subscribe to publish such a multitude of religious books and tracts, proves that, in their own opinion at least, they are substantially agreed on all essential truth.

In the London City Mission, and other similar institutions, there is the additional element of confidence exhibited. We know, or may know, exactly what any given book or tract will say on any possible occasion; but we cannot be so sure what a living man will always say and do; and hence arises the opportunity for showing mutual confidence, and, it may be, mutual forbearance. But, in addition to the beneficial effect thus produced upon the church at large, the proof of ecclesiastical disinterestedness, which it affords, removes one great hindrance to the missionary's favourable reception by that large class of persons who are equally prejudiced against "church or chapel." And I doubt whether any one, except a very stiff churchman, who was adequately acquainted with the extent of this feeling among the working classes, would hesitate to admit, that the quite intelligible objections which are sometimes felt to this kind of united action, sink into insignificance before the immense advantages resulting from that one consideration.

I must pass over many other important societies which successfully carry out the same great principle, and hasten on to its three latest developments - United Prayer, United Preaching, United Com

munion.

One of the most blessed effects of the late Revival is the great increase of Christian union; and nowhere is that more strikingly exhibited, than in those public united prayer meetings, which are being so generally held-yearly, monthly, weekly, daily-throughout this and many other lands. Most important indeed are these meetings, not only for their own direct purpose, but as a declaration to all men that we are really fellow-worshippers of the same God through the same Great High Priest, and that, if there appears to exist too sharp a line of demarcation between us in our more formal assemblies, it results from no alienation of heart, but simply from the real or supposed necessities of the case.

And as an increased desire for a larger blessing on our efforts has brought us together for united prayer, so has the felt need of extending our efforts brought us together for united preaching. The Evangelical Alliance had the honour of first proposing this plan the City Mission, that of first carrying it out-in the Theatre services. Nor could any two bodies of christian men have been more exactly in their place; the one suggesting a new application of their great principle, the other giving it effect. The testimony afforded by the ordinary operations of the City Mission to the oneness of our faith in all essential points, has acquired far greater power, and is much more calculated to arrest public attention, through the union of conforming and nonconforming ministers in these public preachings. What united prayer is to the church, united preaching is to the world: a practical declaration of our essential unity.

And now the question presents itself—Are we to stop here? Shall we join in everything else, and refuse to join in the ordinance which is the divinely-appointed type of our union, the Lord's Supper? It is readily admitted, that no necessity exists to assemble under the

same roof for the breaking of bread; the Lord's table is but one; and wherever, whenever, or however "two or three" believers meet together to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Christ, they are sitting down, at that one table, in company with "the holy church throughout all the world." The question is, whether it be not desirable that members of different adjacent churches should occasionally meet together for this purpose. To which our first reply is, that all the arguments for visible union in prayer, or anything else, apply with still greater force to visible union around the Lord's table, inasmuch as the setting forth of our spiritual union is one of its special objects. We desire to be more closely "knit together in love," and more distinctly to let all men know thereby that we are Christ's disciples. Is not this a powerful means for accomplishing both those objects? Besides, does not all our union up to this point render it very undesirable for us to stop short there? Will it not immediately be asked why we decline to take the last step? And will not an impression be left upon men's minds, that notwithstanding all our professions of mutual regard, which may be perfectly sincere as far as they go, we still shrink from unreservedly acknowledging that all the churches which "hold the Head," however variously constituted, are, by divine charter, but one church? Surely, if the principles urged in this letter be to any extent admitted, the onus rests with those who object to such occasional intercommunion; and very strong reasons must be required to justify us in declining it. Let us just consider what the alleged reasons are.

The first is, that if we communicate at another church than our own, we are virtually joining that church; if we communicate on common ground, we are virtually forming a new church. The fallacy of this may be made transparent by a simple illustration. If a member of one family dines occasionally with another family, does he thereby become a member of it? Or if several members of different families occasionally dine together at an hotel, do they thereby form a new family? Undoubtedly they acknowledge one another as members of the common family of man; but without in the smallest degree abandoning their several domestic relationships. I can really see no more valid reason for refusing to eat and drink sacramentally out of our own church, than for refusing to eat and drink socially out of our own house.

