After all these elaborate attempts to impose on us a literal sense of this institution, who would expect the following instruction for Catholic Christians? "Why do the faithful in the Catholic Church, receive only under the form of wine and not also under the form of bread? A. The Catholic Church has always looked upon it AS A THING INDIFFERENT Whether the faithful receive in one kind or both." Yet she pretends to a literal obedience to Christ's institution! "But her custom and discipline for many ages have been to administer this sacrament to the laity in one kind only; by reason of the danger of spilling the blood of Christ, if all were to receive the cup." But may not the priests spill it? And where

is the danger from spilling this wine? Are we not told by the same authority, that "the body of Christ in the sacrament cannot be hurt or divided"—that "it is now immortal and impassable?" Then it could not be hurt by being spilled, and surely would not hurt others. So that this danger, of which Christ never thought, is also a foolish pretence, on the priest's own shewing. In fact this is merely a subterfuge, the grand reason is the priests' power to make a distinction between the people and themselves. Hence we are told that "the Catholic Church did at one time allow of the communion in both kinds; and may again if she please, for this is a matter of discipline, which the Church MAY REGULATE OR ALTER AS SHE SHALL SEE MOST EXPEDIENT." (Challoner.)

Is it not then mere mockery to start with an appeal to the literal sense of Scripture, on a point which is immediately to be regulated by the Church, contrary to express commandment? We are told indeed, that the command, "drink ye all of it," was only to the twelve Apostles. Then, both kinds belong only to their successors; for none of the laity were present at the institution, in whole or part. Then why give it to the laity at all? Where is your literal obedience?

But yet the laity, though they receive only in one kind, receive in two kinds; for, says the same authority, in vindicating one kind, “whosoever receives the body of Christ, most certainly receives his blood at the same time; since the body he receives is a living body (for Christ can die no more, Rom. vi. 9,) which cannot be without blood. There is no taking Christ by pieces; whoever receives him, receives him entirely."

Therefore again, THERE ARE AS MANY ENTIRE CHRISTS AS COMMUNICANTS; nay, as many as possible divisions of the wafers; multiplied into the number of times the mass is celebrated! And this communion in one kind, is communion in two kinds, eating and drinking, only no one knows it.

The defenders of a literal interpretation, take a further literal step, by turning away from the terms of Christ's institution, and finding "many places of Scripture speaking of the holy communion, without mention of the cup." As if this would take the cup out of the one text they begin with. But the literal meaning is again evaded, by observing "secondly, that the Scripture promises life eternal to those who receive in one kind." (St. John vi. 51, 57, 58.)

It happens, unfortunately for these men's regard for Scripture, that these verses so picked out, omit the verses between, verses that positively command both. It would be impossible to find a grosser instance of literary imposture, than this Right Rev. way of quoting the Bible. Let

any oné read the 53, 54, 55, 56 verses; and see how honest it is to prove that one kind is Scriptural, because they leave out the Scriptures which command the other, and then stand up for a literal interpretation.

But the next demonstration of one kind, from literal Scripture, is equally forcible-"Thirdly, the ancient Church most certainly allowed communion in one kind," which is proved by a number of Fathers. But the ancient Church, would have best shown its title to that name, by obeying the Lord of the true Church.

"But what would you further say," enquires the innocent Catechumen, "to a scrupulous soul, which through the prejudice of a protestant edu cation, could not perfectly easy upon this article?" A. "I should refer such a person to the Church and her authority, and to all those divine promises recorded in the Scripture, by which we are assured that in hearing the Church and her pastors, we are secure."

So we come round again, from the literal word of God, to the authority of a Church which thus would enfeeble human intellects, confound all principles of reason; appeal to the literal word, and then appeal against it, to some unwritten word; and then appeal to the Church; that is, a suspected witness, who having made great pretensions, appealed to documents, said and unsaid, prevaricated, juggled and mystified, finally crowns the insolent aggression on the common sense of the jury, by resting the whole enormous fabric-on her own word and honour! About which there can be no question.

