Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1843-04-19


be blessed of God. " You farther say,-
q have never yet heard formal bless.
ing asked over dish of simple food,
though il is probably rarely doneI: no,
this would not do, for it is already bless
ed" ~. >....:
Ia these quotations fom your letter,
two things seem to be implied. /. That
il is Inconsistent to ask God TO bless food
to our use, which, in It's very nature, is
maniEestIy unwholsome. 2. All things
Intended for the table of man and the
same toward all beings, The raven and the
! sparrow not excepted) being already
blessed. SO 10 speak, in their natural fl
ness Tor the health of every being for
which they were created; hence f4rth-
er blessing on them should ne: be inyok-
ed. 49,. 1885,. ="..= ..".." 49,: r.: :"
To these sentiments the writer acceIes
TO the letter fail; not now nquirlng what
food is, or is not intended by God for
! mans use. But to the question, -
DOES no! the example Of Christ, and
followed by the apostles, authorize the in
vocation Of blessings On food think
not. Did Jesus or ministecs of his dav
ever literally bless food, OF invoke bless
lac on bread and wine ?-and not simply
give Gou thanks Is This indeed cues
ition Let none be deferred l5om exam
lining the subject. truth never suffers,
bu! snines brighter as we investigate more
! closely. II ..s...~. -. .s..... IT,
/ Mark viii: 6, 7: And he took the
seven loaves, aud gave thanks. And
they had few small fishes and He
blessed tie. blessed God, gave thanks, J
and commanded to set them atso before
Them" In proof that both services were
alike, i adduce both blended ia one. And
he took the seven loaves and the fishes,
and gave thanks" Mat ": IS.
Thus al The institution Of the sacra-
ment, XVI: IS: "Jtsas took bread and
blessed LGodl and brake and gave 10 the
disciples" phe word IL after blessed, in
our common version, is printed in italics
10 show, that it was not in the original,
but inserted by the translator. Whereas,
TO make the sense complete, the word
God" should, in the mind Of he reader,
be supplied.
Verse 81" And he took the cup, and
: gave thanks" Matthew, to avoid a
sameness, makes change Of 2hraseology.
Bat in proof that both forms mean TIE
same, viz:-blessing God, and not the
| emblems, or, bread and wine, lctea mar,
ration Of the same by Luke. " He tool;
5 the cup and gave thanks. And be
took the bread and gave thanks. "--xxii:
r IT, 49, See also the language Of Paul :
5 Else, when thou shalt bless [Godl with
S The spirit, how shall he tia! occupictI
the room Of the unlearned, say, Ane1, al
i thy giring Of thanks, seeing he under
e stande.h not what thou sayesl" Note
e For thou verify gjeest thanks well, ba
i The other is not ediied."-l Cor. xiv: 16
{ II. = ~...=~ =. T. ......~<." =....:= i. g..
r Who does. not see that man in that ag'
IS Of he world, believed that food for MAI
1t or beast, or that the raia which fall
J. alike on the jast and Oh the unjust; G
r. the san that shines equally on the cyl
n and on the good, needed blessing Of Cod
i WHO gigeth us ali things richly to enjoy
q. The custom of asking God 10 bless tt
o food before eatog, and of giving thank
9 afler meals, as was once done. thong
r now net generally divided, Probabf!
$ arose from the difference in the word
y used by the evan geIists, in recording sep
le arate!y the giving o. thanks by The Say
ID Tor, who, recei sing and breaking separate
lie iythe leaves, and The fishes, blessed Go
er on the reception Of each. Also, as III
bread and wine each, were uIaie djslint
enblcsns Of different things, namely, II
body, and the blood ofthe Savior, thaas
o. Tor each were given separately -.
ed But would inquire, does irieud Dye
who doubt not. with COED intent, an
WIN much ability, is Iaboring for the GID
~ Of God, and the salvation of men
lis does he question the sopndness Of the Ia
Ills OF the Savor-the train and cofrectne.
To- Of the gracious words which proceeds
ch out OF bis mouth 2" Aad does he dispu