der of their lives the hallowed and hallowing influences of the commemorative ordinance. We have been led to speak at greater length than we intended of the obstacle to general attendance on the communion, to be found in the anomalous position of our denomination, combining a liberal creed with Calvinistic customs. But this cause is not alone. Many are withheld from participation by mistakes relative to the nature of the ordinance, some by a vague and superstitious dread, resulting from early impressions of a Calvinistic character, others by a more distinct, though still erroneous opinion, founded on a misapprehension of St. Paul's language when protesting against the gross misconduct of the Corinthian church. Such errors the preacher must of course labor to remove, by showing the causes from which they have originated, and the effort which has from age to age been made to surround this simple rite with mystery, and render the festival of Christian freedom a means of strengthening the chains of mental slavery. Others are detained from the communion by a very different cause, a dislike of those qualities which they have, either with or without reason, been led to believe are apt to distinguish church-members, formality, cant, and pharisaic hypocrisy. Feelings of such a description may, perhaps, better be met in private conversation than by preaching; though, occasionally, in the latter mode the character of the true church-member may be vindicated. This whole class of prejudices may be styled "anti-Orthodox.” They result from the old controversial position of our denomination, and are gradually passing away. Their decline will be aided by the scrupulous observance of candor and courtesy by ministers in speaking of our Orthodox brethren. Where we differ from them, we may fairly state the difference and its reasons, but should never allow ourselves to sneer at their professions or their customs, nor suffer such sneers to pass unrebuked in our presence. Others are deterred by a cause more worthy of respect, consisting in a tendency of mind to carry to excess the idea of the spiritual nature of religion. Our age and clime inspire a very different appreciation of religious forms from that which was natural to Orientals in the time of our Saviour. We have ceased entirely to recognize the spiritual influence of fasting; and there are those who have ceased to find any such influence in a participation in the emblems of the Saviour's body and blood. Perhaps this tendency of our unimaginative age is felt by many who do participate. Many, probably, partake because they consider it their duty, who yet find it difficult to enter into the spirit of the ordinance. We should suppose that such a result implied some deficiency in susceptibility of imagination, but for instances where the mental character of the individual forbids such a supposition. And however we may regard such instances, we cannot but believe that the deficiency to which we have alluded is one great cause why the communion is undervalued. But the fault is not in the partakers alone. If the ordinance were presented to their minds as the Saviour appointed it, simply as a feast of love and commemoration of him, there are few who would not feel its power; but it has been so shrouded in mystery, so complicated with false ideas of church-membership and religious profession, that the dying Saviour is no longer the chief object present to the mind. The remedy for this evil, as far as depends on the clergy, is apparent. Let their remarks in explanation of the communion, their arguments for its observance, and, in great part, their views of it as a means of profession, be presented on other occasions; but when we meet around the table of the Lord, let him we commemorate be the chief object in the thoughts of all. But after all, the great obstacle among ourselves, and among all sects, to attendance on the communion is the same great obstacle to all good which we are continually meeting, and must continually strive to remove, indifference, want of deep religious feeling and principle. If the members of our congregations can be made truly pious, they will, generally speaking, be led by love and reverence to the communion-table, though any should strive to keep them thence; if their hearts are not brought under the influence of religion, in vain do we open the door to those who care not to enter. This consideration should not, indeed, prevent us from doing our best to remove every impediment that is caused by wrong views of the ordinance, nor from exercising our best judgment as to the means of winning attention to this important aid in Christian progress. Rather will this thought inspire new vigilance and activity. If we regard a scanty attendance upon the communion as a sign of a low state of piety in our congregations, we shall be excited to remove not only the sign, but the cause from which it has proceeded. The minister's duty is twofold: first, to place the ordinance in a proper point of view before his people, so that no impediment shall exist to keep back from participation those who are worthily disposed; this is one part; but the much more important branch of his office is, to awaken those feelings and impress those principles which shall lead to the discharge of this, as of every duty, the prompt and grateful use of this, as of every means of grace. Let neither portion of the great task be neglected. Let the clergy instruct their hearers in their duty and their right to approach the Lord's table. Let them still more earnestly strive to lead them forward in the love and in the fear of God, and in reverence and gratitude to their Redeemer. To recapitulate the suggestions we have made as to the course to be pursued in order to induce a more general attendance upon the ordinance of the Supper. That course is, in the first place, that the minister should explain to his hearers that they are, if sincere believers in the Gospel, and endeavouring to obey its laws, entitled to