mind fufficiently, about his own Institution, to his own immediate Followers; than to imagine that He left it to be declared for Him, by Men who fhould live, one hundred, or five hundred, or a thousand, or near two thousand Years, after the firft Inftitution of this Duty. I fay not this to reflect upon any Well-meaning Writers, or any Men of fincere piety: but merely because so much of Superftition and Terror has been infused into the Minds of Many Honeft Chriftians; that it is become highly proper, and indeed neceffary, to put them in mind that the Lord's Supper is the Inftitution of Chrift himself, and not of Any of their FellowChriftians; and that They muft feek, in His words, and the Declarations of his Apoftles, for all that is contained in it, or can be neceffary towards the due partaking of it. This being now laid down; and the Pala ges of the New Teftament, relating to the Inftitution of this Duty, having been before produced and explained; I proceed to Another Propofition,

ges

VIII. It appears from these Passathat the End for which our Lord

inftituted this Duty, was the Remembrance of Himself; that the Bread, to be taken and eaten, was appointed to be the Memorial of his Body broken; and the Wine to be drunk, was ordained to be the Memorial of his Bloud fhed: Or, (according to the exprefs Words of St. Paul) That the One was to be eaten, and the Other to be drunk, in REMEMBRANCE of Chrift; and this to be continued, until He, who was once prefent with his Difciples, and is now abfent, fhall again.

come

This alone may furnish even the unlearned Chriftian with a fhort but plain Argument to prove the abfurdity and Falfhood of the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, or Change of the Bread and Wine into the Natural Body and Bloud of Chrift; or of any Bodily prefence of Chrift in this Rite..

The doing any Act, in remembrance of a Perfon, implies his Bodily Abfence; and if He is corporally prefent, We are never faid,

nor

nor can We be faid, to perform that Action in order to remember Him. And therefore, It being declared, in the places before-mentioned, that the End of this Inftitution was the Remembrance of Chrift; it must follow from hence that to eat and drink, in the Lord's Supper, must be, To eat and drink in a sense confiftent with the Notion of this Remembrance: and therefore, that to suppose, or teach, that Chriftians eat his Real Natural Body, in remembrance of his Real Natural Body; and drink his Real Bloud in remembrance of his Real Bloud; is to teach that They are to do Something, in order to remember Him which at the fame time fuppofes Him corporally prefent; and destroys the very notion of that Remembrance; and fo, directly contradicts the most important Words of the Inftitution itself.

Add to this that St. Paul, from his own Account of the Inftitution, delivered to the Corinthians, concludes exprefsly that, as oft as Chriftians eat this Bread and drink this Cup, They (He does not fay, feed upon Chrift now corporally prefent; but the contrary, They) fhew, or tell forth, by these Actions, his Death, till He come: that is, until the time when he shall again be corpo

rally

rally prefent with Them. This ftrongly implies the Belief of his Bodily Abfence to be even neceffary to this Duty: and that his Bodily Prefence is utterly inconfiftent with it; and whenever it shall be, will put an End to a Rite, inftituted only for the Remembrance of him, during his Abfence. They therefore, who require Chriftians to believe, that They feed, in the Lord's Supper, upon Christ's natural Body prefent, do in effect forbid them to eat this Bread in remembrance of his Body. Neither will They fuffer them to fhew forth Chrift's death, till He hall; come again and be prefent, whilst They teach them that He is now corporally present with them.

The fame may be faid of the Doctrine, taught by the fame Perfons, of a Real Sacri fice of Chrift's Body, offered by the Prieft, in this Holy Ceremony: viz. That it contradicts the very Words of the Inftitution; in which the Remembrance of an Abfent Body broken, not the offering of a Prefent Body, is declared to be the End of this Religious Action. I fay, the very Words: for this is not left to be deduced by Confequences drawn. from Scripture-Words; but declared in the Words themselves.

These

Thefe Arguments, drawn from the great End of the Inftitution itself, are more plain and Eafy to Common Understandings, than Thofe which are taken from the Abfolute Impoffibility of the Thing itfelf: which, tho' They are ftrong, and never to be truly answered; yet, give the Adversaries a much greater opportunity of perplexing and confounding the Ignorant with Difputes about the Power of an Almighty GOD, and the Nature of Body. For, in the present Case, I hope, Every Common Understanding will fee the Force of what I have been arguing from the Words of the Inftitution itself: viz. "The Lord's Supper was exprefsly defigned for the Remembrance of Christ, af"ter ter He (hould be taken away: Therefore, Chrift, who is to be remember'd, cannot at the time of fuch Remembrance be cor

་་

porally prefent." Again," The Bread "and Wine were ordained for Memorials of "his Body broken, and Bloud fhed, for Us.

Therefore, His Natural Body and Bloud "must be absent, in order to be remember'd "by means of fuch Memorials." And again,

They themselves cannot be the Memorials "of themselves, in this Rite. For nothing " can be eaten, or drunk, in remembrance "of itself. The contrary Notion is a plain "Abfurdity.