Objections Considered

Having written extensively on this subject previously, I will now introduce a few notable figures who, since the Reformation, have defended this cause. We will not only present them to our readers but also let them speak for themselves. —

John Brown, of Haddington, author of the Dictionary of the Bible and theology teacher for that branch of the Presbyterian church called the "Secession," has written a treatise on this topic. We will assign him the task of stating and addressing the objections to this apostolic institution. The reader will notice that his style has many imperfections; and although his language shows he has been in Ashdod, his arguments are nonetheless weighty and persuasive.

He offers various arguments for the weekly observance of this institution and presents and refutes nine objections to the practice. We will quote a few of the strongest: —

Objection 1

The frequent administration of this ordinance in the apostolic and early Christian ages was commendable and necessary because the ongoing persecutions at that time gave them reason to fear that every Sabbath might be their last; whereas now we are not in such danger, so we do not need to observe this ordinance so frequently.

Answer

Should we not still live as if every Sabbath were to be our last? Do we now have a longer lease on life than they did? Did not many Christians in these times live to as great an age as we do now? Indeed, is it not clear from the best historians that the church was generally under no persecution for more than one-third of the time that weekly communion was practiced? But even if they had been constantly exposed to the cruelest persecution, the objection becomes even more absurd. If they attended this ordinance weekly at the risk of their lives, does it follow that now, when God gives us greater and better opportunity, we should omit it? Does God require the greatest work from his people when he gives the least opportunity? Or does he require the least work when he gives the greatest opportunity? What kind of master would God be if that were the case? Besides, don’t people need this ordinance to protect them from the influence of the world’s approval as much as from its opposition? — "Let us invert this objection and see if it holds more weight. It would then read: The early Christians received the Lord’s Supper weekly because their souls were in greater danger from the world’s approval and temptations, which are usually more harmful to people’s spiritual well-being than its opposition; and because they had greater opportunity to do so, enjoying peace and liberty; yet this frequency of administering and partaking is not necessary now, since we, being under the world’s opposition, are at less risk spiritually; especially since we can only attend it at the risk of our lives, God having expressly declared that he values mercy more than sacrifice.

Objection 2

The early and Reformation periods were times of great spiritual vitality and abundant divine influence on believers’ souls; whereas now it is quite different. Therefore, although frequent administration was commendable then, in our weakened, declining state it is unnecessary.

Answer

Should we rarely go to the wells of salvation because we can only draw a little water at a time? Should we rarely try to fill pitchers at the fountain of living water because they are small? Isn’t this ordinance a remedy for restoring the weak, strengthening the feeble, healing the sick, and reviving the dying believer? How reasonable, then, is it to argue that weak, sick, and dying believers should not receive it often just because they are not in perfect health? — "Wouldn’t the inverted objection make more sense? The early Christians had this ordinance frequently administered because, being weak, sickly, and receiving only small measures of divine influence at a time, they needed to take new spiritual nourishment often; whereas we, being now strong and lively Christians and receiving such abundant grace on these occasions as to enable us to walk many days under its power, have no need to attend this ordinance so frequently, which is especially designed to strengthen weak and sick believers.

Objection 3

If the Lord’s Supper were administered frequently, it would become less solemn and eventually quite disrespectful, as we see has happened with baptism due to its frequent administration.

