afterwards held, but by some only, as a matter of opinion, and not by all, as an article of belief.

Again, I maintain that our doctrines, on such practical questions as those we are discussing, could never have been introduced, in any age subsequent to the age of the Apostles, because, at whatever subsequent period this had happened, we should find demonstrative proofs, in Ecclesiastical history, of the novelty of these doctrines. Protests would have been entered;-Councils would have been assembled ;-Heretics would have charged the Catholic Church with her falling off from the Unity of Faith, and with introducing change and novelty into her doctrines: but there never was a period in which such Councils were held, such Protests entered, or such charges brought. Hence I contend, that they never were a novelty and my argument is borne out by the circumstances attendant upon all the innovations in faith recorded in Ecclesiastical history; for there never was a heresy, whether of Arius, or Macedonius, or Berenger, or Luther, or any other, that was not publicly followed by Dissensions, -by Protests, by Writings,--by Councils-by proofs palpable in Ecclesiastical records, and marking the precise time when such novelties found their way into the Church. Now, nothing of this kind can be shown in regard to the present Catholic doctrine: therefore, the present Catholic doctrine could not have been at any time the doctrine of the universal Church, without having been her doctrine from her commencement.

Moreover, had innovations in the ancient Faith been made, at any period, by the Church of Rome, the Heretics of that time would have exposed them; for there were heretics in all ages, who watched the Roman Catholic Church, and were anxious to criminate her conduct. If, then, the Roman Catholic Church had professed the doctrines of Transubstantiation, and of the Mass, without their having been handed down from the first ages, the Simonians, the Cerinthians, and all those heretics that existed from the first ages, or the Arians, the Macedonians, or the heretics of subsequent times, till we come to the Greek Church in the 8th century, would have recorded their opposition; they would have contended that the Roman Catholic Church had fallen under the same censures which she inflicted upon them. But, as they never did object to the novelty of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or the

Sacrifice of the Mass, those doctrines never could have been novelties, but must have existed from the time of the Apostles themselves.

These arguments which I have adduced, are strongly corroborated by the actual belief of the Greek Church. The Greek Church holds the same doctrines on the questions under controversy as the Catholic Church holds; yet the Greek Church was ever so jealous of the Western Church, that it never would have allowed or admitted its articles of faith, unless they had been founded upon the belief of the early Fathers, who received their doctrines from the founders of Christianity. Protestants, at the commencement of the Reformation, felt the force of this argument, and attempted to deprive the Catholics of it. Accordingly, Melancthon transmitted his translation of the Confession of Augsburg, in 1559, to Jeremy the Patriarch of Constantinople, hoping to engage him to approve the novelties of Protestantism; and in union with the Protestants, to condemn the Catholic Church. This was accompanied by an artful letter, wherein Melancthon tells the Greek Patriarch that Protestants admit the doctrine of the Fathers of the Greek Church; also its general Councils, although Melancthon knew that the second council of Nice was expressly rejected by his reforming brethren. Moreover, in the Confession of Augsburg, the presence of Christ in the Sacrament is proposed in terms to which an unsuspecting Catholic might subscribe. How, then, was it received by the Patriarch Jeremy? He found it did not go far enough: it did not contain Transubstantiation, although it artfully expressed the real presence: therefore, in the name of the Greek Church he rejected the confession of Protestant Faith thus presented. However, the Protestant party found, at last, a Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucar, who having simoniacally intruded himself into his high office in the year 1621, was willing to subscribe to their tenets. But how was his conduct viewed by the Greek Church? He was solemnly deposed by a Synod of Greek Bishops, for having approved of the doctrines of Protestants! This, therefore, confirms my reasoning, that, as the Greek Church never held a different doctrine, on Transubstantiation and the Mass, from the Catholic Church, consequently, the Catholic doctrines never were a novelty; for, in that case, the Greek Church would, on no account have adopted them. Thus, my positions are borne out

by arguments founded on Scripture, on the Primitive Fathers, and on the evidence of Ecclesiastical history; all of which conspire to demonstrate the truth of the Catholic doctrine.

THE REV. E. TOTTENHAM.

MR. CHAIRMAN,-At the opening of this discussion on the second question, Mr. Brown seemed to be exceedingly confident as to the body of evidence he could adduce from Scripture in defence of the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and also of the Sacrifice of the Mass; and really I was then led to suppose that he would have made the effort almost entirely to prove these points from that source. But now my Rev. opponent seems to have some misgivings as to the effect which his Scripture proofs have produced, or are likely to produce, for during a considerable portion of both yesterday and to-day, he has gone almost completely into the great maze of the Fathers and of Ecclesiastical history.

