drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body," Ecumenius says Μη διακρίνων τουτεστι μη εξεταζων, μηδε εννοων των προκειμένων το μέγεθος. Ει γαρ μαθοιμεν, τις ποτε εστιν ο προκειμενος, ου δεηθησόμεθα έτερον, αλλ' αυτο τουτο ήμας pew Tapaσkevaσel.-Ecum. Ed. Morel. Paris, 1631, fol. vol. i. p. 523. "Not discerning: that is, not accurately inquiring into, nor sensible of, the grandeur of the things that lie before us. For, did we but learn who it is that is there, never should we be in want of any other incitement; this alone would be sufficient to impress awe upon our minds, and regulate our behaviour." Τι γαρ εστι φησιν ὁ ἄρτος ; δηλονότι το σωμα Χριστου. Ibid. "For what is," says he, "the bread? Why, it is the body of Christ." very unsuitable his language is, upon all occasions, whenever he touches upon the sacrament of the Eucharist, to that mode of interpretation in which the same subject is treated by Protestants. Tillotson, however, instead of exerting the vigour of his genius to disentangle the Protestant from those embarrassments in which innumerable passages from the works of St. Augustine must of necessity involve him, has the art, and at the same time the imprudence, to repose the whole strength of his cause upon some detached sentences and loose unconnected expressions of that father, the meaning of which he evidently shows that he does not, or rather that he will not understand. The whole tendency of the passages in question goes to show that the flesh and blood of Christ are really received in the sacrament. St. Augustine inculcates over and over again, that although Christ's body, according to the supposition of its being eaten in a carnal and temporal manner, like other common meats, profiteth nothing; yet, eaten in a spiritual and sacramental manner, in opposition to the gross the source of life and sanctification. to the soul. He affirms again and again, that his words concerning his flesh are not mere draughts of fiction; but that he is present in the reality, in the substantiality, though not after a visible, corporeal, or carnal manner. Is it possible, therefore, let me ask of any impartial Christian, that Ecumenius, who has thus expressed himself, could have preserved this glorious extract from St. Irenæus with the intention of wresting it into evidence, as Archbishop Tillotson has endeavoured to do, against the doctrine of Transubstantiation? dwelling of mere flesh and blood, is Would he not, too, had he thought like the Protestant archbishop, have seized with avidity this very opportune occasion, of stigmatizing, with vehemence equal to that of his lordship, the doctrine which we Catholics profess, and at the same time of developing that which is upheld by the Church of England? But the most astonishing instance of the Archbishop's want of candour in making extracts from some few fathers of the Church is exhibited in those passages which he has culled from the great St. Augustine. Whoever has the slightest tincture of acquaintance with the works of this holy father cannot but observe how This is the truly Catholic doctrine which St. Augustine, with incessant industry, in almost every page, inculcates. "Ye are not," he makes Christ himself to say, interpreting his words, " to cat this body as ye now sec it; but this same body, being in a spiritual and invisible manner in the Sacrament, ye are to cat, or ye have no life in you.” Before I conclude, I must not have thus unanimously struggled by omit to say that I had an answer to their tongues to deceive others; give, if I had time, as to the cup or how it is that the Greek Church, chalice, upon which my learned who separated from us so many cen. friend has so ingeniously and so turies ago, and the Nestorians and sophistically argued. St. Luke xxii. Eutychians, who separated from us 17:-" And he took the cup and in the fourth or fifth century, still gave thanks, and said, Take this and with one accordant voice maintain divide it among yourselves:" (xxii. the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 18,) "For I say unto you, I will not I should like to hear the learned drink of the fruit of the vine until gentleman for a whole week togethe kingdom of God shall come."ther, if he would but attempt to give Now, this chalice, according to the a satisfactory answer to these envery evidence of the text itself, is tanglements. Why, even on the not the second part of the holy supposition that we could not prove Sacrament, but that solemn cup of it from this argument; if the books wine which belonged as a libation of the New Testament had been to the offering and eating of the irrecoverably lost, as some of them Paschal Lamb, and which, being an most incontestably have been; were especial figure of the holy chalice, it so fully proved in Scripture, still was there drunk of by our Saviour would I abide by the uninterrupted and given to the apostles, with the doctrine of ages, and just as firmly declaration that it should not be and truly believe that doctrine as I drank of any more until it should be believe by tradition that the city of drank anew in the kingdom of God; Rome is placed on the very spot that is to say, in the celebration of where it formerly was, at least as the blessed Sacrament of his blood to some part of its building, which of the New Testament. And by plainly shows its antiquity. this place it seems to be confirmed that the words in St. Matthew, xxvi. 29-"I will not drink of the fruit of the vine," &c. had reference to this cup of the old law, although they are here, by repetition or recapitulation, spoken after the