more deeply impressive, and the sign and the signified have their due correspondence and influence.

These circumstances considered, will it not appear that the use of common bread in the sacrament of the Lord's supper is highly improper? he who can say, " This is a matter of no importance," may say, with equal propriety, the bread itself is of no importance; and another may say, the wine is of no importance; and a third may say, "neither the bread nor wine is any thing, but as they lead to spiritual references; and the spiritual reference being once understood, the signs are useless." Thus we may, through affected spirituality, refine away the whole ordinance of God, and, with the letter and form of religion, abolish religion itself. Many have already acted in this way, not only to their loss, but their ruin, by showing how profoundly wise they are above what is written. Let those, therefore, who consider that man shall live by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God, and who are conscientiously solicitous that each divine institution be not only preserved, but observed in all its original integrity, attend to this circumstance. I grant, that it is probable that their use of unleavened bread in the sacrament of the Lord's supper may excite the sneer of the profane, or the pretended pity of those who think, in spirituality, they are above that which is infinitely above them; yet, while the conscientious followers of God dare even to be singular in that which is right, and are not ashamed of Christ and his WORDS, they shall be acknowledged by him when he comes in the kingdom and glory of his Father. However, in this opinion I am not singular, as the Lutheran church makes use of unleavened bread to the present day.

3. And blessed it.-Both St. Matthew and St. Mark use the word ευλογησας, blessed, instead of ευχαρίςησας, gave thanks, which is the word used by St. Luke and St. Paul. The terms, in this case, are nearly of the same import, as both blessing and giving thanks were

used on these occasions. But what was it that our Lord blessed? Not the bread, though many think the contrary, being deceived by the word IT, which is improperly supplied in our version. In all the four places referred to above, whether the word blessed or gave thanks is used, it refers not to the bread but to God, the dispenser of every good. Our Lord here conforms himself to that constant Jewish custom, viz. of acknowledging God as the author of every good and perfect gift, by giving thanks on taking the bread, and taking the cup at their ordinary meals. For every Jew was forbidden to eat, drink, or use any of God's creatures, without rendering him thanks, and he who acted contrary to this command was considered as a person who was guilty of sacrilege. From this custom we have derived the decent and laudable one of saying grace, (gratias thanks) before and after The Jewish form of blessing, and probably that which our Lord used on this occasion, none of my readers will be displeased to find here; on taking the bread they say;

meat.

ברוך אתה אלהינו מלך העולם המוצא לחם מן הארע

Baruch, atta Eloheenoo, Melech ha olam, ha motse Lechem min haarets.

Blessed be thou our God, King of the universe, who bringest forth bread out of the earth!

Likewise on taking the cup, they say;

ברוך אלהינו מלך העולם בורא פרי הנפן

Baruch, Eloheenoo, Melech, haôlam, Boré peree haggephen.

Blessed be our God, the King of the universe, the Creator of the fruit of the vine!

The Mohammedans copy their example, constantly saying before and after meat.

الله الرحمن الرحيم يا

Bismillahi arrahmani arraheemi.

In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate,

No blessing therefore of the elements is here intended; they were already blessed, in being sent as a gift of mercy from the bountiful Lord; but God the sender is blessed. because of the liberal provision he has made for his worthless creatures. Blessing and touching the bread, are merely popish ceremonies, unauthorized either by Scripture, or the practice of the pure church of God; necessary of course to them who pretend to transmute, by a kind of spiritual incantation, the bread and wine, into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ; a measure, the grossest in folly, and most stupid in nonsense, to which God, in judgment ever abandoned the fallen spirit of man. What under God, generated PROTESTANTISM? The protestation of a few of his followers in 1529, against the supremacy of the Pope, the extravagant, disgraceful, and impious doctrine of transubstantiation, and the sale of indulgences connected with it. But let the Protestant take care that while he rejects a doctrine teeming with monstrous absurdities, and every contradictious sentiment, he also avoid those acts and ridiculous rites, such as blessing and touching the sacred elements, by which it was pretended this fancied transubstantiation was brought about.

