apostle and minister of Christ, his earnest desire was "to be dissolved," that he might for ever be united to him whom he so much loved. Then he tells them

"I take no delight in the pleasures of this life; I long for the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ the Son of God, who is at length born to us of the race of David and Abraham ;-and the drink of God-I long for his blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.”Αρτον Θεοῦ θελω, ἄρτον οὐρανιον, αρτονζωῆς, ὅς εστιν σαρξ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υιοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ γενομενοῦ ἐν υστεσῳ εκ σπέρματος Δαβιδ καὶ Αβρααμ· καὶ πωμα Θεοῦ θελω το αἷμα αὐτοῦ, ὅ εστιν αγάπη αφθαρτος καὶ αενναος ζοη.

In the hands of his guards, and on his journey, he could not celebrate nor receive the Eucharistic mystery of the altar. Yet mark his ardent desire to partake of food which would enable him to live for ever. And what terms does he employ? Say, is this the language of a Catholic,-or a Protestant? We delight to use it. But would the Rev. gentlemen opposite employ it, in speaking of Christ in the Eucharist? Unhappily they would not. Yet it is the language of an illustrious martyr of the early Church, one who had been a disciple of the apostle St. John, and the immediate successor of St. Peter in the see of Antioch ;-in fine, it is the language of one who could remember having seen the Lord himself after his resurrection. My Protestant friends, you will bear in mind that the blessed Ignatius suffered his glorious martyrdom, as early as the year 107.

I proceed now to give you the testimony of St. Irenæus who was a disciple of St. Polycarp: -Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna, by the appointment of the Apostle John: he governed that portion of the Church for seventy years, and terminated his earthly career by martyrdom. It was this St. Polycarp that instructed Irenæus in the Christian religion; and St. Irenæus declares he had the instructions of St. Polycarp written "in his heart, not on paper. I do not bring this forward with a

view to insinuate that he had not rendered himself familiar with such of the sacred writings as were in his possession but to shew his attachment to the doctrines which he had received from his predecessor, and the purity of the channel through which those doctrines have been transmitted to us. The truths he had received from Polycarp were "written in his heart.". Let us then look in our disputes, with appropriate feelings of respect, to St. Irenæus who died in the year 202. We find in relation to the doctrines which we are now discussing, in his fifth book against heresies, chapter 11th, (I have by me the Oxford edition, which the gentleman opposite or any of his friends may consult,) the following words :

"Certain heretics," he says, "in denying the resurrection of our bodies in a state of incorruption, virtually maintain that the Lord did not redeem us with his blood; that the cup of the Eucharist is not the participation of his blood, nor the bread which we break, the participation of his body."

Again, he asserts that

"The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ; and that our bodies, nourished by that Eucharist, then laid in the earth and dissolved in it, shall in due time rise again."

Again, in book the 4th, chapter 34, we find him triumphantly asking certain heretics who denied that Christ is

"The Son-the Word-the Creator of the world, how they could prove that the bread over which the words of thanksgiving have been pronounced, is the body of their Lord, and the cup of his blood."

He is adverting to errors the exact nature of which I could more fully explain; but it is not necessary on the present occasion. I have quoted these passages which show, incidentally but powerfully, that our faith respecting the Eucharist then prevailed; it was not denied by heretics, who yet denied other important truths of the Christian religion. But I may bring a charge against our Rev. friends opposite, of refusing to admit what even these heretics, against whom St. Irenæus writes, are found to have admitted; for they deny that, when they communicate to you the Sacrament, as it is generally termed by Protestants, they communicate to you the real body and blood of Christ.

I ask your attention now, Christian friends, to the testimony of St. Justin who suffered martyrdom in 163 or 167. In a work which he addressed to Antoninus, a Pagan Emperor, with the view of conciliating the persecutors of the Christian religion, he expounds, as far as he can, consistently with the secrecy observed at that period by Christians,-a point of discipline which you will more fully understand, before this discussion terminates,-he expounds such and so much of the Christian doctrines as would lessen the rage of the Pagans, and put an end to the cruel persecutions which every where followed those who embraced th religion of Christ. He addressed the Emthus:peror

"Our prayers being finished (it is a graphic narration of the public Christian devotions of every day,) we embrace one another with the kiss of peace. Then to him who presides over the brethren is presented bread, and wine tempered with water;" (just, my Protestant friends, as Catholics do at this day in the Sacrifice of the Mass) having received which, he gives glory to the Father of all things in the name of the Son and the Holy Ghost. These

offices being duly performed, &c., the ministers whom we call deacons, distribute to each of the assembly a share of the sanctified bread, and the wine, and the water.'

Recollect he was writing to a Pagan, who could form no idea of the substance which lay concealed under the appearance of the bread and wine. St. Justin adds:

"This food we call the Eucharist; of which only they are permitted to take, who believe the doctrines which we teach, and who have been regenerated by water for the remission of sin, and who live as Christ ordained. We do not take these gifts as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour, made man by the word of God, took flesh and blood for our salvation,— so, we have been taught."

Mark these words, my Protestant friends, we have been taught that the food which has been blessed by the prayers of the words which he spoke, and by which our blood and flesh, in the change, are nourished, IS THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF THAT JESUS INCARNATE. Catholics at this day are taught the same doctrine-that the Eucharistic food is the flesh and blood of the Saviour, who became man and died for us; but, my dear friends, this is not the doctrine believed and preached by our Rev. opponents. This doctrine is not taught to Protestants as it was to St. Justin, and the early Christians.