He commenced his first speech of this day by complaining of the existence either of bad faith, or of ignorance, on the part of the advocates of Protestantism, which had been exhibited in what he considers the partial quotations from the "Apostolical Constitutions," and from the Fathers. With respect to the alleged partial citations from the "Apostolical Constitutions," (which was the charge brought against Mr. Lyons), my friend has answered for himself: and in reference to the text in Malachi, (with which the charge against myself was connected), I confess I am not disposed to comment much on my opponent's attempt to set aside my quotations from Tertullian, Jerome, and Theodoret, or to prove them garbled. I am perfectly satisfied that his observations have not had weight with the reflecting part of the assembly, but have rather tended to establish what I advanced.

In each case it has been admitted that the exposition I gave from those Fathers with respect to one term, at least, of this prophecy, has been correct, although our opponents had argued from both terms. It is true I have been charged with stopping short in the middle of the quotation from Jerome, which, according to Mr. B.'s version, concludes with saying that there should be "a clean oblation in every place, such as is offered in the Christian ceremonies." But what, after all, does my opponent's addition prove? it does not necessarily imply the Sacrifice of the Mass? Mr. Brown must therefore produce more positive proof, before he detects me in an exhibition of bad faith in the quotations I have made.

Mr. Brown asserts that I sought to bring the Fathers into disrepute. This, certainly, was not my object. I said that some of them at least were holy men, as there are holy men at the present day, and that we receive their testimony simply as witnesses to certain facts, but do not like to take them as positive authorities. I do not undervalue, them, when legitimately employed; but I say that if Mr. Brown could produce to me this day any number of quotations he pleased from their writings, and I could produce a single clear text of Scripture on the other side, I would fling the authority of the Fathers to the wind, and stand by the word of God.

The Rev. Gentleman asserts, moreover, that I made an "artful attempt" to impose upon those present, when I quoted from a variety of Roman Catholic doctors, who declared that there was no clear proof of Transubstantiation in Scripture, and therefore held that doctrine simply on the authority of the Church. Now Mr. B. complains of my having made this statement in an artful way, because, as he the says, cited do not prove it to passages have been their opinion that the bodily presence of Christ could not be proved from Scripture, but only the manner of that presence, whether by Transubstantiation or otherwise. Such is the distinction drawn by Mr. Brown; but, at all events, he must recollect that, even though this distinction were admissible in the other cases, it does not apply to the passage I quoted from Cardinal Cajetan. That passage spoke thus :

"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, which the Church holds, cannot be proved by these words of Christ, unaided by the declaration of the Church."

THIS is the language of Cajetan, and I think it can be reconciled neither with the distinction Mr. B. has drawn, nor with Mr. Edgeworth's statements concerning the clearness and perspicuity with which this matter is revealed in the sacred volume.

Reference has again been made to certain passages from the Fathers; and my Rev. opponent has dwelt on a quotation from Cyril of Jerusalem, in which he believes him to institute a comparison between the change of water into wine at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the change of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Hence it is concluded, that as the one was a physical change, so must the other be. As this, Sir, is the last day of the discussion, and as I have several things of more consequence to notice, I cannot now afford the time which it would take me to examine this quotation fully. But, that I may not seem entirely to disregard the passage, I shall place in juxta-position with it another quotation from Cyril, and let Mr. Brown give a consistent interpretation of it, according to the principle on which he would explain the passage which he has adduced.

"Ye are anointed, says Cyril, with ointment, and ye have become partakers of Christ. For, as the bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer mere bread, but the body of Christ; so this consecrated ointment is no longer mere or cominon ointment, but the free gift of Christ and the presence of the very Godhead of the Holy Ghost energetically produced. Hence ye are symbolically anointed upon the forehead, and upon the other organs of sense. For with visible ointment the body is anointed; but by the holy and vivifying Spirit the soul is sanctified.”—Cyril Catech. Mystag. 1. p. 235.

iii.

Now, if Mr. Brown's mode of understanding the passage he has quoted from Cyril be correct, namely, as implying Cyril's belief in the substantial change of the bread and wine in the Eucharist, then, from that just cited by me, I may conclude that Cyril held a physical change in the ancient chrism or ointment after consecration, because he compares the change of the bread in the Eucharist to that change. But, in fact, never was any change believed to