doctrines and practices, such as you will not find in the law-established Church of this country-but, yet, such as are found in every part of the Catholic Church throughout the world. You will find there solemn prayers preparatory to some great occasion; that great occasion is described. Bread and wine are taken to their altars; the Priest is there with the people in common devotion; at that which they call the time of Consecration, he invokes the divine blessing; he fulfils a command, according to these liturgies, and renews a rite which Christ instituted at the last Supper; the bread he declares to become the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ. Prayers, too, are used, to which I invite the attention of those amongst our Protestant friends, whose station in society, and whose education enable them to procure and read the ancient Liturgies in the original languages. They will find that the Catholic doctrines of Transubstantiation and of a true proper Sacrifice in the new law, are not innovations of to-day, or yesterday; but that they reach far back into antiquity, and link us with the Apostles, and through them with Christ. Remember, my friends, that we have shown these doctrines to have been entertained and believed-those practices to have been cherished by men whose virtue and whose learning none present will call in question; by St. Cyril, St. Ambrose, St. Gaudentius, and others, who must be respected in the annals of the Christian religion. Remember, that the Catholic doctrine and practice of this day, respecting Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass, are the very doctrines which those luminaries of our religion cherished and defended. Is it for Mr. Tottenham to shake an attachment to these doctrines and practices? Does he think that the new and flickering light which may be offered to us by the Reformation Society, will drive us from our ancient Church? or, that we can shut our eyes to these witnesses of the primitive times who are arrayed before us? Finally, can Mr. Tottenham desire to bring us over to his doctrines, which we judge to be a flat denial of the words of Jesus Christ in the Holy Scriptures?

I can only, now, in the most summary manner, recapitulate the scriptural arguments used in proving to the world that our doctrine and practice are founded on the word of

God. The sixth chapter of St. John records the promise which our Saviour made, that he would give to his followers something more precious than the manna which the forefathers of the Jews had eaten in the desert;-that he would give them bread that came from heaven;-that he is that bread;-that he will give them his flesh' to eat, and his blood' to drink. Many around him refused to believe in his power to redeem this promise,-precisely as, it seems to us, our friends on the opposite side, and all that are attached to their religious system, do at this day. Our Saviour then reminded the incredulous Jews of the consequence of unbelief:-" he that believeth in me hath everlasting life," the converse of which is, that they who refuse to believe in him, have no solid hope, and have not 'everlasting life.' In this chapter of St. John, is declared, six different times, the doctrine that there is provided for us, as food for our souls, the real flesh and the real blood of Jesus Christ, received, not indeed in the carnal manner in which the Jews understood him; yet received in reality, and not in figure only, as our friends on the opposite side declare. Go from this promise in the 6th of St. John, to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and you find our divine Redeemer, at the Last Supper, fulfilling the promise which he had previously made. He took bread and declared that it was his body: he took the cup and declared it to contain his blood: he gave a command to his Apostles to do that which he had just done.

6

I must, for the last time, call your attention to the 1st Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, chap. xi. St. Paul here affirms, that he had learned, by revelation, this same doctrine; and he charges with a great crime those who receive this spiritual food unworthily, telling them, that they receive damnation, not discerning the Lord's body.' If the body of Christ was not there, where was the ground of St. Paul's charge that they did not discern it? But, it being really there, as the Apostle had learned by revelation, he most properly and consistently reproved them for eating it like common food.

We next proceeded to prove to you, the divine institution of the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Prophet Malachi foretold, distinctly, that the Jewish sacrifices, as they no longer pleased the Almighty, should, at the appointed time, cease; and they have ceased:-that they should be succeeded by " a pure oblation offered from the rising of the

sun to the going down of the same:"-accordingly "among the Gentiles," and in every place, there is offered this pure oblation, in the Sacrifice of the Mass, which takes place on the altars of the Catholic Church. Christ commanded his Apostles to do that which he had done; he gave them his body and blood to eat and drink, assuring them, that through his body and blood there was remission of sins. This we have proved to have been the uninterrupted practice of the early Christians, and of the greater number of Christian Believers, from the time of the Apostles and their immediate successors, until this day.

THE REV. E. TOTTENHAM.

I RISE now, Sir, to conclude this very important discussion. Mr. Edgeworth commenced his closing speech by saying that he would follow my arguments but briefly, and not pretend to touch on any except those which I seemed to consider of most importance. This, I acknowledge, was something better than the way in which he acted yesterday, when, as I then told you, he did not follow my arguments at all. In my reply I shall notice first the remarks which the Rev. Gentleman made previous to his summing up, and then endeavour in conclusion, as he has set the example, to give an outline of the arguments that have been used on this side of the question.

