them, I would have him to know, | ness, resuscitated." The rev. genthat whole volumes of praises have tleman has quoted Justin Martyr: been written upon their veracity by I, therefore, in turn, shall in due the most distinguished doctors of time take up Justin Martyr into the Church of England. It is only my hands. I shall quote a passage in this nineteenth century that the from Justin Martyr, and a most fashion has arisen of decrying these important quotation it is. But I renowned, these celebrated fathers. would merely observe before I They have ever been claimed by the begin, and that must be deferred doctors of the Church of England until I rise a second time to adas their fathers, speaking their lan- dress you, that Archbishop Tillotguage, enforcing their tenets, and son, who wrote the first elaborate overturning ours. Strange infatu- treatise, as he calls it-I call it ation on their part! one is apt to mere declamation-against our docexclaim, when I bring such pas-trines, professes to begin with the sages to confront them; and I grant it is an inconsistency which I nave never been able to account for. But so it is; and it is for them to reconcile it to sense and logic all I shall say is, that the more you are introduced, my friends, to the knowledge of these fathers, the more will you be persuaded that you have been deceived in your deductions. : The grand dispute between you Protestants and us Catholics is this: which is the primitive Church? Now, we have a Church, existing in the present day, that assimilates itself, by demonstrable proof, not by mere assertion, to the Church of pure, unadulterated antiquity. I take you up to the earliest fathers of the Church; or, as my learned friend facetiously called them, the grandfathers of the Church, the apostles and the evangelists, and they will confound you. Again; I take you next to St. Ignatius, their disciple, and the passage I have read you from St. Ignatius is equally confounding to all your pretensions. I nope my rev. opponent will be able to answer that passage; for mark, my friends, the difficulty of answering it. Ignatius, a man educated among evangelists and apostles, declares, that "it is the flesh of Jesus, which flesh the Father, in his good earliest father, and takes this very identical passage of Justin Martyr to which my friend has alluded; but he does not say one single word on the above-quoted passage of the still earlier Ignatius; no, he makes Justin to be the first father, and has not the candour to tell his Protestant brethren, that such a man as Ignatius ever lived-ever existed. But he takes Justin Martyr, and he attempts to prove his position to you, from the passage in question, which will compel you all, in my humble opinion, to cry out, that Justin Martyr is a decided Roman Catholic. And now permit me to make one or two observations on my reverend opponent's method of proceeding in this discussion. I am sure my reverend opponent has no intention, in the course of his comments, to wound the feelings of his Catholic brethren. I acquit him of any intention of that kind; but I must say he has dwelt on some things in a manner that appears to me extremely indecorous; and my friend must know, that it would be a very powerful engine of ridicule on the part of a Pagan or an unbeliever, if, when alluding to Christ, our blessed and adorable Redeemer, he were to talk of his bones and nerves when he appeared to his disciples. How would he relish | you not be sufficiently spiritualized such a question put to him by the to see your blessed Saviour's gloridisciples of Tom Paine, or any other ous and celestialized body come person who blasphemes the Chris- with the same facility as that with tian religion, if they asked him which it penetrated stone walls and whether, in the ascension, of our communicated itself, without reLord's glorious body, he took his serve, to each humble believer, in nerves and his bones along with every part of the whole habitable him? It appears to me to be an world? My learned friend sees a extremely improper style of argu- great objection in this, on the ment and language; indeed, I would, ground of philosophical impossi in my turn, ask my reverend oppo- bility; but neither the learned docnent, when he asks me if we Catho- tors of the Church of England nor lics hold, that when our blessed the original reformers saw any such Saviour is taken in the sacramental impossibility. Luther says, "They manner in which he is taken,-if that deny the presence of Christ in we, I say, hold that the nerves and the sacrament, what means have bones are there; I would ask my they (the Sacramentarians-that is, friend, would he not be rather the deniers of the Real Presence shocked if a Deist, or any of the in the sacrament) to prove these disciples of those philosophers or propositions contradictory,-Christ Deists whom I have just men- is in heaven, and Christ is in the tioned, were to ask him,-when supper? The contradiction is in our Saviour came, without disturb- their own carnal imagination, not ing the walls or the doors, and ap-in faith, nor in the word of God." peared in the midst of his disciples-Defens. Verb. Cœnæ, 388. Witafter death,—if he had his nerves temberg, 1557. and his bones with him? He would be perfectly shocked, I say, at such a question being put to him on the part of the unbeliever, which he, as a believer, puts to the Catholic. There is no propriety, therefore, nor is there any necessity for such language. When we say that we receive our Saviour's body, soul, and divinity, we think that we state our meaning with sufficient clearness, without descending into any sinatie. Again, you say that there is no improbability in our Saviour's appearing, when the doors were shut, in the midst of his disciples, after he had been dead and buried, and had risen. You say there is no improbability in that, but you reject Transubstantiation, because by this your common sense or notion of things is subverted, your senses are beguiled, because it is not in uniron with the laws of nature. Can John Calvin says, "We do not dispute what God can do, but what he wills."