.tf T. Clarke, 38, SI. J o/.n's- Square, London.
JDFERTISEMENT TO THE SECOND EDITION.
Upwards of six years have elapsed since I first com-
mitted this work to the press, at which time I printed a
pretty large edition, more in deference to the opinion of mi/
friends, than from any conviction I had of its becoming
at all popular ; as I had too much reason to fear that
professors of Christianity ceased to view the subject in that
light in which my work reptrsents it, and in which alone,
I think it can be profitable. I am thankful (hat J have
been, at least partly, mistaken. As soon as the work was
known, it was generally enquired for ; and has been out of
print for a considerable time — not having leisure to revise
it for a second edition. I have now carefully re-examined
the whole, corrected what I have found amiss, and have
made several considerable additions ; so that I hope I may
say, it is now much more worthy of the public atten-
tion than it was before. That God has condescended to
make it the means of doing much good, I learn with grati-
tude from several quarters. Many, both of the clergy and.
laity have been forward to express their approbation, and to
encourage me to recommit it to the press. I have taken the
first opportunity to do so, and hope that the Great Head of
his Church will continue to give it his blessing.
I hope I may say, that since (he publication 'of this little
'work, the number of faithful communicanls has been in-
creased; and severed improprieties in (his solemn service,
A 2
IV ADVERTISEMENT.
have been discontinued. Jf possible, it would be well,
zcere all to think and speak the same on this subject. J have
endeavoured to shew it, in what I believe to be its scriptural
point of view, vis. as the continual memorial of a sacrifi-
cial offering : they who take it in this wot/, discern the
Lord's body, and fnd the holy communion, spirit and life
to their souls. To what extent God might bless this ordi-
nance, were it duly administered, and faithfully received,
who can tell?
O that the ministers of the sanctuary among all deno-
minations of Christians, would earnestly press this high
duty and privilege more frequently and fervently upon the
souls of the people ! We should then see a sounder and
more established state of Christianity. Let the reader re-
member the words of his Lord, Ye are my friends if ye
do whatsoever I command you. Does he not command
this ? Does he not say, Do this in remembrance of me ?
And can any Christian soul be guiltless that disobeys this
divine command ? I do not speak of those who have reli-
gious prejudices against the rite itself I am not to judge
another man's servants : but I speak of those incurring guilt
who believe they should eat bread and drink wine in remem-
brance of Christ's passion and death, and cither seldom
or never do it. Jf some who received it unworthily,
brought judgment upon themselves in consequence, -what
must we think of those who wholly neglect it ? For this
cause also, doubtless, many are weak and sickly among us,
nncl many sleep. Let him that readeth understand.
London, Sept. 1, 1814.
PREFACE
In the following Discourse, I have aimed, not at
new discoveries in theology, but to do justice to a
subject misconceived by most, and neglected by
many. A subject of the utmost consequence to
divine Revelation, and to the edification of the
church of God. I shall not say, in order to vindi-
cate its publication, that it was done in consequence
of the ardent, oft-repeated importunity of many
respectable friends. — Whatever may be owing to
private friendship, is undoubtedly a high and im-
perious duty to discharge ; but no man can be ex-
cused in obtruding on the public any thing unwor-
thy its notice, by such motives as these. — The
Holy Eucharist I consider a Rite designed by God
to keep up a continual remembrance of the doc-
trine of the Atonement. In this point of view, I
thought it was not commonly considered by the
generality of Christians : and as I saw various opi-
nions subversive of its nature and design prevailing
among professors, I said, / will also shew my
opinion ; in doing which, though I have brought
rny knowledge from ajar, I have endeavoured to
ascribe righteousness to my Maker.
M PREFACE.
In looking- over my work I feel but little pica-
sure at (he appearance of so many quotations in
Strange characters. — I can say in my vindication,
\ did not seek these ; they presented themselves on
the respective subjects with which they are con-
nected ; and I accepted their assistance, judging
that with many, their testimony would go farther
than my own. The plain unlettered reader will
have no reason to complain of these, as the sense
of each is carefully given ; and the man of learning
will not be displeased to have the originals pre-
sented here to his view, as he might not have the
works from which they are taken, always at hand.
These things excepted, I have endeavoured to be
as plain and as clear as possible. I have affected
no elegance of style : this, my subject did not re-
quire • plain common sense was all I aimed at. I
have not even given the work the form of a ser-
mon ; and by the rules of such compositions, I hope
no man will attempt to judge of it. 1 began it in
the name of God, and I sincerely dedicate it to his
ry. May his blessing accompany the reading
of it! And may the important Doctrine, of the
Alv, nt made by the death of Christ, which it
is chiefly intended to illustrate and defend, have
free course, run and be glorified, and mighty deeds
in the name of Jesus !
THE
INTRODUCTION
CONTAINING an Examination of the Ques-
tion, Did our Lord eat the Pass-over with his
Disciples on the last Year of his public Ministry ?
As I shall have occasion frequently to refer to
this subject in the ensuing- Discourse ; a subject
on which the Christian world has been divided for
at least 1500 years, the Reader will naturally ex-
pect to find some notice taken of the controversy
concerning it ; and although a decision on the case
cannot be expected, yet a fair statement of the
principal opinions which, at different times, have
been held and defended by learned men, should un-
doubtedly be given.
With no show of propriety could such a con-
troversy be introduced into the body of a Discourse
on the Nature and Design of the Lord's Supper ;
and yet the view I have taken of this ordinance is
so intimately connected with the Pass-over in ge-
neral, that to pass by the controversy in silence,
8 INTRODUCTION.
would, by many, be deemed inexcusable. I shall
therefore briefly state the principal opinions on this
question, the reasoning's by which they are sup-
ported, and take the liberty to notice that one es-
pecially, which I judge to come nearest to the
truth. The chief opinions are the four following:
I. Christ did not eat the Pass-over on the last
year of his ministry.
II. He did eat it that year, and at the same time
with the Jews.
III. He did eat it that year, but not at the same
time with the Jews.
IV. He did eat a Pass-over of his own insti-
tuting, but widely different from that eaten by the
Jews.
I. The first opinion, that our Lord did not eat
the Pass-over, is thus maintained by Dr. Wall, in
his critical notes on Matt. xxvi. 17.
" Here occurs a question, and a difference be-
tween the words of St. John and the other Three
(Evangelists,) concerning the day of the week on
which the Jews kept the Pass-over that year, 4746.
A. D. 33. It is plain by all the four gospels, that
this day on which Christ did, at night, eat the
Pass-over (or what some call the Pass-over,) was
Thursday. And one wonld think, by reading the
Three, that that was the night on which the Jews
did eat their Pass-over- Lamb ; but all the texts of
St. John are clear that they did not cat it till the
INTRODUCTION. 9
next night, Friday night, before which night
Christ was crucified and dead, having given up the
ghost about the ninth hour, viz. three of the clock
in the afternoon. St. John does speak of a sup-
per, which Christ did eat on the Thursday night
with his Apostles, ch. xiii. 12. ; but he does not
call it a Pass-over-supper, but, on the contrary,
says, it was before the feast of the Pass-over, tt§o
tijs- eo%T7)g tov iraa-yjx ; by which, I think, he means
the day before the Pass-over, or the Pass-over
eve, as we should say. Now this was the same
night and same supper, which the Three do call
the Pass-over, and Christ's eating the Pass-over,
I mean, it was the night on which Christ was, (a
few hours after supper,) apprehended ; as is plain
by the last verse of that thirteenth chapter. But
the next day, (Friday, on which Christ was cru-
cified,) St. John makes to be the Pass-over-day. He
says, (ch. xviii. 28.) the Jews would not go into
the Judgment-hall on Friday morning, lest ihey
should be defiled, but that they might eat the Pass-
over, viz. that evening. And ch. xix. 14. speak-
ing of Friday noon, he says, it was the prepa-
ration of the Pass-over. Upon the whole, John
speaks not of eating the Pass-over at all ; nor, in-
deed, do the Three speak of his eating any lamb.
Among all the expressions which they use, of mak-
ing ready the Pass-over ; prepare for me to eat
the Pass-over ; icith desire have I desired to eat
this Pass-over with you, &c. there is no mention
of any lamb carried to the Temple to be slain by
10 INTRODUCTION.
the Lcvitcs, and then brought to the house and
roasted : there is no mention of any food at the
supper besides bread and wine ; perhaps, there
might be some bitter herbs. So that this seems to
have been a commemorative supper, used by our
Saviour instead of the proper paschal supper, the
eating of a lamb, which should have been the next
night, but that he himself was to be sacrificed be-
fore that time would come. And the difference be-
tween St. John and the others, is only a difference
in words and in the names of things. They call
that the Pass-over, which Christ used instead of it.
If you say, why then does Mark, xiv. 12. call
Thursday the first day of unleavened bread, when
the Pass-over must be killed ; we must note their
clay, (or vo^Qr^soov,) was from evening to evening'.
This Thursday evening was the beginning of that
natural day of twenty-four hours, towards the end
of which the lamb was to be killed ; so it is pro-
per, in the Jews' way of calling days, to call it
that day."
II. He did eat the Pass-over that year, and at
the same time with the Jews.
The late Dr. Newcomc, archbishop of Armagh,
is of a very different opinion from Dr. Wall;
and, from a careful collation of the passages in (he
Evangelists, concludes, " That our Lord did not
anticipate this feast, but partook of it with the
Jews, on the usual and national day."
INTRODUCTION. 11
it
It appears/' says he, <( from the gospel-his-
tory, (see Mark xv. 42. xvi. 9.) that our Lord was
crucified on Friday. But the night before his cru-
cifixion., on which he was betrayed,, 1 Cor. xi. 23.
he kept the Pass-over, and that he kept it at the
legal time is thus determined. In Matt. xxvi. 2.
and in Mark xiv. 1. it is said that the Pass-over,
xa.i rot a^MiKot, were after two days ; or on the day
following that on which Jesus foretold his suffer-
ings and resurrection to his disciples. Matt. xvi.
21, &c. Mark viii. 31, &c. and Luke ix. 22, &c.
" The Evangelists, proceeding regularly in their
history, Matt. xxvi. 17. and in the parallel places,
Mark xiv. 12, &c. Luke xxii. 7, &c. mention is
made of this day, and it is called the first day of
unleavened bread, when they killed the Pass-over,
i.e. by general custom : and St. Luke says that
the day came, which, ver. 1. was approaching,
when the Pass-over must be killed; i. e. by the
law of Moses. The 14th of Nisan is therefore
meant ; which is called -iroaynr^ atyfuov, the first of
unleavened bread.
" During the week, therefore, of our Lord's
passion, the law of Moses required that the Pass-
over should be slain on Thursday afternoon ; but
our Lord partook of it on the night immediately
succeeding; Matt. xxvi. 19,20.; and the parallel
places, Luke xxii. 14, 15. ; and therefore he par-
took of it at the legal time.
" Mark xiv. 12. Luke xxii. 7. equally prove
12 INTRODUCTION.
that the Jews kept the Pass-over at the same time
with Jesus.
" To the objection, John xviii. 28. that the Jews
avoided defilement that they might eat the Pass-
over, the Bishop answers, that they meant the pas-
chal sacrifices offered for seven days ; and they
spoke particularly in reference to the 15th of
Nisan, which was a day of holy convocation.
To the objection taken from John xix. 14. that
the day on which our Lord was crucified, is called
ira^cuntz'jri rou 7ra<r%a, the preparation of the Pass-
over, he replies, that in Mark xv. 42. 7raga<rxsi>7j,
preparation, is the same as 7T£ocra6£aTov, the day
before the Sabbath ; and so in Luke xxiii. 54. ;
therefore by 7raoaa-x£vr) rou Tratr^a, we may under-
stand the preparation before that Sabbath which
happened during the Paschal festival." This is
the substance of what Archbishop Newcome says,
both in his Harmony and Notes. See the latter,
pp. 42 — 45.
To this it is answered that the opinion, which
states that our Lord ate the Pass-over the same
day and hour with the Jews, seems scarcely sup-
portable. If he ate it the same hour the Jews ate
theirs, he certainly could not have died that day, as
they ate the Pass-over on Friday, about six o'clock
in the evening ; — if he did not, he must have been
crucified on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, and
could not have risen again on the first day of the
week, as all the Evangelists testify, but on the
INTRODUCTION. 13
second, or Monday, which I suppose few will at-
tempt to support. On this, and other consider-
ations, I think this point should be given up. But
others argue thus :
" That Christ intended to eat a Pass-over with
his disciples on this occasion : and that he intensely
desired it too, we have the fullest proof from the
three first Evangelists. See Matt. xxvi. 1, 2, 3,
17_20. Mark xiv. 1, 12—16. Luke xxii. 1, 7
— 13. And that he actually did eat one with them
must appear most evidently to those who shall care-
fully collate the preceding Scriptures, and espe-
cially what St. Luke says, ch. xxii. 7 — 18. ; for
when Peter and John had received their Lord's
command to go and prepare the Pass-over, it is
said, ver. 13, they, went and found as he had said
unto them ; and they made ready the Pass-over ;
i. e. got a lamb, and prepared it for the purpose,
according to the law. Ver. 14, And when the hour
was come, (to eat it.) he sat down, civsttsos, and the
twelve Apostles with hi?n. Ver. 15, And he said unto
them, With desire have I desired to eat this Pass-
over with you before I suffer : where, it is to be
noted, that they had now sat down to eat that Pass-
over which had been before prepared, and that
every word which is spoken is peculiarly proper to
the occasion. With desire, says our Lord, have I
desired tovto to i?ot.<rya. <paysiv, to eat this very
Pass-over ; not so-Qieiv to irao-yjt, to eat a Pass-
over, or something commemorative of it, but touto
to Ttao—/ai, this very Pass -over : and it is no mean
1-1 INTRODUCTION.
proof that they were then in the act of eating the
flesh of the paschal lamb, from the use of the verb
Qaysiv, which is most proper to the eating of flesh ;
as ea-bisiv, signifies eating in general, or eating
bread, pulse, &c. The same word, in reference to
the same act of eating the Pass-over, not to the
bread and wine of the holy supper, is used, ver. 16.
For I say unto you I will not any more eat there-
of oo [xr\ $ayco e| aoroo, I will not cat of HIM or IT,
viz. the paschal lamb, until it be fulfilled in the
kingdom of God ; i. e. this shall be the last Pass-
over I shall celebrate on earth, as I am now about
to suffer, and the kingdom of God, the plenitude of
the gospel dispensation, shall immediately take
place. And then, according to this Evangelist,
having finished the eating of the paschal lamb, he
instituted the bread of the Holy Supper, ver. 19.
and afterwards the cup, ver. 20. though he and they
had partaken of the cup of blessing, (usual on such
occasions,) with the paschal lamb, immediately be-
fore. — See ver. 17. Whoever carefully considers
the whole of this account, must be convinced that,
whatever may come of the question concerning the
time of eating the Pass-over, that our Lord did ac-
tually eat one with his disciples before he suffered."
What this Pass-over most probably was, we shall
see under the fourth opinion.
111. He did eat the Pass-over that year, but not
at the same time with the Jews.
Dr. Cudworth, who of all others has handled
3
INTRODUCTION. 15
this subject best, has proved from the Talmud,
Mishna, and some of the most reputable of the
Jewish Rabbins, that the ancient Jews about our
Saviour's time, often solemnized as well the Pass-
overs as the other feasts, upon the ferias next he-
fore and after the sabbaths. And that as the Jews
in ancient times reckoned the new moons not ac-
cording to astronomical exactness, but according 1
to the (pang, or moon's appearance ; and, as this
appearance might happen a day later than the real
time, consequently there might be a whole da} 7 of
difference in the time of celebrating one of these
feasts, which depended on a particular day of the
month ; the days of the month being counted from
the (paa-ig, or appearance of the new moon. As he
describes the whole manner of doing this, both
from the Babylonish Talmud, and from Maimo-
nides, I shall give an extract from this part of his
work, that my readers may have the whole argu-
ment before them.
" In the great or outer court, there was a house
called Beth Yazek, where the senate sat all the
30th day of every month, to receive the witnesses
of the moon's appearance, and to examine them.
Jf there came approved witnesses on the 30th day,
who could state they had seen the new moon, the
chief man of the senate stood up, and cried ttHpD
mekuddash, it is sanctified ; and the people stand-
ing by, caught the word from him, and cried mekud-
dash ! mekuddash ! But if, when the consistory
had sat all the day, and there came no approved
16 INTRODUCTION.
witnesses of the phasis, or appearance of the new
moon, then they made an intercalation of one day
in the former month, and decreed the following
one-and-thirtieth day to be the calends. But, if
after the fourth or fifth day,, or even before the end
of the month, respectable witnesses came from far,
and testiiied they had seen the new moon, in its
due time : the senate were bound to alter the be-
ginning of the month, and reckon it a day sooner,
viz. from the thirtieth day.
" As the senate were very unwilling to be at the
trouble of a second consecration, when they had
even fixed on a wrong day, and therefore received
very reluctantly the testimony of such witnesses as
those last mentioned, they afterwards made a
statute to this effect — That whatsoever time the
senate should conclude on for the calends of the
month, though it were certain they were in the
wrong, yet all were bound to order their feasts ac-
cording to it. This, Dr. Cudworth supposes, ac-
tually took place in the time of our Lord, and "as
it is not likely that our Lord would submit to this
perversion of the original custom, and that follow-
ing the true tyao-ig, or appearance of the new
moon, confirmed by sufficient witnesses, he and his
disciples ate the Pass-over on that day ; but the
Jews, following the pertinacious decree of the
Sanhedrin, did not eat it till the day following."
Dr. C. further shews from Epiphanius, that there
was a contention, Qoo-j^og a tumult, among the Jews
about the Pass-over, that very year. Hence, it is
INTRODUCTION. 17
likely, that what was the real paschal day to our
Lord, his disciples, and many other pious Jews.,
who adopted the true cpaa-ic; phasis, was only the
preparation or antecedent evening" to others, who
acted on the decree of the senate. Besides, it is
worthy of note, that not only the Karaites, who do
not acknowledge the authority of the Sanhedrin,
but also the Rabbins themselves grant, that where
the case is doubtful, the Pass-over should be cele-
brated with the same ceremonies, two days to-
gether ; and, it was always doubtful, when the ap-
pearance of the new moon could not be fully
ascertained.
Bishop Pearce supposes, that it was lawful for
the Jews to eat the paschal lamb at any time, be-
tween the evening of Thursday, and that of Fri-
day ; and, that this permission was necessary, be-
cause of the immense number of lambs which were
to be killed for that purpose : as in one year, there
were not fewer than 256,500 lambs offered. See
Josephus, War, b. vii. c. 9. sect. 3. In Matt,
xxvi. ver. 17. it is said, Now the first day of the
feast of unleavened bread, (rr\ o= tqwty, twv a%v[x(ov)
the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where
wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Pass-
over ? As the feast of unleavened bread did not
begin till the day after the Pass-over, the fifteenth
day of the month, (Lev. xxiii. 5, 6. Num xxviii.
16, 17.) this could not have been properly the first
day of that feast: but as the Jews began to eat
unleavened bread on the fourteenth day, (Exod,
18 INTRODUCTION.
xii. 18.) this day was often termed the first of un-
leavened bread. Now, it appears, that the Evan-
gelists use it in this sense, and call even the pas-
chal day by this name, see Mark xiv. 12. Luke
xxii. 7.
At first view this third opinion, which states that
Christ did eat the Pass-over with his disciples that
year, but not in the same hour with the Jews ; and
that he expired on the cross the same hour in which
the paschal lamb was killed, seems the most pro-
bable. For, it follows, from what has already been
remarked, that our Lord and his disciples ate the
Pass-over some hours before the Jews ate theirs ;
for they, according 1 to custom, ate theirs at the end
of the fourteenth day, but Christ appears to have
eaten his the preceding evening, which was the be-
ginning of the same sixth day of the week, or
Friday, for the Jews began their day at sun-set-
ting ; we, at mid-night. Thus Christ ate the
Pass-over the same day with the Jews, but not on
the same hour. Christ, therefore, kept this Pass-
over the beginning of the fourteenth day, the pre-
cise day in which the Jews had eaten their first
Pass-over in Egypt: see Exod. xii. 6 — 12. And
in the same part of the same day in which they had
sacrificed their first paschal lamb, viz. between the
two evenings, i. e. between the sun's declining
west and his setting, about the third hour, Jesus
our Pass-over was sacrificed for us. For, it was
about the third hour, (Mark xv. 25.) when Christ
was nailed to the cross, and about the ninth hour,
INTRODUCTION. 19
(Matt, xxvii. 46. Mark xv. 34.) Jesus knowing
that the Antitype had accomplished every thing-
shadowed forth by the Type or Paschal Lamb ; he
said, it is finished, ".Brs'ksa-rai completed, perfected,
and having thus said, he bowed his head, and
dismissed his spirit, vaceBmxs to 7rvvj[xa.- John
xix. 30.
Probably there is but one objection of any force
that lies against the opinion, that our Lord ate his
pass-over some hours before the Jews, in general,
ate theirs ; which is, that, if our Lord did eat the
Pass-over the evening before the Jews, in general,
ate theirs, it could not have been sacrificed accord-
ing to the law ; nor is it at all likely that the blood
was sprinkled at the foot of the altar. If, there-
fore, the blood was not thus sprinkled by one of the
priests, that which constituted the very essence of
the rite, as ordained by God, was lacking in that
celebrated by our Lord.
To this it may be answered — First, we have
already seen that, in consequence of the immense
number of sacrifices to be offered on the Paschal
solemnity, it was highly probable the Jews were
obliged to employ two days for this work. It is
not at all likely that the blood of 256,500 lambs
could be shed and sprinkled at one altar, in the
course of one day, by all the priests in Jerusalem,
or indeed in the Holy Land ; since they had but
that one altar where they could legally sprinkle the
blood of the victims.
Secondly, we have also seen that, in cases of
b2
20 INTRODUCTION.
doubt relative to the time of the appearance of the
new moon, the Jews were permitted to hold the
Pass-over both days ; and that it is probable such a
dubious case existed at the time in question. In
any of these cases, the lamb might have been killed
and its blood sprinkled according to the rules and
ceremonies of the Jewish church.
Thirdly, as our Lord was the true Paschal Lamb, '
who was, in a few hours after this time, to bear
away the sin of the world, he might dispense with
this part of the ceremony, and act as Lord of his
own institution in this, as he had done before in
the case of the Sabbath. At any rate, as it seems
probable that he ate the Pass-over at this time, and
that he died about the time the Jews offered theirs,
it may be fully presumed that he left nothing un-
done towards a due performance of the rite, which
the present necessity required, or the law of God
could demand.
The objection, that our Lord and his disciples
appear to have sat or reclined at table all the time
they ate what is supposed above, to have been the
Pass-over, contrary to the paschal institution, which
required them to eat it standing, with their staves
in their hands, their loins girded, and their shoes
on, cannot be considered as having any great weight
in it ; for, though the terms wzirt-vz, Matt. xxvi. 20.
and avsxeiro, Luke xxii. 14. are used in reference to
their eating that evening, and these words signify
reclining at table, or on a conch, as is the custom
of the Orientals ; it does not follow that they must
INTRODUCTION. 21
necessarily be restrained to that meaning: nor
does it appear that this part of the ceremony was
much attended to, perhaps not at all, in the latter
days of the Jewish church.