I deeply regret it, because this is a doctrine involving the condition of all of us on the other side of the grave. Let me then express my heartfelt grief that this doctrine is rejected by most of you, who now listen to me; not that I presume to charge you with crime in this ignorance of an important Gospel truth; it is only the Almighty who is to judge the secrets of all hearts. But these are occasions, my Protestant brethren, which the Almighty, I am persuaded, whatever men may have had to do in bringing them about, designs as opportunities for removing baneful ignorance on a most important Christian doctrine,-ignorance, of which you have been unconscious, and for which hitherto you may not have been responsible, the culpability of which I ascribe not to your immediate parents; but it lies at the door of your progenitors who fell from the Unity of Faith. It is amongst the fatal fruits of that hardened, that desperate course, pursued by such men as Luther and others, who presumed to innovate upon the truths that had been handed down from the days of the Apostles.

I might here draw your attention, or rather the attention of the Rev. gentlemen opposite, to the mangling, the wilful mangling of these texts which I have adduced from

the writings of St. Justin, found in a work entitled the Anatomy of the Mass; but if I were to convict the gentleman who is the author of this outrage, Mr. Shanks, or any gentleman opposite, it would not serve any general or public purpose, and perhaps it would only distract your attention from the clear and forcible fact, that St. Justin testifies that the Christians in his day believed the Eucharist to be the real flesh and the real blood of Jesus incarnate. Such authorities as I have now referred to, superabound. Few of you can have had an opportunity of possessing or studying the writings of the early Christians; but, be assured that they are records which deserve greater respect than you have been taught to pay to them. As, however, time hastens, I am content, for the present, to pass on to the testimony of Theodoret, a Christian Bishop, and writer, who flourished about the year 431. He is the author of three dialogues against the Eutychians, wherein the speakers are called Orthodoxus, and Eranistes. There are none present who deny the human nature of Christ; it is not, therefore, to establish the truth of Christ being really man, that I make the following quotation, but to show you, from the doctrine incidentally proposed in a discussion carried on upon a different subject, that Christians, in the day of Theodoret, believed what now the Catholic Church believes respecting the Eucharist; that bread and wine are, by the power of God, when the ordained words are pronounced by the ministers of Christ, changed into the body and blood of Christ.

Orthodoxus, the opponent of the Eutychian heresy, says to Eranistes, its advocate:

"Tell me of what are the mystical symbols offered by the priests, symbolical?—Eranistes. Of the body and blood of the Lord.—Orthodoxus. Of his true body or not?-Eranistes. Of his true body.-Orthodoxus. Very well; for every image must have its original.—Eranistes. I am glad you have named the divine mysteries. What name do you give to the offering which is made before the priest's invocation ?-Orthodoxus. This must not be told openly; for there may be some present who are not initiated."

Let me observe, parenthetically, that there was a something which took place in the devotion of assembled Christians, which was deemed most sacred, and was not expounded to the world. But to return to the dialogue. Eranistes says:

"Then answer me in hidden or obscure terms.-Orthodoxus. We call it an aliment made of certain grains.-Eranistes. And what name do you give to the other symbol ?-Orthodoxus. A name that expresses a certain drink."

You must perceive, my friends, that he meant bread and wine, as the things offered "before the priest's invocation."

"Eranistes. And what are they called after the consecration?-Orthodoxus. The BODY of Christ and the BLOOD of Christ.-Eranistes. So you believe that you partake of the body and blood of Christ ?-Orthodoxus. So I do believe. Eranistes. Then as the symbols of the body and blood of Christ were different before the consecration by the priest, and after that consecration are changed, in the same manner, we (Eutychians) assert that the body of Christ, after his ascension was changed into the divine essence."

His argument in favour of a denial of the human nature of Christ was a bad one, yet you see the course of it, that the Christians of his day regarded that which was put on the Christian altars as bread and wine, before the words of consecration were pronounced by the priests of Christ, but after the consecration as "the true body and blood of Christ." This, I say again, is our doctrine-Catholic doctrine-but it is not the doctrine of the Rev. gentlemen opposite.

I might easily multiply the proofs from the earliest writers; but I shall take opportunities at a later period of this discussion to add similar testimony to that which I have now adduced. I am of opinion, that if you give due attention to that which is already before you, you must come to this conclusion-that the Catholic doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist-namely, that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, is not a doctrine found out yesterday, nor a hundred years, nor a thousand years ago. We have proved that it was the doctrine delivered by Christ, and faithfully handed down by the Apostles, clearly expressed by St. Ignatius the immediate successor of an apostle; clearly taught by St. Irenæus, the disciple of St. Polycarp (St. Polycarp, you will recollect, was the disciple of St. John); clearly testified by St. Justin, the elegant apologist of the Christian religion before the frown and persecution of pagan power; clearly established again in the writings of Theodoret, and from that time handed down to this day, as I could easily shew you, and as is allowed by-I will not as yet say, more candid but, as far as I can judge at present, by more learned Protestants than our Rev. opponents in this discussion. If the doctrine of Transubstantiation is false doctrine, will the Rev. gentlemen tell me when the truth was manifested to the world? If this is false doctrine which we have expounded to you, how was it that the martyr Ignatius should have fallen into it?