-Init. Inst. Jewel confesses that "God is able, by his omnipotent power, to make Christ's body present without place or quantity."-Reply to Dr. Harding, p. 352. Cranmer confesses "that Christ may be in the bread and wine, as also in the doors that were shut, and the stones of the sepulchre."Answer to Gardiner and Smith, p. 454. John Fox says, "Christ, abiding in heaven, may be in the sacrament also."-Acts and Monum. p. 998. Melancthon says, "I had rather die than affirm with the Zuinglians, that Christ's body can be but in one place." - Epist. ad Martino Gerold. Dr. Jeremy Taylor says, "God can do what he pleases. He can دو change or annihilate every creature, | tiation; it would then have been, and alter their manner or essence.' not τουτο, but ουτος αρτος, or “this -Of the real and spiritual Presence bread is my body." But he did of Christ's body in the Sacrament, not thus speak, and so Transubp. 213. stantiation is clearly, indubitably proved, unless our blessed Saviour meant to speak orientally, as my friend asserts; if so, the whole question is at an end between us Catholics and Protestants. But as far as the scriptural words go, my reverend opponent must admit that, apart from his oriental imagination, they are in favour of the doctrine to which Roman Catholics still inflexibly adhere. And again, the same Dr. Jeremy Taylor says, "Let it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation, and I, for my part, will burn all my arguments against it, and make public amends."-P. 240. Now I am put upon orientalism by my learned friend, I must give him some assistance. "It argues," says the grave Dr. Adam Clarke (in reference to Transubstantiation), “it argues gross stupidity on the part of the Catholic in drawing such a de After this, gentlemen, I can only say, I, who am not acquainted with the primary, as well as the secondary qualities of matter, which my learned friend has so scientifically argued upon, (should this long list of authorities not satisfy him,) ask him to show me wherein those qualities consist, and I will, should he do so, withdraw all these arguments in favour of Transubstantiation. I have hitherto made statements from the sacred volume duction from the words of our Sawhich ought to convince you of viour, and it requires something like the verity of Christ's real pre-spiritual acuteness to know what the sence in the sacrament; his own Saviour meant." But, my friends, words in that memorable chapter, how is the intellect of man to disthe 6th of John, ought at this time cover orientalism, when it hears, in to be sufficiently impressed on your that divine 6th chapter of John, minds: "Verily, verily, I say unto before the last supper, the blessed you, except ye eat my flesh, and Saviour affirm, "Verily, verily, unless drink my blood, ye have no life in ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood you." For my flesh is meat in- of the Son of Man, ye have no life in deed, and my blood is drink in- you?" (Id. 53.) Especially after deed." (St. John, vi. 53.) "He having told them before that supthat eateth my flesh, and drinketh per, that he would talk to them no my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in more in parables, how is he to dehim." (Id. 56.) Then comes that duce from such words that he awful, that solemn oath: "As the means still to parabolize? What living Father hath sent me, and I are we to say to our Divine Maslive by the Father, so he that cat-ter, when he affirms in solemn eth me, even he shall live by me." words before the Last Supper : (Id. 57.) I cannot conceive, gentle The time cometh when I shall no men, stronger language to enforce the doctrine of Transubstantiation. What says he? "This is my body, this is my blood." Now, had he meant to say merely, This bread is my body, then it might have favoured the doctrine of Consubstan more speak unto you in proverbs," St. John xvi.; what, but respond with his own disciples, "Lo! now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverbs," St. John xvi. 19; thou tellest us what thou meanest, and it is thy flesh which thou givest When they adhere to the Bible they can enforce their own interpretation; but I hope they will leave me the liberty of drawing my deductions from the same hallowed source. I learn from them (the Protestant commentators) that all the Saviour said on this subject was figurative; and it is this same oriental license that induces the Quakers to tell me that the water to be used in baptism is also figurative, and that there is no necessity for baptism. I believe that Calvin asserts the same thing: "Baptism," he says, "may be demanded as a sign, or a seal; but it is not necessary to salvation." us to eat,-it is thy blood which | itself whole."