ancient Israel from Egyptian bondage, so the Lord's Supper commemorates the redemption of men (without distinction as to Jew or Gentile) from sin and destruction, to the favour and glory of God.

3. The design of this ordinance is expressly stated by the apostle Paul to be, The showing forth of the Lord's death until he come. Christianity is the system of divine truth for the whole world; and that to the end of time. When time shall be no more, Christ shall come from heaven to receive his own unto himself. The Church, his bride (that is, all who have washed their robes, and made them white in his blood), shall then be admitted to the marriage-supper of the Lamb, with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the heavenly kingdom. The Lord's Supper, therefore, keeps up a lively remembrance of the virtue of Christ's atoning death, and maintains the believer's hope of Christ's second coming, not as a sin-offering, but to be admired in his saints.

From this view of the design of the Lord's Supper, it necessarily follows, The ordinance is of perpetual obligation in the Christian Church. So that, however general Christianity may become, the time will never arrive when the observance of this institution may cease. This further appears from the fact, that several years after the instituting of this ordinance, Christ gave his servant Paul a special revelation concerning it (see 1 Cor. xi. 23); also at a later period still, John wrote his First Epistle; in the eighth verse of the fifth chapter we find this apostle stating the ground of confidence believers have in Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, and the true Messiah. John says, "There are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." Presuming that by the "Spirit" is meant the Holy Spirit's sanctifying influence on the hearts of men; and by the "water," the ordinance of baptism; and by the "blood," the ordinance of the Lord's Supper-this Scripture is a powerful argument in favour of the perpetuity of this ordi

nance.

Lastly, on this part of our subject

we may remark, that what is the duty of the Church as a whole must be the duty of the members individually. Consequently, the observance of the Lord's Supper is binding on every member of the Christian Church. "Do this in remembrance of me," was the Saviour's unqualified injunction. Any Church, or any individual member of the Church, who wilfully neglects its observance, is disobedient to Christ's command.

In

4. The manner of observing this ordinance is the last thing we propose considering. Here it is necessary to observe, first, the Lord's table, in the house of Christian worship, is the table of the whole Church. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, x. 17, we read, "We being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread." Although the head of the Church has provided that in his Church there shall be pastors to feed the flock, and teachers to instruct the members in divine truth, as well as to call sinners to repentance; and deacons to attend to the wants of the poor of the Redeemer's family and to the secular affairs of the Church-yet at the Lord's table the pastor and the flock, the teacher and the taught, the deacon and the private member, meet on equal terms. The practice in the Established Church of this country, and in the Wesleyan body, together with a few Methodist Churches, of separating the communion-table from the church by means of a rail, is an invention of man; as also that which exists in immediate connexion with it, namely, the person presiding at the table entering within the rail, while they are kept without. Secondly, our Lord, when he instituted his Supper, first took the bread and distributed it to all. After that, he took the cup, and all drank thereof. But the Churches above mentioned adopt a very contrary course. In them, the minister eats of the bread and drinks of the cup before the other members of the Church receive in either kind. Nor is that all, for the Church itself is broken up into parties; thus we see the Church going up in divisions to that table which is pre-eminently the centre of unity. One thing more

is plain from the word of truth, that when the Redeemer instituted his Supper, he did not kneel. The prac tise of those Churches just mentioned, of kneeling at the Lord's table, is unwarrantable by anything stated in the word of God. Not being aware that any excuse has been offered for the minister separating himself from the Church, and of partaking in both kinds before the Church receives in either, it needs no further attention: but as there are two excuses made for kneeling, it is but right to notice them. First, some excuse it on the plea, "It is of no consequence what the manner is, so the heart be right." To this we may reply, Jehovah did not so teach, when he gave the Law in ten commandments; for in the second, which forbids idolatry, two things are prohibited-the worship of images, and the falling down before an image. The Church of Rome, perceiving the force of this command, excluded it from the decalogue; and then to make the number answer, divided the tenth into two. Second, some excuse it on the ground, "That Christ and his apostles, did not sit, nor kneel, but lounge." To this objection, it is only necessary to say, lounging, to an inhabitant of the East, was what sitting is to an European. Had our Lord instituted his Supper in our country at the present time, he would not have reclined on a mat as a native of Judea, but have sat as we do to take our meals.

