because I am not satisfied that we have therein a warrant for the Catholic sacrifice; but because I find that it would lead, in order to establish it satisfactorily, to a longer discussion than time will now permit.

THE REV. E. TOTTENHAM.

MR. CHAIRMAN,-Before I proceed to notice any thing that has been advanced on the other side, I wish to impress strongly on the minds of all in this assembly that, when Mr. Edgeworth stood up to speak, professedly in reply to me, from the commencement to the very close of his speech, he has scarcely glanced at a single argument that had been udduced in my address!

Mr. Edgeworth says that I expounded the passages cited on this question in one way, and that Roman Čatholics expound them in another; and he tells us it is a painful spectacle to see men differ in the interpretation of these passages of Holy Writ. What then is his expedient in order to get us out of the difficulty? He refers to THE FATHERS, and he gives a variety of quotations (and professes to be able to give many more) from the writings of those who lived in the early ages of the Church. Did I think it at all necessary to my argument, I could easily occupy my three-quarters of an hour in giving passages from the Fathers of the Church AGAINST the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I believe it would be found, upon a full and accurate examination, that the doctrine was perfectly unknown in the early ages, and to the really primitive Fathers; however, suppose the Rev. Gentleman and myself were now to occupy our time in adducing passages on each side of the question, let me ask, how would that get us out of the difficulty of which he complains? He says there exists a difficulty, when we have but the simple text of Scripture, and, in order to remove it, he refers to the primitive Fathers-but then he quotes one Father, appearing to give one interpretation, and I quote another Father appearing to give a different interpretation; and thus (on account of the impossibility of our mutually examining the quotations, in all cases, at the present moment, and then, after examination, either admitting or rejecting them), instead of the difficulty being removed, it is marvellously increased. How is a poor

2 c

and unlearned man to be relieved from his difficulty by such a course of proceeding, when he can know nothing of the opinions of the Fathers upon texts of Scripture, unless he takes them upon trust.

But, in referring to that" most unfortunate change" (as he termed it), the Reformation, the Gentleman endeavours to place us in a degree of difficulty because Luther and others of the early reformers did not at once throw off all the errors which we believe to exist in the Church of Rome, relative to this very subject. Now it was too much to expect, that when a man came out of so complicated a system as that of the Church of Rome, he should all at once see the truth in all its purity and glory. It was natural that the casting off of error should be gradual, and therefore several of the early reformers had, for a time, and some of them up to the period of their death, somewhat of error commingled with the mass of truth which they held. This was all very natural; but are we placed in any difficulty because Luther held somewhat of that which we believe to be error in the Roman Church? Not at all, for we profess not to follow Luther farther than Luther follows Scripture. But I retort the argument on my Rev. opponent. If we are in a difficulty because Luther differed from us somewhat on this subject, what will our friends opposite think of the difficulty in which they are placed, when they recollect that many of the Divines in their Church have differed with them, being compelled at last to confess the fact that Transubstantiation was not to be proved from Scripture; and have taken refuge in some other authority whereby to prove this doctrine. Let us select a few instances. Cardinal Cameracensis says:

"Transubstantiation cannot be proved from Holy Writ."

Cardinal Cajetan declares:

"There does not appear out of the Gospel any thing to compel us to understand these words literally, namely, This is my body:' and truly that presence in the Sacrament, which the Church holds, cannot be proved from these words of Christ unaided by the declaration of the Church."-See Bishop Cosin's History of Transubstantiation," for the two preceding extracts. And yet indeed Mr. Edgeworth insists upon the clearness with which these words prove Transubstantiation, and expresses his great astonishment that we should be so slow in apprehending them in that meaning which he attaches to them! Scotus held the same view as those already quoted, but instead of reading his testimony I shall produce an extract from Cardinal Bellarmine :

**

He

"For Scotus, whom Cameracensis follows, says three things. * says, secondly, that there is no passage in Scripture so express as evidently to compel the admission of Transubstantiation without the declaration of the Church." Then follows Bellarmine's comment

"

And this is not wholly improbable; for although the Scripture above cited seems to us sufficiently clear to convince any man who is not self-willed, yet whether this be so may well be doubted, seeing that the most learned and keensighted men, such as more particularly was Scotus, think differently.”—Bell, de Sac. Euch. lib. 3. c. 23.

Here we have Roman Catholic divines admitting that Transubstantiation cannot be proved from Scripture, and believing it simply on the authority of the Church; and yet we are told it is marvellous that we cannot see this doctrine so plainly written in the Word of God!

My opponent seems to have dwelt with peculiar emphasis upon the expression employed by me with respect to Julian, the "illustrious Pagan." Now, if I used such an expression, as I believe I did in passing, I need scarcely observe, in extenuation, that I did not apply the term in reference to his principles, for of course his principles I must abhor.

