connected with it as cause and effect. The cause is in the Holy Spirit ; yet, as that Spirit regenerates the body, and assimilates it to that of Christ, you eat his body and drink his blood, in connexion with eating, approaching in degree to his better corporeal nature. But the supposing any change in the consecrated elements, or any kind of real corporeal presence, carries the mind from this view of ourselves, and prevents our seeing the natural and easy sense. This interpretation is agreeable to reason and common sense, accords with the typical expressions common to the Scriptures, and is in strict analogy with all the other operations that relate to the redemption and regeneration of man.

The natural will of man is very correctly stated by Greek writersτο φρόνημα σαρκος ; an expression which has been adopted in our Articles. This will of the flesh is ruled by the flesh; and whatever changes or restores the corruptions of the body, changes that will. The Holy Spirit changes the will, and partly changes it by regenerating the body. It acts as a spiritual medicine, changing the bodily particles, and all corporeal disorganizations, which hinder the free action of the soul, destroying the law in the members which wars against the law of the mind, and bring it into the captivity of sin; it makes the body of the man on earth in degree like the body of the Second Man in heaven. This may be said to be transubstantiation, and consubstantiation, but it is altogether different from the Papal errors. It is agreeable to reason, and we think it resolves the ambiguity that is attached to the words of the Gospel. It brings the Sacrament exactly into the definition of St. Paul :

"The cup which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?

"The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"

What other meaning can be attached to the word communion, but that of holding a common nature with that body? The signification of those words of our Saviour which command the taking the bread and cup as acts done in remembrance of him and his last supper, or the breaking the bread and taking the cup as acts typical of the breaking of his body on the cross, who was the real Paschal Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, are not here considered, because their meaning is not matter of dispute, but only those words are investigated which imply the eating of Christ's body or flesh, or drinking his blood, and whose misapplication have led to the errors of transubstantiation. Charl. Vic., June.

S.

PRAYER FOR THE DISSENTERS-THE EDUCATION BILL.

"By their fruits ye shall know them!"

ALL good men must have observed with extreme pain the rancorous spirit displayed by Dissenters in their singular opposition to the plan proposed so benignly for the education of the children of the poorer classes in moral and religious principles. We call their

opposition singular, because it is so uncalled-for and so unnecessary. Had a Parliamentary bill been proposed such as was passed in the thirteenth and fourteenth years of Charles II.—a bill which fairly prohibited Papists, and all other Dissenters, from educating their children in their own way, we might have expected a very just opposition, for we fully agree with the celebrated Richard Steele, that, "What allowance God will give erroneous consciences, it is not our business to enquire; but as an erroneous may be a sincere conscience, we should be barbarous in pretending to oppress or put hardships upon it: the welfare of their children is as dear to the Dissenters as their own." And we freely grant that the Church of England, so conscious of her ability to defend herself by reason and truth, need resort to no such aid of the secular power, and her clergy will be the first to say that such is not necessary or convenient, either for their interest or safety.

But the rancour of Dissenters is further singular, when we look at the dreadful disease in the country that is calling for a cure. Perhaps this is the only case in England to which that text of St. Paul could apply, when he says, that he rejoices that "Christ is preached even of envy." The apostle spoke thus in an extreme case, for he was careful not to build on another man's foundation— not to preach where other preachers were employed. And is not the case of the factory children, as given by the benevolent Lord Ashley, an extreme one? Does it not almost require an extreme remedy? And would not Dissenters be justified in viewing with satisfaction even any preaching of Christ, sooner than that his name should never be heard, his Gospel have no free course, and all that he has done for the souls of these poor factory children be never known? Numbers, in those places where Dissent is fullest at work, had never heard the name of God and Christ-some knew not their own names—many had never been baptized; and the most disgusting talk, and shameless immorality, are now seen on all sides around them.

Yes, we should all have hailed Sir James Graham's prompt and excellent measure with joy! All men should have waived all unessential matters in their distinctions, and have helped forward the messages of peace and joy which such schools would have conveyed to the hearts of unnumbered children yet unfolded, yet uncared for, yet left alone to wallow in the impurity of every sin.

