under the old. Exod. xxiv. Heb. ix. i. e. The Paschal Lamb, and the sprinkling of blood, represented my sacrifice to the present time: this bread and this wine shall represent my body and blood through all future ages: therefore Do this in remembrance of me.' pp 53, 54. Not less powerful and pointed are the observations levelled against another corruption of the Romish church,-withholding the cup from the laity.

'Drink ye ALL of THIS. By this we are taught that the cup is essential to the sacrament of the Lord's supper; so that they who deny the cup to the people, sin against God's institution; and they who receive not the cup, are not partakers of the body and blood of Christ. If either could without mortal prejudice be omitted, it might be the bread; but the cup as pointing out the blood, poured out, i. e. the life, by which alone the great sacrificial act is performed, and remission of sins procured, is absolutely indispensable. On this ground it is demonstrable, that there is not a popish priest under heaven, who denies the cup to the people, (and they all do this) that can be said to celebrate the Lord's supper at all; nor is there one of their votaries that ever received the holy sacrament. All pretension to this is an absolute farte, so long as the cup, the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied, How strange is it, that the very man, who pleads so much for the bare literal meaning of this is my body, in the preceding verse, should deny all meaning to drink ye all of this cup, in this verse! and though Christ has in the most positive manner enjoined it, they will not permit one of the laity to taste it! what a thing is man! a constant contradiction to reason and to himself. The conclusion therefore is unavoidable. The sacrament of the Lord's supper is NOT celebrated in the church of Rome.' pp. 60, 61.

Among many excellent observations enforcing the obli gation on Christians to observe this rite, and descr bing those views and feelings with which only it can be observed rightly, we may notice the following:

If the blessed God has instituted this solemnity to bring to remem brance the death of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, and a person, calling himself a Christian, comes forward to the sacred feast, with a creed determined against this scriptural, and indeed only religious use of it, does he not in heart change the sacrifice? are not the crucifixion of the body, and the spilling of the blood, perverted from their grand purpose; and the awful solemnity polluted in his hands? He pretends to remember Christ crucified, but he commemorates the sprinkling of his blood not as an atonement for sin, but " as a necessary consequence of Jewish malice, and of the unshaken integrity of the founder of Christianity, who, to convince the world that he was sincere, and that his doctrines were all true, submitted to a painful and ignominious death!" Is not this eating and drinking unworthily ? p. 94.

In explaining the different epithets given to this ordinance, Dr. C. supposes that the most ancient and universal by which it has been distinguished is that of the Eucharist, and supports his opinion by a passage from Chrysostom, and the adoption of the term in the Syriac version, the oldest and purest extant.

To this appellation, simply and without addition, we see no just objection, as the ordinance is a memorial of the most valuable and comprehensive benefit bestowed by Divine Wisdom and Goodness, the gift of the Son of God for our redemption.-The Lord's Supper, though a general appellative for this institution, Dr. C. considers as very improper, and thinks that St. Paul, in using the term, 1 Cor. xi. 20, refers to the Ayarn, or love-feast. On this particular point, we happen to think differently from Dr. C., and are inclined to suppose that if he applies his critical skill to an attentive consideration of the connection in this passage, vv. 18-27, he will find reason to suspect the accuracy of his opinion. The apostle censures the irregularity of the Corinthians in converting the ordinance of which he speaks into a common meal. He observes that this is not to eat the Lord's Supper; such conduct was foreign from the original and religious purpose of the ordinance; and to correct their abuse of it, he immediately subjoins the language of the original institution, as he had received it from the Lord by inspiration. Does not this indubitably prove, that the object he had in view was to recal them to the just and regular celebration of that ordinance, which was intended to commemorate the Redeemer's death, according to his own appointment? Connecting the evidence arising from this part of the chapter, with the total want of evidence as to the existence of love-feasts, at this time, among the Corinthians, we are fully persuaded, that in using the phrase the Lord's Supper, v. 20, the apostle gives to the Eucharist this distinguishing and appropriate appellation, the only one which, in our opinion, has the sanction of scriptural authority. The terms breaking of bread, and communion, Dr. C. satisfactorily explains. We extract some passages from his comment on the epithet Sacrament.

