That your petitioners, therefore, deeply lament that a College for the instruction of a Popish priesthood is now supported, at Maynooth, in Ireland, by grants from the public Treasury, and they, therefore, humbly pray your Honourable House to withdraw every kind of public support from the Popish College of Maynooth. And your petitioners, &c. N. B. In Petitions to the House of Lords, the words "Right Honourable House" must be substituted for "Honourable House.", CONVERSATION BETWEEN TWO FRIENDS ON THE DOCTRINES AND CEREMONIES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. (Continued from page 6.) Mr. A.-Now we come to the doctrine of the "real presence," and the sacrifice of the Mass.-The "Offering up the Mass" you are aware forms the chief employment of the priests in the Church of Rome, so that one might suppose the Saviour's commission to the Apostles had run thus-"Go ye, and celebrate the Mass;" instead of " Go ye, and preach the Gospel." And to attend Mass is considered the principal duty enjoined by the Church. Mr. B.-You seem to think, then, that it is not of Apostolic origin, or rather, of Christ's own appointing? Mr. A.-Most assuredly it is neither the one nor the other: there is nothing in the Bible about it. Mr. B.-Whence then did it spring, and what is its date? Mr. A.-This doctrine of Transubstantiation, or the real presence, about which there had been much controversy and dispute for many years, was at last confirmed by a Bull of Pope Urban the Fourth, in the general Council at Vienna in the year 1311, and afterwards by the Council of Trent. The Articles of Faith required were these:That in the wafer and wine, the real body and blood of Christ are eaten and drank; that they are to be adored, and offered up by the priest as the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, and other necessities; and an anathema was pronounced, as usual, against all those who would not submit to their decision. Mr. B.-Well, how do you make out that this is wrong? Mr. A.-From Scripture. Let us read the plain narrative of the last supper in the Gospel of St. Luke, 22d chapter, 19th and 20th verses." And He (Jesus) took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, this is my body, which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me; likewise also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you." And St. Paul's account of it, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, the 11th chapter, from the 23d to the 25th verse.-" For 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 when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, take eat, this is my body which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, this cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me, for as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till He come." This is the account given in the New Testament of the manner in which the Lord himself instituted the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or Communion, which the Church of Rome calls the Mass. Mr. B. And certainly, to my mind, the words "This is my body "appear very clearly to mean that the bread was converted into His real body. Mr. A.-I do not think you will believe such a doctrine, if you will candidly weigh the words maturely. Mr. B.-I do not know that. I remember another text, which is very strong, being quoted by my priest once in support of Transubstantiation; it was John vi. 53d,—“ Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." How could we eat His flesh, and drink His blood, if the doctrine of Transubstantiation be not true? Mr. A.-Very easily indeed; and, in truth, my good friend, the text you have just quoted, so far from supporting the doctrine of Transubstantiation, is one of the strongest in the whole Bible against it. Mr. B.-You astonish me; surely you do not mean what you say. If you take the words literally, what can they mean but that we eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood, literally and truly, and not bread, as you Protestants teach? Mr. A.-I do indeed mean precisely what I have said. If there was no other text in the Bible but that one against Transubstantiation, it would be quite sufficient for a child even to refute such a doctrine. Mr. B.-I confess myself at a loss to comprehend your meaning. Mr. A.-Let me ask you, then, to explain that text literally. You will tell me that the words "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood," mean literally and truly to eat with your teeth, and actually drink, so as to swallow down your throat, the very flesh and very blood of our blessed Redeemer ? Mr. B.-Precisely. I cannot see how any other meaning can be attached to the words. Mr. A.-Be it so. Now there remains the concluding clause of the verse; and of course that must be explained literally, as well as the first part. The words are, "Ye have no life in you." Now, my good friend, take these words literally, and see what an absurd and false result they bring you to,-"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you; so then, according to your Church's interpretation, Christ meant to say that all the millions of human beings in this world who have never partaken of the Lord's Supper, have literally "no life" in them; they are mere dead bodies moving about; corpses without any principle of life; inanimate carcases, lifeless masses of flesh. Why, my good friend, you know that this is an egregious absurdity, too ridiculous for any man in his senses to believe. Mr. B.