Mr. Edgeworth referred to one of the heavy charges which I brought against the Church of Rome, namely, that of taking the cup from the people, and he seemed unwilling to waste the precious moments which were allotted to him, in entering upon this subject, but contented himself with a reference to a pamphlet published by Mr. Brown, in which the Roman Catholic arguments on this point may be found. Now, my impression is, that though Mr. Edgeworth may think this subject "not exactly a part of the matter chosen for our present discussion," there is yet so close an alliance as to warrant our introduction of

it. Looking upon the depriving the laity of the cup as a consequence made to flow from the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Rev. Gentleman must excuse my maintaining that his remark was quite unfounded, when he said that this subject was "irregularly introduced" by me. However, as this is the last speech I have to make, and as our opponents have no opportunity of reply, I shall not enter more largely on this topic, but leave it to the consideration of those whom I address. They can examine the matter for themselves, and judge whether the reasons I was quoting from the Catechism of the Council of Trent when my time expired on the last occasion, or any other reasons, can out-weigh the strict and positive command of Christ that we should receive the wine as well as the bread. This will appear particularly striking, when they bear in mind that to which I also adverted in my previous address today, namely, that the Church of Rome has confessed in the Council of Constance that the administration was originally in both kinds, and that Dr. Delahogue in his Theology, which is one of the Class-books at Maynooth, acknowledges the practice of communion in both kinds to have existed till the period of the twelfth century.

I have here to correct a mis-statement, to which I am sorry to say Mr. Edgeworth has constantly given utterance, relative to our principles and professions. He declares himself perfectly satisfied with the testimony of Scripture that has been adduced, and he repeats a statement which he had already made more than once, namely, that we, by rejecting his exposition, deny the truth of the words of Christ. Sir, need I repeat that this charge is grossly unfounded. We admit the truth of the words of Christ, wherever they may be found, with at least as much readiness as friends on the opposite side; but I beg them to remember what I have already stated, that, while we do not deny the truth of the words of Christ, we very strongly dispute the correctness of the interpretation they have put upon them. THIS, be it observed, is the point at issue, and not, whether the words of Christ, in themselves, are true or

not.

The Rev. Gentleman has alluded to the Roman Catholic divines whom I quoted yesterday on the subject of Transubstantiation, and he imagines I was anxious that the conclusion should be drawn by my hearers, that they differed from the Roman Catholic Church as regards the doctrine in question. This "unjust inference" he defies

me to sustain. Now really, Sir, Mr. Edgeworth has talked about just nothing here, for, if he took the trouble of exercising his memory, he would have recollected that, so far from desiring such an inference to be drawn, I distinctly guarded against it, and stated the very contrary to that which he would attribute to me. So far from labouring to prove that those Roman Catholic Divines did not hold Transubstantiation, the sum of my statement was, that they could not find it clearly in Scripture, (which was enough for me,) and therefore took refuge for it in the authority of the church. This will appear evident if you remember my quotations, to which I refer you. Judge you whether our statements have been represented fairly on this point, or not.

We have had Theodoret introduced again, but as I think his testimony has been adverted to sufficiently often on both sides, I shall, without further observations, leave the public to decide upon this matter from the printed report.

My Rev. opponent next recalled our attention to the use of the words in the present tense in the Institution of the Eucharist, and how does he follow up what Mr. Brown had said on this point? He represents me as saying that "because the present tense is sometimes used for the future, you must allow me to interpret in the future tense in the instance before us." This was not, however, the force of my statement. What I wanted to prove by the statement was this, (as will appear by a reference to my argument,) that, inasmuch as the present tense is constantly used in Scripture when the future is intended, our opponents had no positive authority for taking advantage of the use of the present tense in the words of the Institution, as proving that a Sacrifice was actually offered at the time.

But, Sir, we have had a long lecture about the impiety of prescribing to Christ, and happy should I be if the substance of that lecture had been observed on the part of our opponents. I leave it to the meeting to judge, who, during the course of this discussion, has prescribed most as to the manner in which God should act. I appeal fearlessly to my speeches for a refutation of Mr. Edgeworth's charge. From the very commencement of the discussion I have been objecting to such a method of procedure; and have been pointing out how our antagonists have frequently adopted it. But the Rev. Gentleman specifies a particular instance, in which he says I have been guilty of a similar