IV. He did eat a Pass-over of his own insti-
tuting, but widely different from that eaten by the
Jews.
Mr. Toinard, in his Greek Harmony of the
Gospels, strongly contends, that our Lord did not
eat what is commonly called the Pass-over this
year, but another, of a mystical kind. His chief
arguments are the following :
It is indubitably evident, from the text of St.
John, that the night on the beginning of which our
Lord supped with his disciples, and instituted the
holy sacrament, was not that on which the Jews
celebrated the Pass-over ; but the preceding even-
ing, on which the Pass-over could not be legally
offered. The conclusion is evident from the fol-
lowing passages : John xiii. 1. Note before the
feast of the Pass-over, Jesus knowing, fyc. — v. 2.
And supper, (not the paschal, but an or dinar?/
supper,) being ended, $c. — v. 27. That thoudoest,
do quickly. — v. 28. Noiv no one at the table knew
for what intent he spake this. — v. 29. For some
thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus
had said unto him : Buy what we have need of
against the feast, $c. — Ch. xviii. 28. Then led they
Jesus from Caiaphas to the Hall of Judgment, and
it was early ; and they themselves went not into
00
INTRODUCTION
the Judgment-Hall lest they should be defiled \
but that they might eat the Pass-over. — Ch. xix.
14. And it icas the preparation of the Pass-over,
and about the sixth hour. Now, as it appears
that, at this time, the disciples thought our Lord
had ordered Judas to go and bring- what was ne-
cessary for the Pass-over, and they were then sup-
ping- together, it is evident it was not the paschal
lamb on which they were supping; and it is as
evident, from the unwillingness of the Jews to go
into the Hall of Judgment, that they had not as
yet eaten the Pass-over. These words are plain,
and can be taken in no other sense without offer-
ing them the greatest violence.
Mr. Toinard, having found that our Lord was
crucified on the sixth day of the week, (Fri-
day,) during the paschal solemnity, in the thirty-
third year of the vulgar asra, and that the paschal
moon of that year was not in conjunction with the
sun till the afternoon of Thursday the 19th of
March, and that the new moon could not be seen
in Judea until the following day, (Friday,) con-
cluded, that the intelligence of the (paa-ig, or
appearance of the new moon, could not be made by
the witnesses to the bcth din, or senate, sooner
than Saturday morning, the 21st of March. That
the first day of the first Jewish month, Nisan,
could not commence that thirty-third year sooner
than the setting of the sun on Friday, March
20th; and, consequently, that Friday, April 3d, on
which Christ died, was the 14th of Nisan, (not the
INTRODUCTION. 23
15th,) the day appointed by the law for the cele-
bration of the Pass-over. All these points he took
care to have ascertained by the nicest astrono-
mical calculations, in which he was assisted by a
very eminent astronomer and mathematician, Bul-
lialdus, (Mr. Bouilleau.)
These two last opinions, apparently contradic-
tory, and which alone, of all those offered on the
subject, deserve consideration, may be brought to
harmonize. That Jesus ate the Pass-over with
his disciples the evening' before the Jews ate theirs,
seems pretty clearly proved from the text of St.
Luke, and the arguments founded on that text.
All that is assumed there, to make the whole
consistent, is, that the Jews, that year, held the
Pass-over both on the 13th and 14th of Nisan, be-
cause of the reasons already assigned ; and that
therefore Peter and John, who were employed on
this business, might have got the blood legally
sprinkled by the hands of a priest, which was all
that was necessary to the legality of the rite.
But, secondly, should it appear improbable that
such double celebration took place at this time,
and that our Lord could not have eaten the Pass-
over that year -with his disciples, as he died on the
very hour on which the paschal Iamb was slain,
and consequently before he could legally eat the
Pass-over ; how then can the text of St. Luke be
reconciled with this fact ? I answer, with the
utmost ease, by substituting a Pass-over for the
Pass-over ; and simply assuming, that our Lord at
24 INTRODUCTION.
this time instituted the Holy Eucharist in place of
the Paschal Lamd ; and thus it will appear he ate
a Pass-over with his disciples the evening- before
his death, viz. the mystical Pass-over, or Sacra-
ment of his body and blood ; and that this was the
Pass-over which he so ardently longed to eat with
his disciples before he suffered. This is the opi-
nion of Mr. Toinard ; and, if granted, solves every
difficulty. Thus the whole controversy is brought
into a very narrow compass : — our Lord did eat a
Pass-over with his disciples some short time before
he died : — the question is, what Pass-over did he
eat — the regular legal Pass-over, or a mystical
one ? That he ate a Pass-over is, I think, demon-
strated ; but whether the literal or mystical one is
a matter of doubt. On this point, good and learned
men may innocently hesitate and differ : but, on
either hypothesis, the text of the Evangelists is
unimpeachable, and all shadow of contradiction
done away ; for the question then rests on the pe-
culiar meaning of names and words. On this
hypothesis, the preparation of the Pass-over must
be considered as implying no more than — 1. Pro-
viding a convenient room. — 2. Bringing water for
the baking on the following day, because on that
day the bringing of the water would have been
unlawful. — 3. Making inquisition for the leaven,
that every thing of this kind might be removed
from the house where the Pass-over was to be
eaten, according to the very strict and awful com-
mand of God, Exod. xii. 15 — 20. xxiii. 15. and
INTRODUCTION. 25
xxxiv. 25. These, it is probable, were the acts of
preparation which the disciples were commanded to
perform, Matt. xxvi. 18. Mark xiv. 13, 14. Luke
xxii. 8 — 11. and which, on their arrival at the city,
they punctually executed. See Matt. xxvi. 19. Mark
xiv. 16. Luke xxii. 13. Thus every thing was
prepared, and the holy Sacrament instituted, which
should, in the Christian church, take place of the
Jewish Pass-over ; and continue to be a memorial
of the sacrifice which Christ was about to make by
his death on the cross : for, as the paschal lamb
had shewed forth his death till he came, this death
fulfilled the design of the rite, and sealed up the
vision and prophecy : and eating bread and drink-
ing wine, in the manner recommended by our
Lord, must be considered as complete a sym-
bolical representation of His passion and death, as
the slaying and eating of the paschal lamb.
All preparations for the true paschal sacrifice
being now made, Jesus was immediately betrayed,
shortly after apprehended, and in a few hours ex-
pired upon the cross. It is, therefore, very likely
that de did not literally eat the Pass-over this year ;
and may I not add, that it is more than probable
that the Pass-over was not eaten in the whole land
of Judea on this occasion. The rending of the
vail of the Temple, (Matt, xxvii. 51. Mark xv. 38.
Luke xxiii. 45.) the terrible earthquake, (Matt,
xxvii. 51 — 54.) the dismal and unnatural darkness
which was over the whole land of Judea from the
sixth hour, (twelve o'clock,) to the ninth hour,
26 INTRODUCTION.
(i. e. three o'clock in the afternoon,) with all the
other prodigies which took place on this awful oc-
casion, we may naturally conclude were more than
sufficient to terrify and appal this guilty nation ;
and totally to prevent the celebration of the pas-
chal ceremonies. Indeed, the time in which kill-
ing- the sacrifices, and sprinkling' the blood of the
lambs should have been performed, was wholly
occupied with these most dreadful portents ; and
it would be absurd to suppose that, under such ter-
rible evidences of the divine indignation, any reli-
gious ordinances or festive preparations could pos-
sibly have taken place.
My Readers will, probably, be surprised to see
the preceding 1 opinions so dissentient among them-
selves, and the plausible reasons by which they are
respectively supported, where each seems by turns
to prevail. When I took up the question, 1 had
no suspicion that it was encumbered with so many
difficulties. These I now feel and acknowledge;
nevertheless, I think the plan of reconciling the
texts of the Evangelists, particularly St. Luke and
St. John, which I have adopted above, is natural,
and I am in hopes will not appear altogether un-
satisfactory to my Readers. On the subject, cir-
cumstanced as it is, hypothesis alone can prevail ;
for indubitable evidence and certainty cannot be
obtained. The morning of the resurrection is,
probably, the nearest period in which accurate in-
formation on this point can be expected. " Jc suis
INTRODUCTION. 27
trompe," says Bouilleau, " si cetle question peut
etre jamais bien eclaircie." — If I be not mis-
taken, this question will never be thoroughly un-
derstood.
To conclude — It would be presumptuous to say,
Christ did eat the Pass-over this last year of his
ministry : it \vould be as hazardous to say, he did
not eat it : the middle way is the safest ; and it is
that which is adopted above. One thing- is suf-
ficiently evident, that Christ, our Paschal Lamb,
has been sacrificed for us ; and that he has " in-
stituted the Holy Eucharist to be a perpetual me-
morial of that his precious death, until his coming
again:" and, Cf they who with a sincere heart,
and true faith in his passion and death, partake of
it, shall be made partakers of his most blessed
Body and Blood." Reader, praise God for the
atonement ; and rest not without an application of
it to thy own soul.
j^ra-uc Mi^^ 9^b &<*< y i&fy &//*&?
fyuftui^ Ate *&y faut.ccts *^t^>
W/ VlO^t^ ^A4</J </#Z<+t> 41*7**- </£**-t /4 -j#\
DISCOURSE
ON THE NATURE AND DESIGN
OF THE
EUCHARIST,
OR
SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER,
AjO this in remembrance of me, is a command by which
our blessed Lord has put both the affection and piety
of his disciples to the test. If they love him, they
will keep his commandments ; for, to them that love, his
commandments are not grievous. It is a peculiar excel-
lence of the Gospel oeconomy, that all the duties it enjoins,
become the highest privileges to those that obey.
Among the ordinances prescribed by the Gospel, that,
commonly called the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, has
ever held a distinguished place; and the church of Christ,
in all ages, has represented the due religious celebration
of it as a duty incumbent on every soul that professed
faith in Christ Jesus, and sought for salvation through
his blood alone. Hence it Avas ever held in the highest
estimation and reverence ; and the great High Priest of
his church has shewed, by more than ordinary influences
of his blessed Spirit on the souls of the faithful, that they
had not mistaken his meaning, nor believed in vain;
while, by eating of that bread, and drinking of that cup,
30 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
they endeavoured to shew forth his death, and realize the
benefits to he derived from it.
If Jesus, in his sacrificial character, met with opposi-
tion from the inconsiderate, the self-righteous, and the
.profane ; no wonder that an ordinance, instituted by
himself for the express purpose of keeping- up a conti-
nual memorial, by means of the most expressive em-
blems, of his having died for our offences, was decried,
neglected, and abused. The spirit of innovation and
error left no means untried to pervert its meaning, re-
strain its influence, and decry its effects ; but the true
followers of Go J overcame all by the blood of the Lamb,
and by their testimony ; and, for holding fast faith and a
good conscience in reference to this sacred ordinance, how
many of them were cruelly tortured ; and not a few, on
this very account, gloriously maintaining- the truth, were
obliged to seal it with their blood.
The sanguinary persecutions, raised up in this land
against the Protestants, in the days of that weak and
worthless Queen, Mary I., were levelled principally
against the rig-ht use of this ordinance. It was not be-
cause our fathers refused to obey the then constituted
authorities of the state, that they were so cruelly and
barbarously oppressed and murdered ; it was not because
they were not subject to every ordinance of man, not only
for wrath (fear of punishment) but for conscience sake,
that they had trial of cruel mockings ; but because they
believed concerning this divine ordinance, as Jesus Christ
had taught them ; and boldly refused to prefer the igno-
ra?iceoC man, to the wisdom and authority of God.
The abomination which maketh desolate had got into
the holy place ; the State, corrupt and languid in every
department, had resigned the administration of all affairs
into the hands of a church illiterate and profligate be-
yond all example and precedent. In this awful situation
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 31
of affair?, the genuine followers of God shewed them-
selves at once, not in opposition to a tyrannical govern-
ment, but in opposition to a corrupt and unprincipled
priesthood. They would not, because they could not
believe, that a little flour and water kneaded together,
and baked in an oven, or any where else, were the body
and blood of the Saviour of the world — the God who
made the heavens and the earth, and the only object of
religious adoration ! — " Away," said the murderous
priests, " with such fellows from the earth ! they are
not fit to live: let them have judgment without mixture
of mercy, and anticipate their final damnation by perish-
ing in the flames !" — And they, rather than defile their
conscience, Or deny their God, embraced death in its most
terrific forms ; and, through the medium of Smithfield
flames, were hurried into a distinguished rank among the
noble army of martyrs ! but their fall became the fall of
the sanguinary power by which they were slaughtered :
and the blood of these Martyrs was the seed of the church.
" Godlike men ! how firm they stood !
Seeding their country with their blood."
In this most honourable contest, besides the vast num-
bers who suffered by fines, confiscation, and imprison-
ment, not less than 277 persons fell a sacrifice to the
ignorance, bigotry, and malevolence of the papal hierar-
chy. Among these were, one archbishop, four bi-
shops, twenty-one clergymen, eight lay gentlemen.
eighty-four tradesmen, one hundred husbandmen,
fifty -free women, and four children, who were all
burnt alive, and this with circumstances of cruelty and
horror, which surpassed the bloodiest persecutions of
pagan antiquity ! But they conquered, and were glorious
in their death ; and have handed down to us, uncorrupted.
i
32 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
those living oracles and that holy worship, which were their
support and exultation in the cloudy and dark day. Do their
descendants lav these things to heart, and prize that holy
ordinance, on account of which their forefathers suffered
the loss of all things ? Are ^e indifferent whether, on
this point, orthodoxy or heterodoxy prevail ? Or, what is
of infinitely worse consequence, have we so neglected or
misused this holy ordinance, until we have at length
ceased to discern the Lord's body ? Is it not to be feared,
that the sacrament of the Lord's supper has fallen into
disuse with many, because they do not understand its na-
ture and moral obligation ? And can it be deemed invi-
dious to express a fear, that possibly, much of the blame
attaches to the ministers of the gospel, because they are
remiss in urging the commandment of their Lord, and
shewing the high privileges of those who conscientiously
obey it ? To remedy this defect, as far as it relates to
myself, I shall endeavour to set before the Reader some
observations on
I. The Nature and Design of this institution.
II. The Manner of its celebration.
III. The proper meaning of the different Epithets given
to it in the Scriptures, and by the primitive church.
And then,
IV. Add a few reasons to enforce the due and religious
celebration of it, principally deduced from the preceding
observations.
1. As our blessed Lord celebrated this ordinance im-
mediately after his eating what St. Luke calls the Pass-
over with his disciples, and for which, T shall, by and
bye, prove he intended it to be the substitute; it may be
necessary to say a few words on that ancient rite, in or-
der the more particularly to discern the connexion sub-
sisting between them, and the reference they have to
«acU other.
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. S3
The Pass-over (J1DD pesach) was a sacrifice ordain-
ed by the Lord in memory of Jehovah's passing-over (ac-
cording to the import of the word) the houses of the Is-
raelites, when he destroyed all the first-born in the land
of Egypt ; and was certainly designed to prefigure not
only the true paschal lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ, who
was sacrificed for us, (1 Cor. v. 7.) but also the recep-
tion which those might expect who should flee for refuge
to lay hold on the hope set before them, by the sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus. As this is a point of considerable
importance, in reference to a right understanding of the
Nature and Design of the Lord's Supper ; it may be
necessary to shew more particularly, both from the Scrip-
tures and the ancient Jewish and Christian writers, that
the paschal lamb was considered by them as a sacrifice of
a piacular nature.
God had required that all sacrifices should be brought
to the Tabernacle or Temple, and there offered to him ;
and this was particularly enjoined in respect to the Pass-
over : so Deut. xv.i. 5. Thou shalt not sacrifice the Pass-
over within any of thy gates ; but at the place which the
Lord thy God chooseth to place his name in, there thou
shalt sacrifice. And this divine injunction was more par-
ticularly attended to in the case of the Pass-over than in
any other sacrifice ; so that the ancient Jews themselves
have remarked, that, even in the time when high places were
permitted, they dared not to sacrifice the Pass-over any
where but in that place where God had registered his name:
thus Maimonides, in Halachah Pesach, c. 1.
Dr. Cudworth, who has written excellently on this sub-
ject, has proved at large, from the Scriptures and the an-
cient Jewish doctors, that the Pass-over was ever consider-
ed by them as a sacrificial 'rite. To which may be added, that
Josephus considered it in the same light, by calling it ®v<rtx,
A Sacrifice ; and Trypho, the Jew, in his conference
c
A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
with Justin Martyr, speaks of *ppC«iw rou *di%i
sacrificing the paschal lamb. Maimonidrt, in the tract
above referred to, written expressly on tin* subject, speaks
of the Jamb as a victim, and of the solemnity itself as a
sacrifice. Another of their best writers, Rab. Bechai,
Com. in Levit. ii. 11. says, that "the paschal sacrifice
was instituted in order to expiate the guilt contracted by
the idolatrous practices of the Israelites in Egypt." And
St. Paul puts the matter beyond dispute, by saying, t»
iCxtrya ijixwv virzp ypujv eQvfy Xpiffro.;, our Pass-over, Christ,
is sacrificed for us; vitep jj'pui', on our account, or in
our stead. It is worthy of remark, that when the Pass-
over was first instituted, a lamb was slain in every family,
not by the hands of a priest, for that would have been
impossible, as only one existed who had been divinely ap-
pointed ; but by the Jirst-bom in every family, who were
all considered as priests, till the consecration of the whole
tribe of Levi to this office ; in consequence of which the
first-born were redeemed, i. e. exempted from this service,
by paying a certain sum to the sanctuary.
Justin Martyr, in his conference with Trypho the Jew,
maintains this sentiment in a very strenuous manner, shew-
ing from the Scriptures, and the nature of this sacrificial
rite, that it was a type of Christ crucified for the sin of
the world. One circumstance which he asserts, without
contradiction from his learned opponent, is, I think,
worthy of notice ; whether the reader may think it of
much consequence to the present subject or not. " This
lamb," says he, " which was to be entirely roasted, was
a symbol of the punishment of the cross, which was inflict-
ed on Christ. To yap 07Ttw[jl.£yov itc^arov, trp^aarr^o/xgvov
oaoicoj ra; ffyr^\x.arti crov craupov, otttxti. Et$ yap ophos o*b\igm;
SiaTCepovarai aifo tojv xartvrarwv uipxv usypi rr,g y.spakr^, x.at sis
itaXw xara to perappevov, tv TTpoa-aprwytai xat a» X ll F Bi rov ^i 60 "
e<w-u. " For the lamb which was roasted was so placed
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 35
■as to resemble the figure of a cross : with one spit it was
-pierced longitudinally, from the tail to the head; with
another it was transfixed through the shoulders, so that the
forelegs became extended :" zid. Just. Marly ri Opera.
Edit. Oberther. Vol. IL p. 106. To some this may appear
trifling- ; but it has seemed right to the wisdom of God to
typify the most interesting events by emblems of compara-
tively less moment. He is sovereign of his own ways, and
he chuses often to confound the wisdom of the wise, not
only by the foolishness of preaching ; but also by the va-
rious means he employs to bring about the great purposes
of his grace and justice. The manner of this roasting
was certainly singular ; and of the fact we cannot doubt, for
Trypho himself neither attempted to ridicule nor deny it.
But, while I am considering the testimony of Justin
Martyr, there is another passage still more extraordinary
which I wish to place before the reader. In his dispute
with this learned and captious Jew, he asserts, that the
Jews, through their enmity to the Christian religion,
had expunged several passages from the sacred writings,
which bore testimony to Christ, and to his vicarious suf-
ferings and death ; and of which (at the challenge of
Trypho, who denied the fact,) he produces several in-
stances, among which the following is the most remark-
able : — When Ezra celebrated the Pass-over, as is re-
lated Ezra vi. 19, &c. Justin says, he spoke as follows :
— Kva Eiirsv EoSpxc ?cj \xw, tovto to lixvyx 6 crwryp 'i)f/,utv, xcct
■'} xzTUtpvyri t^vjv xxi sxv Stxvor^^rs, xxt avx^rj v[jmv enti ryv
xxpzixv, on ^sAAo/xgy avrov •fatfeivovv sv a-^^siw, kxi peta. tocvtap
shrfiffcufrev sir' avrov, ov ps eprjffiW^ 6 roifos ovroc sis rov difxvfix.
ypovov, \eyzi 6 Qzos tcay Svvxy.euiv. F.xv Se p.t) •7i'i£~£tJcnjT£ xvtui,
rxrh EKroaCwff^ts tov x^pvyp-.xros avrov, eczt^s Eitiyxp^x Toii
:'/:-.. '• And Ezra spoke unto the people, and said : —
ik This Pass-over is our Saviour and our Refuge :
and if ye shall understand and ponder it in your heart,
c 2
36 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
that we shall in time to come afflict, him for a sign ; and if
afterwards we believe on him, this place shall not be de-
solated for ever, saith the Lord of Hosts. But if ye
will not believe on him, nor hear his preaching,
ye shall be a laughing-stock to the Gentiles :" vid.
Just. Martyri Opera, Edit. Oberther, Vol. II. p. 196.
This, Justin asserts, the Jews had blotted out of the
Septuagint translation ; and, if so, they took care to ex-
punge it from the Hebrew also ; for, at present, it
exists in neither. Allowing this passage to be authentic,
it is a full proof of my position, that the paschal lamb
was an expiatory sacrifice, and that it prefigured the
death and atonement of Jesus Christ. But of this the
proofs already produced are sufficient ; particularly that
from St. Paul, independently of the quotation from
Justin Martyr.
It is also worthy of remark, that, even after the conse-
cration of the tribe of Levi, and the redemption of the
first-born, it was the custom for the people to kill their
own Pass-overs ; but the sacrificial act, the sprinkling of
the blood, belonged solely to the priests. " Five things,"
says Rab. Abarbanel, " were to be done by those who
brought a sacrifice, and Jive things by the priest. The
first five were — 1. Laying on of hands. — 2. Killing. —
3. Flaying. — 4. Cutting up. — 5. Washing the intestines.
Those done by the priests were — 1. Receiving the blood
into a vessel. — 2. Sprinkling it upon the altar. — 3. Put-
ting the fire upon the altar. — 4. Laying the wood in or-
der upon the fire. — 5. Putting the pieces of the victim in
order on the wood." Here we see the part which both
the people and priests took in their sacrifices ; and these
circumstances will give us additional light in another part
of this discourse : only we must observe, that the paschal
lamb was never cut up, nor burnt ; it was roasted whole,
and eaten by the offerer and his family.
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 37
The manner of celebrating the paschal sacrifice is par-
ticularly detailed in the Mishna, " a monument of such
antiquity as cannot," says Dr. Cudworth, " be distrusted
in these rites." Nothing, say the Rabbins, was killed
before the morning sacrifice, and after the evening sacri-
fice nothing but the Pass-over. The evening sacrifice
was usually killed between the eighth and ninth hour,
i. e. half an hour after two in the afternoon, and offered
between the ninth and tenth, i. e. half an hour after three.
