of the sympathy and the holy wrestling and importunity at the throne of their brethren in the same mystical body. Such, we have reason to know, is the case with LOED RODEN. We met him once, and but once, and this several years ago. There was that liveliness of interest in the things of God, that entering into them feelingly and experimentally, that we had no conception, till nearly the close of the conversation, that it was LORD RODEN with whom we had been conversing; and yet all this teachableness and tractableness was but the immediate forerunner of his making a bold and undaunted speech in the House of Lords. Lord Roden has "" a Church in his house." We understand that he calls together his friends and his neighbours, and addresses some four hundred souls upon the things which he has tasted, and handled, and felt of the good word of life. Or if he be in London, he invariably attends the ministry of the GOSPEL. Lately, we heard of his travelling from London to Ventnor, in the Isle of Wight, in order to make sure of enjoying the ministry of the word in its purity and fulness on the Sunday. Thus Lord Roden's taste is plainly discoverable.

But, secondly, What has he done? It would appear that some three or four months ago, several Orange Lodges of the north were, according to their usual custom, about to walk in procession; that some few days previously they waited upon Lord Roden, to ask permission to pay him a visit of congratulation. He expressed himself grateful for such a mark of affectionate interest, but at the same time wished to decline their visit. They remonstrated; the deputation declared the lodges would not be satisfied with such an answer. Whereupon Lord Roden asked two days to consider, at the end of which he acceded to their proposals. They came; they marched in procession past his hall door, thence into a large large field, where he had provided for them, with nothing more than true Irish hospitality, some moderate refreshment. He harangued them; he spoke of the value of the word of God-the gracious preservation which, as a Protestant community, they had recently experienced-the necessity of forbearance towards their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects—and the duty of loyalty to the Queen; at the same time urging them, in the strongest possible terms, to retire peacefully to their homes. They set out on their return; they took their accustomed route; and on their way (mark this) they were assailed; shots were fired on them; and, in selfdefence, they retaliated. With the propriety of such processions we have naught here to do. That is not our present object. We have merely to consider the part Lord Roden took in the proceedings, and whether or not he was justified in the course he adopted. The painful result of this attack was loss on both sides; and the consequence was a government investigation. How that investigation was conducted-whether partially or not-results will show. That it was, in a high degree partial, there is not the shadow of a doubt. When a priest was allowed to suppress his evidence, because he was a priest, and in matters which had naught to do with the confessional, we say there is plain and positive proof of the same partiality of proceeding as was lately but too obvious in the neighbourhood of Achill, where the most peremptory orders were given that no reporter should be present to publish the evidence.

Lastly, What is the consequence? Proceedings, it appears, were taken, or about to be taken, against sundry of the Orange party. Day after day was a majority of Popish magistrates looked for. And at length, because

Lord Roden sat upon that bench, and because he refused to take depositions against men whom he considered acted but upon the grounds of selfdefence, and by no means as aggressors, in an affray which every rightthinking man must most deeply lament, he in the most peremptory, most ungrateful, most anti-Protestant way, has been dismissed from a post the duties of which he had fulfilled, honourably and unostentatiously, for very nearly forty years. And why all this? Why, for the sake of that " expediency" of which we were lately speaking in this Magazine. Pure Protestant principle is almost daily diminishing. The Government is succumbing to Popery in every possible way. She is sacrificing the very interests, and discarding the very men, which have served to unite us as a nation. He who in the exigencies of last year, was glad enough to avail himself of the counsel of a personage who boasted of the fact, that there were in the North of Ireland no less a number than fifty thousand men who were ready at any moment to prove their loyalty to their Queen and their country, has this year proved himself so utterly void of gratitude, and so deficient of that true Protestantism which is the basis of his throne, as to discard from all rule and all authority one of Ireland's most useful members, and one of her brightest gems. And he has done this at a moment when the land again assumes the appearance of a mine, which by means of secret societies threaten we know not at what unsuspected hour to be sprung; and if so, how sad and how disastrous the consequences, time only can tell. Again has the cold-blooded assassin commenced his vile employ; and many an innocent victim has fallen even in the broad glare of day. Within the last few hours one of this hapless number has been shot, and that within a few miles of where this is written.

Leaving, then, other and higher motives out of the question, how unseemly is that policy which, in the prospect of another and a dark winter, should sacrifice such of Ireland's long and well-tested benefactors!

99

Finally, for Lord Roden we say, may God comfort his heart, cheer his declining years, and give him personally and preciously to realize, that "it is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man; yea, it is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence even in princes.' He has a higher and a nobler end in view; and may all these trials and vexations by the way tend but to enhance and to endear that blissful prospect when the oppressor's power shall have been finally and for ever controlled; and when the chances and changes of this poor fleeting world shall have given place to that better, brighter, and more blessed state, where "the inhabitant never says, I am sick, and where the people who dwell therein are forgiven their iniquity."

THE EDITOR.

