forms of words, from that of a command annexed to an instituted ordinance; except on the extravagant supposition, that they require the death of Christ to be celebrated in every drinking of wine, on the ordinary occasions of life. And even this will not avail, as to the words which concern the bread.

It has been hinted, that practice has a bearing on the question of command. Accordingly, it will be pertinent to remark, that very soon after the ascension, we read concerning the numerous disciples made to the Christian faith "They continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship; and in breaking of bread and in prayers:"* And this breaking of bread, is recorded again, as done "from house to house."+ Is this so carefully recorded, in order to inform future generations, that the new converts ate their meals? They might have dined in their respective houses: but they are here described, as a religiously social body. To solve this difficulty, there has been mentioned the community of goods, noticed in the same place; and on that circumstance, has been founded the supposition of the community of table. But this agrees not with the text; which says of the goods, that they "parted them to all men, as every man had need." And afterwards, on "a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration;" it is a case, which would hardly have happened under the circumstance of eating in common. Perhaps an errour may have arisen, from a misunderstanding of the words of the apostle-" It is not reason, that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables." This must be an expression, significative of being occupied in the pecuniary transactions of the Church: because there is not a particle of evidence, that Christians ate in common; except in the celebration of the Eucharist, and in the agapo or love feasts.

*Acts ii. 42. + Verse 46. || Verse 2.

Verse 45. S vi. 1.

We read of St. Paul's preaching long afterwards at Philippi, and on the first day of the week, when "the disciples came together to break bread." If this had no reference to a religious institution, why should a Christian Church come together for such a purpose; and why should they have fixed for it the first day of the week-the day confessedly appointed by the apostles, to succeed the Jewish Sabbath as a day of worship and of rest?

The Syriack translation, is commonly supposed to have been made in the second century. It is testified by those acquainted with the language, that in both of the places here treated of, the version speaks of " the bread of the Eucharist." In the century referred to, there was on the subject no opinion requiring to be confirmed, nor any prejudice requiring to be contradicted, by a forced construction of these places. It was therefore the natural result of the acceptation of the places from the beginning.

Under the head of practice, the tenth and the eleventh chapters of the first epistle to the Corinthians come into view. Concerning the sense of those chapters, some have contended, that it has no relation to an outward ordinance; although the apostle uses the terms-" the cup of blessing which we bless," and "the bread which we break;" which it is hard to construe into a figure. But they are so construed, because the apostle says" Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and the table of devils." It evidently means-ye cannot acceptably; or in such a sense, as to be real worshippers of the masters of these two different tables. But by an undue stress on the terms of negation, it is construed to be inconsistent with the acknowledged fact, that wicked men may and do partake of the elements of the Eucharist. Certainly, they anay and do partake of these: but they cannot partake of the Lord's table, in respect to its benefits; which were the matter in the contemplation of the apostle.

* Acts xx. 7.

† Verse 16.

Verse 21.

That part of the eleventh chapter relates to an outward ordinance, is conceded on the other side. And it is not contended, that the apostles, in correcting the abuses which had crept into the Corinthian Church, passed any censure on the administration itself. But it is said, that the rite having originated in the Jewish custom of blessing bread and wine at an ordinary meal, by the master of the house; the apostle did not forbid the act, but only enjoined the decorum with which it should be done. But there are overlooked many circumstances, which destroy all supposed sameness, in the contemplated cases. The said custom of religious Jews, is not alleged to have been any institution of their religion. It was domestick merely, and not introduced by them into the service of the synagogue or of the temple, or into any occasions of publick or social prayer. As to Gentile converts, of which the Corinthian Church was principally composed, they could have had no leaning to the practice; unless delivered to them as part of the Christian economy. Although therefore it is not denied, that there existed such a Jewish custom; or that our blessed Saviour may have taken occasion from it, at the close of the Paschal Supper, wherein his death was figuratively anticipated, to give the form to a new ordinance, in which the same death was to be commemorated in all ages to come; yet it is contended, that to the latter there is attached the sanction of a command, obvious in the words of the institution, and illustrated by succeeding practice.

But even on the supposition of command, it is contended to have been not designed for perpetuity.

This is obviated by the comment of St. Paul on the divine command, of which he was only the channel of conveyance-" As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death, till he come:"* that is, until the day of judgment-the sense pointed out by many other passages of the writings of the same

1 Cor. xlv. 26.

apostle. Had there not been the continuance so defi. nitely prescribed, the same would have been the result of the end to be answered by the ordinance; which, there being nothing declared to the contrary, ought to be the only line of limit to the duration. So long therefore as the death of the Lord shall be available to the pardon of sin; and so long as, in consequence of the imperfections of mankind in general, a sensible memorial of that event may contribute to the impressing of it on their minds; the command must have been intended to continue. It is here recollected, however, that the words quoted have been construed to signify -until he come in the hearts of those, to whom the epistle was addressed. Now although the apostle, on the subject in hand, passes a censure on a proportion of the Corinthian Church; and in other parts of the epistle uses language indicative of fault; yet to suppose, that the whole Church were without the coming of Christ in their hearts, after its being said in the beginning of the epistle, that they were "enriched in all utterance and in all knowledge,"* and that they "came behind in no gift," is a manifest inconsistency.

That there is further an inconsistency, in supposing that the command was temporary; and yet, that the apostolick age should pass away without any intimation of discontinuance, and without historick record to show that such an idea was entertained by any description of people, whether orthodox or heretick; was insisted on in the lecture. But there was not room to notice the counter fact which has been set up, in our Lord's washing of the feet of his disciples; and in his enjoining of them to do to one another, as he had done to them. The diversity of the cases may be made to appear from the following considerations.

First: the matter typified by the Eucharist, was the meritorious mean of redemption: whereas the washing of the feet was expressive of a single grace in Christian morals; although shown by this strong figure to be of † Verse 7.

* i. 5.

the essence of them; and especially called for by the evidences apparent in the apostles, of having their minds occupied by schemes of worldly greatness and dominion. Under these circumstances, the latter subject was less likely than the former, to be made the occasion of a commemorative ordinance of the Church, to be celebrated at all times and in all places.

Secondly: It is an acknowledged maxim, that laws may be explained by cotemporary facts. It is not alleged of the disciples of our Lord, that by any act of theirs, they showed their sense of their mas ters words to be the establishing of an outward ceremony, expressive of the inward grace which had been enjoined on them. Not only may the disciples be pronounced the best expositors of this text, on account of their past habits of intercourse with their master, and on account of their subsequent interviews with him between his resurrection and his ascension; but because of that spirit of inspiration, which was to "bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had said unto them."* It did not bring this subject to their remembrance, as a rite of the Christian Church: and therefore, it is not to be put on a footing in this respect with a rite which, under the same inspiration, they both practised themselves, and enjoined on all the Churches planted by them throughout the world.

It would be endless, were the design entertained of discussing all the passages, which are brought to disparage observances proper to the outward man, in comparison of the confessedly more estimable worship of the heart. An instance of this, is the frequent citing of Romans xiv. 17.-" The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." From which it is argued, that since bread and wine are meat and drink, they are foreign to every question * John, xiv. 26.