Church. But from the 12th cen- | 28:-"This is my blood of the New tury the practice of the faithful Testament, which is shed for many receiving only in one kind among the Latins gradually crept in."Tractat. de Eucharistia. Art. ii. p. 214. for the remission of sins-drink ye ALL of it. (The Church of Rome has, it shall be shed.') He has a reason for giving this cup, because it was representative of that blood, through which we alone have remission of sins." And is not remission of sins a truth in which the laity have as deep an interest as the priest; and if the cup be the symbol or seal of remission of sins, then I do say I am bound, not to make my charity the grave of truth, but to assert fearlessly, as well as faithfully, that the Church which takes the cup from the laity is guilty of sacrilege. I quote Mark xiv. 23:-" And they ALL drank of it." Strange that the evangelist should be so particular in introducing the expression ALL. He took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them; it is not enough merely to say " they," but he adds Therefore, it is at once admitted, that the custom prevailed of having both the bread and the cup for eleven centuries, until the Church of Rome, for strange reasons, which my learned friend has tried to explain, withdrew it. What was the reason? He says, their "spilling the blood of the Son of God”"spilling the blood of the Son of God!!!" It was withdrawn on that account! Strange reason! that after for eleven centuries the CUP and the BREAD had been per mitted, the cup should be withdrawn in the twelfth, because "the people spilled its contents," which contents Protestants pronounce to be wine, but which Roman Catholies pronounce to be the blood of the Son of God! Perhaps, my learned friend will answer the ques-with characteristic emphasis, "they tion, whether it is the practice now to give the bread and wine both together? I am bold to say, not; and this being the case, I proceed to show, that there are some reasons, and those not light reasons, why the LAITY as well as the priests should be admitted to drink of the cup, and no tribunal on earth have power to debar. Our Lord, according to Matthew, "took the cup, and said, Drink ye ALL of it." Matt. xxvi. 27. Now, the apostles, I contend, at the Lord's Supper drank under both kinds-for Christ Now observe, I do not refer this said, "Drink ye all of it;" but to the Lord's Supper, but he does. the Church of Rome will not allow" Unless ye eat the flesh AND drink" all to partake; the officiating-(7) of course is not there, it is priest alone, and it may be some-the Greek conjunction, KAI. I ask times, the other priests, commu- Mr. French how he gets over this nicating with him, if I am not mis- dilemma?"Except ye eat the flesh taken, are allowed to drink of it. AND drink the blood of the Son of Man, ye have no life." Mark that! Again, our Lord says, in verse ALL drank of it, and yet the cup is taken away by the Roman Church, and is not given to ALL. Again, you are aware, my friend has made an assertion, which I shall by-andby disprove to you, that the 6th of John refers to the Eucharist. Now I go to the 6th of John, to which he has referred me, and which he holds to refer to the Lord's Supper, and in that chapter I find these words: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man AND drink his blood, ye have no life." His solution is, that the blood is Church to which you belong, but contained in the flesh. I reply, you will be judged "in righte How can you say that EATING is ous judgment," according as you DRINKING? It would be a strange have either received or refused the "orientalism" that could produce testimony of the Son of God; and this effect, and prove that eating is would it not be an awful thing, my drinking, and drinking is eating. friends, (I pray that it may never If so, it appears that Mr. French's come to pass,) that my statements mode of interpretation is ten should prove to you "the savour of thousand times more monstrously death unto death," instead of being oriental than we Protestants, "in "the savour of life unto life!" our philosophy, ever dreamt of." I Only, I say, one or the other it expect fully that, before this dis- certainly must be and I have so cussion is long closed, my opponent knit myself with my dear Roman will become a sound and consistent Catholic friends, in this room, this Protestant [Laughter, and cries of night-so connected myself with "Order!"-there is a power and their souls " by my testimony!" simplicity in the Word of God, the that we must again confront each effect of which I am perfectly sure other before God; I therefore imwill lead to delightful results: and I plore you to dismiss from your minds will not only congratulate my learned every thing that may prejudice you friend on such a happy and auspi- against the truth-even the ties cious change, but, as well, those connected with father and with many open and ingenuous counte-mother-for "he that loveth father nances of my Roman Catholic or mother more than me, is not friends that I see around me in this room. I know they are persons of a frank and generous nature, with minds open to the truth, when fairly and affectionately stated, and especially when I tell them that I come, not to take away their civil rights, or to advocate the repeal of any of their immunities whatever; when I tell them that I come to seek not theirs but them, as it is my duty and my privilege to do; that there is a promise in the Word of God which imposes on them a tremendous weight of responsibility." My words shall not return unto me void." Some effect these words must produce. My friends, we must all meet again at the judgment-seat of Christ; you, my Roman Catholic friends, to give an account of what you have heard, and I to give an account of what I have stated; and I know that you will be judged, not according to the pretension or the profession of the worthy of me." Look through every thing merely splendid in a gorgeous ritual, or proud in ancient hierarchy, and bring your minds to the calm and deliberate disquisition of this matter, resolving, by God's grace, that if my arguments, reasonings, and expositions be right-and your own judgments which God has given you are fully competent to grasp them-you will unalterably cling to that side alone, "which has God for its author, truth without any mixture of error for its matter, and eternal happiness for its final and triumphant issue! [Sensation.] My opponent insists that the sixth of John describes the Eucharist. The Church of Rome believes that infants baptized are universally saved, and yet these partake not of the Lord's Supper; but the language is absolute on Mr. French's own principle: "Except ye eat his flesh and drink his blood"-"except every one of you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, | inake the image of his own body." ye have no life in you;" and there--Evang. Dem. book viii. chap. i. fore, if I say that this