we should slight them? And if we say that the communion rite has no meaning, have we an explanation? We would not for a moment presume to sit in judgment upon the consciences of men, nor would we go so far as to say that a participation in the beautiful and impressive ordinance of the Lord's Supper is absolutely essential to make one a Christian; and yet, as an expression of our belief in Christ, and as a public recognition of religious obligations, attendance upon the communion can scarcely be estimated too highly.

Many excuse themselves for declining this method of avowal by saying that a participation in the Lord's Supper seems to them a solemn and dreadful act, and they shrink from it. They would be struck with horror, they say, if they were to sit down at the Communion Table. How is this feeling to be accounted for? Is it then so awful a thing to confess Christ? to give this public testimony in behalf of his religion? to remember him in the way he has appointed? Would it be an awful thing to confess a dear friend in his absence, as a testimony of respect and love? or to remember a dead mother, to call to mind her tenderness and care, her sacrifices and tears for those she loved, by means of a lock of hair, or a picture, or some memorial act? But in what would this remembrance differ from the remembrance of Christ through the memorial rite he has instituted? Besides, the very reason one would give for remembering his mother by means of some visible form or outward observance, can be urged with a hundred-fold greater force why, in a serious and devout way, he should remember him who in his great love for us bore our griefs and carried our sorrows. In the place of a feeling of horror at the thought of approaching the table of communion, there should be a feeling of willingness, nay, a strong desire, to sit down at the board spread with the emblems of the body and blood of Jesus broken and shed on the cross for our sakes. Thus the question would not be, Is it my duty to remember Christ in this way? must I come to his table if I would be a Christian? but may I come, and in sweet and holy communion bring him as near to my soul as I can, and at the same time

give my most emphatic testimony to the reality and worth of his religion?

In regard to the frequency of the Memorial Supper, there is no common rule or practice among the Churches. While they each have their appointed times and seasons for its celebration, separated by greater or less intervals, each is divided in opinion, or there is a disparity of views among their membership, how often the ordinance should recur, whether weekly, fortnightly, monthly, quarterly, or annually only. There are many to hold, and their number is gradually augmenting, that more frequent opportunities of receiving the holy Supper ought to be given, and not limited to great and solemn periods, or to state occasions, as it were. Their reasons, in part, for so holding, are, 1. That in the times of the Apostles, and for a century or two after, it was the practice of Christians to observe the ordinance of the Supper, if not daily, at least on each occasion of Sunday worship. 2. That it is not a certain natural sensibility to the death of Christ, which death the Memorial Feast is appointed to show forth, that is to be sought in the observance of this Feast; — but rather that we be spiritually nourished, through the elements of bread and wine, with that flesh which is meat indeed, and that blood which is drink indeed. To be thus nourished we must be often fed. We would starve if supplied with the heavenly food only at long intervals. 10

To all this a majority of Christians of Protestant Christians especially would probably reply that, while they would not restrict the Communion to an annual observance, so that we go only once a year to the Lord's Table as to a heavenly banquet, yet that reverence toward the Ordinance is adverse to a frequent,- say weekly or fortnightly, observance.

10 The able and eminent French Protestant pastor, Adolphe Monod, in an address entitled "Frequent Communion," discourses as follows: "Each of you may have remarked, that rare communion gives I know not what strange and extraordinary idea of the Communion,- of the preparation which ought to precede, and of the emotions which follow it. On the contrary, frequent Communion makes us understand much better the true character of this Sacrament; . . . . for it teaches us to connect the Communion with all there is most simple in Christian life, just as a repast is one of the simplest things in ordinary life."

