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.

66

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, be- ́ cause, as he says, the passages cited do not prove it to 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 common 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. iii. p. 235.

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

take place in the chrism but a moral change: therefore, when Cyril compares the change in the bread to the change in the chrism, he must have held it to be moral, and not physical.

But my Rev.opponent has adverted to my allegation of his having misquoted another passage from the same Cyril, respecting what constituted the grand secret of ancient Christian mysteries. The part in question was certainly omitted at first, and therefore the stating this to be the case, was no " presumption" on my part. He has also enlarged considerably upon what he reckons a "most grievous charge," which, in my last speech, I brought against his friend Mr. Edgeworth, of suppressing an important part in the dialogue of Theodoret. He says that his friend had no particular purpose to serve by such an omission. Of course I cannot enter into Mr. E.'s secret intentions, but you will judge of the importance of the omitted part, when I shall read it to you again. After the part which Mr. E. quoted, Orthodoxus (the imaginary representative of the true faith in Theodoret's dialogues), rejoins thus:

"You are caught in the net which you yourself have woven. For the mystical symbols, after consecration, PASS NOT OUT OF THEIR OWN NATURE: inasmuch as they still remain IN THEIR ORIGINAL SUBSTANCE (óvσiac), and form, and appearance; and they may be seen and touched, just as they were before consecration."-See pp. 388-390.

This portion, Mr. B. says, can easily be shown to be non-essential! So far from thinking that, I contend that, since it is here declared that the elements, after consecration, continued, not merely in their original form and appearance, but IN THEIR ORIGINAL SUBSTANCE, Theodoret could not have held anything like the doctrine of the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as it is held at the present day by the Church of Rome. But Mr. Brown endeavours to get out of this difficulty, by telling us the passage may be translated otherwise. It may be rendered, he says, " In the shape and form of the former substance." Certainly such a rendering would sound very like Transubstantiation, if it could be positively proved to be correct; but I am bold to say, that the veriest tyro in Greek, if the passage were presented to him, would not give Mr. Brown's translation, but that which I have given

"In

you. I have the Greek passage before me, and I shall be satisfied to leave the translation of it to any Greek scholars that may be mutually selected.

Mr. BROWN. Shall we appoint a scholar?

Mr. TOTTENHAM. Yes, afterwards. Mr. Brown, moreover, accuses me of not going far enough, but I accuse him of not going farther still. What does Theodoret further say?

"Therefore compare the image with the archetype; and you will perceive their resemblance: for the type must needs be similar to the truth."

So that, you perceive, after the observation to which Mr. Brown referred, he uses the terms "image" and " type." While using such expressions, in addition to the previous ones which I have noticed, it is difficult to conceive how he could have propounded the doctrine of a physical change.

We come now again to THE LAW and THE TESTIMONY;" and I trust it will appear that, whatever Mr. Brown may have advanced, he has not set aside the positive testimony given over and over again yesterday from that source against the Sacrifice of the Mass. In replying to his observations, I need not enter fully into all points, as my friend Mr. Lyons has anticipated some matters on which I should otherwise dwell. Mr. Brown has referred to the words of the Institution, as containing a proof that such a Sacrifice as the Mass was instituted at the last supper and as, when quoting from Matthew and from Luke, and from the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, he may have conveyed an impression to the meeting, that he was giving threefold Scripture proof of his point, I would observe, in passing, that in these three quotations, he was giving but one proof, the same circumstance being recorded in three different places. But let us come to the proof. He says the text declares Christ's blood was shed at that moment, and consequently there must have been a sacrifice then instituted, which he believes to be the Sacrifice of the Mass. But

1st. I ask Mr. Brown, if he were acquainted with the mode of Scripture language, would he have ventured to hazard such an argument as this? I fancied it was known to every one, that the present tense is continually