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

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:

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."

66

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

Catholic, meet his speculations? By protesting against his impious daring, and the abuse of man's reasoning faculties, as I now find it my duty to do against similar excesses of Mr. Lyons.

Perusing lately the excellent work of the distinguished Protestant, Abbadie, "Sur la Religion Chrétienne," I was much interested in observing the principles which, in his 3rd vol., p. 329 and following pages, he defends the mysteries of our common faith, especially the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, against the sophisms and difficulties which the infidel Smalcius endeavoured to collect, from their alleged contradiction to the human understanding. Smalcius maintained that it was absurd to believe any thing contrary to reason; and hence he came to this conclusion, that if the Scriptures did evidently assert that God was made flesh, yet he would not believe it as being unreasonable; because, said he, reason was given to man that he might determine thereby what should be admitted into his creed, and what should be rejected. In refutation of this impious position, Abbadie argues, in the 1st place, that the principle of Smalcius overturns all gospel truth; "For it has pleased God," he says, quoting the Apostle in 1 Cor. i. 21," by the foolishness of our preaching to save them that believe." The Christian, therefore, ought to look up to the word of God, as to the motive and groundwork on which to establish religious truth, and not be guided by reason in opposition to the light of revelation. He contends, in the second place, and I particularly urge this in opposition to the line of argument taken up by Mr. Lyons, 1st, that to argue from reason against a mystery is to destroy faith; for "we walk by faith, and not by sight," 2 Cor. v. 9. 2ndly, that it destroys or renders grace unavailing; for if nothing is to be believed but what we can comprehend by the feeble and obscure light of our understanding, it follows that grace would not be necessary to faith; it follows, also, that the Apostle is wrong when he declares in Heb. xi. 1, that "faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen." In the third place, Abbadie argues that if nothing is to be believed which surpasses the comprehension of reason, revelation becomes useless-God has no means within his power whereby he may be able to dissipate the darkness which involves the human understanding-and man may proudly prefer his own knowledge to that of God. A fourth argument brought by Abbadie is, that if men

were not to believe except what they understand, the Almighty Being, to whom we owe submission on every point, would not receive from us as much obedience as parents do from their children, who believe many things exclusively on the authority of their testimony. He contends, in the fifth place, that if the sanction of reason must first be had, God would lose thereby his right to command the proud mind of man to submit. He puts forward this objection on the part of Smalcius:-" Reason is the foundation of faith; therefore faith cannot be more certain than reason." Abbadie answers, that reason, it is true, has to furnish the motives upon which the credibility of a doctrine is established; but the moment sufficient motives of credibility point out revelation, that moment we are to dismiss the objections of reason, and to receive the revealed truth, purely and solely because God has manifested it. Hence he comes to this conclusion (and it is very applicable to the objections that are urged against the Catholic rule), that the positions of Smalcius are blasphemies; that if the proofs contrary to the mystery of the Incarnation of God were a thousand times stronger than they really are, and that if it appeared to us a thousand times more absurd and more difficult to be believed, yet the moment we find it manifested by the God of truth we are bound to believe it. To the objections of the Rev. Mr. Lyons I beg to return similar answers; and to add that I tremble for him and the Protestant Church, if he and its ministers continue to set an example, such as he has shown, to those who are disposed to attack the myste ries of faith by their apparent opposition to reason. actual state of Protestantism in Germany displays a dreadful warning, where the whole system of revelation is overturned by ministers of the Protestant Church, and by Protestant Professors of Theology, precisely because they find it at apparent variance with their human notions.

The

I shall now notice some of the objections of Mr. T. which have not been replied to. I must own that I am always at a loss how to afford him satisfaction. At one time he calls upon us to put forward arguments for our doctrine, and then he says we ought to answer his objections. I was perplexed by this difficulty during the discussion of the last week, and I am now again similarly circumstanced; but I will endeavour to extricate myself first by replying briefly to his objections, and then going on with my defence.