-True; it would be absurd to believe that every body who has not so partaken of the body and blood of Christ is a dead man in the ordinary and literal sense of the words, but we do not believe this. We hold that Christ spoke spiritually, and meant that they were spiritually dead. Mr. A.-And so unquestionably he did, my dear friend. But is it fair, or honest, do you think, to take one part of a sentence literally and the other part spiritually. If the sentence will not bear a literal interpretation, as you yourself admit, ought you not to give the whole a spiritual interpretation, and believe that our Saviour meant "Except ye [spiritually] eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no [spiritual] life in you." Mr. B. This certainly puts the sentence in a new light to my mind, and convinces me that I ought to examine Scripture more than I do. But how am I to know that our Saviour meant His words in the first part of the sentence to be taken in a spiritual sense? Mr. A.-In the same way that you know that He meant His words in the last part of the sentence to be taken in a spiritual sense. Let me ask you how you knew that? that our blessed Lord could not mean to say, that they had no life in them literally and truly, for that would be contrary to the fact, and our Saviour could not say what was false; He must therefore have meant what He said spiritually. Mr. A.-And now adopt the same testimony with regard to the first part of the sentence, and see whether it will not bring you to the same conclusion? Your senses do not deceive you in other matters, and they are not likely to deceive you in this. Look at the wafer after consecration,-does it look like flesh, or like flour and water? Feel it, and ask yourself, does this feel like flesh? Taste it, and say, does it taste like flesh? You know that each sense will bear its testimony to the fact that it is not flesh; and if so, your Saviour would never have told an untruth, and He therefore meant us spiritually, and not literally, to eat His flesh. Mr. B.-I confess myself in error. Mr. A.-I quoted before the account given us in Scripture of the institution of the Lord's Supper, and I wish you would compare the Word of God with what the Council of Trent requires you to believe. Mr. B.-I will do so. Mr. A.-To convince you still more of the unscriptural nature of Transubstantiation, we will now examine on what grounds the Church of Rome asserts that the bread and wine were changed into the real body and blood of Christ, when He gave them to His disciples to eat and drink of them. We know it was the Saviour's manner, according to the custom of the East, to speak figuratively; but if His words are to be taken literally in one instance, it must hold good in another. Take a few examples of this, and you will see the absurdity of putting a literal construction on them: Christ said, "I am the true Vine."—" I am the door."-" This cup is the New Testament." Are we then to believe that Christ was really a vine, or a door? Was the cup transformed into the New Testament? Certainly not. Why then attach a literal sense to the words "This is my body which is given for you," rather than the true simple meaning" this represents my body which shall be given for you": the circumstance of the present tense being used will not prove any thing, for the Saviour often spoke in this manner of a thing that was to be done at a future time; as in John x. 15— "I lay down my life for the sheep." No one will contend that he laid it down at that Mr. B.-By the testimony of my senses. I know the unconverted, who have never moment,-neither then will the words "This tasted of the Lord's Supper, really do live, for I see them walking about, and I hear them talking; and I therefore know certainly is my body which is given for you," prove that in the bread and wine Christ offered His human and divine nature united, as a pro Mr. B.-Still it appears strange, and hard to believe, that the term " to eat" should pitiatory sacrifice, at the very moment He Mr. A.-If He did, then where was the need of the agony He endured upon the cross? He would have died in vain, if the sacrifice had already been offered. Let any unprejudiced person judge of this, and he will say at once, that the Saviour's words here are to be taken in the same figurative sense as his discourses to the Jews in general. When He says, in St. John's Gospel, vi. 51, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven," does not this mean that by believing on Him their souls would be nourished for immortality? He doubtless spoke figuratively, in allusion to the manna which had been sent for the nourishment of their bodies in the wilderness. You perceive, that if these words were to be taken literally, they were to believe that the flesh of Christ was in reality bread, and that this flesh, or bread, was actually to be eaten ; and those who ate of it should never die! When the Jews ignorantly understood the Saviour in this literal sense, they could not believe it, (and this was not surprising,) but disputed amongst themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" The Lord then corrected their gross mistake, (the very mistake the Church of Rome has fallen into) by saying, "The flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life," (verse 63.) Mr. B.-But are not the Fathers of the Church in favour of Transubstantiation. Mr. A.