But to terminate the explanation of this wonderful mystery-to manifest the completion of this

the synagogue, in Capernaum. Many, therefore, of his disciples hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If, then, you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? (Jo. vi. 54-63.) Here again, our Saviour, so far from admitting that his disciples had misunderstood him, adduces his future miraculous ascension into heaven in testimony of the truth of his assertions. He asks if their incredulity will not fall before the stupendous miracle of his ascension? It would also appear that our Saviour intended to convey some idea of the manner in which his flesh was to be given for the spiritual food of mankind, since he adds, It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. That is, my mere flesh, without my spirit and divinity, would be of no avail; or, without the spirit of God, the carnal man is incapable of comprehending or benefiting from the truths of Christianity. No man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. In judging of spiritual things, you must be governed by the spirit, not by the gross ideas of sensual man. It is not after the manner of common meat that you are to eat of the flesh of the Son of man, but though in a real and substantial, yet in a heavenly and spiritual form. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life: they will animate you with the spirit of God, if you will but believe in them; they will conduct you to eternal life, if you will but follow them as your guide. Such appears to have been the meaning of a passage which is frequently brought forward

august sacrament-and to exhibit the fulfilment of the promise he had made of giving himself as the bread of life,—our Saviour, at his last supper, took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat, THIS IS MY BODY; and taking the chalice also, he gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying; Drink ye all of this; FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD, &c. Christ did not

by Protestants, in a vain endeavour to controvert the previous declaration of our Saviour. Nothing, however, can be more certain, from the whole context, that they nowise militate against the positive promise of Christ, to give his real and substantial, though spiritualized body, for the food of mankind. Had the Jews been less obdurate in their unbelief, they would in all probability have understood the precise meaning of our Saviour, who would then have condescended to enter into more explicit details. It is quite evident, however, that the passage will admit of these interpretations, and it would be blasphemy to assert that the God of Truth had contradicted, in the latter part of his discourse, what he had so positively and so strongly insisted upon in its commencement. Knowing that the eyes of his disciples were not yet opened to understand the Scriptures, and that it was not the intention of our Saviour to explain himself more fully upon this occasion, the whole difficulty is relieved.

(9) An Almighty God has said it: and man, vain man, has presumed to question it.-O man! who art thou that repliest against God? Rom. ix. 20.

() A flimsy quibble is frequently resorted to for the purpose of destroying the force of these expressions; namely,

say, here is my body, here is my blood! which might have appeared to countenance the doctrine of Consubstantiation; but he says, this is my body: this is no longer bread, but the body of him who addresses you; the life-giving flesh of the Son of God: this is no longer wine, but the sacred fountain of life, that blood which shall so soon be shed upon the cross for the remission of your sins.

If any other testimony were required, the manner in which St. Paul bears witness to this doctrine is a striking confirmation of it. The chalice of benediction, which we bless, says he, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ; and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body

that all that was required of us by these injunctions of Christ, was a mere commemoration of the last supper— Do this in commemoration of me. But it is at once overturned by the simple question; What was the important this that was to be done? Were the disciples to do what our Saviour had just done, or something else that was left to their own fancy?-On one occasion Luther says: "The devil seems to have mocked mankind in proposing to them a heresy so ridiculous and contrary to Scripture as is that of the Zuinglians, namely, the denial of the real presence." (Op. Luth. Defens. Verb. Con.) In another place he acknowledges that he had tried to persuade himself of there being no real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, on purpose to irritate and offend the Pope; but that the words of Scripture were too plainly in favour of it.-(See Letters to a Preb. p. 154.)

of the Lord? And whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. In receiving the bread, how can we be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, if his body and blood be not there? How can we eat and drink judgment to ourselves, not discerning the body of the Lord,(") if the body of the Lord be not there to be discerned?(*)

(s) 1 Cor. x. 16. (t) 1 Cor. xi. 27. (u) Ibid. 22. (*) While St. Paul says that the unworthy communicant is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, the doctrine of the Establishment renders the profanation of the Sacrament an impossibility. I presume-and after all it is only a presumption, though I doubt whether any Protestant will contradict me—that the Church of England denies the real presence in toto: and this being the case, what is there in the Sacrament for the unworthy communicant to profane? Where is the body and blood of the Lord, of which he is to be guilty? But supposing, according to the words of the 28th Article, an act of faith really gives the body and blood of Christ to the communicant, who but a madman will make that act of faith, when he receives the Sacrament unworthily and unprepared? How can he be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, when, making no act of faith, he receives nothing but bread and wine? In one case, there is a certainty that the Sacrament cannot, in the other, there is a moral impossibility that it can, be profaned by an unworthy communicant who is a member of the Established Church. Hence the denunciation of St. Paul becomes void and unmeaning.

An omniscient God foresaw the incredulity of mankind, and in mercy to those who are willing to believe, afforded evidence without end to preserve them from error upon this most important point. All the Evangelists, all the inspired writers, all the Fathers of the Church, concur in opinion upon this doctrine. There is no tenet for which there are so many vouchers; there is no mystery so distinctly revealed, and so clearly defined.

If Transubstantiation were a modern doctrine, a doctrine of human invention, why cannot those who assert it to be so, prove both the manner and the period of so extraordinary an innovation in the faith of Christianity? If, in our own times, a minister of the Church of England were to ascend the pulpit, hold up to the people the consecrated elements, and exclaim, This is the body and blood of Christ;' what astonishment would not fill the minds of his audience; what an outcry would there not be raised throughout the country! And is it to be believed, that, if a similar occurrence, under similar circumstances, had taken place during the first ages of the Church, the effect would not have been the same? Would it have been so completely overlooked both by history and tradition? That such an assertion, under such circumstances, should have met with success, is a monstrous supposition, because, independent of its