4thly, The words μετέχειν and κοινωνείν, μέτοχος and κοινωνος, are ufed fynonimoufly, as well in the internal or fpiritual, as the external or material fenfe: A's 2 Cor. vi. 14. Heb. ii. 14. iii. 1. 14. vi. 4. So, particularly, Luke v. 7. compared with v. 10. And fo likewife in the very paffage under confideration; as will appear by comparing 1 Cor. x. 16. with ver. 17 t. From thefe indifputable proofs of the fenfe in which St. Paul ufes thefeords it is abundantly plain, that they must be interpreted in the fame fenfe refpectively in thofe verfes where they occur in I Cor. ch. And more efpecially, as what is of the utmost importance to the true interpretation of ver. 16, it appears from these proofs, that St. Paul having here made ufe of the fimple word xowna, not the compound ouyzowana, its true and whole meaning in this verfe must be each person's partaking, or participation, of the body and blood there mentioned, and nothing more .' And the true fenfe of zona in this paffage being thus afcertained from St. Paul's undoubted ufe of it in other places; it is of great moment, I apprehend, to obferve further, what, as far as I know, has never yet been properly attended to, that though St. Paul' has actually inferted this word only in the latter part of each of the queftions he here afks, the obvious fenfe of the questions themselves abfolutely requires it to be understood in the first part of each question likewife. The cup or wine itself in this rite is the blood of Christ; but it must be the partaking of the cup, that is the partaking of the blood of Chrift: in like manner the bread itself is the body of Chrift; but it must be the partaking of the bread, that is the partaking of the body of Christ. This is felf-evident. And from this obfervation, Here the Author refers to the following Note at the end of the Appendix. Had Bishop Warburton happened to have obferved the perfectly corresponding meaning of these words in the several paffages here referred to, he could not, it is prefumed, have inclined to the opinion, as he does (a), in oppofition to Bishop Hoadly (b), that xovania was used to fignify the inward or fpiritual part in the Lord's Supper, and METEXE: the external part only. In fact, it appears from the paffages referred to, that there is not any ground for fuch a distinction; and nowwwa here fignifies nothing else than the participation of the bread and wine confidered as the appointed reprefentatives, or memorials of the body and blood. Upon this paragraph is the following Note at the end of the Appendix. Bishop Pearce in his Commentary, and Note Q, on ver. 16.; as well as in his Commentary, and Note S, on ver. 18.; and his Commentary, and Note W, on ver, 20.; is very particularly careful in repeatedly interpreting the word movova, as fignifying the common, or joint participation of feveral together in the fame thing; and Bishop Hoadly likewife has interpreted it in the fame manner (c). But if they had happened to obferve, what is fo fully proved by the paffages referred to in pages 67-70, that St. Paul ufes novoitfelf to exprefs merely the participation, &c. of one only, of whatever it may be; and that when he defigns to exprefs the common, or joint partici pation of feveral together in any thing, he makes ufe of the compound word ouyxowna ;-they could not, it is prefumed, have interpreted novia in thefe verfes in the fenfe they have.-Bishop Warburton rightly contends, that xovovia itself does not include the idea of joint participation (d); though he had not observed the ufe St. Paul makes of the compound synovavia, when he would exprefs that meaning,' (a) Rational Account, &c. p. 35-37. Gg 4 joined joined to the foregoing, in which the meaning of nowwwx was afcere tained, it neceffarily follows, that in order to comprehend St. Paul's true meaning, we must here understand by the cup, and the bread, the nowania, or partaking of the cup and the bread, in the first part of thefe questions; to answer to the xowna, or partaking of the body and blood in the last part of them.' Then, after fome obfervations to prove, that the bread and wine are ftyled the body and blood of Chrift in the fame sense as the Pafchal lamb is called the Lord's Passover *, that is, a religious memorial of that tranfaction, he thus concludes his obfer. vations on ver. 16. • From these several remarks that have now been made it appears, that, in order fully to express the true fenfe of St. Paul, and nothing but his fenfe, in ver. 16. it must be tranflated in the following manner: Ver. 16. The partaking of the cup of blessing, which we blefs, is it not, to each of us, the partaking of the memorial of the blood of Chrift? The partaking of the bread which we break, is it not, to each of us, the partaking of the memorial of the body of Chrift?" To this we fhall fubjoin an extract from No. III. containing remarks on the phrafe, guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, 1 Cor. xi. 27, as it includes an explanation of a similar expreffion in the Epistle of St. James, which has been generally mifunderstood. Having juftly obferved, that these words in this place cannot