the Breviary, as I told you on a former day. We are informed also by Mr. Brown that the book is not made up of absurd legendary fables; but is almost exclusively composed of the Psalms, of portions of the New Testament, and of the writings of the Fathers, and that it contains some very edifying accounts of certain circumstances. There is, doubtless, a considerable amount of Scripture and of the writings of the Fathers in it, but with respect to other parts, I can only leave the meeting to judge for themselves, how very edifying are the specimens to which we have listened.

My adversary seems not at all pleased that I should have attempted to prescribe to him a certain course of proceeding; and he says that he is not answerable to me for the manner in which he conducts his case. Certainly I do not pretend to prescribe to Mr. Brown what course he should adopt, nor do I hold him answerable to me personally; but, advocating what I believe to be important truth, I think I have the privilege of every disputant, namely, to call upon my adversary both to prove his point, and to answer my objections.

It has been intimated to us, that it is highly dangerous to explain away the words of the Institution in a figurative manner; for that we put, by these means, weapons into the hands of the Infidel and Socinian, as they might, with equal justice, explain away the passages which assert that Christ is the Son of God. Now, Sir, I ask, in sober seriousness, who, during the course of this discussion, has really put weapons into the hands of the Infidel and the Socinian? Surely, if you recollect the discussion on the " Rule of Faith," it was not the speakers on the Protestant side that did so. But, if we were to examine the different passages which prove the Son-ship of Jesus, and those which the Roman Catholic alleges, from the words of the Institution, in proof of Transubstantiation, we should find no such parallel between them as would countenance the idea that the Socinian may as justly explain the former figuratively. In the one case the expressions are direct and palpable, and the context unconnected with figure; but in the other case the matter is quite different, for there is figurative language confessedly in the context, and the figurative interpretation is, as I have before shown, accordant with the whole analogy of Scripture language.

Mr. Brown has argued considerably on what appears to him the necessity of the case, and, after laying down as the rule for literal or figurative interpretation "when there

is ordinary danger of mistake, or when there is not,” he tells us that Christ would not have used figurative language at such a time as this-just before his passion-when he was instituting a Sacrament and giving a commandmentand when there was great danger that his words should be mistaken, if he intended to speak figuratively. I confess, Sir, I am anxious to hasten to the point which seems to be well nigh avoided on the other side, I mean, the sacrifice of the Mass; and therefore, without stopping now to inquire what sort of language it would have become Christ to have used, or to examine into Mr. Brown's rule for literal or figurative interpretation, I shall content myself with simply referring you to my observations yesterday, in which I endeavoured to show that there was no ordinary danger of the disciples mistaking Christ's words, inasmuch as they were quite prepared, from circumstances which I mentioned, to receive the passage figuratively.

We have had a long disquisition on metaphor and metonomy. As much important matter presses upon me, and as I have already (sufficiently, I trust, for my cause) discussed the words of the institution, I do not mean to follow Mr. Brown in all his disquisition; and perhaps I may claim this privilege, as he said that he should not follow me in my arguments, except where he thought proper. However, I rather think Mr. Brown has failed to establish the point which he laboured to prove. He says there is a difference between the expressions, "I am a door," "I am a vine," and so forth, and "this is my body." Now, let us bring the matter to a point. Take the single text, for example, that was quoted from the Old Testament yesterday, "This (i. e. the hair) is Jerusalem,”—take, in connection with that, the expression, “This (i. e. the bread) is my body," and if these be not homogeneous passages, that is, passages of a precisely similar nature, I am sure there are none in the Bible at all. Now, if Mr. Brown is of necessity compelled to interpret "this is Jerusalem" figuratively, I ask, upon what system of fair and consistent interpretation, does he take "this is my body" literally?

The Reverend gentleman has told us that some have found great difficulty in discovering figurative expressions similar to the words of the institution; and, by way of showing that the Protestant solution of those words is "not of very commendable origin," he has treated us us with a story about Zuinglius, learning something upon this point from a spectre that appeared to him, which Mr.

Brown supposes to have been black. Will the Reverend gentleman excuse my remarking that, if he objects so strongly to the stories of the Breviary as adduced by us, it was not exactly consistent in him to adduce stories of this kind relative to Zuinglius, especially when, in this case really, they have nothing to say to the question. However, be that as it may, methinks that what was said to be revealed to Zuinglius, (whether by black or white figure, or by no figure at all) is very much in point. "This (i. e. the Paschal Lamb) is the Lord's passover." How does Mr. Brown explain that? I suppose figuratively; there fore, to be consistent, he is certainly called upon to explain the words of the institution figuratively also.

we

I shall here notice the observations of my antagonist respecting the senses, which he made in connection with my former remarks on the subject. He says that the question is not whether there is a possibility that the senses may be deceived; because, if we believe in the power of God, this is quite possible; but the question is, whether, in this case, God has deviated from his ordinary plan, and has willed that the senses should be deceived. Mr. Brown adds, 66 contend that he has so deviated." And yet what does he say in the next breath? Why, though he starts with declaring that he thinks God has deviated from his usual way in willing that the senses should be deceived in this matter, he tells us in the very next sentence, that the senses are not all deceived, for that we have the sense of hearing, by which we discover the clear declarations of Christ. In reference to these statements several questions might be proposed, but I am satisfied with asking, as I did before, how does he know that he hears those words correctly? Surely, on his principle, he is just as likely to be deceived with regard to the sense of hearing, (even supposing that to be apparently in his favour, which we deny), as I am with regard to the other senses when exercised on the elements in the Eucharist.

