whose perfect command of himself and his language contrasted most favourably with Mr. FRENCH, who occasionally displayed a lamentable want of temper.

The Publishers express the opinion of the most competent judges, when they state that this book ought to be in the hands of every Protestant in Britain, more particularly of Clergymen, Ministers, and Teachers: a more thorough acquaintance with the great Controversy may be acquired from this volume than from any other source.

HAMMERSMITH DISCUSSION.

FIRST EVENING, TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1839.

SUBJECT:

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

able rite and custom of the Church, Jepitome of Catholic doctrine and or that he ought not publicly to be belief." p. 145. Coyne, Dublin, 1826. exhibited to the people that he may "Jam vero hoc loco a pastoribus be worshipped, and that the wor-explicandum est non solum verum shippers of him are idolaters, let | Christi corpus et quidquid ad veram him be accursed." corporis rationem pertinet VELUTI CANON VIII.-"If any one OSSA ET NERVOS sed etiam totum shall say, that Christ, as exhibited Christum in hoc sacramento contiin the Eucharist, is only spiritually neri."-De Sacramento Eucharistiæ, eaten, and not also sacramentally p. 241. Venetiis, apud Aldum, 1582. and really, let him be accursed." It is also in this place to be After these authentic and bind-explained by the pastors, that there ing documents from the canons of is contained not only the true body the Council of Trent, I beg leave to of Christ and whatever belongs to add an extract from the creed of a true condition (or definition) of a Pope Pius IV., which my learned body, such as BONES and nerves, opponent professes :-" And that in but also a whole Christ." the most holy sacrifice of the Eucha- In these documents we have the rist there is truly, really, and sub- full and unshrinking explanation of stantially, the body and blood, toge-Transubstantiation. In my referther with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation."

The next authorized document of the Church of Rome from which I shall quote is THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. On this document Dr. Doyle, in his "Essay on the Catholic Claims," makes the following remarks:- "This Catechism is a most authentic exposition of our faith, inasmuch as it embodies and explains not only the doctrinal decisions of that Council, but also the several articles of the creed commonly called the Apostles' Creed-the commandments of the decalogue the precepts of the Church, the mass, and the sacraments as they are received and understood by all Catholics. This catechism has also been approved of and published by the Pope, and assented to by all the bishops in communion with the see of Rome, so that it may be considered an

ences to the doctrine, therefore, I will adhere to these authorized terms as closely as possible, in order that, if offence may be taken at my phraseology, the Church of Rome may have, as is most justly due, the credit or discredit of it.

I now extract from the Confessions of the Reformed Catholic Churches of England and Scotland our views of the Eucharist :

Thirty-nine Articles." The supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of

Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper is faith. The sacrament of the Lord's supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

"The wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as St. Augustine saith) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in nowise are they partakers of Christ, but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing."

doctrine which maiutains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called Transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath been, and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea of gross idolatries."

Thus I have laid before you the bane and antidote. Let me now proceed a step further towards the discussion of this question, and glance at what I expect to be a favourite field with my opponent. I am perfectly persuaded that my Confession of the Church of Scot- learned opponent, too conscious land." In the supper, rightly used, of there being no proofs for TranJesus Christ is so joined with us, substantiation in the Scriptures, that he becometh the very nourish- will have recourse to what are ment and food of our souls. Not called the Fathers, and amid their that we imagine any Transubstan- mutilated and contradictory fragtiation of the bread into Christ's ments, he will fish up, as from natural body, and of wine into his muddy waters, many a specious natural blood, as the Papists have pretext. It is, therefore, most imperniciously taught and damnably believed; but this union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus, in the right use of the sacrament, is wrought by the operation of the Holy Ghost, who, by true faith, carrieth us above all things that are visible and carnal and earthly, and maketh us to feed upon the body and blood of Jesus, which was once broken and shed for us, which now is in heaven and appeareth in the presence of his Father for us."

portant, in the outset of this discussion, to lay down the precise amount of authority due to the FATHERS, in order that my opponent's quotations may always go for what they are worth.

1. These writers of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, are not the fathers strictly so-called. The apostles and evangelists are the fathers of the Christian Church. The so-called fathers were mere voluntary recipients and distributors of the waters of life received from the original fountain, and, most unfortunately, the contents have not only caught the taint and flavour of the earthen vessels, but have become miserably diluted by human speculations, coloured by Eastern philosophy, and, ere they reach us, filtered of their more vital and pre

Westminster Confession, adopted by the Church of Scotland.-" Worthy receivers outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally, and corporeally, but spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death. That |cious ingredients.

2. The fathers are universally ad- | that can be quoted, or appealed to, mitted to be fallible. Both the are a mere fragment of the writings Church of Rome and the Protestant of those who actually composed on Church admit this. doctrinal subjects, or who were better employed. Those lost may have held opinions contrary to those that are left, so that if all the fathers that remain were, as they are not, unanimous in favour of Transubstantiation, it would not avail. The opinions of the remaining fathers on this doctrinal point, even if unanimous, would not, from these facts, weigh a feather with me; for what are the opinions of a thousand fallible books against the contrary judgment of one inspired and infallible penman?

3. Many of them have erred, and that too on fundamental points, in the opinion of the Church of Rome. I call the most serious attention of every Roman Catholic in the room to the following extract of one of their own chief doctors, Delahogue, in proof of this:-" In order that one may be called by the name of father, it is not required, indeed, that he shall have committed no errors; since St. Justin holds an honourable place among them, who thought that the happiness of the pious dead was to be postponed till the day of the final judgment. St. Irenæus, who patronized the error of the Millennarians; St. Cyprian, who believed that the baptism conferred by heretics was to be repeated. Moreover, Origen and Tertullian, who have erred in so many noints, have been constantly reckoned among the fathers."-Treatise on Ch. 3d edit. 1829.

On this tenet of Transubstantiation, the fact is, the fathers held three distinct and antagonist opinions. This I am ready to prove by references, the moment my opponent requires them. One section holds the opinion of the thirty-nine articles and the Westminster Confession. A second section holds consubstantiation-and a third section, partly from scholastic mutilation-This opinion of Delahogue is of partly from hyperbolic phraseology itself sufficient to shake the pro--partly from their application of fessed confidence of Roman Catho- the name of the thing signified to lics in writings partly mutilated-the symbol, is twisted by the Church partly corrupted partly erroneous, of Rome to the countenance of a and wholly uninspired and fallible. dogma of the ninth century-Tran4. The fathers contradict each substantiation. other. The Council of Trent, ch. i. sess. 21, admits that they give various interpretations on the 54th verse of the 6th chapter of John; and Bellarmine (De Sac. Euch. lib. i. ch. v.) gives a catalogue of doc-churches on the Eucharist; in other tors and learned Romanists who give the Protestant interpretation to the above verse.

5. The fathers were never deputed to give forth the voice of the church on Transubstantiation, or on any other dogma. They were neither authorized nor delegated to do so.

6. In the next place, all the fathers

I am prepared, this evening, if required, to show that Augustine, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Theodoret, maintain the doctrine of the Reformed

words, I am prepared to quote passages from each of these fathers, in which they proclaim the doctrine of the Protestant Church in reference to the Lord's Supper. This is my first position. In the second place, I am ready to prove that others of the fathers maintained Consubstan. tiation. Irenæus and Chrysostom