Bonmahon, Ireland, Oct. 20, 1849.

[Since the above was written, the subjoined has fallen into our hands. It is copied from the John Bull. As we are increasingly of opinion-and we have good ground for saying so that the blow has been aimed, not at Lord Roden merely, but at PROTESTANTISM generally, we feel ourselves fully justified in setting before our readers the following plain state of the question.—ED.]

"So much for the general question viewed in connection with the existing circumstances of Ireland. And now for the Earl of Roden, and the part which he has acted. The procession was none of his devising; for private reasons he could hardly be prevailed upon to admit it to his domain. But he was apprised of it beforehand. True; but so were the government; and the government had, what Lord Roden had not, positive information of the intended attended attack upon it by the ruffians of the ribbon-lodges. If then the procession could by

any chance be regarded as illegal, or if, being strictly legal, it was inexpedient, whose business was it to prevent its taking place? Lord Roden could only advise the Orangemen not to meet, which he had no motive for doing. The government had it in their power to make the procession illegal, if it was not so already, by proclamation. But so far from doing this, the government not only allowed the procession to take its course, but actually sent bodies of military and police to escort it; and the whole of the arrangements made proved that the government was perfectly conscious that the danger of a breach of the peace arose not from the disposition of the Orangemen, which was most peaceable, but from that of the Ribbonmen, who were violently bent on bloodshed. If, therefore, any one was to blame for allowing the procession to take place, it was not the Earl of Roden, but the Earl of Clarendon and his Secretary, Sir Thomas Redington. And if, after the procession had passed over the disputed territory, the Ribbonmen chose to engage the military and police in a murderous affray, in which the Orangemen came to the assistance of the Queen's forces, it is again hard to understand how Lord Roden can be blamed for that. As for his lordship's subsequent attendance in his place on the bench at Castlewellan—which is the other count of the indictment against him-the justification of his lordship's previous conduct is a perfect justification of that also. He who in Tollymore Park had admonished the Orangemen to take evil rather than provoke it,' and expressed his hope 'that nothing would induce them, in retiring to their homes that day, to resent even any insult they might receive,' who had concluded his speech with asking them to give three hearty cheers for her gracious Majesty and her Royal Consort,' he who had had no hand in procuring the procession, or in guiding its movements, was surely in no sense and on no account disqualified from taking his seat as usual on the magistrate's bench. Papist demagogues and Papist priests may address to the people exhortations of peace, meaning war in their hearts but a nobleman of Lord Roden's character, will never be charged with that equivocation, no, not by his bitterest enemies.

"

"Then why is the Earl of Roden dismissed from the magistracy, and an attempt made to affix a stigma to his name? Simply as an act of base, cowardly subserviency to the Popish faction, to whom the Earl of Clarendon is notoriously in abject bondage. The same Thomas Redington, who was permitted to suppress the proofs of treason against the Prelates of his anti-British Church, and so to screen from condign punishment the ecclesiastical firebrands of Ireland, is now suffered to abuse the name of the Lord Lieutenant, and that of the Queen herself, for inflicting an act of arbitrary degradation-at least so intended-upon a nobleman of unblemished character, whose conduct there is not a shadow of legal proof to inculpate. And who is the Lord Lieutenant that dares to brand the loyal Earl of Roden as a bad subject, unfit to bear the Queen's commission? Is it not the same Earl of Clarendon who committed the legally treasonably offence of surreptitiously engaging in correspondence on the affairs of Queen Victoria's kingdom with a foreign Potentate?

This unwarrantable affront put upon the Earl of Roden by Lord Clarendon, is rendered more striking by the contrast of the personal favour shown to the Noble Earl by her Majesty in person on the occasion of her late visit to Ireland. It is a fact fit to be recorded at this juncture, that not only her Majesty sent for Lord Roden from a distant part of the room when he was in attendance at the Castle in Phoenix Park, at the reception, but that the Queen detained him in conversation longer than any other nobleman present, a circumstance which was remarked at the time-and on the following morning his Lordship received an intimation that it was her Majesty's gracious wish that he should give her the meeting in Belfast. Lord Roden will no doubt, find means to console himself for the paltry persecution of a Clarendon and a Redington, by the remembrance of his Sovereign's personal graciousness towards him, and above all, by the consciousness that he is suffering-if suffering that can be called which the better part of the community regard as a triumph-for his unflinching adherence to the principles which placed her Majesty's family on the throne of Great Britain, and which constituted the best safeguards of her Royal authority."

THE ORDINANCE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

THE Holy Spirit gives a record of the institution of this ordinance, by the pens of three of the four evangelists, and also in the epistle of the apostle Paul, who expressly states that he "received it from the Lord." And, although the "beloved" John does not give all the details of that memorable meal of remembrance; yet, his testimony fully confirms (if confirmation were needed), the other records of the events of that most momentous night.

