of that fleshly nature which He is pleased to make His own; symbols not converted by sacerdotal mediation into any substance foreign to their own, but recognised by the recipient himself, through faith, in the order and ministry of salvation, as verily and indeed connatural with that body into which we have been ingrafted, and with which we thus keep up a strengthening and refreshing communication.

Are we then to conclude that the awful doctrine delivered by our Saviour in the text, is to be understood exclusively of the Lord's supper? Far from it. The eucharistic celebration does not limit to itself the blessed communion which it exhibits. It was ordained, not to constitute this divine mystery, but to set it forth and make it effectual. To set it forth, in a distinct, authentic, form, or representation, appreciable by the Church at large; itself a brief summary of revealed knowledge, "speaking wisdom among the perfect," in which all the rays of divine truth meet as in a focus, and from which they are again radiated, as from a secondary source and centre of heavenly illuminations; (even as the material light had already been substantiated by the Creator, and revealed throughout the world dispersedly, before it was collected in any finite body, or focal luminary';) and to make it effectual by connecting it with a positive, voluntary act of faith, consciously exercised, and, as it were, concentred upon it. Thus we are naturally led to a more particular consideration of the rite itself, regarded as an historical institution, outwardly celebrated in our congregations. But this must be reserved for a separate discourse.

Lest, however, the views already put forth, should be thought, even in passing, merely speculative, I recapitu

1 Gen. i. 3-14.

late in a practical form. The doctrine which I have endeavoured to illustrate, is no other than the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord's supper. All that we are required to understand in this mysterious question, is negative. It is most necessary that we should distinctly know, and constantly remember what it is not. It is not a sacerdotal change, or conversion of the natural substances of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. This definition is repudiated by reason as unmeaning, and by conscience as idolatrous. It is not a mere ceremony or scenic representation of the body and blood of Christ. This explanation is rejected by reason, as nugatory and evasive; by conscience, as profane and comfortless. What it is, cannot be defined in words. It is suggested indeed by every separate declaration of the truth as it is in Jesus; we are led towards it in all our sacred meditations, to our great and endless comfort: we arrive at it practically in the due reception of the sacrament itself; but in whatever way we feel ourselves possessed of it, by whatever means we recognise its power, it is known only by faith, and learnt only by prayer.

Let us pray. And if we need the voice of a practised saint to lead our supplications, let our devout aspiration take this language: "Lord, what need I labour in vain, to search out the manner of Thy mysterious presence in the sacrament, when my love assures me Thou art there? All the faithful who approach Thee with prepared hearts, they well know Thou art there; they feel the virtue of divine love going out of Thee, to heal their infirmities, and to inflame their affections; for which, all love, all glory be to Thee'."

'The Practice of Divine Love.-BISHOP KEN; p. 116.

344

NOTE TO SERMON XVI..

ON PROTESTANTISM AND CATHOLICITY.

In reading works of religious controversy, it is necessary to keep the particular scope of the writer constantly before us: otherwise, the effect upon our minds will not seldom be the reverse of what is intended, and we shall not only fail of obtaining instruction, but be positively misled; and this, whether we adopt the Author's views, or, as sometimes happens, shrink back from them into the opposite extreme. We must see whether we belong to the class of persons specially had in view; and if not, we must place ourselves in their situation, and view the subject, for the time, with their prepossessions.

To give an instance:-It has naturally happened that many of the most famous apologies for the English Church, written soon after the Reformation, were addressed either wholly, or principally, to Romanists, to whom alone a large share of the reasoning applies. We have here little difficulty in making the requisite allowance. We know the peculiar character of the times, and we study the opinions of great men long since at rest, with comparative fairness and impartiality. But the same line of

This note is inserted in this place, partly to show in what light the Author would wish the preceding and following Sermons to be viewed, and partly to relieve the attention of the reader by a

change of style and subject. If, however, it should be felt to interrupt the general argument, it may be passed over, and read as an Appendix to the whole volume.

discussion has been adopted in rather a different spirit, and under circumstances, similar in some respects, but quite without a precedent in others, in certain recent treatises, highly ingenious, but requiring to be read not merely with candour, but with caution. The arguments employed are, for the most part, of the kind entitled ad hominem, where the adversary is confuted on his own grounds: but whether those grounds are really tenable or otherwise is not considered. Thus, if the Church of England be pronounced by Romish theologians schismatical, secular, disunited, variable, irregular, and informal, all these charges, in all their shapes, are shown to lie, with equal or greater force, against their own communion.

If

Perhaps, however, there is more of logical dexterity than effective persuasion in this species of advocacy. Its effect is, in general, rather to silence than convince. the opposed party be sincere, as well as consistent in their opposition; that is to say, if they really believe their objections to be valid, they may, indeed, be led to desert their own position, but cannot be expected to take up yours. You have retorted the charge, not solved the difficulty; and at best merely weakened the cause of your enemy, without strengthening your own. You have bid him look at home; and as this is always taken as an implied confession, you expose yourself to the brunt of an imputation, which your opponent after all may find means to evade. I will not say that this mode of argument is without its use; but it should be confined within narrow limits, and never trusted to alone.

But the inexpediency, of which I speak, will be rendered still more apparent, when we remember that no book is read by those alone for whom it is intended, and

that if the Romanist be induced to abandon his attack by the fear of retaliation, it will infallibly be pressed by those who are not so restrained. To retaliate a blow is not to avert it. The arrow which you plunge into the breast of your adversary is thought to have left a wound in your own; and those who make common cause neither with the assailant, nor with the assailed, (including the whole body of Protestant dissenters,) regard a contest so conducted as bellum internecinum, the progress of which is watched with no friendly eyes by a large number of spectators. In fact, you have suggested doubts to the undecided which you have not attempted to dissipate, and wrenched a weapon from the hands of one enemy, only to place it in the hands of another.

There are but two ways in which an objection can fairly be removed: by denying its force, or disproving its applicability. Where neither course is open, it should be admitted with a candid regret. The defence which confesses to no imperfection proves too much, and is felt to be special pleading. But many of the charges, discussed in the treatises of which I speak, gain far more by the courtesy with which they are entertained, than they lose by the ingenuity with which they are framed. They should be quashed in limine, as merely trifling and irrelevant otherwise they acquire a gravamen from the mode in which they are received. Alas! when will the Church in this country learn to know the heavenly temper of that armour in which she is indeed arrayed!

If, however, this mode of proceeding is adopted in a spirit of compromise, and the principles of the Roman Church in these particulars are admitted, not merely for the sake of argument, but as a common ground of truth, such conciliation is not merely hopeless, but the attempt