The reason and true meaning of this appellative being, I conceive, very little known, I shall endeavour to consider this subject more minutely than I have done in any of the preceding cases. Though this term as applied to the Eucharist is no where to be found in Scripture, yet it appears to have been in use very early in the primitive church. The first time it is mentioned, probably in reference to this solemn act, is in the well known epistle of Pliny Secundus, to the Emperor Trajan.' p. 82. After explaining the occasion of Pliny's epistle to Trajan, and giving an extract from it, Dr. C. adds,

The word sacramentum properly means the military oath, whch every Roman soldier was obliged to take, of fidelity and obedience to his general. From this we may learn both the reason and meaning of the term sacrament, as applied to the Eucharist Considering the various oppositions which the disciples of Christ might expect to meet with from the devil and his servants, and which they were expected to resist,

continuing faithful even at the hazard of their lives; all that embraced the Gospel were represented as enlisting themselves under the banner of Christ, whose faithful soldiers they promised to be. And, as the captain of their salvation was made perfect by sufferings, they were expected to follow him in the same path, loving not their lives even unto death. Now, as in the holy Eucharist their obligations to their divine leader were set before them in the most impressive and affecting point of view, they made this their covenant sacrifice an occasion of binding themselves afresh to their Lord, to fight manfully under his banner. Hence, as there was a continual reference to the Sacramentum, or military oath, the blessed ordinance itself appears to have been termed the sacrament, because in it they took the vows of the Lord upon them; and as often as they celebrated this sacred ordinance, they ratified the covenant engagements which they had made at their baptism.' pp. 84, 85.

The form of the oath, as given by Polybius, is subjoined by Dr. C.; and we agree with him as to the sense in which the term was applied by the Latin Christians to the Lord's Supper; but the passage we have extracted does not inform us, why the military oath of the Roman soldiers was called sacramentum; nor whether, among modern Christians, the word is retained in the same sense in which it was understood by the early Latin Fathers. The primary use of the word sacramentum was to denote the gage or pledge deposited in court by both the parties engaged in a lawsuit. Hence Cicero says, Quibuscum tibi justo sacramento contendere non liceret. De Orat. I. 10. The party which gained the cause received his gage again; he who lost it forfeited the sum deposited, which was expended in the purchase of victims for the altar, and was called sacramentum because it was laid out in sacris rebus. From this engagement to abide the consequences of a suit, the term appears to have been transferred to an oath in general, as a most sacred engagement. Thus Horace says to Mæcenas,

• Non ego perfidum

Dixi sacramentum.' 2 Od. xvii. 10. And thus it was applied to the military oath, as related by Polybius. In an analogical sense 'it was naturally and beautifully applied, by the early Latin Christians, to baptism and the Lord's supper. They considered that, by each of these ordinances, they entered into a sacred engagement, to continue faithful to Christ, and all his commandments. Tertullian says, Marem et feminam ad sacramentum baptismatis et eucharistia admittens. adv Marc. iv. 34. Vocati sumus ad militiam Dei vivi jam tunc, cum in sacramenti verba respondimus. ad Martyr. 3. Opera p. 138. 450. Ed. Paris. If the term were still used in the sense of the Latin Christians, it would not be improper. But we apprehend that modern Christians understand it to mean, that the Lord's supper is something more

peculiarly sacred or holy than any other religious ordinance. But is not the ordinance of prayer equally sacred, and is not the same devotional frame of the heart which is suited to the duty of prayer, snited also to the celebration of the Lord's supper? We thus freely state our views on the use of this term, because we are convinced, that by leading common Christians to consider this ordinance as more sacred than any other, it not only produces a dangerous confidence in some recipients, but deters many from observing it, and maintains a groundless timidity in their minds, instead of encouraging them to approach the table of the Lord with the devout solemnity of holy joy, under a grateful sense of the benefits obtained by his atonement. While therefore we would guard against whatever might impair a just reverence for sacred things, we cannot but wish that this term, for which there is no scriptural authority, were entirely laid aside.