with any truth or propriety be understood in their first and obvious meaning, viz. guilty of putting Chrift to death, and having offered fome confiderations to prove, that the intention of St. Paul was to affert, that whoever behaved at the celebration of the Lord's Supper in fuch a manner as to fhew a thoughtlefs difregard, and want of ferious attention to it, did by that particular misbehaviour-shew a disregard, and want of ferious attention to the fufferings and death of our Lord; in fome fmall degree fimilar to, though by no means to be compared with, that of thofe who actually caused him to be put to death,' &c. he makes the following remarks on the phrase: The original is, evoxos esat to owμaros, &c. and the word ενοχος is of fuch extenfive use and application, that on different occafions the obvious fenfe of the paffages will force us to tranflate it in very different manners. In Matt. ch. xxvi. 66.—evoxos davate es; and Mark, ch. xiv. 64, - sivas evoxoy davare; it may with propriety be tranflated, guilty of; becaule, guilty of death, is an elliptical expreffion, which ufe has rendered familiar; and the meaning of which answers exactly to the meaning of the word in thefe two paffages. • But in Matt. ch. V. 21, 22. ενοχος επί τη κρίσει τη συνεδρίῳ,τις την γεένναν ; and Mark iii. 29.-ενοχος εσιν αιωνιού κρίσεως ;—and Heb, 11. 15. ένοχοι ήσαν δουλειάς 5 -in all these paffages it must of neceffity be tranflated-fubject to, exposed to, liable to, obnoxious to, &c. and cannot poffibly be rendered guilty of. And in 1 Cor. xi. 27. the paffage under confideration, voxos esas Tou owμatos; as well as in James ii. 10. yeyove TavTwv EvoXos, which is exactly fimilar to it; to give it its true and proper meaning, it must be rendered in a different manner ftill; fuch as,-offends againstaffronts-fhews a difrefpect to, &c.-Or, ftill more fully, is guilty of offending against-guilty of affronting-guilty of fbewing a difrespect to, &c.-Not abfolutely, guilty of the body and blood of Chrift, in the one inftance; or, guilty of all the commandments, in the other. The neceffity there is for tranflating the word in this manner, in these two perfectly fimilar paffages, is not only evident from the reafon of the thing, but likewife from St. James's explanation of his own meaning. St. James fays *, Whosoever shall offend against one commandment of the law-YEYOVE TAVTWY EVOxos; which we tranflate,—is guilty of all. But here the evident reason of the thing must convince us that this tranflation is improper; because it makes St. James affirm what is manifeftly false; and what indeed he himself has informed us, he did not mean. Whosoever breaks one commandment of the law only, is far lefs guilty than he who actually breaks them all. The utmost that with truth can be faid of him who breaks one only, is, that he offends against, or affronts, or fhews a difrefpect to, all; by offending againft, in one inftance, that authority which equally enjoins all: and this the Apoftle himself has informed us was exactly what he meant t. Here therefore it is manifeft, that evoxos yeyove fhould not have been rendered abfolutely, is guilty of; but ought to have been tranflated, becomes an affronter of, or becomes guilty of affronting, or pewing difrefpect to, all the reft. And for the felf-fame reafons, in the paffage before us, voxos yeyoVE ‡ To owμatos ought not to have been tranflated, abfolutely, is guilty of the body, &c. but fhould have been rendered by fome fuch expreffion as, offends against, affronts, fhews a disrespect to; or, more fully, is guilty of offending against, affronting, or fhewing a difrefpect to, the body and blood; that is, the memorials of the body and blood, and confequently the fufferings and death of Chrift §.' We could willingly make fome farther extracts from both the Appendix and the Notes; but our limits forbid. What we have already transcribed will give our Readers an idea of the entertainment they may expect from this ingenious publication; which we earneftly recommend to the perufal of every one who is defirous to form just and accurate notions of the Lord's Supper, as the most complete, rational, and fatisfactory treatise on the fubject hitherto published, written with equal learning and + James ii. 11. It should have been εσαι. Ch. ii, 10. The Reader may have the fatisfaction of finding this interpretation confirmed by the authority of Bishop Pearce, in his Commentary, and Note upon the paffage, vol. ii p. 270; though there, in the Note, by filling up the words of St. James thus,-is guilty of the breach of all- he undefignedly goes further than either his own interpretation of the original word, or the reafon of the thing, will warrant. his Note on Matt. v, 21. vol. i. p. 30. See likewife judgment, judgment, and difcovering in the worthy Author the most commendable liberality and candor of fentiment and difpofition. ART. XI. Sermons, by Alexander Gerard, D. D. Profeffor of Divinity in King's College, Aberdeen, and one of his Majesty's Chaplains in Ordinary in Scotland. 8vo. 5 s. Boards. Dilly. 