This is evident from the following verse, ἐν ἐκείνη τῇ ἡμέρα αιτήσεσθε, "In that day ye shall ask." Christ is alluding to the interval between his resurrection and ascension, which he intended to employ in speaking to the apostles of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, (Acts, i. 3.)

I have no remark to offer on the seventh lecture. I am not disposed to lay great stress on the instances alleged by Dr. A. Clarke, or Mr. Townsend, or Dr. Whitby, in illustration of the figurative meaning of the words of institution; nor am I competent to determine whether there is in the Chaldee-Syriac language any word which expresses to mean, signify, or denote; nor whether Dr. Lee or Dr. W. has correctly represented the testimony of Barsalibæus. The seventh lecture has, in truth, little bearing on the main question; it is a sort of episodical reply to certain statements of Dr. Lee and Mr. Hartwell Horne.

In the eighth lecture, Dr. W. enters upon an examination of two texts in St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which there are allusions to the eucharist. The first is in the tenth chapter, ver. 16:— Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὁ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστι; τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ TL; On this text Dr. W. observes, that the word kouwrò, the adjective corresponding to kovovía, occurs in ver. 18-Behold Israel after the flesh; are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? and adds, that as the word is here applied to a real participation of the sacrifices on the altar, it ought to have a similar power in the other (text.) I must confess myself at a loss to comprehend the meaning of this observation. They who ate of the sacrifices are called partakers of the altar, because by so eating they declared themselves fellow-worshippers of that God who appointed the sacrifices; as they who ate of things offered in sacrifice to idols declared themselves idolators. But, says Dr. W., the force of this first passage is not so great as that of the second. He seems, in fact, anxious to hurry away from it. He is fearful, perhaps, lest his readers should turn to the Testament, and proceed from the verse quoted to that which immediately follows" For we being many are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread," and should thence infer that the bread still remained after the words of consecration.

The second passage is in the eleventh chapter, ver. 27 :—"Norε ÔS ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον, ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναξίως, ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτὸν, καὶ οὕτως ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἐσθιέτω, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου πινέτω. Ο γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων ἀναξίως, κρῖμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει, μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα Tou Kupiov. On this passage Dr. W. remarks, that only one expression parallel to ἔνοχος τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, is to be found in the New Testament-viz., in James, ii. 10, where whoever offendeth against one commandment is said to be guilty of all—that is, according to Dr. W., offends against all God's commandments. The unworthy communicant, therefore, offends against the body and blood of Christ; an interpretation which Dr. W. further illustrates by the Latin reus majestatis-that is, læsæ magistatis-guilty of an outrage

against majesty; and he thence infers, that to be guilty of Christ's body and blood signifies committing an injury against those component parts of his sacred person.

He then proceeds to inquire, whether such an expression could have been applied to the crime committed by an unworthy participation of symbols of Christ. He answers the inquiry in the negative; first, because a personal offence to the body of Christ is the highest outrage or sin that can be even imagined. Could, then, he asks, a disrespectful or unworthy approach to a morsel of bread, symbolical of him, be characterized as equal to it, and be designated by a name positively describing it? I answer, without hesitation, yes. If Christ appointed the bread and wine to be the symbols of his body and blood in the most solemn act of religious worship which he enjoined his followers to perform, an irreverent and unworthy participation in those symbols is a heinous offence against his authority, and may, with propriety, be termed an outrage against the body and blood of which they are symbols. An indignity offered to the representative of a monarch is always treated as an indignity offered to the monarch himself. Let me further observe, that when St. James said, "that whoever offended against one commandment was guilty of all," he did not mean that the offender actually violated all the commandments, but that he insulted the authority by which they were all enacted. So, any offence against the symbols of Christ's body is an offence against the authority of Christ who appointed those symbols.

