much that is fitted to cherish this spirit; but this is not the same thing as is meant by a vow in its common acceptation. In every act of worship, Christians express their resolution or purpose to be the devoted subjects of the Saviour, and not merely at the Lord's table. Here, no doubt, they ought, in a particular manner, to feel the power of those motives which urge believers to cleave with firm purpose of heart to the Lord; but different ways of expressing their fixed resolution in the strength of divine grace, to abide by him, are adapted to different persons, which, setting aside every other consideration, forbids us to insist on any one as particularly enjoined.

"No doubt, too, the public confession of the truth which is there made, must aggravate our guilt, if we afterwards deny it, or cease to be influenced by it, so that it may be said to lay us under great obligations. But so, in a measure, does our observance of every other divine appointment, all of which are connected with the death of Christ. There is much evidence, to prove that the confining a sense of obligation so much to one institution, has the effect of inducing comparative, and often great indifference as to others. The gospel of Christ, and in particular his death, furnishes the most powerful motives to obedience, and in vain do we think of adding to them. It is not by formal engagements at the table of the Lord, that we can increase the importance of any duty, nor ought such things ever to give us peace, under a sense of guilt, or cause confidence in our steadfastness. If they do, we shall find, to our cost, that they are a false foundation."

There were few points for which our forefathers contended more earnestly than for the scriptural simplicity of ordinances. Having beheld the dreadful consequences flowing from innovations apparently harmless, and even edifying, but unauthorized by the inspired record, they denounced every appendage to the sacraments, however sightly or solemn, which was not expressed or implied in the original institution. They knew that the rill of unauthorized invention, would soon swell into a mighty river of superstition. Thus, after our fathers, we reject, in Baptism, the exorcism, the salting of the mouth, the sign of the cross, the touching of nose and ears with the priest's spittle, and the oil of catechumens; all which are ordained by the Council of Trent. Thus, also, in the Lord's Supper, we reject the manifold dresses-amict, alb, cincture, sudarium, and chasuble; the

manifold vessels-cruets, patens, chalice, purifier, and corporal; the genuflections, and crossings; the mumblings and elevations; and the whole array of pantomime connected with the mass. And this we do, in order to return as nearly as possible to the simplicity of our Lord's institution, and thus to keep our mind undisturbed by any thoughts, however solemn, which do not pertain to the ordinance. In this we cannot be too cautious, for such is the frailty and perverseness of human nature, that while we reject one sort of ceremony we may be busy in bringing in another. It is not enough to warrant the introduction of a new form, that it is decorous, impressive, or even awful. The ever returning challenge from the throne of God is, "Who hath required this at your hands?" We are perpetually engaged in a vain endeavour to improve upon God's prescriptions. They are too bald, too unimpressive; but unless we abide by what is ordained, we cannot well stop short of a cumbrous and superstitious ceremonial. And we cannot go one step towards making a sacrament what it is not, without, in proportion, impairing what it is.

It is upon these principles, that we found an objection to some innovations in the manner of conducting the services connected with the Lord's Supper. The supplementary rites to which we allude are not indecorous in themselves; nay, it is this very seemliness which constitutes the plea for their admission, and which, in many cases, places a new and dazzling object before the eye of the communicant, in the glitter of which the real light of the divine emblems is sometimes lost. Small and insignificant as these matters may appear to some, they are precisely those in which the purity of gospel ordinances has in every age begun to be corrupted: until the accessory has come to be regarded as the principal. Thus the fierce disputes arose about the use of leaven in the sacramental bread; a controversy which some are attempting to rekindle in our western states. Thus there are good men who would think there was no sacrament unless they received it kneeling, and others as good, who could scarcely partake unless at a literal table; and there may be those whose devotions might be disturbed by the absence of that Scottish numisma, known in some parts of the church under the denomination of a token; while we have known communicants in whose esteem all the significant and commemorative part of the sacrament seemed to fade away, in comparison with the fearful rising in the face of the great

VOL. XII. NO. I.

4

congregation, and assuming the vows pronounced from the pulpit for their acceptance. Whatever they might say, it was this which, in their minds, was the sacrament. This was the solemn act of engagement to be the Lord's, to which the timid looked forward with an apprehension which scarcely left room for any of the legitimate exercises of tender love and faith.

