If such then will shortly the destiny be

Of all who thro' time have inhabited earth, To Christ as my refuge in time will I flee,

And on earth will I live as of heavenly birth. By His Spirit and word I would daily prepare The solemn account I shall render to God, That I fail not at last His approval to share, Nor fall and be bruis'd 'neath His sin-venging rod. Abiding in Christ, to believers how dear,

As conflicting they urge on their heavenly way!
And in perfect love dwelling that casteth out fear,
I boldness shall have in the dread judgment day.

Yea-thus shall I haste to its coming with joy,
A joy that is linked with eternity's bliss,
Which the baubles of time cannot make or destroy;
For how shallow the joy of the worldling to this!

"Tis the gleam of a taper that nightly may run
O'er the slimy pool's surface now seeming to glow;
But the Christian's is that of the radiant sun,

Which illumines the depths of the ocean below!

Rejoice then, ye saints; but ye sinners, to fountains
Of tears turn your eyes, and cry now to I AM,
Or soon will you cry, "Fall on us ye mountains,
And hide us, ye rocks, from the wrath of the Lamb."

FILEY, April 28th.

T. H. T.

MIDNIGHT HYMN.

WHEN, sleepless, Lord! to Thee I'll raise
A humble earnest song of praise,
Praise for Thy mercies past and gone,
Praise for the stream that still flows on,
Regardless of the grievous sin,

And wickedness this mind within.

It warms us with its heav'nly ray,
It cheers us on our varied way,
It bids us fix our hopes on high,
It tells, our souls shall never die,
It aids to triumph o'er the grave,
Through faith in Him Who died to save.

So may my mental vision rise
To those bright joys beyond the skies;
Strengthen'd by Love's inspiring brand,
Upheld by Faith's supporting hand,
Till, in pure bliss, Life's trials past,
With Christ my soul may dwell at last!

E. M. STEVENS.

LONDON, 1858.

*Psalm 88, verse 12.

6.

THE CASE STATED.

IN a note, page 11, to his edition of Dean Comber's Friendly and Seasonable advice to the Roman Catholics of England," Dr. Hook recommends his readers to consult "Leslie's Case Stated" on the subject of transubstantiation; and as it is brief, we have now extracted it, in the hope that it may have some weight with those ardent spirits who are longing and thirsting after the harlotry of Rome. Case Stated" is in the form of a dialogue between a Romanist nobleman and an Anglican Churchman:

CHURCH OF ENGLAND MAN.-Now let us see how dangerous a thing it is to make means of grace of our own invention; and to think that by our consecrations or dedications, without warrant of God's word, we can secure His presence with us, and procure the grace of health or any benefit either to body or soul. This is turning religion into superstition. But the strangest instance of this that ever was in the world, is that of Transubstantiation; which is a mere school nicety that no man alive understands; and yet it was transformed into an article of faith by the Council of Trent. Christ said this is my body, but as to the manner or means how it was so, He said not a word; whether only sacramentally, figuratively, or symbolically; or, on the other hand, whether substantially, consubstantially, or transubstantially. These are inventions of our own from our poor philosophy. And yet, about these words is our whole dispute; which has tormented the Christian Church in our later age more than all the other mysteries of religion. Had we kept to the words of institution as Christ left them, and gone no further, there might have been various opinions in the schools concerning the manner of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament; and those who had nothing else to do, might have spent their idle hours and vain distinctions about it; but it had never broke the communion of the church if it had not been adopted into an article of faith, and made a condition of communion; and now we must dispute about it.

And the first thing I have got to say is, it seems very strange that there should be any dispute about it. Because our Saviour was then fulfilling a type of himself, which was

is

the Passover; and He kept to the same phrase or form of words which was customary with the Jews in their celebrating of it; only putting Himself in the room of His Type; as instead of saying, "This is the paschal lamb which was slain for us in Egypt," He said, "This is my Body, which is given for you." And when Moses sprinkled the blood, it was with this form of words, Heb. ix. 20, “This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you; instead of which old Testament, Christ said, "This my blood of the new Testament." In which words there are no difficulty at all; for no mortal ever understood these words of Moses in a transubstantial sense; and why should the same words be when Christ spoke them, following the very form of the words of Moses? This mode, if familiar and easy to the apostles who called many things "hard sayings," which were not so difficult as this; and yet they expressed no wonder or astonishment at these words of Christ, which would have been impossible for them not to have done, if they had taken them in the sense of transubstantiation; for it was a new thing, never before heard or thought of in the world, to deny all their senses at once!

ROMANIST NOBLEMAN. I wonder you should stand so much upon this; you object your senses and reason, and your reason, and yet you must give them both up in the mystery of the Trinity, the incarnation, &c.

C. of E. No, my lord, I must give neither of them up; for I cannot believe any revelation, but by my reason, upon the evidence that appears for it. And my reason tells me that there must be many things in the infinite nature which I cannot comprehend; and therefore I acquiesce in the revelation, being once fully satisfied of it. But for the other point, that of contrading my outward senses, I think it an invincible objection.

R. N. Why? Must you not give them up too, as to the Trinity and the Incarnation?

C. of E. Not at all, my lord; they contradict none of my senses. Pray tell me, which of them do they contradict? Is it the sense of seeing, hearing, or smelling?

R. N. They are not objects of sense.

But in

C. of E. Therefore they contradict them not. transubstantiation, they are in every one contradicted. And

I stand upon it, that since the creation of the world, God never did nor said anything which contradicted the senses of any man. It would be to destroy the certainty of everything. Miracles are appeals to the senses; and without believing onr senses, we can trust to no miracle, and consequently to no revelation.

R. N. I mean not a general disbelief of our senses in everything; but if a revelation (you are satisfied is true) should bid you disbelieve your senses in such a particular only

C. of E. It is a needless supposition; for there is no such revelation. But if there were; if an angel should appear to me, and bid me believe that I saw him, but not to believe anything else that I saw of a hundred things which I saw about him; I should without more ado, either believe that I saw the other things which I did see; or if I must not believe that I saw them, I should not believe that I saw him. I take it as a certain rule that we must either believe our Had not the apostles at

senses in everything or in nothing. our Lord's supper as much reason to doubt whether it was Christ they saw and that He spoke to them, as it was bread which they saw and ate? If you once come to deceptio visus, it will go quite through, and you cannot be sure of one thing more than of another; because the fault is in the eye, not in the objects. So that if transubstantiation be true, there is nothing else true in the world, but it!

And it is no small prejudice to this miracle of miracles, and contradiction to itself and to all other miracles, and to everything else in the world, that it should be put upon us just for-nothing-but to stagger our faith, and to make us doubt of everything!

For if all the benefits of the death of Christ be conveyed to us in this sacrament, by a figurative and symbolical representation of His Body and Blood, and that it be so instituted for this end; it is to all intents and purposes as beneficial to us as if we had ate the flesh of Christ off His bones or drank the very blood that came out of His side, which is abhorrent to think of; and to avoid which, you call this an unbloody sacrifice. But how can it be unbloody, if it be real blood; even the selfsame blood that was shed on the cross? yet you yourselves allow, that this must be taken in a spiritual and