But, in the evening of the Pass-over, the daily sacrifice
was killed an hour sooner ; and after that began the kill-
ing of the Passover, which was to be done between the
two evenings, CQ-^n }"0 been hadrbayeem, Exod. xii. 6. ;
the first of these evenings began at noon, from the sun's de-
clination towards the west, and the second at sunset. But
the paschal lamb might be killed before the daily sacrifice,
provided there was a person to stir the blood and keep it
from coagulating, till the blood of the daily sacrifice was
sprinkled ; for that was always sprinkled first. The
lambs, says the Mishna, were always killed by three
several companies : this they founded on Exod. xii. 6.
And the whole assembly o/"/AecoNGREGATioN o/*Israel
shall kill it in the evening ; understanding the words ^Hp
kahal, TV1}! edeth, and S^-|^ yishrael, as implying three
different companies ; by the first they meant the priests,
by the second the Levites, and by the third the 'people at
large : when once the Court was full, they shut to the
doors, and the priests stood all in their ranks, with round-
bottomed vessels in their hands, some of gold, and
some of silver, to receive the blood. Those who held
the golden vessels stood in a rank by themselves, as
did those who held the silver vessels. — These vessels
had no rim at the bottom, lest they should be set on
the ground, and the blood congeal in them. The
priests then took the blood, and handed it from one
38 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
to another, till it came to him who stood next the altary
who sprinkled i« at the bottom of the altar. After the
blood Was sprinkled, the lamb was hung up and flayed.
The hanging up was deemed essentially necessary, in-
somuch that if there was no convenience to suspend it, two
men, standing with their hands on each other's shoulder.-,
had the lamb suspended to their arms till ihc skin \va =
flayed ofF. When flayed, it was opened, and the inward*
taken out and laid on the altar ; and then the owner took
up the lamb with its skin, and carried it to his own house.
The first company being dismissed, the second came in,
and the door was shut as before ; and after these the
third company : and for every company they sang anew
the 77rT hallel, or paschal hymn, which begun with Psal.
cxiii. Praise ye the Lord) n^^H haltelui/ah, and ended
with Psalm cxviii. This singing continued the whole of
the time which was employed in killing the lambs. When
they ended the hallel, they began it a second time, and so
on till the third time ; but it was never sung entirely the
third time, as the priests had generally finished by the
time they came to the beginning of Psal. cxvi. / love
the Lord, because he hath heard my voice, &c. When the
lamb was brought home, they roasted it on a spit mado of
the wood of the pomegranate tree ; for iron was pro-
hibited, and also, all wood that emitted moisture when
brought near to the fire ; but, as the wood of the pome-
granate was free from moisture, it was commanded to be
used on this occasion. See Mishna, by Surenhusius,
Vol. II. pag. 135. Tract. D^HOD Pesachim. These are
the most essential matt rs mentioned in the Mishna, re-
lative to this solemnity, some of which tend to cast much
light on our Lord's Avoids and conduct on this occasion.
That the Holy Eucharist was instituted in place of the
Pass-over has been largely proved by many, as also that
baptism succeeded to circumcision. Dr. Waterland, who
AND DESIGN OP THE EUCHARIST. 39
has summed up the opinions of learned men on this sub-
ject, observes, that there are resembling circumstances
common to the Jewish and Christian Pass-over, which
may be divided into two kinds. — I. Some relating to the
things themselves. — II. Some to the phrases and forms
made use of in both.
I. Of the fast sort are these : — 1. The Pass-over was
of drome appointment, and so was the Eucharist. — 2. The
Pass-over was a sacrament, and so is the Eucharist. —
3. The Pass-over was a memorial of a great deliverance
from temporal bondage ; the Eucharist is a memorial of a
greater deliverance from spiritual bondage. — 4. The Pass-
over prefigured the death of Christ before it was accom-
plished ; the Eucharist represents, or figures out, that
death now past. — 5. The Pass-over was a kind of federal
rite between God and man ; so is the Eucharist, as it
points out the blood of the sacrifice offered for the rati-
fication of the covenant between God and man. — 6. As
no person could partake of the paschal lamb before he
was circumcised, Exod. xii. 43. — 48. ; so, among the early
followers of God, no person was permitted to come to the
Eucharist till he had been baptized. — 7. As the Jews were
obliged to come to the Pass-over free from all defile-
ments, unless in case of burying the dead, which, though
a defilement, was nevertheless unavoidable, Numb. ix.
6, 9. : so the Holy Scripture commands every man to ex-
amine himself before he attempts to eat of this bread, or
drink of this cup ; and to purge out the old leaven of
malice and wickedness, 1 Cor. xi. 27 — 29. — 8. As the
neglect or contempt of the Pass-over subjected a man to
be cut off from Israel, Exod. xii. 15. Numb. ix. 13. ; so,
a contempt and rejection of, at least, the thing signified
by the Holy Eucharisi, viz. the atoning sacrifice of the
Lord Jesus, must necessarily exclude every man from the
benefits of Christ's passion and death. — 9. As the Pass-
40 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
over was to continue as long as the Jewish law was in
force ; so the Eucharist is to continue till Christ shall
come to judge the world.
II. The second sort of resembling circumstances con-
cerns the particular forms and phrases used in the
institution. — 1. In the paschal supper, the master of the
house took bread, and gave thanks to God, who had pro-
vided it for the sustenance of man. Our Lord copied
this circumstance precisely in the institution of the Eu-
charist. —2. It was also a custom for the master of the
house to break the bread, either before or after the bene-
diction offered to God ; — that our Lord copied this cus-
tom, every reader knows. — 3. The master of the house
distributed this broken bread, for it does not appear that
the family were permitted to take it themselves ; so our
Lord, after having broken the bread, gave it to the dis-
ciples, saying, Take, eat, &c. — 4. In the paschal feast the
master was accustomed to take a cup of Avine, and pro-
nounce a benediction to God, or thanksgiving over it,
after which it was termed the cup of blessing ; to this cir-
cumstance St. Paul particularly alludes, when he says,
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion
of the blood of Christ? 1 Cor. x. 16. —5. At the institu-
tion of the Pass-over, it was said, The blood shall be to
yen for a token upon the houses where you are ; and when
I see the blood, J will pass over you, &c. Exod. xii. 13.
The blood was a token or sign of the covenant, or agree-
ment, then made between God and them, and ratified
partly by pouring out the blood of the paschal lamb, and
partly by feeding on the flesh of this sacrifice. In the in-
stitution of the Eucharist, our Lord says, This cup is the
new covenant, in my blood, which is shed for you, and for
many, for the remission of sins. The cup, here, is put for
wine ,- and covenant is put for the token or sign of the
covenant. The zcine, as representing Christ's blood, an-
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 41
swers to the blood of the Pass-over, which was typical of
the blood of our Lord ; and the remission of sins here,
answers to the passing over there, and preserving from
death. — 6. At the paschal feast, there was a declaration of
the great things which God had done for that people ;
and our Lord makes use of the Eucharist to declare and
point out the great mercy of God in our redemption ; for
it shews forth the Lord's death, (and, consequently, all
the benefits to be derived from it,) till he himself shall
come to judge the world. — 7. At the paschal solemnity,
they were accustomed to sing a hymn of praise to God,
(see before, p. 38. ) and this part of their conduct our
Lord and his disciples exactly copied — And when they had
sung a hymn, they departed, &c.
The many resembling circumstances, real and verbal,
abundantly shew, that this holy Eucharist was, in a great
measure, copied from the paschal feast, and was intended
to supply its place; only heightening the design, and im-
proving the application. See Dr. Waterland's Re-
view of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, p. 64, &c.
Having now proved that the paschal lamb was a sacri-
fice ; and seen that it prefigured the atonement made by
Christ our Pass-over ; and that in his death, and the cir-
cumstances attending it, the whole typical reference of
that solemnity was not only verified but fulfilled : and
having also seen that it was in reference to the great
atonement typified by the Pass-over, and also that it was
in the place of that ancient ordinance that our Lord in-
stituted the holy sacrament of his last supper ; I shall
now, more particularly,
II. Consider this divine institution, and the manner of
celebrating it.
To do this, in the most effectual manner, I think it ne-
cessary to set down the text of the three Evangelists, who
42 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
have transmitted the whole account, collated with that
part of St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, which
speaks of the same subject, and which, lie assures us, he
received by divine revelation. It may seem strange, that
although John, (chap. xiii. v. 1— 38.) mentions all the
circumstances preceding the holy supper, and, from chap,
xiv. 1 — 36. the circumstances which succeeded the break-
ing of the bread, and in chapters xv. xvi. and xvii. the
discourse which followed the administration of the cup ;
yet he takes no notice of the divine institution at all. This
is generally accounted for on his knowledge of what the
other three Evangelists had written ; and on his convic-
tion, that their relation was true, and needed no addi-
tional confirmation, as the matter was amply established
by the conjoint testimony of three such respectable wit-
nesses.
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST.
43
a *c
C 5
■as
fee
T3 '
CS
J3
C
8 -
ts £
q to
to CO
<V fe
*"> ~
*r *>
u —
o
" u
CO
©.2 £
<M .a
^ MO 1
"5 °
f c
c ^ rt
^ a a
J 5 2
■2-3
TO ©
to
o> .a eg o
■5. a *
.•.,« C
-w C CO
4, -C ~0
and
e. tfo
unto
3
C
E
^5 . v
'So
Cm
CO •-> >>
.5 J sc
CO
O
CV
u
,
>» -3
1?
c
"S
i 1 3
C8
u
X
8 ±S
>
s
"3 ^^ CO ••
>>
O
cv
B
hi
in
"Ft
3 n
O '£
gave
God,
then:
1H
H
o
* & 5 CO
to ** to
__ 4» -°
T3 •-" ._
5-..0 'C-C
■C EC
co ci
>>
#
>^"3'-v .
o
i the
d an
God,
them.
X!
K
* <V g O
CO
•4
CO
Je
2. An
took
J gave
>a
*-*
cv
iT
^c
oj a t.
TO
H
SP-ts
-
•X3TS
co cw
Cj «;
CO
«- "
CV —
^^
fO
a £
. o
o *j
O o -
*;•
aj
to
2 4)
aS
_ cv
> J<
~ CS CO
s teg
TO V5
3T3 fe E
44 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
From the preceding harmonized view of this impor-
tant transaction, as described by three Evangelists and
one Apostle, we see the first institution, nature, and
design of what has been since called Tin; Lord's Sup-
per. To every circumstance, as set down here, and the
mode of expression by which such circumstances are des-
cribed, we should pay the deepest attention.
1. As they mere eating (Matt. xxvi. v. 26.) either an or-
dinary supper, or the paschal lamb, as some think. — (See
the Introduction.)
2. Jesus took bread. — Of what kind ? Unleavened bread,
certainly, because there was no other kind to be had in
all Judea at this time ; for this was the first day of un-
leavened bread, (v. 17.) i. e. the 14th of the month Ni-
san, when the Jews, according to the command of God,
(Exod. xii. 15 — 20. xxiii. 15. and xxxiv. 25.) were to
purge away all leaven from their houses ; for he who sa-
crificed the Pass-over, having leaven in his dwelling, was
considered to be such a transgressor of the divine law as
could no longer be tolerated among the people of God ;
and, therefore, was to be cut off from the congregation of
Israel. Leo, of Modena, who has written a very sen-
sible treatise on the Customs of the Jews, observes,
* That so strictly do some of the Jews observe the pre-
cept concerning the removal of all leaven from their
houses, during the celebration of the paschal solemnity,
that they either provide vessels entirely new for baking,
or else have a set for the purpose, which are dedicated
solely to the service of the Pass-over, and never brought
out on any other occasion."
To this divinely instituted custom of removing all lea-
ven previously to the paschal solemnity, St. Paul evi-
dently alludes, 1 Cor. v. 6, 7, 8. Know ye not that a
little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out there-
fore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are
2
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 45
unleavened. For even Christ, our Passover, is sacri-
ficed for us ; therefore let us keep the feast, not with old
leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness,
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Now, if any respect should be paid to the primitive
institution, in the celebration of this divine ordinance,
then unleavened, unyeasted bread should be used. In
every sign or type, the thing signifying or pointing out
that which is beyond itself, should either have certain
properties, or be accompanied with certain circumstances,
as expressive as possible of the thing signified. Bread,
simply considered in itself, may be an emblem apt enough
of the body of our Lord Jesus, which was given for us ; but
the design of God was evidently that it should not only
point out this, but also the disposition required in those
who should celebrate both the antitype and the type;
and this the apostle explains to be sincerity and truth,
the reverse of malice and wickedness. The very taste of
the bread was instructive : it pointed out to every com-
municant, that he who came to the table of God with ma-
lice or ill-zHU against any soul of man, or with wickedness,
a profligate or sinful life, might expect to eat and drink
judgment to himself; as not discerning that the Lord's body
was sacrificed for this very purpose, that all sin might be
destroyed ; and that sincerity, tiXixptvEix, such purity as
the clearest light can discern no stain in, might be dif-
fused through the whole soul ; and that truth, the law of
righteousness and true holiness, might regulate and guide
all the actions of life. Had the bread used on these occa-
sions been of the common kind, it would have been per-
fectly unfit, or improper, to have communicated these un-
common significations ; and, as it was seldom used, its rare
occurrence would make the emblematical representation
more deeply impressive, and the sign and the thing sig-
nified have their due correspondence and influence.
These circumstances considered, will it not appear that
46 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
the use of common bread in the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper is highly improper ? He who can say, " This is a
mutter of no importance" may say, with equal propriety,
the bread itself is of no importance ; and another may
say, the wine is of no importance ; and a third may say,
" neither bread nor wine is any thing, but as they lead to
spiritual references; and the spiritual reference being
once understood, the signs are useless." Thus we may,
through affected spirituality, refine away the whole ordi-
nance of God; and, with the letter and form of religion
abolish religion itself. — Many have already acted in this
way, not only to their loss, but ' o their ruin, by shewing how
profoundly wise they are above what is written. Let those,
therefore, who consider that man shall live by every word
which proceeded/ from the mouth of God, and who are
conscientiously solicitous that each divine institution be
not only preserved, but observed in all its original inte-
grity, attend to this circumstance. I grant, that it is
probable that their use of unleavened bread in the sacra-
ment of the Lord's Supper may excite the sneer of the
profane, or the pretended pity of those who think, in
spirituality, they are above that which is infinitely above
them ; yet while the conscientious followers of God dare
even to be singular \n that which is right, and arc not
ashamed of Christ and his words, they shall be acknow-
ledged by him when he comes in the kingdom and glory
of his Father. I leave these remarks with the consci-
entious reader : but in this opinion I am not singular, as
the Lutheran church makes use of unleavened bread to
the present day.
3d. And bksstd it.— Both St. Matthew and Marie use
the word fjA&y^a;, blessed instead of a-jy^apir^^-h gave
thanks, which is the word used by St. Luke , and St. Paul.
The terms, in this case, are nearly of the same import, as
both blessing and giving thanks were used on these occa-
1
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 47
siorrs. But what was it that our Lord blessed ? Not the
bread, though many think the contrary, being deceived by
the word it, which is improperly supplied in our version.
In all the four places referred to above, whether the
word blessed or gave thanks is used, it refers not to the
bread but to God, the dispenser of every good. Our Lord
here conforms himself to that constant Jewish custom,
viz. of acknowledging God as the author of every good
and perfect gift, by giving thanks on taking the bread 9
and taking the cup at their ordinary meals. For every
Jew was forbidden to eat, drink, or use any of God's
creatures without rendering him thanks, and he who acted
contrary to the command was considered as a person who
was guilty of sacrilege. From this custom we have de-
rived the decent and laudable one of saying grace ?
(gratias thanks) before and after meat. The Jewish
form of blessing, and probably that which our Lord used
on this occasion, none of my readers will be displeased to
find here : on taking the bread, they say ;
pan p onf? snrron oSipn *]Vo mbtt nrw "p-o
Baruc atta Eloheenoo, Melech ha-61am, ha-motse Lechem min haarets.
Blessed be thou our God, king of the universe, who bringest
forth bread out of the earth !
Likewise on taking the cup, they say ;
j&n ns snn drum iSo ti'nVs im
Baruc, Eloheenoo, Melech ha-dlam, Bore peree haggeplien.
Blessed be our God, the king of the universe, the Creator of
the fruit of the vine !
The Mohammedans copy their example, constantly
■saying before and after meat,
Bismillahi arrahmani arraheemi.
In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compas-
sionate.
48
A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
No blessing therefore of the elements is here intended ;
they were already blessed, in being sent as a gift of mercy
from the bountiful Lord; but God the sender is blessed,
because of the liberal provision he has made for his
worthless creatures. Blessing and touching the bread,
are merely popish ceremonies, unauthorised either by
Scripture, or the practice of the pure church of God ;
necessary of course to them who pretend to transmute, by
a kind of spiritual incantation, the bread and wine, into
the real body and blood of Jesus Christ ; a measure, the
grossest in folly, and most stupid in nonsense, to which
God, in judgment, ever abandoned the fallen spirit of man.
What was it, that under God, generated Protestantism ?
The Protestation of a few of his followers in 1529, against
the supremacy of the Pope, the extravagant, disgraceful
and impious doctrine of transubstantiation, and the sale
of indulgences connected with it. But let the Protestant
take care that while he rejects a doctrine teeming with
monstrous absurdities, and every contradictious senti-
ment, he also avoid those acts and ridiculous rites,
such as blessing and touching the sacred elements, by
which it was pretended, this fancied transubstantiation
was brought about.
4. And brake it. — We often read in the Scriptures of
breaking bread, but never of cutting it. The Jewish
people had nothing analogous to our high raised loaf:
their bread was made broad and thin, and was conse-
quently very brittle ; and to divide it, there was no need
of a knife.
The breaking of the bread, I consider highly necessary
to the proper performance of this solemn and significant ce-
remony ; because this act was designed by our Lord to
shadow forth the zoounding, piercing, and breaking of his
body upon the cross ; and all this was essentially necessary
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 49
to the making a full atonement for the sin of the world ;
so it is of vast importance that this apparently little cir-
cumstance, the breaking of the bread, should be carefully
attended to, that the godly communicant may have every
necessary assistance to enable him to discern the Lord's
body while engaged in this most important and divine of
all God's ordinances. But who does not see that one
small cube of fermented, i. e. leavened bread, previously
divided from the mass with a knife, and separated by the
nnoers of the minister, can never fully answer the end of
the institution, either as to the matter of the bread, or the
mode of dividing it? Man is naturally a dull and heedless
creature, especially in spiritual things, and has need of
the utmost assistance of his senses, in union with those
expressive rites and ceremonies which the Holy Scripture,
not tradition, has sanctioned, in order to enable him to
arrive at spiritual things through the medium of earthly
similitudes.
j. He gave it unto his disciples. — Net only the break-
ing* but also the distribution- of the bread are neces-
sary parts of this rite. In the Romish church the bread
is not broken nor delivered to the people that they may
take and eat ; but the consecrated wafer is put upon their
tongue by the priest, and he is reputed the most
worthy communicant who does not masticate, but swallow
it whole.
" That the breaking of this bread to be distributed,'' 1 says
Dr. Whitby, ' is a necessary part of this rite is evident,'
tirst, by the continual mention of it by St. Paul, and all
the Evangelists, when they speak of the institution of
this sacrament, which shews it to be a necessary part of
it. 2. Christ says, Take, eat, this is mj/ body, broken for
you. 1 Cor. xi. 24. But when the elements are not
broken, it can be no more said, This is my body broken
D
50 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
for you, than where the elements are not given. 3. Our
Lord said, Do this in remembrance of me : i.e. ' Eat
this bread broken, in remembrance of my body broken on
the cross ;' now where no body broken is distributed,
there, nothing can be eaten in memorial of his broken
body. Lastly, the apostle, by saying, The bread which
we break, is it not the communion of the body of
Christ ? sufficiently informs us, that the eating of his
broken body, is necessary to that end, 1 Cor. x. 10.
Hence it was, that this rite of distributing bread broken
continued for a thousand years : and was, as Humbertus
testifies, observed in the Roman church, in the eleventh
century. 1 ' Whitby in loco. At present, the opposite
is as boldly practised, as if the real scriptiual rite had
never been observed in the church of Christ.
6. This is my body. — Here it must be observed, that
Christ had nothing in his hands at this time, but part of
that unleavened bread which he and his disciples had
been eating at supper, and therefore he could mean no
more than this, viz. that the bread which he was now
breaking represented his body, which, in the course of a
few hours, was to be crucified for them. Common sense,
unsophisticated with superstition and erroneous creeds ;
and reason, unawed by the secular sword of sovereign
authority, could not possibly take any other meaning
than this plain, consistent, and rational one, out of these
words. " But, says a false and absurd creed : Jesus
meant, when he said hoc est corpus metjm, This is my
body, and Hie est calix sanguinis am, This is the
chalice of my blood, that the bread and wine were sub'
stantially changed into his body, including flesh, blood,
bones, yea, the whole Christ, in his immaculate huma-
nity, and adorable divinity !" And for denying this,
what rivers of righteous blood have been shed by state
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 51
persecutions, and by religious wars ! Well it may be
asked, " Can any man of sense believe, that when Christ
took up that bread and broke it, that it was his own body
which he held in his own, hands, and which himself broke
to pieces, and which he and his disciples ate ? " He who
can believe such a congeries of absurdities, cannot be
said to be a volunteer in faith: — for it is evident, the man
can neither have faith nor reason.
Let it be observed, if any thing further is necessary
on this subject, that the Paschal Lamb is called the Pass-
over, because it represented the destroying angel's passing-
over the children of Israel, while he slew the firstborn
of the Egyptians : and our Lord and his disciples call
this lamb the Pass-over, several times in this chapter ;
by which it is demonstrably evident, that they could
mean no more than that the lamb sacrificed on this occa-
sion, was a memorial of, and represented the means
used for the preservation of the Israelites from the blast
of the destroying angel.
Besides, our Lord did not say, hoc est corpus meum,
(this is my body) as he did not speak in the Latin tongue ;
though as much stress has been laid upon this quotation
from the Vulgate version, by the Papists, as if the ori-
ginal of the three Evangelists had been written in the
Latin language. Had he spoken in Latin, following the
idiom of the Vulgate, he would have said, panis hie corpus
meum signified t, or, symbolum est corporis mei — hoc po-
culum sanguinem meum represcnlat, or, symbolum est
sanguinis mei : this bread signifies my body ; this cup re-
presents my blood. But let it be observed, that in the He-
brew, Chaldee and Chaldeo-Syriac languages there is no
term which expresses to mean, signify, denote, though
both the Greek and Latin abound with them : hence the
Hebrews use a figure, and say, it is, for, it signifies. So
Gen. xli. 26, 27. The seven kine are (i. e. represent)
d2
>'i A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
seven years. This is, (represents) the bread of affliction
which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt. Daw. vii. 84.