But what has been the conduct of the Government of late years towards Dissenters; and what are the provisions of this bill? Has there not been a universal system of toleration paramount; and have not Romanists been relieved by the Emancipation Act, and other Dissenters by the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and the enactment of Registration Acts? And this, too, when they themselves had been in continual opposition to the law of the land ! And this Education Bill, what does it say? Does it compel Dissenters to educate their children in any way contrary to their conscientious belief? Does it do violence or injury to the tenderest conscience among them? Certainly not. By the laws of this bill

every man is to educate his child in what way of religion he chooses. He may bring him up as Infidel, Mahometan, or under whatever Dissenting denomination he may like; for it will interfere with no party or sect in this matter, be they Papists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Independents, Brownists, Pædobaptists, General Baptists, Particular Baptists, Quakers, Methodists, New Connexion Methodists, Primitive Methodists, Universalists, Sabbatarians, Hutchinsonians, Muggletonians, Johnsonians, Haldanites, Jumpers, Dunkers, Mystics, Millennarians, Swedenborgians, Freethinking Christians, Shakers, Sabellians, Arians, Socinians, Antinomians, Jublassarians, Mormonists, &c., &c.; all may freely send their children to obtain a good secular education in these schools, and teach them at home, or send them to ministers of their own persuasion, to learn what religion they choose: only the children of the Church-those who form the very vast majority of the nation, will be taught the catechism and creeds of the Church. Can any man desire more full and perfect liberty than this? For no man can desire that all these singular religions should be taught by the State; no man would wish so far to stultify, and, in reality, unchristianize the State, as to seek that all these religions should be publicly taught and paid for, when there must needs be such a quantity of error and entire untruth among them.

"Fine progress they make in our liberal opinions,

My Utilitarians,

My all sorts of-inians

And all sorts of-arians;
My all sorts of—ists,

And my Prigs and my Whigs," &c. &c. ;

as the clever and humorous Southey loved to hit off the many opinions and fancies of the day.

But lest we be thought to be speaking without certain and assured proof of the malevolence and tyranny of Dissent, we would refer our readers to the instances just given in the Church of England Quarterly Review, and the Church and State Gazette of the 19th of May; adding but these few, which have not appeared in those

pages:

Of a meeting against the Education Bill, in the town of Hay, the Hereford Journal says: "No Chartist meeting ever could surpass this for violence of declamation or coarseness of expression. The strain of argument dwelt upon by two Dissenting aspirants to theological enlightenment was of a singular description. The bill was concocted in hell by his Satanic majesty, and sent down to old mother earth to his emissaries (Sir James Graham and Co.) here below, to be crammed down the throats of the poor factory children!! And the bill was actually hanged! and its framers denounced as being agents of the prince of fallen beings!! for whom the measure appeared better calculated to be applied.' There was a violent tirade against the Puseyites,' those infamous heretics and against all who supported the Satanic scheme of education."

Of this strange fanaticism the Hereford Times, an arch-enemy. of the Church, is constrained to say: "The meeting was addressed by three speakers, but, from the very intemperate way in which they expressed themselves, we must refrain from making any comment whatever; but would advise them, when next they hold forth before a public assembly, to be more temperate in their remarks, and confine themselves to the subject for which the meeting was convened, and not to deal out so much abuse towards this party of religionists, or that. We sincerely regret that they should have conducted themselves so unbecomingly on the occasion, as such a way of addressing a meeting does very great injury to the cause, which was to discuss the nature of the measure, and not abuse the planners of it." This comes very well from a strong Radical paper, and thus agrees with other Radical papers, such as the Weekly Chronicle, Examiner, &c., in rebuking the furious onslaught of Dissent.

At Manchester, an Anabaptist said: "He should as soon think of his child's being taught Paine's Age of Reason,' as some of the doctrines of that book" (the Book of Common Prayer)! A Baptist teacher at Leeds did recommend to his congregation some at least of Tom Paine's works.

