the house of the Lord which he so desired, and that continuing daily in the temple, which the first Christians practised, are both of them, so to speak, typical; we must go farther before we arrive at the very reality. That reality undoubtedly is the daily walking with God, the daily abiding in God. And if we do not so walk and so abide, we undoubtedly have not that blessing for which the Psalmist prayed, nor do we truly imitate the example of Christ's early Church.

Farther, the early Christians continued "breaking bread from house to house;" that is, they assembled continually in each other's houses, and as they ate and drank together, so once in every day their eating and drinking together was that solemn act of Christian communion, which in the highest manner bound them to one another and to Christ. And doubtless the end of that communion was the end of every other commandment, namely, the increase of love towards Christ and towards one another.

I have purposely put these two parts of the life of the early Christians in this manner, because I would wish to show where the spiritual interpretation of scripture becomes often dangerous, and leads us away from the spirit which it professes to follow, no less than from the letter which it does not scruple to neglect. I have said that the essence of the Psalmist's prayer, and the early Chris

tians' practice, was the walking with God, and the dwelling in God. I have said also that the essence of the Holy Communion itself is the increase of love towards Christ, and towards our brethren. But the error of spiritual interpretation consists in supposing that if we clearly see the antitype or reality, we may at once cast aside the type as incapable of affording any instruction. For instance, it may be said that the walking with God is all that is important; the walking in the actual earthly temple is altogether indifferent. No where is a point of the greatest difficulty, judging from experience, because the type has always been in danger of being idolized on the one hand, and despised on the other. The truth is, that the type itself is not wholly typical: it has a real affinity with that to which it points, greater or less in different instances, but always up to a certain measure. As in the case now before us; the walking in the visible temple is, it is true, typical of the walking in heart with God; but then there is a real resemblance between them. The one has a tendency towards the other; so that he who never walked in the visible temple would never be likely to walk with God in Spirit. And thus the true imitation of the practice of the primitive Church would be no doubt that we should all walk with God in heart. But in order to do this we have need of helps and means; and

as the early Christians found that it kept God in their minds to dwell in His visible temple, so it is reasonable to think that to have churches constantly before our eyes, and to have them frequently opened for divine service, would with us also be a means of keeping God in our minds; and that if with all these helps we still should be in danger of forgetting Him, much more are we likely to forget Him if we use no help at all.

More frequent church services, more frequent communions, would then it seems be a real imitation of the primitive Church, and not merely a fond or formal one; because, with relation to the end aimed at by both the early Christians and us, namely, the walking with God in heart and spirit, we stand nearly in their case; and the same human nature in both of us, not being here affected by any differences of age or country, is likely to require in both the same helps. But in the meanwhile, for those who cannot alter the Church's ordinances, or if there be any causes which in any place render the imitation of the primitive Church as yet impracticable or inexpedient, then there is the proper place for the recollection that what is of the last necessity always, and to all, is the walking with God in heart and spirit. If our helps are fewer it is our misfortune; but if we do not use such as we have, it is our fault. This chapel is opened but rarely; the communion is

celebrated in it still more rarely. So much the more reason, then, why we should make the most of the occasions that are offered to us; why we should not be careless or inattentive during the short time in the week in which we can be in God's outward temple; why we should not turn away from the breaking of the bread of Christ's communion, on those rare occasions when we can partake of it. This we may all do; and to neglect this is our folly and our sin. God is not tied in His dealings with us to save by few or many. If He gives many opportunities and we neglect them, as not needing them, that is our own presumption; but if He gives but few, and we avail ourselves thankfully of these few, their power multiplies under His blessing, like the five loaves and two small fishes, which fed more than five thousand men; and, without continuing daily in the temple, or daily breaking the bread of Christ's communion, yet if we profit by such opportunities as we have of hearing His word, and partaking of His communion, we shall share the blessing of those who were in Christ at the beginning, and we too, like them, shall eat our meat with joy and singleness of heart: we shall live in thankfulness to God, and having favour with all good men.

But now, in conclusion, as I have in the case of the text taken the example of the early Church as applicable in more than its mere spirit to our

selves; or rather, as we have seen, not only that we should aim at the same end with the first Christians, but that we should do well also to pursue it by the same means; to what purpose, it may be asked, were those cautions as to the study of antiquity, which I gave at the beginning of my sermon, as if the example of the early Church were not immediately applicable? The cautions were given because on very many occasions they are greatly needed; and when referring in one instance to the example of the early Church, I wished to show how that example might always be consulted with advantage. Doubtless there are many points in which he may run who readeth, in which the practice of the early Christians was so clearly good, and their circumstances respecting it so much the same as ours, that it would be our wisdom to follow their example closely. But their practice was not always good; or at any rate difference of circumstances, in many instances, makes that which was most right and good in them no longer right or desirable for us. And here it is that a lively understanding of the present, and a comprehensive knowledge of the past, are, as I said, so necessary. I am most convinced of the wisdom of studying the remains of Christian antiquity; only it is to be desired that that study should be so conducted and united with so much of wider knowledge and lively understanding, that