Hitherto, we have examined only only one of the six branches of Rome's Logic, the literal sense of the Scriptures;-"thou art Peter," "this is my body, this is my blood:" and have seen what a vast pile of fraud and falsehood is reared on this precarious foundation.

Let these points, together with what we have yet to advance on the other five Roman prevarications be clearly understood, and Protestantism could be in no danger for all the efforts of its enemies: whilst Catholics themselves, finding their acknowledged principles handled, without raking up a history of actual enormities, would be likely to relinquish their bondage to this network of spiritual delusion. This however will not be done by violence and clamour; nor by those men who are hampered by a Catholic system of their own:-by none but enlightened, honest, and thorough Protestants; who are masters at the true sword exercise, in which God's spirit provides the weapon; and over which God's blessing is the shield.

God forbid that we should persecute our fellow men: God forbid that we should be silent as to those errors by which they are enthralled :— may he awaken in our souls, a more ardent love of his truth; a more sincere reliance on his Son;-a more thorough allegiance to the Great King, the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls! Let his book be our creed, his Son our Redeemer-his palace our eternal home!

"EVERY PLANT WHICH MY HEAVENLY FATHER HATH NOT PLANTED, SHALL BE ROOTED UP.”—(Matt. xv. 13.)

In those who think a national Church right, dissent is a sin; in those who think it wrong, silence is a shame.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL MARRIAGE BILL.

TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

MY LORD ARCHBISHOP,

England has of late been edified by the discussion of Bible questions, both in the Commons House of Parliament, and in the House of Temporal and Spiritual Peers.

In the debate upon the Bill, proposing to legalize marriage with a deceased wife's sister, much was said respecting the meaning and authority of the Scriptures. It is not my intention to enter into that immediate question, the lawfulness of such marriages; but whilst holding a different opinion to that of your Lordship, I most heartily concur in the principles you are reported to have laid down, and beg to remind your grace of their legitimate applications.

The Times (Feb. 26th, 1851,) reports your Lordship's observations as follows:-"he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had a duty to perform, which he must not hesitate to fulfil. It would not, however, be necessary to trouble their lordships at any length; the argument on which he relied, and on which he grounded his opinion, lay in a small compass; in fact, he considered that the question at issue had been decided for them, being already settled by the law of God. (Hear hear.) And surely it was no slight advantage that it should be so settled, and that on a subject involving so many interests, and exciting such strong feelings, as the subject of marriage, a line should be drawn for us beyond which we must not deviate."

There could not be a more solid or important maxim, indeed it is the very essence of religion, that what is settled by the law of God, should be the only rule for the servants of God.

Without entering into the propriety of another statement that "this law is laid down in Leviticus xviii. 18," which may (like many other things) be the law of God for the Jews and not for Christians, since

"He hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son;" it is sufficient that the rule be acknowledged.

We are thus at liberty to apply this rule to other questions, intimately related to your Lordship's position, and affecting other duties which we "must not hesitate to fulfil."

Suppose then, most Rev. Prelate, that the debate should now arise, as to THE PROPRIETY OF YOUR LORDSHIP AND YOUR EPISCOPAL BRETHREN HOLDING YOUR POSITION AS LEGISLATORS IN THE HOUSE OF PEERS,-should not this be settled first?

And would it not be a great "advantage, that a subject involving so many interests, and exciting such strong feelings," should be "decided for us," "already settled by the law of God?"

Many other difficulties of legislation would be removed, if this right to legislate, (as a part of the alliance between the Church and the world,) were clearly decided.

Your Lordship will not object with a right Rev. Prelate (on the occasion above referred to) that "it is distasteful to him, to turn their lordship's house into an arena for Biblical criticism.”

It will surely be acknowledged, that wherever bishops by virtue of their office share in any business, THERE SHOULD BE THE ARENA OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

And if in the very first question,-their right to be in such a place,the Bible (on which their office is supposed to be founded) settles the question against them, then it is out of taste for prelates to turn that House into an arena for Biblical criticism.