Answer

Is this method of preserving the Lord’s Supper’s dignity God’s idea or not? If it is, where in Scripture is it authorized? I have already shown the opposite from Scripture. Since it is only a human invention, what reason is there to hope it will actually maintain the ordinance’s solemnity? Didn’t the Papists of old claim to maintain and enhance its solemnity by reducing the frequency of administration? Didn’t they take the cup away from the people, which Calvin says naturally followed? Didn’t they attach the administration of this ordinance to seasons that superstition had elevated, namely Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas? Didn’t they add many ceremonies to it? Didn’t they claim it was a real sacrifice and that the elements were changed by consecration into the actual body and blood of Christ? And did all this help maintain the proper respect for this ordinance? On the contrary, did it not destroy it? Although the doctrine of transubstantiation brought a kind of reverence, was this reverence divine or rather devilish, worshiping the elements? Now, how can we be sure that our infrequent administration better preserves its solemnity? Isn’t it strange that we have so much encouragement from the practice of the Apostles, the early Christians, and all the Reformed churches to profane this solemn ordinance, while the most ignorant and corrupt Papists are our original model for the practice that supposedly supports its proper honor and respect? What a strange situation this would be if, to maintain the honor of God’s ordinance, we must abandon the footsteps of the faithful and follow the paths originally laid out by the most ignorant and wicked antichrists! "Besides, if infrequent administration makes the ordinance solemn, wouldn’t it be even more solemn if administered only once every seven, ten, twenty, thirty, sixty, or a hundred years?" — "Wouldn’t those who pray once a month or hear a sermon once a year have their minds more deeply impressed with reverence for God than those who pray seven times a day and hear a hundred sermons a year?

Let us invert this objection and see how it stands. All human attempts to make God’s ordinances more solemn are challenges to his wisdom and have always led to the ordinances being treated with contempt. But infrequent administration of the supper is a human invention, first introduced by the worst Papists, and therefore it tends to bring contempt on this ordinance, as we sadly see in the practice of those who voluntarily partake rarely.

Mr. Brown describes the means by which weekly observance of the supper was set aside in the following words: —

"The means by which infrequent administration of this ordinance was introduced into the church do not reflect the God of truth. The causes that led to its introduction seem to have been pride, superstition, greed, and worldly convenience. The eastern hermits, withdrawing from society, had settled in deserts and mountains, and being far from places where it was administered, seldom attended. Though this was really due to their laziness and distance, they pretended it arose from their reverence for this most solemn ordinance. It was easy to imitate them in this false holiness, which consisted in neglecting God’s ordinance. Many eastern Christians stopped communicating except at times superstition had made solemn, such as Easter; and were content to be spectators on other occasions. Because of this practice, the great and eloquent Chrysostom repeatedly bitterly condemned them as guilty of the highest contempt of God and Christ and called their practice a most wicked custom."

An objection not formally stated by Mr. Brown, but which I have often heard, is drawn from the words, 'as often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me.' From these words, it is argued that we have no law regarding how often to observe it; therefore, we cannot be condemned for partial or total neglect: for 'where there is no law, there is no transgression.' 'As often' is used not to permit frequency but to describe the manner. 'Always do it in remembrance of me.' Since these words relate to the manner or purpose of the observance, not how often it should be celebrated, it violates every rule of interpretation to infer something else that was not intended by the Apostle. Besides, if 'as often' leaves it up to any group to decide how often, they are blameless if they never once, or only once in their lives, commemorate the Savior’s death. This interpretation makes the observance without reason, law, precedent, and therefore without obligation.

Next to Mr. Brown, we will present a few extracts from William King, Archbishop of Dublin. The editors of the Christian Examiner included a very valuable extract from Mr. King in their May 7 issue of the first volume, from which I quote the following, pp. 163, 165, 166, 167: —

"The following remarks on this institution of our Savior are taken from a 'Discourse concerning the Inventions of Men in the Worship of God,' by William King, of Ireland. He was born in Antrim, 1650; educated at Trinity College, Dublin; and held successively the positions of Dean of St. Patrick's, Bishop of Derry, and Archbishop of Dublin. He died in 1729. His method in this discourse is to examine and compare the worship of God, as taught in the Scriptures, with the practices of the different religious sects of the day: —

'Christ's clear command to do this in remembrance of him, etc., must obligate us at certain times and in certain places; and there can be no better way to determine when we are obligated to do it than by observing when God in his goodness gives us the opportunity; for either we are then obligated to do it, or else we may choose whether we will ever do it or not; there being no better way to determine the frequency than this of God's giving us the opportunity. And the same rule applies to all other general positive commands, such as those that obligate us to charity; we may be sure it applies likewise in this case. Therefore, whoever ignores or neglects any opportunity to receive which God provides, sins as certainly as he who, being enabled by God to perform an act of charity and invited by a fitting object, neglects to help him, or closes his heart against him, concerning whom the Scriptures assure us that the love of God does not dwell in him. And the case is even stronger against him who neglects this holy ordinance; for how can it be supposed that man truly loves his Savior, or has a proper sense of his sufferings, who refuses or neglects to remember the greatest of all benefits in the easiest way, though commanded to do it by his Redeemer and invited by a fair opportunity offered by God himself.

