this moment rather at a loss how to proceed. I did calculate that, in the course of an hour's speech, we should have more portions of sacred writ referred to, in the reply to which I might have occupied the time allotted me. However, as such has not been the case, I shall now betake myself

THIRDLY-to some general arguments which, I conceive, make against the fact of the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I refer first of all, to the 26th chapter of St. Matthew, which contains the words of the institution, and I shalĺ read the whole of the passage. I shall not at present investigate the precise terms upon which our friends on the other side will dwell, leaving my observations on these points till they are adduced in order: but I shall merely call your attention to one feature in the passage, which I think militates against the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Commencing at the 26th verse, the Evangelist writes:

"And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke : and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat, this is my body. And taking the chalice he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father."

Here our Lord had used what are called the words of consecration he had pronounced over the elements of bread and wine the words "This is my body-This is my blood." Therefore, on Roman Catholic principles, the physical change should have taken place, and the bread and wine should have been transubstantiated into Christ's body and blood. But how do we find our Lord expressing himself after these words were uttered? He does not seem to intimate any physical change in the wine, for, after all the other expressions, he adds in the 29th verse:

“I say unto you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the_vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father."

You perceive our Lord calls it the fruit of the vine even after the words of consecration had been used, and when, upon Roman Catholic principles, transubstantiation should have taken place.

A similar line of argument is suggested by the 11th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where the Apostle Paul also gives an account of the institution of the sacrament. In the 23rd verse he begins thus :

"I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat, this is my body which shall

be delivered for you; this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

Therefore who. soever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice."

Now, Sir, let us ask here, did the Apostle suppose that, after the utterance of the words of consecration, there should take place a change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of our Lord's body and blood; No such thing for, after he had supposed the recital of those words, we find him no less than three times speaking of the elements as if they had undergone no physical change:

"As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, &c.-Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice, &c.-But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice."-Verses 26, 27, 28.

Thus we have our Lord's comment in the 26th chapter of Matthew, and the Apostle Paul's comment in the 11th chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, and we find each calling the elements bread and wine even after consecration. These two considerations seem to furnish evidence that neither our Lord nor his Apostle could have recognized anything like the Transubstantiation which is held by the Church of Rome.

In connection with this, I may observe that there is another remarkable expression both in the words of the institution, as recorded by Luke, and also in the account given by St. Paul in the chapter just quoted. Our Lord says, when he gives the bread, in Luke xxii. 19:

"This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me."

The Apostle also, in speaking of the matter, says in the 24th and 25th verses of the 11th chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians: :

"And (Jesus) giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: this is my body which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying, This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as ye shall drink, for the commemoration of me."

I argue then that the simple fact of the expression commemoration or remembrance being used, seems to be proof of the bodily absence of Christ. It appears to convey the idea that, however he may be every where present in his Divinity (which we both are ready to admit), yet that at

the same time in a bodily sense he is not present; for how could a thing, properly speaking, be done in remembrance of an individual, if he were actually present at the time? Another passage to which I shall advert is the 26th verse of the same 11th chap. of 1st Corinthians :

"As often (says the Apostle) as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord until he come."

Mark the expression, 66 UNTIL HE COME. I ask you, Sir, is it possible to conceive that the expression, "until he come," would be used here by the inspired Apostle, if Christ were actually present in a bodily sense at the time? No, Sir, the very expression involves the idea of his bodily absence: and, if this be the case, the Apostle Paul was far from maintaining the doctrine of Transubstantiation held now by the Church of Rome.

Let me now bring you to the 3rd chap. of the Acts of the Apostles. You will recollect that, on a previous occasion, during the history of our Lord, he used the remarkable words:

"The poor you have always with you: but me you have not always."

John xii. 8.

Now the Apostle in this passage in the Acts, seems to be carrying out the same idea that was at that time expressed by our Lord himself; for, speaking of Christ, he says:

"Whom Heaven indeed must receive until the times of the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy Prophets from the beginning of the world."-Verse 21.