The ten horns are (i. e* signify) ten kings. They drunk
of the spiritual Rock which followed them, and that Rock
was (represented) Christ. 1 Cor. x. 4. And following
this Hebrew idiom, though the work is written in Greek,
we find, in Rev. i. 20. the seven stars are (represent) the
angels of the seven churches : and the seven candlesticks
are (represent) the seven churches. The same form of
speech is used in a variety of places in the New Testa-
ment, where this sense must necessarily be given to the
word. — Matt. xiii. 38, 39. The field is (represents) the
world ; the good seed are (represent or signify) the chil-
dren of the kingdom : the tares, are (signify) the chil-
dren of the wicked one : the enemy is (signifies) the
devil : the harvest is (represents) the end of the world :
the reapers are (i. e. signify) the angels. — Luke viii. 9.
What might this parable be ? rig EIH jj ifxpxfibXrj avrr, :
what does this parable signify ? — John vii. 36. r,;
EETIN w?o; s Aoyoj ; what is the signification of this
saying-. — John x. 6. They understood not what things
they were, Ti;z HN, what was the signification of the
things he had spoken to them. — Acts x. 17. n av EIH ro
ipapa, what this vision might be ; properly rendered by
our translators, what this vision should mean. — Gal. iv.
24. For these are the two covenants : ewvou yap EI21N
let $uo .Siixfyxxi, these signify the two covenants. — Luke
xv. 26. He asked, ri EIH ravrcc, what these things meant :
see also ch. xviii. 36. After such unequivocal testimony
from the sacred writings, can any person doubt that, Thin
bread is my body, has any other meaning than. This re-
presents my body ?*
liio Latins use the verb sum, in all its forms, with a simi-
! ir latitude of meaning; so, esse oneri ferendoj he is able to
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 53
That our Lord neither spoke in Greek nor in Lath\
on this occasion, need? no proof. It was, most probably,
in what was formerly called the Chaldaic now the Sj/riac,
that our Lord conversed with his disciples. Through
the providence of God, we have complete versions of
the Gospels in this language ; and, in them, it is likely
bear the burthen : bene esse, to live sumptuously : 7?tali esse,
to live miserably : rede esse, to enjoy good health : est miki
fistula, I possess a flute : est hodie in rebus, lie now in joys a
plentiful fortune : est mihi namque do mi pater , I have a father
at home: esse solvendo, to be able to pay: Fiimus Troes ;
fuit Ilium. The Trojans are extinct: Troy is no more.
In Greek also, and Hebrew, it often signifies to live, to die,
to be killed: ovx. EIMI, I am dead, or a dead man. — Matt. ii. 18.
Rachel weeping for her children, 6ri oir. EI 2 1, because they
were murdered. — Gen. xlii. 36. Joseph is not, i:j-x tpv
Yoseph cmennu, lucrrrf qvk E2TIN, Sept. i.e. Joseph is devoured
by a wild beast. — Rom. iv. 17. Calling the tilings that are not,
as if they were alive. So Plutarch, in Laconicis — "This shield
thy father always preserved ; preserve thou it, or may thou not
BE "_,j pj ESO, may thou perish. OTK ONTEiS NOMOI,
abrogated laws : EIMI sv SM/OJ, I possess a sound understanding :
ti$ ■Ka.rspa. Vfjuv ESOMAI, I will perform the part of a father
to you : zitu rys nfoXsaJS fys Ss, I am an inhabitant of that city.
Tertullian seems to have had a correct notion of these words
of our Lord, when he said, Acceptum panem el distribution dis-
nipulis, corpus ilium suum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo,
id est, Figura corporis mei. Advers. Marcion, lib. v. c. 40.
Having taken the bread and distributed it to his disciples, he
made it his body by saying This is my body ; i. e. a figure of my
body."— I Tim. i. 7. Desiring to be teachers of the law —
fieAovrs? EINAI v8asJjoa<rxaAo», desiring to be reputed teachers
of the law, i. e. able divines — ra ONTA, the things that are,
i.e. noble and honourable men: ra. aij ONTA, the things
that are not, viz. the vulgar, or those of ignoble birth.
54 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
we have the precise words spoken by our Lord on this
occasion. In Matt. xxvi. 2G and 27, the words in the
Syriac version are — «*ry*£> QJGl honau pagree, f/iis
is my body, *jl5>Oj QJOl henau demee, this is my
blood ; of which forms of speech, the Greek rovro en n
(T'xy.x ij.'j-j — tovto Bs~i to ai<j,ot [lov is a verbal translation ;
nor would any man, even in the present day, speaking
in the same language, use, among the people to whom it
was vernacular, other terms than the above to express,
This represents my body, and this represents my blood.
But this form of speech is common, even in our own
language, though we have terms enow to fill up the el-
lipsis. Suppose a man entering into a Museum, enriched
with the remains of ancient Greek Sculpture; his eyes are
attracted by a number of curious busts ; and on enquiring
what they are, he learns, this is Socrates, that is Plato, a
third is Homer ; others ore Hesiod, Horace, Virgil, De-
mosthenes, Cicero, Herodotus, Livy, Caesar, Nero, Ves-
pasian, &c. Is he deceived by this information ? Notat
all : he knows well that the busts he sees are not the iden-
tical persons of those ancient philosophers, poets, orators,
historians, and emperors, but only representations
of their persons in sculpture ; between which and the
originals there is as essential a difference as between a
human body, instinct with all the principles of rational
vitality, and a block of marble. — When, therefore, Christ
took up a piece of bread, brake it, and said, This is my
body, who but the most stupid of mortals could imagine
that he was, at the same time, handling and breaking
his own body ! Would not any person, of plain common
sense, see as great a difference between the man Christ
Jesus and the piece of bread, as between the block of
marble and the philosopher it represented, in the case
referred to above ? The truth is, there is scarcely a more
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 55
common form of speech, in any language, than this is for,
this represents, or signifies. And as our Lord refers, in
the whole of this transaction, to the ordinance of the
Pass-over, we may consider him as saying, " This bread
is now my body, in that sense in which the Paschal Lamb
has been my body hitherto ; and this cup is my blood of
the New Testament, in the same sense as the blood of bulls
and goats has been mv blood under the old ; Exod. xxiv.
Heb. ix. i. e. The Paschal Lamb, and the sprinkling of
blood, represented my sacrifice to the present time : this
bread and this wine shall represent my body and blood
through all future ages : therefore, " Do this in remem-
brance of me."
Perhaps, to many of my readers, it may appear utterly
improbable, that in the present enlightened age, as it is
called, any people can be found who seriously and consist-
ently credit the doctrine of transubstantiation. Lest I
should fall under the charge of misrepresentation, I shall
here transcribe the eighth lesson of the " Catechism for
the Use of all the Churches in the French empire" pub-
lished in 1806, by the authority oHhe Emperor Napoleon
Buonaparte, with the bull of the Pope, and the man"
damns of the Archbishop of Pa r is : which on this subject
is exactly a counterpart to ail that have been published
from time immemorial, in the popish Churches.
" Q. What is the sacrament of the Eucharist ?
A. The Eucharist is a sacrament which contains real-
ly and substantially, the body, blood, soul, and di-
vinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the forms or ap-
pearance of bread and wine.
Q. What is at first put on the altar, and in the chalice ?-
Is it not bread and z&jne ?
A. Yes: and it continues to be bread and wine till
THE PRIEST PRONOUNCE* THE WORDS OF CONSECRA-
TION,
oG a discourse on the nature
Q. What influence have these icords /
A. The bread is changed into the body, and the Wi>e
i« changed into the blood of our Lord.
^>. Does nothing of* the &r«zd and <v/';?c remain ?
.//. Nothing of them remains, except the forms.
<?. What do you call the forms of the bread and a>i«e£
A. That which appears to our senses, as colour, figure,
and /f/.v/r.
Q. Is there nothing under the form of bread except the
bod// of our Lord ?
A. Besides his body, there is his blood, his so*//, and
his divinity ; because all these are inseparable.
Q. And under the form of wine ?
A. Jesus Christ is there as entire, as under the form of
the bread.
Q. When the forms of the bread and wine are divided,
is Jesus Christ divided ?
A. No: Je?us Christ remains entire under each pa) t of
the form divided.
Q. Sav, in a word, xidiat Jesus Christ gives us under
each form ?
A. All that he is, that is, plrfkct God, and per-
I r.CT MAN.
Q. Docs Jesus Christ leave heaven to come into the
Eucharist ?
A. No : he always continues at the right hand of God,
bis Father, till he shall come at the end of the world,
with "great glory, to judge the living and the dead.
Q. Then how can he be present at the altar?
A. By the almighty power of God.
Q. Then it is not man that works this miracle ?
A. No : it is Jesus Christ, whose word is employed in
the snerament.
^>. Then it is Jesus Christ who consecrates ?
>
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 57
A. It is Jesus Christ who consecrates; the priest is
only his minister.
Q. Must we worship the body and blood of Jesus Christ
in the Eucharist ?
A. Yes, undoubtedly ; for this body, and this blood,
are inseparably united to his divinity."
To shew that this is consistent with the canon of the
mass, I shall translate the consecration prayer from the
Roman MissaL When the priest receives the bread and
wine, he thus prays, making the sign of the cross where
this mark t%i appears :
" We beseech thee, O God, to render this oblation in
all things bless »J«ed, approv^ed, eflect»J«ual, reasonable
and acceptable, that it may b? made to us the bo*J«d\ and
blsJ<ood of thy most beloved Son, our Lord Je«us Christ !
who, the day before he suffered, took bread into his sa-
cred and venerable hands, and having lifted up his eyes
to thee, O God, the Father Almighty, and, giving thanks
to thee, bless^ed, brake, and gave it to his disciples,
saying, Take, and eat ye all of this, for this is my body.
(HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.)
[Then the priest adores, and elevates the consecrated
host.^
" In like manner after he had supped, taking also this
excellent chalice into his sacred and venerable handc,
giving thee, also, thanks, he bless>J«ed and gave it to hit;
disciples, saying, Take, and drink ye all of this, for this
is the chalice of my blood, (HIC EST ENIM CALIX
SANGUINIS MEI,) of the new and eternal testa-
ment, the mystery of faith which shall be shed for you,
and for many, for the remission of sins, as oft as ye
shall do the?e things, ye shall do them in remembrance
of me."
[Here the chalice is elevated and adored, and the Lord
is besought to command his angel to carry these offerings
into the presence of his Divine Majesty^] About 1218 Pope
58 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
Honorius III. ordered kneeling at the elevation of the
Host. — Order of the Mass, Vol. I. p. xxiv., &c.
In " The divine office for the use of the laity," the
person who is to communicate is ordered to " go up to the
rails, kneel down, and say the canfkeor, (confession) with
true sorrow and compunction for his sins." After the
priest has prayed that God may have mercy upon him,
and pardon all his sins, " he takes the sacred host (i. e.
the consecrated zcaf r) into his hand, and again turns
about, and says, Behold the Lamb of God ! Behold him
who taketh away the sin of the world! Then he and the
communicant repeat thrice, " Lord, I am not worthy
thou shouldst enter under my roof ; speak, therefore, but
the word, and my soul shall he healed," the communicant
striking his breast in token of his unworthiness. " Then,"
says the Directory, " having the towel raised above your
breast, your eyes modestly closed, your head likewise raised
up, and your mouth conveniently opened, receive the holy
sacrament on your tongue, resting on your under lip ; then
close your mouth, and say in your heart, Amen : I believe
it to be the body of Christ, and I pray it may preserve
my soul to eternal life" — Ordinany of the mass, p. xxxiii.
Believing that these extracts are sufficient to expose
the shocking absurdity and idolatory of this most mon-
strous system, 1 forbear either adding more, or making
any comments on those already produced.
7. St. Luke and St. Paul add a circumstance here
which is not noticed either by St. Matthew or St. Mark.
After, this is my body, the former adds, which is given
for you : the latter, which is* broken for. you : the sense of
which is, u As God has in his bountiful providence given
you bread for the sustenance of your lives ; so, in his in-
finite grace, he has given you my body to save your souls
unto life eternal. But as this bread must be broken and
masticated, in order to its becoming proper nourishment ;
1
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 59
so my body must be broken, i. e crucified for you, before
it can be the bread of life to your souls. As, therefore,
your life depends on the bread which God's bounty has
provided for your bodies, so your eternal life depends on
the sacrifice of my body on the cross for your souls."
Besides, there is here an allusion to the offering* of sacri-
fices — an innocent creature was brought to the altar of
God, and its blood (the life of the beast) was poured out
for, or in behalf of the person who brought it. Thus,
Christ says, alluding to the sacrifice of the paschal lamb,
This is my body, to 'vifEp 'up.wv StSo^eyov, which is given
in your stead, or in your behalf; a free gift from God's
endless mercy for the salvation of your souls : This is my
body, to 'mtsp'vftwv nXufievov (1 Cor. xi. 24.) which is broken,
sacrificed in your stead, as without the breaking (piercing)
of the body, and spilling of the blood, there was no re-
mission.
In this solemn transaction we must weigh every word,
as there is none without its appropriate and deeply empha-
tic meaning. So it is written Ephes. v. 2. Christ hath
loved us, and given himelf vitep rjfMuv, on our account, or
in our stead, an offering and a sacrifice, (W»a,) to God
for a sweet-smelling savour, that, as in the sacrifice offer-
ed by Noah, Gen. viii. 21. to which the apostle evidently
alludes), from which it is said, the Lord smelled a smeet
■savour, nrwn TV) riach hanichoach, a savour of rest, so
that he became appeased towards the earth, and deter-
mined that there should no more be a flood to destroy it;
in like manner, in the ottering and sacrifice of Christ for
us, God is appeased towards the human race ; and has,
in consequence, decreed, that whosoever believeth in him
shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
8. (v. 27.) And he took the cup, [mstcc to fcnrvYpa.1 afta
having supped, Luke xxii. 20. & 1 Cor. xi. 25. Whether
the supper was on the paschal lamb, or whether it was u
60 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
common or ordinary menl, I shall not wait here to enquire.
haying considered the subject at large in the Introduction
In the parallel place in Luke xxii. we find our L/ord
taking the cup, v. 17. and again, v. !9. ; by the former of
which Mas probably meant the cup of blessings rarOfl D13
kos haberacahj which the master of a family took, and
after blessing God, gave to each of his guests by way of
welcome : but this second taking of the cup, is to be under-
stood as belonging peculiarly to the very important rite,
which he was now instituting, and on which he lays a very
remarkable stress. With respect to the bread, he had
before simply said, Take, cat ; this is my body : but con-
cerning the cup, he says, Drink ye all of this; for as this
pointed out the very essence of the institution, viz. the
blood of atonement, it was necessary that each should
have a particular application of it, therefore he says,
Drink ye alt. of this. By this we are taught that the
cup is essential to the sacrament of the Lord's supper ;
so that they who deny the cup to the people, sin against
God's institution ; and they who receive not the cup,
are not partakers of the body and blood of Christ, [f
either could, without mortal prejudice, be omitted, it
might be the bread; but the cup as pointing out the blood,
poured out, i. e. the life, by which alone the great sacrifi-
cial act is performed, and remission of sins procured, is ab-
solutely indispensable. On this ground it is demonstrable,
that there is not a popish priest under heaven, who denies
the cup to the people, (and they all do this) that can be
said to celebrate the Lord's supper at all ; nor is there
one of their votaries that ever received the holy sacra-
ment ! All pretension to this is an absolute farce, so long
as the cup. the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied.
How strange is it, that the very men, who plead so much
for the bare literal meaning of this is my body, in the
preceding verse, should deny all meaning to drink ye all
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST.
61
of this cup, in this verse ! And though Christ has in the
most positive manner enjoined it, they will not permit
one of the laity to taste it ! O what a thing is man ! a
constant contradiction to reason and to himself. The con-
clusion, therefore, i? unavoidable. The sacrament of the
Lord's supper is not celebrated in the church of Rome.
Should not this be made known to the miserable de-
luded Catholics over the face of the Earth ?
9. I have just said, that our blessed Lord lays re-
markable stress on the administration of the cup, and on
that which himself assures us, is represented by it. As it
is peculiarly emphatic, 1 beg leave to set down the origi-
nal text, which the critical reader will do well minutely
to examine : Tovro yapesri TO 'dupx poti TO njj xktvyf Stathj-
y.r t S, TO ifepl iroXXuv £xyj~;ou.zvov tig a$s<riv 'auaptiuv. The
following literal translation and paraphrase, do not exceed
its meaning.
For, THIS is THAT blood of mine, [which was point-
ed out by all the sacrifices under the Jewish law, and
particularly by the shedding and sprinkling of the blood
of the paschal lamb.] THAT blood [of the sacrifice slain
for the ratification] of the new covenant. The blood [ready
to be] poured out for the multitudes, [the whole Gentile
world as well as the Jews,] for the taking away of sins ;
sin, whether original or actual, in all its power, and
guilt ; in all its internal energy, and pollution.
It will be of considerable consequence to ascertain what
this cup contained. Wine is not specifically mentioned,
but what is tantamount to it is, viz. what our Lord terms
yevtftAX ?r t ; apireXov, the offspring or produce of the vine.
Though this was the true and proper wine, yet it was
widely different from that medicated and sophisticated be-
verage which goes now under that name. The |" yayin,
of the Hebrews, the oivo; oinos, of the Greeks, and vi-
num of the ancient Romans, meant simply the expressed
62 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
.juice of the grape, sometime.-, drunk just after it was ex-
pressed, while its natural sweetness remained : and then
termed mustum : at other times, after fermentation, which
process rendered it fit for keeping, without getting acid
or unhealthy, then called bu/d$, and vinum. By the an-
cient Hebrews, I believe it was chiefly drunk in its first
or simple state ; hence it Mas termed among them |{tfn HD
peree haggephen, the fruit of the vine ; and by our Lord
in the Syriac, his vernacular language, l^-yir? 1A*»
yalda dagephetha, i\\e young or son of the vine, very pro-
perly translated by the Evangelist ysvypfo tyjs 9C(j>itetov the
offspring or produce of the vine. In ancient times, when
only a small portion was wanted for immediate use, the
juice was pressed by the hand out of a bunch of grapes,
and immediately drunk. After this manner Pharaoh's
butler was accustomed to squeeze out new wine into the
royal cup, as is evident from Genesis xl, 11.
Were there not a particular cause, probably my des-
cending to such minuteness of description, might require
an apology. I have only to say, that I have learned with
extreme regret, that in many Churches and Chapels a vile
compound, wickedly denominated wine, not the offspring of
the Vine hut of the alder, gooseberry, or currant-tree, and
not unfiequently the issue of the sweepings of a grocer's-
shop, is substituted for wine, in the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper. That this is a most wicked and awful perversion
ofour Lord's ordinance, needs, I am persuaded, no proof.
The matters made use of by Jesus Christ, on this solemn
occasion, were unleavened bread, and the produce of the
vine, i. e. pure wine. To depart in the least from his in-
stitution, while it is in our power to follow it literally,
would be extremely culpable. If the principle of sub-
stitution be tolerated in the least, innovations without
end may obtrude themselves into this sacred rite, and
into the mode of its administration; then the issue must
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 63
be, what, alas ! it has already been in numberless cases, a
perversion of the sacred ordinance, so that the divine
blessing no longer accompanies it; hence it is despised
by some, neglected by most, and by a certain class utterly
rejected, and the Lord's body and blood little discerned,
even by its sincere votaries. How truly execrable must
that covetousness be, which, in order to save a little mo-
ney, substitutes a cheap and unwholesome liquor instead
of that wine, of which God is particularly stiled the
Creator ; and which, by his own appointment, is the only
emblem of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; even of
that blood which was shed for us to make atonement for
our sins, and preserve our bodies and souls unto eternal
life! These things considered, Will not every reader con-
clude, with me, that at least genuine bread and unadul-
terated wine should constitute the matter of the elements
in the Lord's supner ?
10. And when lie had given thanks. See the form used
on this occasion, in p. 47, andsee the Mishna, Tract.
rVD"D Beracoth.
11. For this is my blood of the Nezo Testament. This
is the reading in St. Matthew and St. Mark ; but St.
Luke and St. Paul say, This cup is the New Testament
in my blood. This passage has been strangely mistaken :
by New Testament, many understand nothing more than
the book commonly known by this name, containing the
four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Apostolical Epistles,
and book of the Revelation ; and they think that the cup
of the New Testament means no more than merely that
cup which the book called the New Testament enjoins in
the sacrament of the Lord's supper. As this is the case,
it is highly necessary that this term should be explained.
The original H Kaivy) Aiah,-^, which we translate The
Nezo Testament, and which is the general title of all the
contents of the book already described, simply means
64 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
The new t oven .w r. Covenant, from cow together, and
xttfrio I come, signifies an agreement, contract, or com-
pact between two parties, by which both are mutually
bound to do certain thing-, on certain conditions and
penalties. It answers to the Hebrew nna beritk, which
often signifies not only the covenant , or agreement, hut
also the sacrifice which was slain on the occasion, by the
blood of which the covenant Mas ratified ; and the con-
tracting parties professed to subject themselves to such a
death as that of the victim, in case of violating their en-
gagements. An oath of this kind, on slaying the cove-
nant sacrifice, was usual in ancient times : so in Homer,
when a covenant was made between the Greeks and the
Trojans, and the throats of lambs were cut, and their
blood poured out, the following form of adjuration was
used by the contracting parties :
Zeu *v&re', peyisrS} xou aQavatM Sect ccX'/.ct.
O-rtxorzpoi itpotepoi vrfsp opxix tfyfAqvEiaiv,
ilh ar<f eyxetyaXos y^aaahg peoi, cv; oie oe/or,
jlvTcuV) xa< rsxewV a/.oyoi oaWoiri (Mystev.
All glorious Jove, and ye, the Powers of Heaven!
Whoso shall violate this contract first,
So be their blood, their children's, and their own
Poured out, as this libation, on the ground ;
And let their wives to other men be joined !
Iliad, 1. iii. t. 208—301.
Our blessed Saviour is evidently called the Aiaflijxijj rvo
beritk, or covenant sacrifice. Isai. xlii. 6. xlix. 8. Zecli.
ix. 11. And to those scriptures he appears to allude, as
in them the Lord promises to give him for a covenant
( saenjice) to the Gentiles, and to send forth, h/y the blood
pf this covenant (victim) the prisomrs out of the pit. The
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST, 6£»
passages in the sacred writings, which allude to this grand
sacrificial and atoning act, are almost innumerable.
In this place, our Lord terms his blood, the blood of the
new covenant; by which he means that grand plan of
agreement) or reconciliation, which God was now es-
tablishing between himself and mankind, by the passion
and death of his Son ; through whom, alone, men could
draw nigh to God : and this new covenant is mentioned in
contradistinction from the old covenant, rj itxXona, Aiafyy.Y,,
(2 Cor. iii. 14.) ; by which appellative all the books of
the Old Testament were distinguished, because they 1
pointed out the way of reconciliation to God by the blood
of the various victims slain under the law : but now, as
the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world,
was about to be offered up, a new and living way was
thereby constituted, so that no one henceforth could come
unto the Father but by him. Hence, all the books of the
New Testament, which bear unanimous testimony to the
doctrine of salvation by faith through the blood of Jesus,
are termed H Kaivy Ata. f jry.yj, The new covenant.
