Council at Rome, "where some being of one opinion and some another," (as it is in the acts of that Council, writ by those of the Pope's faction,) his cause could not be so entirely oppressed but that some Bishops were still found to uphold it. Nay, the ringleader himself, Hildebrand, is said to have doubted, "whether what we receive at the LORD's Table be indeed the Body of CHRIST by a substantial conversion." But three months space having been granted to Berengarius, and a fast appointed to the Cardinals, "that God would show by some sign from heaven, (which yet He did not,) who was in the right, the Pope or Berengarius, concerning the Body of the LORD;" at last the business was decided without any oracle from above, and a new form of retraction imposed on Berengarius, whereby he was henceforth forward to confess, under pain of the Pope's high displeasure, "that the mystic Bread," (first made magical and enchanting by Hildebrand,) "is substantially turned into the true and proper Flesh of CHRIST;" which whether he ever did is not certain. For though Malmesbury tells us, "that he died in that Roman faith," yet there are ancienter than he, who say, "that he never was converted from his first opinion." And some relate, “that after this last condemnation having given over his studies, and given to the poor all he had, he wrought with his own hands for his living." Other things related of him by some slaves of the Roman See, deserve no credit. These things happened, . . . . . . in the year 1079; and soon after Berengarius died.

Berengarius being dead the orthodox and ancient doctrine of the LORD's Supper which he maintained did not die with him; (as the Chronicus Cassinensis would have it; for it was still constantly retained by St. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, who lived about the beginning of the twelfth century. In his discourse on the LORD's Supper, he joins together the outward form of the Sacrament, and the spiritual efficacy of it, as the shell and the kernel, the sacred sign, and the thing signified; the one he takes out of the words of the Institution, and the other out of CHRIST's Sermon in the sixth of St. John. And in the same place explaining, that Sacraments are not things absolute in themselves without any relation, but mysteries, wherein by the gift of a visible sign, an invisible and divine grace with the Body and Blood of CHRIST is given, he saith, "That the visible sign is as a ring, which is given not for itself or absolutely, but to invest and give possession of an estate made over to one.' . . Now, as no man can fancy that the ring is substantially changed into the inheritance, whether lands or houses, none also can say with truth, or without absurdity, that the Bread and Wine are substantially changed into the Body and Blood of CHRIST. But in his Sermon on the Purification, which none doubts to be his, he speaks yet more plainly; "The Body of CHRIST in the Sacrament is the food of the soul, not of the belly, therefore we eat him not corporally: but in the manner that CHRIST is meat, in the same manner we understand

that he is eaten." Also in his Sermon on St. Martin, which undoubtedly is his also; "To this day," saith he, "the same flesh is given to us, but spiritually, therefore not corporally." For the truth of things spiritually present is certain also.

The thirteenth century now follows; wherein the world growing both older and worse, a great deal of trouble and confusion there was about religion. So that now there remained nothing but to confirm the new tenet of Transubstantiation, and impose it so peremptorily on the Christian world, that none might dare so much as to hiss against it. This Pope Innocent the Third bravely performed. He succeeding Celestin the third at thirty years of age, and marching stoutly in the footsteps of Hildebrand, called a Council at Rome in St. John Lateran, and was the first that ever presumed to make the new-devised Doctrine of Transubstantiation an Article of Faith necessary to salvation, and that by his own mere authority.

In the fifteenth century the Council of Constance, (which by a sacrilegious attempt took away the sacramental cup from the people, and from the Priests when they do not officiate,) did wrongfully condemn Wiclif, who was already dead, because amongst other things he had taught with the Ancients, "That the substance of the Bread and Wine remains materially in the Sacrament of the Altar; and that in the same Sacrament, no accidents of Bread and Wine remain without a substance." Which two assertions are most true.

By these any considering person may easily see, that Transubstantiation is a mere novelty; nor warranted either by scripture or antiquity; invented about the middle of the twelfth century, out of some misunderstood sayings of some of the Fathers; confirmed by no ecclesiastical or Papal Decree before the year 1215, afterwards received only here and there in the Roman Church; debated in the schools by many disputes; liable to many very bad consequences rejected, (for there was never those wanting that opposed it,) by many great and pious men, until it was maintained in the sacrilegious Council of Constance; and at last in the year 1551, confirmed in the Council of Trent, by a few Latin Bishops, slaves to the Roman See; imposed upon all, under pain of an anathema, to be feared by none; and so spread too far, by the tyrannical and most unjust command of the Pope. So that we have no reason to embrace it, until it shall be demonstrated, that except the substance of the Bread be changed into the very Body of CHRIST, His words cannot possibly be true; nor His Body present. Which will never be done.

No. 29.

(ad Populum.)

CHRISTIAN LIBERTY;

OR,

WHY SHOULD WE BELONG TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

BY A LAYMAN.

He that receiveth you, receiveth Me; and he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me.

He that receiveth a prophet, in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man, in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward. Matt. x. 40, 41.

