ous results, to which the dogma of Transubstantiation necessarily and inevitably leads. If 1 were quoting these extracts from documents drawn up or worded only by Protestants, or even composed by private doctors, not recognised by the Church of Rome, I should not lay stress on them; I should class them amongst the wild, extravagant vagaries of hermits, monks, and infatuated men: but when I find these statements in the "Missale Romanum," admitted and acted on by every Roman Catholic priest, and by my learned opponent, then I do say that the guilt of those dreadful and awful consequences is to be fathered on the Church of Rome and her doctrine of Transubstantiation.

"intend" to do it, then there is no | strous consequences, the blasphemTransubstantiation; it remains flour and water. Then mark the perilousness of such a doctrine! Suppose the priest should be an infidel at heart, the poor Roman Catholic flock are giving the worship of latria," the supreme worship, to a piece of flour and water, even on their own principle, instead of to the living God. I will show you, by an instance at hand, that this is not rare. The Rev. Mr. Nolan, now a minister of the Church of England, and formerly a priest of the Church of Rome, stated, that during his ministry he could not bring his mind to believe, and did not believe, that the flour and the water were turned into the flesh and blood of the Son of God. Then what must be the consequence? Why, all the The next subject to which I Roman Catholic hearers of his call your attention (for I have chapel, who took the sacrament of very little time left) is the sixth the altar at his hands, have given chapter of St. John, from which my "the supreme worship" to a piece opponent has quoted these words :of flour and water, instead of God, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, and had no Mass during his ministry. except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Such are some of the monstrous and man, and drink his blood, ye have extraordinary consequences which no life in you.' That, I admit, is this doctrine necessarily involves. very strong, but most Protestant This is not all. I read again from language. Now let us see what one the "De Defectibus," v. 14:-"If of the most distinguished indivithe priest vomit forth the Eucharist; duals of the Church of Rome says if the species appear entire, let them about it; I refer again to Belbe reverently taken, unless nausea larmine on the 54th verse of arise, for in that case, let the conse-the sixth chapter of St. John. crated species be carefully sepa- Bellarmine enumerates several Rorated, and let them be replaced in man Catholic doctors, who give the some sacred place until they are Protestant interpretation of this corrupted, and afterwards let them text, while Can. 1, Sess. of Trent. debe thrown into the sacrarium. But clares that there" are various interif the species do not appear, let the pretations of the holy fathers." So vomit be burned, and the ashes be much for unanimity! In Bellarthrown into the sacrarium." I read mine's number of those who give them not to ridicule the Roman the Protestant interpretation, are Catholics; God forbid! I read Gabriel, Nicolas Cusan, Thomas them-not to cast one untrue or Cajetan, Richard Tapper, John random aspersion on my Roman Hessel, Cornelius Jansenus; Romar Catholic countrymen: but as it is doctors, who admit in plain and my painful duty-to show the mon-explicit terms the Protestant inter

the consequence is, that every man who eats the flesh of the Son of God, or in other words, partakes of the sacrament of the supper, has eternal life. Observe the expression, Whoso,"―any man (54th verse),

pretation of the passage, viz., that faith or coming to Christ is all that is meant by eating his flesh and drinking his blood." Now, in reference to the 6th chapter of John, let me repeat my call on Mr. French to prove that it refers to the Lord's" whoso eateth my flesh and drinksupper at all. It is his business to eth my blood hath eternal life." prove an affirmative, it is not my But if eating the flesh and drinking province to prove a negative. the blood means taking the sacraIn the next place, what can be ment of the supper, then every one, more natural than that our Lord, in whatever his weakness of faith, his discoursing with the unconverted unbelief, his previous disposition or inhabitants of Capernaum, who fol- preparation-every one, whatever lowed because of " the loaves and he may be, who eats and drinks the fishes," should take occasion the flesh and blood of the Son of to speak of faith in him in a figu-God, has, ex necessitate rei, eternal rative manner; just in the same life;" and, therefore, as Judas way as when he met the woman of "ate the flesh and drank the blood” Samaria at the well; when she of the Son of God, he, the traitor came to draw water, he instantly and the suicide, has eternal life; began to speak to her of that and every murderer who can run living water, of which whoso from his victim to the Eucharist drinketh thirsteth no more." More secures eternal life. My opponent over, if the 6th chapter of John is insists on the literal: let it be so, to be referred to the Lord's supper, and the consequences lie with him. then I ask the Church of Rome, Again, we read in verse 53, "Except what explanation she gives of the ye eat the flesh and drink the blood fact of her having taken a portion of the Son of God, ye have no life;" of the sacrament, namely, the cup, ergo, no one can be saved unless he from the laity, with the announce-partake of the Eucharist. Did the ment in this chapter before her, that "unless ye eat the flesh AND drink the blood of the Son of God, ye have no life in you." Does the Church of Rome give the cup to the laity? Does she allow her poor devotees to drink the blood of the Son of God? If my opponent reply, the blood is contained in the flesh, I answer, the language (and of the Son of God, ye have no my opponent is a stickler for lite- life." Infants, who die after baprality) is, "drink my blood." Pro- tism, according to the Church of fessing and protesting that the 6th Rome, are saved; but infants do not chapter of John relates to the Eucha- "eat the flesh, and drink the blood rist, and with these words clearly of the Son of God;" and therefore, written: "unless ye eat my flesh and if this passage is referred by my drink my blood," yet she withholds opponent to the Lord's supper, he the sine qua non of salvation. Again, must differ from his Church, and if my opponent says this passage hold that infants, though baptized, refers to the Lord's supper, then yet not having eaten the flesh of