Dr. Lightfoot's Observations on this are worthy of
serious notice. " This is my blood of the New Testament.
Not only the seal of the covenant, but the sanction of
the new covenant. The end of the Mosaic ceconomy,
and the confirming of a new one. The confirmation of
the old covenant was by the blood of bulls and goats,
Exod. xxiv. Heb. ix. because blood was still to be shed :
the confirmation of the new was by a cup of wine; be-
cause under the new covenant there is no farther shed-
ding of blood. As it is here said of the cup, This cup is
the New Testament in my blood ; so it might be said of
the cup of blood, Exod. xxiv. That cup was the Old
Testament in the blood of Christ : there, all the articles
of that covenant being read over, Moses sprinkled all the
people with blood, and said. This is the blood of the
E
66 a discourse on the nature
covenant which God hath made with you ; and thus, Chart
old covenant, or testimony was confirmed. In like man-
ner, Christy having published all the articles of the new
covenant; he takes the cup of wine, and gives them to
drink, and saith, This is the new Testament in my bloods,
and thus the tfew covenant was established." — Works,
vol. ii. p. 960.
12. Which is shed (xe%uvojU.£vov poured out) for you,
and for many. Ex^ecu, and ex^oa, to pour out, are often
u^ed in a sacrificial sense in the Septuagint, and signify
to pour out or sprinkle the blood of the sacrifices before
the altar of the Lord, by way of atonement. See 2 Kings
i vi. 15. Lev. viii. 15. ix. 9. Exod. xxix. 12.. Lev. iv.
7 5 14 — ]7 — 30—34.; and in various other places. Our
Lord, by this very remarkable mode of expression,
teaches us, that, as his body was to be broken, or cruci-
fied, vTtsp ^y,ccv, in our stead; so here, the blood was to
be poured out to make an atonement, as the words re-
mission of sins sufficiently prove; for without shedding of
blood there teas no remission, lleb. ix. 22.: nor any re-
mission by shedding of blood, but in a sacrificial way.
Sec the passages above, and page 04.
The whole of this passage will receive additional light
when collated with Isai. liii. 11, 12. By Ms knowledge
shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear
their iniquities — because he hath poured out his soul unto
death, and he bare the sin o/'ma\v. The pouring out
of the snul unto death, in the Prophet, answers to, This is
the blood of (he New Covenant which is poured out for you,
in the Evangelist: and the D'n rabbim, multitudes, in
Isaiah, corresponds to the many, k '//.>. :■:■.■, of Matthew
and Mark. The passage will soon appear plain, when we
consider that two distinct classes of persons are mentioned
by the prophet. J. The Jews. v. 1. Surely he hath
home ol'k griefs, and carried 'our sorrows, — V.5. But he
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 67
ua-s "(Bounded for our transgressions, he was braised fbr
our iniquities, the chastisement of our 'peace, was upon
him. — v. 6. All we, like sheep, hare gone astray, and
the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. — 2. The
Gentiles, v. 11. By his knowledge T$ra beddto, i.e.
by his being made known, published as Christ crucified
among the Gentiles, he shall justify nrm rabbim, the
tnultiludesj (the gentiles) for he shall (also) bear their
offences, as well as ours, the Jews', v. 4, &c. It is well
known that the Jewish dispensation, termed by the apostle,
as above, yj irah.a,ia. tiz/jy/.r, the old covenant, was partial
and exclusive. None were particularly interested in it
save the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob; where-
as the Christian dispensation, r t xawtj hoAr/A-r^ the new
covenant, referred to by our Lord in tlsis place, was Uni-
versal ; for, as Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, tatted
death for every man, Heb. xi. 9. and is that Lamb of
God that iakcth away the sin of the world, John i. 29. ;
who would have all men to be saved, and come to the
knowledge of the truth] 1 Tim. ii. 4. even that knowledge
Of Christ crucified, by which they are to be justified, Isai.
liii. 11. ; therefore he has commanded his disciples to go
into all the world, and preach the gospel to everv crea-
ture, Mark xvi. 15. The reprobate race, those who
Were no people, and not beloved, were to be called in ;
for the Gospel was to be preached to all the world,
though it was to begin at Jerusalem. — Luke xxiv. 47.
For this purpose was the blood of the new covenant sa-
crifice poured out for the multitudes, that there might be
but one fold, as there is but one Shepherd; and that God
might be all and in all.
13. All this was to be done, si: apecriv upLxpricov, for (or, in
reference to) the taking away of sins, v. 28. For although
the blood is shed, and the atonement made, no man's
sins are taken away, until as a true penitent he returns
e2
OS A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
to Cod : and. feeling his utter incapacity to save himself}
believes in Christ Jesus, who is the justifier of the un-
godly.
The phrase averts fwv dfjMpntav remission of sins (fre-
quently used by the Septuagint) being thus explained by
our Lord, is often used by the Evangelists and the
Apostles ; and does not mean merely the pardon of sins.
as it is generally understood, but the removal or taking
away of sins ; not only the guilt, but also the very
nature of sin, and the pollution of the soul through it ;
and comprehends all that is generally understood by the
terms justification and sanclificaiion. For the use and
meaning of the phrase a^sirig a(jmpnwv, see Mark i. 4. Luke
i. 77. iii. 3. xxiv. 47. Acts ii. 38. v. 31. x. 43. xiii. 38.
xxvi. 18. Coloss. i. 14. Heb. x. 18.
14. Both St. Luke and St. Paul add, that, after giving
the bread, our Lord said, Do this in remembrance of me.
And, after giving the cup, St. Paul alone adds, This do
ye as oft as ye drink it, inremembrance of me. The ac-
count as given by St. Paul should be carefully fol-
lowed, being fuller, and received, according to his own
declaration, by especial revelation from God. See 1 Cor.
xi. 23. For I have received of the Lord that which also
I delivc red unto you, &c.
As the Pass-over was to be celebrated annually, to keep
the original transaction in memory, and to shew forth the
true paschal lamb, the Lamb of God that taketh away the
sin of the world ; so after the once offering of Christ our
Pass-over on the cross, he himself ordained that bread
and wine should be used to keep " that, his precious
death, in remembrance until his coming again." Now,
as the paschal lamb annually sacrificed, brought to the
people's remembrance the wonderful deliverance of their
fathers from the Egyptian bondage and tyranny ; so, the
bread and wine, consecrated and received according t«
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 69
©ur Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, was designed,
by himself, to keep up a continual remembrance, and
lively representation of the great atonement made by his
death upon the cross. The doing this is not intended
merely to keep a recollection of Christ, as a kind and be-
nevolent friend, which is the utmost some allow ; but
to keep in remembrance his body broken for us, and his
blood poured out for us. For, as the way to the Holiest
was ever through his blood, and as no man can ever come
unto the Father but by him, and none can come profit-
ably who have not faith in his blood; it was necessary that
this great help to believing, should be frequently fur-
nished ; as, in all succeeding ages, there would be sinners
to be saved, and saints to be confirmed and established in
their holy faith. Hence we may learn, that God has
made, at least, an annual celebration and partaking of
the 1 /ord's Supper, as absolutely binding upon all who
expect salvation through the blood of the cross, as he did
the annual celebration and partaking of the Pass-over on
every soul in Israel, who desired to abide in the Lord's
covenant, to escape evil, enjoy the divine approbation,
and be saved unto eternal life. Those, therefore, who
reject the Lord's Supper, sin against their own mercies,
and treat their Maker with the basest ingratitude. He,
in condescension to their weakness, has been pleased to
point out to them a very easy way by which they may
recal to their minds, and represent to their senses, in a
most lively manner, the meritorious death and passion of
the Redeemer of the world; who, although he could not
suffer on the cross more than once, has instituted an or-
dinance, by which that sacrificial act may not only be
commemorated, but even represented as often as his
followers may think proper ; and all the blessings pur-
chased by his real passion and death be conveyed to the
souls of sincere communicants, through the medium of
this blessed ordinance. The command, This do in re-
70 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
membrance of me, leavei us no choice*. lie who zritthaxe
us to bo saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth,
will have us to use. as a means of salvation, the Sacrament
of his Supper. He, therefore, who refuses to obey,
boldly but awfully relinquishes his right to the tree of
life ; and, either, ignorant of the righteousness of Cod,
(his method of justifying sinners) or going- about to
establish his own righteousness, (his own method of ob-
taining salvation) rejects the divine remedy, in rejecting
the means by which it is conveyed.
Let no man deceive his own soul, by imagining he can
still have all the benefits of Christ's death, and yet have
nothing to do with the Sacrament : — it is a command of
the living God, founded on the same authority as, Tliou
*halt do no murder ; none, therefore, can disobey it and
be guiltless. Again, let no man impose on himself by the
"ipposition, that he can enjoy this supper spiritualty,
without using what too many impiously call the carnal
ordinance ; i. e. without eating bread and drinking wine
in remembrance of the death of Christ. Is not this a
delusion ? What says the sovereign will of God ? Do
this. What is this ? Why take bread, break, and
eat it : Take the cur, and drink ye all of it : — this,
and only this, is fid filling the will of God. Therefore,
the eating of the sacra menial bread, and the drinking of
the consecrated wine, are essential to the religious per-
formance of our Lord's command. Tt is true, a man
may use these, and not discern the Lord's body ; not duly
and deeplv consider, that these symbols point out the
body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which were
offered up to God ibr him : i.e. he may, possibly, not
k< 'p the eye of his faith upon the atonement, while he
is using the symbols, and thus the sacred ordinance be
no more to him than a common thing ; but does not he
who rejects the symbol*, put it absolutely out of his.
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 71
p&wer to celebrate tin? divine ordinance ? A man may
rest in the letter, and not attain the spirit ; but can a
man, who has it in his power to avail himself of the
letter, ami does not do it, consistently with the appoint-
ment of God, expect the spirit? The letter may be
without the spirit ; but can the spirit, in this case, be
without the letter ? In other word?, is not obedience to
the literal meaning- of our I^ord's words essential to the
attainment of the spiritual blessings to which they refer ?
And is it not as absurd to expect spiritual blessings with-
out the use of the appointed means, as to expect to hear
rounds and see objects without the medium of the sun
and atmosphere ?
15. I mil not .drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,
— These words seem to intimate no more than this : We
shall not have ancther opportunity of eating this bread
and drinking- this wine together ; as, in a few hours, my
crucifixion shall take place.
16'. Until that day when I drink it new with you —
i. e. 1 shall iio more drink of the produce of the vine
with you ; but shall drink new wine — wine of a widely
different nature from this, — a wine which the kingdom of
God alqne can afford. The term new, in Scripture,
is often taken in this sense. So the new heaven, the
new earth, the new covenant, the new man, mean
a heaven, earth, covenant, man, of a very different na-
ture frpm the former. It was our Lord's invariable
custom to illustrate heavenly things by those of earth ;
and to make that which had last been the subject
of conversation tl^e means of doing it. Thus he uses
■wine here, of which they had lately drunk, and on which
he had held the preceding discourse, to point out the
supreme blessedness of tin 1 kingdom of God. But, how-
ever pleasing and useful wine may be to the body, and
how helpful soever, as an ordinance of God, it may be
V2 A DISCOURSE OV THE NATURE
to the Sbtll in the holy Sacrament ; yet the wine of the
kingdom, the spiritual enjoyments at the right hand of
God, procured by the sacrifice of Christ, will be infinitely
more precious and useful. From what our Lord says here,
we learn, that the Sacrament of his Supper is a type of
and a pledge to genuine Christians of the felicity they shall
enjoy with Christ in the kingdom of glory.
17. And z^hen they had sung a hymn — uixvy^uvts; means,
probably, no more than a kind of recitative reading, or
chanting. As to the hymn itself, we know, from the
universal consent of Jewish antiquity, that it was com-
posed of Psalms cxiii. cxiv. cxv. cxvi. cxvii. and cxviii.
termed by the Jews SSn ha/el, from mbSn halc-lu-yah,
the first word in Psalm cxiii. These six Psalms were
always sung at every Paschal solemnity : they sung the
great Hillel on account of t\\efive great benefits referred
to in it: viz. 1. The Exodus from Eygpt Psal. cxiv. 1.
When Israel went out of Egypt, fyc. 2. The miraculous
division of the Red Sea. v. 3. The sea saw it, and fled.
3. The promulgation of the Law. v. 4. The mountains
shipped lilce lambs. 4. The resurrection of the dead.
Psal. cxvi. 9. / will walk before the Lord in the land of
the living. 5. The Passion of the Messiah. Psal. cxv. 1.
Not unto us, Lord, not unto us, 8fC.
Having thus minutely considered all the circumstances
relating to this institution, and distinctly noted the man-
ner in which our Lord and his disciples celebrated it,
I come now,
Til. To consider the proper meaning of the different
epithets given to this sacred ordinance in the Scriptures,
and among the early Christians.
1. The most ancient, and perhaps the most universal,
name by which this sacred rite has been distinguished, is,
that of the Euchakist. This certainly had its origin from
our Lord's first celebration of this holy mystery. For
?
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 73
St. Luke and St. Paul both say, that, when our Lord
took bread, £vx a P l s~ v l troc Si having given thanks, he divided
it among them. And though cvXoyr^a^, having blessed,
is the common reading-, (P.latt. xxvi. 16.) yet almost
all the best MSS. hitherto discovered, have the foiv
mer and not the latter word. From this word, Evy^z-
piria, the Eucharist, was formed ; which, among the
primitive Christians, meant solemn thanksgiving to God
for the many mercies received ; and particularly for those
conferred by the death of our blessed Lord. The following
quotation from St. Chrysostom will shew in what light this
divine ordinance was viewed among the early Christians,
and what they meant when they termed it The Eucharist:
— Aicc $y) rovto xcu tx ppixooSr) pus-ycta xou itoXXr^ yspovra. tvjj
trun'ripiag, to. xc.5' zxxs~r t y reXouy.svx trvvativ, Ev %a.pt rta xa-
Xsitoci, ott nto).}.oov s^iv £ v s pys tr t y, at ui v a.va.p*vr t <ri$, xou T9
KsipaXaiov tvj; tov®sou ifpovokag ssfoixwrai, xatSia itavruiv ircccacr-
xzvoCCfii sv%/t,piratv. — Homil. xxv. in Matth. See Suiceri
Thesaur. in voc. Ey%a/jji<rn«. " Besides this," says he,
" those tremendous mysteries, replenished with abund-
ance of salvation, which we celebrate in every congrega-
tion, are called the Eucharist, because they are the me-
morial of many benefits, and point out the sum of God's
providence, and prepare us to give thanks in all things."
From this we learn, that the Eucharist among them as
representing the body and blood of Christ, was consi-
dered as the sum total of all that the prescience of God
had been planning and executing for them, from the
foundation of the world ; that it was an exhibition of
tremendous mysteries, such as the necessity of the incar-
nation and death of Jesus Christ, the mighty God, for
the sins of the world ; that, in this sacrifice, God had
given us all possible blessings ; and that, therefore, the
Eucharist, by which these things were called to remem-
brance, is the means of replenishing faithful partakers
1\ a DircornsE on the NATURE
with the plenitude of salvation, by which they are enabled
to walk uprightly before God, and give him due thanks
for his unspeakable gift.
This appellative was not only general in the Greek
church, from uhosc language it had its origin, but it was
also common in the Latin church ; for, among the western
Christians and Latin fathers, as early as the times of
Cyprian and Tertullian, Eucharistia meant what we term
the Sacrament of the Lord's supper. But what is more
surprising, the term itself prevailed in the Oriental
churches. Hence in Acts ii. 12. where it is said the
apostles continued in nj xAawa too aprov, the breaking of
bread, the Syriac version, the oldest and purest ex-
tant, reads the place thus l^J&VDofc }■./-)'! Q ubekateia
iTaakaristia, " and in the breaking of the Eucharist ;"
where the reader sees the Greek word introduced into a
language with which it has no kind of affinity. This,
ns being the general name by which it was known through
all the churches of God, and being perhaps the most
expressive of its nature, design, and end, should still be
retained in preference to any other.
2. Lord's Supper. — It does not appear that this
name was anciently used to signify the Eucharist. As
our Lord instituted the Sacrament after supper, both
have been confounded: and, through inadvertence, the
Eucharist has been blended with this last supper, and
called by way of emphasis, The Lord's Supper. In very
rarly times, the Christian-, in imitation of our Lord,
held a supper before the Eucharist, which was termed
AyaTDj, or love-feast ; and it is very likely that it is to
tki-;, and not to the Eucharist, that St. Paul refers,
I Cor. xi. 20. : but it appears, also, that both the Lord's
Supper and the Eucharist were celebrated by the pri-
mitive Christians at the same meeting, and thus they
horame confounded ; and it is evident that St. Paul refers
3
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARI&T. 7^
to both of these : and, from his manner of treating the
subject, we are led to infer that they were celebrated at
the same meeting-, and were, as Dr. Waterland ob-
serves, different parts or acts of the same solemnity.
Though this name is now a pretty general appellative
of the Eucharist, I cannot help thinking it a very im-
proper one : and, though the matter may appear of small
importance, I think, as it is not sufficiently designator)',
it should be disused.
3. Sacrifice, 0y<na.— I have already produced some
proofs from Justin Martyr, that the Eucharist was termed
a sacrifice among the primitive Christians ; and this they
did — First, because it took place of the Paschal lamb,
which all acknowledge to be an expiatory victim. — Se-
condly, because it represented the atonement made by the
passion and death of Christ, for the sins of mankind.
This notion of it has been greatly abused ; for, in thcr
Romish church, the bare celebration of it has been held
forth in the light of an expiatory sacrifice ; so that all who
received it were considered as having their sins thereby
cancelled ; and they still boast that no church but theirs,
enjoys the benefits of the Eucharist ; because they alone
believe it to be the very body and blood, humanity and
divinity of Jesus Christ, and consequently an available
offering and expiation for their sins. Thus they, most
unhappily, put the signifier in the place of the thing sig-
nified; and, resting in the shadow, they lose the substance,
and do not discern the Lord's body. He that considers
the Eucharist in this point of view, must necessarily at-
tribute to bread and mine that infinitely meritorious and
atoning virtue which belongs to Jesus, as dying for our
offences, and thus purging our sins by his own blood.
From such an awful and destructive perversion of this
divine institution, may God save them, and preserve us !■
But, though this ordinance should not be considered
76 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
as a sacrifice, yet it should be well understood that it
represents one. And that every communicant may derive
all the profit from it, which it is calculated to afford, he
should use it in the spirit of sacrifice. As it represents a
covenant sacrifice, in which the contracting- parties mu-
tually bind themselves to each other, (God offering him-
self entirely, by and through Christ, not only to every
true believer, but to every sincere penitent,) the commu-
nicant should consider, that, in return, and in order that
the covenant may be thoroughly ratified, he must give
up his body, soul, and spirit unto the Lord, as a reason-
able, holy, and living sacrifice ; firmly purposing to
devote every power and faculty to glorify his Maker and
Redeemer, as long as he shall have a being. He, who is
not fully determined to be wholly on the Lord's side,
should not intermeddle with this sacred ordinance. We
have already seen, p. 64, that, in sacrificing, the pour-
ing out of the blood of the covenant victim always implied
the imprecation, that his blood who should first violate
the conditions of the covenant, might be shed in like
manner as that of the sacrifice. Hence that saying of
St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 29.) For he that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation, xpipec, judg-
ment or condemnation to himself ; i. e. he thereby forfeits
his life, according to the penal sanctions of the covenant,
expressed by pouring out the blood, which is the life of
the victim. " For this cause," says the apostle, " many
are weak and sickly among you ; and many sleep' 1 — some
of you are dj/inp;, and others dead ; God having thus ex-
acted the penalty of a broken covenant. Be faithful
therefore to your God, and your soul shall live for ever.
4. Breaking of Bread. KAan: rw A:;o:. — This I
had long scrupled to admit as a legitimate appellative of
the Eucharist, till I observed that the Syriac Version
has rendered the passages (Acts ii.42. xx. 7.) instead of
And design of the eucharist. \ 7
breaking of bread, breaking the Eucharist. See what
is observed on this subject, p. 74. I therefore suppose,
that this was a common name for this sacred rite during
the apostolic age ; but I think it was always used with a
peculiar emphasis — breaking of the bread, or break-
ing of that bread, KAacnc ro-j Aprov. That this appella-
tive descended lower than the apostolic times, we learn
from Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. xx. where,
speaking of the Eucharist, he terms it hx aprov K\wrss,
£ £>~f <&a,pu,tt,H.ov a§a.yo(.<ria.£y xaSaprypiov, ahsfyxaKov' "break
ing that one bread, which is the medicine of immortality,
and the medicament which expels all evil;" and Ter-
tullian de Oratione, chap. xxiv. speaking of St. Paul
breaking bread aboard the vessel, (Acts xxvii. 35.) says —
In navi coram omnibus Eucharistiam fecit. In the ship he
celebrated the Eucharist, in the presence of them all. It
is very easy to discover how this appellative arose; for
at the original institution, our Lord is said to have taken
bread, and having given thanks he brake it ; hence the
whole act was termed the breaking of bread. But this
name, as not sufficiently expressive, seems soon to have
given place to other terms, by which the nature and design
of this institution were more forcibly expressed and better
understood. It is evident, however, that a principal
design of this name was to point out that unity and
fellowship which these primitive disciples had among
themselves, the highest proof of which in those eastern
countries was, their frequently breaking bread, or eating
with each other.
5. Communion, Kmvwvix. — In 1 Cor. x. 16. the Eu-
charist is called the communion of the body and blood of
Christ. As the term Kotvwvia. signifies not only commu-
nion or fellowship, but also participation, it evidently
signifies that the faithful partakers had thereby fellowship
or communion with the Lord Jesus, being made partak-
ft
8 A DIM 01 RSfi ON THE NATURE^
ers of the benefits of his passion and death ; so, that as
truly as their bodies were made partakers of and were
nourished by the bread and wiile, so truly Micro their souls
made partakers of the gract, mind, and spirit of the
Lord Jesus, and thus " they dwelt in God and God in
them ; were one with GoS, and God with them.''''
Suicer observes in his Thesaurus, under the word
Koivwwaj that this term meant eommunion or participation i
in reference to the Eucharist, (for it had besides, different
meanings,) for the following reasons. 1. Because of the
union of the faithful with Christ, and with each other.
2. Because believers are thereby not only united to Christ,
but are also made partakers of his kingdom. 3. Because,
through this fellowship or eommunion they are deemed
worthy of partaking of all that appertains to Christ.
In the confession of faith of the Oriental churches
quoted by him, we find the following remarkable expo-
sition of this communion or participation. H ayia KOtvumat,
cvjiZoXov Ttjs vvt<raiuM.Tw<rEws **' z-/y.zv7c\7Z'j:c yuwv 7r;o; to?