At Congleton, a Mr. Chapman said: "He had heard, perhaps, more of the bill than any of the rest. He had heard that it came from hell, and was sent with the devil's compliments to Sir James Graham to bring it into the house. But he did not believe it; for he did not think so ill of the devil as to suppose that he could have framed the measure without Sir James Graham's assistance!" A London weekly newspaper, the British Queen, says shrewdly enough on this man who thinketh all evil-" Now really the language and spirit of this Mr. Chapman must strongly induce people to believe that nobody is more likely than himself to have received the information he gives from head-quarters! It is natural enough that the personage who Mr. Chapman informs us sent the bill with his compliments to Sir James Graham, should communicate such important transactions only to his most intimate friends." This inference is legitimate enough, if Mr. Chapman has told the truth; and if he has told a lie, his intimate connexion with the same personage is quite as indisputably proved. He may now take his choice.

At Manchester, a Dissenting preacher has furiously attacked the Rev. Hugh Stowell, a man of peace surely, and evangelical calling. If Mr. Stowell be not safe, and Dr. Hook be not reverenced, who will be? Mr. Stowell should send to such a one the letter of William Hey, of Leeds, to Eustace Gill, as given in the celebrated pages of the new novel "Dr. Hookwell;" for we know not anywhere of a document breathing so pure a spirit of peace and good wishes towards those who dissent, and so likely to produce a beneficial effect on Nonconformists. But hear again; and let this nauseous instance be happily our last :

At Bristol, one of the speakers ridiculed the sublime Burial Ser

vice of the Church; and a Rev. Mr. Probert indulged in the following disgusting rhapsody:-" But whence came it? (meaning the bill) from Sir James Graham? No, further. From Oxford? Further. From Puseyism? Further. From Rome? Further!it came (said the Rev. person, pointing downwards with his finger) from a place which I will leave you to name, and to which it should be re-committed." Then, as if suddenly inspired, he exclaimed— "But shall the bill pass? (Loud cries of No!') What says the voice of God and of the angels this night? Shall the bill pass? (Loud cries of No!') No, it shall not pass; and in order that it may not, we must storm heaven with prayer!"

At Brecon, a Mr. Jones said-"Lo! from the den of Puseyism came forth, led by Graham, a monster called the Factory Bill. Its hideous appearance was such, that Milton's description of death alone can apply to it :

'Shape it had none

Distinguishable, in member, joint, or limb;

Black it stood as night:

Fierce as ten furies, terrible as hell,
And shook a dreadful dart!'

Its looks wakened Dissenters from their long slumber. It excited the indignation of the humble followers of the Lamb; and it roused, at the same time, all the energies of the British lion! On its gloomy brow I can read in legible characters, Death to Libertydeath to Dissent.' There must be no compromise, no parleying: the monster must be destroyed, or our liberties will be destroyed."

may

How absurd is all this; but still it may not be without its good. Dissent will be seen to be political and irreligious, and the public will judge of the wide difference between the rancorous spirit of sectarianism, and the spirit of the Church. Public opinion soars above sectarian animosities, and public opinion may be safely trusted to in this case. Dissent is not a British feeling; it has nothing of the candour, generosity, and sincerity, inherent in British bosoms. Little as it may have of the humble following of the Lamb, it has less of the fine energies of the British lion. Its loud talk allure assemblies for a while, but there is not stability in men who give place to such violent excitements. The calm and quiet question for every manly and tender bosom is this: shall we have such a religion as Messrs. Bailey and Co. of Sheffield, Mr. Probert of Bristol, Mr. Chapman, &c., &c., would inflame the breasts of our sons and daughters with; or shall we have the large calm principles of religion, such as are cherished and matured by the scriptural Church of England? This is the question. Shall we have the turbulence, vulgarity, and profaneness of a Dissenting Chartism, streaked here and there, it may be, by the better feelings of a mistaken Christian; or shall we cherish the pure breathings in peace and love of that venerable Church in which millions have been born again for heaven many ages before the existence of the Dissenting body which now agitate, but cannot truly evangelize, the country?