Secondly, says Dr. W., "this point may be verified by an example: although the defacing the king's coin be considered as an offence against the king, and I believe treasonable,-yet who would venture to call it an offence against his person or his body, or to rank it with an actual assault committed to injure him?" I answer, that the law, by making it treasonable, puts it on the same footing as an offence against his person. And does it, I would ask, make no difference between the two cases, that, according to the protestant doctrine, the bread and wine are the divinely-appointed symbols of Christ's flesh and blood? But not content with an example, Dr. W. resorts also to an illustration, and selects for that purpose an historical anecdote. When the Arians disfigured the statues of Constantine, and his courtiers, to rouse his indignation, said, "See how your face is disfigured;" the emperor, passing his hand quietly over his face, replied, "I do not feel anything." Is Dr. W. serious in producing this anecdote? Does he mean us to infer from it, that Christ would treat with similar indifference an indignity offered to the symbols of his body and blood? Is no distinction to be made between an insult offered to the image of an earthly monarch, and the profanation of that solemn religious rite by which the passion of the Son of God is to be commemorated till his coming? Perhaps, however, Dr. W.'s only object in this irreverent comparison is to shew his contempt for the protestant doctrine.

But, thirdly, says Dr. W., if we suppose the body and blood of Christ to be absent, to describe the abuse of the institution as an offence against the body and blood is to diminish, rather than to

aggravate it. St. Paul would have placed it in a more striking light, by describing it as an offence against the mercy or dignity of Christ. This is at best nothing more than Dr. W.'s opinion. But I must observe, that in his anxiety to add to the number of his arguments, he forgets to inquire whether they are in perfect accordance with each other. His first argument was, that the expression guilty of the body and blood of Christ, was too strong to be applied to an unworthy participation of symbols of Christ. He now contends that it is rather a diminution than an aggravation of the offence.

In fine, Dr. W. says, that "plain and simple reason seems to tell us that the presence of Christ's body is necessary for an offence committed against it." This is easily said; and it is as easily replied, that an offence against the appointed symbols of Christ's body and blood may, in perfect consistency with the dictates of plain and simple reason, be termed an offence against his body and blood.

Dr. W. proceeds to shew how beautifully the literal exposition of St. Paul's words harmonizes with the (Roman) catholic interpretation of John, vi., of the words of institution, and of 1 Cor. x. 16, and contrasts the unity which the (Roman) catholic belief bestows on this variety of passages with what he is pleased to call the fragmentary form given to them by the protestant interpretation. This ground has already been trodden, and I shall not again go over it. But there is, in p. 269, a remark on the protestant objections to the Roman-catholic doctrine of the eucharist which demands notice. "They are," says Dr. W., "taken from scattered reflections; they consist in weighing a chance expression against the overpowering collection of evidence derived from so many contexts." So far is this remark from being just, that, on the contrary, our complaint against the Romancatholics is, that, confining themselves to the mere words, they neglect the circumstances in which the words were used. Let me take, as an instance, the passage which has just occupied our attention. What is the offence with which St. Paul charges the Corinthians ? That when they met for the professed purpose of celebrating the Lord's Supper, they were guilty of intemperate excess; they acted as if they met only for the purpose of gratifying their appetites, of satisfying their hunger and thirst. Now, is it possible, I would ask, that they should have exposed themselves to this charge if they had been believers in the doctrine of transubstantiation,-that they should have entertained the horrible thought of satisfying their hunger with the flesh, or their thirst with the blood, of Christ? Or, if such had been their horrible impiety, that St. Paul would have concluded his animadversions upon it with words like these-" If any man hunger, let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto condemnation." Their offence was, that they did not discern the Lord's body-did not distinguish between common bread and that which was the consecrated symbol of Christ's body; thus dishonouring him by their irreverent participation of his appointed symbol. The words guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, when considered in connexion with the circumstances in which St. Paul's reproof originated, lend no support whatever to the doctrine of the corporal presence of Christ in the eucharist.

Bishop Tomline and Mr. Faber have contended, from St. Paul's words "Whosoever shall eat this bread unworthily"—that no transubstantiation of the elements could have taken place; the bread was still bread. Dr. W. replies, "that this is the mode of arguing used by the Socinians, in opposition to the doctrine of Christ's divinity. They select the words," The Father is greater than I," or the acknowledgment that the day of judgment is unknown to the Son of man, and maintain that these texts are incompatible with equality between Christ and God." But the cases are not similar; the Socinian rests his whole cause upon these texts, and wishes to make all the other declarations of scripture bend to them. But do protestants rest their figurative interpretation on this text of St. Paul? No; they assert that all the circumstances connected with the institution of the rite lead to the conclusion that the words, this is my body, must be understood figuratively, and produce the words of St. Paul in confirmation of their interpretation. But, adds Dr. W., we (Roman) catholics, who believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, call the sacred elements by the names of their appearances after their consecration.* Why might not St. Paul do the same? There would be more force in the argument if we inferred from this single expression that St. Paul did not believe in transubstantiation; but our conclusion is deduced from the whole context. Dr. W. lays stress on what he terms the emphatic pronoun, this. St. Paul says, this bread; meaning, clearly, this bread which has become the consecrated symbol of Christ's body, as contradistinguished from common bread.