-St. Greg. Nyss. thon givest us to drink. I main- Catechetic Orat. vol. iii. Edit. Benetain, therefore, in accordance with dict. p. 102. all ages, from the day on which our Here you see that, in the year Saviour pronounced these words, 372, the doctrine is spoken of which these emphatic words, down to the my reverend friend has endeavoured present moment, that the Church to impress on you is the invention of God has uniformly taught that of Pascasius Radbert, about the doctrine; and I am prepared to eighth century. Such are the indisprove the assertion that Pasca- consistencies of our opponents, sius Radbert was the first who when they are confronted by the wrote a treatise on Transubstanti-illustrious fathers of the Church! ation. That he was the first who wrote copiously on the doctrine (as far as ancient manuscripts have come down to us), I readily admit; but Pascasius Radbert himself says, "that he is not writing anything new, that he is writing on what the world always believed since Christ uttered those words." The sentence of Pascasius Radbert is, "what is believed and confessed by all the world." "Quod totus orbis credit et confitetur." (Epist. ad Frudegarum.) These are the words of Piscasius Radbert. He was not preaching any new doctrine, but a doctrine known and professed from age to age before his time. I have here the fathers before Pascasius Radbert. He, I think, wrote in the eighth century, in 754. My learned friend must have forgotten to read his history-his Treatise on Transubstantiation. Now I happen -very unluckily for my learned friend-to have a father in each century from the time of Christ, and if it be needful to prove it, they can be quoted, all resounding as they do most strenuously and most loudly the doctrine of Transubstantiation. St. Gregory of Nyssa, who flourished in 372, says, "Now we must consider, how it can be possible that one body, for ever distributed to so many myriads of the faithful over the whole world, should be in the distribution whole in each receiver, and should itself remain in According to my friend, you may render everything figurative; anything may be reduced to figure. But I long to know what my learned opponent will say to the following words of Martin Luther. He declares most positively, that, in order to give annoyance to the Pope, he struggled on, day after day, for a long series of years, to do away with the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or at least of Consubstantiation. "But," he says, "the words were too strong; I was inextricably bound in fetters by the words of the gospel, Take, eat, this is my body; and drink, this is my blood."" To come now to an observation of my reverend friend. He complained bitterly of the Ccancil of Trent, for laying those under an anathema that do not believe in of the Church of Rome, the Nes this sacred doctrine of all ages; but he should recollect that his own Church is equally vehement in its expressions against us, when it declares that we have been "perniciously taught and have damnably believed." The learned gentleman endeavoured to soften down and explain away the harsh word damnably,' ," but he could not do it. I believe that the Church of England, and the Church of which my rev. friend is a member, both lay down in their Articles, that out of their Church no man can be saved. We soften not only the words, but the drift of them, much more than Calvin does; because we say that no man that leads a pure life, and has had no opportunity of enlightenment, can be lost: we say, it is only obstinate heretics who are condemned; we do not exclude from the pale of salvation those REV. J. CUMMING.-I must con who have no opportunity of en- fess I had formed a very high esti lightening themselves, but only mate of the talents of my learned those who have an opportunity; friend, and was really prepared to those who are thoroughly convinced hear something like a lucid and that, from age to age, and without conclusive exposition, not only of interruption, the doctrine of Tran- Transubstantiation, but also argusubstantiation has been taught by ments in favour of it which it would the Church of God, and yet believe take time to refute, and ingenuity it not to be true, and will not come to repel. This audience is by this into our Church. Of such we time no mean judge both of the entertain no very sanguine hopes number and the weight of the arguas to their salvation. Gentlemen, ments of my learned friend. Let before I sit down, I will merely put me, in the outset, just touch upon a one more question for my learned few of the remarks which he made, friend to answer, viz.-How it and then come more closely to the happens that, while he announces subject under discussion. Let me, Transubstantiation to be the pro- before doing so, correct one misduct of one of the dark ages, how understanding. My learned friend it happens that the Eutychians and said, that the Church of Rome does Nestorians, who separated from the not assert that none can be saved Catholic Church about fourteen who are without her communion. hundred years since, and who now I hold in my hand the creed of flourish numerously in the east-Pope Pius the Fourth, to which how happens it, that they still adhere to the doctrine of Transubstantiation to the present day; and, whilst Protestants call it an error every Roman Catholic subscribes. The last clause of this document is, "This true Catholic faith, out of which none can be saved. Hanc |