His first objection, from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which declares Christ to be present in the Eucharist with his bones and nerves, has been answered by my Rev. Friend near me. I wish to observe, in addition, that the Catholic faith is, that the body and blood of Christ are wholly and substantially present in the Eucharist, which doctrine is based upon the word of God. When, therefore, the Catechism of the Council of Trent more explicitly declares how the body and blood of Christ are wholly and substantially present, it cannot mean to contradict that simple exposition of our doctrine which in my first speech I read to you from the Council of Trent itself. What, then, we are called upon to believe is, that Christ is present substantially and wholly; understanding the manner of his presence to be such as the Council of Trent represents it; that is, that Christ is present in the Eucharist, with his bones and nerves, not after a visible manner, not after the manner of a natural body, but after a mysterious, spiritual, and sacramental manner; that is, a manner beyond our conception, as, in their controversies with Unitarians, our opponents of other creeds must acknowledge that it surpasses their comprehension how Christ, being man, was, notwithstanding, really and truly God.

The Rev. Gentleman remarked that my arguments were ad captandum, when I said that all ages concurred in my exposition of the 6th chap. of St. John; but you may recollect that, anticipating his objection, I only stated that it was generally so explained by the interpreters of all ages, for I was aware that there were a few, a very few, however, compared with the immense mass of Catholics, who expounded it differently. The Catholic Church exercises, indeed, no tyranny over its subjects; on points where faith is not immediately concerned, and in interpreting passages of Scripture which are not essential to the establishment of a defined doctrine, it leaves us to exercise our own judgment. Accordingly, on the preceding days, I told the Rev. Gentleman of the other side, that we are allowed to use our own discretion, except in those matters whereon the Church, supported by the Spirit of God, has defined what we are to believe. Although, therefore, in their interpretation of the 6th chapter of St. John, some few Roman Catholics have differed from the great majority of their brethren, yet, exercising lawfully my judgment, I cannot hesitate in adopting that commonly received exposition which I have laid before you, and which

were not to believe except what they understand, the Almighty Being, to whom we owe submission on every point, would not receive from us as much obedience as parents do from their children, who believe many things exclusively on the authority of their testimony. He contends, in the fifth place, that if the sanction of reason must first be had, God would lose thereby his right to command the proud mind of man to submit. He puts forward this objection on the part of Smalcius:-"Reason is the foundation of faith; therefore faith cannot be more certain than reason." Abbadie answers, that reason, it is true, has to furnish the motives upon which the credibility of a doctrine is established; but the moment sufficient motives of credibility point out revelation, that moment we are to dismiss the objections of reason, and to receive the revealed truth, purely and solely because God has manifested it. Hence he comes to this conclusion (and it is very applicable to the objections that are urged against the Catholic rule), that the positions of Smalcius are blasphemies; that if the proofs contrary to the mystery of the Incarnation of God were a thousand times stronger than they really are, and that if it appeared to us a thousan times more absurd and more difficult to be believed, ye the moment we find it manifested by the God of truth w are bound to believe it. To the objections of the Re Mr. Lyons I beg to return similar answers; and to a that I tremble for him and the Protestant Church, if and its ministers continue to set an example, such as has shown, to those who are disposed to attack the my ries of faith by their apparent opposition to reason. actual state of Protestantism in Germany displays a dr ful warning, where the whole system of revelation is turned by ministers of the Protestant Church, and by testant Professors of Theology, precisely because they it at apparent variance with their human notions.

I shall now notice some of the objections of M which have not been replied to. I must own that always at a loss how to afford him satisfaction. time he calls upon us to put forward arguments! doctrine, and then he says we ought to answer hi tions. I was perplexed by this difficulty during cussion of the last week, and I am now again si circumstanced; but I will endeavour to extricate first by replying briefly to his objections, and th on with my defence.

Christ in the sacrament of the altar, that, if he has it in his power, he is bound to participate thereof. But if Mr. Tottenham means that faith alone will save a man, he himself has to contend with a difficulty similar to that in which he wishes to involve me. In the 3rd chapter of St. John's Gospel, verse 3, Christ said

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Hereupon his Church professes that baptism is of ordinary necessity. Now, Mr. T. has as much to do in order to reconcile this with his notion of the sufficiency of faith alone, as he imagines I have in extricating myself from his objection.

But, he goes on, according to the Roman Catholic interpretation,—no matter how wicked a man may be, if he eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ; for Christ says:“He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood shall have eternal life.” I wish then, to ask Mr. T. whether he now maintains that the words of Scripture are to be always understood literally, without any exercise of man's discretion and judgment upon their true meaning? When in St. Luke chap. xi. 10. we are assured by Jesus Christ, that "Every one that asketh receiveth,”—can any one pretend that these words are to be taken in their strictly literal meaning: that whatever man says, " O Lord, grant me this or that," although his heart be full of evil, and of impure desires, and he meditate wickedness at the very moment whilst he is in the presence of God, that such a one shall receive what he asketh? Now as you expound this text, not of the wicked man, but of him who repents, and petitions with worthy dispositions, so are we justified in putting a similar interpretation upon the promise of Christ in the 6th chapter of St. John, that, Every man that eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood shall be saved," provided his disposition be such as the excellency of the sacrament requires.

66

The Rev. Gentleman argues that, from this chapter, all are bound to receive the communion under both kinds, under the form of bread and the form of wine. This, however, is a topic which does not belong strictly to the subject before us, and I will therefore answer merely in the words of the Council of Trent, Sess. 21. cap. 1:~

"He who said :-' Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you,' has likewise said: If any one shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever;' and he who said: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life,' likewise said :-' The

bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world;'-he, in fine, who said he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him,' hath nevertheless said :- he who eateth this bread shall live for ever.'"

Mr. T. quoted the 34th and 35th verses of the 6th chap. to show our Saviour's meaning to be that by faith we are all to partake of him. You may recollect, however, that when I was expounding the 35th verse, I observed that hitherto there was an obscurity about the words of Christ, and that our Saviour's true meaning was only afterwards manifested from ver. 51. to ver. 59.

Mr. T. adduced an objection against the real and bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, from St. Matt. xxvi. 26. wherein Christ said :

I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, till I drink it new in the kingdom of my Father."

Now, in the first place, if Mr. T. will look at Luke xxii. 17-20, he will find a solution of his difficulty, which was pointed out by St. Fulgentius, in the primitive ages of the Christian Church.

The 17th and 18th verses are as follows:

"He took the cup, and gave thanks and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.'

Here we find the objection that has been urged; but afterwards in the 20th verse another and different cup is mentioned, and it is of this second cup that Christ says:

"This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you."

Thus mention is made is made of two different cups or chalices; the objection is borrowed from the language spoken of the first chalice; our faith is founded upon the terms applied to the second. But, in the second place, we sometimes call the sacramental appearance of the Eucharist bread and wine; for we are accustomed to speak of things as they appear to our senses. Accordingly, in the book of Exodus vii. 12. Aaron's rod, after it had been changed into a serpent, is still called a rod and in the Gospel of John ii. 9. the water after it was changed into wine, is still called water.

To the objection from 1 Cor. xi. 23-28. where, after the consecration, the Eucharist is still spoken of as bread and wine, my answer is the same as above; that Scripture, after a substantial change, doesnot always speak of the thing according to what it is become, as in the instance of Aaron's rod in Exodus chap. 7., which was called a rod after it had become a serpent.-Mr. T. says that commemoration