4. And brake it.-We often read in the Scriptures of breaking bread, but never of cutting it. The Jewish people had nothing analogous to our high raised loaf: their bread was made broad and thin, and was consequently very brittle, and to divide it, there was no need of a knife.

The breaking of the bread, I consider essential to the proper performance of this solemn and significant ceremony; because this act was designed by our Lord to shadow forth the wounding, piercing, and breaking of his body upon the cross: and as all this was essentially necessary to the making a full atonement for the sin of the world; so it is of vast importance that this apparently little circumstance, the breaking of the bread, should be carefully attended to, that the godly communicant may have every

necessary assistance to enable him to discern the Lord's body while engaged in this most important and divine of all God's ordinances. But who does not see that one small cube of fermented i. e. leavened bread, previously divided from the mass with a knife, and separated by the fingers of the minister, can never answer the end of the institution, either as to the matter of the bread, or the mode of dividing it? Man is naturally a dull and heedless creature, especially in spiritual things, and has need of the utmost assistance of his senses, in union with those expressive rites and ceremonies which the holy Scripture, not tradition, has sanctioned, in order to enable him to arrive at spiritual things through the medium of earthly similitudes.

5. He gave it unto his disciples.-Not only the breaking, but also the DISTRIBUTION of the bread are necessary parts of this rite. In the Romish church the bread is not broken nor delivered to the people that THEY may take and eat; but the consecrated wafer is put upon their tongue by the priest, and he is reputed the most worthy communicant who does not masticate, but swallow it whole.

'That the breaking of this bread to be distributed,” says Dr. Whitby, "is a necessary part of this rite is evident, first, by the continual mention of it by St. Paul, and all the evangelists, when they speak of the institution of this sacrament, which shows it to be a necessary part of it. 2. Christ says, Take, eat, this is my body BROKEN for you, 1 Cor. xi, 24. But when the elements are not broken, it can be no more said, This is my body broken for you, than where the elements are not given. 3. Our Lord said, Do this in remembrance of me: i. e. 'Eat this bread broken, in remembrance of my body broken on the cross;' now where no body broken, is distributed, there, nothing can be eaten in memorial of his broken body. Lastly, the apostle, by saying, The bread which we BREAK, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? sufficiently informs us,

that the eating of his broken body is necessary to that end, 1 Cor. x, 10. Hence it was, that this rite of distributing bread broken continued for a thousand years; and was, as Humburtus testifies, observed in the Roman church, in the eleventh century." WHITBY in loco. At present, the opposite is as boldly practised, as if the real scriptural rite had never been observed in the church of Christ.

6. This is my body.-Here it must be observed, that Christ had nothing in his hands at this time, but part of that unleavened bread which he and his disciples had been eating at supper, and therefore he could mean no more than this, viz. that the bread which he was now breaking represented his body, which, in the course of a few hours, was to be crucified for them. Common sense, unsophisticated with superstition and erroneous creeds; and reason, unawed by the secular sword of sovereign authority, could not possibly take any other meaning than this plain, consistent, and rational one, out of these words. “ But, says a false and absurd creed: Jesus meant, when he said HOC EST CORPUS MEUM, (this is my body) and HIC EST CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, This is the chalice of my blood, that the bread and wine were substantially changed into his body, including flesh, blood, bone, yea, the whole Christ, in his immaculate humanity, and adorable divinity!" and for denying this what rivers of righteous blood have been shed by state persecutions, and by religious wars! Well, it may be asked, "Can any man of sense believe, that when Christ took up that bread and broke it, that it was his own body which he held in his own hands, and which himself broke to pieces, and which he and his disciples eat?" He who can believe such a congeries of absurdities, cannot be said to be a volunteer in faith-for it is evident, the man can neither have faith nor reason.

Let it be observed, if any thing farther is necessary on this subject, that the paschal lamb is called the passover, because it represented the destroying angel's passing