It is clear that if it is not our own fault, we may have an opportunity every Lord's Day when we meet together; and therefore that church is guilty of disregarding the command whose order and worship do not require and provide for this practice. Christ's command seems to lead us directly to it: for, 'Do this in remembrance of me,' implies that Christ was to leave them, that they were to meet together after he was gone, and that he required them to remember him at their meetings while he was absent. The very purpose of our public meetings on the Lord's Day, and not on the Jewish Sabbath, is to remember and keep in our minds a sense of what Christ did and suffered for us until he comes again; and this we are obligated to do, not in the way our own inventions suggest, but by the means Christ himself has prescribed to us, that is, by celebrating this holy ordinance.

It then seems likely, from the very institution of this ordinance, that our Savior intended it to be a part of God's service in all the solemn assemblies of Christians, as the Passover was in the assemblies of the Jews. To know, therefore, how often Christ requires us to celebrate this feast, we only need to inquire how often Christ requires us to meet together; that is, at least every Lord's Day.'"

Next we will introduce an American Rabbi of great renown, Dr. John Mason, of New York. The passages I quote are found in a note attached to page 188 of the New York Edition of Fuller's Strictures on Sandemanianism.

"Mr. Fuller does not deny that the Lord's Supper was observed by the first Christians every Lord's Day (nor will this be denied by anyone who has honestly investigated the subject), but he seems to think that Acts 20:7 does not prove that it was so; others, known for piety and deep research, have considered this passage as providing complete proof of the weekly observance of the Lord's Supper. Dr. Scott, in his valuable Commentary, observes on this passage, 'Breaking of bread, or commemorating the death of Christ in the Eucharist, was one chief reason for their assembling; this ordinance seems to have been constantly administered every Lord's Day, and probably no professed Christians absented themselves from it after they had been admitted into the church; unless they were under some censure or had some real hindrance.'

"Dr. Mason, of this city, in his Letters on Frequent Communion, speaks on this subject with even greater certainty. 'It is well known that during the first three centuries of the Christian era, communions were held with a frequency of which, among us, we have neither example nor resemblance. It is also well known that the original frequency of communions declined as carnality and corruption gained ground. And it is no less well known that it has been urged as a serious duty by the best of men and the best churches in the best of times.'

"Weekly communion did not die with the Apostles and their contemporaries. There is a cloud of witnesses to testify that it was maintained by succeeding Christians with great care and tenderness for more than two centuries. It is not necessary to fill these pages with quotations. The fact is indisputable.

"Communion every Lord's Day was universal and was preserved in the Greek church until the seventh century; and those who neglected three weeks in a row were excommunicated.

"In this way, the spirit of ancient piety cherished the memory of the Savior's love. There was no need for reproof, remonstrance, or entreaty. No trivial excuses for neglect were ever heard from the lips of a Christian; for such neglect had not yet degraded the Christian's name. He carried in his own heart sufficient reasons to obey, without reluctance, the commands of his Lord. It was his choice, his consolation, his joy. These were days of life and glory; but days of dishonor and death were soon to follow; nor was there a more ominous sign of their approach than the decline of frequent communion. For as the power of religion appears in a desire to magnify the Lord Jesus continually, so its decay is first detected by the spread of indifference. It was in the fourth century that the church began noticeably to forsake her first love.

