human nature of the Son of God,-" In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren.' A human body can only be in one place at one and the same time. But Jesus has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God. The angel who watched the empty sepulchre from which the Saviour had risen, said to the terrified women, "Ye seek Jesus who was crucified, He is not here. He is risen. Strongly implying that it was impossible that he could be bodily in the grave, and yet be risen from the dead at the same time. When the disciples who witnessed his ascension, were gazing into heaven, following with their eyes as far as possible their beloved master, two angels said to them, "This same Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall come in like manner as ye have seen him go up into heaven." Why did they not inform the disciples, that this need cause them no distress, for the next time they assembled together, they would enjoy the privilege of eating and drinking the very substance of his body and blood?

4. The Romanists doctrine of the real presence is entirely subversive of the avowed design of the Saviour in appointing the ordinance. He intended it to be commemorative; "Do this in remembrance of me." And again we read, “Ye do shew forth the Lord's death till he come. Memory can only apply to the absent. Forget me not" is only the injunction of the departing or the distant

friend. What would be more absurd than to talk of remembering a person, who is at the very moment with us really, truly, substantially, and corporeally?

In reviewing this part of our subject we are tempted to smile at the ridiculous absurdities that meet us at every step by which we trace the course of this monstrous imposition; but when we reflect on its pernicious consequences, we call up quite another class of feelings. Popery is every where the parent of infidelity. Who can be surprised that so gross a system of superstition as the doctrine of transubstantiation developes, should foster the principle of total unbelief? Well may the sceptic scoff at such a faith. It is no marvel that infidelity and atheism should overrun those countries, which have been for ages subject to its influence; nor that those to whom this is the only form in which Christianity has been presented, should regard it merely as a cunningly devised fable, or despise and condemn it altogether as a mere system of spiritual fraud!

When we ask the Romanist for palpable evidence of the real presence in the eucharist, he contends that we have no right to make the demand. The whole process is a mystery. He claims that transubstantiation should be placed on a level with those sublime truths of revelation, which confessedly transcend, though they do no violence We are reminded that there are many

to reason.

of the operations of nature which we cannot comprehend-that we admit our incapacity to understand the doctrines of the holy Trinity-the incarnation—divine influence. But before we can recognize any analogy, we justly demand that the doctrine of Transubstantiation be shown to be as clearly revealed in the Scriptures as are those great and mysterious truths. This argument is admirably answered by the eminent non-conformist divine whose words we have already quoted. Dr. Joseph Fletcher says, "I am surrounded by mysteries in the phenomena of nature, and the arrangements of Providence; and it is an internal evidence of the divinity of the Bible that it has its mysteries too. But a fact surpassing all my attempts to explain or comprehend it, and involving in it no contradiction, is widely different from an assertion opposed at once to my senses and my perceptions. That there should be a Trinity and yet a unity in the Divine nature, is not absurd, because I am not required to believe that they are three and one in the same respect: but that bread is flesh, and wine is blood, or that a consecrated wafer, or a small portion of wine, should be separately and individually the very body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, opposes all probability, and all possibility, as far as possibilities come within the cognizance of human perceptions; overturns the foundation of credit in the testimony of our senses, disarranges the en

tire physical constitution of our nature, and most egregiously insults the dictates and convictions of the understanding under the venerable sanctions of faith and religion."*

The final resource of the Romanists when driven from every other position, consists in claiming transubstantiation to be regarded as a miracle. Now it is essential to a miracle not only that it be a positive suspension or interruption of the laws of nature, but that it be evident to the senses of the spectators. Both these attributes are conspicuously present in all the miracles of the Bible, and where they are not, however extraordinary the event or its results, no one admits it to be a miracle. Indeed, if we allow a miracle to exist without this evidence, the bare assertion of any imposter would become sufficient proof of miraculous agency. The blindest devotee of this deceptive dogma, will not pretend that any change, perceptible by the senses, takes place in the elements in transubstantiation.

miracle, if no miracle, no real

body and blood of Christ.

Then there is no

presence of the

Another unscriptural practice adopted by the Church of Rome, in reference to the sacred ordinance of the Lord's supper, is that of communion in one kind, in consequence of which the wine is denied to the laity and restricted to the priesthood;

* Lectures, p. 161.

the people receiving only the consecrated wafer, This innovation is justified solely on the authority of the church, no appeal being made to scripture. The admission being generally conceded that the primitive churches partook of the eucharist in both species. Indeed, the disputes in the council of Trent on this very point, confirm the fact. Yet by the decision of the council of Constance, in 1414, it was determined, "That the custom of receiving in one kind should be received as a law, which no one without the authority of the church might reject or alter." Thus summarily does the church dispense with the plainest command of Scripture, and make void the laws and institutions of the kingdom of Christ, by her traditions.

In immediate connection with the doctrine of Transubstantiation, stands the dogma of the sacrifice of the mass. A rite occupying so prominent a place in Roman Catholic worship, that almost all public services are identified with it, and named by it. So that attendance on any occasion at a Catholic place of worship, is called "going to mass." This service is regarded by the Romanists as the basis of his best hopes, by the Protestant as an awful superstition. How important the issue between them on this point! How extreme the danger to the party in error. Which is right? To endeavour to determine this, we shall state the sentiment as it is expressed in the canon of the council of Trent, and as it is explained in the