-Even if they were, they would not be worthy of our credit when they oppose the Word of God. But as you allude to the fathers, I may just mention that there is a very striking remark in the writings of St. Augustin, that where any passage of Scripture seems to command a crime, a figurative interpretation should be adopted. Now the literal interpretation of the Saviour's words would represent Him as establishing the revolting crime of cannibalism in His church! therefore, the construction that the Church of Rome puts upon His words cannot possibly be a true one. Again, the literal sense would exclude the penitent thief from Paradise, and thus falsify the Saviour's words; for the dying thief had never partaken of the body and blood of Christ, in this sense, but he had received the Son of God by faith, as the spiritual food, and nourishment of his soul, by virtue of which he obtained pardon and salvation. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, (said the Redeemer to the Jews,) whosoever believeth in me hath everlasting life." Mr. A.-We read in the book of the Prophet Jeremiah, (xv. 16,)" Thy words were found, and I did eat them, and Thy word was unto me the joy, and rejoicing of my heart." Thus, you see, eating is only the figurative term for believing. How true it is that "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. ii. 14.) We find, in reading the Gospel, that Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, and the Jews in general, were as unable to comprehend the spiritual signification of the Saviour's words as the Church of Rome has proved herself to be in after ages; and we may see how needful it is that we should constantly pray when we read the Word of God, that the Holy Spirit may take of the things concerning Christ, and shew them to our minds as they really are. Mr. B.-When we commenced this discussion, I should have replied to such a remark as this, that the Church of Rome is infallible, because her rulers are inspired; how then is it possible that she can err? We are taught to believe this without reflecting upon it; but if union with the Word of God must be the proof of their inspiration, I have seen too much contradiction already to imagine that any longer.-Proceed, my friend. Mr. A.-We will continue the subject at our next interview. With God's help, I hope to shew you a little more of the unscriptural character of the so called sacrifice of the Mass. (To be continued.) ADDRESS OF THE TO THE PROTESTANT FREemen of dublin. We are deeply afflicted at the melancholy event which leads us to address you. In the orderings of Providence a vacancy has just occurred in the representation of our city. Entirely do we deplore the loss of the eminent individual whose awfully sudden decease has overwhelmed the community with astonishment and regret. Respect for the departed has determined us not to lose one single moment in taking a step, calculated as it would seem to us, to lead to the elevation of one worthy to represent this Metropolis into the proud position occupied by our late honoured and esteemed friend, John Beatty West, Esq., a patron and supporter of this Association. We are bound, under the circumstances, abolition of all Popish systems of National to ponder upon the line of conduct which it Education, and the eradication of Popery will become the Operative Protestants of itself by the diffusion of the light of the Dublin to adopt. The The question is, what are we to do? plain answer to that question will be acknowledged to be our duty-our duty fearlessly, unflinchingly, and nothing less than our duty -our duty to God and our country. What's that duty? It is to offer our entire, cordial and disinterested support to the man who will come forward to claim it upon the ground that he considers that the first obligation resting on the State is to rule the people so as most effectually to promote the prevalence of the Truth of God, the Religion of the Gospel, and the downfall of Popery, and that he will go into Parliament to legislate for the fulfilment of this obligation. There is no power but of God. He is able to put down his enemies, and any candidate who will tell us, that instead of making the revealed will of God his rule, he will be governed by the policy of any mortal man, however exalted, or of any party, however extensive, when opposed to that revealed will, shall not have our support. We will stand immoveably together for the best qualified person, who will not fear the face of man, who will contend for the ascendancy of truth over falsehood-that is, in fact, for Protestant Ascendancy in Church and State the supremacy of the Scripture as the rule of National Conduct-the immediate Gospel. We claim laws to deliver our Roman Catholic countrymen from the most terrific bondage in the world-from the chains of priestcraft and superstition. We demand not merely the conservation of our present privileges, but the restoration of those wrested from us. We demand a purely Protestant State and Protestant Institutions. Protestant Operatives! Protestant Freemen! you will rally round the sound-hearted Protestant who will come forward with those principles as the recommendation to your support. For him every Freeman will stand around him the Protestant Operatives will form a phalanx that shall defend him from every aggression, and though all the powers of the earth oppose, Victory will be on our side. With us are truth, the true church, yea, God himself; on the part of those who will be opposed to us-falsehood, error, and apostacy. A Special General Meeting of our Association will be held at the Tailors' Hall, Back Lane, on Thursday evening next, and a Great Public Meeting at an early period. By Order of the Committee, HUGH MOTHERWELL, Assist.