Having alluded to this custom, it may be necessary for us to add some explanation, as the ceremony is one absolutely unknown to our Scottish fathers, inconsistent with the principles of Presbyterianism, and prevalent only in those portions of our church which are near the borders of New England, or which have been settled by Congregationalists, or subjected to a ministry and measures derived from the eastern states. For the sake of those who are not familiar with this addition to the services of the Lord's table, we will state the case as follows: In the religious societies of New England, it has been common to admit persons to the communion of the church, by causing them to accede to a solemn covenant in the presence of the whole congregation. And this suits well with the Congregational theory, according to which the church, or body of believers, already bound together in covenant, receive into communion in a like covenant, all who are added to the church; and do this, not representatively as is the manner of Presbyterians, but immediately, in their primary capacity. For, in all Independent societies, it is the church proper, or associated believers, and not the church representative, or session, who perform acts of government. The manner is this, or something like this: At some convenient moment, prior to the administration of the ordinance, all those who are now to join the communion of the church, are called out and take their stand in the sight of the congregation, just before the pulpit or desk. The minister reads to them a confession of faith, and a covenant, and receives their public declaration of assent to both. These creeds and covenants of course differ in different churches, and sometimes it is found convenient, as in New Haven, to alter the creed, to suit new discoveries. The solemnity, as we have witnessed it, is certainly imposing. On the minds of those chiefly concerned, it must needs produce an impression lasting as life, in comparison with which the subsequent ordinance loses its force, and which is in our judgment injurious in the direct ratio of its solemnity. It is this public Covenanting which fills with alarm the soul of the person pro

pounded. It is this which leads him to regard the solemn oath of allegiance as the very kernel of the ordinance..

It is not enough to tell us, that this is very solemn; deeply affecting the minds both of those who engage in it, and of all bystanders. This we freely admit; but most earnestly do we protest against the principle that we may add to God's ordinances any thing and every thing which is of imposing character; or that we may argue directly from the awfulness or tenderness of an observance, to its value and allowableness: or, still further, that we may introduce a new element into a divine institution, not in harmony with the substantive parts of the ordinance. It was this fallacy which filled our churches with new measures, and which erected what was barbarously called "the anxious-seat" almost into a sacrament. It was this which filled the popish churches with pictures, incense, processions, and all the pageant of the mass. This public covenanting is undoubtedly solemn; it would be more signally so if it were accompanied with sackcloth, ashes, tapers, and the weeping of penitents; or if, as in the ancient church, the poenitentes were not allowed to enter beyond a certain line. But are these things, for this reason, to be admitted? It is solemn, but is it commanded? Is it implied in the command? Is it one of those things necessary to the performance of the command? Is it conducive to the spirit of the ordinance? The history of the church abounds. in fearful proofs of a disposition to despise simple rites, especially the two sacraments; so that they have been overladen and overwhelmed with solemn additions, besides having five others added to their number. It is but a step from this to expect a blessing ex opere operato. Nothing can be more unwarranted than to make the simple, but precious sacrament of the Lord's Supper an instrument for mere effect. It is this which has turned the communion table into an altar, and retained the crucifix in many churches of protestant Germany.

Not less is our objection to the prominency thus given to the idea of a vow, or a covenant, as necessarily belonging to the Lord's Supper. The Covenant of Grace is indeed represented most affectingly in this ordinance, in faith of the accomplishment of its promises. But so little is made of this in our day, that we believe there could be found churches in New England and the parts adjacent, where the word covenant is never used in a religious sense of any but this church covenant. It is, to our apprehension, a derogation from the

remembrance of Christ, to change it into an oath of fidelity. It is a memorial, and an emblem, a feast and a communion; but it is never represented in scripture under the special notion of a binding compact, or an awful vow. "Instead of ensnaring or entangling ourselves," says Dr. Russell," with oaths or formal vows, let us contemplate the cross and character of Christ. Here there is all that is moving in love, affecting in condescension, and engaging in mercy-united with all that can impress us with a sense of the baseness and desert of sin: and in contemplating and celebrating the love. of God in the gift of his Son, the unutterable condescension of the Saviour, we shall be powerfully constrained by the innumerable mercies of the everlasting covenant, to present ourselves unto God as a living sacrifice, and to live to Him who for us groaned and died."

There is a plain exception, when unbaptized persons apply for admission into the church. It is proper that they should make a public profession of their faith, in the presence of the congregation; inasmuch as this very profession is an indispensable prerequisite to their being baptized, should immediately precede it, and must therefore take place in the church. But when our Directory, in a chapter expressly allotted to the reception of church members, enjoins this public profession in the case of baptism, and yet makes no similar provision for the other sacrament, the conclusion is unavoidable, that the church never contemplated any such covenant. Indeed, as has been already suggested, it is a rite which has crept into our congregations from New England, and carries with it the supposition of a church covenant; an idea which, however familiar and precious to the minds of Congregationalists, is foreign to our habits of thought.

In addition to the imposing solemnity of such a ceremony, its advocates have sometimes pleaded, that there should be some act of receiving the believer into full communion, and that this is a natural and proper way of establishing his connexion with the church. This is undeniably true of churches on the Independent plan. The body of communicants is the only legitimate acting body; to be consistent, they ought to examine and receive: and the proceeding of which we treat is well fitted to represent and propagate their theory. But why should we, without any acquiescence in this theory, adopt the measures which are built on it? We are Presbyterians: we hold it to be expedient and agreeble to scripture, and the practice of the primitive Christians, that the govern