"I will not drink from henceforth of THIS FRUIT OF THE VINE, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father."

Thus Christ clearly tells us that the wine in the chalice still continued what it was, even "the fruit of the vine," that there was no transubstantiation, that there was no physical change effected in it.

We were also referred to the 11th chap. of the 1st Corinthians, and Mr. Edgeworth read us various passages therefrom. In the 23rd verse Paul shews what he received of Christ; in the 24th verse he goes on to specify particulars, namely, the account concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; in the 25th verse he uses the word "chalice:"-"This chalice is the new testament of my blood;"-in the 26th verse he still calls it "the bread and the chalice;" in the 27th verse, "the bread and the chalice;" in the 28th verse, "the bread and the chalice." The Apostle Paul, by using these words, "bread," and "chalice," so frequently, shews that he did not believe in any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine; for if he received this dogma, he would not have so repeatedly called it "bread and chalice."

Mr. Edgeworth dwelt for some time on the 26th verse: "As often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord until he come."

Mr. Tottenham adverted to the circumstance of Christ being absent from this world in a bodily form, and shewed from this verse that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper could not contain his actual body; for we are commanded to "eat this bread," and "drink this chalice," " until he come." Holy Scripture of the New Testament informs us of only two personal comings of our Lord; the first coming in order to suffer and atone for sin, and "bring in an everlasting righteousness;"-the first coming in order that he might procure gifts for men,-and bear up his own sacrifice before his Father's throne in heaven, and from thence pour down the richest blessings on the children of men: and his second coming, when he is to appear—

"In a flame of fire, yielding vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thes. i. 8.

In the day of his second coming we are told that “ every eye shall see him," and he "shall come in the clouds of heaven." In the 1st chapter of the Acts we are informed that, when the Apostles were gazing up to heaven after the

ascended Saviour, two men stood by them, and told them, "In like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven, so shall he come again." He ascended in his bodily form, and they were to see him come again to the world in the same manner. But according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation he comes every day, and it may be every hour of the day, invisibly on the altars of the Roman Church. In these wafers he is not seen, and yet it is promised "that every eye shall see him," when he comes "the second time without sin unto the salvation of his people."

But again, the Rev. Gentleman also introduced the 29th verse:

"He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."

And he asks this question: "How was it possible that we could be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord, unless the body and blood were actually present?" It is very easy to comprehend this, if we will compare it with other passages in the word of God. The word "discerning" is used in Scripture in a spiritual, and not in a bodily sense; for were it bodily presence that was here intended, the word "discern" would not have been used. The Apostle Paul is reproving the Corinthians because they did not spiritually discern the commemoration of the Lord's death in the bread and wine laid before them. He blames them for abusing the Sacrament,-for eating too much of the bread, and drinking so much of the wine as to cause intoxication. Now if it were the blood of Jesus which was in the chalice, that "blood which cleanseth from all sin," it could never be the cause of such iniquity. It appears that the blood in the chalice, contrary to our notions of blood, is of an intoxicating quality; but as we have never drunk human blood in the Protestant Church, we leave such cannibalism to the Church of Rome, and we call on her to tell us how it can intoxicate him who drinks of it.

Compare the 1st Corinthians, 2d chapter, 12th verse. Spiritual discernment is there spoken of—

"Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the spirit that is of God, that we may know the things that are given us from God."

Then the Apostle goes on to the 14th verse

"But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God, for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand because it is spiritually examined" (discerned).

Here is the true reason why they could not "discern the

body of the Lord," because it was not there substantially but spiritually, and the carnal mind that comes to the sacrament without faith cannot discern the nature of the things there represented. The Apostle says, " He cannot understand because it is spiritually examined." Then he adds, "But the spiritual man judgeth all things and he himself is judged of no man." In these verses he interprets the meaning of the word "discerning," and shews us clearly that it was not the bodily but the spiritual presence of the Lord that was there.

We are also asked in what manner could mere bread shew forth the death of the Lord, and are then told, that "Roman Catholics have the true faith, because they believe that the body and blood of Christ Jesus are in the sacrament." Now, both in Protestants and Roman Catholics, it must be an act of faith-for did any Roman Catholic ever SEE the body and blood of Christ? Did he ever see it in the Eucharist? Did he ever SEE the number of his limbs the features of his face-the various motions of a living body? I believe he cannot see these things, and therefore the Roman Catholic is bound, as we are, to receive it by faith. It is by faith that we spiritually eat the body and drink the blood of Christ; and the Roman Catholics must receive it by faith, because they cannot see the body and blood of the Lord as there present.