Wherever this is improper, there a Bishop is out of place. And consequently this observation of the Bishop of Norwich, was a manifest apology for his presence, where the word of God could not be introduced without a violation of taste.

My Lord Archbishop, we have many graver questions to settle in Biblical enquiries, than the meaning of Leviticus xviii. 18. We have to learn that Christian people are not Jews, and Christian teachers not Levites that Christ is our Saviour and King, and that his kingdom is not of this world. It is "no slight advantage" to have these things "settled for us by the law of God:" but it is a grievous sin to set at nought the word of God by our traditions, and alter what God has settled: -to separate what God hath joined together; and to unite what God hath separated-the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of this world. We want a BILL OF DIVORCEMENT, as well as a Marriage Bill; that the Church should no longer be " unequally yoked together with unbelievers."

Indeed the Church has received hire and not a dowry; she is not married, but degraded.

Her supposed marriage bond, of Articles, Canons, and Prayer Book, are the service imposed by the "Supreme Governors of the Church of England," and any alteration in this stipulated obedience or servitude, is to be made by "the bishops and clergy from time to time in convocation," who "shall have licence under our Broad Seal, to deliberate of, and do all such things as being made plain by them and consented to by us, shall concern the settled continuance of the doctrine and discipline

of the Church of England, now established; from which we will not endure any departing in the least degree."*

This is not wooing like a lover, but reigning like a master or tyrant. It is the Church's bondage, not a wedding.

The other Articles of this marriage-settlement, called Canons, are introduced with equal imperiousness. As James declares, “We of our especial grace and mere motion, by virtue of our PREROGATIVE ROYAL and Supreme Authority," "give and grant" "full, free, and lawful liberty" to the representatives of the Church, "to treat, debate, consider, and consult upon such canons, orders, ordinances, and constitutions as they should think necessary, fit, and convenient."

These representatives "having met together, by virtue of our said authority granted to them," at the time and place appointed, and "having agreed upon certain Canons, orders, &c., to the end and purpose BY US LIMITED AND PRESCRIBED unto them; and having thereupon offered and presented the same unto us, humbly desiring us to give our royal assent, according to the form of a certain Statute or Act of Parliament: we have therefore for us our heirs and lawful successors, given our royal assent, according to the form of THE SAID STATUTE OR ACT OF PARLIAMENT."+

In all this, your Lordship will perceive a settlement by the law of man, the aforesaid Statute, or Act of Parliament, not the law of God. Whilst if it be called a marriage, it is of that peculiar nature, IN WHICH THE HUSBAND CREATES THE WIFE; for the Church of England (would we look with open eyes at plain facts) is nothing else but these Articles, Canons and Prayer Book.

These become constituted into the fiction called a Church, by the process of royal assent and Acts of Parliament.

And it is proper that the Church being the creature of the State, should first be created by the State.

It is this Marriage Bill, my Lord Archbishop, that you are bound to examine, by the word of God.

Nor is it a slight advantage that these things are settled for us by the highest authority.

Christ hath given a constitution to his Church, in a work called the New Testament, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

But in this divine book, containing the Apostle's Creed and the Apostolical Constitutions, we find nothing of "the Supreme Governor of the Church in these realms;" nothing of Acts of Parliament; no House for Spiritual Peers, nothing of these subsequent outgrowths into formality and splendour, wealth and political alliance.

Look, my Lord, into the New Testament, to see what is required of a minister, and then compare it with the following requisite for entering orders in the Church as BY LAW established.

"Canon 36. Subscription required of such as are to be made ministers. No person shall hereafter be received into the ministry, nor suffered to preach, to catechise, &c. except he shall first subscribe to these three Articles following, in such manner and sort as we have here appointed.

* His Majesty's declaration, prefixed to the Articles, and printed in the Book of Common Prayer.

Royal Assent, prefixed to the Canons.