thief upon the cross, in this sense, eat the flesh of the Son of God? The Church of Rome will admit with me, that he, without ever having received the Eucharist, was saved and admitted into glory. Yet the 53d verse, as understood by Romanists, is absolute:-"Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood

1

the Son of God, have no life. These Christ is " the living water:" that are not all the extravagant results is, faith in him is full of refreshof referring this chapter to the ment. Again, Christ is described communion. Our Lord says (verse as bread, and we are nourished 41), "I am the bread which came by it. Believers are set forth as down from heaven;" and that bread "being born again," "growing in he calls his flesh. Now mark, "it grace," and "members of his body," came down from heaven;" but did to denote the close sympathy they our Lord's flesh come down from realize from communion and felheaven? No: it came from the lowship with him. Would Roman Virgin Mary. But this flesh which Catholics read their Bibles more, is given us is described as having they would see that the whole chapcome down from heaven, and there- ter is in keeping with the rest of fore, the passage cannot refer to our blessed Lord's discourses; and bis literal humanity. Though I that this chapter does not refer to am not bound to present an ex- the Lord's supper as a specific instiplanation of the chapter, yet as tution, but to those truths of which our Lord expounds his meaning, I the Lord's Supper is the seal and may refer to it. Verse 35:-"He symbol. I now call on my opponent that believeth in me shall never to demonstrate, by such scriptural thirst." Verse 35:-" He that be- and satisfactory reasons as this audihereth in me hath everlasting life." ence shall be contented with-not Verse 47" He that cometh to flat ipse dixits-that the 6th chapter me shall never hunger." "No man of John is descriptive of the Lord's cometh unto me, except the Father, supper. When he has tried this, who hath sent me, draw him," and, and complacently satisfied himself, lastly, I call your special attention I next call on him for an explanatior. to the key of the whole chapter of those consequences which neces(63d verse): "It is the Spirit that sarily result from such an applica. quickeneth; the FLESH PROFITETH tion of this chapter, viz. that every nothing the WORDS," says our one who eats the Eucharist is saved, Lord, "that I speak unto you, THEY and that no one is saved who does are SPIRIT, and THEY are LIFE." not; and I call on him to prove Now, I feel sure you are pre- how it is, that this "bread which pared to coincide with me, that all came down from heaven" can be the these extraordinary and contradic-flesh of the Son of God, which the tory results must ensue, as I have Bible teaches us was taken from enumerated, viz. that every one who the Virgin Mary. "Not discernpartakes of the Eucharist is saved, ing the Lord's body," cannot surely and that no one is saved who does imply the presence of Christ's flesh not, &c.; or that you are to attach and blood? If taken as translated, I to them a spiritual meaning and ask, do the Roman Catholics "disImport, and that our Lord was using cern" that body on the altar?-[The figurative language, to which he had rev. gentleman's hour here expired.] accustomed his disciples before, when he said that "a man must be born again." When we adopt the Protestant principle, all is beautiful harmony. Christ was that rock: that is, we rest on him, and are sustained by him; as by a rock.

MR. FRENCH.-My learned and rev. opponent has pursued precisely the course which I anticipated, and which I specifically predicted to night, viz. that he would occupy the greatest portion of his time in giv