The evening on which this ordinance was instituted was that of the second day before the passover (see Matt. xxvi. 2, and John xiii. 1), which was about to be abolished, by the accomplishment of that bloodshedding and sprinkling which it typified. And the ordinance is set forth in bloodless symbols, in contradistinction to the premanifest foreshadow, to show that there is no bloodshedding on account of sin henceforth for ever all the sins of the whole Church being blotted out by that one sacrifice once offered.

There is a slight variation in the wording of the declaration with which our Lord accompanied the passing round the cup; but as two of the accounts give one form of expression, and two the other form, it is clear that the meaning of the two expressions is the same; for the record of the Holy Spirit gives no uncertain sound in its testimony to Jesus; and doubtless, the variation in the wording contains instruction to those who have understanding to discern its import. In Matt. xxvi. 28, and Mark xiv. 24, we read, "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many;" while in Luke xxii. 20, and 1 Cor. xi. 25, it is "This cup. is the New Testament in my blood."

It will be observed that the purpose of the ordinance is especially to keep up a continual memorial of the DEATH of Christ, and of all the wonders of grace thereby wrought out; it is to be taken "in remembrance of me ;" and in it we "do show forth the Lord's death." Under the old covenant-the shadowy testimony of types and ceremonies-the victim was repeatedly slain to foreshow, by the repetition of the bloodshedding, that THE BLOOD OF ATONEMENT was yet to be shed; and there was a repetition of the sprinkling the people with the blood of the victim, to foreshow that their consciences had yet to be purged, and to keep up a memorial of the vengeance due to them, for their transgression in all their sins. But the Lord's supper shows forth the victim slain once for all, and now to be fed on; there is no more remembrance made of transgression, iniquity, and sin, the sin-offering has taken it away; therefore, there can be no more offering for sin, seeing that satisfaction has been given.

In observing the ordinance of the Lord's supper, we show (forth) that he has tasted death for us (Heb. ii. 9); and, therefore, the justice of God does not only not require our death, but requires our deliverance; for when "the accuser of the brethren" demands our death at the hands of almighty justice, and pleads the law-the unalterable decree of God"The soul that sinneth it shall die." Justice replies, "I am satisfied; death has been exacted for the whole family of which you are the accuser (Heb. ii. 9). And now because I live, they live also." For this is "the

purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began; but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Tim. i. 10).

And in commemorating the Lord's death, in the ordinance of the Lord's supper, we show forth this manifestation of the abolishment of death, for the Holy Spirit puts on record, that when by his death he triumphed over principalities and powers, "He made a show of them openly." He manifested his victory over them. The Holy Spirit declares that for this very reason, "he took part of" the flesh-and-blood nature of the family of grace, that " through his death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil" (Heb. ii. 14).

66

The ordinance of the Lord's supper is the very opposite to a sacrifice; for, in the sacrifices there was a remembrance again made of sin every year" (Heb. x. 3); whereas, this ordinance is observed in remembrance of his death-whose death hath "blotted out the handwriting of ordinances, which was (not is) against us," and therefore there is in it no remembrance of sin except as blotted out. So that, as in the abolishment of death, we see the penalty of sin repealed: so in the blotting out of that which was against us, we see condemnation removed.

And in "showing forth the Lord's death," we not only keep up and perpetuate this memorial of SALVATION, thereby accomplished; but, also of" the REDEMPTION of the transgressions under the first covenant, that they which are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance " (Heb. ix. 15; Rev. v. 9). We do also show forth the blood of the New Testament, whereby we are JUSTIFIED freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," and by which blood we are SANCTIFIED (Heb. ii. 11, and ix. 14), and made meet to belong to the GLORIFIED throng "who are before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple," &c. (Rev. vii. 14 to end).

66

When we think on the heresies which, on this subject, are so rife in the professing world, it behoves us to press attention to the great leading feature in this gracious ordinance. It is the showing forth a work finished once for all, entirely wrought out, accomplished; so that all those who, in the eternal council of peace, were given by GOD the FATHER to the SON, and for whom he then became SECURITY and SUBSTITUTE, are safe and secure in the inheritance which he purchased for them, to which he redeemed them, and for which he made them fit. For in this ordinance we do show forth the consummation of the work of the MEDIATOR, that glorious, mysterious, gracious two-fold PERSON, "God manifest in the flesh." By which work, "THE MAN, Jehovah's fellow "-" The man Christ Jesus," became entitled to the inheritance, which THE SON Of God, "one with the Father," is exalted to give, repentance and forgiveness of sins. And we show forth something further. We show forth that he hath given and bequeathed unto all whom the FATHER gave to him, eternal life, and all grace needful for their safe conduct to the home which he has prepared for them with him.

And this he-the MEDIATOR-has done as 66 THE MAN CHRIST JESUS," by his last will and testament; which, he being also "THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY," is identical with the eternal purpose of God. And the Holy Spirit had beforehand given us a summary of this New Testament, that it might be manifest beyond question, that it is identical with the eternal