I think no one will venture to say, that the table Jesus here speaks of, as being in his kingdom, &c. refers to any table used for a sacramental purpose; that point being gained is all I now aim at. Had it been otherwise, he (who for wisdom said he was greater than Solomon) would no doubt have given some directions to his Apostles, during the space of three years residence among them, about his table, whether it was to be of wood or of stone, the dimensions thereof, its length, breadth, and depth specified; whether to be placed in St. Peter's at Rome, or in St. Paul's at London; and if more than one was to be allowed, how many, and a race of priests appointed to officiate at the said table or tables. But not a word is mentioned in all the apostolic writings of any such table, either with or without bread and wine thereon, as being the Lord's in particular. "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof," 1 readily admit.

Now the only acknowledged table of the Lord, in Scripture, was that in the temple of Jerusalem; this was worthy to be so called, because made according to the express command of God, for an express purpose: it was nevertheless, contemptible in the estimation of those priests, who offered polluted bread on it in the days of Malachi the prophet, though they still called it the table of the Lord.

The Apostle Paul evidently refers to this table when he makes mention of the Lord's table in 1 Cor. x. 21, from the tenor of the whole chapter, the only place where the words are to be found. Jesus also refers to the table of the Lord in the temple, when he speaks of bringing gifts to the altar; not a sacramental table, as many believe in the present day, and was generally so agreed on by the ancient fathers.

What now shall be done for a table, seeing that of the Lord's at Jerusalem has been long ago destroyed by the Romans, and the Lord God in heaven has not ordained another in its stead; nor did Jesus while on earth; nor has he since he rose from the dead given any intimation that any other table should be made? I therefore assert that those tables in common use for ecclesiastical purposes are falsely called the Lord's tables. These being overthrown, it follows of course that all that is upon them fall to the ground, and likewise the services of officiating priests may be dispensed with.

Upon examining the four accounts in Scripture of the supposed institution of what is falsely called the Lord's Supper, the testimony of those two Apostles who were present on the occasion ought, in my opinion, to have the greatest weight in every unbiassed mind. Matthew was one; he simply states, that" as they were eating (the passover supper) Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to the disciples, and

said, take eat, this is my body; and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them saying, drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for the remission of sins." Now as to Jesus taking bread and the cup, and giving thanks to God, this was nothing more than the usual practice of the master of every Jewish family on the like occasion, and is still the practice of Jews to this day. The word it (in italics) occurs three times in the 26th verse, common version, but as I read in the margin, many Greek copies have gave thanks, I reject the word; and with that away goes the doctrine of consecrating the elements. Blessing bread, and giving thanks to God, are two different things.

Why this translation is not more uniform and correct, the following extract from the preface may afford some clue-" and now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labours, it being brought unto such conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the CHURCH OF ENGLAND shall reap good fruit thereby."

The beloved disciple John, who leaned on the bosom of his Lord at the passover supper, we may justly suppose would have been very careful to relate every particular concerning this supper, had Jesus intended that his disciples in all ages should observe a similar ceremony; but not a syllable is to be found in the whole of his writings of any such intention on the part of Jesus. Yet has he been very minute in mentioning every circumstance which relates to washing his disciples' feet, adding these words, "ye call me master and lord, and ye say well; for so I am. If then your lord and master have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet; for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you." Notwithstanding the minuteness of the apostle, who was an eye witness to the transaction, and the (apparent) express enjoinment of Jesus on his disciples to practise the same, yet is this totally overlooked by the advocates for the bread and wine ceremony, excepting the Sandemanians, who hold it in sentiment, but (by the bye) never practise it, that ever 1 have heard. The testimony of Mark (though not present at the supper) is similar to that of Matthew. The Evangelist Luke adds the following, in addition to breaking the bread at supper, "this do in remembrance of me," and that Jesus likewise after supper took the cup; Judas, who betrayed him, was present. There is no mention in either of the four ac counts of any bread being broke after the supper, and the additional evidence of Luke adds nothing in support of the ecclesiastical supper.

Ye sacramental defenders, 1 appeal to your understandings, and ask you, how is it that ye hold to the one, and reject the

other with disdain, seeing the injunction to wash one another's feet is as strong, if not more so, than that to eat bread and wine? for where is the difference between "this do in remembrance of me," and "do ye as I have done to you," twice told? Is not this your answer?-the one is convenient, but the other not quite so. What! and is it really true, that enlightened Unitarians go crouching unto the priest to partake of a morsel of bread, and sip a little wine, arrogantly styled the Lord's Supper? Is it possible?-surely this ought not to be!

The conduct of Jesus towards his disciples at the passover supper, in washing their feet, breaking their bread, and handing to them the cup of wine (thus waiting upon them as servant of all), was no doubt to teach them a striking lesson of humility and practical usefulness, enforcing the same by his own example, as well as informing their minds of his death, shortly to take place, and the important benefits they would thereby derive. To illustrate this idea 1 need only mention the words of Jesus himself: it appears there was a strife among the disciples at the supper, which of them should be accounted the greatest; Jesus observing this, avails himself of the opportu nity to allay their animosity, and crush their foolish pride, by doing as stated above: " for whether (said he) is greater, he that sitteth at meat or he that serveth? 1s not he that sitteth at meat? but 1 am among you as he that serveth. As 1 have set you an example, so do ye in remembrance of me; he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve!"