"The excellent Calvin complains that in his day, professors, thinking they had fully discharged their duty by a single communion, resigned themselves for the rest of the year to laziness and sloth. 'It ought to have been,' he says, 'far otherwise. Every week, at least, the Lord's table should have been prepared for Christian assemblies; and the promises declared, by which, partaking of it, we might be spiritually nourished.'"

We will now hear the famous John Wesley. After fifty-five years of reflection on the subject, he concludes that Christians should proclaim the Lord's death every Lord's Day. He introduces his 106th Sermon, Luke 22:19, with this remark: —

"This discourse was written more than fifty-five years ago, for the use of my students at Oxford. I have added very little, but cut much out; as I then used more words than I do now. But I thank God, I have not yet seen cause to change my views on any point presented there."

The Sermon is titled "The Duty of Constant Communion," about which the Reformer says —

"It is no surprise that people who have no fear of God never think of doing this. But it is strange that it should be neglected by anyone who does fear God and desires to save their soul; and yet nothing is more common. One reason many neglect it is that they are so afraid of eating and drinking unworthily that they never consider how much greater the danger is when they do not eat or drink at all."

Speaking of constantly receiving the supper, Mr. Wesley says —

"I say constantly receiving. For the phrase frequent communion is absurd to the highest degree. If it means anything other than constant, it means more than can be proven to be the duty of any person. For if we are not obligated to communicate constantly, by what argument can it be proven that we are obligated to communicate frequently? Yes, more than once a year? Or once in seven years? Or once before we die? Every argument brought for this either proves that we ought to do it constantly, or proves nothing at all. Therefore, that vague, meaningless way of speaking should be set aside by all people of understanding. Our ability is the only rule of our duty. Whatever we can do, we ought to do. Regarding this or any other command, whoever, when he can obey if he wants to, does not, will have no place in the kingdom of heaven."

Though we may have some objections to the style in which John Wesley speaks about the meaning of this institution, as we do with all the others we have quoted, we would recommend the entire Methodist community carefully read the above Sermon. It can be found in vol. 3, pp. 171-179.

The Elders among the Methodists, for whom John Wesley is such a high authority, we remind of his advice, found in his Letters to America, 1784, recently quoted in the Gospel Herald, Lexington, Kentucky.

"I also advise the elders to administer the Lord's Supper every Lord's Day."

So much for John Brown, John Mason, and John Wesley, and the authorities they quoted. While quoting the words of the Johns, I am reminded of something said by the great John Milton, the "immortal bard" of England. In his posthumous works, he says: "The Lord's Supper (which the doctrine of transubstantiation, or rather cannibalism, has almost turned into a banquet of cannibals) is essential to be observed, and may be administered by anyone properly, as well as by an appointed minister. There is no order of men that can claim either the right of distribution or the power to withhold the sacred elements, since in the church we are all equally priests." "The head of a household, or anyone appointed by him, is free to celebrate the Lord's Supper from house to house, as was done in the Passover dispensation" — "all Christians are a royal priesthood: therefore any believer is competent to act as an ordinary minister as convenience may require, provided only he is endowed with the necessary gifts, these gifts constituting his commission." Thus the famous John Milton paved the way for the weekly observance of the supper by removing the priestly trappings and penalties of the dark ages. A cloud of witnesses to the clarity and evidence of the New Testament on the subject of the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper could be presented. But we think this unnecessary; and to avoid lengthiness and tediousness, we will only add a few excerpts from the third volume of the Christian Baptist, 2nd edition, p. 254, as proof of the assertion — all antiquity supports the disciples meeting every first day to break the bread. —

All antiquity agrees in showing that, for the first three centuries, all the churches broke bread once a week. Pliny, in his Epistles, Book 10: Justin Martyr, in his Second Apology for the Christians, and Tertullian, De Ora. page 135, testify that it was the universal practice in all the weekly assemblies of the brethren, after they had prayed and sung praises—

'Then bread and wine being brought to the chief brother, he takes it and offers praise and thanksgiving to the Father, in the name of the Son and Holy Spirit. After prayer and thanksgiving, the whole assembly says, Amen! When thanksgiving is ended by the chief leader, and with the consent of the whole congregation, the deacons (as we call them) give to everyone present a portion of the bread and wine, over which thanks are given.'