holy chalice. At all events, whatever may be the allusion, I am sure my rev. opponent is not inclined to maintain seriously that mere wine, new or old, is drunk in the kingdom of heaven. But to quit this subject. The grand onus, after all, that sits so heavily on the shoulders of my learned friend, is to explain away all antiquity, and to tell us how the doctrine of Transubstantiation could possibly have sprung up in the world at any period subsequent to the apostles; how it is that all the fathers of the Church should have been themselves deceived, or should Gentlemen, I have finished; I am satisfied with my exertions, though I am not satisfied with my feeble efforts as of consequence when compared with the splendid effusions, the metaphorical flourishes of my rev. opponent. [The learned gentleman's hour having elapsed, John Kendal, Esq. the chairman on the part of the Catholics, arose to announce that, on the following Tuesday, a fresh subject would come under discussion, namely, the Sacrifice of the Mass and that Mr. French would make the first speech on that occasion.] We certify that this Report is fail- REV. J. CUMMING, M.A. Barrister-at-Law. Report THIRD EVENING, TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1839. SUBJECT: SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. Mr. FRENCH.-Ladies and gen- consecrated priesthood, descending tlemen, I rise once more with in one continued stream of succesalacrity to enter that arena into sion from the days of the apostles; which I have been invited by my in every age, I say, by such a priestlearned and talented opponent; and hood, has the Sacrifice of the Mass I must say, that I rise on this occa- been offered up in her majestic sion equally pleased with the retro- temples. spect of my past exertions in this glorious cause, as with my anticipations of those which I am about to make this evening, with the assistance of Almighty God, which I have most fervently implored,-I say, which I am about to make this evening, in tracing the Sacrifice of the Mass, directly, from age to age, up to the very times of the apostles. Nay, I intend to do more; whatever surprise it may excite in my learned friend, I intend to prove that the Sacrifice of the Mass is pointed out specifically in the New Testament itself. Yes, gentlemen, I once more raise my voice in this assembly to combat my opponent, as A fondly attached son of my Mother Church-to combat for that Church, which alone is covered with the hoar of ages, amidst the innumerable churches that, in this land of fickleness and inconstancy, are perpetually rising around her, all envying her, and vainly claiming her unparticipated honours. But know, ladies and gentlemen, these honours cling to her inseparably, and are not to be wrang from her either by violence or by fraud. The Catholic Church, as we have seen, has been heard, in every age since the time of the apostles; and, as I shall prove to you demonstrably this evening-in every age by a duly ordained and If, on the other hand, my friend say the Sacrifice of the Mass, which I am advocating, be, as my learned friend will no doubt contend this evening, if it be but an error and corruption of Christianity, and not of apostolic origin, I then must impose on the shoulders of my learned friend a burden that will be great indeed; I must call upon him, in that case, and I shall reiterate the calling until I have a satisfactory reply-I shall call upon him to point out in what age the Sacrifice of the Mass did arise; I shall request him, by historical data, and not by wild conjectures, to specify some given period, and I will allow him much latitude in this investigation. If he chooses, he may take any given compass within fifty years; if that be not sufficient, I will give him a century; if he is discontented with that, I will give him any two centuries, or any three centuries, within the compass of which he will most indubitably be enabled to tell us, with something like precision, when it was that this imposition was first practised upon the Christian world. When, I say, did this sudden, simultaneous act, mar and alter the whole system of primitive belief over all Christendom? which pri mitive belief we will suppose, for the sake of argument, however unlikely it may be, we will suppose to have | in any country of the Christian been the belief of Calvin. How, world? Again, I ask, how will he then, I say, on such a supposition, account for the harmonizing bond of was the Sacrifice of the Mass intro- sympathy that exists between the duced into the world? How, let Catholics of the Western part of the the learned gentleman tell me, was world and the Eutychians and Nesit finally established? Was there torians-between the Catholics of no controversy when it planted its the Western part of the world and first foot, if I may use the expres- the remote Eutychians and Nession? Was there no man of common torians in the East-those schiseducation-no man, who, like my matical churches who sundered from learned friend himself, loathing the the Roman see fourteen hundred very shadow of such an institute, years ago, and have never been on was ready to dispute the contested the least terms of relationship with point, and to declaim, with all the it since that moment—I ask, and vehemence with which the learned it is a thundering and an appalling gentleman will thunder this evening, question for my learned friend, I against the Sacrifice of the Mass? confess, which I hope he will anWas there no Calvinist at his post swer systematically this eveningwhen that "abominable supersti-I ask, what bond