The next objection is, that different churches prescribe to their ministers and members different forms of administering the ordinance; and therefore, whether the intercommunion take place in church or chapel or elsewhere, some of the communicants must, either actively or passively, depart from the arrangement enjoined by their own church. And so, in each domestic circle, if there is to be any order at all, must particular arrangements be made for the family meals. But does the most scrupulous attention to those arrangements by the members of any family preclude them from ever sitting down to a meal with any other family whose arrangements may be different? If indeed the family arrangement were made on the supposition that the food partaken of could not perform its proper function of nourishing the body, unless the meal were conducted in such and such a manner, they might well be excused for declining to sit down to any meal that was con

ducted otherwise. And in like manner, if any Christian believes that no eating of bread and drinking of wine, however solemnly and reverentially, in remembrance of Christ, can be "the Lord's Supper," unless connected with a certain ceremony performed by a person holding a certain office, he cannot of course be expected, under any circumstances, to attend what professes to be a celebration of it, without these adjuncts. But very few Christians, it is to be hoped, would go quite so far as this. And if there are any who do so, it only makes it the more necessary for us to show that we have no participation in such unscriptural views, and that we regard "Rubrics "and "Canons " as simply matters of order and arrangement within our own family circle, and by no means as laying down principles of universal obligation. When the joint communion is held in one of our churches, the form of administration is that prescribed by the church of England; when in a dissenting chapel, that which is customary there; when on neutral ground, that which is thought to be most convenient and appropriate under the circumstances. But in every case the ordinance is precisely the same, wholly unaffected by any of these varying accidents.

Again, it is objected that, inasmuch as clergymen of the church of England cannot legally administer the Lord's Supper in dissenting chapels, nor even in company with dissenters, on neutral ground; and dissenting ministers are equally debarred from administering it in consecrated buildings belonging to the established church, one or the other must necessarily for the time sink his official character, and attend the service simply as a believer in Christ. And are we not all constantly doing thus? What minister ever imagines, when he sits amongst a congregation to hear a sermon, or goes as a silent worshipper to a prayer-meeting, or joins the communicants as a stranger in any place he may be visiting, that he is abandoning his proper position? To refuse to be present at any service in which we are not allowed to officiate, would be the pride of office with a vengeance.

But this last objection opens a question of some importance, namely, What do we mean by "administering" the Lord's Supper? The word is apt, unless carefully explained, to convey the idea of there being two parties in the transaction-givers and receivers, clergy and laity. Now if this be so, the officiating minister must belong to both parties, inasmuch as the first person to whom he administers is himself. But our church expresses it much more accurately, when she orders that "the minister shall first receive the communion in both kinds himself." If, therefore, the people receive it from the minister, from whom does he receive it? Clearly both receive it from the same Giver, the Lord of the feast Himself, and "all they are brethren," joint-partakers of the same bread and wine. And herein this sacrament differs essentially from the other. In baptism there are two parties, the baptizer and the baptized; because the candidate is an applicant for something not already possessed. But in the Lord's Supper we meet together to enjoy what we do in common possess; and no official need be present (except as a matter of order and arrangement in any particular church) to unlock the storehouse for us, or impart strengthening virtue to its rich provisions. In almost every church, perhaps in every one, it is deemed

appropriate solemnly to set apart the elements about to be used, for that sacred purpose-in a word, to consecrate them. If the cere mony is to be performed "decently and in order," some previous arrangement must be made as to the person who shall do this. But there is no necessity, as far as the Christian ordinance is concerned, (whatever by-laws separate churches may make for themselves,) that he shall be one who holds any particular office; the only essential requirement being, that he must be one of the communicants, that he may act as their representative in the matter; and the fact of any given person being so appointed, in nowise separates him from them, quoad the ordinance: he consecrates for them, and communicates with them. As to the handing of the elements to the communicants, that is a mere mechanical act which may be done by any person or persons whatever, and in any reverent way whatever. Our Master himself effectually blessed them, and gave them to His disciples, once for all we have only to pass them on to one another.