From whence, then, has arisen this change of the nature of the ordinance, and of the manner of observing it? Have they not all sprung out of that greatest of all absurdities, the doctrine of transubstantiation? When the Popish priest professed to consecrate the

bread and the wine, and by that act to change the bread into the real flesh and bones of the Son of God, and to change the wine into Christ's real blood, then it was ordered, that the receiver of the wafer kneel while eating the real human nature of our Lord. When the Reformation from Popery took place in this country, although something was done, much was left undone. Thus we find the Church of England, while renouncing the doctrine of transubstantiation, sharing very largely in the spirit of Papistical Rome in this ordinance. When the Rev. John Wesley came forth as the apostle of a soul-saving ministry, preaching deliverance to, the captive, he entered on his mission fettered with deeprooted prejudice in favour of the Church of England. In consequence of that prejudice, he followed the practice of that Church in preference to the conduct of our Lord. His people, confiding in him, instead of searching the Scriptures, have followed his example; and a few other Methodist Churches have gone into the same track.

In conclusion, we cannot help thinking the time in which we live is pregnant with more than common events. We appear to be verging on a period in which God will separate the chaff from the wheat. The Man of Sin is at the present time putting on a bold face-claiming as kindred whatever he finds bearing a family likeness with the Mother of Abominations. The duty of the Church is, therefore, to separate the things of Christ from those of Antichrist. "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues," is the warning voice of God to men.

REMARKS.

HENRY WEBBER.

views. With many of his sentiments we heartily concur, and with his desire to maintain the ordinance of the Lord's Supper in its primitive simplicity, and apart from all Papistical and Puseyitical pretensions, we cordially sympathize. At the same time, we do not see eye to eye with

him on all points. As to the doctrine that the partaking of the ordinance is not an act of worship, we differ with our friend. But this leads us to ask, What is an act of worship? Not the mere breaking of bread or drinking of wine, we grant; nor is the mere utterance of prayer, or the singing of a hymn, or the bowing of the knee, or even the meditation of the heart-nor, indeed, are all these put together; unless there be something else.

It is the sincere and devout homage of the heart; but when this homage accompanies the expression of the lips, the bowing of the knee, &c., the whole collectively is worship. So respecting the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, the whole collectively, accompanied with suitable dispositions and affections, is worship and worship, too, of as high an order and of as spiritual a character as any that can be conceived to exist on this side the eternal world. We know the Unitarians tell us that the ordinance of the Lord's Supper is a ceremony performed merely as a grateful memorial of one who was an enlightened benefactor. But we perform it as an ordinance which, while it memorializes the tender love of the Saviour, and sets forth the atoning efficacy of his great sacrifice, is intended to pierce and melt our souls with contrition for sin, to excite our gratitude, to exercise and strengthen our faith in the Saviour's blood, to inspire us with ardent love to Christ and one another, to deaden us to the world, to raise our hopes and aspirations heavenward, and, in a word, to call forth sentiments of the most profound and holy adoration, and to stimulate every principle of experimental and practical religion. Unless the ordinance produce these results its spiritual design is not realized; it degenerates into a mere form; and our observance of it, whatever forms or attitude we use, is an insult to the Saviour. It is to eat the bread and drink the cup

66

unworthily," and thereby incur condemnation to ourselves, not discerning the Lord's body. It is to avoid this evil that we are so solemnly commanded to examine our

selves prior to the reception of this ordinance, and, by the exercise of suitable dispositions, to observe it to our spiritual welfare. There must be worship the true spiritual worship of the triune God connected with every part of this ordinance, or it becomes frigid and unprofitable formality.

