fion, between the Table and Cup of the Lord, and the Table and Cup of the Damons worshipped by the Heathens. Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils: Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table, and of the Table of Devils. This is the Conclufion of the Apostle's reafoning. And this cannot poffibly fignify, "Ye cannot be "partakers of the Benefits of the Lord's "Table, and of the Benefits of the Table

of the Heathen Deities:" for no Benefit could poffibly be fuppofed by Him to accrue from Thefe, even to the Heathen-worShippers themselves. But the Inference is, "Ye cannot, without abfurdity and a Crime, "feaft in the Lord's Supper to the honour " of Chrift; and feast also with the Hea"thens, in their Temples, upon their Sa"crifices." Confequently, when at the beginning of the argument, and to introduce only this Conclufion, He afks, The Cup--Is it not the Communion, (or Joint-partaking) of the Bloud of Chrift? The Bread,--- Is it not the Communion (or Joint-partaking) of the Body of Chrift? He must be supposed to mean, what alone was to his purpose, "Is <c not our Joint-partaking of Bread and "Wing, in the Lord's Supper, a Religi

ous partaking of what are Memorials of "Chrift's Body and Bloud; and a Rite, by "which we profefs to pay Honour to Chrift

as our Lord and Mafter?" For this was only in order to infer, "If so, we ought << not to feaft with the Heathens upon their Sacrifices, or appear to pay the like honour to any Falfe God.

That this therefore, is the full meaning of the former part of this passage, appears from hence, That it cannot be fuppofed to contain in it, what has no relation to the Conclufion drawn from it. In this Conclufion, viz. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table, and of the Table of Devils, it must be allowed that nothing is faid about these Benefits; because otherwife, in the latter part of the Sentence, the partaking of the Table of Damons, muft fignify and imply that Benefits were conveyed, by fuch participation, to their Worshippers; which cannot be fuppofed. In the Premiffes therefore, which lead to this, it was not the Apostle's defign to speak of the Benefits accruing to Communicants by partaking of the Lord's Supper; but only of the Significancy of that Rite, as an Act of Religious Honour paid by Chriftians to their Mafter.

Add

Add to this, that, in the former part of this Paffage, the very word [Kowave's] JointPartakers (or Communicants) is made ufe of, with respect to Devils or Dæmons; and answers to the word [Kovavia] Communion, or Joint-Partaking, used before concerning the Body and Bloud of Chrift: I would not that you should have Fellowship (or Com-munion) with Dæmons. The sense of the whole verfe is plainly this: "The Heathens "intend their Sacrifices to fuppofed Dæmons, "and not to the True God: And I would not "have You, who are Chriftians, partake with "Them of Any thing, which is intended to "have Relation to the honour of any False "God." How little ground therefore, is there for the Remark of fome learned Men, That the word Kovavía, (Communion) is used where the Inward or Spiritual part of the Lord's Supper is fpoken of; and the word μeréxew, (Partaking) afterwards used, where the External only is meant: When we see the word Kouwvol, (Communicants) here used with regard to Idols; where no Spiritual part could be thought of? For the whole argument supposes an Idol to be a Nothing; and the Chriftians concerned to have no Thought of receiving Good or Hurt from thefe Idols,

or of paying real Honour to them; and yet, forbids Them to communicate with the Worshippers of them, by joining in that External Act of Feasting, which appeared to tend to the honour of an Idol or Falfe God; and would be turned to an ill use by their Heathen Neighbours. And the fame Words being used with regard to Chrift, and thefe Dæmons, [xowwvía and x01vwvol, in one verse; and μerexdy in another ;] it follows that Communion, and Partaking, which both fignifie, in this Paffage, a Partaking of fomething in common with others, are words of the fame Signification in both Cafes and that when the Apostle asks of the Cup which Chriftians drink, "Is it not "the Communion of the Bloud of Chrift?" in the first part of the Argument; He means no more than if He had faid, "Is "it not the partaking of the Cup of the "Lord?" as He expreffes his Conclufion : and that when He asks of the Bread which Chriftians eat in their Affemblies, "Is it not "the Communion of the Body of Chrift?” He means no more than if He had ask'd,

Is not the Table at which We eat this (c Bread, The Table of the Lord?" as He calls it afterwards. In both places, the

Strefs

Stress is laid upon the Defign of the Rite, as performed in honour to Chrift; and not upon the Effect of it upon the Partakers, or the Benefits accruing to Them. "You " in your Affemblies eat Bread and drink Wine, in a Religious Remembrance of Chrift your Mafter. And therefore, ought "not to do the like Acts in a fuppofed "Honour to the Idols of the Heathen, "whofe Worship He came to destroy," is the Argument: And the Guilt of fuch a Behavior is the whole Ground of it.

Before I proceed, it feems worthy our Obfervation, that, tho' St. Paul found occafion to speak here expreísly of Offerings and Sacrifices made to Idols; and of the Altar in the Jewish Temple; yet, when He comes to speak of the Lord's Supper, He does not once represent the Bread and Wine as Things offered, or facrificed to God upon an Altar; (which He could not have avoided, had He had that Notion of them :) but, in the plaineft words, fpeaks of the Cup of the Lord, and of the Table of the Lord; and not of any Altar, or of any Offering of the Bread and Wine, or any Sacrifice made to God, as upon an Altar. And this, I think,