£va.vjpic-cr l 7zvrz r ft'y, xzi A'.yov rouOsOv, oi j)'j eyxevrpurecwj h A.r-
povpslja, rw euwvnt Sayarow rr^ pKrtysya.p Cyizivoicrrrf y.ai xvJw.'/.*
/.y.c-.'jc, ovx cv-f ivxc txT) x.a.1 roug xhaSoog orvvvy^avstv rxirrj y.xt
truyQa?<\Eiv haaavroc. vid. Suic. Thesaur. voc. Koivcevtat
" The holy communion is a symbol of our beins: incor-
*■' O
porated and engrafted in the incarnated Son and Word
of Cod ; by which engrafting we are delivered from eternal
death: for while the root is sound and always flourishing,
it is not possible that the branches united with it, should
not be sound and ever verdant."
A two-fold communion is here pointed out. 1
Communion with Christ. 2. Communion with each other
For, 1. The branches, to continue flourishing, must have
communion with the root, i. e. must be nourished by
those very juices imbibed by the root; and, 2. as the
branches, being- all equally partakers of the root, have
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 79
their common support and verdure from it ; so believers
being all equally united to Christ, and deriving all their
nourishment and support from him, stand in the same
relation to each other, as the branches do in the same
tree. This is the purport of the following words of our
blessed Lord. I am the vine, ye are the branches— I
pray for them that they may be one, even as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee ; I in them, and thou in me, that
they may be made perfect in one. John xvii. 21, 23.
6. Sacrament. — Sometimes called the Holy Sacra-
ment, and the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The
reason and true meaning of this appellative being, I con-
ceive, very little known, I shall endeavour to consider
this subject more minutely than I have done in any of the
preceding cases. Though this term, as applied to the
Eucharist, is no where to be found in Scripture ; yet it
appears to have been in use very early in the primitive
church. The first time it is mentioned, probably in re-
ference to this solemn act, is in the well known epistle
of Pliny the younger, to the Emperor Trajan. This very
learned and eminent statesman was appointed by the
emperor to the administration of affairs, in the province
of Bithynia, a country of Natolia or Asia-Minor, border-
ing on the Euxine sea ; through different parts of whose
vicinity the Gospel had been preached by Paul and Silas.
Acts xvi. 1, &c. and probably by others before them.
In this country multitudes had been converted to the
Lord, so that when Pliny came to the government of the
province, he found that multi onmis cetatis, ojnnis ordinis
titriusquc sexus etiam, many of every age, rank, and sex,
had embraced the Christian religion ; for " the contagion
of this superstition," as he terms it, " was not confined to
cities, but had diffused itself through all the neighbouring
villages and country, Neque eriim civilatcs tdntum, scd
rieos ctiam atque agros superstitionis islius contagio per-
80 a Discourse on the nature
vagataest. Finding Hie Christian cause rapidly gaii
ground, and the temples almost entirely deserted, and the
rites and ceremonies of heathenism abandoned, desblata
templa et sacra solemnia intermissa, lie published a de-
cree, by order of the Emperor, forbidding the Chris-
tian assemblies on pain of death.— The followers of
Christ being hemmed in on every side, by this state per-
secution, were obliged to relinquish their meetings very
generally ; so that those which were held, were confined
to the sabbath, and then only before day.
This subjected so many to accusation and consequent
death, that the governor's heart began to relent ; and he
wrote to the Emperor proposing a number of questions
for direction in this important business ; transmitting to
him at the same time, the sum of all the charges that
could be legally substantiated against the Christians.
This most important piece of church history, so honour-
able to the followers of Christ, and disgraceful to their
persecutors, and in which we find the first mention of
Sacrament, is still extant in Pliny's Epistles, lib. x. Epist.
97. vol. ii. p. 127. Edit. Bipont. 1789, Svo. Affmnabant
autem, hancfuisse SZJMMAM vel culpa; vcl erroris, quod
essent scliti stjto die ante lucem comenire ; carmenque
Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum inriccm : segue SACRA-
MENTO non in scelns aliquod OB STRING EKE,
sed nc furta, ne lairocinia, ne adulterm committerentf ne
JidcmfaUercnt, ne deposition appellati abnegarent : qmbus
peraclis, morem sibi discedendi fuisse rursusque coeundi
ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen, et innoxium.
" They affirmed, that the WHOLE of their fault or er-
ror was this ; that they were accustomed to meet together
on a certain day (stato die, the sabbath) before day-light ;
and sing a hymn by turns, (viz. a responsive song)
to Christ as their God, and to bind themselves by a
solemn oath, (by a sacrament) not for any wicked pur-
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. , 8i
pose, but not to be guilty of theft, robbery, or adultery :
not to violate their faith, nor to deny any deposit when
called on to deliver it up : having done these things, it
was their custom to separate, and afterwards to re-assem-
ble to eat in common an inoffensive meal."
There is every reason to believe that Pliny refers here
to the partaking- of the Eucharist, and tire solemn en-
gagements they entered into with God, when receiving
that sacred ordinance, to depart from every appearance
of evil ; and render up, in affectionate obedience, their
bodies, souls, and spirits to their Maker.
The word Sacrament urn properly means the military
oath of fidelity and obedience to his general, which every
Roman soldier was obliged to take. From this we may
learn both the reason and meaning of the term sacrament,
as applied to the Eucharist. Considering the various op-
positions which the disciples of Christ might expect to
meet with from the devil and his servants ; and which they
were expected to resist, continuing faithful even at the
hazard of their lives ; all that embraced the Gospel were
represented as enlisting themselves under the banner of
Christ, whose faithful soldiers they promised to be. And,
as the captain of their salvation, was made perfect by
sufferings, they were expected to follow him in the same
path, loving not their lives even unto death. Now, as in
the holy Eucharist their obligations to their divine leader
were set before them in the most impressive and affecting
point of view, they made this their covenant sacrifice an
occasion of binding themselves afresh to their Lord to
fight manfully under his banner. Hence, as there was a
continual reference to the Sacramentum, or military oath,
the blessed ordinance itself appears to have been termed
the sacrament, because in it they took the vows of the Lord
upon them ; and as often as they celebrated this sacred or-
dinance, they ratified the covenant engagements which
they had made at their baptism.
82 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
What was the matter, and what the precise word* oS
this oath, is a subject of enquiry at once both curious and
useful. The very form and matter of the oath are both
preserved in Polybius; and a careful view of them cannot
fail to cast much light on the subject now under conside-
ration. In Ilistor. lib. vi. a. 1. where he is giving an ac-
count of the manner of raising, embodying, and enrolling
the Roman troops, he observes ; that when all the proper
arrangements were made, and the different companies
formed, the Chiliareh, or military tribune, selecting a
proper person from all the rest, propounded the Sacra-
vienlum, or oath of fidelity and obedience, who immedi-
ately swore as follows: H MHN IIEIQAPXUSEIN- KAi
IIOIH5EIN TO riPOSTATTOMENON TITO TT1X APXON-
TTIN KATA ATNAMIN. Oi oe >mi:u Tfuvtis 'o{LW0V£n v.oJihx
TTpOTTopsvouava to'j r avto £ijAo'jv7£c 'on TTOir l <rov<ri f ravra y.7.Jxtsp
6 TTpxto: : " SUBMISSIVELY TO OBEY AND PERFORM
WHATSOEVER IS COMMANDED BY THE OFFICERS, AC-
CORDING TO THE UTTERMOST OF HIS POWER. The rest
all coming forward, one by one, take successively the
same oath, that they would perform every thing according
to what the first had sworn." — Vide Poeyb. a Gronovio,
8vo. Amsterdam, 1670. vol. 1. p. 650. Here, then, is the
meaning of the word Sacrament, so frequently used in the
primitive church, and still common among the major part
of Christians, who acknowledge the divine obligation of
the Eucharist ; and who break bread and drink Wine in re-
membrance thai Jesus Christ died for them. He, there-
fore, who comes to this ordinance in the true primitive
spirit, binds himself to God by the most solemn vow, that
he will acknowledge him for his leader and director ; sub-
mit implicitly to his authority, perform his righteous com-
mands, and exert the uttermost powers of his bod) and soul
in the service of his Redeemer.
The word Sacramentum I have often met with in an-
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 83
eient Deeds, Charters, <&:c. signifying an oath ; especially
when in swearing, the person laid his hand on the Holy
Gospels. The promise then made was considered a holy
obligation which he was bound at all events, to perform.
This was still in reference to the military oath mentioned
above.
7. Paschal Feast, Pass-over. This was a very
ancient title, and out of it many others of a similar im-
port grew, such as God's Feast, or Banquet, the
Lord's Table, the Spiritual Pass-over, the Sacri-
ficial Feast, &c. ; all of which seem to have had their
orisfin in the consideration that the Eucharist succeeded
to the Pass-over, which was clearly founded on St. Paul's
words, 1 Cor. v. 7, 8. Christ our Pass-over, is sacrificed
for us, therefore let us keep the Feast. Dr. Cudworth,
who has written a very learned discourse on " The true
Notion of the Lord's Supper," has fully proved, chap. I.
" That it was a custom among the Jews and heathens to
feast upon things sacrificed; and that the custom of the
Christians, in partaking of the body and blood of Christ
once sacrificed upon the cross, in the Lord's Supper, is
analogical hereunto." And he proves, in chap. 2. from
Scripture and from Jewish authors, that " the pass-over
was a true sacrifice, and the paschal feast, a feast upon a
sacrifice." And in chap. 4. he demonstrates, " That the
Lord's Supper in the Christian church, in reference to
the true sacrifice of Christ, is a parallel to the feasts upon
sacrifices both in the Jewish religion, and heathenish su-
perstition." And concludes, in chap. 5. " That the Lord's
supper is not a sacrifice, but a feast upon a sacrifice.
Dr. Cudworth properly divides the sacrifices under the
law, into three kinds, First, Such as were wholly offered
to God, and burnt upon the altars, as the holocausts,
or burnt-offerings, nibifi oloth. — Secondly, Such as the
pri ests ate a part of, besides a part offered to God upon
f2
S4 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
the altar ; as the sin-offerings, nNEn chattath, and the trcs-
pass-offerings, Dtt'N ashem. — Thirdly, Such as the ow ners
themselves had a part of, besides a part bestowed on the
priests, and a portion offered to God: these were termed
the D'oVltf shelamim, or peace-offerings"
That the Gentiles feasted on the sacrifices offered to
their gods, every one knows who has read the Greek and
Roman classics ; of this, the following proofs cannot be
unacceptable to any intelligent reader. In Iliad. A.
Homer describes a hecatomb sacrifice, which Agamemnon
offered to Apollo, by his priest Chryses, and a feast that
immediately followed : —
rot £' o)?ca ©£cu x\siTY,v £>caT0 ( a£ij]/
. . . . Then before the shrine
Magnificent, in order due they rang'd
The noble hecatomb ! Ver. 446.
Avtap £7T£i p sv^avto, xect cvKo^vrx.; tfpeGaXovfO, v.. r. X.
and with meal
Sprinkling the victims, their retracted necks
First pierced, then Jlaycd them. Ver. 458.
MY/povs T £%£Ta.[j,ov, y.a.Ta ts xvicrcnj ikqlXv^olv, x. r. X.
the thighs with fire consum'd,
They gave to each his portion of the maw :
Th?n slash'd the remnant, picre'd it with the spits,
And, managing with culinary skill,
They roast ; withdrew it from the spits again.
Their whole task thus accomplish'd, and the board
Set forth, they FEA9TED, and, were all suffie'd.
Ver. 460 — 68-
In the second Iliad, Agamemnon offers an ox to Ju-
piter, and invites several of the Grecian captains to par-
take of it :
Aurap 'o (oovv 'ispsvrty avat xySpiuv Ayxue^Ywy. k. r. A.
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 85
But Agamemnon in his tent prepar'd
For sacrifice, to all-commanding Joye,
A fifth-year fatted ox, and to his feast
Summon 1 d the noblest of the sons of Greece.
II. B. ver. 403—431 .
In Odyssey, r. Nestor sacrifices an ox to Minerva, in
'behalf of Telemachus and his friends, on which they all
afterwards feasted.
KwaLp STtsi Ka.ro. p,ifp' sxaij, «a» trifXayvv sity.ca.vtO) r.. t. X.
The thighs consum'd,
They ate the interior part, then slicing them.
The remnant, piere'd and held it to the fire.
The viands dress'd, and from the spits withdrawn,
They sat to share the feast.
Odyss. T, ver. 461— 471.
In the same book, the Pylians are represented sacri-
ficing eighty-one black bulls to Neptune, at which were
present 4,500 persons, who, having offered the thighs
to their god, feasted on the entrails, and the rest of the
flesh.
See Cowper's Homer. — Odyss. III. ver. 1, &c.
Plato, in his second book, De Legibus, acknowledges
such feasts under the name of Eoptcu pe-ra, dsiov. Feasts
after divine worship.
Virgil refers to the same custom, Eclogue iii. ver.
77.
Cam fac/a-n Vitula, pro frugibus, ipse venito.
" When, instead of offering fruits, I shall sacrifice a
heifer, come thou to the feast."
And thus in iEneid. viii. ver. 179. Evander entertains
./Eneas' :
Turn lecti juvenes certatim, arajque sacerdos,
Viscera tosta ferunt taurorum —
Vescitur .^Eaeas sinrul et Trojana juventus,
Perpetui tergo bovis et lustralibus extis.
"Then chosen youths, and the priest, with great <Kg-
S(> A DISCOURSE ON TI1E NATL'llF.
patch, heap on (lie altar the broiled intestines of bulls. —
vEneas, and with him the Trojan youth, feast on the chine
and hallowed viscera of an ox."
The ancient Persians were accustomed to pour out the
blood of the victims to their gods, and then feast on the
flesh. And the ancient Arabians did the same in their
camel feasts. And, as Dr. Cudworth properly observes,
from this custom of the heathens of feasting upon saeri-
fias, arose that famous controversy among the primitive
Christians (noticed in the New Testament) " whether it
be lawful (ec-bsiv eitiwXoQvra,) to eat things sacrificed to
idols." Indeed, this custom was so common among - the
ancient heathens, that he who made use of any flesh at
his table, which had not been offered to the gods, was
deemed a profane person. Hence the Greek proverb,
aflura £<t9ieiv, to eat things which had not been sacrificed,
was used as a brand of a notoriously wicked man.
I have already remarked that the Eucharist maybe
considered as a falderal rite ; for in this light the ancient
feasts upon sacrifices were generally understood : but, as
this subject was but barely mentioned, and is of great
importance to every communicant, I shall here consider it
more extensively.
Dr. Cudworth, to whose excellent Discourse on the
true Nature of (he Lord's Supper, the preceding pages
are not a little indebted, has, in his sixth chapter, some
< xcellent observations on this head. That the eating of
God's sacrifice was afqederal rite between God and those
who offered it ; he considers as proved from the custom of
the ancients, and especially of the Orientals, who eat and
drank together in order to ratify and confirm the cove-
nants they had made.
Thus, when Isaac made a covenant with Abimelech, it
is said, (Gen. xxvi.) He made him, and those who wen
with him, a FEAST; and they did cat and drink, and rose
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 87
up bellmen in the morning, and share to one another.
When Laban made a covenant with Jacob, (Gen. xxxi.
44.) it is said, They took stones and made a heap, and did
eat there upon the heap ; on which text Rab. Moses Bar
Nachman makes this sensible comment : — " They did eat
there a little upon the heap for a memorial ; because it
was the manner of those who enter into covenant, to eat
both together of the same bread, as a symbol of love and
friendship." And R. Isaae Abarbanel confirms this; " It
was," says he, " an ancient custom among them, that
they who did eat bread together, should ever after be ac-
counted for faithful brethren." — In Josh. ix. 14. we are
informed, that when the Gibeonites came to the men of
Israel, and desired them to make a league with them,
The men of Israel took their victuals, and asked not coun-
sel of the mouth of the Lord; which Rabbi Kimchi thus
expounds : — " They took of their victuals, and ate with
them, by way of covenant." The consequence was,
as the context informs us, Joshua made peace with them.
Foederal rites, thus ratified and confirmed, were in
general so sacredly observed, that Celsus, in his contro-
versy with Origen, deemsitan absolutely improbable thing,
that Judas, who had eaten and drunk with his Lord and
Master, could possibly betray him ; and therefore rejects
the whole account: 'on, says he, avfawTtw \j<iv o Koivwvrjo-xs
•tpceitsty\? wa. av ccvTcu STti£ov?.EV<rsi:-v, ttoXXuj irXs<jv o ©sou trvvsv-
Lcyrfizi; ov,i av aurco sttiZo-jXo; eyivsro. " For if no man who
has partook of the table of another, would ever lay snares
for his friend ; much less would he betray his God, who
had been a partaker with him." Origen, in his reply, is
obliged to grant that this was a very uncommon case, yet
that several instances had occurred in the histories both
of the Greeks and Barbarians. From these examples,
Dr. C. concludes, that the true origin of the word nna
berith. which signifies a covenant, or any federal com-
88 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
jnunion, is the root rm barah, he ate, because it was the
constant custom of the Hebrews, and other Oriental
nations, to establish covenants by eating and drinking
together.
.Nor was th's the case among these nations only; all
heathen antiquity abounds with instances of the same kind.
They not only feasted on their sacrifices, (see p. 84, &c.)
but they concluded covenants and treaties of all sorts at
these feasts : and as salt was the symbol of friendship, it
was always used on such occasions, both among the Jews
and among the heathens ; hence God's command, (Lev.
ii. 13.) Thou shaft not suffer the salt of the covenant
of thy God to be lacking ; with all thine offerings thou
shalt offer salt. So among the Greeks, Kxeg xxir pair sty,
salt and table, were used proverbially to express friend-
ship ; and AAa? xxt Tpccrtt^oLv Ttapztc/Avnv, to transgress the
salt and table, signified to violate the most sacred league of
friendship. From these premises, Dr. Cudworth con-
cludes, " As the legal sacrifices, with the feasts on those
sacrifices, were fcederal rites between God and men ;
in like manner, I say, the Lord's Supper, under the Gos-
pel, must needs be a foederal banquet between God
and man ; where, by eating and drinking at God's own
table, and of his meat, we are taken into a sacred cove-
nant, and inviolable league of friendship with him."
This is certainly true of every faithful communicant :
and much consolation may be derived from a proper con-
sideration of the subject. If the covenant have been
made according to the divine appointment, (i. e. by lively
faith in Christ, the red falderal sacrifice) on God's part it
is ever inviolate. Let him, therefore, who has thus en-
tered into the Lord's covenant, continue stedfast and
immoveable, always aboundiug in the work of the Lord ;
then, " neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor princi-
palities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 89
come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature
shall be able to separate him from the love of God, which
is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Amen.
I cannot deny myself the pleasure of laying the sub-
stance of Dr. Cudworth's " Demonstration, that the
Lord's supper in the Christian church, in reference to the
true sacrifice of Christ, is a parallel to the feasts upon sa-
crifices, both in the Jewish religion and heathenish su-
perstition;" which he proves from a passage in Scripture,
1 Cor. x. where all these three are compared together,
and made exact parallels to each other.
Ver. 14. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, jlee from
idolatry.
Ver. 15. / speak as to wise men : judge ye what I
say.
Ver. 16. The cup of blessing, which we bless : is it
not the communion of the blood of Christ f. The bread
which we break, is it not the communion of the body of
Christ ?
Ver. 18. Behold Israel after the flesh : are not they
which eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?
Ver. 20. Now I say, that the things which the Gen-
tiles sacrifice, they sacrifce to devils, (Sou^ovlois daemons)
and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fel-
lowship with devils, (nnvuvovg tuiv Saupoyiu."/ ytv£<r<lzi, that
ye should be participators with daemons.)
Ver. 21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the
cup of devils : (Saupovitov daemons) ye cannot be partakers
of the Lord's table, and the table of devils, (oziuoviwv
daemons. )
In these passages, the design of the apostle is to con-
vince the Corinthians of the unlawfulness of eating things
sacrificed to idols; and he does this by shewing that
though an idol is nothing in the world, and things sacri-
90 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
ficcd to idols physically nothing, as differing from other
meats, yet morally and circumstantially to eat of things
sacrificed to idols, in the idol's temple, was to consent to
tftr sacrifices, and to be guilty of them.
'This he illustrates first, from a parallel rite in the
Christian religion; where the eating and drinking of
bread and wine in the Eucharist, as representing the body
and blood of Christ, offered to God upon the cross for
us, is a real communication in his death and sacrifice,
ver. 16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the
communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which zee
break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ f
Secondly, from another parallel of the same rite among
the Jews, where they who ate were always accounted
partakers of the altar, that is, of the sacrifice offered on
the altar. Behold Israel after the flesh ; are not they
which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the attar? — ver. 18.
Therefore as to cat the symbols of the body and blood
of Christ in the Eucharist, is to partake of his sacrifice
offered up to God for us ; and, as to eat oT the Jewish
sacrifices under the law, was to partake in the legal sacri-
fices themselves ; so, to eat of things offered up in sacri-
fice to idols, was to be partakers of the idol sacrifices,
and therefore was unlawful : for the things which the
Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils; but Christ's
body and blood were offered up in sacrifice to GOD, and
therefore they could not partake of both together, the sa-
crifice of the true God, and the sacrifice of devils.
St. Paul's argument here must necessarily suppose a
perfect analogy between these three, and that they are all
parallels to each other ; or else it has no force. There-
fore, I conclude that the Lord's Supper is the same among
Christians in respect of the Christian sacrifice, as the
Jewish feasts or sacrifices were among them ; and the
feasts «upon idol sacrifices, were among the Gentiles ; and
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 91
consequently, that the Eucharist is Epulum sacrificiale,
or epulum ex oblatis, that is, a feast upon a sacrifice. Q-
E. D. — True notion of the Lord's Supper, fourth ed.
p. 2G.
Having thus sufficiently shewn that the Eucharist is
properly a feast upon a sacrifice, and a fozderal rite, I
shall now consider it particularly in the light of a feast.
Aulus Gellius, (Noctes Attice, lib. xiii. c. 11. Edit.
Bipont. vol. ii. p. 60.) informs us, that Marcus Varro
wrote a treatise, entitled Quid Vesper serus veiiat.
What may the close of the day produce ? in which he
speaks of feasts, the proper number and quality of
guests, and the custom and management of the enter-
tainment itself.
A feast, says he, omnibus suis numeris absolutum est,
is just what it should be, when made up of these four
circumstances. — 1. Si belli homunculi collecti sunt. — 2. Si
locus electus. — 3. Si tempus ledum. — 4. Si apparatus non
neglectus.
1. If there be decent respectable persons.
2. A convenient and pro per place.
3. A suitable time. And,
4. Proper cheer and accommodations.
I shall take these things in order, and apply them to a
proper celebration of the Eucharist, considered in the
light of a religious feast.
