not easily to believe general and sweeping assertions, unless very solid proof is brought forward; not to be content with the authority of any learned man, unless he give you clear and strong reasons for his opinion. I have entered more into detail, and come forward more personally than I could have wished, and than I should have done, had it not been for the manner in which I was taunted, however privately, with maintaining doctrines which my own peculiar pursuits should have taught me to reject. "If I have been foolish, it is you who have forced me."

I must not forget to mention one circumstance, in justice to my cause, and perhaps to an individual also. I have said that Mr. Horne had adopted that passage of Dr. Adam Clarke, in which this assertion was made. This transcription was reprinted through the different editions of his work, till the seventh, published in 1834, in which he expunged the passage showing, consequently, that he was satisfied with the explanation and the confutation given to the assertion of Dr. Adam Clarke. This was only to be expected from any honest and upright man; but it proves he was satisfied that the assertion which he had until then repeated was incorrect. Dr. Lee, Professor of Oriental Languages at Cambridge, in his Prolegomena to Bagster's Polyglot Bible, acknowledges that his friend, Mr. Horne, was decidedly wrong in making such an assertion. These concessions do not leave the confutation to rest on my individual assertion; they prove it to be acknowledged on the other side that the question is at an end.

The second objection to which I wish to reply, contains a similar misstatement. It has been often said, that the Apostles had a very natural clue to the interpretation of our Saviour's words, by the ceremony or formula ordinarily used in the celebration of the Paschal feast. We are told by many writers, and modern ones particularly, that it was customary at the Jewish passover, for the master of the house to take in his hand a morsel of unleavened bread, and pronounce these * Vol. ii. p. 449.

VOL. II.

words: "This is the bread of affliction which our fathers eat;"-evidently meaning, "this represents the bread which our fathers eat." Consequently, the formula of institution being so similar, we may easily suppose our Saviour to have spoken in the same sense, signifying, "this bread is the figure of my body." In the first place, I deny entirely and completely, that the expression meant, "this is the figure of the bread," it meant obviously and naturally, "this is the sort of bread which our fathers eat." If any person held a piece of some particular bread in his hand, and said, "this is the bread which they eat in France or in Arabia," would he not be understood to say, "this is the kind of bread they eat there,” and not "this is the figure of their bread ;”—and in the case referred to, is not the natural meaning of the words, “this unleavened bread is the sort of bread which our fathers eat?"

But, in fact, it is not necessary to spend much time in illustrating this reply; for no such formula existed at our Saviour's time. We have, in the first place, among the oldest writings of the Jews, a treatise on the Paschal feast-it is their authoritative book on the subject,--in which is minutely laid down all that is to be done in the celebration of the pasch. Every ceremony is detailed, and a great many foolish and superstitious observances are given, but not a single word of this speech, not the least notice of it,-nowhere is such a ceremony prescribed. This negative argument in the ritual prescribing the forms to be followed, must be considered equivalent to a denial of its being used. There is also another still later treatise on the Pasch, in which there is not a word regarding such a practice. We come at length to Maimonides, eleven or twelve hundred years after Christ, and he is the first writer who gives this formula. He first describes one ceremonial of the pasch, exceedingly detailed, and then concludes, "so did they celebrate the pasch before the destruction of the temple." In this there is not a word of this practice,—it is not hinted at. He proceeds to say," at present the Jews celebrate the pasch in the following manner.” In this second rite we have that

ceremony; but even then, the words used are not in the form of an address, but are only the beginning of a hymn to be sung after eating the paschal lamb. Thus, the ceremony was not introduced till after the destruction of the temple; or rather, as appears from two older treatises, was not in use seven or eight hundred years after Christ; and consequently, could not have been any guide for the Apostles, towards interpreting our text.

These two objections I have selected, because their answers are not so much within the range of ordinary controversy, and because they have about them an air of learning which easily imposes upon superficial readers. The great body of objections usually urged from Scripture against our interpretation, has been incorporated in my proofs, for it consists chiefly of the texts which I have discussed at length, and proved to be of no service towards overthrowing our belief. Of one or two detached texts, I shall have better opportunity for treating, on Sunday next, when, please God, I shall proceed to finish the Scriptural proofs, and, at the same time, give you the tradition upon this important dogma, thus bringing it, and the entire course, to its conclusion. There is much to say on the various contradictions into which the Protestant system leads its upholders, and of the extravagances into which many of them have fallen. But sufficient has been said to build up the Catholic truth, and this is the most important matter. That error will be ever inconsistent-is but the result of its very nature. Let us only hope, that in its constant shiftings it may catch a glimpse of the truth, and, from the very impulse of its restless character, be led to study it; and by the discontent of its perpetual agitations, be brought to embrace it—in whose profession alone is true peace, and satisfaction, and joy.

LECTURE THE SIXTEENTH.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

PART III.

1 COR. x. 16.

"The cup of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord ?”

WISHING, my brethren, to bring to a conclusion, this evening, the important topic which has occupied us for two successive Sundays, it will be necessary for me to step back for a few moments to bring you to the point at which I left my argument; as the observations which must follow are necessarily the sequel to those which preceded them, and form, indeed, but part of the train of argument which I laid down for myself at the commencement of my last discourse. In stating the position which the Catholic holds, when treating the arguments for his doctrine of the Eucharist, drawn from the words of Institution, I observed that the burthen of proving necessarily lies on those, who maintain that we must depart from the strict and literal meaning of our Saviour's words, and that, contrary to their natural and obvious import, these words must be taken in a symbolical and figurative sense. I, therefore, laid down the line of argument which I conceived to be strongest on the side of our opponents; and it led us into a two-fold investigation: first, whether the expressions in question can possibly be interpreted in their figurative signification; and secondly, whether any reasons exist to justify this less ordinary course, and to force us to a preference of this figurative interpretation.

VOL. II.

P