that St. Matthew was not a believer | before consecration: I and my oppoin Transubstantiation, for by him nent agree in this ;-the real quesour Lord declares the contents of tion is, what is it called after? St. the chalice, "the fruit of the vine," Matthew says it is "the fruit of the WINE, after the prayer which tran- vine." This is decisive against its substantiates, according to the being the literal blood of ChristChurch of Rome, has been offered." it is the fruit of the vine." Now, if I ask the learned gentleman, or his Church, is it the blood of Christ, or is it wine that remains on the altar after the consecrating prayer? both tell me at once, plainly and distinctly, it is the blood of Christ, it is not wine. I go to the Gospel of Matthew, and I ask the holy evangelist what it is after consecration, and he tells me it is wine. Now, am I to believe the Church of Rome, which says it is "the blood of Christ," or am I to believe the sacred evangelist, who says it is "the fruit of the vine?" What must I conclude? Most surely truth compels the assertion, however kindly charity may dictate the expression, that the sacred Evangelist is right, and my antagonist with his Church fatally and awfully | wrong. I may here mention an allusion I have jotted down, according to which my friend thanked God that I had not "the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Now I do not thank God that he has not; I pray God that he may know where these keys are to be found, and that to him may be revealed speedily those glorious truths, which, like ploughshares, will pass through the fantastic imaginations of man, and indicate the simple and ennobling truth, as it is revealed in the Gospel. My opponent quoted, as proof of Transubstantiation, another passage, 1 Cor. x. 16:-"The cup of blessing 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?" In the Gospel of Luke, it is He believes the words, "is it not called "the fruit of the vine" before the communion of the body of the consecration of the elements, Christ ?" to prove that we actually and in the Gospel of Matthew, it is participate of Christ's literal body. called "the fruit of the vine" after But let my opponent mark the exconsecration. Now, perhaps Mr. pression which occurs in this quotaFrench will say, Luke and Matthew tion, "we break." My opponent contradict each other; this neither holds there is a whole Christ in he nor I will admit. We explain it every particle of the Host-that, if by a fact, perfectly true of all the divided into twenty thousand parts, evangelists, that one relates one there would be a whole Christ in occurrence more fully than another. every single part. But the apostle Thus, for instance, St. Matthew and says, "the bread which we break," St. Luke give narrations, undoubt- and if that bread be the corporeal edly, which St. John does not give; body of Christ, we actually break and all we infer from this is, that that body, and thus, the proofs of one evangelist gives a fuller narration Transubstantiation assumed by my of particular circumstances, than opponent, are disproofs on his own another feels it his call from heaven showing. If he says that the expresto give. And therefore we say botnsion, "the communion of the body of are true; it is perfectly true what Christ" denotes actual participation Luke asserts, that it was wine of his natural body, then must the which I shall not touch to-night, apostle's words, " fellowship with the while her stings pierce to the devils," denote incorporation into heart, and "the issue is death." their nature. It means, evidently, After discussing the Rule of Faithin the spiritual blessings of the body of Christ, the precious benefits of his love, peace, joy, holiness, happiness, grace, faith, hope, and full and eternal fruition of his glory. Thus there are two texts quoted by my friend which turn out, when plainly met, examined, and analyzed, to militate most powerfully against him, instead of for him, confirming the position with which I commenced, that when you wish to crush the argument of a Roman Catholic, you had best go to the very texts he quotes, and you will find the most complete extinguishers there. [Laughter, and cries of "Order!"] Now, we came to discuss Transubstantiation; but he strikes off from it to talk about communion in one kind, and the merits of the English translation, and the propriety of the translation of the Greek words ŋ and kat. His church contends for communion in one kind, though both kinds are, on his own principles, enjoined in the 6th chapter of John:-" Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man," &c.; but he says, η and taunts as to " tropes and orientalisms," when he is so extravagantly guilty of such orientalisms, as to assert, that eating flesh means drinking blood, yet figurative, figu rative, is the sin he has anathematized and rejected every time he has risen? My ingenious antagonist, after these mistakes, entered into a dis-just now, if you eat the flesh, the cussion on the Rule of Faith. I blood is contained in the flesh: but have the happiness to announce, “drink the blood" is the expression that, that question will be discussed used by the evangelist; it is not, on a subsequent evening, and I am you will observe, eat the flesh that fully prepared, while God gives me contains the blood, but " DEINK." strength and grace, to meet him on What, now, will my learned friend that subject; on this and every say? Will he reply, this is only a other question I implore my Roman figure? Why then, let me ask, does Catholic friends, to think and weigh he so continually ply me with twits the truth they hear. Oh, do not let, either the variety or the beauty of your forms and ceremonies, or the loud pretensions of the Church of Rome, and her votaries, dazzle and delude you! These forms are no evidence of her mercy or truth. They are the gilding of death-the drapery of evil. They remind one of the vampire, which, when it stings a person, flutters over and fans him with its wings, to prevent him from feeling the power and penetration of the sting, until at last it enters into the quick and destroys the principle of life; so the Church of Rome beclouds with incense, and dazzles with ceremonial splendour, to deceive; but all Again, since the subject of Communion in One Kind has been introduced, I will, en passant, reply to one or two of his points in this digression. He quoted the passage: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," as a mis-translation in our authorized version. I admit that is more probably correct; nay, to the sixth chapter of the Gospel of St. John. The onus probandi, or the necessity of showing that the sixth of John refers directly to the Eucharist, belongs to my antagonist. First, then, I call on Mr. French to prove that John vi. does refer directly to the Lord's Supper. He says, "my impression is so and so." I do not want his impressions; I want arguments. After he has done this, he will be able to explain, for the honour of the Church, the contradictory testimonies she contains on this point. Cardinal Cameracensis:-"Transubstantiation cannot be proved from Holy Writ."