Here then are a few evidences that the magazine which you have valued and helped

these years, has in its turn been blessed to the illumination and emancipation of many

whose language and manner of life differ so considerably from our own.

It will be noticed that "The Dispensational Place of the Lord's Supper" was referred to

with evident approval by the Missionary in Costa Rica. Strangely enough, when I was in

Amsterdam and met a few believers there, I asked how they first came to consider the

claims of Dispensational Truth. To my surprise I learned that one of them had brought

back with him from England a copy of the booklet on the Lord's Supper, and that above

all things had opened their eyes to the whole truth.  Usually this subject is so

controversial that it is not brought forward until the question arises, as it must, eventually.

We will therefore include in this series, extracts from a reply made by us that was

circulated in New Zealand to a criticism of our pamphlet.

"The Dispensational Place of the Lord's Supper", by Charles H. Welch

having been reviewed in a pamphlet entitled "Should Christians observe

the Lord's Supper?" by Hubert Taylor of Dannevirke, New Zealand, and

published by James G. Harney, 114, Main Street, Palmerston North, the

following leaflet has been prepared so that the reader shall have the

essential features of the question placed before him.

"As the dispensational place of Pentecost and of Acts 28: form an

important part of the argument, and as these features are given but scant

consideration in the review under notice, the reader may value the opinion

of the late Dr. W. H. Griffith Thomas which has been printed upon the

last page."

The pamphlet published in New Zealand was headed:

"SHOULD CHRISTIANS OBSERVE THE LORD'S SUPPER?"

The reader will probably observe that there is a great difference between the two titles

quoted above, and our first remark must be that Mr. Taylor's title is misleading. We

sought to discover the dispensational place of the Lord's Supper, and in the Preface to the

Third Edition, we said: "The question of the observance or non-observance of the Lord's

Supper is a part only of a wider subject. This being so, it is utterly beyond our powers to

say to anyone, You ought not to observe this ordinance. Each believer must see clearly

whether his hope is connected with the new covenant or not, and must act accordingly."

After the briefest possible introduction to the subject we took up in pages 2-4 this vital

question of the new covenant. It lies at the opening of our enquiry, all else being

subsidiary. How does Mr. Taylor review this vital feature? By printing a pamphlet of

fifteen pages which never once mentions the new covenant!