one only, to know God, to "dwell in God," to be His child. This was entirely possessed by the poor man whom we have been contemplating; while the other-he of affluence, of power, of dominion-had it not, nay, knew that it never could be his.

We remember, indeed, that in the sixteenth chapter of St. Luke this lesson has been taught with Divine power and authority. Yet the contrast between Dives and Lazarus is not so total and infinite, as between the tempted and the tempter in the wilderness. The "despised and rejected of men"-He who "hid not His face from shame and spitting' -was truly what in the Psalms He is often called, "a poor man ;" while he to whom he was opposed was, to the rich of the earth, their prince, their ruler, their god. (2 Cor. iv. 4.) Each, however, has his followers. Dives and Lazarus are perpetually reappearing; and the lesson which we should try to learn is, that when we go to partake of the "sumptuous fare" of Dives, we should not too greatly honour, or praise, or envy him who is "clothed in purple and fine linen"; and especially that we should not scorn or look with disgust upon the Lazarus who pains and displeases our eyes as we pass along to the luxurious scene.

A more solemn lesson still remains. While even some Christians adulate wealth, and treat it with the respect which is due only to rank and station, and to those hoary hairs which are a crown of glory at the close of a holy life,-what a contrast does the teaching of our Lord afford! Jesus taught that riches were a dreadful impediment in the way to heaven. "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God." "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." We think the load is lightened when we learn that this was a Jewish figure of speech-a proverbial one, to signify that the thing spoken of was one of extreme difficulty, or that there was a gate in the wall of Jerusalem so low and narrow that a camel could only pass through upon its knees. Yet, alas! what figures of speech, after all! No doubt with God all things are possible. Many a wealthy man shall enter into the kingdom; many a beggar shall be shut out; for God respecteth no man's person. Yet we ask, must there not be something wrong in the Church, when it admires, nay pursues, that with hot haste, which the Lord Jesus speaks of with so much disparagement. The danger, it is true, is only to them who trust in uncertain riches. But this is the one especial reason why riches are a snare; their possessor is imperiously led to trust in them. This is his one grand temptation. Rich men say, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease,

eat, drink, and be merry. So they call their lands after their own names, and think that they shall endure for ever. Men of a hundred thousand a-year are not uncommon amongst us. We know of one such; he makes a profession of religion, and gives his annual guinea like other people. If asked for a subscription in proportion to his wealth, his answer is, "I knew how to make my money, and I ought to know how to keep it." Is not such an one a sorely-tempted man? Does he not need our pity and our prayers? "I am sure," said a lady, running full of joy to the venerable Newton, "I am sure you will congratulate me. I have received a great increase of fortune." "Madam," said the faithful pastor, "I will pray for you, as for one under great temptation."

QUERENS.

ON SITTING AND KNEELING AT THE LORD'S TABLE.

We know from Holy Writ, that when, on the same night on which He was betrayed (and on which He washed His disciples' feet), Jesus instituted the Holy Supper, the apostles, in the very presence of their adorable Lord Himself, celebrated the sacred festival in the posture of guests at a social meal. The Jews, when partaking of the daily repast, were in a reclining attitude, as is still usual in Eastern countries, and not seated at the table. It was clearly the intention of our Lord, that the religious feast which He was then instituting should be, so far as the posture of His followers was concerned, in accordance with the established usage of the country; nor can we reasonably doubt that if the Jews had then been in the habit of sitting at their meals, Christ would have taken care to have the apostles seated while partaking of the sacred repast.

No one will think that when Jesus said, "Take, eat; this is my body," the disciples arose from their reclining attitude, and surrendering for a time the visible appearance (not obscurely indicated by that reclining attitude) of intimate nearness as their Saviour's guests, friends, and brethren, sank upon their knees (either at the command of Jesus, or of their own freewill), thus receiving and eating the bread as kneeling worshippers.

It is the joy of the believer to kneel daily before his adorable Lord and Saviour, seated at the Father's right hand, and, while so doing, to feel himself, at times, very near both to the Father and the Beloved Son. We do not for a moment deny the spiritual nearness of the kneeling believer to the Lord to whom he

is addressing adoring worship, whether he is kneeling in private or public prayer, or at the Lord's Table. There is here no question upon this point; we fully concede that great spiritual blessing and very near communion with the Father and the Son are not seldom vouchsafed to believers, when, realising through faith the presence of the Son upon the Father's throne, they kneel as adoring worshippers before Him. But if we ask which attitude denotes the greater nearness to the adorable Head of the sacred feast when we are receiving the Lord's Supper, that of reclining (or seated) guests, or the well and reverently-meant human innovation of kneeling worshippers, we seem called upon to reply-the former is that of intimate, loving, and brotherly nearness, while the latter is, comparatively speaking, that of more distant and reverential worship.

We do not mean to deny that if Christ had refused to condescend so marvellously as to allow us to recline or be seated as the brethren-guests of Him who, as Son of man, left His heavenly abode to take upon Him our nature, consenting to be made bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, and, instead of such marvellous condescension, had Himself removed us to a greater distance, had Himself insisted that we, regarding Him as the God-man, should render Him the more awful homage of kneeling adoration while we are receiving the bread and wine, we should undoubtedly have been bound to accept the gracious invitation to take the sacramental memorials of the Passion of our dying Lord as kneeling recipients, with heartfelt gratitude, and as an unspeakable privilege and blessing.