Dr. W. further refers to the account of the miracle wrought upon the blind man in John, ix., and finds it written in ver. 17, after the miracle had been wrought, "They say unto the blind man again." What, he asks, would you think of a reasoner who should contend from these words, that the man was still blind? Meaning us to conclude, that he who infers from St. Paul's expression this bread, that no transubstantiation had taken place, is guilty of an equal absurdity. We will assent to the conclusion, if Dr. W. will furnish us with the same evidence of a transubstantiation of the elements in the eucharist which the pharisees had of the blind man's restoration to sight. They had seen him blind; they now see his eyes open. We see the bread both before and after consecration; but we see no change. Dr. W. must have been sadly at a loss when he resorted to this and to the preceding argument.

Dr. W. concludes, as he began, with a display of his skill in the arts of controversy. In order to leave upon the minds of his readers as unfavourable an impression as possible of the protestant doctrine of the eucharist, he produces Eichhorn's explanation of the eucharistical formulæ on hermeneutical principles. It is as absurd and extravagant as Dr. W. could wish; but it is not without instruction. Dr. W.

* Dr. W. assigns a singular reason for this. "It is natural to call by this name (bread) the sacred gift, both from its appearance and its properties." Retaining, therefore, the appearance and properties of bread, it nevertheless ceases to be bread. The doctrine of transubstantiation has its peculiar metaphysical, as well as hermeneutical, principles.

may himself profit by it; for it shews that hermeneutical principles only serve to lead us astray, when the application of them is not directed by good common sense. But what are we to think of Dr. W.'s fairness in producing Eichhorn's explanation as a proof of the extreme difficulties under which protestants labour to construct a figurative reasoning for the eucharistic formula? We feel no such difficulty. We say that this is my body means, this bread is the symbol of my body. Dr. W. says that it means either this vague something is my body, or, this body is my body. Which of the meanings most approves itself to plain and simple reason, the reader must determine.

I have now arrived at the end of Dr. W.'s volume. It exhibits much learning and much controversial dexterity; but the talent most eminently displayed in it is that of mystification. His arguments, when viewed from a distance, through the haze of hermeneutical principles and oriental learning in which he has enveloped them, appear to be of formidable dimensions and strength; on a nearer approach, we discover their weakness and insignificance.

Yours,

PHILALETHES CANTABRIGIENSIS.

ANTIQUITIES, ETC.

DISPOSAL OF HIGHER CHURCH PREFERMENT.

THE following is a series of extracts from different sources, intended to illustrate the history of the disposal of church preferment in this country, from the Reformation to the present time. They are simply strung together, without note or comment; but they sufficiently tell their own tale. They prove that the nomination to ecclesiastical offices by the minister of the day, is "an usurpation on the part of ministers, and that of comparatively recent growth;" that "from the period of the Reformation until toward the middle of the last century, the king really, as well as nominally, appointed to ecclesiastical preferment," and that, in the discharge of this sacred trust," the spiritual heads of the church were habitually consulted, on all important appointments." Beginning with the new foundation of the metropolitan church of Canterbury, under its first protestant archbishop, the following extracts shew the influence which the archbishop was uniformly called upon to exert, as primate of all England and metropolitan, as the head, and representative, and spokesman, of his brethren, the bishops of England, and first counsellor, in spiritual matters, of the king, in his sacred office of "Defender of the Faith, and in earth, under Christ, of the church of England and Ireland the supreme head." It is indeed no more than we should antecedently expect, should we find that the spiritual heads of the church have had, from time to time, to maintain a struggle against opposing influences; and