1. Decent respectable persons. If ever attention
should be paid to this point, it is when God provides
the entertainment, and condescends to sit down with the
guests. St. Paul has taken up the subject in a particular
manner, (1 Cor. xi. 27, &c.) and it is highly necessary
that we should weigh his important advice.
He asserts, (v. 27.) Whosoever shall eat this bread and
drink this cup wiuorthily, shall be guilty of the body and
blood of Christ. From this we learn, that improper com-
92 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
municants arc in a very awful state. These may be di-
vided into two classes, the inconsiderate and ungodly.
Of the former class, there are multitudes among the dif-
ferent societies of Christians. They know not the Lord,
and discern not the operation of his hands ; hence they
go to the Lord's table from a mere sense of duty or pro-
priety, without considering what the sacred elements re-
present ; and without feeling any hunger after the bread
thatendureth unto eternal life. These really profane the
ordinance, either by not devoting it to the end of its
institution, or by perverting that end. Among these may
probably be ranked those who believe not in the vicarious
sufferings and death of the blessed Redeemer. They also
receive the Lord's Supper, but they do it as a testimony
of respect and friendly remembrance — these do not dis-
cern the Lord's body ; do not see that this bread repre-
sents his body which was broken for them, and his blood
which was spilt for the remission of sins. Their celebra-
tion of this ordinance is an absolute profanation of it,
forasmuch as they do it to another purpose than that tor
which Christ instituted it. It was a maxim among the
Rabbins, " That if the Paschal Lamb was slain in its own
name, and the blood sprinkled as that of another sacrifice,
the whole was polluted." — Or, u if the offerer changed his
intention, during the solemnity, and in the purpose of his
mind, changed the sacrifice, it was polluted." See Mish N A
Tract. Pesachim. This was doubtless true of the Pass-
over, and no less so of the Antitype, for in Christ cruci-
fied, a greater than the Paschal Lamb was present. If
the blessed God has instituted this solemnity to bring to
remembrance the death of Christ as a sacrifice for sin,
and a person, calling himself ^.Christian, comes forward to
the sacred feast, with a creed determined against this
scriptural, and indeed only religious use of it, does lie
not in heart change the sacrifice .« are not the crucifixion
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 93
of the body, and the spilling- of the blood, perverted from
their grand purpose; and the awful solemnity polluted
in his hands ? He pretends to remember Christ crucified,
but he commemorates the sprinkling of his blood not as
an atonement for sin, but " as a necessary consequence of
Jewish malice, and of the unshaken integrity of the
founder of Christianity, who, to convince the world that
he was sincere, and that his doctrines were all true, sub-
mitted to a painful and ignominious death !" Is not this
eating and drinking unworthily ?■ Can such persons have
ever carefully examined the book of God, relative to this
matter ? If they have not, they are greatly to be pitied,
and greatly to be blamed : if they farce, and still refuse
to acknowledge Him who died for them, their case is pe-
culiarly deplorable.
Of the ungodly, as comprehending transgressors of all
descriptions, little need be said in proof of their unwor-
thiness. Such, coining to the table of the Lord, eat and
drink their own condemnation ; as they profess by this
religious act to acknowledge the virtue of that blood which
cleanseth from all unrighteousness, while themselves are
slaves of sin. Those who sin against the only remedy, must
perish; and it is their condemnation, that God had pro-
vided a ransom for their souls, but they refused to accept
it ; and preferred the bondage of sin to the liberty of the
Gospel. None such should ever be permitted to ap-
proach the table of the Lord : if they (through that gross
ignorance which is the closely wedded companion of pro-
fligacy) are intent on their own destruction, let the minis-
ters of God see that the ordinance be not profaned by the
admission of such disreputable and iniquitous guests. In
many Chrisian churches there is a deplorable lack of atten-
tion to this circumstance — professor and profane are often
permitted to approach the sacred ordinance together ; in
consequence of which, the sincere followers of God are
94 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
wounded, the weak stumbled, and the influences of the
Spirit of God restrained. For, can it be expected that
God will manifest his approbation when the pale of his
sanctuary is broken down, and the beasts of the forest
introduced into the Holy of Holies ! The evil consequent
on this cannot be calculated ; and these are justly charge-
able to the account of those who have the management
of this sacred ordinance. No man should be permitted to
approach the table who is not known to be a stead//,
consistent character, or a thorough penitent. If there be
an indiscriminate admission, there must be unworthy
communicants, who instead of receiving - the cup of salva-
tion, will wring- out the dregs of the cup of trembling ;
for we may rest assured that this ordinance is no indif-
ferent thing : every soul that approaches it will either re-
ceive good or evil from it — he will retire a better or a
worse man —he will have, either an increase of the Spirit
of Christ or of Judas — on him the Lord will graciously
smile, or judicially frown.
It may be here asked, " Who then should approach this
awful ordinance V I answer, every believer in Christ
Jesus who is saved from his sins, has a right to come.
Such are of the family of God ; and this bread belongs to
the children. On this there can be but one opinion.
2dly, Every genuine pc nitent is invited to come, and con-
sequently has a right, because he needs the atoning blood,
and by this ordinance, the blood shed for the remission of
sins is expressively represented. " But I am not wor-
thy." And who is ? There is not a saint upon earth, nor
an archangel in heaven, who is worthy to sit down at the
table of the Lord. " But does not the apostle intimate
that none but the worthy should partake of it ?" No :
He has said nothing of the kind; he solemnly repre-
hends those who eat and drink unworthily, and conse-
quent!) approves of those who partake worthily — but
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 95
there is an essential difference between eating and drink-
ing worthily, and being worthy thus to eat and drink.
He eats and drinks unworthily, who does not discern the
Lord's body / i. e. who does not consider that this bread
represents his body, which, in a sacrificial way, was broken
for him ; and this cup, his blood which was poured out for
the multitudes, for the remission of sins. The genuine
believer receives the Lord's Supper in the remembrance
of the atonement which he has received, and of the blood
which he expects is to cleanse him from all unrighteous-
ness, or to keep him clean, if that change has already
taken place in his soul. The penitent should receive it
in reference to the atonement which he needs, and with-
out which he knows he must perish everlastingly. Thus,
none are excluded but the impenitent, the transgressor,
and the profane. Believers, however -weak, have a
right to come ; and the strongest in faith need the grace
of this ordinance. Penitents should come, as all the
promises of pardon mentioned in the Bible are made to
such ; and he that is athirst may take of the water of life
freely. None is worthy of the entertainment (though
all these will partake of it zcorthily); but it is freely
provided by him who is the Lamb of God, who was slain
for us, and is worthy to receive glory and majesty, do-
minion and power, for ever and ever !
In the same tract of Varro, mentioned above, lie savs.
that " in a feast well constituted, (convivarum numerum
incipere opportere a graliarum numero, ctprogredi ad mu-
sarum ;) we should begin with the Graces, and end with
the Muses/" by which he did not merely mean, as Gellius
says, that in a feast there should never be fewer than
three, never more than nine; but that every feast should
be commenced with order, decency, and gracefulness ; and
should terminate in the increase of social affection, and
the general happiness of the guests. All those who come
l M) A MMOURSE ON THE NATURE
to this Gospel feast, should come in that spirit in which
they mav expect to meet and please their God ; have
thereby their brotherly love increased, and their happi-
ness in God considerably augmented. It is in reference
to this point (the increase of brotherly affection and com-
munion with God) that the apostle says, (1 Cor. v. 7, 8.)
to the contentious and unloving Christians at Corinth,
among - whom were dissensions and schisms, Purge out
the old leaven, that ye may he a new and unleavened lump :
for even Christ, our Pass-over, is sacrificed for us ; there-
fore let us keep the feast, not with old leave)?, neither wit li-
the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened
bread of sincerity and truth. We have already seen with
what care the ancient Jews purged their houses of
leaven ; and what pains they took to have themselves,
their houses, and their utensils pure. This they did by
the express command of God, (Exod. xxiii. 18.) who
meant thereby not merely their removing all fermented
substances from their houses, but, as the apostle pro-
perly observes, the leaven of malice and wickedness from
their hearts ; without which they could neither love one
another, nor in any respect please God. Hence the
Church of England very properly requires, in all her
communicants, that they should " steadfastly purpose to
lead a new life, have a lively faith in God's mercy through
Christ, and be in charity with all men." This, is indeed,
purging out the old leaven, that the lump may be entirely
new and pure.
2. A proper and convenient place. Locus eleclus.
From the beginning God has appointed a place where
he chose to register his name ; and this was necessary, in
the infancy of revelation, that a proper uniformity might be
observed in the divine worship, and idolatry prevented.
And, though we know that God is not confined himself
to temples made by hands, yet he docs condescend to dwell
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST.
97
among men in such places as are set apart for his worship,
and are consecrated to his name. Hence, the place ot
public worship must be the most proper for this and every
other sacred ordinance. Hither men come to wait upon
their God ; and, in the sanctuary, his power and glory
are often shewn forth. As the house is the house of God,
on entering under the roof a sacred awe, exceedingly
helpful to the spirit of true devotion, is generally felt.
Whatever w-e see and hear calls to our mind different re-
ligious acts ; and as nothing in the place has been devoted
to common or secular uses, every association of ideas re-
lative to what we see and hear, only serves to deepen
each serious impression, and excite the soul to the due
performance of the different parts of divine worship.
Those who have pleaded that every place is equally
proper for the worship of God. because He iills the hea-
vens and the earth, have not considered the powerful
influence of association on the mind of man. Let a man
only see, where he worships, a series of objects which 3io
everywhere meets with in common liie, and he will find
it diflicult to maintain the spirit of devotion. I grant that.
in the beginning of the kingdom of Christ, the first con-
verts were obliged to worship in private houses, and even
in such the holy Eucharist was celebrated (Acts ii. 4-0.) ;
and in every age since that time many excellent Christians
have been obliged to use even the meanest dwellings for
tlte purposes of religious worship : but where buildings
consecrated solely to the service of God can be had,
these alone should be used : and therefore the house of
God, whether it be church or chapel, ceremonially con-
secrated or unconsccrated, should be preferred to all
others. And here I hope I may, without offence, say
one word,— that it is not a ceremonial consecration of
a place to God that can make it 'peculiarly proper for
his worship ; but the selling the place apart, whether with
98 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
or without a ceremony, for prayer, praise, preaching, and
the administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper. By
this means il heroines properly the house of God, because
solely set apart for religious purposes. The lax teaching
that has said, t\ cry place is equally proper, has brought
about with thousands that laxity of practice which leads
them to abandon every place of worship, and every ordi-
nance of God. Innovation is endless; and when it takes
place in the worship of God, it seldom stops till it destroys
both the form and power of religion. The private house
is ever proper for family worship, and for public worship
also, when no place set apart for the purposes of religion
can be had ; for, in ancient times, many of the disciples of
Christ had a church in their houses, (see Rom. xvi. 5.
Philem. 2.) and in these God manifested his power, and
shewed forth his glory, as he had done in the sanctuary :
but I would simply state, that such dwellings should not
be preferred, when, by order of the state, or the consent
of any religious people, a place is set apart for the pur-
poses of divine worship. Thus much may suffice concern-
ing the locus eleclus of Varro, as far as it can be applied
for the illustration of the present subject.
3. Tempus ledum. A suitable time.
IIoid often in the year, and at what lime of the day,
should the Eucharist be celebrated, are questions to
which considerable importance has been attached. How
often the first Christians received the Holy Sacrament
cannot be exactly ascertained. In Acts ii. 42. it is said,
that they continued siedfastly in the Apostle's doctrine and
fellowship, and in breaking of bread ; and in ver. 46.
they continued DAILY tfl breaking bread from house
to house. We have already seen that the forty-second
verse probably refers to the Eucharist : of the latter, this is
not so obvious. However, some have supposed, from this
passage, that the Holy Sacrament was celebrated cicry
l
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 99
day, in one or other of the Christians' houses : and that,
therefore, the Eucharist was the daily bread of the first
Christians, And there is some reason to think that this
was the case at a very early period of the Christian
Church; for Eusebius (Demonstr. Evangel, lib. 1.) says,
they commemorated the body and blood of Christ, oabjpkptu,
daily. And it is very likely that many understood our
Lord's command in so general a sense, that whenever
they brake bread, they did it in a sacramental remembrance
of him. If this were really the case, and it is not impro-
bable, it did not long- continue so, as it soon became a
set ordinance, and was not associated with any other
meal ; though, at a very early period, a love-feast often
preceded it. From Justin Martyr, and others, Ave learn
that it was celebrated at the conclusion of public worship,
sometimes in the morning, and sometimes in the even-
ing ,- and both Pliny and Tertullian speak of its being
celebrated before day-light. So that it does not appear
that any particular part of the day was, at any time,
deemed exclusively proper.
As the Lord's day is devoted to public worship, that
day, above all others, must be the most proper for the
celebration of this ordinance; for the heart is then better
prepared to wait on God without distraction, worldly
business being then laid aside, and consequently the
mind is more free to enter into a consideration of such
important mysteries. And, as the Lord's day is the most
proper among the days, so the morning of that day is the
most favourable time on which to celebrate this sacred
ordinance. Towards the close of the day, a man may be
comparatively indisposed towards a profitable commemo-
ration of the passion of our Lord, by the fatigue attend-
ant on the different religious duties performed during its
course ; which, exhausting the animal powers, renders
the mind incapable of such sublime and pathetic acts of
r c >
100 A DISCOL'RM: ON THE NATURE
devotion as certainly belong; to a clue performance of the
last command of our blessed Lord. But no rule can be
given, in this case, which will not admit of exceptions ;
and it must be left to those whose business it is to conduct
the worship of God, to determine, in several cases,
what is the most proper time, as well as, which is the
most proper place.
- With respect to the frequency of celebrating; this divine
ordinance, it maybe observed, in general, that a medium
between seldom and frequency should prevail. Some have
received it daily, others zccekly, some once in the month,
others once per quarter, and some only once in the year.
There is surely a proper medium between the first and last
of these e.rlremcs. Few are so spiritually minded, as to
be able to discern the Lord's body in a daily, or even
weekly use of the Sacrament. Those who receive it only
once in the year, cannot sufficiently feel the weight of the
divine command. The intervals between the times of
celebration are so long, that it is almost impossible to keep
up the commemoration of the great facts shadowed forth
by this ordinance. On the other hand, those who take it
daily, or once in the week, become too much familiarized
with it, properly to respect its nature and design. I believe
it will be found, that those w ho are thus frequently at the
Lord's Supper, do not in general excel in deep and serious
godliness. Were I permitted to advise in this case, I
would say, let every proper communicant receive the
Holy Sacrament once every month. Once a year, of
once in the quarter, is too seldom ; once a day, or once
in the week, is too frequent : once in the month, or
once in six weeks, is the proper mean.
But what can we think of those who call themselves
Christians, and very seldom or never are found at the
Lord's table ? They are either despisers or neglecters of
the dying words and command of their Lord, and are
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 101
unworthy of the benefits resulting from a due observance
of this divine ordinance. If the omission of a prescribed
duty be a sin against God, and who dares deny it ?
then, these are sinners against their own souls. Many,
comparatively sincere, are detained in the back ground of
Christian experience on this very account ; and many
whole churches labour under the divine displeasure,
because of the general neglect of this ordinance among
their members. Every soul, who wishes not to abjure
his right to the benefits of Christ's passion and death,
should make it a point with God and his conscience to
partake of this ordinance, if not twelve times, at least four
or six times in the year ; and continue thus to shew forth
the Lord's death till he come.
We have already seen that the Eucharist succeeded to
the Pass-over, and have proved that the Pass-over was
intended to typify and point out this new covenant rite :
the same authority that made it the bounden duty of every
Israelite to keep the Pass-over, has made it the duty of
every Christian to receive the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper. Who has not read, (Numb. ix. 13.) The man
that is clean, and is not on a journey, and forbeareth to
keep the Pass-oxer, even the same shall be cut trffi from the
people ; because he brought not the offering of the Lord
in his appointed season : that man shall bear his sin. Can
any thing be more solemn than this ? The Paschal Lamb
was an expiatory victim ; he who offered it to God by
faith was received into the Divine favour, and had his
sins remitted in virtue of that atonement represented by
the Paschal Lamb. He who did not keep the Pass-over,
bore /lis oxen sin ; he offered no sacrifice, therefore his
sins were not remitted. He who does not receive the
Holy Sacrament, in reference to the atonement made by
the passion and death of Christ, shall also bear IuVoh u
sin. Let no soul trifle here : if a man believe tliat the
102 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
due observance of this ordinance is divinely authorised,
he cannot refrain from its celebration, and be guiltless.
To multiply arguments in reference to the same sub-
ject, Mould, 1 apprehend, be absolutely needless. All
who truly fear God, and whose minds are not incurably
warped by their peculiar creed, will feel it their highest
duty and interest to fulfil every command of Christ ; and
wrll particularly rejoice in the opportunity, as often as it
shall occur, of eating of this bread and drinking of this
cup, in remembrance that Christ Jesus died for them.
4. Apparatus non ncglcctus. Proper cheer and ac-
commodations.
After what has been said in order to prove, that the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper represents a feast upon
a sacrifice ; and that this sacrifice is no less than the body
of our Lord Jesus Christ, which has been broken for us,
and the blood of the new covenant sacrifice which has
been shed for us ; there is no need to attempt to prove,
that the provision which God has made, for the enter-
tainment of his guests, is of the most exalted and excel-
lent kind ; and that every person may think himself
highly favoured indeed, who, with proper dispositions, is
permitted to sit down at the table of the Lord. In or-
der, therefore, that each may feel himself thus honoured
and privileged, it is of vast importance that the symbols
of this sacrifice speak, as much as possible, to the heart,
through the medium of the senses. Hence, the bread
used should be the purest and best that can possibly be
procured, and the wine should be of the same quality ;
that, as far as possible, the eye, the taste, and the smell
may be pleasingly gratified. What a most unfavourable
impression must stale or bitter bread, acrid or vapid Mine,
make upon the mind ! Are these fit symbols of this most
precious sacrifice ? Would we have at our own tables,
even on ordinary times, such abominable aliments as those
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 103
sometimes laid on the Lord's table ? Church-warden?,
and superintendents of this ordinance in general, should
take good heed, that not only every thing be done de-
cently and in order, but that the elements be of the most
excellent kind. If a man's senses be either insulted or
tortured by what is recommended to him as a mean of
salvation, is it likely that his mind will so co-operate with
the ordinance, as to derive spiritual good from it ? Cer-
tainly not. In such a case, he may attend the ordinance
as a duty, and take up the performance as a cross ; but it.
will be impossible for him to derive real benefit from it.
Besides, a sensible, conscientious man, must be disgusted
with the slovenly and criminally negligent manner in
which this sacred ordinance is celebrated. The Pass-
over, it is true, was to be eaten by the Jews with bitter
herbs, in remembrance of their former bondage; but the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a commemoration of
the most glorious and auspicious event that ever took
place since God laid the foundation of the universe. It
is, in a word, a synopsis, or general view, of all that is
called the glad tidings of salvation, through the incar-
nation, passion, death, resurrection, ascension, and inter-
cession of Jesus Christ, the world's Saviour and the sin-
ner's Friend. In the primitive church, it was afaaj/s es-
teemed a feast, and never accompanied with any act of
mortification. Those who think this circumstance is un-
worthy of serious regard, shew thereby how little they
know of human nature ; and how apt some are to affect
to be wise above what is written, and to fancy themselves
above that which is, in reality, above them. Let, there-
fore, not only the elements, but the whole apparatus, and
even the mode of administering, be such as shall meet and
please all the senses, and, through their medium, affect
and edify the soul. With such helps, under the influence
of the blessed Spirit, devotion must be raised, the flame
104 \ DISCOURSE ON-VHB'IMItTBt
of pure gratitude kindled, the hungry soul fed, and be«
licvers built up on their most holy faith.
I > 1 1 1 lias not everv private Ghrislian a H*ht to ad*
minister this sacred Ordinance? In a pankpblet nor
long ago published, a good mistaken man pays, ' ; Any
sincere Christian has a right to administer the Lord's
Supper to himself or to others." Where is this written
in the annals of the church of Christ ? — No where.
Nor was there ever any decent, regular sect of Chris-
tians, that ever acted so. The accredited minister,
the man who was set apart according- to the custom of
his community, was the only person who was ever
conceived to have a right to administer this ordinance .
as he alone could judge of the persons who were proper
to he admitted. Where private persons have assumed
this important function, they have brought the ordinance
of God into contempt; and they, and their deluded par-
tizans, have generally ended in confusion and apostasy.
Wherever there is a' religious people, who have their re-
gular accredited ministers, they and they only should ad-
minister this ordinance. No private individual; no man
who has not authority from some particular branch of the
church of Hod, through the proper officers whose busi-
ness it is to watch over and feed the flock of Christ,
should dare to take upon himself such an awful and re-
sponsible function. The selj'-appohiicd man in this ordi-
nance, is an intruder into the sacred fold : is the parent
of indecency and disorder, and will have a solemn account
to render to God for disturbing the peace of a Christian
society, and leading the simple astray from the paths of
their companions. We may safely state that nothing like
this was ever allowed or practised in the primitive church :
and the doctrine of the pamphlet on this point, to which. I
have already referred, is a doctrine replete with mischief,
and totally unsupported by Cod's word, or the practice
of the purest agrs of Christianity.
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST.
10§
But the enquiry is of great importance, " Who are they
who should administer this sacred ordinance ? I answer,
Every minister of Jesus Christ ; for, every man who
is called to preach the Gospel, is called to feed the
Hock of God. If a man who professes to preach the
Gospel, can prove that he has no authority to admi-
nister the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper : I can
prove to him that he has no authority to preach;
for, how can he bear proper testimony to the atone-
ment, who cannot legitimately use the sacred sym-
bols which best represent it? But this is both an idle
and foolish conceit ; for he who is called to preach the
Gospel, is called to administer all the ordinances of the
church of Christ. But it has been further asked, " May
not any truly Christian man or woman deliver the sacred
elements to others after consecration ?" I answer, the
ministers of the Gospel, alone, should dispense the sym-
bols of the body and blood of Christ ; every truly reli-
gious person will feel it much more edifying to receive
this bread and wine from the hands of his pastor than
from any member of the Church how holy soever he
may be. The minister alone consecrated the elements
in all periods of the Christian church, though some-
times the deacons delivered them to the people; but
even this was far from being* a common case ; for, in ge-
neral, the minister not only consecrated but delivered the
elements to each communicant.
1 shall not dispute here about the manner in which a
man may be appointed to officiate in any branch of the
church of God. The pure church of Christ exists ex-
clusively no where. It lives in its universality in the
various congregations and societies which profess the
gospel of the Son of God : therefore, I contend not for
this or that mode of ordination ; but I contend that the
man alone who is appointed to minister in holy thinp-s ac-
cording to the regular usages of that church of God to
106 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
which he belongs, has a right to attempt to preach
God's holy word, or administer his sacraments.
" Let .nil things," says the apostle, " be done decently
and in order:" this command should be felt, in its most
extensive sense, in every thing relative to this ordinance.