The question concerning the posture of communicants during the New Testament period is easily settled. Our martyred Bishop Ridley, John Knox, Archbishop Ussher, and the Roman Bishop Pio Nono, would not think of denying that, at the institution of the Lord's Supper, the communicants, in the very presence of the Lord Jesus, were reclining guests, and that this example was followed in those days of Pentecostal zeal, of which we read in the earlier chapters of the Acts. And if we turn to the first epistle to the Corinthians, as we notice the abuses which he censures-irreverent rather than superstitious-we shall have little difficulty in believing that the Corinthian Christains celebrated the Lord's Supper as reclining guests, and not as kneeling worshippers.

It would thus appear, that in order to discover the original arrangement pursued at the institution of the Holy Communion, and the usage that prevailed during the lifetime of the Apostles, we need not have recourse to the writings and traditions of post-apostolic Fathers. This original arrangement is to be found in the New Testament; and any layman of sound judgment, who is in the habit of attentively studying the Sacred

Volume with self-distrustful reverence, and who humbly prays and looks to God for the promised aid and teaching of the Holy Spirit, is as competent as the most profound theologian to answer the question, 'Did Christians, at the institution of the sacred feast, and in the apostolic times, celebrate the Lord's Supper as reclining guests, or as kneeling worshippers?' Whether the inquirers be Drs. Wiseman, Newman, and Manning, or such laymen as Lord Shaftesbury, Lord Roden, and Mr. Kinnaird, both doctors and laymen must surely agree in coming to one and the same conclusion, viz., that Christians, during the lifetime of the Apostles, celebrated the Holy Supper according to the example of Christ and His Apostles at its institution, as guests reclining at a table, and not as kneeling worshippers.

upon

The Pope of Rome is seated, at least sometimes, when receiving the Holy Supper. But we need not here dwell what is done by the head of the great Western apostasy; let us rather look at our sister Church of Scotland. At the present day, in the Church of Scotland, the communicants are seated (not reclining) guests at the Lord's Table, not unaptly called by some in former days, "God's Board." Dignitaries and doctors, whether Romish or Tractarian, if they insist upon a rigorous adherence to the strictness of the letter, may contend that, while kneeling and sitting at the Holy Communion are unquestionably both innovations upon the original reclining posture of our Lord and His Apostles, sitting is much the more modern of the two innovations. Yet, assuredly, while admitting the truth of this conclusion according to the strictness of the letter, candid laymen will also allow that, if we express ourselves in somewhat more general terms (paying due attention to the spirit as well as to the letter, and placing reclining and sitting under the common category of the guest-posture), what may be called the guest-posture of communicants in the Church of Scotland, even if less medieval and apparently less solemn, is confessedly more ancient, apostolic, and scriptural than the kneeling attitude of Anglican communicants. The latter posture is also that of episcopalian communicants in Scotland, whether they are in communion with the United Church of England and Ireland, or with the Scottish Episcopal Church.

Anglican clergymen and laymen will remark how the Apostle's conduct, in refraining from all attempts to substitute a standing, or kneeling, for the guest posture, contrasts with the introductory portion of the Protestation appended to our

The Protestation was first added in the second book of King Edward. It was omitted on Queen Elizabeth's accession, and restored at the last review with some alterations. In the interim Laud had introduced the practice of kneeling at the Sacrament. From the Reformation till his time, the Church of England received the elements sitting.

Communion Office, "It is ordained in this Office for the administration of the Lord's Supper, that the communicants should receive the same kneeling, which order is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the Holy Communion as might otherwise ensue."

We here see well-meant precautionary innovations upon the original Scriptural model, which St. Paul, though the abuse was flagrantly before him, did not venture to adopt. Certainly the very example of the Corinthian Church, as recorded by the Apostle, to say nothing of far more modern disorders among the German Anabaptists and other sectaries, may well excuse the authors of the Protestation for anticipating the possible entrance of confusion and disorder into the Lord's Supper, should the communicants receive the same as guests seated around the table. At all events, the question will not be at once settled by cavillers, who may tell us that St. Paul and his fellow-apostles were men who preferred reverently following their Master's arrangement, rather than endeavouring, in their own fancied wisdom, to improve upon it. An attempt to re-establish the guest posture might have occasioned the grave evil and mischief of a serious schism, a danger from which thoughtful Christians might well shrink. The apologetic character of the Protestation may be accepted as a proof that the Protesters were aware that the letter of Holy Writ was not on their side.

These protesting parties were not ignorant and one-sided partisans. They were aware that, if sitting at the table might be abused to the possible introduction of insubordination and disorder, kneeling might also be abused to the introduction of superstition. They acknowledge it to be possible that this same kneeling at the table "may be misconstrued and depraved, not only out of malice and obstinacy, but also out of ignorance and infirmity."

Few will deny that the close of the Protestation we have been considering was designedly directed against the figment of transubstantiation. Our Prayer-book, therefore, may fairly be considered as teaching us that Popery, in asserting and enforcing upon all her votaries the adoration of the Sacramental Bread or Wafer, as transubstantiated by the words of the socalled consecrating priest into the very body and flesh of Christ, is guilty of two sins in regard to that very doctrine in which she especially boasts her superiority over Protestantism. She is guilty of falsehood against the truth of Christ's natural body, which cannot at one and the same time be in heaven and on the so-called Romish altar; and, in adoring the bread