church-membership; that it is not an end, but a means, not a crown for the victor, but a sword for the combatant. Secondly, that he should meet prejudice by fair and clear explanation of the true grounds of regard for the institution; and try, in whatever use he makes of the ordinance, to keep prominently in view its character as a memorial rite, intended to engage the feelings in the cause of religion. Thirdly, that he should direct special attention to the young, above all, to those who year after year leave the instruction of our Sunday schools; that, instead of suffering these to fall into the ranks of indifference, he should engage them to make the termination of their period of instruction the beginning of their membership in the church, consecrating themselves to God and to Christ at their entrance on the duties of mature life. Lastly, that he should be excited, by regarding the scantiness of our communion-bands as a mark of the spiritual wants of our churches, to renewed ardor and perseverance, the exertion of every power and the use of every means to promote the growth of true piety among those intrusted to his charge. S. G. B. ART. III. NATURE AND CHRISTIANITY. [A Dudleian Lecture, delivered in the Chapel of the University at Cambridge, May 12, 1847. By REV. WILLIAM H. FURNESS.] THE subject of this Lecture is Natural Religion, a subject which, with all the ability with which it has been treated, remains but imperfectly understood; as is evident from the impression, so generally existing, that while Christendom, the region of Revealed Religion (as Christianity is called, in opposition to Natural Religion), rejoices in the full daylight of religious truth, the rest of mankind are lost in a midnight gloom, a very melancholy persuasion this, which, if well founded, destroys the value of the Christian revelation, and breaks up the very first principles of natural religion itself. For what sort of a world is this, what the Providence that watches over it, if the great majority of the human race are left, from the cradle to the grave, without guidance and without hope? However this belief may have been produced, whether it has been expressly taught or not, although upon this point there can be no question, the fact that such a faith exists is undeniable. It lies impressed upon the general mind of the Christian world, it is implied in much of our religious teaching and religious phraseology and religious action, that the boundaries of Christendom are the boundaries of all saving religious light, and that beyond all is dark, broken.. here and there by a few faint glimmerings which only suffice to make the darkness visible. The existence, the wide prevalence, of this notion gives an interest to our present subject, and makes us curious to know what the light of nature enables man to see, what Natural Religion is, what is meant by it. - I am not so presumptuous as to expect to make this matter all clear, certainly not within the limits of this discourse, nor indeed within any limits. My simple desire is to present what I have to say in a manner which, while the subject itself admits of it and Christianity authorizes it, will tend certainly not to diminish, but to strengthen rather, our conviction of the universal providence of Heaven, helping us to see the same impartial care shown for the moral and religious welfare of man universally, as for his physical well-being. I shall endeavour to keep in the light and under the guidance of plain principles of Christian truth. Without their aid we cannot hope to elucidate this, or any mystery of our condition. To ascertain how much religious light nature affords, an obvious method would seem to be, to discharge our minds of all the truth with which Christianity has made us familiar, to transport ourselves into the extra-Christian world, and, taking a position upon which no Christian light falls, see what can be seen from that point of view. But this cannot be done; it is impossible; for the simple reason that we cannot transport ourselves out of ourselves. From the circumstances of our birth and condition, our minds have received hues which have dyed them through and through, which are indelible, and which must color all our conclusions. By no effort can we rid ourselves of the predilections, - I do not say prejudices, for it is no fault or misfortune, but a positive advantage, that it is so, the predilections and modes of thinking which our education has wrought into our moral and intellectual structure; and therefore it is impossible for us to go back into the Heathen world, and look at things with eyes unused to Christian light. It has been attempted, we all know, and laborious students have returned from their investigations into the religious attainments of antiquity, and laid before the world results which have been received by those who were of their way of thinking as decisive. And certainly, if great labor and learning alone were necessary, the amount of religious truth possessed by the world before Christ would long ago have been ascertained to the satisfaction of all. But the plain fact is, that such investigations into the religious condition of the old world have always been undertaken and pursued for special purposes and under special biases, to demonstrate, for instance, either the value of Christianity or the necessity of a revelation. And this is enough. to vitiate the conclusions arrived at, though supported by never so many facts. Facts are very valuable. Their veracity is proverbial. Still, how much depends upon the way in which they are looked at, and in which they are used! Of the ambiguous nature of the evidence of facts have we not unnumbered instances? How differently, to mention only one example, is modern English history written by Protestants and Catholics, by individuals of opposite political parties! One sees indubitable tokens of progress in events which to another indicate a retrograde movement. So, if facts or quotations from ancient records are adduced to prove |