unite a spiritual with a ceremonial exercise of religion. Grasping therefore at things apparently irreconcilable, they have conceived the strangest notions; and, by giving these to the world, they have only afforded fuel for contention among themselves and others.

In the time of the Apostles it was the custom of converted persons, grounded on the circumstances that passed at the supper of the Passover, to meet in religious communion. They used on these occasions to break their bread, and take their refreshment and converse together: The object of these meetings was to imitate the last friendly supper of Jesus with his disciples, to bear a public memorial of his sufferings and of his death, and to promote their love for one another. But this custom was

nothing more, as far as evidence can be had, than that of a brotherly breaking of their bread together. It was no sacramental eating. Neither was the body of Jesus supposed to be enjoyed, nor the spiritual enjoyment of it to consist in the partaking of this outward feast.

In process of time, after the days of the Apostles, when this simple custom had declined, we find another meeting of Christians in imitation of that at the Passover-supper, at which both bread and wine were introduced. This different commemoration of the same event, had a new name given to it, for it was distinguished from the other by the name of Eucharist.

Alexander the seventh bishop of Rome, who introduced holy water both into houses and churches for spiritual purposes, made some

alterations in the ingredients of the Eucharist, by mixing water with the wine, and by substituting unleavened for common bread.

In the time of Irenæs, and Justin the Martyr, we find an account of the Euchrist, as it was then thought of and celebrated. Great stress was then laid upon the bread and wine, as a holy and sacramental repast. Prayers were made that the Holy Ghost would descend into each of these substances. It was believed that it did so descend: and that, as soon as the bread and wine perceived it, the former operated virtually as the body, and the latter as the blood of Jesus Christ. From this time the bread was considered to have great virtues; : and on this latter account, not only children but sucking infants were admitted to this sacrament. It was also given to persons on the approach of death. And many afterwards, who had great voyages to make at sea, carried it with them to preserve them both from temporal and spiritual dangers.

In the twelfth century, another notion, a little modified from the former, prevailed upon this subject; which was, that consecration by a priest had the power of abolishing the substance of the bread, and of substituting the very body of Jesus Christ. This was called the doctrine of transubstantiation.

This doctrine appeared to Luther, at the dawn of reformation, to be absurd; and he was of opinion, that the sacrament consisted of the substance of Christ's body and blood, together with the substance of the bread and wine; or,

in other words, that the substance of the bread' remained, but the body of Christ was inherent in it, so that the substance of the bread of the body and blood of Christ was there also. This was called the doctrine of consubstantiation, in contradistinction to the former.

Calvin, again, considered the latter opinion as erroneous. He gave it out that the bread was not actually the body of Jesus Christ, nor the wine his blood, but that both his body and blood were sacramentally received by the faithful in the use of the bread and wine. Calvin, however, confessed himself unable to explain even this his own doctrine; for he says, "If it be asked me how it is, that is, how believers sacramentally receive Christ's body and blood, I shall not be ashamed to confess, that it is a secret too high for me to comprehend in my spirit, or explain in words."

But, independently of the difficulties, which have arisen from these different notions, concerning the nature and constitution of the Lord's: Supper, others have arisen concerning the time and the manner they celebrate it.

The Christian Churches of the East, in the early times, justifying themselves by tradition and the custom of the Passover, maintained that the fourteenth day of the month Nissan ought to be observed as the day of the celebration of this feast, because the Jews were commanded to kill the Paschal lamb on that day. The Western, on the other hand, maintained, upon the authority of tradition and the primitive practice, that it ought to be kept on no other day

than that of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Disputes again of a different complexion, agitated the Christian world upon the same subject. One church contended that leavened, another that unleavened bread only should be used on this occasion. Others contended whether the administration of this sacrament should be by the hands of the clergy only. Others, whether it should not be confined to the sick, Others, whether it should be given to the young and mature, promiscuously. Others, whether it should be received by the communicants standing, sitting, or kneeling, or as the Apostles re-ceived it. And others; whether it should be ad ministered in the night time, as by our Saviour, or whether in the day, or whether only once, as at the Passover, or whether oftener in the year.

Another difficulty, but of a different nature, has occurred with respect to the Lord's Supper. This has arisen from the circumstance, that other ceremonies were enjoined by our Saviour, in terms equally positive as this, but which most Christians notwithstanding have thought themselves at liberty to reject Among these the washing of feet is particularly to be noticed. This custom was of an emblematic nature. It was enjoined at the same time as that of the Lord's Supper, and on the same occasion. But it was enjoined in a more forcible and striking manner. The Sandimanians, when they rose into a society, considered the injunction for this ordinance to be so obligatory, that they dared not dispense with it; and therefore, when they determined to celebrate the supper, they de-

termined that the washing of feet should be am ordinance of their church. Most other christians, however have dismissed the washing of feet from their religious observance. The reason given has principally been, that it was an eastern custom, and therefore local. To this the answer has been, that the Passover, from whence the Lord's Supper is taken, was an eastern custom also, but that it was much more local. Travellers of different nations had their feet washed for them in the East. But none except those of the circumcision were admitted to the Passover-supper. If therefore the injunction relative to the washing of feet be equally strong with that relative to the celebration of the supper, it has been presumed that both ought to have been retained; and, if one has been dispensed with on account of its locality, that both ought to have been discarded.

That the washing of feet was enjoined much more emphatically than the supper; we may collect from Barclay, whose observations upon it I shall transcribe on this occasion:

"But to give a further evidence," says he, "how these consequences have not any bottom from the practice of that ceremony, nor from the words following, 'Do this in remembrance of me,' let us consider another of the like nature, as it is at length expressed by John: * Jesus riseth from supper and laid aside his garments, and took a towel, and girded himself: after that, he poureth water into a basin, and began to

.

* John xiii. 3, &