"The weekly communion was observed in the Greek church until the seventh century; and, by one of their canons, 'those who neglected three weeks in a row, were excommunicated.'

"In the fourth century, when everything began to be changed by baptized Pagans, the practice started to decline. Some of the councils in the western part of the Roman Empire, by their canons, tried to maintain it. The council held at Illiberis in Spain, A.D. 324, decreed that 'no offerings should be accepted from those who did not receive the Lord's Supper.'

"The council at Antioch, A.D. 341, decreed that 'all who came to church and heard the Scriptures read, but afterward did not join in prayer and receiving the sacrament, should be cast out of the church until they gave public proof of their repentance.'

"All these canons were unable to keep the worldly crowd of professors in a practice for which they had no spiritual appetite; and, indeed, it was likely to fall out of use altogether. To prevent this, the Council of Agatha, in Languedoc, A.D. 506, decreed that 'none should be considered good Christians who did not communicate at least three times a year — at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost.' This soon became the standard of a good Christian, and it was considered presumptuous to commune more often.

"Things continued this way for more than 600 years, until they grew tired of even three communions in one year; and the infamous Council of Lateran, which decreed auricular confession and transubstantiation, declared that 'an annual communion at Easter was sufficient.' This association of the 'sacrament' with Easter, and the mechanical devotion of the ignorant at this time, greatly contributed to the worship of the Host. Thus the breaking of bread in simplicity and godly sincerity once a week degenerated into a pompous sacrament once a year at Easter.

"At the Reformation this subject was only lightly examined by the reformers. Some of them, however, paid some attention to it. Even Calvin, in his Institutes, book 4, chapter 17, section 46, says, 'And truly this custom, which enforces communicating once a year, is a most evident contrivance of the Devil, by whose agency it may have been established.'

"And again (Inst. book 6, chapter 18, section 56) he says, 'It ought to have been far otherwise. Every week, at least, the Lord's table should have been set for Christian assemblies, and the promises declared by which, in partaking of it, we might be spiritually nourished.'

"Martin Chemnitz, Witsius, Calderwood, and other reformers and controversialists agree with Calvin; and, indeed, almost every commentator on the New Testament agrees with the Presbyterian Henry in his remarks on Acts 20:7. 'In the early times it was the custom of many churches to receive the Lord's Supper every Lord's day.'

"The Belgic Reformed Church, in 1851, appointed the supper to be received every other month. The Reformed churches of France, after saying that they had been too lax in observing the supper only four times a year, recommend a greater frequency. The Church of Scotland began with four sacraments a year; but some of her ministers increased to twelve times. Thus things stood until the end of the last century.

"Since the beginning of this century, many congregations in England, Scotland, Ireland, and some in the United States and Canada, both Independents and Baptists, have observed the supper every Lord's day, and the practice is gaining ground every day.

"These historical notes may be useful to those who are constantly crying out Innovation! Innovation! But we advocate the principle and practice on apostolic grounds alone. Blessed is the servant who, knowing his Master's will, does it promptly and gladly!

"Those who want to see a strong refutation of the Presbyterian way of observing the sacrament, and a defense of weekly communion, would do well to read Dr. John Mason's Letters on Frequent Communion, who is himself a high-profile Presbyterian, and therefore his remarks will be more respected by his brethren than mine."

Thus our seventh proposition is supported by the clear declarations of the New Testament, by the reasonableness of the practice itself as suggested by the Apostles, by analogy, by the conclusions of the most eminent reformers, and by the unanimous voice of all Christian antiquity. But on the plain words of the Lord and his Apostles, we rely for authority and instruction upon this and every other Christian institution.

