to have addreffed Job by an argument a fortiori, and confequently to have confidered the angels, of whom he premifed, in a more advantageous fituation than the mortals, about whom he concluded. Further, we imagine the apoftates would not have been called fimply angels, as the import of that word points rather to their upright ftate; but either the name would have been accompanied by an epithet marking their prefent abasement (as in the New Teftament, the angels that finned-the angels which kept not their firft eftate, &c.); or another term, not liable to be mistaken, would have been used. Moreover, his angels are fpoken of in connection with his fervants (He put no trust in his fervants, and he charged his angels with folly), in fuch a manner as would feem to leave the reasoning quite unintelligible, on our friend's fuppofition. Nay, unlefs we explain the word angels, as fome critics do, by material agents rather than immaterial fpirits, we muft fay, that the latter of thefe two claufes is but an amplification of the former: for who but the upright angels can be here called his fervants? fince thefe are manifeftly diftinguifhed, in the 19th verfe, from the inhabitants of this lower world. We may alfo add, that such various verfions of this paffage, as we have feen, not only in English but in other languages, appear to give our application of the term angels, and in general to leave the fenfe of the whole much like that in which we have used it.

It is neceffary for the full fatisfaction of our correfpondent, to ftate, that to our other quotation from the fame book, viz. the heavens are not clean in his fight, we did not annex the figurative import he fufpects. We confidered ourselves

speaking

fpeaking of the heavens, commonly fo called; viewing the paffage as parallel to that in the 25th chapter, Behold, even to the moon, and it fbineth not; and the ftars are not pure in his fight.

To conclude: our object in forming into one fentence two declarations which are found feparate in the Scriptures, was to present a conjoined view of two teftimonies borne respectively against the most glorious objects in the material and intellectual creation, as deftitute of any intrinfic purity and excellence, in the eyes of the effentially-perfect Jehovah, who finds in them nothing good which He has not implanted, nothing ftable which He does not fupport.

A.

REMARKS ON 1 Cor. xi. 27, 28, 29.

Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, fhall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and fo let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup; for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not difcerning the Lord's body.

THE more any Chriftian confiders the unfcriptural purposes to which most profeffors of the Gospel apply this paffage, the more will he be convinced of the propriety of thus publicly vindicating the real meaning of the apoftle. In order to this we fhall firft take a view of that part of the chapter in which it occurs. From this it appears that Paul's defign was to reproveé

the

the Corinthians for the manner in which they had abused the ordinance of the Lord's fupper. The abuse they fell into was, that inftead of meeting together in one place, and all partaking of bread and wine as brethren in remembrance of Chrift's death, they brought every man his own portion, more or lefs, according to his ability, and without waiting one for another, each eat what he brought as foon as he came into the affembly. The apoftle tells them that in fo doing it was not poffible for them to eat the Lord's fupper, for, fays he-When ye come together therefore into one place, (ouk efti) ye cannot eat the Lord's fuppers for in eating every one taketh before other, his own fupper and one is hungry, and another is drunken.—Whereas a common participation of the bread and wine is, according to the institution of Chrift, effential to that ordinance. After having thus mentioned their abuse of this ordinance of Chrift, in terms of difapprobation, he proceeds to lay before them what was the real object and defign of it and for that purpofe quotes the very words our Lord himself made ufe of when he inftituted it," this do in REMEMBRANCE of ME." Then by way of illuftrating these words of our Lord, he adds,- For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, (katangellete) ye publifh the Lord's death till he come as if he had faid, ye ought to eat this bread, and drink this cup for the purpose of proclaiming the wonderful and exceeding great love of the Son of the MOST HIGH in humbling himself to the accurfed death of the croís for the eternal redemption of ungodly men, and not for the purpofe of fatisfying the wants of the body: What? have ye not houfes to eat and drink in?—And if any man hunger let him eat at home.

:

Having thus taken a view of the means in which the Lord's fupper was abused by the Corinthians, and of what Paul declares to be the real defign of that institution: we now come to state what we are perfuaded is the true meaning of his words in the three verfes under confideration. First we shall quote the paffage: explaining each expreffion as it occurs, and then proceed to fhew how utterly, inconfiftent the popular notions are with the obvious fenfe of the whole.

Wherefore, whofoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord UNWORTHILY, i. e. for any purpose unworthy of the end for which Chrift instituted it, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord-fhall be guilty of a great abuse in eating that bread and drinking that cup, which are emblems of the Lord's body and blood, for the fame purpose as his common meals. But let a man examine himself, i. e. let each man examine his own views of this inftitution, and fee that they be conformable to the intention of Chrift, and fo-according to the refult let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unavorthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, i. e. by eating and drinking for an unworthy purpose he brings down judgment upon himfelf, (me diakrinon) not diflinguishing the Lord's body-not putting any difference between the Lord's fupper and his ordinary meals.

Thus we understand in what manner the apoftle charged the Corinthians with eating and drinking unworthily. It was for their eating and drinking the bread and wine in a manner not fuitable to that end for which the Lord's fupper was inftituted. This appears plainly from confidering the feveral things for which he reproves

them.

them. Ift. He reproves them for eating their common food in the affembly, which they should have eaten at home in their houses, ver. 22, 34. 2dly. That though they eat in the ufual place of meeting, yet they eat feparately every one his own fupper apart; and fo the plenty and excefs of fome, fhamed the want and penury of others, ver. 22. By this means also the divifions among them were kept up, ver. 18. for instead of acting like one united body of Chriftians commemorating the dying love of their Lord and Saviour, as they fhould have done in eating the Lord's fupper: they eat every one by himself, and with no other view than that of fatisfying hunger and thirft. 3dly. He blames them that they mixed the Lord's fupper with their own, eating it as part of their ordinary meal; not making that difcrimination between it and their common food which they should have done, ver. 29.

Thus we have ftated what we are perfuaded every unprejudiced perfon would fee to be the meaning of the Apostle, upon a careful perufal of this paffage. The meaning commonly put upon the Apostle's words, is indeed very different from what he evidently intended. The word UNWORTHILY is supposed to refer to the state and character of thofe whom Paul reproves; and when he fays let a man EXAMINE himself, he is understood to mean a man's examining into the state of his own moral conduct, to fee how many religious duties he has performed, and whether or no he has done enough to make him what is called A WORTHY COMMUNICANT. The world is filled with elaborate treatifes on the Lord's fupper, or as it is commonly called the Sa crament in these the long and tedious procefs