To cut off all occasion of ofienee, and to make every part
of the ordinance edifying and salutary, every minister
should take care that his whole deportment be grave, and
all his words solemn and impressive ; not only the sacred
elements should be of the purest and best quality, but also
the holy vessels, of whatever metal, perfectly clt?an, and
decently arranged on the table. The communicants, in
receiving the bread and wine, should not be hurried, so
as to endanger their dropping the one, or spilling the
other, as accidents of this kind have been of dreadful con-
sequence to some weak minds. The pieces of bread should
be of a convenient size, not too small, (which is frequently
the case,) as it is then impossible to take them readily out
of the hands of the minister. No communicant should re-
ceive with a glove on : this is indecent, not to say irreve-
rent. Perhaps the best way of receiving the bread is, to
open the hand, and let the minister lay it upon the palm,
whence it may be taken by the communicant with readi-
ness and ease.
As to the posture in which it is received, little need be
said, as the subject is of no great importance. Our Lord
and his disciples certainly took it in a reclining- posture,
as this was the Jewish custom at meals ; and where there
are only ten or ticelie communicants, the reclining mode,
though contrary to the custom of all western countries,
may be literally and innocently copied ; but where there
are from 500 to 1000 communicants, this would be im-
practicable. There is no evidence, in the sacred text,
that they stood with their staves in their hands, and their
loins girded, as the ancient Israelites did at their first
celebration of the Pass-over ; the reverse seems indi-
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 107
cated in the accounts given by the Evangelists, as they
particularly assert that he sat down, or reclined, atoa&rtti
with his disciples. Some chuse to sit, as at their ordinary
meals : when this is a custom among a whole religious
sect, no man is authorised to blame it : — provided it can
be done in a proper spirit of devotion, it may be as pro-
fitably received in that as in any other way. In the pri-
mitive church, it was generally received standing, and
always so on the Lord's Daj/, and on the interim between
Easter and Whitsuntide ; as, on those times, it was
deemed unlawful to kneel in any part of divine worship.
In the church of Rome, and in the church of England,
all the communicants receive kneeling : the former kneel,
because they worship the conseerated Wafer ; the latter,
who reject this sentiment with abhorrence, nevertheless
kneel, the better to express sub?nission to the divine au-
thority, and a deep sense of their ozot unti-orthiness. The
posture itself of kneeling, it must be confessed, is well
calculated to excite and impress such sentiments ; and
perhaps, upon the whole, is preferable to ail others. It
is, however, a matter of comparatively small moment,
and should never be the cause of dissension anion"- reli-
gious people; only, in every church and congregation,
for the sake of order and uniformity, all should sit, or all
should kneel. Let the former consider, that they sit not
at a common meal ; and let the latter reflect, that they are
bozoed before that God who searches the heart. The words
used in consecration should, undoubtedly, be taken from
the Sacred Scriptures ; and the form used in the church of
England is, beyond all controversy, the best of its kind.
Nothing can be more devout, more solemn, more im-
pressive than this. The passages of scripture suitable to
the occasion, are here well chosen ; and are connected
with remarks, observations, petitions, and ejaculations,
that at once breathe the most pure and sublime spirit of
devotion. No truly godly man can use this form without
108 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
deriving the highest spiritual advantages from it. — Tlii*i
is my opinion, but J k-avo others to follow their peculiar
Bottoms.
From tiie great respect that was paid to this ordinance,
in ancient times, it is sufficiently evident that uncommon
influences of the Spirit of (Jod accompanied the celebra-
tion of it. Hence those epithets applied to it by St. Ig-
natius, in his epistle to the Ephesians, (see the motto to
this Discourse,) " Brethren, stand fast in the faith of
Jesus Christ — in his passion and resurrection ; break-
ing that one bread which is the medicine of immorta-
lity, the antidote against death, and the means of living in
God by Christ Jesus ; the medicament that expels all
fiwV." In those times, the communicants discerned the
fjord's body ; they perceived that it represented the sacri-
fice which was offered for them, and pointed out the
Lamb, newly slain, before the throne : they partook of it,
therefore, with strong faith in the atoning efficacy of the
death of Christ, which they had thus represented, at once,
both to the eves of their body and those of their mind;
and the natural consequence was, that the glory of (Jod
tilled the place where they sat, and the souls that wor-
shipped in it. Those were the elen/s of the Son of Man ,
and might be again amply realized, were the Ilolv Eu-
charist rightly administered and scripturally received.
In the apparatus of this feast, a contribution for the
support oj 'the poor should never be neglected. This was
a custom religiously observed from the very remotest an-
tiquity of the Christian era. This is the only May we
have of giving a substantial form to our gratitude, and
rendering it palpable. The poor, and especially the pious
poor, are the proper representatives of Him, who, though
lie was rich, yet for our sakes became poor, that rue, through
his poverty^ might be rich. He, then, who hath pity on
the poor lendeth to the Lord. — Let no man appear at
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 109
this ordinance empty handed ; and let every man give as
God has prospered him.
It might be deemed necessary by some, that, at the
close of such a Discourse, proper directions should bo
o-iven how to receive profitably, and how to behave before
and after communicating-. But this is so generally well
provided for, in the sermons commonly preached on such
occasions, and by books of devotion, that it may well be dis-
pensed with here. Beskles, much may be collected from the
preceding pages themselves, the grand object of which is
to teach men hoio to discern the Lord's body in this holy
institution ; arnl they that do so, cannot use it unprofitably.
IV. It mav be just necessary to state a few reasons
for frequenting the table of the Lord, and profiting by
this ordinance width either have not been previously
mentioned, or not in a manner sufficiently pointed to en-
sure their effect.
1. Jesus Christ has commanded his disciples to Do this
in remembrance of him : and, were there no other reason,
1 ills certainly must be deemed sufficient by all those who
respect hi3 authority as their Teacher and Judge. He
iclio breaks one of the least of his commandments, (and cer-
tainly this is not one of the least of them,) and teaches
ethers, either by precept or example, so to do, shall be
tailed least in the kingdom of heaven. What an awful re-
proof must this be to those who either systematically re-
ject, or habitually neglect, this holy ordinance.
2. As the oft-repeated sacrifices in the Jewish church,
and particularly the Pass-over, were intended to point
out the Son of God till he came ; so, it appears, our
blessed Lord' designed that the Eucharist should be a
principal mean of keeping in remembrance his passion
and death; and thus shew forth him who has died for our
offences; as the others did him who, in the fulness oi
time, should die.
110 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
1 believe it will be generally found, that those who
habitually neglect this ordinance, seldom attach much
consequence to the doctrine of the atonement, and those
kindred doctrines essentially connected with it.
Though 1 am far from suppoaing that the Holy Eu-
charist is itself a sacrifice, which is a most gross error in
the Romish church ; yet I am as fully convinced that it
can never be scripturally and effectually celebrated by
any but those who consider it as representing- a sacrifice,
even that of the life of our blessed Lord, the only avail-
able sacrifice for sin; and that the Eucharist is the only
ordinance, instituted by divine appointment among men,
in which any thing of the ancient sacrificial forms yet re-
main ; and that this, in its form, and in the manner of its
administration, partakes so much of the ancient expiatory
offerings, literally considered, and so much of the spirit
and design of those offerings, as ever to render it the most
lively exhibition both of the sign and the thing signified ;
and, consequently, a rite the most wisely calculated to
shew forth the death of the Son of God, till he shall come
to judge the qukk and the dead.
3. As it is the duty of every Christian to receive the
Holy Eucharist, so it is the duty of extr/j Christian
minister to see that the people of God neither neglect
nor lose sight of this ordinance. They should not only
strongly inculcate the duty of frequently communicating
but they should lead them to those green pastures ; and
delizer to them the sacred symbols. How can any minis-
ters answer it to God, who preach from year to ;, ear,
without once administering the Lord's Supper ? This is
a sinful innovation of modern times : the ancient church
of God knew nothing of this, nor of the no less flagrant
absurdity of obliging genuine Christian converts to go to
strange communions to receive the symbols of their Lord's
sacrifice ; refusing, either through voluntary humility, or
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. Ill
a base man-pleasing disposition, to administer to those
who have been gathered out of the corruption that is in
the world, an ordinance by which they may be most
blessedly built up on their most holy faith. How such
ministers can answer for this to God, I cannot tell : but
to such, " the hungry sheep look up, and are not fed !"
4. But there is another reason why this duty should be
considered as imperiously binding on every Christian
soul. It is a standing and inexpugnable proof of the au-
thenticity of the Christian religion. An able writer of
our own country has observed, that a matter of/act, how-
ever remote, is rendered incontestable by the following-
criteria : — 1. u That the matter of fact be such as men's
senses, their eyes and ears may be judges of. — 2. That it
be done publicly. — 3. That both public monuments be
kept up in memory of it, and some outward actions be
performed. — 4. That such monuments, and such actions or
observances, be instituted and do commence from the time
that the matter of fact was done." Now all these criteria,
he demonstrates, concur in relation to the matters of fact
recorded of Moses and of Christ. The miracles of our
Lord were done publicly, and in the face of the world-
Three thousand souls at one time, and five thousand at
another, were converted to Christianity on the evidence
of these facts. Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, were
instituted as perpetual memorials of these things, at the
very time in which they were said to have been done ; and
these have been observed in the whole Christian world
from that time until now. Therefore, the administration
of these sacraments is an incontestable proof of the au-
thenticity of the Christian religion. See Leslie's Easy
Method with the Deists.
It is not, therefore, merely for the purpose of calling to
remembrance the death of our blessed Lord, for the in-
crease and confirmation of our faith ; it is not merely
112 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
that the church of Christ should have an additional mean,
whereby Cod might communicate the choicest influence-
qf his grace and Spirit to the souls of the faithful, that
Christiana should conscientiously observe, and devoutly
frequent the sacrament of the Lord's Supper ; but they
should continue carefully to observe it, as a public
far-speaking, and irrefragable proof of the divine authen-
ticity of our holy religion. Those, therefore, who ne-
glect this ordinance, not only sin against the command-
ment of Christ, neglect that mean by v.hich their semis
miiiht receive much comfort ar.d edification, but as lar as
in them lies, weaken those evidences of the religion thej
profess to believe, which have been one great cause, under
Cod, of its triumphing over all the persecution and con-
tradiction of the successive ages of infidelity, from its es-
tablishment to the present hour. Had all the followers
of Christ treated this divine ordinance as a few have done,
pretending- that it is to be spiritually understood, (from a
complete misapplication of John vi. C'3.) and that no rile
or form should be observed in commemoration of it,
where had been one of the mast convincing evidences of
Christianity this day ! What a master-piece was it in the
ceconomy of Divine Providence, that a teaching like this
was not permitted to spring up in the infancy of Chris*
tianity, nor till sixteen hundred years after its establish-
ment, by which time, its grand facts had been rendered
incontrovertible ! Such is the wisdom of Goo, and such
his watchful care over his church! Sincerely I thank Cod,
that this sentiment has had but a very limited spread, and
never can be general, while the letter and spirit of Chris-
tianity remain in the world.
The discourse which our Ijord held with the Jews,
John vi. 30 — 63. concerning the manna which their
fathers ate in the wilderness, and which he intimates re-
presented himself, bus been mistaken by several for adis-
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 113
Course on the holy sacrament. The chronology of the
Gospels sufficiently proves, that our Lord spake these
words in one of the synagogues of Capernaum, at least
twelve months before the institution of the Eucharist.
Nor has it any reference whatever to that ordinance. No
man has ever yet proved the contrary.
In this place a question of very great importance should
be considered — u Is the ungodliness of the minister any pre-
judice to the ordinance itself, or to the devout communi-
cant ?" I answer — 1. None who is Ungodly should ever be
permitted to minister in holy things, on any pretence what-
ever ; and in this ordinance, in particular, no unhallowed
hand should ever be seen — 2. As the benefit to be de-
rived from the Eucharist depends entirely on the presence
and blessing- of God, it cannot be reasonably expected
that he will work through the instrumentality of the pro-
fligate or the profane. Many have idled away their time
in endeavouring to prove, that the ungodliness of the mi-
nister is no prejudice to the worthy communicant .-but God
has disproved this by ten thousand instances, in which he
has, in a general way, withheld his divine influence, be-
cause of the wickedness or worthlessness of him who mi-
nistered, whether bishop, priest, minister, or preacher.
God has always required, and ever will require that those
who minister in holy things shall have upright hearts and
clean hands. Those who are of a different character, bring
the ordinance of God into contempt, and are intruders
into the fold of Christ.
" But supposing a man has not the opportunity of re-
ceiving the Eucharist from the hands of a holy man,
should he not receive it at all V I answer, I hope it will
seldom be found difficult to meet with this ordinance in
the most unexceptionable way : but, should such a case
occur, that it must be either received from an improper
person, or not received at all ; I would then advise, Re-
H
114 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
ceive it by all means : as you will thereby bear a tcstimo-
ii . to the truth of the new covenant, and do what in you
lies to fulfil the command of Christ : if, therefore, it be
impossible for you to get this ordinance in its purity, and
properly administered, then take it as you can ; and God,
who knows the circumstances of the case, will not with-
hold from you a measure of the divine influence. But
this can be no excuse for those who, through a blind or
bigotted attachment to a particular place or form, chuse
rather to communicate with the profane, than receive the
Eucharist, according to the pure institution of Jesus
Christ, from the most unblemished hands ; and in com-
pany with saints of the lirst character ! Of all supersti-
tions, this is the most egregious and culpable. It is an
abomination that maketh desolate ; and has been often
found in the holy place. Profanity and sin will certainly
prevent the Divine Spirit from realizing the sign in the
souls of worthless ministers and sinful communicants :
but the want of episcopal ordination in the person, or con-
secration in the place, can never prevent Him, who is not
confined to temples made by hands, and who sends by
whom he will send, from pouring out his Spirit upon those
who call faithfully upon his name, and who go to meet him
in his appointed ways.
But even serious Christians may deprive themselves of
the due benefit of the Eucharist by giving way to hurry
and precipitation. Scarcely any thing is more unbecom-
ing than to see the majority of communicants as soon a»
they have received, posting out of the church or chapel 5
so that at the conclusion of the ordinance, very few are
found to join together in a general thanksgiving to God
for the benefits conferred by the passion and death of
Christ, by means of this blessed ordinance. All the
:nts, unless absolute necessity obliges them
ty depart, should remain till the whole service is con;
AND DE9IGN OP THE EUCHARIST. 11
kS
eluded, that the thanksgiving of many may, in one ge-
neral acclamation, redound to the glory of God and the
Lamb.
In many congregations, where the communicants are
very numerous, this general defection is produced by the
tedious and insufferable delay occasioned through want of
proper assistants. I have often seen six hundred, and some-
times one thousand communicants and upwards, waiting
to be served by one minister ! Masters and heads of fa-
milies are obliged to return to their charge ; mothers are.
constrained to hurry home to their children, and servants
to minister to their respective families. And who, in
this case, could blame them ? Religion was never intended
to break in on family obligations, nor to supersede domes-
tic duties.
In all large congregations, there should be at least
three ministers, that hurry may be prevented, and the or-
dinance concluded in such a reasonable portion of time,
that no person may be obliged to leave the house of God
before the congregation is regularly dismissed. Those who
have no such calls, and indulge themselves in the habit
of hurrying away as soon as they have received the sacred
elements, must answer to God for an act that not only
betrays their great want of serious godliness ; but borders,
I had almost said, on profanity and irreligion. Judas,
of all the disciples, of our Lord, went out before the Holy
Supper was concluded ! Reader, wilt thou go and do like-
wise ? God forbid!
116 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
POSTSCRIPT
As it lias been strongly asserted that the British
churches believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation till
the time of the Reformation; and that the Reformation
was in that case, a most manifest innovation on the ancient
Doctrine — Ishallbegleavetoaddhere a few extracts from
a Saxon Homily ; and JElfric's Epistles written in Saxon
about A. D. 936. to Wulfsine, Bishop of Sherburne.
Throughout the whole of this Homily, the bread and
wine are stated to be understood ghostly gaytlice and
spiritually as the body and blood of Christ. Quoting
1 Cor. x. They ate the same spiritual meat, and drank the
same spiritual drink, he says " Neither was that stone
then from which the water ran, hodely Christ, ac he
getacnobe Cjnjv but it signified Christ, because that
heavenly meat that fed them forty years, and that water
which from the stone did flow haejrbe getacnunje Cjujrer
hchaman'j hir blobey/mrf signification ofChristes bodye
and his blonde, that nowe be offered daylye in Godes
churche: it was the same which we now offer na hchamlice
ac gajthce not bodely but ghostly. Moyses and
Aaron saw that the heavenly meat was visible and corrup-
tible ; ac In unbenjtodon gartlice be ftam gerepenhcum ftwge
■j lntgarthceftigboii and they understood it spiritually
and received ^spiritually. The Saviour saith, He that
eateth my fleshe and drinkcth my blood hath everlasting
lyfe : and he bad them eat, not that body which he Mas
going about with, nor that blood to drink which he shed
for us : ac hi ma^nbe rmb ham popbe j> hahge hurel but he
meant by thai word the holy Eucharist &e gajthce if
hiy lichama -j hrr blob which spiritually is, his body
and his blood.
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 117
( ' In the old law, faithful men offered to God divers
sacrifices that had for signification topeanbe ge tacnunge
(towards betokening) of Christes body ; certainly this
hujel Eucharist, which we do now hallow at God's
altar ir gemynb Cju/tep hchaman is a REMEMBRANCE of
Chrisfs body, which he offered for us : "j hi) blobej- fte he
pop up ageae and of his blood which he shed for us."
That our Saxon ancestors being before the time f
the Norman Conquest, communicated in both kinds, is
evident from the direction given in this paschal sermon,
to " mingle water with the wine which shall be for the
holy Eucharist ; because the water signifieth the people ;
and the wine Christ's blood, -j poptfi ne ]-ceal na]?oji buton
oJ>/mm beon geopppobe aet ftaepe hal gan msjyan. And therefore
shall neither the one without the other be offered
(it the hoi 'y 3Iass, that Christ may be with us and we with
Christ."
Writing to Wulfstane, Archbishop of York, ^Elfric
says, " The Lord which hallowed the Eucharist before his
sufferings, saith that the bread was his own body, and that
the wine was truly his blood — and yet that lively bread is
not bodily so, notwithstanding ; not the selfsame body
that Christ suffered in : nor that holy wine is the Sa-
viour's blood which was shed for us on hchamhcan 'Singe
aeon garthcum angyce in bodily thing (or meaning) but in
spiritual understanding. The Apostle hath said,
that they all did eat the same spiritual meat ; and they all
drank the same spiritual drink Ne cpasj? he na hchanihce, ac
gajthce, he sailhnot bodily but spiritually. And Christ
Mas not yet born, nor his blood shed when the people of
Israel ate that meat and drank of that stone : and the
stone was not bodily Christ, though he so said. It was
the same mystery in the old Law, and they did spiritually
signify that spiritual Eucharist of our Saviour's body,
which we consecrate now."
118 A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE
The preceding extracts nre taken from a very rare
work, intituled "A Testimonie of Antiquitie, shewing;
theauncient fayth in the Church of England, touching the
Sacrament of the Body and Bloude of the Lorde liere
publikcly preached, and also receaved in the Saxons tyme,
above 600 yeares agoe. Jmprinted at London by lohn
Day," 18mo. without date, but from other circumstances,
wqknow that it was printed in 1567. At the conclusion
of the sermon is the following attestation, signed by
Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas,
Archbishop of York, and thirteen other Bishops.
" As the writvnges of the fathers euen of the first ane of
the Churche bee not thought on all partes so perfect,
that whatsoeuer thyng hath beene of the spoken ought to
be receaued without all exceptio (which honour truelye
them selues both knewe & also haue confessed to be
onely due to the most holy & tryed word of God :) So
in this Sermon here published some thynges be spoken
not consonant to sounde doctrine : but rather to such
corruption of greate ignoraunce and superstition, as hath
taken roote in the church of log time, being ouermuch
cumbered with monckery. — But all these things that be thus
of some reprehensio be as it werbutby the way touched:
the full and whole discourse of all the former part of
the Sermo, & almost of the whole Sermon is about the
vnderstanding of the Sacramentall bread & wine howe it
is the bodye & bloude of Christ our Sauiour, by which is
reuealed & made knowen, what hath beene the common
taught doctrine of the church of England on this behalfe
many hundrcth yeares agoe, contrarye vnto the vnaduised
writyng of some nowe a dayes. Nowe thut thys fore-
sayd Kuxon Homely with the other testimonies before
alleadged, doe fullye agree to the olde auncient bookes
(wherof some bee written in the olde Saxon, and some
in the Latt)ne) from whence, they are taken ; these here
AND DESIGN OF THE EUCHARIST. 119
vnder written vpon diligent perusing, & comparing the
same haue found by conference, that they are truelye
put forth in print without any adding, or withdrawing
any thyng for the more faithfull reporting of the same ;
and therefore for the better credite hereof haue sub-
fccribed their names.
Matlhewe Archbyshop of Cantcrburye.
Thomas Archbyshop of Yorke.
Edmunde Byshop of London.
lames Byshop of Durham.
Robert Byshop of Winchester,
William Bishop of Chichester.
John Byshop of Hereford.
Richard Byshop of Elye.
Edzsine Byshop of Worcetcr.
Nicholas Byshop of JJncolnt.
Richard Byshop of S. Dauys.
Thomas Bishop of Couentry and IJchfield.
John Bishop of Norzeiche.
John Bishop of Carlyll.
Nicholas Bishop of Bangor.
With diners other personages of honour and credits
subscribyng their names, the recorde whereof remaines
in the handes of the moste reuerend father Matthewe
Archbishop of Canterbury.''
The above Testimony is of considerable consequence
in the controversy about the Eucharist, as far as the
Protestant church in these kingdoms are concerned. The
pure evangelical doctrine of the church of England re-
lative to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, far from
being only Protestant, is hereby known to have been the
doctrine that was held by the British churches, nearly
900 years, ago ; COO years before, the Reformatio!) took
120 A DISCOURSE ON THE EUCHARIST.
place, Which in fact only restored the ancient doctrine
that had been corrupted by Paper//.
I W lien therefore the Papists insultingly asked our an-
cestors, '• Whore was your doctrine before Luther V
They might not only have answered In the Bible where
yours never teas ; but might also have added, " In our
ancient church and service books still extant in our
original mother tongue ; and which continue to exist as
a monument of your new fangled doctrine, and cor-
ruption of the truth of God.'*
I
Printed ty J. and T. Clarke, 38, St. Johns Square, London-
o
Ph O
05
*2
a
s
01
s-
o
J3
3
-P
0)
(A
6
ai
o
ft
(U
-P
Qj
•P
oi
University of Toronto
Library
DO NOT
REMOVE
THE
CARD
FROM
THIS
POCKET
Acme Library Card Pocket
Under Pat. "Ref. Index File"
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU
M
Iff*
^tt
y . . ' "
j*1§5s
^"
Jfifr
ft
on' > .»
|
.
W
t^Kr
1*
*
»•
.-- «*l