Here it is distinctly asserted that the heavens are to receive Christ until the times of the restitution of all things. In what sense are they to receive him? The Apostle certainly alludes not to his Deity, for, in that point of view, he is every where present, both in heaven and earth. He refers evidently to his human nature; so that the passage affirms that his body is in the heavens, and that they retain him, as to his body, till the restitution of all things. Seeing that this is the fact, I am at a loss to conceive how the doctrine of Transubstantiation can be true.

Having thus adduced these few points much sooner, from the circumstances mentioned, than I had intended, I shall now cease, trusting that, in the next speech we have to make on this side of the question, we shall have more matter to reply to than at present. I trust that we shall come more to the marrow of the question. We are at present discussing the comparatively unimportant point

(though to a very great extent an important one) of the manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. I am anxious to get beyond this, into the question of greatest moment, the SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, and to shew the evil consequences that are made to result from the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Solicitous as I am to make this advance, I trust that proofs will be adduced as quickly as possible, in order that we may have occasion at once to reply without loss of time.

THE REV. F. EDGEWORTH.

MR. CHAIRMAN, Ladies and Gentlemen,-Many considerations present themselves to my mind, affording facilities where I apprehended, previous to the commencement of this discussion, difficulties in meeting the members of the Reformation Society. The Rev. Gentleman who has just addressed the meeting, has, on the present occasion, as he did at various times last week, repeated his determination, never to presume to say what God ought to do, but to content himself with learning with all humility what he has done. In that sentiment, which is entirely a Catholic sentiment, but which is faintly participated in by most of our Protestant brethren, in that sentiment, I most fully concur. It is a sentiment which, on account of its consequence, particularly distinguishes the Catholic Christian from his Protestant brethren. What is the imputation most frequently brought against us? It is easy to express it in one word: it is, that the Catholics believe to excess. Yes, Sir, the Catholics do believe all that God declares, though, in the revelations of the Supreme Being, there are, and we contend there must be, things which very far surpass the understanding of man. I, therefore, rejoice at Mr. Tottenham's frequent expression of his conviction, that it is his duty and my duty, and it is the duty of every Christian, with all humility, to receive the revelations of God, and not to deny the truth of the smallest part of them, on the ground that we cannot, with our present limited understandings, comprehend its import. But, Sir, I shall rejoice exceedingly if the Rev. Gentleman, besides making this sensible declaration of his disposi tion to submit his understanding to the revelation of God,if he will allow that disposition to influence him through

out the whole discussion. But I consider that he has departed from that which he has declared to be his duty: it seems to me that the laboured explanation which he has given of the 6th chap. of John is a departure from it, to be ascribed to no other motive (I do not wish to impute any sinful motive) than the natural desire, of which perhaps he is scarcely conscious, of not believing the declaration of Christ that he would give his "flesh" to eat, and his "blood" to drink, because the belief of such a doctrine is "hard" to his understanding: it was "hard" to the Jews.

I shall be glad to notice the various things to which that Rev. Gentleman diverted the attention of the meeting; one word in passing bestowed upon some of them will be sufficient to prevent their being again mentioned. He has introduced a mistranslation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. We are not here to defend that particular translation to which he has alluded. I and every other Catholic must feel disappointed at any failure or departure in the translation from the original text; but perhaps it will satisfy Mr. Tottenham, if I at once tell him that we believe that we receive, in the Holy Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ whole and entire; therefore not excluding "the bones and nerves," and all the other circumstances which the gentleman has mentioned. We believe, my Christian friends, that Christ made a solemn promise that he would give his followers, not a manna from the clouds, such as fell down upon the Israelites in the desert, but some food of a different nature and superior efficacy. In explanation he declared that this food should be his own person. "I am the living bread which came down from heaven." He over and over again pledged himself to give his "flesh" to be eaten, and his "blood" to be drunk.

In one thing there is perfect unison between us and the Rev. Gentleman opposite; on both sides we are convinced that these declarations are to be found in the Holy Scripture; we enjoy in common the happiness of knowing that these are the words of one who cannot deceive us—that they are the words of a God-Man, whose truth, whose power neither of us can question. I may remark that I am now proceeding upon an argument which I lament can be of little weight with Unitarian friends who are present; my business is with opponents who yet are united with me in firm belief in the divine and human natures of Jesus