was well known, and probably would be for thousands of years to come-a ceremony which in itself, was but a type, and was to end with the substance in its place. As to John's intending to supply the defect of Matthew, Mark and Luke, he cannot make it apunless he can first show that these men pear, were highly censurable for not doing their duty. If there was a new institution binding on the christian world, as some suppose, I could say with the man-Remarkable indeed that John did not record it, and John's account is the one that is most defective, and not the other's; and it would be strange that the others should have said so little about it.

Whatever is said by Matthew and Mark, amounts to little more, if any, than merely that which was common on every passover occasion. As the passover was a type of Christ himself, he instructs his disciples to then remember him in it. Luke, whose testimony is of itself alone, (when examined,) sufficient to smother the eucharistical notion, is the only account that mentions the words "do this," &c.

When the Lord instituted the passover in Egypt HE thought proper in his wisdom, as in all the laws which HE gave to the Jews, to explain, point out the thing, the time, the place and manner in which the passover should be attended. But providing there was no way to explain these words but the very manner in

which it is done by my opponents, does the simple sentence "Do this," &c. spoken at the time and place where it was, seem sufficient to establish so important an institution as the sacrament is viewed to be by many? Does this characterize the wisdom of that God who gave the ceremonial law to the Jews? Answer, no: If there had been such an institution given to the christian world, no doubt to me there would have been proper instructions given concerning it. But because no proper instructions were given (and no such thing instituted) the world has been long contending together, in their opinions, whether, what, when, how, how much, with whom, to whom, by whom, and in what manner this ordinance should be kept whereas but a few words of instruction would have saved the world from all this jangle.

If there be any foundation for the sacrament in the scripture, there are other things which might, and ought to be practised, as well as that. For one thing we mention the washing of feet; (John xvi. 13, 14,) but when I ask the different denominations (Freewill Baptists and Sandemanians excepted) why they do not practise this ceremony, they cite me to Gen. xviii. 4-1 Sam. xxv-41 2. Sam. xi. 8-Exod. xxx. 19. From these passages, together with much history, they would show me that the washing of feet was a religious ceremony under the law, and in common practised by the inhabitants of the

eastern countries. They contend that it was practised as a type, and to be but an eastern custom. So I say by the bread and the wine that they were but types and in common use in the passover.

They say too by the washing of feet that if there had been such an institution, Matthew,Mark and Luke would have mentioned it, as well as John; and not only so, they say, that the apostles would have commanded the practice of it-so say I by the sacrament. If it had been a new institution, no doubt, John would have mentioned the bread and the wine as well as Matthew, Mark and Luke; besides, it cannot be shown that the apostles did ever command the one any more than the other; and the reason is (I believe) because the apostle well understood that there was no such institution. How intently did the loving disciple, John, listen (when he lay on his Lord's bosom) to his command. Had there been a new institution it would have been singular and new to all the disciples and not more singular than that John should have omitted it altogether in his account, and that the others should have said so little about it in theirs.

John was careful to remember his Lord's command and keep it too. Saith Christ, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I have loved you." Look into the 15th, 16th, and 17th chapters of John, all which probably passed at the supper ta

ble; note there that divine instruction, repeated exhortations to brotherly love, warning against satan, with that prayer of our Lord that his disciples might be kept by his Father to enjoy the best possible good. Collate this with the 1st, 2d, and 3d epistles of John and see that same heavenly-mindedness, which was in his Divine Master. There we see no lifeless ceremonies pressed upon his brethren but his exhortation to love, love, LOVE. Twenty times in the 4th chapter of his epistle he mentions love. His doctrine seems to have been that, and ALL that which he considered the command of his Lord, to wit: "CHILDREN, LOVE ONE ANOTHER."

CHAP. VII.

Many have a notion of something consecrated when they read in the scriptures of the breaking of bread, whereas the breaking of bread at a common meal, is only intended.— Luke, xxiv. 30.-Acts, ii. 24, 26.-xx. 7.-1 Cor. 11th chapter, have no allusion to a Sacramental eating, but to feasts which were full provisioned: One half pound of bread, and a small quantity of wine, did not serve for fifty persons, so nothing like the sacrament.

FEELING dismissed from that part of our subject which relates to the passover, we shall now notice such passages of scripture, as will amount to matter of consideration.

It is to be observed that the word, “BREAK

ING of bread" has become so consecrated in the minds of many people, that it seems to be difficult for them to read Luke, xxiv. 30. Acts, xx. 7, &c. but what their minds, immediately fancy a sacramental eating. But if they would give themselves the trouble to examine the scriptures they would find that the word breaking of bread is a word used by the Jews in all their common meals. The bread which the Jews had was mostly unyeasted, or of an unleavened kind; they had nothing equal to our high raised loaves; but their bread was made broad and thin, so that they needed no knife to divide it, therefore we frequently read in the scriptures of the breaking of bread; but nothing about cutting it. The first passage which comes before us is that which relates to the time when Christ first made himself known to his disciples after his resurrection, Luke,xxiv. 30. But little need to be said on this passage, after the text is carefully noticed. "And it came to pass as he sat at MEAT with them, he took bread and blessed it, and brake and gave to them."

This instance of breaking bread, blessing, &c. amounts to nothing more than that which was done by the master of every Jewish family, at the time of eating. This meal was made up of both bread and meat. "We are not," (says ADAM CLARKE on the passage) "to imagine, that he administered the Holy Eu charist at this time; there, is not the most