Having already exceeded our usual limits in noticing this interesting publication, we must pass over what remains in a more cursory manner. Under the epithet paschal feast, Dr. C. maintains with Cudworth, that it is not a sacrifice, but a feast upon a sacrifice. We have long been accustomed to consider this as a just view of the subject. The ancient practice of feasting on sacrifices is largely illustrated by quotations from the Iliad and Odyssey. Varro's account of the things proper "for a feast (belli homunculi collecti, locus electus, tempus lectum, apparatus non neglectus) is also ingeniously and piously improved with reference to this ordinance. From this part of the tract we cannot deny ourselves the pleasure of laying before our readers the following answer to the question, Who should approach the Lord's table? Dr. C. replies,

Every believer in Christ Jesus who is saved from his sins, has a right to come. Such are of the family of God; and this bread be, longs to the children. On this there can be but one opinión. 2dly. Every genuine penitent is invited to come, and consequently has a right, because he needs the atoning blood, and by this ordinance, the blood shed for the remission of sins is expressively represented. "But I am not

worthy." And who is? There is not a saint upon earth, or an archangel in heaven, who is worthy to sit down at the table of the Lord." But does not the apostle intimate that none but the worthy should partake of it?"" No: He has said nothing of the kind; he solemnly reprehends those who eat and drink unworthily, and consequently approves of those who partake worthily-but there is an essential difference between eating and drinking worthily, and being worthy thus to eat and drink. He eats and drinks unworthily who does not discern the Lord's body; i. e. who doe not consider that this bread represents his body, which, in a sacrificial way, was broken for him; and this cup, his blood, which was poured out for the multitudes, for the remission of sins. The genuine believer receives the Lord's Supper in the remembrance of the atonement which he has received, and of the blood which he expects is to cleanse him from all unrighteousness, or

to keep him clean, if that change has already taken place in his soul. The penitent should receive it in reference to the atonement which he needs, and without which he knows he must perish everlasting. Thus, one are excluded but the impenitent, the transgressor, and the profane. BELIEVERS, however weak, have a right to come; and the strongest in faith need the grace of this ordinance.' pp. 96, 97.

In noticing the second requisite, Dr. C. pays no regard to the practice of administering the rite on a supposed death-bed, as a viaticum for the departing soul; but he introduces some sensible observations, tending to liberalize the bigoted, and correct the latitudinarian.

Let

Those who have pleaded that every place is equally proper for the worship of God, because He fills the heavens and the earth, have not considered the powerful influence of association on the mind of man, a man only see, where he worships, a series of objects which he every where meets with in common life, and he will find it difficult to maintain the spirit of devotion. I grant that, in the beginning of the kingdom of Christ, the first converts were obliged to worship in private houses, and even in such the Holy Eucharist was celebrated (Acts ii. 46.); and in every age since that time many excellent Christians have been obliged to use even the meanest dwellings for the purposes of religious worship: but where buildings consecrated solely to the service of God can be had, these alone should be used; and therefore the house of God, whether it be church or chapel, ceremonially consecrated or unconsecrated, should be preferred to all others. And here I hope I may, without offence, say one word, that it is not a ceremonial consecration of a place to God that can make it peculiarly proper for his worship; but the setting the place apart, whether with or without a ceremony, for prayer, praise, preaching, and the administration of the Lord's Supper. By this means it becomes properly the house of God, because solely set apart for religious purposes. The lax teaching that has said, Every place is equally proper, has brought about with thousands that laxity of practice which leads them to abandon every place of worship, and every ordinance of God. Innovation is endless; and when it takes place in the worship of God, it seldom stops till it destroys both the form and power of religion. The private house is ever proper for family worship, and for public worship also, when no place set apart for the purposes of religion can be had; for, in ancient times, many of the disciples of Christ had a church in their houses, (see Rom. xvi. 5. Philem. ii.) and in these God manifested his power, and shewed forth his glory, as he had done in the sanctuary: but I would simply state, that such dwellings should not be preferred, when, by the consent of any religious people, a place is set apart for the purposes of divine worship.' pp. 99-101.

The posture of reception Dr. C. candidly leaves to the determination of particular sects or societies; on the frequency of celebration, he prefers once a month or six weeks, to annual, quarterly, or weekly communion. Under the last division of his subject, the duty of observing this ordinance is