As I have but a short time at present to speak on this subject, I will make a few remarks on what Mr. Brown has said. He tells us, that sacrifice was necessary in order to apply the sacrifice of Christ: this subject we shall consider more largely when we come to the Sacrifice of the Mass, and I pass therefore to another assertion which he made regarding the 6th chapter of John, that, he said, would put an end to the argument. In the 64th verse it is written,

"It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.

Then the interpretation which is given by an infallible teacher, of an infallible church, is, that the flesh there means corrupt flesh. Now, when I examine different parts of this chapter, I find that the word "flesh" is applied to our Lord, and, if it signify literal flesh-then, that must be applied to the literal flesh of our Lord. I do not say that this is its meaning, but Roman Catholics desire to have it thus interpreted-and therefore, if, according to Mr. Brown, it signifies corrupt flesh, then the

66

Reverend Gentleman has fallen into the heresy of those who say that our Lord took a body defiled and contaminated with sin, but Holy Scripture tells us, that he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners." In the 19th and 20th verses of the 10th chap. of Hebrews, the word flesh is used to signify the real flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ:

66

Having therefore, brethren, confidence in the entering into the Holiest by the blood of Christ; a new and living way which he hath dedicated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh."

Here the word "flesh" is not used in the sense of corruption. I am willing to grant that, in many parts of Scripture, it is used in the sense of corruption; but, in the 6th chapter of John, according to the Roman interpretation it is applied to the flesh of Jesus, and therefore it cannot be corrupt. In the 64th verse, therefore, the word "flesh" cannot mean corrupt or contaminated flesh—“ It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing." How is it possible, that that which is natural could nourish that which is spiritual? It is the Spirit only that can act on spirit,-first, for its conversion, then for its enlargement into the glorious liberty, wherewith the Lord Jesus maketh free. We might partake of human flesh, day after day, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, but how would our souls be benefited thereby? That flesh must, like all other flesh, "perish in the using." We would still require spiritual food, for by that which is natural or material, our souls never could be strengthened,-never could grow and increase into the "measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." It is "by the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus that we are made free from the law of sin and death," and it is by the very same "Spirit taking of the things of Jesus, and shewing them to our souls," that we are strengthened and comforted from time to time. It is by means of this Spirit that we are brought into union and fellowship with the Lord Jesus. It is, spiritually, that we eat the food that the Lord has given us. We there, in spirit, behold as it were the death and sufferings of Jesus, represented to us in the emblems which he has given us. And, in the sacrament, whilst we are commemorating the dying love of our Lord, we should also bear in remembrance our own sins, that caused him to die so painful, so accursed a death as that of Calvary's cross. In the communion of the Lord's supper our souls should partake of joy as flowing to us from a sense of the love of Christ, there

represented, whilst at the same time we should be abased to the dust in ourselves, when we herein are taught the depths of iniquity within us-the exceeding sinfulness of our hearts, which nothing but the blood of Jesus can cleanse away-even the blood of "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world."

THE REV. T. J. BROWN.

66

AFTER the protest that had been entered by Mr. Tottenham, in the last week's discussion, against the Catholic advocates dictating, as he charged us with doing, how the Almighty ought to act, I did not indeed expect that we should have heard of difficulties suggested by human reason against the mystery which I advocate. I had, however, cautioned you against them by calling your attention to the fact, that difficulties of the same character were raised by the Jews, when our divine Master declared that he would give them his flesh, How," they said, "can this man give us his flesh to eat." Yet such objections have been, again and again, during the speech of Mr. Lyons, addressed to you, in order that your faith may not be established upon the word of God; that testimony to which alone you should appeal, when the contested object of Revelation is a mystery. Similar difficulties have, indeed, oftentimes been adduced by opponents of Protestantism against the most essential doctrines of Revelation. How, then, is it possible for a minister of the Established Church to defend his own creed with consistency, after he has thus set an example, in his attack upon ours, of scrutinizing the obscurities of faith by the faint light of human reason and the weak judgment of man? The consequences are fatal to revealed religion if this examination by man of the secrets of God be permitted. Toulmin, in his Life of Socinus, defending his appeal to reason against the mysteries of the Incarnation, writes:

"There is no other way of evading the force of the Papist's argument for Transubstantiation, from the express words of the institution."

Spinoza endeavoured, by a like process, to explain away the mystery of the Trinity, and all other mysteries. How did the defenders of Christianity, Protestant as well as