-In 4, d. 11. q. 6. Art. 1, 2. Cardinal Roffensis, Cardinal Cajetan, and also Scotus, (in 4 sent. d. 11. 4.3,) all concur in the same thing. It is clear these distinguished names in the Roman Catholic Church were not possessed of eyesight so keen as my learned opponent, who sees it plainly in the sixth chapter of John. ture unless according to the unanimous consent of the fathers; but the fathers have various opinions. Mark that! one holds one view at one time, and another view at another. Then I ask my learned friend how he is to explain this article of Pope Pius's Creed, that he will "not interpret the Bible unless according to the unanimous consent of the fathers?" Mr. French in that creed has declared that he will "not interpret Scripture, unless according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." Now, when I show, as I am showing at this moment, that there is no such thing as "the unanimous consent of the fathers," what is it but an actual padlock on my friend's powers of interpretation, so that he must not dare to interpret Scripture until he has got what is not to be had-their unanimous consent. [Laughter, and cries of "Order!"] Here is the creed of Pope Pius. The perplexity belongs to it and its possessors. Mr. French knows that the Council of Bellarmine enumerates the fol- Trent has said the opinions of the lowing Roman Catholic doctors who fathers are "various" on the pasgive the Protestant interpretation sage of John vi. referred to, and of one of the most important texts, yet he says he will not interpret (John vi. 54,) viz. Gabriel, Nicolas but according to "the unanimous Cusan, Thomas Cajetan, Tapper, consent of the fathers!" I say then John Hessel, and Cornelius Jansen. that he is bound to shut his mouth I now refer to a passage of the on the sixth of John. His own Council of Trent, which contains Church, by the Council of Trent, the sentiments of the Church of declares there are "various" interRome on the sixth of John: pretations of the holy fathers, and "Neither is it truly to be gathered yet he says he will not interpret from that saying in the sixth of without "the unanimous consent of John, that communion in both kinds the fathers;" and therefore I say, was taught by our Lord; however Mr. French's interpretation of the it be understood by us, ACCORDING sixth of John is one of the most unTO THE VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS warrantable liberties he ever took in OF THE HOLY FATHERS AND DOCTORS."-Chap. i. sess. 21. his life. [Laughter, and "Order."] Let me go to the sixth of John. "The various interpretations of the (and I am sorry I have only five fathers!" (I thought the fathers minutes left to refer to it) were unanimous !") My friend opponent says, this chap ays he will "not interpret Scrip- directly to the body an Mr. FRENCH.-Shall I give you a reply-do you wish a reply now? If so, I will give you one. Rev. J. CUMMING.-Is my statement the fact? I give up this whole matter, if he this startling question, and pause pleases, and say it is 7, or," and for a reply. that our translators erroneously used "and." I acknowledge that our English translation, which Dr. Doyle declared to be "a noble production, Rev. J. CUMMING.-Very well. with all its faults," has imperfec- Mr. FRENCH then rose and said, tions, but if all its errors were cor- in explanation,-During the first rected, you would find they would centuries of the Church, down to only tell more in favour of those the earliest period, we received, by glorious, indubitable, and distinc-books and by tradition, from the tive truths-the deity of Christ, the earliest times of the apostles, that offices and personality of the Holy it (i. e. the Eucharist) was often Spirit, expiation through the blood administered in liquid, and often of Christ, and through that alone, administered in dry, that is, the and sanctification by the Spirit. Host alone. Several instances have But suppose I concede this to be a occurred of this kind. That of St. mis-translation, and read, "whoso- Ambrose receiving only the Host ever shall eat this bread, or (n) on his death-bed is an historica. drink this cup of the Lord unwor- fact; and we have———— thily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." I say this proves not communion in one kind; if I eat the bread "unworthily," I am" guilty of the body and blood of Christ." If I drink the cup unworthily," I am "guilty of the body and blood of Christ also," just as if I break the law in one point, I am guilty of all. But I go down the chapter to see the apostle's explanation of his meaning, and I read (as in the 26th) in the 29th verse:- -"For he that eateth AND drinketh unworthily, eateth AND drinketh damnation to himself." Now, if you eat the bread unworthily, you are guilty of his body and blood, if you drink this cup unworthily, you are guilty of both. And therefore we feel that "eating and drinking" must necessarily explain "eating or drinking." But the Church of Rome says, "communion in one kind is here proved." I call on my learned antagonist to explain how this doctrine was never detected from this text before, why, for eleven centuries they permitted the laity to have the cup, and then withdrew it? I ask Mr. FRENCH.-Yes it is; and in consequence of spilling the wine, and other indecorous things, such as spilling what we call "the precious blood of the Saviour," it was administered in this manner. It is now generally administered in one kind. The discipline of our Church on that point is favourable, but it is always an article of the Catholic faith, that he who receives it in one kind, receives all Rev. J. CUMMING.-Now am I right? Mr. FRENCH (in continuation). And in some countries, to this day, it is received in both kinds. Rev. J. CUMMING.-That is precisely all I want. It is plain that the body and blood, the bread and the cup, were formerly given to the laity. It is equally plain both are not given now. Delahogue says, "It is evident that from the time of the apostles till the 12th century, the practice prevailed in the Roman Church, that the laity received the Eucharist in both kinds, as is now the case in the Greek |