Mr. FRENCH.-Oh! he says, not stantiation on the part of those St. Jerome: St. Augustine and whose hearts are too hard to be others. Now, if there be one of all penetrated by the beams of heavenly the fathers more copious than an- grace. But is he the only father other, and more nervous in explain- that has done this? No, my friends, ing this doctrine, so that a child, there are about nine or ten fathers may understand him, it is the who have referred to this very pasglorious St. Augustine. And before sage, viz. "This is a hard saying." I come to confine myself solely to I have given you St. Augustine; the books of the New Testament, I we will now take St. Cyril of Alexannust beg leave to quote one or two dria, who flourished in the year of passages from that renowned father our Lord 412. I have the Greek, of the Church, especially as the if my learned opponent wishes to learned gentleman has lighted upon see it. I shall give you the English him. I shall merely observe, before of it:-"But if thou persist, oh I cite, that Calvin has panegyrized Jew! in urging this, how, I will, in this father, the great St. Augustine, like manner, ask you how was the above all others that ever took pen rod of Moses transformed into a in hand. The quotations which are serpent? how was the water changed brought against me by my learned into the nature of blood ?" (Tom. friend from this saint, I am prepared iv. p. 359, edit. Aubert, Lutetiæ, to meet, and to show the meaning 1638.) The next father to whom I of them to be in our favour; but shall refer lived in the year 369, I doubt very much whether the viz., the illustrious St. Basil, who learned gentleman, with all the ver- observes :-"We must not indulge satility of his genius, will be able to in doubts or disputes concerning give a different interpretation to the what our Lord has said, but cherish passage I am about to cite from a full conviction that every word of than that which I and all Catholics his is true and possible of effect, deduce from it. although nature should combat against St. Augustine, speaking of that its possibility; for it is in this very text in which is recorded the mur-point in which the struggle of faith muring of the Jews, i. e. "This is a hard saying, who can hear it?" has this remarkable passage: :"Durus est hic sermo quis potest eum audire." Yes," says St. Augustine, "Durus est, sed duris, incredibile est sed incredulis." That is, "It is hard,-aye, but to those only who are themselves hard. It is incredible, aye, but to those Now, I see no "oriental" cast only who are themselves incredu- of expression in these passages; lous." (De Verb. Evang. Johan. vol. and, if there be none, then I affirm v. p. 640, edit. Bened.) Why, every that these fathers of the Church one must here see, without any were all genuine Papists; and howcomment of mine, the plain meaning ever the learned gentleman may of St. Augustine's words. This think it fashionable, in the nineallusion of the father must most teenth century, to run down these unquestionably have referred to the fathers of the Church, and cast, as difficulty of believing in Transub-it were, a contemptuous eye upon

66

consists. The Jews, therefore, struggled with one another, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' Therefore he said to them, Verily, verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."" (1 John vi. 53.) Regul. 8. Moral. tom. ii. p. 240, edit. Ben.

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 earliest father, and takes this very grant it is an inconsistency which I identical passage of Justin Martyr 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.

to which my friend has alluded; but he does not say one single word on the above-quoted passage of th 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.

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 And now permit me to make one pure, unadulterated antiquity. I or two observations on my reverend take you up to the earliest fathers of opponent's method of proceeding the Church; or, as my learned friend in this discussion. I am sure my facetiously called them, the grand- reverend opponent has no intention, fathers of the Church, the apostles in the course of his comments, to and the evangelists, and they will wound the feelings of his Catholic confound you. Again; I take you brethren. I acquit him of any innext to St. Ignatius, their disciple, tention of that kind; but I must and the passage I have read you say he has dwelt on some things in from St. Ignatius is equally con- a manner that appears to me exfounding to all your pretensions. I tremely indecorous; and my friend nope my rev. opponent will be able must know, that it would be a very to answer that passage; for mark, powerful engine of ridicule on the my friends, the difficulty of answer- part of a Pagan or an unbeliever, ing it. Ignatius, a man educated if, when alluding to Christ, our among evangelists and apostles, de- blessed and adorable Redeemer, he clares, that "it is the flesh of Jesus, were to talk of his bones and which flesh the Father, in his good-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 impossiin 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 minutia. 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 unison 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

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 of Christ's body in the Sacrament, p. 213.

And again, the same Dr. Jeremy Taylor says, "Let it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantia-, tion, and I, for my part, will burn all my arguments against it, and make public amends."-P. 240.

bread is my body." But he did not thus speak, and so Transubstantiation 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.

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 Now I am put upon orientalism by of authorities not satisfy him,) ask my learned friend, I must give him him to show me wherein those some assistance. "It argues," says qualities consist, and I will, should the grave Dr. Adam Clarke (in refehe do so, withdraw all these argu-rence to Transubstantiation), “it ments in favour of Transubstantia- argues gross stupidity on the part of tion. I have hitherto made state- the Catholic in drawing such a dements from the sacred volumè 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 words in that memorable chapter, the 6th of John, ought at this time to be sufficiently impressed on your minds: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood, ye have no life in you." For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink in deed." (St. John, vi. 53.) "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." (Id. 56.) Then comes that awful, that solemn oath : As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father. so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (Id. 57.) I cannot conceive, gentle 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

66

Saviour meant." But, my friends, how is the intellect of man to discover orientalism, when it hears, in that divine 6th chapter of John, before the last supper, the blessed Saviour affirm, "Verily, verily, unless ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you?" (Id. 53.) Especially after having told them before that supper, that he would talk to them no more in parables, how is he to deduce from such words that he means still to parabolize? What are we to say to our Divine Master, when he affirms in solemn words before the Last Supper : "The time cometh when I shall no 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

itself whole." -St. Greg. Nyss. Catechetic Orat. vol. iii. Edit. Benedict. p. 102.

us to eat,-it is thy blood which thou givest us to drink. I maintain, therefore, in accordance with 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 When they adhere to the Bible they wrote copiously on the doctrine (as can enforce their own interpretafar as ancient manuscripts have tion; but I hope they will leave me come down to us), I readily admit; the liberty of drawing my deducbut Pascasius Radbert himself says, tions from the same hallowed source. "that he is not writing anything I learn from them (the Protestant new, that he is writing on what commentators) that all the Saviour the world always believed since said on this subject was figurative; Christ uttered those words." The and it is this same oriental license sentence of Pascasius Radbert is, that induces the Quakers to tell "what is believed and confessed by me that the water to be used in all the world.” "Quod totus orbis baptism is also figurative, and that credit et confitetur." (Epist. ad there is no necessity for baptism. I Frudegarum.) These are the words believe that Calvin asserts the same of Piscasius Radbert. He was not thing: "Baptism," he says, "may preaching any new doctrine, but a be demanded as a sign, or a seal; doctrine known and professed from but it is not necessary to salvation." 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,

66

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 Ccncil of Trent, for laying those under an anathema that do not believe in