tablished in the church.-Till the thirteenth century, those who partook of the sacrament, communicated standing, but now they did so on their knees.—In the same century the people were ordered, by a papal decree, to fall down in adoration at the elevation of the host; the signal for which was the ringing of a bell. The host was also carried in solemn procession through the streets, when about to be administered to the sick.-The great festival of Corpus Christi was instituted by Urban IV. in 1264; and Thomas Aquinas composed the office for it.The custom of giving the bread only to the laity, and denying them the wine, was introduced about this time; though it was not universally observed till it was established by the council of Constance, in 1415.

I have left unnoticed a serious controversy, which arose in the eleventh century, between the Greek and Roman churches on the question, whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the sacrament. The Greeks used the latter, and were undoubtedly in the right, if the original celebration was to be regarded as authority; for the Jews always ate unleavened bread with the Paschal Supper. The Romans agreed with them at last. But to me the whole contention seems about as important, as that which has so long and vehemently been maintained on the point, whether in the rite of baptism, the recipient should be sprinkled or dipt.

The abuses of this institution had grown to such enormous proportions, and had struck their roots so deeplyinto the whole soil of Christendom, that even in the times of the reformation we shall look in vain to see them eradicated. Neither Wickliffe nor Huss absolutely rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation. Luther, instead of returning to the age and the simplicity of Christ, only went back to the eighth century, and took up the doctrine of Paschasius, or something very like it, in what

had been called, some time before, consubstantiation. As Paschasius explained himself by the simile of a lighted coal, which is fire united with wood, so did Luther by that of heated iron, which is fire united with iron. His colleague, however, Carolstadt, was more simple in his creed, and believed the elements to be but the symbols of the body of Christ, which, in communion, were intended and calculated to excite a vivid remembrance of his sufferings. Zuinglius also opposed the great reformer on this subject, and showed himself here, as well as on some other occasions, the more sensible man of the two.-Socinus was equally rational.-Calvin went back about as far as the second century, and taught that a divine efficacy was imparted to the bread and wine. The church of England, neither in article 25th, on Sacraments, nor in the 28th, on the Lord's Supper, so plainly declares a supernatural efficacy in the elements, that a more rational faith may not be gathered from them ; but they are nevertheless, a little mystical.-The same may be said of the Presbyterian faith, as it is set forth in the Assembly's Catechism. It requires rather more explanation, however, before it can be translated into christian truth.

The opinion among thinking Unitarians is, without exception, as far as I know, that which I have maintained in the former portions of this treatise. The general sentiment, however, among all Christians, is one of indefinite awe and dread at approaching the communion table. It will be long, I presume, before such a sentiment will cease to be felt even by protestants; for it is hard to throw off the chains which centuries have been forging.

A few remarks have suggested themselves to me, while pursuing the above recital, which I will now put down as briefly as possible.

One is, that antiquity is but poor authority for the truth of any doctrine. If, among the very earliest fathers of the church, we are presented with the first principles of a superstition, as wild as any that ever took possession of the brain of man, they are not to be reverenced highly, nor trusted implicitly. We may resort to them with confidence for a great number of historical facts; but their opinions are but opinions, and frequently very absurd ones too, and should be questioned as readily, and examined with as much freedom, as the opinions of any other men.

A second conclusion is, that a doctrine cannot be a plain and fundamental doctrine of Christianity, which, instead of being explicitly declared in the Scriptures, is gradually built up by fathers, councils and popes. As a Christian, I should always feel myself bound, positively and openly to deny the Christian authority of any opinion or system, which I neither could discover in any part of the New Testament, nor any where else for a century after its books were composed. On this ground, as well as on some others, I deny the truth of several doctrines, which have been, and still are esteemed orthodox; one of which is the doctrine of the trinity.

I would remark in the third place, as a suggestion which naturally arises from the foregoing narrative, that simplicity is the truest sublimity. Shows and festivals. may for a while lead captive the senses, and impose upon the heart-but at last they grow common and tedious and tasteless; the mind demands something to exercise its sterner powers, and the heart, becoming disgusted with outside forms, yearns for the satisfaction of its deep and vital cravings. After we have been listening to the story of the increasing superstitions, the absurd theories, the minute and foolish disputes, the smoking and scented ceremonies, which for centuries were gathering round the table of our Lord, do we not turn for refreshment, to the

simple accounts which the Scriptures afford us, of the simple institution of the Lord's Supper?

SECTION VI.

Concluding Remarks.

I HAVE now finished what I had to say on the authority, the nature and design, the efficacy and obligation, together with the history, of the Lord's Supper. As I believe that my sentiments on this subject are evangelical, practical and beneficial, I cannot but entertain the fervent hope, that they may be adopted by those whose minds have hitherto been unsettled with regard to it, and also be candidly received by others, in the place of opinions which cannot be reconciled with the simplicity of the gospel. That something may in this way be effected, I implore of Him, who alone is able to prosper the efforts of his servants, and the means of knowledge and grace. Be it ever so little, I shall be satisfied and grateful.

Before I bid farewell to my readers, I have a few observations to make, which could not have been conveniently introduced into the preceding discussion, but which ought not to be wholly omitted.

And first, I would address myself to that class of Christians, who, while they acknowledge the authority of this rite, and admit its simplicity, and perceive the disgraceful consequences which have attended its various human perversions, nevertheless commit the weak inconsistency of denying by their conduct what they confess with their lips, and suffer themselves to be influenced and ruled by the very superstitions which their free understandings disdain. To speak, if possible, in plainer terms, I mean those Christians, who would allow the truth of every word which I have advanced in the course of this essay, and who yet permit themselves to be kept away from the table

of their Lord, by a thousand fears, apprehensions and misgivings, which they can neither define nor defend.

To such I would briefly say, how can you thus suffer your imaginations, your timidity, or the customs of the world, to trifle with your serious convictions? How can you answer to your conscience this neglect of your unquestionable duty? How can you be afraid to do what you acknowledge you are invited and required to do, and what is so perfectly within your power to do? You profess your willingness, as well as your obligation, to obey your Master to the extent of your ability;-why do you not obey him then in so simple a thing-why will you not do this in remembrance of him? Whence comes this in'consistency? Where is your excuse for it? Do you plead that you are not prepared? What preparation do you mean? Are you not prepared to grant a last request of your Saviour; and is not the performance of that request in itself a preparation for increased virtue and holiness? Do you say that you cannot encounter the observation of the world, nor oppose yourself to the influence of its mistaken notions? How can you bring forward such an excuse as that?

But I may be told by some, that in all their neighbourhood there is not a church that will receive them, nor a clergyman who will suffer them to approach the communion table, unless they subscribe a confession of faith which they hold to be unsound, and from which they entirely dissent. While I commiserate the situation of such persons, I must admit the validity of their plea;—and then I would turn to those churches and those clergymen, of whom I know there is an abundance, in this and other lands, and ask them, by what authority they deny the elements to any individual, who names the name of Jesus Christ, and would depart from iniquity? I demand their warrant and I protest against their unhallowed exclu