It does, indeed, seem somewhat odd that arguments should have to be presented to urge Christians to gather weekly around the Lord's table. Much more in keeping with the spirit of our religion would be to see them eager to be honored with a seat at the King's table, and asking with intense interest if they might be allowed so often to eat in his presence, and in honor of his love. To have to resist their daily gatherings for this purpose would not be as unnatural and unreasonable a task as having to reason and plead with them to assemble for weekly communion.

But just as a lack of appetite for our physical food is a sign of poor health or approaching illness; so a lack of appetite for spiritual food indicates a lack of spiritual health, or the presence of a moral disease, which, if not healed, must result in falling away from the Living Head. Hence among the most uncertain signs of spiritual decline, the most decisive is a lack of appetite for the nourishment the Good Physician prepared and prescribed for his family. A healthy and vigorous Christian, excluded from the use and enjoyment of all the provisions of the Lord's house, cannot be found.

But much depends on the manner of celebrating the supper, as well as on the frequency. The simplicity of the Christian institution runs through every part of it. While there is a form for doing everything, there is full attention to the thing signified. But there is form as well as substance, and everything that is done must be done in some way. The well-bred Christian is like the well-bred gentleman — his manners are graceful, easy, natural, and simple. All stiffness and forced formality are as graceless in the Christian as in the gentleman. A courteous and polite family differs greatly from a soldier's mess mates or a ship's crew in all the ceremonies of the table. There is Christian decency and Christian order, as well as social courtesy and politeness.

Nothing is more unpleasant than mimicry. It is hypocrisy in manners, which, like hypocrisy in religion, is more offensive than apathy or vulgarity. There is a saintly affectation in behavior and appearance, which differs as much from true sanctity as foppery differs from politeness. The appearance of sanctimoniousness is as much to be avoided as actual moral licentiousness. An austere and rigid Pharisee-like attitude sits as awkwardly on a Christian as mourning clothes on a bride. Cheerfulness is not frivolity — solemnity is not Phariseeism — joy is not noise — nor eating, festivity.

But to act rightly in anything we must feel rightly. If we want to show love, we must first have it. If a person wants to walk humbly, he must be humble; and if one wants to act like a Christian on any occasion, he must always live like a Christian. People who daily converse with God, and who constantly meditate on his salvation, will not need to be told how they should behave at the Lord's table.

The following excerpt from my Memorandum Book provides the closest example to the model we have in mind of good order and Christian decency in celebrating this institution. Indeed, the whole order of that congregation was fitting: —

"The church in — — — — consisted of about fifty members. Not having anyone whom they regarded as fitting Paul's description of a Bishop, they had appointed two senior members, of very serious demeanor, to preside over their meetings. These individuals were not qualified to work in the word and teaching; but they were able to lead well and to preside with Christian dignity. One of them presided at each meeting. After they had gathered in the morning, which was at eleven o'clock, (for they had agreed to meet at eleven and to adjourn at two o'clock during the winter season,) and after they had greeted one another in a very familiar and warm manner, as brothers are accustomed to do who meet for social purposes; the president for the day stood and said: 'Brothers, being gathered in the name and by the authority of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, on this day of his resurrection, let us unite in celebrating his praise.' He then repeated the following stanza: —

• Christ the Lord is risen today!

  Sons of men and angels say;

  Raise your joys and triumphs high, Sing, O heavens! and, earth, reply!"

"The congregation stood and sang this hymn in lively tones. He then called on a brother, who was a very clear and expressive reader, to read a section of the gospel history. He stood and read, in a very audible voice, the account of the crucifixion of the Messiah. After a pause of a few moments, the president called on a brother to pray on behalf of the congregation. His prayer was full of thanksgivings to the Father of Mercies, and with requests for such blessings on themselves and for all people as were promised to those who ask, or for which people were commanded to pray. The language was very appropriate; no meaningless repetitions, no laboring over words, no effort to say everything that came to mind; but to express slowly, clearly, and emphatically, the desires of the heart. The prayer was relatively short; and the whole congregation, brothers and sisters, pronounced aloud the final Amen.