The circumstance of Jesus breaking bread with the two disciples going to Emmaus has been construed as meaning a sacramental supper. There it is also stated as he sat at meat, he took bread and blessed; there is also lacking the cup-let him that readeth understand—the three thousand souls added to the church on the day of Pentecost, continued stedfastly in the Apostles' doctrine, and fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. Great stress is laid upon this passage, merely be cause breaking of bread is mentioned in connection with the Apostles' doctrine, &c. but that the writer of the Acts of the Apostles actually meant any thing more than eating their meat, as explained in the 46th verse of the same chapter, can only be supported by inference; and I repeat again, "In at that door hath all superstition crept.'

The Apostle Paul having come to Troas, tarried there seven days (Acts xx.), and met the disciples who came together to break bread (as it is probable they usually did) upon the first night (not day) of the week, unless it was a very dark and cloudy day, for there were many lights in the upper chambers where they were met together. Here again is the door of inference

opened, which lets in the notion of a sacramental repast; but not so is the fact; for after the accident which befel the young man Eutychus, Paul went up again and broke bread, and did eat, and talked a long while, even till break of day; an evident proof that the disciples had met together on the evening of the past day to eat a Christian meal together. There is one more instance of breaking bread, which also decisively means eating a common meal: that of Paul and the ship's company with him (Acts xxvii. 34, 35, 36). The door of inference opened to let in any other notion must be exceeding wide indeed.

I come now to the last intrenchment of the advocates for this celebrated supper, the Apostle Paul's account of the supposed institution of it (1 Cor. xi.); and as if to fortify the same with invincible strength, nothing short of the Almighty power of God (bestowed in a miraculous manner on the Apostle) is called in aid, to support the idea of a sacramental supper, to be observed in all ages. So strongly is this rooted in their minds, that 1 for my part have observed in the controversies both with my late brethren and others, that this has been the place of rendezvous; the conversation has almost invariably turned upon this point, whether it was about Water Baptism or the aforesaid supper: it therefore demands particular attention, seeing it must be taken by storm. Here then it appears that that indefatigable searcher after truth, Dr. Priestley, sat down with all his mighty forces, viewed the fortress, and deemed it impregnable; but the battle is not always to the strong!

It is generally, if not universally, believed, that Paul received that account of the passover supper by immediate revelation from above; not mediately, through the testimony of the Apostles, with whom he had been conversant before he came to Corinth. The latter was no doubt the case, though with God all things are possible; but, in this instance, it was 'most improbable that Paul should be made acquainted by revelation, with a circumstance so well known by all the Apostles, and by the time he saw any of them, to a great number of people. The words "I have received of (or from) the Lord" do not necessarily imply immediate revelation; for instance, we say, 1 received such and such a letter or present from a friend, yet it may be, as most commonly is the case, through the hands of several persons; and we may just as well conclude that Cain dropt from the sky, like the image which fell down from Jupiter, according to the testimony of the town clerk at Ephesus; for on the first appearance of Cain upon the earth, Eve positively said "I have gotten a man from the Lord," as to believe that Paul received that account by immediate revelation from the Lord.

Paul was one of those who were delegated by the Apostles

"

and elders, with the whole church assembled at Jerusalem, to deliver certain decrees or ordinances to the different churches in every city through which they were to pass. Paul, after being at Athens, came to Corinth (A. D. 54) where he abode one year and six months, teaching the word of God among the Corinthians, many of whom believed his testimony concerning Jesus, and the resurrection. (Acts xviii.) About three years after he left Corinth, he wrote an epistle or letter to the church of God in that city, wherein he praises his brethren for remembering him in all things, and for keeping the ordinances as they were delivered unto them by himself (I Cor. xi. 2). Now that this was not the case with what he calls the Lord's Supper, or feast, is evident; for he could not praise them for the manner in which they ate and drank that Supper when met together, nor does he call it an ordinance at all, not doing after the manner Jesus did at the Passover Supper as an example: the account of which he had aforetime delivered unto them. For as often (adds the Apostle) as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the (purport of the) Lord's death till he come. What was the design of the Lord's death, but to reconcile sinners unto God, and to one another? Thus to form of all nations one united band, eminently shewn forth when Christians meet together, and eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, for they are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the household of God. And in what respect did the Corinthians fail of eating the Lord's Supper, and shewing forth his death, the Apostle tells us in verse 21-" for in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry and another is thirsty. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another, and if any man hunger (so that he cannot tarry for his brethren) let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation." It is not at all probable, nay scarcely possible, for the church of God at Corinth to have so corrupted and so totally changed a supper (so called) consisting merely of a morsel of bread and wine, to a feast of gluttony and wine bibbing, in the short space of three years, if so long, during the absence of Paul, and especially as we find he resided eighteen months in that city (verse 11), during which time they must have had the constant example, and all necessary instruction, respecting such a bread and wine ceremony, had such really existed. So firmly must it have been impressed on their minds, as not to be so very soon effaced, if at all as long as they lived. Besides, during the interval of Paul's leaving that city, and his writing the first epistle to the church, allowing it to be three full years, which is the very utmost, they had at least Apollos and Cephas with them, who were noted men of old-men of