1780. TH HOUGH truth does not, in these fermons, wear the foft robe of mild perfuafion, and seldom attracts the Reader's regard by the ornaments of fancy, yet fhe fteps forth in the fober and decent attire of reafon and good fenfe. Dr. Gerard addreffes himself more to the underftanding than to the heart, and his difcourfes are diftinguished from most compofitions of the fame kind by perfpicuity and ftrength of reasoning, by a manly and philofophical way of thinking. Three of his fermons, if our recommendation can have any weight, will be perufed by our Readers, with the most serious attention. The fubject of them is of great importance, as it comes "home to men's bufinefs and bofoms;" though there are few, even of thofe whofe characters are, upon the whole, refpectable and exemplary, who attend to it as they ought. The Doctor difcourfes from Prov. xxviii. 28.-He that hath no rule over his own fpirit, is like a city that is broken down and without walls.-He begins with obferving, that the spirit of a man is an expreffion, which has different fignifications in fcripture, especially in the book of Proverbs; but he confiders it as fignifying a man's particular temper, or predominant turn of mind: fo that Solomon may be understood to affert, that he who hath no command over his natural temper, or peculiar bias, is in danger of running into every fin. After this introduction, he proceeds to explain the origin and nature of the variety of tempers among mankind; and this he does with much diftin&tnefs and accuracy, and in fuch a manner as will be peculiarly pleafing to readers of a philofophical turn of mind. He obferves, that, among the diverfities of character of which. men are fufceptible, there is fcarcely any more remarkable or more interesting, than that which belongs to the natural temper; that this diverfity may be increafed by a difference in the education and culture which men receive, and in the habits which they contract; but that it is not produced by thefe; that it is founded in the original conftitution; that it appears in children from their very birth, and continues to diftinguish perfons who have received the fame culture, and acquired the fame habits that both the temperament of the body and the turn of mind contribute to form the peculiar bent; that the latter requires principally to be regarded, as it influences the temper moft moft directly; the former affecting it only indirectly, by first affecting the turn of the mind-that it arifes both from the peculiar make of the understanding, and from the construction of the paffions and active powers; but that, in most instances, the latter is its chief and moft immediate caufe, either by the predominance of one paffion in the constitution, or by the general tone of all the paffions. The Doctor confiders the feveral tempers, that are found, among mankind, fimply in themfelves, and not either thofe exceffes of them which are vicious, or that regulation of them which is virtuous, though he is often obliged to speak of them by names which imply approbation or difapprobation, efpecially the latter. The reafon, he tells us, is, that as all tempers are most obvious in their exceffes, and as fome are very apt to run into excess, we have in many inftances no name for the temper itfelf as diftinguished from the abuse of it. We muft, therefore, he fays, be on our guard against deception from this imperfection of language, and endeavour, as much as poffible, to conceive every temper that may be mentioned, as in itself indifferent, however readily it may on the one hand degenerate into vice; or however eafily it may on the other hand be improved into virtue. He now proceeds to a more particular investigation of his fubject, and fhews, that all the affections and paffions, according as one or another of them is predominant, tinge the whole foul with their own peculiar hue. He obferves, that very great diverfities of temper may proceed from the fame paffion, only by its being predominant in diffe rent manners; that the paffionate temper and the peevish are extremely different, though they both proceed from the predominance of the very fame principle, fudden anger; that deliberate anger produces, in those who have a propensity to it, many diftinctions of temper unlike to both thefe; that whatever be the varieties of which any paffion is fufceptible in respect of its caufes, its objects, its feeling, or its tendencies, the temper founded in that paffion will be fufceptible of all the fame varieties-that fome tempers proceed from the weakness of a particular difpofition, more properly than from a predominance of the contrary; that courage, fo far as it is conftitutional, proceeds merely from the abfence of fear; that impudence is not the prevalence of any pofitive affection, but only the want of shame→→ that feveral paffions and affections are, in different men, combined in an infinite variety of ways; and that every particular combination of them produces a diftinct temper; that every temper, when it is analyfed with the utmost accuracy, will perhaps be found, not to arife from the prevalence of a fingle affection, but to derive its form in fome degree from the union of feveral: |