JOHN EVANS was walking along the lane between his own house and the common, when just at the place where the lane makes a turning, he suddenly met Dr. Spencer, the Rector of his parish. John was not particularly pleased at thus meeting his Pastor, for several reasons. He had formerly been a most regular attendant at the parish church, from which he had lately chosen to absent himself with his family. Not that he stayed away from idleness, or from any intentional disregard of the commands of God; he felt, as he imagined, the same reverence for the Divine Will as ever; it was, indeed, rather a mistaken zeal than any thing else, which had led to his change of conduct. He had been induced, one Sunday, by a friend who belonged to a dissenting congregation, to go with him to the meeting-house; and when he was there, there was something in the energy of the preacher's manner, in the vehement action by which his teaching was accompanied, and in his seeming earnestness in the holy cause of GOD, which, as it was quite new to John, was particularly striking to him. Compared with the fervour of this man, the quiet but sound discourses of his Rector seemed spiritless and tame; and John came out of the meeting under the influence of such enthusiastic feelings, as led him to resolve to visit it again the first opportunity. And thus he was led on to go again and again, till at last he made up his mind to become a regular attendant there. Thither he accordingly took his family, Sunday after Sunday; and deserted, of course, the old parish church, the venerable building in which he and his had received the holy rite of Baptism, in which, as each of them in turn outgrew their infancy,

they had heard for the first time the solemn sound of congregational prayer, and in which those who had arrived at a proper age, had frequently received, from CHRIST's authorized Ministers, the symbols of His sacred Body and Blood.

It will be seen from what follows, that in making this change upon such grounds as have been described, John Evans did not understand that he was disobeying the GoD whom he was trying to serve, and putting a slight upon that SAVIOUR, whose disciple he not only professed himself, but in good earnest desired to be. Yet though he did not enter into this view of the matter; though he knew not that he had shown disrespect to CHRIST in his Minister; still he felt as though he had not been behaving with perfect respect to the Doctor, whom he loved on his own account, as he had indeed every reason to do. So what with his fear of a rebuke on this ground; (a rebuke which he dreaded the more from the mildness of the language in which he knew that it would be clothed ;) what with the irksomeness of having to avow opinions which must be disagreeable to one whom he so highly respected; and moreover, the suspicion which he could not help feeling, that in these new ways of his, so different from what he had been used to revere, and so suddenly taken up, he might possibly be wrong; for all these various reasons, he met his Pastor with a downcast and half-guilty look, very different from the open, honest smile with which he had till then ever greeted the good Clergyman.

Dr. Spencer, however, took no notice of the difference. "Well, John," said he, "I am glad to see you. I was on my way to have a little conversation with you, and should have been sorry to have missed you."

John thought it best to be bold, and come out at once with his defence of himself. "I believe, Sir," said he, "that I can guess what it is you were wishing to talk with me about. I have taken a step which I fear,........ I know,........ must be displeasing to you, Sir. I trust however, that in exercising my Christian Liberty in the choice of my spiritual teacher, and joining the meeting instead of going to Church, I shall not seem to have acted from disrespect to you, Sir, who have so long been a good friend to me and mine."

Dr. By no means, John; do not suppose either that I feel personally offended by your conduct, or that I do not regard you with feelings as friendly as ever. But, as to the Christian Liberty you speak of, we perhaps understand that matter rather differently; and it was because I thought you were in some mistake about it, that I was coming to see you to-day. I have missed yourself and family for some Sundays past in Church, and understood you had joined the meeting. Is not this the case?

John. It is, Sir; and, as I have already said, without the slightest notion of showing you disrespect.

Dr. Say no more about that, John; I know you too well to suspect you for a moment of such a feeling as that. Speak to me, as to your sincere friend and well-wisher, in perfect candour; and do not fear that I shall be offended by any thing you say, while you tell me fairly your reasons for this change in your conduct.

J.-I am sure, Sir, that in the old Church I never heard any thing from you but what was good; and I never thought, till the other day, that I could pray better in any other words than in those of the Church Service. But there is something so fine in the prayers without book, as they are offered at meeting, and.....

Dr.-And something perhaps in the manner and language of the preacher, who preaches there without book also? But let me ask, had you no other reasons than these, and such as these, for leaving the Church?

of.

J.-None, Sir, but such as these; at least none that I am aware

Dr.-You did not consider that either the Church Prayer-Book, or my Sermons, taught doctrines contrary to the great truths revealed in GOD'S Word?

J.-GOD forbid, Sir.

Dr.-You had then, perhaps, some such notion as this; you thought that in the Church you could pray well, but at meeting you could pray rather better?

J. Just so, Sir.

Dr.-And you thought that you were doing GoD service, then, by joining that worship which touched you most?

J.-And surely, Sir, I was right in that thought, at least.

Dr.-You would have been right, if God had not chosen a Minister for you. In that case perhaps you might have used your Christian Liberty, as you call it, and joined any congregation and worship you pleased. But His having given a clear command alters the case, and makes that which would otherwise have been a matter of indifference, an act of disobedience and sin.

J. But if I may be so bold as to ask, Sir, when did God give this command, and where is it to be found? I am not so ready with the Bible as learned people, yet I know it in my own way. That was the very thing I heard Mr. Tims, who preaches at the meeting, ask last Sunday. He said, "where is the Church of England spoken of in the Bible? name chapter and verse where we are bid belong to it." And then he went on to say, that the new heart is every thing; and that we shall not be asked at the last day, whether we were Churchmen or Dissenters, but what the state of our heart is.

Dr. We shall be asked at the last day, whether we have obeyed GOD's commandments; now, one of those commandments is, that we should belong to the Church, as I will soon show you. But first you shall tell me what has been your reason, till lately, for going to Church.