missioned by Jesus, and who had received power to enable them to pursue the work were not so wise as himself, who has received a mission from the Rev. R. Aspland, the Rev. W. Vidler, &c. and who is possessed of no miraculous powers-that the Apostles had no plan, no order, no discipline for their converts while himself, in converting men to Unitarianism, pursues order and discipline, disuniting them from Calvinist churches or congregations to unite them with Unitarian priests; or perhaps the whole is intended to throw dust in the eyes of well-meaning conscientious Christians, to answer the purposes supposed in our introductory remarks.

As

Page 4. The Christian church is called" a self-formed society," while in the same breath, we are told Christ said " my kingdom is not of this world"-" other foundation hath no man laid than that' which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." well might we say, "Salvation is of ourselves," and immediately quote" by grace are ye saved, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God."

P. 5, we have a further explanation of this subject.-" Selfformed societies must be founded by the free choice of those who compose them. They were free to judge, speak, and act for themselves, in all religious matters, before they united in churches, and such a union cannot be supposed to imply an abandonment of Christian liberty, and the rights of conscience, seeing it is founded on those principles.' But we will ask this gentleman, how the Christian church can be self-formed when it was neither planned or formed by man, but by the wonderful power of God, exercised in a miraculous way? Jesus instructed his disciples forty days in the things pertaining to his kingdom, and no man, however religious he may profess to be, can be a Christian, unless he is a subject of that kingdom. "God so loved the world, that he sent his well-beloved son, not to condemn the world, but that the world through him. might be saved." Forgiveness of sins that were past was proclaimed as the free gift of a merciful Creator, on condition that the man who embraced this offer of pardon forsook his sins, and believing the gospel, practised every duty therein inculcated. But how was a man to learn his duty? Not from the New Testament, for that did not exist; not from occasionally hearing the Apostles proclaim the resurrection; but by uniting to the church-by becoming one in the family of God-which was evidently intended as the depositary of the facts and duties belonging to Christianty--a school in which the man was to be trained to virtue with the hope of immortality-the uniting with which was not left to the option of the man wishing to become a Christian, as he could not obey the precepts of Christianity without thus uniting-" As if thy brother offend thee," &c. (Matt. xviii.) or " exhort one another, admonish one another, watch

over each other," &c. In short, the church is not "self-formed," but is, by the kindness of God, founded necessarily on the doctrines of Jesus, and as such emphatically called "the church of God."

But we are told "they were free to judge, speak, and act, for themselves in all religious matters, before they united in churches; and such an union cannot be supposed to imply an abandonment of Christian liberty." Of Christian liberty, as opposed to Christian fellowship, we know nothing, except from the book before us, where we are told (page 5), "unless the principles of Christian liberty be understood and acted upon, it is not likely that church will be formed according to Gospel purity and simplicity." We then read of discipline without order, and officers without authority, cantingly interwoven by observing, "to submit to any authority but that of Christ, in religious matters, is an act of disobedience to him," though the writer must well know that to "submit to the authority of Christ" implies obedience to his precepts and doctrines, and that this cannot be done out of the church or even in the church, unless order and discipline be preserved. That members of a church have a right to judge and think for themselves in religious matters we allow; but that they have a right to act we deny, because the whole body is affected by the actions of the members that compose it. If one member perform a wrong action, the whole body suffers; hence the propriety of "watching over each other lest a brother be overtaken in a fault." Suppose, in the present day, a member of the Freethinking Christian church should think good might be done by the anti-christian practice of pulpit preaching; so far will his thought do no harm. But suppose he should practise, or by his actions support, that which his brethren thought the very bane of Christianity, would not this be "a house divided against itself?" Would it not become the duty of that Christian church to cut off the palsied limb, lest it should destroy the body? Thus, though a man is free to act previous to joining a Christian society, he must, when united to that society, act in connection with, and agreeable to, the nature of that institution.

The reverend gentleman, in speaking concerning the officers of the church, observes" it is the duty of churches, if it be in their power, so to provide for their ministers as to keep them free from the entanglements of worldly business." Oh priests! priests! will ye always pervert the truth! We call on him to produce a single instance from the primitive churches as an example for such an appointment. We know, and the Unitarian missionary knows, that the very nature of a Christian church would be destroyed by such a practice; but if this writer can persuade the conscientious, though ignorant, Christian, that the religion of Jesus is so dark or difficult, that the

man who attempts to instruct ought not to be " entangled with worldlyconcerns," his point is gained--exhortation,admonition, and instruction, cease to be the reciprocal duty of Christians; of course that society which is founded on the necessity of such practices becomes useless. If he can by cunning duplicity, or perversion, persuade men to this, then a congregation of good men and bad men, of virtuous and vicious characters, will be regarded as a Christian church, and they will perform their duty by supporting every schoolmaster, tailor, or weaver, who, too lazy to work, wishes to be hired as their minister, and to become "free from the entanglements of worldly business." We further observe the craft of this writer, who, while he endeavours to ease Christians of every duty which tended mutually to their benefit, and that could not by any perversion put a single penny into the priest's pocket, in his "general conclusions,' is particularly careful to guard his expressions, by observing, "No person who professeth faith in Christ, unless he evidently hold the truth in unrighteousness, ought to be denied access to the Lord's table, or any other privilege of a Christian church;" as though the writer had said to his fellow-labourers, "For God's sake, turn no man away, if you can get anything by him."

