formed Catholic priest, as directly and forcibly illustrating the subject. The views and reflections of priest Nolan are to be seriously considered by those who hold to the doctrine which he confutes.

Roman Catholics assert that during the mass the entire substance of the bread is converted into the body, and the entire substance of the wine into the blood of Christ, the appearances of the bread and wine only remaining, and this is called transubstantiation. Now I assert that such a supposition is directly contrary to our senses and our reason, and as such is unworthy of our belief. Our senses are the avenues of our reason, while reason is the voice of God speaking unto us. Reason is the medium of communication between the Creator and the creature man. It is the standard of our judgment, and the supreme tribunal where all our knowledge is acquired, and where the existence of the Deity himself becomes discovered to the human mind. that great feature that reflects the Divinity, and assimilates man to the image of the Creator. And thus it is that when the senses give their united testimony as to the existence of an object, and reason stands forth to pronounce upon the veracity of their assertion, to such conclusive evidence the Scriptures attach the seal of infallibility; and it would be blasphemous, according to the words of Christ himself to the Jews in the case of Lazarus, to deny the force of their allegation.

Reason is

I do not wish here to summon before the bar of finite comprehension the infinite power of eternal providence. But is the composition of a little water and flour beyond the reach of understanding? Do not our reason and senses unite in telling us that the composition of water and flour connot be changed unto the body, and blood, soul and divinity, of Christ, without implying a principle of selfdestroying contradictions? Let me ask, is it not more natural to obey the dictates of our reason, telling us that God

will not transgress that moral restraint which by the formation of his laws, he voluntarily imposed upon himself? Is it not better that we should do this than to attribute to that God some of the most unaccountable extravagancies that human reason could suggest? Let justice but decide and truth will But say the Romanists, in support

bow in affirmation of it. of their doctrine of transubstantiation, can the God who has formed the heavens and the earth, who has created all things visible and invisible, who has changed the rod of Moses into a serpent, and the waters of Egypt into blood, who has changed the water into wine at the marriage of Cana, who has changed Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, can he be unable to empower the priest representing the person of Christ to change the bread into the body, and the wine into the blood of Christ?

In reply to this I would not be understood that I wish to circumscribe infinite power within the narrow precincts of human limitation. I desire not to append to eternal providence the restrictions of mortality. I know that infinite wisdom can contrive, and infinite power can execute far more than human reason can comprehend. But while I admit the instances cited to evidence God's changing power, I cannot see that they relieve the doctrine of transubstantiation of its absurdity. For when God changed the rod of Moses into a serpent, and the waters to blood in Egypt, and when our Saviour changed the water into wine, at the marriage of Cana, the changes were open and palpable to the senses. They could be judged of and were not contradictory to the senses or to reason. But with regard to that supposed change during the time of the mass, it is contrary to my senses, and most repugnant to my reason. For as often as I have taken into my hands the bread to bless, I found it the same after as previous to consecration, having the same identical effect; as often as I looked on it after consecration, I observed it to be bread; when I touched it after consecration,

I felt it to be bread; and if faith, as the Roman Catholics must have it, comes from hearing and not from seeing, when I broke the bread after consecration, I both saw and heard the result of its being bread. Reason then told me it was blasphemous to deny the united testimony of my senses giving such unbroken evidence to facts so perceptible to their powers; and I have yielded to such conviction.

The priest continues his reflections on the doctrine of transubstantiation: I had often thought, during the time of the mass, that if I could change the bread unto the body, and the wine into the blood of my Redeemer, that I would consequently possess a most exhorbitant power; that I would equal in the nobleness of my act the infinite majesty of heaven itself, that my Creator should be at the beck of my fancy; that whenever or wherever my will suggested I might summon him from the throne of his eternal glory and majesty, and convert upon the altar a little scrap of insignificant bread into the body, the blood, the soul, the divinity, of my Maker!

Ah, my friends, that God who measureth the tops of the mountains, and who holdeth the waters of the sea in the hollow of his hands, who rideth upon the whirlwinds, and maketh the earth his footstool, and the canopy of heaven his covering, who formed the heavens and the earth, and all things visible and invisible, that he should descend from his throne eternal to enter into the womb of a virgin mother, there to be enclosed for the long space of nine revolving months, and afterwards to be born in time, under the form and habit of a servant! human redemption alone could call for such an act of humiliation. But that the Savior of the world, after having offered one eternal, immeasurable, and unspeakable sacrifice for the sins of mankind, and after having been placed by his own irrevocable decree at the right hand of God, should descend from the throne of eternal justice upon the altar of human weakness; that at the an

-

nouncement merely of a few insignificant words, falling from the lips of a poor weak mortal, he should suffer a wretched collection of diminutive portions of bread, of similar materials with common wafer, to become converted into his infinite majesty — that that infinite majesty should continue whole and entire under each such particular species of bread; that afterwards he should allow his boundless omnipotence to be confined within the narrow precincts of a poor little box, commonly called a pixis, and then to be hawked about from place to place, and distributed from person to person, according to the whim and caprice of the human suggestions of those ignorant Romish bishops, who assembled under the command of Antichrist, at the council of Trent, would be so unworthy of the infinite majesty, would be so derogatory to his eternal attributes, so subversive of the principles of that humanity with which he has invested himself, so contradictory to that truth, that while the resurrection added glory to it, it has not annihilated the humanity of our Redeemer; that if true all the revelations of the Scriptures of the character and attributes of Jehovah are mis-conceived, and a broad seal of falsehood set upon those of nature.

I would now address myself to the heads of the bewildered church of Rome, who stand condemned already, and say why is it that you boast so much of the antiquity of your doctrines, the antiquity of your religious instructions, and why fly, in the hours of controversial difficulties, to the traditions of your ancients, as the great hope of your vacillating arguments, when you are met by such words of Christ as, "Drink ye all of this ? " If these were addressed to the apostles only as priests, then the people should at no period of time have partaken of the cup. But that the people did partake of the cup is evident from the words of St. Paul, in 1 Cor. 11: 28, where he says, " Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup." Does not this prove that the laity as well as the

pastors, then partook of the sacrament under both kinds? But why talk of the antiquity of your doctrines? Even this poor sanction is not theirs. Popes Gellasius and Leo ordered the wine to be given to the people at the sacrament; and it was only in the fifteenth century, at the council of Constance, that the use of the wine was denied to the laity. By that act of high-handed perversion of the Scriptures, and of the practice of the apostles and the early church, your church dashed away its last hope. You based yourself upon your traditions! Why did you mutilate the traditions of antiquity? Why depart from that practice, as old as Christianity itself? O, why claim to yourselves a greater wisdom than He who has instituted, who has ordained, and who has sanctioned such a sacrament? Where are your hopes in a course so monstrous ? You infringe some of the most important words of the Savior! You violate the last solemn command of the Redeemer, by withholding from the laity a heaven-bestowed right, which was intended for their comfort and encouragement! Reason can never sanction such rob

bery and sacrilege, such soul-destroying doings. They only who press in hot haste after destruction can disseminate for truth such impious doctrines.

Having occupied so much space in noticing these two heresies of the beast, I will only mention the following:

First, purgatory, discovered for filthy lucre's sake, and a great source of revenue.

Second, excommunication, which consigns to eternal flames all who oppose their doctrines.

Third, extraordinary pretensions to power in things spiritual. See their canons.

Fourth, absolution, as if God was unable to pardon without them.

Fifth, infallibility, whereby they claim the power of acting without error.

Sixth, omitting the last clause of the Lord's prayer, by