strongly opposed the introduction of images as objects of religious veneration in the churches. But the superstitious Latins were determined, at all hazards, to decorate the sanctuary with those "helps to devotion." If the devotion be genuine, images can perform towards it only the part of the parasite, consuming the vitality of that which they are expected to cherish. But, indeed, they can help that devotion only of which the alma mater-the fruitful mother-is ignorance. This is frankly avowed, or at least implied, in the Roman Catholic apologies for their use. They are the books of the ignorant." Truly they are; and none but a grossly ignorant people could rely on their assistance.

66

I have already adverted to the tendency of the human mind to frame for itself a palpable divinity. The thought of an INFINITE SPIRIT overpowers our feeble minds, and, immersed as we are in the pollutions of the world, we cannot, without a painful effort, rise to the contemplation of excellence in the abstract. Hence the children of fallen Adam "did not like to retain God in their knowledge." They "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." (Rom. i. 23.) To this weakness of our nature, so prone to run

out into criminal excess, God has graciously condescended in the gift of his Son. He is "the brightness of his Father's glory and the express image of his person," but the effulgence of that glory is so softened and shaded by the veil of humanity, that, without dazzling the mind, it enlightens and cheers the heart. In the person of Christ, as GOD manifested in the flesh, we have a living illustration of the attributes and character of the Deity. In him God descends from his "topless throne," and divesting himself of the "form" of his eternal Majesty assumes the form of a servant, and being found in fashion as a man, humbles himself unto death, even the death of the cross. Here, then, is an impersonation of all that is lovely and excellent, on which the mind may dwell with never-ending delight!" Whom," says Peter, "having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory," 1 Peter i. 8. Do you want an image-an "express image" of the invisible God? Behold the man Christ Jesus! Do you want a memorial of the crucified Redeemer—a remembrancer of the triumphant but absent Mediator? Go to the table of the Lord, and consider what that meaneth. The bread broken and the wine poured out will affectingly

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

287

remind you of the dying compassion of him whom having not seen you love. Here is the only

picture of Christ! How simple, yet how sublime is this monument of redemption! More durable than brass, it can neither be corroded by time nor destroyed by power. The pyramids of Egypt have ceased to tell the story of their birth, or the fame of their founder; the ingenuity of the learned cannot extort the meaning of their hieroglyphic inscriptions. But this ordinance is established for perpetuity; and so long as the sun and the moon endure, its motto, "THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME," So simple in form, so pregnant in meaning, will be intelligible to every kindred, and tribe, and tongue of the human family.

"This do in remembrance of me." Memory, my Friend, refers to the absent and the past. To talk of remembering the present is absurd. You have just read that Peter speaks of Jesus as unseen. He cannot, therefore, be visible on the altar, as your church contends. The Priest offers up Christ to commemorate the offering of Christ! A father murders his son in remembrance of the murder of his son ! What superlative absurdity! No, my dear Sir; we walk by faith and not by sight. We know that Jesus

is in heaven, crowned with glory; but his memorials are with us here below. By the senses we perceive bread and wine: there is no other substance; no human body concealed under their "accidents." But we look through these shadows to the glorious Reality, "whom the heavens must receive till the restitution of all things." By faith we discern the Lord's body in this ordinance. We recognize its object, enter into its spirit, feel its sacredness, and realize the blessings so beautifully pourtrayed in its expressive emblems. If by discerning the Lord's body be meant a literal perception of it by the senses, no such thing takes place. Roman Catholics do not pretend to see, or feel, or taste any thing but a mixture of flour and water. These they discern, but nothing more. There is no real presence of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper; that is in no sense or form any where present but in heaven. Some Protestants write vaguely on this subject; but if they attended more to Scripture than to old treatises on divinity, they would be more cautious in speaking of a "real presence." To discern the Lord's body is religiously to bear in mind the sacred commemorative character of the institution. The disorderly Corinthians failed to do

HELPS TO DEVOTION.

289

this: they seem to have used the sanctified elements as a common meal, and were, therefore, strongly censured by the apostle.

Let Roman Catholics, then, abandon the untenable dogma of Transubstantiation; let them return to the primitive custom, and give bread and wine to the people; let them regard the ordinance as a remembrancer of the death of Christa remembrancer impressively significant of his atoning sufferings, and the effects which flow from them-reconciliation with God and the communion of saints: let them do this, and they will require no other image of Christ.

At

Your church, Sir, is very inconsistent. one time the senses are all naught-vile and treacherous deceivers: at another, they are the most excellent helps of devotion-the wings of the soul, by which she soars in her seraphic contemplations to the very gates of heaven. "The sight of a good picture or image, for example, of Christ upon the cross-helps to enkindle devotion in our hearts." So says the "Grounds of the Catholic Doctrine." But where are the good pictures of Christ? You know the sort of miserable daubs that adorn the bed-rooms of the ignorant peasantry. But suppose the picture ever so well executed, is it a likeness? The artist never saw the original. So that the

R