But what are these great privileges to which Christians, who are not "evidently immoral," are to have access? Is it the privilege of partaking at the hands of a "minister, freed from the entanglements of worldly business," a bit of bread and 'a sip of wine, by paying ten times the value of it? Is it the privilege of doing what is nowhere commanded to be done the privilege of performing what has not a single moral advantage to recommend it; but which only tends to perpetuate the power of the priest, by damping the energy of the mind, in substituting external ceremonies in the place of justice, mercy, and truth? Now if none but "evidently immoral" Christians are to be denied what this gentleman is pleased to call the duties and privileges of a Christian church-if a' teacher is to be set up in that church, and if it is the duty of that church to maintain him as a gentleman-if that church consists of all who attend to hear this exalted individual-if the "congregation and church are identical"-then all who attend at Essex-street, ať Hackney, or at the chapel in Parliament-court, are good Christians-yea all who assemble at "the tavern feasts," for the promotion of Christianity, though they shall laugh poor Gisburne to scorn, when he speaks of suffering for the cause of Christianity!

On this subject we will make no further remarks, but by referring every man to our introductory remarks, and to the pamphlet itself, leave Christians to form an estimate of the intention of the book, and the character of the author:

ON THE LORD'S SUPPER.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

THE subject on which I am about to treat having been handled in so masterly a manner by your correspondent "Philo Veritas," 1 almost despaired of having any thing more to add, by way of making still more evident to every one, who would exercise those faculties with which God has endowed man, that the bread and wine ceremony, falsely called the Lord's Supper, has neither Scripture nor reason to support it. However, as my ideas on this subject were not primarily conceived in consequence oflooking over the pages of your Magazine, though they have been much strengthened thereby, a few remarks, arising chiefly from an examination of those passages of Scripture on which this mystery of all mysteries is generally founded, may not be altogether useless.

In the first place, I maintain that merely eating a morsel of bread, and sipping a little wine, is no where in Scripture called the Lord's Supper, which I will endeavour to prove it is therefore derogatory to the glory of God, and a perversion of holy writ, so to call it. It is nothing more than an ecclesiastical supper, palmed upon mankind as an institution of Jesus, by the cunning craftiness of priests in ages that are past. This supper, like many other ecclesiastical absurdities, is observed at the noon time of day, forsooth, a few hours after breakfast; and most hours in the afternoon. Some eat of it once in their lives, to jump into a good thing even under a Protestant government; some on the verge of an eternal world as a passport to heaven; some three times a year, some once a month, some once a week; and some in the church to which I lately belonged, maintain that any member of it, if so disposed, may observe this ceremony, not only every first day of the week at the general assembly, but every day, and every hour in the day, without the presence of elders; also by individuals alone, being absent from the church, or any member thereof, as one affirmed he was in the habit of doing when on a journey. So much for the time of observing this bread and wine supper; and it strikes me there is just as much Scripture for the one as the other, which, in fact, is none at all.

Were 1 to look into past ages, to see what holy popes and reverend parsons have made of this supper, I should be lost in a labyrinth of monstrous absurdities. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Good would it have been, if those men called reformers, when they discovered that the constituent parts of this supper had been the occasion of gross idolatry, had (as far as their influence extended) extirpated it

VOL. II.

from off the face of the earth, as good king Hezekiah did the brazen serpent that Moses had made, because the Israelites burned incense unto it.

There are also diversities of opinion as to the right posture of body when this supper is eaten; some take it kneeling, some sitting, and some think a reclining posture, according to eastern custom, most scriptural. A particular state of mind is by most communicants held as necessary, lest, coming unworthily to the holy table, they eat and drink their own damnation, and actually become guilty of murder, thus delivering themselves unto Satan with a witness; as many may suppose was the case with the Corinthians. But lest so direful an evil should take place in these latter days, some have piously put forth weekly preparations and companions to the altar, as being necessary for those who would receive the holy sacrament in a worthy manner. I deny that those tables, whether placed at the east end of huge buildings, called churches, or near the centre of meeting-houses, are the Lord's tables, though 1 have been told that when the elements of bread and wine are on those tables, they are then the Lord's. This idea savours too much of popery to be received by any whose only guide is the Scriptures of truth. Whether bread and wine, or bread and cheese, be on those tables, they are all the same, the very same parish, clergyman's, committee or trustee-men's, or perhaps some devout lady's table, used for the purpose of supporting the tottering kingdom of the clergy, or holding up systems of religion diametrically opposite to that which Jesus and his Apostles set up.

"The kingdom of God (saith Jesus) cometh not with outward shew; neither shall they say, lo here! or lo there; for behold the kingdom of God is within or among you." Now it is a well known fact, that Jesus openly avowed that his kingdom was not of this world; a decisive declaration this; though not. often thought of by gentlemen of the cloth (black, of course! most happy choice, as it is correspondent with the kingdom of darkness to which they more or less belong). "There was

one who sat at meat with Jesus said, blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God (Luke xiv. 15). And 1 appoint unto you (saith Jesus unto the Apostles) a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And when he took the cup at the passover supper, Jesus told them that he would no more drink of the fruit of the vine till he drank it new with them in his father's kingdom." (Matt. xvi. 29.) According to Mark, "until that day that 1 drink it new in the kingdom of God;" and, according to Luke, "until the kingdom of God shall come."