which it is evident, that it was intended to be a standing memorial of the death of Christ until his second advent.

ap

When Christ says, "this is my body," to suppose that he meant to teach, that the piece of bread which he held in his hand, was literally his material body, is an opinion so monstrous, and involving so many contradictions, that it never could have originated but in a dark and superstitious age. In the first place, it was contradicted by all the senses, for the properties of bread and wine remained after the words were spoken, just the same as before. In all other cases of miracles, the peal is to the senses: no example can be adduced of men being required to believe any thing contrary to the testimony of their senses. But if the bread which Christ held in his hand was literally his body, he must have had two bodies; and if he partook of the bread, he must have eaten his own body. He says, "This is my body, which is broken for you." "This is my blood, which is shed for you:" if these words are taken literally, then Christ was already slain, and his blood already shed; he was, therefore, crucified before he was nailed to the cross. Moreover, if the bread is transubstantiated every time this sacrament is celebrated, Christ must have as many bodies as there are officiating priests: and while his body is glorified in heaven, it is offered as a sacrifice on earth, in thousands of different places. And while the glorified body in heaven is no longer composed of flesh and blood, the body made out of the bread and wine, is a real body of flesh containing blood, as when he tabernacled among men. And if the thing were possible, what spiritual benefit could be derived, from devouring flesh? From its nature, being material, it could not nourish the spiritual life. And when re

ceived into the stomach as food, what becomes of it? is it incorporated, like common food, into our bodies? -But I will not pursue the subject further. Before a man can believe in transubstantiation, he must take leave both of his reason and his senses.

The withholding the cup from the laity is an open violation of our Lord's command, and a manifest mutilation of the ordinance; and the pretence for this presumptous departure from the express command of Christ is both superstitious and impious; for it implies that Christ, in the institution of the cup was wanting in wisdom, or that he was regardless of the danger of having his blood desecrated, by being spilt.

As the Lord's Supper is a memorial of the death of Christ, it should be celebrated often, that this great sacrifice, on which our salvation depends, may not be forgotten, but kept in lively remembrance in the Christian church.

If it be inquired, in what sense is Christ present in the eucharist? we answer, spiritually, to those who by faith apprehend and receive him. The idea of a bodily presence in, with, or under the bread and wine, is little less absurd than the doctrine of transubstantiation. Indeed, in some respects, it is even more impossible, for it requires and supposes the ubiquity of Christ's body. The truth then is, that only they who exercise faith in Christ, as exhibited in the eucharist, eat his flesh and drink his blood. A participation of the instituted signs, without faith to discern the Lord's body, is so far from being beneficial, that it involves the guilt of an awful crime; for"he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself." He is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. "Let a man examine himself, therefore,

and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup."

To make a matter of importance of mere indifferent circumstances in the celebration of the sacraments, has been the cause of useless and hurtful contentions; and to insist on any thing as necessary to a sacrament, which Christ has not expressly enjoined, is a wicked usurpation of his authority, by adding human inventions to divine ordinances.

The value of the Lord's Supper is incalculable. It is admirably adapted to our nature. It is simple, and its meaning easily apprehended by the weakest minds. It is strongly significant and impressive. It has been called an epitome of the whole gospel, as the central truths of the system, in which all the rest are implied, are here clearly exhibited. And it ever has been signally blessed to the spiritual edification and comfort of the children of God. They, therefore, who neglect this ordinance, do at the same time, disobey a positive command of Christ, and deprive themselves of one of the richest privileges which can be enjoyed on this side of heaven.

CHAPTER XXXIII.

THE LORD'S DAY AND DIVINE WORSHIP.

REASON teaches that there is a God, and that He ought to be worshipped. Had man remained in his primeval state of integrity, social worship would have been an incumbent duty. But, from a survey of the constitution of man, it is evident that continual worship, whatever may be the fact in heaven, would not have been required of him while on the earth. The book of nature was spread out before him; and it would have been his duty to read daily those lessons which were taught by the heavens and the earth, the animal, vegetable, and mineral worlds. And we know, from express revelation, that it was appointed unto him to keep the garden of Eden, and dress it; and this would have required much attention, and vigorous exertion. It was never intended that man should lead an idle or inactive life. Employment would in innocency have been as necessary to his happiness, as it is now to the human race. He was also constituted lord of the inferior animals; and the exercise of this dominion would of necessity occupy a portion of his time and attention. From a deliberate consideration of the circumstances in which man was placed, it may be legitimately inferred, that in order to perform the primary duty of worshipping his Creator in that manner which was becoming and proper, he must have had some portion of his time appropriated to that service.

The worship due to the great Creator requires time for the contemplation of his attributes, as revealed in his glorious works. It requires time, also, to recollect all the manifestations of his wisdom and goodness in the dispensations of his Providence, and to give vocal expression to feelings of gratitude for the benefits received, and the happiness bestowed. No doubt, devotional feelings were habitual in the hearts of our first parents. No doubt, they sent up, more formally, their morning and evening orisons; but more time is needed to draw off the thoughts from visible things, and to concentrate them on the great invisible First Cause the Giver of existence, and of all its capacities and enjoyments. Short snatches of time are not sufficient to perform this noblest of all duties in a proper manner. A whole day, at certain periods, was needed, so that there might be time for the contemplation of divine things, and for the full and free exercises of devotion. And as man is a social being, and so constituted, that by uniting with others who have the same views and feelings, his own through sympathy are rendered more animating and pleasing, it is evident that it was intended that mankind should worship and praise God in a general and public, as well as in an individual and private capacity. Now, it is too obvious to need proof, that social worship requires stated times, known to all the people, on which they may assemble for this divine employment. What proportion of time should be consecrated to this service, the reason of man, prior to experience, could not have determined. If it had been left free by the law of God, it would have been difficult to agree on the proportion; and if agreed upon, the obligation to set apart the due proportion of time would not have been so binding and sacred, as if the