CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 65, 3 April 1852, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the " Lyttelton Times." Sir, —Feeling sure that you will gladly open your columns to the free discussion of any of the important subjects broached at the recent meetings at Christchurch and Lyttelton, on Church matters, I venture to offer one or two remarks on the question, whether the Church friU'_yhise should be restricted, or not, to communicants. A\P the first place I would urge, as a general recommendation, that, thrown back as we are, in a "gjeatj measure, on ni'st principles, those who take an interest in these questions, (who, I trust, are a large and increasing number amongst us), should earnestly study, and constantly refer to the Acts of the Apostles, taken together with' the Epistles, both as of Divine authority, and as being the very origin and root of the history of the Church of Christ. Compelled as we are to readjust our Church system to meet the exigencies of our altered circumstances, let us strive to approximate, in all points, as nearly as possible to the pure and simple model of apostolic times. Following up, then, this recommendation, I beg to call attention at present to one or two

of the principal passages, taken in reference to one another, in the Acts of the Apostles. The main scripture precedent for the Association of the Laity with the Clergy in the solemn and authoritive settlement of religious questions is contained in the 15th chapter of the Acts, which chapter gives a full account of the first Council of the Church held at Jerusalem, on the question whether Gentile converts should be required to be circumcised, and to keep the ceremonial law of Mosey. In the'22nd verse of this chapter we read, "Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders," that is, the two superior orders of the Clergy, Elder being the same as Presbyter or Priest, and the immediate successors of the Apostles being the Bishops of the early Church—" with the whole Church" —that is with the Deacons, and with all the lay members of the Church—" to send chosen men of their own Company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, &c." And the circular letter to the Churches, which commences in the 23rd verse, is drawn up in the following corresponding form: " The Apostles, and Elders, and Bre~ thre?iseud greeting unto the brethren of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria, and Cilicia, &c."

Now if we ask, whether the "brethren," who were thus associated with the Apostles and Elders on this solemn occasion, were all communicants or not, the very question strikes one as absurd. Why, all Christians were communicants in the Apostles' times. To be a Christian was to be a communicant as a matter of course. There were. Catechumens, who'were under instruction previous to Baptism ; they of course were not communicants, for they were not yet " brethren," not yet members of the Church. There may have been also persons excommunicated, that is cut off or suspended from communion for a time on account of the commission of some heinous sin ; but every one will see at once that these were not non-com-municants in the modern sense. To have been baptized, and to have received the laying on of the Apostles' hands, and not to be a communicant, was an anomaly and contradiction, which, it may safely be asserted, was unknown in the times of the Apostles.

But I will not rest this statement upon assertion only; I will refer to an earlier passage of the Acts, the 41st and 42nd verses of the 2nd chapter : " Then they that gladly received his word," that is, the word of Peter preaching on the day of Penticost, " were baptized ; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Now when it is said of this large number of persons, no less than 3,000, all made converts at the same time, that they " continued steadfastly" amongst other things, in " breaking of bread," may it not presumed, as I have said, that such a contradiction as a Christian non-communicant was a thing unheard of in the times of the Apostles? Other passages and other arguments might be adduced to the same effect, but this letter is already sufficiently long; let it suffice for the present to observe that, if any doubt could possibly be entertained as to whether " breaking of bread," in the passage above quoted, refers to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, all such doubt must vanish on reference to the original, which, in strictness, ought here to be translated " in the breaking of the bread," a form of expression which particularizes strongly the solemn breaking of the consecrated bread in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and distinguishes it from an ordinary meal.

I have ventured to offer these remarks chiefly for the consideration of such serious-minded persons, and regular attendants at Divine Worship, as are not yet communicants; for if they shall not upon consideration, object to the proposed restriction, who else would ? I am, dear Sir, very truly your's, H.J.

Christchurch, the eve of the Annunciation, 1852