Mr. E., as I have just now stated, refers to the opinions of some of the Reformers, but he takes care to add, that he does not wish to impress upon the minds of those present the authority of such men! It was their crime, he says, that they separated from the Church of Rome, and had it not been for them, we might have now been united in the same faith! Yes, Sir, we might; and the Reverend Gentleman could have told us moreover, that if the Apostles those men who were said to have “turned the world upside down," had not gone to the various nations in the world, to disturb the unity of spiritual death which existed among them, we might have been to this day enjoying the unity of Paganism. Unity, Sir, is a good thing, but then it must be unity of a right and Scriptural kind. There may be unity of errorthere may be unity of spiritual death-and it was the duty of the Reformers, and it is equally ours, to protest as loudly against such a false and hollow unity, as to be anxious for that unity which has truth for its essence, and Christian principle for its foundation.

With regard to the subject of Idolatry, upon which we insisted, I am told that, if I believed the doctrine of Transubstantiation, of course I should not hesitate to fall down, as Roman Catholics do, to adore the Host. I must admit that perhaps I should not hesitate so much as I would at the present moment, but I confess, after a

knowledge of what we have heard to-day, I should hesitate very considerably. You have listened to Mr. Lyons whilst quoting from a book, whose authority is indisputable, namely, THE MISSAL; and you have seen that (even supposing we were to admit the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the abstract) there are cases, and those a great many, in which, upon the confession of Roman Catholics themselves, the consecration may fail; and therefore, in such a case, that which we should fall down before and worship would be confessedly only bread and wine. If the bread be not of a certain quality-if the wine be sour, or has other defects-if the intention of the priest be wanting-if there be defects in any of these points, the testimony of the Roman Missal is, that in none of those cases is the consecration valid, and of course there takes place no Transubstantiation. Therefore, I say, with the liability to such defects and contingencies as these, even if 1 believed Transubstantiation abstractedly, I should hesitate much about falling down to adore the elements.

A considerable portion of time has been occupied in producing extracts from the Fathers. Mr. Edgeworth commented at some length upon certain of these extracts. He adduced Justin Martyr and others, and, in following him during the reading of the quotations, I confess I was not able to see any proof in them of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. For, be it observed, the passages cited from the Fathers which merely call the elements "the body and blood of Christ," which merely use the terms" flesh and blood," do not prove the doctrine. We have no hesitation in using just the same terms as Justin Martyr and Ignatius do; and, as you heard before, we employ, in the Communion Service of the Church of England, the expression, "We spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood." So that it is not from the use of these terms merely that any argument is to be derived in favour of Transubstantiation; for they are but the echo of Scripture, and as with Scripture so with them, the controversy still exists as to the sense in which they are to be taken, whether literally or figuratively.

Reference has been made to, I must say, a most unfortunate passage in Theodoret. Mr. E. read you only a portion of it-now I shall read the continuation. So far as my opponent read, it did not prove a particle of his case; and, if I read the remainder, it will prove the contrary. In the dialogue between Orthodoxus and Eranistes (two imaginary persons, the former the representative of the

true faith, and the latter of the Eutychian heresy), as contained in the writings of Theodoret, we read thus:

"Orthodoxus. Tell me, now, the mystical symbols, which are offered to God by the priests, of what are they the symbols?-Eranistes. Of the body and blood of the Lord.-Orthod. Of his true body or not?-Eran. Of his true body. -Orthod. Very well, for every image must have its original.-Eran. I am happy you have mentioned the divine mysteries. Tell me, therefore, what do you call the gift that is offered before the priests' invocation.-Orthod. This must not be said openly; for some may be present who are not initiated. Eran. Answer, then, in hidden terms.-Orthod. We call it an aliment made of certain grains.-Eran. And how do you call the other symbol ?-Orthod. We give it a name that denotes a certain beverage.-Eran. And after the consecration what are they called?-Orthod. The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ.-Eran. And you believe that you partake of the body and blood of Christ?-Orthod. So I believe."

Now, in all this, is there any thing to support Transubstantiation? The elements are called, in the former part, the symbols of Christ's true body, and the image of the original. Therefore they could not have been really the true body or the original, but they represented the existence of them. And in the latter part, that is merely said, which every Protestant admits (as I told you a few minutes ago), that after consecration the elements are called the body and blood of Christ, but not that they are actually changed into them. The Eutychian heretic, however, in order to maintain his tenet that the human nature of Christ was absorbed in the divine, manifestly perverts the language of Orthodoxus (as we shall see presently), as if it implied a physical change in the elements, and thus, proceeds :

"Eran. As the symbols, then, of the body and blood of Christ were different before the consecration of the priest, and after that consecration are changed, and become something else, in the same manner we (Eutychians) say, the body of Christ, after his ascension, was changed into the Divine substance."

Here was the argument and conclusion of the Eutychian heretic (not of Orthodoxus, the character introduced, nor of Theodoret, the writer), and here Mr. Edgeworth stopped, supposing that the passage proved Transubstantiation for him. If the heretic had concluded aright, this part of the passage would indeed have favoured Mr. E.; but what was the reply of Orthodoxus? He shows that the heretic had mistaken the meaning of his words, and he completely overthrows the idea of a physical change in the elements; for he rejoins

"You are caught in the net which you yourself have woven.

For THE

MYSTICAL SYMBOLS, AFTER CONSECRATION, LOSE NOT THEIR PROPER NATURE, FOR THEY REMAIN IN THE FORMER SUBSTANCE (ovσias), AND SHAPE, AND