ing us his peculiar, his own infallible | fied; it only lays down the broad interpretation of those texts which principle, just as in the Testament, he quoted from the New Testament. our blessed Saviour, in the EvangeBut the grand arguments by which list, says, "He that believeth shall I have proved the existence of the be saved;" and, "He that believeth doctrine of Transubstantiation from not shall be damned." When it age to age these, I contend, remain is said, in the New Testament," he not only totally unanswered, but that believeth shall be saved," does totally unalluded to. In the course not my reverend opponent agree of my address to you, at the present with me, that a man may believe, moment, though I had intended but, if he pass his life in vice and principally to expatiate most amply in iniquity, he may be lost, whaton the 6th chapter of John, and ever may be the strength of his then to demonstrate to you, that our belief? The Gospel upon this blessed Lord and Saviour meant point only lays down the broad literally to give us his body and his principle, and so does the Church blood,-I say that was my original of Rome. The learned gentleman intention; but as I have been accu- asks, by what authority I pronounce sed by my learned friend of a little that St. John the Evangelist, in that incoherence in my first address to divine 6th chapter, refers to Tranyou, I shall be particularly careful, substantiation-refers to the flesh at the present moment, to observe a and to the blood of Christ? Why, strict line of adherence to regularity that authority by which the learned and order; so that I cannot wander gentleman interprets for himself, much, at least in the estimation of but which he denies to the Roman my reverend opponent, if I follow Catholic, appropriating it, as he does, him step by step, and answer him solely to the Protestant, namely, of paragraph by paragraph. The first using my own spiritual penetration observation which the learned gen- or acumen in reading the Holy tleman made was in reference to our Scriptures. I take the chapter in Church, where I maintained that the hand this evening, neither as a CaCatholic Church does not, as it has tholic, nor as a Protestant, but as a been falsely accused by its calumnia- man endowed with the powers of tors, damn all those who differ from pursuing a train of common arguher in opinion on religious subjects; ment, and common reasoning. And but those only who are hardened what is the result? If I take it up and disobedient,-who refuse to with a mind free from prejudice, and admit the rays of divine light; in in the application of common sense, one word, those who are not invin- I solemnly declare that I come to cibly ignorant. Why does the learned this conclusion, in the exercise of gentleman endeavour to falsify my those faculties with which the Alassertion, by stating that the creed of mighty has endowed me,-I come to Pope Pius positively excludes from this inevitable conclusion: that it is the possibility of salvation those all an idle and an empty waste of who are out of the true Church? words, a most absurd squandering Why, I grant, in one respect, that of speech, a most enormous abuse of it does so, and we believe that creed language, if Christ does not mean to be true but that creed does not to give me his " flesh to eat, and enter into a particular exposition his blood to drink." It is perfectly of the various circumstances by intelligible from beginning to end, which it must necessarily be modi- without any recourse to metaphor.

:

My faculties may not be so vigo- | the belief of harmonizing millions rous by nature, so acute in con- for so many centuries,-the doo ception, or so perfect in memory, as trine of Transubstantiation. I therethose of my learned friend; but fore spurn the question with ineffaI give you the conclusion that I ble disdain, and come to my own come to in this their exertion,-deduction, deliberately made by exerand that is my authority. But is cising my reasoning facultes, and not this my conclusion firmly backed solemnly declare that that man must by the opinions and authorities of voluntarily distort his own faculties, men fully equal, as to all the powers who maintains that the Saviour did of penetrative genius, to my reverend not mean in that chapter to impress opponent? Have I not with me upon his disciples that his intention some of the greatest men that adorn was to give them "his own flesh to the annals of history, drawing the eat, and his blood to drink." St. same identical deduction from that Austin tells you that "the carnallychapter? Have I not men of the minded Jews understood it as flesh most brilliant capacity and sound sold in the market;"" but we do judgment, who disbelieved Chris- not for a moment mean it in that tianity, and only looked at this way-not dead and inanimate flesh, chapter as a matter of curiosity and but the body quickened and aniinterest, and who, the moment that mated by his immortal soul, and by they read it, exclaimed, What ad- his eternal, almighty, and life-giving vantage must not the Papist neces- Spirit. The learned gentleman sarily have over his Protestant throws ridicule upon it, at the same antagonist, when he confronts him time that he declares it to be his with this chapter? What can be wish to avoid every expression borsaid in the way of rationality to do dering on offence to the Catholic. away this strength of evidence in And yet the reverend gentleman favour of the Catholic? Why, all cannot but know that nothing can be that can be said and shown on the more galling to a Catholic, than to subject is such a train of shallow hear the Sacrament contemptuously argument as my learned friend has spoken of, and called a wafer. Does had recourse to this evening. For he meet in our books with any instance, "I am the door," "I am thing of the wafer? Is that a the vine," and so on. What analogy known or familiar phrase in use do we find here? Had there been among Catholics? The learned genany possibility of their thinking he tleman goes on then to state,-for I meant to speak literally here, they follow him from the beginning, step would have cried out on that occa- by step,-he goes on to state, that sion, "How can this man be a door the fathers are not infallible. What and a vine," as they did when he then! Catholics acknowledge that said, "Verily, verily, this is my flesh, they are not infallible. this is my blood?" But what autho- no necessity whatever for wasting rity, you ask, have we for stating time and breath on a subject of this that that 6th chapter was the foun- nature; all we want to know is this: dation on which to ground the sacra- whether there is to be found an ment of the Eucharist? I answer, harmonious consent between them that our Lord, in my conception of on the doctrine of the Eucharist. things, was then preparing the minds Let us investigate and to begin, of his disciples to receive that what says the great St. Augustine on Livsterious dogma, which has been this subject? I shall not quote the

There was