They are positive that the emotions could not be stirred by an often as by a comparatively rare celebration of the Lord's Supper; and that repeated on each Lord's Day, or monthly even, it would degenerate into mere formality, and lose its significance as a remembrance festival. Besides, they say, frequent communion leaves little room, especially for those immersed in the cares of business, for that sifting self-examination and other preparation essential to a worthy participation. Hold as we may in regard to frequent communion, let it not be forgotten that, whether for us the Lord's Table is spread few or many times in the year, when we come to it we are to sup with Him who lived a life of poverty that others might live richly the atoning Son of God, the loving-hearted Son of Man, the sinless Saviour of sinners, in whom if we believe we shall not perish but have everlasting life, and by whose cross we are crucified to the world and the world to us. And how shall we come other than with the prayer in our hearts, that just as in that upper room of a house in Jerusalem he may preside at the solemn Feast of Remembrance; and so speak to us through the symbols of his reconciling sacrifice, as that we may retire with lives renewed, with a better preparation for all duty and service, and therefore a better preparation for the feast of love and reunion and rejoicing when we shall gather at the Father's House, and this shall be our song: "Unto Him who hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God; to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever!"

A. C. Barry.

[NOTE. The author of the above truly admirable paper departed this life shortly after forwarding it for publication. He signified to us that he had other Articles in course of preparation, and it is our hope that they may yet be forwarded. Ed.

ARTICLE XXIV.

Universalism.

THE fathers of the Universalist Church held a happy thought, and found for it and their church a happy name. The thought, the name, and the church, are no light heritage. The sons receive them with joy; but that which makes them rejoice must make them sober. The thought reaches too far, the name signifies too much, the church is too nobly inspired and christened, that these men of noble sires should be thoughtless or careless. They have inherited the great positive dogma ; and its infinite implications. Universalism is a happy word; great is the responsibility it lays on its sons.

Men to-day somehow, let them be as modest and as unknowing as they will, find good heart to deny one dogma. Men to-day, sounding the depths of spiritual being, stand trembling before a mighty vision, and affirm not. Others cling tenaciously to a thought of darkness, holding it revealed truth. Universalism is in the midst. Is it a Divine birth?-such it is, or it sinks into the waste of years as daring and unfounded an assertion as ever escaped the lips of man. As a Divine birth we accept it; and strive to realize its significance.

Universalism is faith; and faith exceeding. It proceeds upon the supposition that the noblest ideals are true; strives to be not disobedient to any heavenly vision. One can well believe that one has not exceeded the truth, but rather falls below it; but we would that we might be out of earliest limitations; we fain would reach manhood. Surely none can wish to possess the deep doubtfulness and the thought that mustbe accounted unworthy that anything can be too good to be true.

Modern Universalism arose in the midst of a religious temper that was remarkably intent upon the world beyond the grave, and that had been carrying for ages the heaviest burden of hardened wrath or of despair. Under these conditions Universalism sprung into expression out of a loving and hope

ful heart as a doctrine of the last things. Its coming was in some respects unlike its coming in the early Christian days. Then it came the free and placidly rising stream of Christian life and thought; till it was overwhelmed by untutored hordes and earthly power. In the later day it came against prescription and authority; yet it came. In the earlier day it was altogether evangelical; it was reverent, spiritual; and in the later day of a prescribed gospel it still was "evangelical," as the phrase has gone, save that it set its mighty faith against the lurid and agonizing belief that to it was not glad. But it was inevitable, again in a free and growing day, that it should come into a clearer consciousness of the sources of its rising tide, and cease to set upon the system wherein these later men of faith were reared, a new consummation. That system vanishes for a better..

a man

This has been and still is the more pressingly inevitable in that with the rising Christian consciousness is happily found the rising scientific consciousness. And not only is the system in its contents of thought modified or superseded, but its method of inculcating standards of authority is changed. In the day when modern Universalism was born the dictum of a man supported by an appeal to a Church or a Bible was in general unquestioned. Endless punishment was true, if only should the Church or the Bible says so. say Universal salvation was true, if only a man would say that the Bible And a man said it. But the scientific consciousness says so. comes in upon him, and he finds that he has put or found his own heart in the Bible; and that so long as the Bible is held to be infallible men do not long put or find anything else than their own hearts in it. He learns a new lesson. He learns to study the Bible so far as possible without prejudice, for whatsoever of error or of truth it has, for its own life and thought; and to study his own and all men's minds in their trials upon truth, to ascertain by the fullest use of his faculties so much truth as he

may.

But striving to be true to the scientific consciousness it may not be surprising if our Universalist has felt a shock of surprise