Our friend objects to kneeling, and thinks that sitting is the proper attitude at this ordinance. We think that either attitude is acceptable to God. It is probable our Lord and his disciples reclined; but if they did, we do not regard their attitude as intended to be obligatory upon us. The Saviour commonly sat down while he preached, both in the Temple and in the Synagogue; but is this attitude obligatory upon us? The Saviour girded himself with a towel, poured water in a basin, and washed the disciples' feet, expressly as an example for his followers; but is this particular act and its mode of operation obligatory upon us? The primitive Christians were exhorted to salute each other with a kiss; but is this mode of salutation obligatory upon us? The

truth is, Christianity is not a system of forms, like the ceremonial law; it is a spirit, a life, an essence, which embodies itself in those acts which are appropriate to the holy principles and sentiments it inspires in the soul; and we think that kneeling is an attitude of the body quite as appropriate as sitting to the humility, the contrition, the love, the faith, the adoration, and to all the other sentiments which the spiritual observance of the ordinance is calculated to excite in the believer's soul. In our Connexion, some sit and others kneel; we regard each as equally sincere, and we say, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." It is our delight to know that we have, in our Connexion, no Conferential rule, no arbitrary decree, requiring a conformity to one particular mode. We regard this liberty, this Christian freedom, as a boon infinitely greater than any dull uniformity of mode produced by any decision of man. The mode is open to our choice, and so it ought to

remain. Far distant be the day when, in our Connexion, any authority of man shall interfere with a brother's freedom in things indifferent and non-essential. This freedom is an element of our unity, our peace, and our strength.

The allusion which our friend makes to idolatry is exceedingly uncalled for and irrelevant. In the name of good sense we ask, what image or idol do our pious people worship when they kneel at the sacrament? Is the bed-post or the chair an idolatrous image when a pious man kneels before it in his closet, or is the pew an idolatrous image when the worshipper kneels before it in the sanctuary? The truth is, we worship Almighty God alone; and kneeling in the one case is as proper as in the other, and equally acceptable to that God who searcheth the heart.

Our friend objects to the use of a raised platform or communion. We cannot see the force of this objection. It is simply a convenience for the due and proper administration of the 'ordinance; and we think those friends who desire to kneel have the same right to accommodation for kneeling as others have to accommodation for sitting. It is of no avail to allege that our Lord did not use a communion. It is equally true that he did not use a place of public worship at all, but a common room, on the occasion when he appointed the ordinance. Are we therefore required to leave the place of public worship and go to some private room in order to observe it exactly as he did? or are we, now the ordinance is established, to deprive ourselves of the accommodations we have, and to put ourselves exactly in the same circumstances and position as he was prior to the appointment of the ordinance, and when he and his disciples were met together for another purpose, viz., the passover? We think not.

Our friend objects to the minister's partaking of the ordinance first himself, before he administers it to the people. We should object also, if this were done to isolate himself from the people. There are cases, we believe, in some of our large Societies, where both minister and leaders partake of the ordinance

first, in order to be prepared to carry round the elements to the numerous communicants in their pews; and we may add, that order and decorum require it. But now, as to the time when a minister should partake of the bread. Should it be before or after the people? Or the wine; should he drink of it first, or give the cup first to the people, and then drink after they have done? As an example to the people, as a guide and leader to the people, which period does reason say is the more fit and becoming? The answer is too obvious to require stating. We are quite at a loss on what ground our friend's objection is placed. When a minister conducts a lovefeast, he states his own experience first; and when a leader meets his class, he speaks first of the state of his own soul, and then hears the statements of others. There is reason and propriety in this custom, and equally so in the custom of a minister partaking first of the bread and the cup before he present them to the people of his charge.

Our friend is apprehensive lest there should be any stealthy advances of Popery in Dissenting Churches, any departure from the simplicity and purity of the Gospel of Christ. We honour the motive, but we think that the ordinance of the Lord's Supper is administered amongst us in all its original purity and simplicity. There is no Popery here; but it would be the quintessence of Popery to attempt by any arbitrary legislation to produce uniformity among our members in things that are non-essential and indifferent.

