own hearts show us we derive, or besides these there are others of which we are necessarily unconscious, and which we cannot, with our present faculties, understand....

That from a right participation of this Ordinance we derive benefits of the first kind, both great and many, will be admitted by all serious persons:

however, has left the notes which follow, and which were written prior to what has gone before, showing the mode in which he proposed to handle it. The argument ran thus: The Apostolic Eucharist was miraculous; therefore, if ours be the Apostolic, it is miraculous; but miracles imply persons gifted with power to work them; our Eucharist, therefore, is not miraculous, unless there has been an appointment of consecrating persons, in other words, a Priesthood. He had then two points to insist on; first, that "no real Eucharist is without a Priesthood," next, that "a Priesthood exists." The former of these he discusses in the following paragraphs as far as they go; the latter he considered, in a great measure, an historical not a Scripture question, (as the ascertainment of the Canon is,) falling, to use his own words, under the following heads :] 1. It appears that our Lord made provisions for perpetuating the means of observing the Eucharist. 2. That these provisions have not yet been frustrated by man's perverseness. 3. And herefore that since the means still exist, it is our duty to avail ourselves of them; for that they would not have been perpetuted for nothing. [This was to have been followed by a chaper on the "Credibility of historical evidence in religious natters,” of which one sentence is written,] As it is not my vish to throw a doubt over the identity of the modern and ncient Eucharist, but rather to make it credible that both are iracles, it is desirable to show that the grounds on which the wo opinions rest, are not merely the same, which has been ointed out already, but that they are sufficient.

(1.) Because the rite itself is a standing evidence of the fact which it professes to commemorate, the death of our Lord; and thereby has an evident tendency at once to strengthen our own faith by bringing this evidence strongly before our mind, and to call the attention of unthinking people to the shortest and easiest refutation of Deism. This subject has been so admirably handled in Mr. Leslie's well-known Treatise, that it is useless to dwell upon it. (2.) Because the great solemnity of the service, and the discipline which is required preparatory to it, are a most wholesome interruption of the worldly thoughts and pursuits which are so apt to engross us; and must, if properly observed, assist and enliven our devotions. These benefits are not small; and these, it is evident, are the natural consequences of a right participation of the Eucharist.

A question, however, arises, whether these are the only benefits derived from it, or whether there are not others of a hidden and mysterious character, to produce which we see in it no natural tendency, and which no examination of our own heart can enable us with any certainty to detect......

Such being the state of the case, it seems to me not a little remarkable, that the whole controversy should have been allowed by both parties to turn on a point, the relevance of which is far from being obvious, except on the admission of a fact which removes all ground for controversy. The question under dispute concerns the benefits which we at this

day derive from commemorating our Lord's Last Supper with His Apostles: the question which has been substituted for this by both parties, concerns only the benefits which the Apostles derived from that Last Supper itself'. Of which two questions the identity is by no means obvious, as will be seen by every one who considers the subject dispassionately; and the confusion which has arisen from treating them as one and the same, has been in two respects prejudicial to the truth.

On the one hand it has tended to withdraw from view a very important fact, the due consideration of which might reconcile many inquiring minds to - the mysterious view of the Eucharist, as administered now; and on the other it has driven many, who feel a natural repugnance to this view, to cherish a similar repugnance with respect to the Eucharist of our Lord, and to acquiesce in forced and unnatural interpretations of it, which, when they have become habitual, are a barrier to all farther inquiry.

Thus, if people would but open their eyes to the otal and immeasurable difference between the most olemn circumstances under which the Eucharist

1 [i. e. a question, which is only of importance on the assumpion that our commemoration is the same in its benefits as our ord's actual Supper; an assumption which is not tenable, xcept there are persons who can do what our Lord did in it; e. except on the admission of a fact which removes all ground or controversy.]

[viz. the existence of persons who can do what Christ did.]

can now be administered among us, and those under which it was originally administered, and likewise between the persons receiving in the two cases, and above all between the administrators, they will clearly perceive that nothing could give any colour of probability to the identity of the two rites, except it could be made to appear that our Lord had left behind Him persons endowed with superhuman powers for this express purpose, and had secured a succession of such persons for ever; but if this could be made to appear, the mysterious view of the rite would lose all its seeming absurdity, and become at once as credible as the other, even to the most sceptical mind: and unless this could be made to appear, such persons might fearlessly acquiesce in a plain straightforward interpretation of the Scriptures relating to the Lord's Supper, without having recourse to the sophisms, which are now too frequently made use of in lowering that wonderful narrative, or being obliged to raise the modern Eucharist above the level which their reason assigns to it.

What Jesus Christ did in administering the holy bread and cup to His Apostles, is one thing; and whether any persons exist now on earth with power to do the same thing, is another. And these two questions are as perfectly distinct as any two questions can be......

The reason why men hesitate to adopt this view [the miraculous] of our Lord's Last Supper, is a notion that they are thereby committing themselves

to a similar view of the modern Eucharist: let them again call to mind the wide difference between the two cases, and not fear that any admissions they may make respecting the power of the Incarnate Word can involve assent to irrational superstitions. No argument can be brought forward to identify the original Eucharist with our commemorative imitation of it, except one which, if made good, will make the miraculous character of the latter just as credible as that of the former1, and which is perfectly independent of any views that may be adopted respecting the words, "This is My Body," and "This is My Blood." So that on this point men may trust their own impartial thoughts without any fear of consequences, or at all compromising their Protestantism......

The importance of guarding against this and similar fallacies [that of arguing from the Apostolic to the modern Eucharist,] arises from the tendency they have to leave the mind satisfied with a half truth. The conclusion drawn in this instance is perfectly true, however inconsecutive; and if it were the whole truth, there would be no reason for criticizing the arguments. But since it is only part of the truth, and since the manner of drawing it has a tendency to obscure the other half, such criticism becomes necessary. If the arguments on which we allow ourselves to rest the identity of the Apostolic Eucharist and that performed among

1 [viz. that there is a person able to effect it.] VOL. I.

M