and a servant his master: if then be a father, where is mine honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of Hosts unto you, O priests, that d spise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible.

If any difficulty still remain, respecting the general sense of the passage, it can be of no considerable importance, as it prevents not our discerning the principal aim and design of the Holy Spirit. It is not perhaps easy, I admit, to determine with exact precision, what we are to understand by the table of the Lord, by that contempt which was expressed for it, and by the polluted bread which those unworthy ministers offered upon it. There are two opinions on this subject, but which both issue in the idea we have suggested to you, of our prophet's sentiment.

It is the opinion of some commentators, that by the table, of which Malachi speaks, is to be understood the table which corresponded to that placed by Moses, by the command of God, in that part of the tabernacle denominated the Holy Place. The law enjoined that there should always be upon that table twelve loaves, or cakes, which we denominate the shew-bread, otherwise called the bread of faces, not because these cakes were moulded into several sides, or raised into small protuberances, according to the opinion of certain Jewish doctors, but because they were continually exposed in the presence of Jehovah, who was considered as residing in the Holy Place. The law which enjoined the offering of them, had likewise prescribed the rites which were to be observed in presenting that offering. They were to be placed

on the holy table to the number of twelve; they were to be composed of fine flour kneaded into a paste: each cake was to contain an omer of flour. The Jews tell us, that it must have past eleven times through the searse; and if St. Jerome is to be credited, it belonged to the priests to sow, to reap, and to grind the corn, of which the cakes were made, and to knead the dough. Whatever

may be the truth as to some of these particulars, to treat the table of the Lord as contemptible, to offer unto God polluted bread, is conformably to the sentiment which I have detailed, to violate some of the rights which were to be observed in the offering of the cakes, placed, by divine command, on the table which was in the Holy Place.

On this

The generality of interpreters have adopted another opinion, which we have no difficulty in following. By the table of the Lord, they here understand the altar of burnt-offerings. It is denominated the table of the Lord, in some other passages of scripture; particularly in chap. xli. of the prophecies of Ezekiel. There, after a description of the table of burnt-offerings, it is added, This is the table that is before the Lord, ver. 22. altar were offered cakes of fine flour, as we see in various passages, particularly in the first verses of chap. ii. of the book of Leviticus. These cakes are represented as if they were the bread of God. The same name was given to every thing offered to deity on that altar. All was called the bread of God, or the meat of God; for reasons which will be best understood in the sequel. I shall, at present, satisfy myself with quoting a single passage in justification of this remark. It is in chap. xxi. of the book of Leviticus, the 6th verse. Moses, after having laid down the duties of the priests, adds these words: They shall be holy unto their

God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and the bread of their God do they offer: therefore they shall be holy. You see that in the Levitical style, they denominated the meat of God, or the bread of God, not only the cakes which were offered upon the altar, not only the loaves of the shew-bread which were presented on the table in the Holy Place, but all the victims which were consumed by fire on the altar of burnt-offering.

Now, the manner in which those offerings were to be presented, had likewise been laid with singular precision. There was a general law respecting this point, which you will find in chap. iv. of Leviticus it is enjoined that the victim should be without blemish; and if you wish for a more particular detail on this subject, you may farther consult chap. xxii, of the same book. There we have enumerated ten imperfections, which rendered a victim unworthy of being offered unto God. Some place in this class, not only bodily, but mental imperfections, if this last epithet may be applied to brutes. For example, they durst not have presented unto God, animals of an obstinate, petulant, capricious disposition, and the like. Scruples, by the way, which the pagans themselves, and particularly the Egyptians entertained, respecting the victims which they offered to their gods. They set apart for them the choicest of the flock and of the herd. Herodotus informs us, that in Egypt there were persons specially appointed to the office of examining the victims.

Let us no longer deviate from the principal object of our text. If by the table of the Lord, we are to understand, as it is presumeable we ought, the altar of burnt-offerings, to offer unto God polluted bread, in the style of Malachi, to say, the

table of the Lord is contemptible, is to violate some of the rites prescribed, respecting the offerings which were presented unto God upon that altar. More especially, it is to consecrate to deity victims which had some of the blemishes that rendered them unworthy of his acceptance.

But was it indeed, then, altogether worthy of God to enter into details so minute? But of what importance could it be to the Lord of the universe, whether the victims presented to him were fat or lean, or whether the bread consecrated to him were of wheat or of barley, of fine or of course flour? And though the Jews were subjected to minuteness of this kind, what interest can we have in them, we who live in ages more enlightened; we who are called to serve God only in spirit and in truth, John iv. 24. and to render him none but a reasonable service? Rom. xii. 1. We shall devote the remainder of the time, at present permitted to us, to the elucidation of these questions: we shall endeavor to unfold the great aim and object of our text, and apply it more particularly to the use of our hearers. For this purpose it will be necessary to institute a twofold parallel.

I. We shall institute a parallel between the altar of burnt-offerings, or the table of the shew-bread, and the table of the Eucharist; and shall endeavor to unfold the mystical views of both the one and the other.

II. The second parallel shall be, between the profanation of the altar, or the table of the shewbread, and the profanation of the Christian sacramental table: we shall indicate what is implied, with respect to the Jews, and with respect to Christians, in offering to God polluted bread, and

in looking on the table of the Lord as contemptible; and we will endeavor to make you sensible of the keenness of the reproach conveyed by the mouth of the prophet: A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of Hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible.