but it is for the sake of the accu- for the future more correctly, more rate explication it contains, that I substantially, when he touches upon take the liberty of reading it to the this hallowed, this mysterious sublearned gentleman as a kind of ject. Two of them I shall repeat, theological lesson. Speaking of in order to snow that the poet is a Transubstantiation, he says— Unshaken tenet! sacred creed! sound theologian, if St. Gregory of Nyssa, who wrote nearly five centuries before Pascasius Rhadbert, Unchang'd by Time's all-changing flood! knew anything of the matter, viz. Bread turns to flesh, wine turns to blood! Is clear'd by faith's bright beaming eye, What lies before the visual rays Whoe'er this sacred feast partake, The good, the bad, alike are fed;- Lo! then the bread of angels made 'Tis this the paschal lamb foreshow'd, Now to these verses I call the learned gentleman's attention, that he may now know how to reason "That in each fragment there remains -Letter to St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Greg. Nyss. Catechetica Orat. vol. iii. Edit. Bened. p. 122: "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 itself whole." The learned gentleman continued: -The reverend gentleman says, as if it were a concession, that all things are possible with God, yet in the very same breath he limits the power of God, and declares that reason insists that Transubstantiation is not possible to God. I do not say he has uttered those very words, but his reasoning tended to that point to-night, notwithstanding all these learned men I have quoted have declared that it is possible. Luther does not believe it to be Transubstantiation, but he maintains consubstantiation; that Christ is thereI that the bread remains there; and the Catholic believes Transubstantiation. But what kind of rule of faith must that be among Protes. tants, I ask, when the father of Protestantism, Luther, thus explicitly states his opinion, and when all other Protestants of the present day, men and women among you, take the Bible in hand, and are enabled to draw their own inference, one saying that it is purely spiritual, to reduce the Supreme Ruler of the universe to the level of the Lucretian god, who exercised of old so great a dominion over the whole heathen world? Is it to do that? No; and if the sentiment is not implied in the expression of the Evangelist, neither is it in that of St. Ignatius, when he says "the Sacrament is love." that Christ is not there, and that | say, love is God, since the Evangelist they are merely taking it in remem- affirms that God is love. Again, when brance of his death and passion, it is said that "God is love," is that another, that it is his body together with the bread? What kind of rule of faith is that which says, "the Bible without tradition ?" what kind of rule of faith can that be, where the Protestants of this country differ, as I have said, on such fundamental tenets? where we find Calvin positively excluding, by a merciless decree, Protestants of the Church The Catholic feels and knows of England from the kingdom of that it is "love"-ay, unbounded heaven, as he does the Catholic? [In love, when he comes, - after havconsequence of a murmur, Mr. F. ing approached with a pure heart, said, That is Calvin's Catechism.] and abstaining from all that is irreThose are his own words, and I can verent and all that is impure in prove it. Well, but what I wish to thought, in word, and in deedknow is, if the words of Christ are when he comes away, after having so plain, how is it that a man of approached that holy, that consoling Luther's acuteness and discrimina- table-when he comes away from tion was unable to draw a figurative it, oh! I would appeal to my Cadeduction? That is the point I wish tholic brethren, if they do not feel the learned gentleman to answer. their hearts glowing with an un Again, to come a little to tradi-bounded and ineffable love for their tion. Let not the learned gentle-blessed and adorable Saviour-their man spend his time in quibbling sweet Redeemer! We believe on particular passages, and intro- most firmly that Scriptural docducing parallels where no parallels trine; and if we labour under a exist; but let him grapple with me deception as to the doctrine, I exat once like a genuine theologian, claim again-for I cannot repeat it and tell me how it is that Transub- too frequently-let any of our stantiation arose in the world? Does learned theologians of the ninehe deny that I can deduce it, in teenth century point out the time regular succession, from age to age? when it first arose in the world; He quotes another passage from St. the time, I say, when men were Ignatius, to do away with that ever- first deluded by conspiring priests. memorable extract. But what says If they can do it, we will then it? Why it proves only that Igua- acknowledge that we have been tius uses some figurative expressions labouring under gross delusion afterwards, which, as he conceives, and error. But he talks of the totally annihilate the great original." perilousness of the doctrine," on Why, in the Evangelist St. John, the supposition that our Lord is we see the very same definition not there. I see no danger at all. given of God, namely, "God is There is no idolatry in it, even if love;" but it is not to be taken the Host is not consecrated. I am literally, and it is just the same | adoring Christ, whom I believe to when St. Ignatius happens to say be there. The Host is consecrated, "the Sacrament is love." Now, if as the reverend gentleman knows vou tie me to the literality, then I it is, and I believe Christ to be there You cannot, you tell me, conceive | goes and falls down at the feet of a this. Can you conceive the way in fellow-warrior of a king, taking him which the Holy Ghost appeared in for the king, and pays worship to the form of a dove? I ask you, him; I mean, what is called worship was it tangible, was it matter? You in Scripture, to a great man. Does will, of course, reply no; and there- he therefore offend his Majesty, as fore I say, that in our sacrament, committing a disloyal act? His which we call the Eucharist, the Majesty knows very well he is bread, which has all the properties labouring under a mistake; and will of bread after the words of conse- Christ be offended by our thinking cration are pronounced, is no longer him present, and adoring him, bread; but according to our doc- when he is not present? The trine, Christ, our Saviour, is there learned gentleman has observed in the Sacrament. Here the learned very triumphantly, that "the Spirit gentleman, in the uncontrolled exer- quickeneth." Yes, I say, and that cise of his reason, calls us idolaters is a subject which occupies many in adoring this. Why, the Unita- laborious pages of the great St. rian calls you idolaters for adoring Augustine, in order to prove that Christ as God, they believing him to be only man. The Unitarian and Socinian say so. But a man, quite as learned as my reverend friend, and gifted with at least as much keenness and penetration as my reverend friend can lay claim to, has acquitted us of idolatry, even if Christ be not there. it is not the body and the blood alone that we take in the sacrament, unanimated by the immortal Spirit of Christ, but that it is the Spirit of Christ which renders the Sacrament which we take so efficacious; it is that glorified, that celestialized, that spiritualized body, as received in the Sacrament, which renders it so efficacious, so overflowing in its effects, upon the soul of its receivers. An observation made by the learned gentleman, with regard to Bellarmine, I must positively contradict, as never having come from his pen, and I defy him to prove it. It is, that that learned theologian ever doubted for a moment of Transubstantiation. Rev. J. CUMMING.-I did not say so! What were the words? Dr. Johnson, as you all know, in Boswell's life of him, is recorded to have said, that "The Roman Catholic, even if Christ be not there, is not guilty of idolatry." Again, my learned opponent talks about a Catholic priest, who has come over to his Church, and a bright ornament of his Church he is, [laughter] "one of those dead weeds thrown over into your garden," as the facetions Swift expresses it. The rev. gentleman says this Nolan did not believe in the consecration of the Mr. FRENCH.-You said that on Host, and, as a consequence, infers the 54th verse of the sixth chapter that he could not consecrate. I of St. John, he held the Protestant maintain that, as a priest, though interpretation of that text, according bad, he still could consecrate. As I to the opinions of certain divines, said before, the Catholic believes &c. You mentioned Jansenius too. that Christ is present, and I would refer my friend to the learned Dr. Lingard, who has the following observation, which may serve to dlustrate my meaning. Rev. J. CUMMING.-Read the words, if you please. Mr. FRENCH.-While he is looking out the words, I will make a "A man few observations. Gentlemen, I am extremely sorry to be under the necessity, as I have been this evening, of following out my friend's arguments, so as to have been unable to expatiate on that divine sixth chapter of John, in reference to the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. I should have pointed out to you most clearly, as I read verse by verse, that either our blessed Saviour was an idle, ay, an incomprehensible squanderer of words, in misusing and torturing human language, or that he meant verily to impress on his disciples, that he was about to leave us that divine legacy of his love, his flesh to eat and his blood to drink. Were not the disciples of the divine Saviour, who must have known his language much better than Dr. Adam Clarke did, whose arguments my learned opponent copies-were not they (the disciples) suppressed [impressed] with the idea, that he did mean what he said? Of many it is said, "they walked no more with him;" that is, that they lapsed into Protestantism, they lived and died Protestants: protesting against the possibility of our Saviour's turning the bread into his body and the wine into his blood. "They walked no more with him!" Christ was no longer their divine Master. They could not brook the idea of a man, even a man-god, telling them that he would give them his flesh to eat and his blood to drink. "They, therefore, walked no more__with him." He then turned to Peter, and said, "Wilt thou also go away?" and Peter replied, "Lord, to whom should we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." It was that same Peter who was the first bishop of the Catholic Church. It is that Catholic Church which has handed down to you the Bible, from age to age, together with the immortal doctrine of Transubstantiation. Gentlemen, I believe I must close abruptly-not for want of matter, but for want of time.-[Here terminated the first evening's discussion.] We certify that this Report is faithfully and correctly given. REV. J. CUMMING, M.A. Barrister-at-Law. SECOND EVENING, THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1839. SUBJECT: TRANSUBSTANTIATION. (Continued.) Rev. J. CUMMING.-Throughout | plary manner; and I know that my the past part of this important discussion in which we are engaged, I have experienced, I confess, the utmost courtesy from Mr. French, and I think you will all acquiesce in my opinion, when I say, that we have been most fairly treated by the Chairmen. The audience, also, has conducted itself in the most exem Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen are too intensely interested in the decision of this question to give to it any other treatment than that of a profound, anxious, and prayerful attention. During the course of my quotations last evening, I had occa sion to extract a passage from Bellarmine. the distinguished cardinal and advocate of the Church of Rome, respecting the sacrament of the Eucharist; and, in making that quotation, I gave you the reference, book iii. ch. 23," which belonged to another quotation, instead of "book i. ch. 5, De Sacramento Eucharistia." If the slight mis-statement, in giving "book iii." instead of "book i." has either misled Mr. French, or occasioned him any unnecessary trouble, I hope he will attribute it to a mere lapsus linguæ. Having made these remarks as to the misquotation of figures, you will observe that the passage is verbatim et literatim as I quoted it. I have it here in the original Latin; and as my opponent has Bellarmine in his hands, he can accompany me, while I give the translation from the Latin:-"Moreover," he says, "almost all Catholics will have the words of John vi. understood of the sacrament of the Eucharist or of the sacramental eating of Christ's body in the Eucharist. But there are some few who, the better to disprove the Hussites and Lutherans, hold that this chapter meddleth not with any sacramental eating of Christ's body and drinking of his blood, of which sort are Gabriel, Nicolas Cusanus, Thomas Cajetanus, Ruardus Tapper, Joannes Hesselius and Cornelius Jansenius. All these Catholics, with great consent, teach that this chapter intreateth of the sacramental eating of Christ, which doubtless is most true."-Book i. ch. v. on that occasion, that this chapter (6th of John) could not refer to the Eucharist directly, and I had occasion to reiterate and to press the arguments used on that point, until I should extort from my friend, either a direct declaration that the chapter does not refer to the Lord's Supper at all, unless in a spiritual sense, or, on the other hand, a pledge to bring forward such arguments as should satisfy a dispassionate audience that it does refer to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Only, mark you, no person is called to prove a nega tive !-recollect, this is a principle in logic. I am not called on to prove that it does not-my learned opponent is called on to prove that it does. Now, observe, Bellarmine has admitted, in the extract which I have given, that there are in the Church of Rome, whose tongue is ever so eloquent of unity, doctors and dignitaries who allege that the 6th chapter of John does not refer to the Eucharist. Illustrious and distinguished doctors, in his own Church, declare that it does not describe the Eucharist. The question, therefore, is resolved into this :-If Mr. French be right, the distinguished doctors of his own Church must be wrong. It is true Cardinal Bellarmine says, that these illustrious Roman Čatholic divines held this opinion on the 6th of John the better to refute the Hussites, the Lutherans, and heretics; but I never can be so unOn the former evening I think I charitable as to believe, that these irrefragably demonstrated, that John illustrious names have studiously vi. is not an account of the Eucha- concealed their real mind, and denied rist; and my opponent, indeed, has that this chapter refers to the Eupractically admitted that it was an charist; or, in other words, told a irrefragable demonstration; for he falsehood for the unworthy end of has found it to be the most prudent refuting the heretics. Why, if it course to retreat from the arguments be truth, let it stand on its own which I adduced, and to leave them eternal, immovable basis, never antouched in all their power and in let it be sacrificed to any ulterior all their conclusiveness. I proved ends. If untruth, then let us at |