We have been reminded that Christ said to Thomas, "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed;" and even so, following the example of Christ, would I say also: Blessed are those who, without visible demonstration, believe upon sufficient testimony, such as Thomas had. This too, I apprehend, is the meaning of the Apostle, when he says in the other passage quoted, "Faith is the evidence (or persuasion) of things not seen." But then I do not think either our Lord or his Apostle ever said "Blessed are they that believe contrary to what they see;" and really if a man believe Transubstantiation,

he not only believes what he has not seen, but he believes contrary to what he has seen.

On this subject of the senses, two or three extracts from the Fathers have been given. Without unduly depreciating their testimony, I may remark that at least (and this Mr. Brown has himself testified) they are not infallible; and therefore, however they may be received as witnesses to matters of fact, they cannot be invested with positive authority, by which we must necessarily be bound. At all events, in order to countervail the extracts which have been given on the opposite side, I shall read one short quotation from Tertullian, which will show that our argument from the senses is not so untenable, or so unknown to the doctors of antiquity, as Mr. Brown would imply. He writes thus:

"WE MUST NOT CALL OUR SENSES IN QUESTION, lest we should doubt respecting their fidelity even in the case of CHRIST HIMSELF. Because, if we question the fidelity of our senses, we might peradventure be led to say, that Christ delusively beheld Satan precipitated from Heaven; or delusively heard the voice of his Father testifying of him; or was deceived when he touched Peter's mother-in-law; or smelt a different odour of the ointment which he received for his sepulture; or tasted a different flavour of the wine which he consecrated in memory of his own blood."-Tertull. de Anim. in Cap. de quinque sens. Oper. p. 653.

Such is the testimony of Tertullian, distinctly advocating an appeal to the senses just as we have done; and I think that he argued very well, for, if we are to question the evidence of our senses with regard to matters upon which they can exercise themselves, then we have no certain proof of the existence of any material thing. I cannot know that there is a meeting in this room at present. I cannot tell that this is a book which I hold in my hand. In short, to deny the validity of the testimony of the senses, respecting things on which they can be exercised, (except when we have positive proof that God willed them to be deceived in a particular instance; or when they appear to contradict each other, which will sometimes occur, not from the free exercise of them, but from the application of some external power to cause a deception, and in which case they are first to be reconciled by the best methods of correction) to deny this, I say, lays, as I before remarked, the foundation of universal scepticism, whether in matters that are religious, or in matters that are

not.

My opponent fastened on an observation which I made yesterday, when, in my first reply, I hailed the declaration of his intention to keep almost altogether to the Scriptures:

and now he thinks he has caught both Mr. Lyons and me, for he declares, that, instead of keeping exclusively to the Scripture, we went to the evidence furnished by the senses, and by reason, and thus quitted the ground we professed at first to stand on. Now, Sir, we did not depart from the principle on which we started: for, whenever we appealed to the evidence furnished by reason, or by the senses, we grounded that evidence on the evidence of Scripture. You will remember my observations yesterday as to the extent to which arguments from reason should be carried, and the place which they should occupy; and, on this principle, I endeavoured to act throughout. I supported, therefore, one of the arguments from reason, which my friend adduced, with a text of Scripture, taken from the 24th chapter of Luke, and the 6th verse, where it is said of our Lord by the angels, in the account of his resurrection, "He is not here, but is risen :" implying, that his body could not be in two places at the same time. Therefore, the argument was not derived from reason merely, but from reason founded on, and sanctioned by, the testimony of Scripture. In like manner, an argument was brought from the senses against transubstantiation; but was it an argument apart from Scripture? It was not; and Mr. Brown took good care not to notice any of the proofs which I adduced from Scripture, to authorise an appeal to the senses, where those senses could be brought into legitimate exercise. I referred to the statement so often made in the New Testament, that, when the Apostles would prove the resurrection of Christ, so far as the fact of it was concerned, it was by an appeal to the senses. I quoted from the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, and the 15th chapter, where the truth of his resurrection was proved simply and solely from the fact, that, after his death and burial, he was "seen by Cephas" -then" by the eleven"-then seen by more than five hundred brethren at once"-after that, seen by James, then by all the Apostles;"-and last of all, seen by Paul also, as one born out of due time." I also called your attention to the opening of the first Epistle of John, where, not merely the evidence of sight, but likewise of touch, and of hearing, were referred to with respect to the incarnation of our Lord. Thus, you see, we have not departed from our principle, but, rather, in using the arguments to which Mr. Brown objected, we have gone precisely according to the testimony of the ORACLES OF GOD.

66

66

66

Mr. Brown thinks, that, because, in his judgment, we