chapter refers Paris, 1544. to the Lord's Supper, it renders the From the same:" He appointed salvation of infants impossible. He them to eat bread as a symbol of his brought forward several statements own body." vol. iii. 52. P. about the fathers, which it would I quote from St. Augustine :be only a waste of time to repeat." If a passage is preceptive, and The fathers, my friend will concur either forbids a crime or wickedwith me, are not infallible. Dela-ness, or enjoins usefulness or charity, hogue admits that they are guilty of it is not figurative. But if it seem many errors; and I am prepared to command a crime or wickedness, fully to prove that the fathers con- or to forbid usefulness or kindness, tradict each other, and each father it is figurative. Unless ye shall his neighbour over and over again, eat,' he says, 'the flesh of the Son whenever I am asked. But as he of Man and drink his blood, ye shall has referred to the fathers, suppose not have life in you.' He appears I quote from the fathers also-not, to enjoin wickedness as a crime. mind you, to substantiate my views, It is a figure, therefore, teaching us because I can substantiate them by that we partake of the benefits of the Word of God, without the aid the Lord's passion, and that we of the fathers, but to neutralize must sweetly and profitably treasure their testimony. up in our memories, that his flesh I therefore quote from Origen, was crucified and wounded for us." that you may see how he either-Third Book on Christian Doctrine, contradicts the Roman Church or Bened. Ed. Paris, himself:-"The meat which is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, as respects its material part, goes into the stomach; . . . . but as regards the prayer, which is added to it, according to the proportion of faith, it profits, enlightening the mind which beholds that which is profitable. Neither is it the matter of the bread, but the words spoken over it, which profit men that do eat not unworthily. And these things I speak of the typical and symbolical body.". Origen. Com. on Matt. Rouen, 1668. I have shown that Augustine is expressly opposed to Transubstantiation, and now here is Origen uniting with him in a kindred protest against the obnoxious dogma. I quote another father, viz. Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, A.D. 314: -For he gave again to his disciples the symbols of the divine economy, and he commanded them to The same:"How shall I put forth my hand to heaven, and lay hold of him who sitteth there? Put forth your faith, and you will have laid hold of him."-Fifth Treat. on 11th and 12th chap. of St. John, vol. iii. p. 630. Ed. as above. Again:-" Jesus answered and said to him, "This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent. To do this is to eat the meat which perishes not, but endures to eternal life. Why do you prepare your teeth and your stomach? Believe only, and you will have eaten."-25th Treat. on 6th John, vol. iii. p. 490. Ed. ibid. Again :-"This therefore is to eat that food and to drink that cup, viz. to abide in Christ, and to have Christ abiding in you. And for this reason he who does not abide in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, beyond all doubt does not spiritually eat his flesh or drink chemical analysis-a plain, blunt his blood, although he carnally peasant, on seeing the ingenious presses with his teeth the sacrament and persevering inquirer, trying to of the body and blood of Christ.' find the precise part of the river at 26th Treat. on John, vol. iii. p. 501. which this taint began, says, "Gɔ I might extend similar extracts, to the fountain-head, and if you but for what end do I quote them? find the colour there, it belongs to I repeat it, to neutralize the ex- the river, but if you do not find it tracts of my opponent. I cast the there, it must have been added in fathers overboard, and can afford to its course, and is therefore extrado so, with all these extracts and neous to it." So say I; if, in extestimonies in my favour. My op- ploring among the fathers, of whom ponent quotes from the fathers my learned friend is so fond, we find passages which seem to imply Tran- Transubstantiation here and Pursubstantiation, and I quote passages gatory there-Saint-worship in one, which, if I am to adopt the literality and Relic-worship in another, surely of interpretation which he contends the plan for ascertaining if these for, plainly denounce the novel tenets (on the supposition that they tenet of Transubstantiation. Now, are to be found in the fathers) are let me concede what is obvious, the original inspiration of God, is that if construed on the principle to go to the primæval fountains, the of my opponent, the fathers posi-oracles of heaven, and if there, they tively contradict each other, what are right, if not there, they are of then is the alternative? We just go human birth and fallible authority. to the grandfathers, St. Paul, and Now, I say to my friend, Mr. French, St. Matthew, and St. Mark, and Go to the fountain; if you find St. Luke, and St. John, and St. Peter, Transubstantiation there, I will acand St. James, seeing that their quiesce in it at once, and embrace professing progeny, the fathers, so it as a dogma of faith; if you do contradict one another, that no not, and I am prepared to show it confidence is to be reposed in their is not there, then let Mr. French expositions of divinity. I go to come over to me. the infallible Word of God. This My opponent next quoted a pasis the only oracle of truth, the sole sage in his own book about Aaron's standard of perfection. To illus- rod, and said it was seen to be a trate its superiority let me suppose, rod till Moses took hold of it, and that on looking into the Thames, as it became a serpent. He then took it passes by Hammersmith, you the serpent by the tail, and it bewere to see a taint, or colouring came a rod. My opponent mystematter, of perhaps a poisonous riously proves Transubstantiation nature-you would be anxious to by shaking alternately the rod and know where that taint began, or the serpent before your eyes, and whether it proceeded from the foun- perplexing where he cannot contain-head. You begin to trace it vince. Moses saw it to be a rod upwards, till you come to Henley- when it was a rod, and he saw it to upon-Thames; you go on still fur- be a serpent when it was a serpent; ther, tracing it upwards, and you and of course was convinced, by his find the same taint as you proceed, undeceived senses, that in the one but becoming less and less discern-case it was a rod, and in the other ible, until it is scarcely perceptible, a serpent. except by a microscope, or subtle My opponent next transported us 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. 9. 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.) My were "unanimous !") My friend opponent says, this chapter refers ays he will "not interpret Scrip- directly to the body and blood of |