These matters, like the eating of meats, the eating of herbs, and observing of days, which were topics of discussion in the Roman Church in the days of the apostles, are things indifferent in themselves. When Paul was appealed to in order to decide which party was right, he would not decide for them. With one stroke of his pen he could have put an end to the controversy, yet he would not do it; but he did something else of far greater importance-he inculcated the duty of mutual toleration and Christian charity. (Rom. xiv.) Here the matter must end.

THE CROSS MUST PRECEDE THE CROWN.-Everyone that gets to the throne must put his foot upon the thorn. We must taste the gall if we are to taste the glory. Whom God justifies by faith, he leads into tribulations also. When God brought Israel through the Red Sea, he led them through the wilderness; so when God saves a soul he tries it. He never gives faith without trying it. The way to Zion is through the valley of Baca. You must go through the wilderness of Jordan if you are to come to the land of promise. Some believers are much surprised when they are called to suffer. They thought they would do some great thing for God; but all that God permits them to do is to suffer.

Go

round in glory-every one has a different story, yet every one has a tale of suffering. One was persecuted in his family, by his friends and companions; another is visited with sore pains and humbling disease, neglected by the world; and another had all these afflictions meeting in one-deep called unto deep. Mark, all are brought out of them. It was a dark cloud, but it passed away; the water was deep, but they have reached the other side. Not one of them blames God for the road he led them "salvation" is their only cry. Are there any of you, dear children, murmuring at your lot? Do not sin against God. This is the way God leads all his redeemed ones. You must have a palm as well as a white robe. No pain, no palm; no cross, no crown; no thorn, no thrones; no gall, no glory. Learn to glory in tribulation also. "I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us." -McCheyne.

FOSTER'S VIEWS OF DEATH.-" I congratulate you and myself," wrote John Foster to a friend, "that life is passing fast away. What a superlatively grand and consoling idea is that of death! Without this radiant idea, this delightful morning-star, indicating that the luminary of eternity is going to rise, life would, to my view, darken into midnight melancholy. Oh! the expectation of

living here, and living thus, always, would indeed be a prospect of overwhelming despair. But thanks to that fatal decree that dooms us to die; thanks to that gospel which opens the visions of an endless life; and thanks, above all, to that Saviour-friend who has promised to conduct all the faithful through the sacred trance of death into the scenes of paradise and everlasting delight!"

SO PREACH THAT ALL MAY UNDERSTAND YOU.-The Rev. John Ely laboured for a few years in Rochdale with but little success. For a time he was too refined for the lower class of people, and they did not understand the meaning of many words he used in his sermons. For instance, one of his hearers, generally called Old Betty," was taken ill. Mr. Ely visited her, conversed and prayed with her. On his leaving the room, he said (taking her by the hand),

66

"What

Farewell, Betty! I hope you will soon be able to attend chapel." She replied, "What is the use of coming to the chapel?" Mr. Ely was astonished, and said, "What do you` say, Betty?" She replied, is the use of coming to the chapel? I cannot understand you, if I come. If you would preach in the pulpit as plainly as you have talked and prayed for me now, you would do my soul good." He said, "Thank you, Betty; your remarks shall not be lost upon me." Mr. Ely became much plainer in the pulpit, and the congregation considerably increased.

THE COMPLAINER REBUKED AND SAVED. Men sometimes complain of their very mercies. A merchant was once returning from market. He was on horseback, and behind his saddle was a valise filled with money. The rain fell with violence, and the good old man was wet to his skin. At the time he was quite vexed, and murmured because God had given him such hard weather for his jour ney. He soon reached the border of a thick forest. What was his terror on beholding on one side of the road a robber, whose levelled gun was aiming at him and attempting to fire! But the powder being wet with the rain, the gun did not go off, and the merchant giving spurs