"After prayer, a passage from one of the Epistles was read by the president himself, and a song was requested. A brother stood, and after naming the page, recited —

"'Twas on that night when doomed to know That eager rage of every foe;

That night in which he was betrayed The Savior of the world took bread."

"He then sat down, and the congregation sang with much feeling.

I noticed that the table was set before the disciples met in the morning, and that the disciples sat on a few benches on each side of it, while the visitors sat on seats farther away. The president stood and said that our Lord had a table for his friends, and that he invited his disciples to eat with him. 'In memory of his death, this memorial table,' he said, 'was established; and as the Lord lives forever in heaven, so he lives forever in the hearts of his people. As the first disciples, taught by the Apostles in person, gathered in one place to eat the Lord's supper, and as they chose the first day of the week in honor of his resurrection for this purpose; so we, having the same Lord, the same faith, the same hope as they, have vowed to do as they did. We owe as much to the Lord as they did; and ought to love, honor, and obey him as they did.' Having said this, he took a small loaf from the table, and in one or two sentences gave thanks for it. After thanksgiving, he raised it in his hand, broke it meaningfully, and handed it to the disciples on each side of him, who passed the broken loaf from one to another, until they all shared it. There was no stiffness, no formality, no pageantry; all was easy, familiar, solemn, cheerful. He then took the cup in a similar way, gave thanks for it, and handed it to the disciples sitting next to him, who passed it around; each one serving his brother, until all were served. The thanksgiving before breaking the loaf, and before passing the cup, was as brief and relevant to the occasion as the thanks usually given at a common table for the ordinary blessing of God's provision. They then stood, and with one voice sang —

• To him who loved the sons of men, And washed us in his blood;

  To royal honors raised our heads, And made us priests to God!"

"The president of the meeting called on a brother to remember the poor, and those ignorant of the way of life, before the Lord. He knelt down and the brothers all joined him in asking the Father of Mercies on behalf of all the sons and daughters of affliction; the poor and the needy, and for the conversion of the world. After this prayer, the fellowship, or contribution, was taken up; and the whole church demonstrated the sincerity of their desires by the cheerfulness and generosity they showed in putting into the treasury as the Lord had prospered them.

"A general invitation was given to all the brotherhood if they had anything to propose or ask, tending to the edification of the body. Several brothers stood in succession, and read several passages from the Old and New Testaments, related to some matters which had been subjects of previous investigation and inquiry. Various remarks were made; and after singing several spiritual songs chosen by the brothers, the president, on motion of a brother who noted that the time of adjournment had arrived, closed the meeting by pronouncing the apostolic blessing.

"I understand that all these items were attended to in all their meetings; yet the order of attendance was not always the same. On all the occasions when I was present with them, no person spoke without invitation, or without asking permission of the president, and no person left the meeting before the time of adjournment without special leave. Nothing seemed to be done in a formal or ceremonial way. Everything showed the power of godliness as well as the form; and no one could attend to all that happened without being edified and convinced that the Spirit of God was present. The joy, the affection, and the reverence that appeared in this small assembly, was the strongest argument in favor of their order, and the best commentary on the excellence of the Christian institution."

1 1 Co 3:16-17.

2 1 Pe 2:5.

3 1 Tim. 3:15.

4 Greek, oikos Theou. 5 Heb. 10:21.

6 Greek, ho oikos Theou.

7 1 Co 10:21.

8 1 Co 10:17.

9 Matt. 16:9.

10 Heb. 3:6.

11 1 Pe 2:5.

12 Iliad 2, line 381-399. and 8, line 53-66.

13 Christian Baptist, vol. 3, No. 1. In that volume, in the Fall of 1825, were written four essays on the breaking of bread, which see.

14 C. B. pp. 211-212.

15 1 Co 16:2.

16 Mason's Letters on Frequent Communion, pp. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 42. Edinburgh Edition, 1799.

17 Erskine's Dissertations, p. 271.

18 Council Illib. Can. 28.

19 Council Antioch. Son 2:1-17.

20 Coun, Agatha, Can. 18.

21 Bingham's Ori. B. 15: C. 9.