in fashion as a wafer, he humbled himself, and was swallowed simultaneously by each of his twelve apostles, whilst he continued to recline at the table, so as to be actually in the stomach of Judas, at the very moment when he was betrayed.

I need scarcely add, that I am not so foolish, or slow of heart to believe," as to doubt, that Christ "ought to have suffered these things;" and that, without the shedding of his most precious blood, no sinner could have been saved. But if this sacrifice was (as is admitted on all hands) as all-sufficient and efficacious as it was important and indispensable, I again ask, on what principle of equity or wisdom, any "unbloody sacrifices" could have been required on the part of God? Supposing that my accomplished and highly-gifted friend D'Israeli, in consequence of an immense influx of gold from California and Australia, were enabled to commence his auspicious career, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, by convening all the fundholders, and paying them in sovereigns the full amount of their claims, with a large per centage to boot, what would be thought of the creditors, if they returned on the following morning, and insisted on obtaining a payment of equal value in bank notes? And yet this is a precise, or rather imperfect, image of what God is represented by the Pope to have done. After having received an infinite satisfaction, through the pure gold of the great offering on Calvary, a propitiation of equal value must be superadded, many hundred or even thousand times every day throughout the world, in the paper currency of unbloody sacrifices! When our Lord, in his holy human nature had risen from the tomb, and ascended on high, where he ever liveth to make intercession for us, what necessity can there be, that we should say in our hearts, Who shall again bring Christ from above? Why should he undergo a daily repetition (often accompanied, according to Massillon, by circumstances of peculiar aggravation) of the ignominy which he endured, once for all, for the sake

of his people? Is it not more degrading to be imprisoned in the bowels of an infidel, than to be nailed to the accursed tree? And why should this great affront be submitted to, when the first humiliation was declared to be not only adequate, but infinite in value to atone for the dishonour done to the divine law by human sin? When the Genoese had offered a flagrant insult to Louis XIV., he demanded, by way of reparation, that the Doge should repair in person to Versailles, and make a suitable and submissive apology; as soon as this condition had been complied with, the King declared himself satisfied, and the Doge went home, if not in triumph, at all events in peace, and no further atonement was required. But would not the monarch have been deemed very harsh, unjust, and faithless, if he had insisted that the Doge, after his return, should every morning be tied up in a coarse sack of flour, and tossed in a blanket five hundred times per day? And surely, my dear friends, the Doge's punishment, however unjust or ignominious, would be far less awful and far less humiliating than that of the Holy One of Israel! According to the Romish hypothesis, although he saved others from infamy and death, he is unable to save himself from the daily or hourly degradation of being jolted to and fro, at every Popish priest's behest, through slimy pools of gastric juice, in fragile arks of impalpable abstractions.

There are, my dear friends, at the close of St Matthew's gospel, a declaration and a promise (Matt. xxviii. 18-20), from which every believer may, I think, derive much instruction and great encouragement-" All power is given unto ME in heaven and in earth." The Lord Jesus Christ, therefore, must be the Almighty God. He may be trusted in at all times, in all places, and under all circumstances. He does not tell us that he has delegated any portion of his omnipotence to his mother, to angels, or to departed saints. Why should we seek their countenance or aid, when God, our Saviour, is a refuge for us? Especially when he super