of sympathy, let tion," as it is called in Protestant him tell me, not by conjecture, but books, suddenly burst in upon the by proof, was ever known to exist world, or gradually crept into it? between them that could induce Was its progress through Christen- them to coalesce, and to unite with dom unopposed, because it was un-emulating loudness of voice, in cryperceived or was it unobstructed, ing out to the nations of the world, because it was unblamed, or, if you please, because it was encouraged and applauded? We received the Sacrifice of the Mass and the doctrine of Transubstantiation, by transmission, from apostolic days?" What ingenious hypothesis of my learned antagonist, indulging in all My learned friend, during the the luxuriance of his "orientalism," course of his eloquent address the giving the loose reins to all the other evening, made frequent alluinventive powers of his genius, will sion, in his metaphorical flights, to be able to account, either for the the nature of a stream, and, if I resudden irruption of this Sacrifice of collect rightly, he characterized that the Mass into the Christian Church, pure and that pellucid stream, which, or for the slow, gradual, silent, upon the subject of the Catholic undermining pace with which it doctrine of Transubstantiation, runs gained ground, amidst the nations so equally through all the pages of of the earth, disfiguring, on all sides, the fathers, as a muddy stream; but the pure fabric, the Calvinistic fabric, the mud, in my humble opinion on of original Christianity? taking it such a subject, is merely in the for granted, for the sake of argument learned gentleman's own confused I mean, that the primitive religion imagination. As far as I am able was the Calvinistic creed. When, to understand the fathers, there is I ask, and I call upon my learned a most perfect consistency, a most friend to answer, when were the unvarying assertion in every one of first Catholic altars erected-when them, from beginning to end, as were the loud symphonious hosannas to the "body and blood" of our of the Catholic Mass first resounded | Lord being in the sacrament of the Catholic Eucharist; and I will-If the doctrines of primitive andefy him, turning over all the pages, tiquity are to be attested in this the voluminous pages of the fathers, our mutual endeavour after truth, to show me where there is a negative to the assertion of the Catholic Catechism, that it is really the body and the blood of our blessed Saviour. There are many figurative expressions used, I grant, in Catholic writers; nay, we use figurative expressions even in our Mass: we call it the "panem celestem," and "calicem salutis æterna," the celestial bread, &c., just as the rod of Moses, after it became a serpent, was still called a rod, and as the woman, after having been created, was still called the rib of Adam. So that there are figurative expressions we never deny; but what I contend is, that every father, both Greek and Roman, has always asserted, most strenuously and most harmoniously, that "the body and blood of Christ are verily received in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and that he who receives it not cannot inherit eternal life." The learned gentleman would in vain look for such an inconsistency in our liturgies, as that which is to be found in the English Protestant Liturgy. What can be-I put it to yourselves, as men of common sense-what can be more incoherent than that which I read in your Common Prayer-book, namely, that "the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed received by the faithful in the Sacrament," whilst it is maintained by Protestants, most clamorously, that they are not there? But I was going to ask the learned gentleman, is a stream less likely to be limpid and incorrupt in proportion to its proximity to the fountainhead, than one which is wandering from it at an immeasurable distance of time and space? The purport of my metaphorical allusion, thus fcunded on his own, is simply this is that attestation, I ask, in the name of equity and fairness of argument, to be sought for in the records of the sixteenth century? If you are of opinion, my friends, or if my reverend friend should be of opinion, that to know the doctrines of primitive antiquity, we ought with more propriety to recur to the writers of the sixteenth century, than to the writers of earlier ages, it must certainly be, in their estimation, an idle waste of words, on my part, to endeavour to trace back, as I shall do most lucidly, this evening, the Sacrifice of the Mass to the very days of the apostles. In furtherance of this object, gentlemen, let me once more remind my reverend opponent, that I expect, before the conclusion of this discussion, he will condescend to give me the answer which I have so frequently solicited in our former discussions, that is, to account, satisfactorily, for this wonderful harmony and consent existing between the Nestorians and the Eutychians, and the Catholics of the world, as to the doctrine of the Eucharist, and also as to the Sacrifice of the Mass. Their liturgies are in existence; we have them here, and I shall open them before you, and read to you respective parts relating to that sacred, that ineffably sacred doctrine, the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the acharist? When was it, I ask, thereforefor these questions have never been answered by any of your Protestant theologians, though so many have endeavoured to extricate themselve out of the entanglement by conje tural hypothesis--when was it, ask, that all the Calvinists in i |