:

I cannot but regard, therefore, the open communions which have been held on common ground, not only as a valuable means of cultivating and exhibiting brotherly love, but as an important testimony to the purity and simplicity of this great Christian ordinance. In our own churches we are obliged to celebrate it in conjunction with certain forms. These may be very suitable and edifying; but it is well that people should be taught to distinguish between what is divine and what is human, and to let their attachment to the national church rest on safer grounds than a blind superstitious reverence for every pin in its machinery, as if it had been put together by some inspired Bezaleel and Aholiab, after a pattern shown upon the Mount. I remain, Mr. Editor, yours very faithfully,

London, Feb., 1861.

SAMUEL MINTON.

BEARD'S HISTORY OF PORT ROYAL.

Port Royal: A contribution_to_the_History of Religion and Literature in France. By Charles Beard, B.A. Two volumes, crown 8vo. Longman and Co., London, 1861.

THE names of Port Royal and the Jansenists come to us like voices from the tomb. They seem to belong to an older world, with which we have no communion. A century in France removes institutions, men, and controversies, to a greater distance than three hundred years in England. If time is measured by the succession of ideas and events, the intervening period is even greater. Revolutions have been piled upon each other. Within a century the work of ages has been destroyed and reconstructed, and torn down again, and built up after another fashion, again torn down and again rebuilt. The old French character is lost, and our interest in it is that of the antiqua

rian wandering amidst ruins over which the plough has long since passed, and which no living man remembers.

Mr. Beard has written well; he is thoroughly master of his subject; he has evidently brought to it a mind of superior power. But in the present feverish state of public thought and feeling, it will be no slender triumph if he should succeed in fixing attention upon this old-world subject.

And yet it is one that ought not to be forgotten. If we are not mistaken, it has at this moment a peculiar importance. It demands to be heard. These voices from the dead are prophetic utterances. Upon the plains of Italy a drama, one of the most important ever witnessed, is being played out, and the whole world are the spectators. What will be the issue? There are those who think they foresee the reformation of the papacy. There are those who dread the admixture with it of some gospel truth; enough to debase the gospel, not enough to regenerate the papacy. Port Royal dissipates the fond delusion of the one and the groundless apprehensions of the other. The papacy is incapable of reformation. Bible truth cannot find a lodgment in the lap of the "Mother of abominations." There can be no compromise, because there can be no real amendment.

There is something terrible in the providence so frequently observed in the case of desperately bad men. As they plunge deeper and deeper into sin, God's invitations to repentance become more touching and more paternal. They become still more hardened, and at last, even in this world, they affix the awful brand upon themselves; "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction." Thus, too, God has dealt with "the man of sin" himself. In the dark ages he was placed under a rugged discipline suited to his nature. The pope was more than once an exile; his kingdom was invaded by barbarians who professed to be his spiritual subjects. Then the voice of a German monk was heard, and the defection of the Germans followed. Then, after many a provocation, the haughty defiance of Henry VIII., and the secession of his kingdom. But all were ineffective. The papacy was obdurate. The Council of Trent is her own witness. There, in a court of her own choice, she states her own case; there she is condemned by her own approvers. No other testimony is wanted. She has changed the truth of God into a lie. She has set her own hand and seal to the deed, which will for ever remain a witness against her in this world and that which is to come. But even yet, the long-suffering of Heaven was not exhausted. A protest against her impieties issues from the meekest, the most devoted, of her own children. No rude German nails the insulting thesis on her gates. No lordly monarch defies her through his ambassador in the Vatican. It is now the still small voice whispered from the