-Sec. Committee-rooms, Nicholas-street, Dec. 27. 1841. put our faith and love to the test, and we may have to stand for Christ and his cause, as men of old did in this our land, till the last slow ebb of blood seals the truth we preach with our lips and life. We do well to brace our minds and nerve our souls for the worst; for though it is true the stake is not here, and the rack and the wheel are not here, and the red flash of flame on the face of the sky is not here, and the glare of the torch, and the mask, and the chain, and the cold damp vault, and the cell, are not here; yet there is a mark on the page of truth, and there is a dye of red on the hand of Rome, and there is a still small voice in the tales of times that are fled, and of deeds which make the flesh to creep and the blood to chill in the veins, which all point us to Rome with their track of blood, and with a voice clear, so that he who runs may hear, bid us watch, and gird our loins, and stand as men on whom the foe may yet come down and wreak his hot wrath on our heads. But if it should be so, we need not fear. Let us call to mind how it was with the first saint who gave his life for the truth as it is in Christ. He saw in the last hour of his life the Son of man stand at the right hand of God. Why did God shew him this? Why, that the saints of God in all time who might seal the truth with their blood, might know that Christ stood at the right hand of God to ask for them, and to see that they had grace and strength for the hour of their need. And what did he do? With his last breath, he said with a loud voice, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge!" and then fell on sleep. My dear friends, ask your hearts this-If Christ were to call me to seal his truth with my life, could I do it? Do I love him so well, that I could lay down my life for him? Do I love his cause, his truth, with so strong a love, that I would go to the stake for it? If we can say 66 Yes," then come what may, all will be well. The flames may play round us, but they will not scorch us; wild beasts may be let loose on us, but their mouths shall be shut, and the wrath and the rage of man shall do us no harm. The sting of the asp, the keen shafts of the foe, and the kiss of the false friend shall not hurt us. God will be our guard, as a wall of fire, and none can near us; his truth shall be our shield, and none can pierce through such a coat of mail. Our souls shall rest in peace. But though I talk thus, I trust such a time may not come. The times are bad, and thick clouds which look big with woe are round us on all sides; but the Lord hath his way in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. He knows how to save us, and when things seem at the worst, then they mend. No doubt it is so, just to shew us how weak we are, how much we stand in need of God, and that he is a God near at hand, to help us in all our need. What he has done in time past, he may do once more; and as the Red Sea stood up as walls, and the hosts of the Lord went through on dry land, so may it be with the church now: the tide may roll, and the rush of the flood come down on her to whelm and to fright her, but it shall not touch her; God shall turn its course, or make it spend its force far off. FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CITY OF LONDON PROTESTANT Evening, December 13th. THE Committee of the City of LondonTradesmen and Operative Protestant Association, in presenting their first Annual Report to the members and friends of the Association, feel called upon to raise a song of praise and thanksgiving to the great captain of our salvation, for the success granted to it during the short time it has been in operation. Have we this mind? If the time should come when the sword of Rome might start from its sheath, and go through the length and breadth of the land, could we stand in that day? Could we stand firm for Christ Read at their First Annual Meeting, Monday and his truth? Could we go to the stake, and play the man? Could we pray for those who put us to death? There are some who know not how to bear the cross of Christ; who know not how to put up with the least ill will, or a few hard words, for the sake of Christ-men who may have zeal, but not a good zeal-men who give back hard words for hard words, and stir up wrath more and more-men who do not fight the good fight of faith, but fight like the men of the world; deal blow for blow with right good will, and snarl and snap to the last. Now, such men do no good to the cause of truth, but great harm. Theirs is the zeal of a dog when a stone is cast at him: he bites the stone, and breaks his own teeth. Such is not a right or a wise zeal, but the zeal of a fool. The great principle with which they commenced their labours they trust still actuates them, and will ever form the basis of all their proceedings. It is the watchword of every Protestant Christian, and therefore cannot be too often repeated. "The Bible and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants." The book that ought to be the rule of faith |