which he is called? Let the man who, believing in the Divine institution of this rite, persists in absenting himself from the table of the Lord beware. Let him remember, that if he neglects the means of grace thus afforded to him, he is answerable for the consequences.Let him recollect, that he has been bid to his Master's banquet, and contemptuously refused the invitation; and let him ask himself with what semblance of reason, if he refuse to drink of the fruit of the vine, to the memory of Christ, on earth, he can hope to drink it new with him in his Father's kingdom.

The last motive, my fellow Christians, to a regular attendance upon this ordinance, to which I shall direct your attention, and it is one intimately connected with the nature and design of the ordinance itself, and, indeed, the one which ought unquestionably to be uppermost in the mind of every one who attends upon it, is the love which you entertain for Christ, and your respect for his memory. "Do this in remembrance of me." With what solemn and affecting emphasis must these words fall upon the heart of every sincere Christian! Can you not almost fancy that you hear them proceeding from the lips of him who lived and died for you? And can you, oh! can you, my friends, refuse

to comply with this simple request from him to whom you owe everything, and that, too, when you know that it is your duty to do so, and that your best interests will be promoted by it? Shall the tomb of the warrior, that has fought and won the battles of his country, be strewed with the garlands of a nation's gratitude? Shall the memory of the departed patriot be registered in the hearts, and his virtues lauded by the tongues, of thousands? And shall God's anointed Son, who laid down his life for man, be suffered to pass to the grave unheeded and unhonoured? Forbid it faith! forbid it love! forbid it gratitude!

SERMON VIII.

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

LUKE Xxii., 19.

This do in remembrance of me.

You will remember, my Christian friends, I took occasion from these words to direct your attention to the evidence contained in Scripture for the Divine authority, and intended perpetuity, of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper; and attempted, in conclusion, to enforce the propriety of a regular attendance upon that rite, from a regard to the authority of Christ and to our own improvement, as well as from the respect and affection which we ought to entertain for his memory. It may not be improper for us at present to say something upon the subject of the nature and design of this ordinance, and to notice a few of the obstacles which seem most likely to deter men from an attendance upon it. Had the early Christians been content to abide by the doctrines and practices of the apostolic age, and by a simple and rational method of interpreting Scripture, inquiries such

as this would, in all probability, have been superseded. But no sooner had the venerable founders of the Christian faith been gradually called off the stage, to receive the reward of their labours, than the philosophy and idolatry by which the infant churches were surrounded, began to exert their corrupting influence upon the rites and doctrines of the Gospel. So long as miraculous gifts were vouchsafed to the propagators of pure Christianity, they must have derived, from this circumstance, a degree of authority so considerable, as to enable them, in many instances at least, successfully to resist the progress of innovations. Some time after the communication of these gifts had ceased, and the religion of Jesus Christ had been left to make its own way in the world, we may expect to observe the aspect of affairs changing; and we shall find, upon inquiry, that the event too fully justifies the expectation. As to doctrines, it could hardly be supposed, now that there was no longer any authority, supported by miracles, to appeal to, that a philosopher, whose mind was previously wedded to a peculiar system, and who would regard Christianity, so soon as it attracted his attention, only as a different and opposing system, should feel disposed to lay the one entirely aside, and unhesitatingly to embrace the other. This was certainly what such

a person ought to have done; but it requires but little knowledge of human nature to be satisfied how great was the danger of his not doing so. We must remember, that philosophy was to them what religion is to us; and when we consider, for a moment, how difficult it is at present to make any important change in a man's religious sentiments, especially if he has paid much attention to the subject, we may form some idea of the reception which Christianity was likely to meet with, when it became sufficiently known to attract the attention of the philosophers of the time. It was much more probable, in such a case, that the philosopher, who was struck with the excellence of Christianity, would labour to effect a compromise, by transferring to his own system what he deemed most valuable; or, at least, if he prevailed upon himself to embrace the religion of Jesus, to retain such of his former notions as he was pleased to deem not absolutely inconsistent with his new profession. We find, in point of fact, to pass over a multitude of other instances, that, in the second or third century after the time of Christ, a philosopher of the Alexandrian school promulgated a system, the principal recommendation of which was, that it embraced all that was valuable in all the systems of religion and philosophy that had ever