the faith as to the elements of bread and wine, that they are the Lord's body and blood, I cannot wonder at such a result,-the Romanist form of the doctrine being at least simpler and more self-consistent.

I do not forget the argument against transubstantiation, that it is not only a mystery, but contradicts also our senses. To ask me to believe in the dark, is not certainly to go so far as to ask me to believe in contradiction to what I naturally feel to be light; and this disadvantage transubstantiation seems to have, as compared with other conceptions of the actual presence of Christ in the bread and wine. But only seems to have. I would not make light of the confidence with which any fellow Protestant appeals to our bodily senses, in his rejection of transubstantiation. But, inasmuch as our bodily senses are certainly not our highest faculties of perception, I feel that the contradiction it presents to them, does not weigh more with me, I would say, does not weigh so much with me as the contradiction it presents to a higher endowment with which God has endowed man—the highest sense which he possesses -that faculty of perception which distinguishes him as a spiritual being-the inhabitant not merely of a physical, but of a spiritual universe-that in man which makes him capable of knowledge notof nature only, but of nature's God. What is the physical sense of hearing in comparison with that spiritual sense which is addressed when our Lord says to us, "Hear and your soul shall live?" What the sight that makes the light of the sun available, in comparison of that which enables us to rejoice in the

In

light of the Sun of Righteousness? When partaking of the Lord's Supper, I, by my bodily senses, take cognizance of the bread and wine, and know what they are, as I intentionally and consciously partake of them; while, with my spiritual nature, I deal with the spiritual realities which they symbolize, and discern the Lord's body broken for me, his blood shed for the remission of my sins, which I thankfully receive, and consciously feed upon, as the spiritual food of the divine life. The two processes are quite distinct. They are both experienced realities. neither is there any mystery. In neither is any thing assumed to be what it is not felt and proved to be. If, as to the first part of this experience, I may have confidence enough in my bodily senses on their testimony to refuse to believe that what seemed bread and wine were not bread and wine, but were transubstantiated into the actual flesh and blood of Christ, I feel at least equally authorised in the confidence which justly accompanies the exercise of spiritual perception, to believe that the spiritual realities which I have spiritually discerned, the spiritual food of which I have consciously partaken, was just what to my spiritual apprehension it appeared; existing as a spiritual existence altogether in the region of spirit, and not clothed with a material form, or existing in the material substance which to the outward senses is bread and wine. Of course there is this difference between the contradiction to transubstantiation presented by the spiritual sense, and that which the bodily senses offer, that all see the bread and wine, and may feel entitled to say, "these are

but bread and wine," while the spiritual realities, to which they refer, are seen only by those who exercise spiritual vision, and know Christ, and find his flesh to be meat indeed, and his blood to be drink indeed. But, assuming that a man has both these preparations for dealing with this matter, and while his bodily senses bear to him the testimony that they bear to all men, that his spiritual eye is opened to see the appropriate food of eternal life presented to him in Christ, I believe that such a man's spiritual perceptions afford to him as direct a contradiction to the doctrine of transubstantiation as his physical perceptions do. Now, though the modifications of the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the elements to which I have referred, cease to contradict our bodily senses as directly as transubstantiation does, they still continue equally to contradict our spiritual perceptions, the perceptions which pertain to our higher nature, the perceptions which properly pertain to that region in which Christ and eternal life are seen and known.

Those who have gone along with me thus far may feel, that I have said enough to justify my justify my estimate of the evil involved in interpreting the words of our Lord, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," as referring to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper.

Yet there may be some, who have such a lively sense of our mental limits, and so strong a feeling of the danger of refusing any statement that is made as on divine authority, because of our inability to form consistent and harmonious views in the matter to

In

light of the Sun of Righteousness? When partaking of the Lord's Supper, I, by my bodily senses, take cognizance of the bread and wine, and know what they are, as I intentionally and consciously partake of them; while, with my spiritual nature, I deal with the spiritual realities which they symbolize, and discern the Lord's body broken for me, his blood shed for the remission of my sins, which I thankfully receive, and consciously feed upon, as the spiritual food of the divine life. The two processes are quite distinct. They are both experienced realities. neither is there any mystery. In neither is any thing assumed to be what it is not felt and proved to be. If, as to the first part of this experience, I may have confidence enough in my bodily senses on their testimony to refuse to believe that what seemed bread and wine were not bread and wine, but were transubstantiated into the actual flesh and blood of Christ, I feel at least equally authorised in the confidence which justly accompanies the exercise of spiritual perception, to believe that the spiritual realities which I have spiritually discerned, the spiritual food of which I have consciously partaken, was just what to my spiritual apprehension it appeared; existing as a spiritual existence altogether in the region of spirit, and not clothed with a material form, or existing in the material substance which to the outward senses is bread and wine. Of course there is this difference between the contradiction to transubstantiation presented by the spiritual sense, and that which the bodily senses offer, that all see the bread and wine, and may feel entitled to say, "these are

but bread and wine," while the spiritual realities, to which they refer, are seen only by those who exercise spiritual vision, and know Christ, and find his flesh to be meat indeed, and his blood to be drink indeed. But, assuming that a man has both these preparations for dealing with this matter, and while his bodily senses bear to him the testimony that they bear to all men, that his spiritual eye is opened to see the appropriate food of eternal life presented to him in Christ, I believe that such a man's spiritual perceptions afford to him as direct a contradiction to the doctrine of transubstantiation as his physical perceptions do. Now, though the modifications of the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the elements to which I have referred, cease to contradict our bodily senses as directly as transubstantiation does, they still continue equally to contradict our spiritual perceptions, the perceptions which pertain to our higher nature, the perceptions which properly pertain to that region in which Christ and eternal life are seen and known.

Those who have gone along with me thus far may feel, that I have said enough to justify my estimate of the evil involved in interpreting the words of our Lord, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," as referring to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper.

Yet there may be some, who have such a lively sense of our mental limits, and so strong a feeling of the danger of refusing any statement that is made as on divine authority, because of our inability to form consistent and harmonious views in the matter to