adds the gracious pledge, "Lo, I am with you alway, unto the end of the world." He is, therefore, as God, continually present with all redeemed and sanctified souls, not merely in the services of the church, or during the oblation of domestic worship, or at the hour of secret prayer, or in the administration of the sacramental elements; his grace is sufficient for them every moment, though there are seasons and places where it is imparted in the largest measure, and enjoyed with the liveliest thankfulness; and this, undoubtedly, is the privilege and prerogative of every worthy communicant, who, in obedience to his Lord's solemn injunction, receives bread and wine as the tokens of his Lord's love, and the symbols of his own faith-doing this "in remembrance of Him." I cannot conceive, that the holy sensibilities of the believer can be at all strengthened or enhanced by the adoption of a principle, which sets at defiance both his senses and his reason. For my own part, I should shrink with horror from the act of receiving into my mouth, and precipitating down my throat, the Creator of the universe, the Redeemer of mankind,- -more especially as, according to the Romish creed, I can never be certain whether I am doing so or not, as the change depends on the will of man, as much as on the power of God. If the priest makes any mistake in reciting the words of consecration, or uses the plural instead of the singular in consecrating many hosts, or if he be an unbeliever, or an atheist, or does not intend to perform the miracle, or if there be any defect in his baptism or ordination, or if the bread be corrupted, or the wine be vinegar, or mingled with any substance but water, the elements continue unaltered. The language used by our Lord on this solemn occasion, as well as the external rite itself, was an imitation (according to Jeremy Taylor) of a sacramental custom, already in use among the Jews, of breaking bread and distributing wine at the passover, after supper, saying, "This is the bread of sorrow, which our fathers ate in Egypt; this

is the passover;" and this passover was called "the body of the Paschal lamb," nay, it was "the body of our Saviour," and "our Saviour himself," so that here the words were made ready for Christ, and made his by appropriation, by the word meum; "He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Any omission or change in the exact phraseology would be as fatal to the marvellous, though imperceptible, transformation of the elements as the substitution of " open barley" for "open sesame" was, in the Eastern tale, to the accomplishment of the object for which the latter expression was required. It is remarkable, also, that, according to St Gregory, the apostles consecrated the eucharist only by saying the Lord's prayer; and as there is a considerable diversity in the words employed by St Matthew, St Mark, St Luke, and St Paul, when narrating what was said by our Lord at the institution of the ordinance, especially in reference to the chalice, it seems evident that there can be no necessity for employing one more than another; and although Christ says, This do," that is to say, "take bread, and break it, and eat, and drink the cup, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me," neither he nor his apostles gave the least intimation, that any particular form of words is necessary for the sacramental consecration. Transubstantiation was not pretended to be an article of faith until the Lateran Council, anno 1215, according to Scotus, and many other eminent authorities, who even go so far as to assert, that this doctrine is not so expressed in the canon of the Bible as, without the church's declaration, to compel us to admit it. Nay, the acts of that very council were not published until 1530, under the auspices of Cochlæus. An edition of the Councils was published three years before, and in that work the acts of the Lateran Council are not to be found; and they are only inserted by Gregory IX. in his decretals, not as those of the council, but of his uncle, Innocent III., in the council, the proceedings of

which were left unfinished, in consequence of the fathers having been affrighted by the warlike preparations of Genoa and Pisa, when all retired. It may be added, as stated by Jeremy Taylor, that the same authority, whether of pope or council, which made transubstantiation an article of faith, made rebellion and treason to be a duty of subjects; for, in the same collection of canons, they are both decreed and warranted under the same signature, the one being the first canon and the other the third. Alphonsus a Castro, a Popish writer, confesses that "in ancient writers, there is seldom any mention made of transubstantiation;" but the truth is, that the word is never mentioned by them at all, nor is the doctrine, which it implies, ever defined or asserted by any of them, and the expression itself is said to have been first invented by Stephen, Bishop of Augustodunum, about the year 1100. Erasmus also expressly states, that "in the communion the church has but lately defined transubstantiation, which, both in the thing and in the name, was unknown to the ancients." That Pope Gelasius held sentiments, in reference to the eucharist, utterly at variance from the more modern figment of transubstantiation, is evident from his own words,"Truly the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, for that by them we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet it ceases not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. And truly an image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the actions of the mysteries."

The Pope must indeed draw largely upon the ignorance and credulity of mankind, when he asserts, that the principles and practices of his church, in reference to the Lord's Supper, are borne out by the doctrines and usages of "primitive antiquity." It may be proper to lay briefly before you a few of the particulars, in which the contrast between the two is most strikingly exhibited. (1.) "The churches of Christ," says St Augustine,