i- ^•X. LIBRA^RY Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N. J. _^ ; / (Jf Case, Division. .TP.r.^rQ. Shelf, N* . \ ^i^^x^^ /^/z^fity/^ ^/^Ct^' /^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^e^f' ' ^Z-^C^p-^Z^ ^^:^^^'^^Z^^^^^j4«i>"^ ^tiZ^^^ -^^^^-l^r^P^ ^i^^t^i^^^ THE AUTHENTICATED REPORT OF THE WHICH TOOK PLACE IN THE CHAPEL OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC COLLEGE OF DOWNSIDE, NEAR BATH, On the 2oth, 26th, a7id 21th of February/, and the 5th, 6th, and 7th of March, 1834. Subjects : ^' THE RULE OF FAITH," A N I) '^ THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS." ^^ PROTESTANT SPEAKERS : REV. EDWARD TOTTENHAM, A.M., Missionary of the British Reformation Society, (now Minister of Kensington Chapel, Bath.) REV. JOHN LYONS, A.M., Minister of All Saints Church, Liverpool. ROMAN CATHOLIC SPEAKERS : REV. T. J. BROWN, Professor of Theology in Downside College. REV. T. M. MACDONNELL, Roman Catholic Missionary at St. Peter's Chapel, Birmingham. REV. FRANCIS EDGEWORTH, Roman Catholic Missionary at Bristol. LONDON: J. G. AND F. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE, AND J. BOOKER, NEW BOND STREET. 1836. THE DISCUSSION AT DOWNSIDE, First Day. — Wednesday, Feb. 26, 1834. SUBJECT : THE RULE OF FAITH. Edwin T. Caulfeild, Esq. of Bath, on taking the Chair, said, Ladies and Gentlemen, I have but few or rather no preliminary observations to make, in conse- quence of a paper which has been put into my hands. Usually the office which I am called upon to undertake, devolves on those whose services and ability do honour to the office ; on the present occasion I feel it is an office that confers honour on the individual who holds it. If I obtain your approbation, support, and indulgence, I have no doubt I shall be enabled to perform the office to your satisfaction and my own. I will now read the paper written by Mr. Brown and agreed to by Mr. Tottenham : it is to this effect. *' At the Old Down Inn, on the 10th of January, 1834, a meeting of the Reformation Society was held, at which the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory was, by public announcement, to be compared with Scripture, intimation having been given, that any Roman Catholic Priest, pledging himself to abide by the rules which would be read to the Meeting, should be heard in defence. " Towards "the close of the Meeting, a friend of the Rev. Mr. Brown, of Downside College, declared that Mr. Brown was willing to discuss, upon certain conditions, any of the points of controversy between Roman Catholics and Protestants, stating, however, that he had not been authorised to make this declaration by Mr. Brown, but that he could answer for his approbation. B 2 Downside Discussion .--First Day. " In consequence, two interviews took place between the principals, in the presence of their friends, at the latter of which Mr. Brown declared his readiness to accept the general invitation. " Accordingly a Public Discussion was agreed to upon the following conditions : — "1st. That the audience shall be admitted by tickets, to be disposed of equally by each party. "2nd. That no public indication of approbation or dis- approbation be given by any one present. "3rd. That the discussion commence each day at 11 A. M. and that no speaker address the Meeting for more than three quarters of an hour at one time. " N. B. To this rule it was afterwards added, by mutual agreement, that the opening speaker on each subject might be allowed to take a full hour if he pleased. "4th. That the Meeting close on each day, after both sides shall have had an opportunity of addressing the Meeting three times. " 5th. That one subject only be discussed on each side. " 6th. That the subjects of discussion be, the " Rule of Faith," and the " Sacrifice of the Mass:" — The Rule of Faith to be discussed first, and the discussion to be opened by the Rev. Mr. Tottenham — the discussion on the Sacrifice of the Mass to be opened by the Rev. Mr. Brown." " Jan. 14, 1834." It is now my duty to call on the Rev. E. Tottenham. The Rev. E. Tottenham. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, — There is a saying of the Apostle Peter, which I desire to place in the forefront of the proceedings of this discussion ; and it is this : — " Be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meek- ness and with fear." 1 Peter iii. 15. And whilst I hold, Sir, controversy to be, at certain times and seasons, a Christian duty, I trust I may ever maintain that that duty ought to be conducted " in meekness and in fear;" and I pray God that the proceedings, which may take place within these walls for several days, may be carried on in the spirit of kindness and of mutual charity. For myself. Sir, I hope I may say that I do not enter upon this discussion trusting in my own sufficiency, but in the strength of that God who has promised to be with his Mr. Tottenham s First Speech. 3 people In the hour of trial ; and it is to me a matter of no small consolation to reflect, that " the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong ;" and that God sometimes chooses '' the foolish things of the world to con- found the wise, and weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty." I have only one word more of a preliminary nature to offer, and that concerns our friends who hav^e assembled to hear this discussion. My dear friends, let me entreat of you, in affection and in earnestness, that you w^ould, on this important occasion, divest yourselves, as much as possible, of every thing that savours of prejudice ; and that, believing we are going to discuss subjects of vital and eternal consequence, you would come to the considera- tion of them in that state of mind which their supreme importance demands. The subject, Sir, which we are met to discuss on this, and the two following days, is one which lies at the foun- dation of the whole controversy ; and it is one, therefore, on which we ought to possess true and accurate ideas. It is the " RULE OF FAITH," or, in other words, the standard by which we are to regulate our belief. Now, before proceeding to the investig;ation of the sub- ject itself, I shall, for our better understanding of the terms of it, take advantage of the clearness and perspicuity which I think has been displayed by Archbishop Tillotson in his definitions on this subject. " A rule," says lie, " (when we speak of a Tule of faith) is a metaphorical word, which, in its first and proper sense, being applied to material and sen- sible things, is the measure according to which we jud^e of the straightness and crookedness of things ; and from hence it is transferred by analo.'y to things moral or intellectual. A moral rule is the measure according to which we judge whether a thing be good or evil ; and this kind of rule is that which is commonly called a law, and the agreement or disagreement of our actions to this rule is, suitably to the metaphor, called rectitude or obliquity. An in- tellectual rule is the measure according to which we judge whether a thing be true or false ; and this is either general or more particular. Common notions, and the acknowledged principles of reason, are that general rule, according to which we judge whether a thing be true or false. I'he particular principles of every science are the more particular rules according to which we judge whether things in that science be true or false. So that the general notion of a rule is, that it is a measure, by the agreement or disagreement to iihkhxce Judge of all things ojihat kind to lultich it belongs.^' And arguing upon this principle, in reference to the faith of a Christian, the Archbishop says in conclusion: — " A rule of faith is the measure, according to which we judge what matters we are to assent to, as revealed to us by God, and what not. And more par- ticularly, the rule of Christian faith is the measure, according to which we are to judge what we ought to assent to, as the doctrine levealed by Christ to the world, and what not."— Til lot ton's Rule of Faith, Part I. Sect. 1. 4 Downside Discussion. — First Day. Having' thus given a definition of a rule generally, and of a rule of faith in particular, we come to ask the ques- tion (and, O my friends, it is an important question), VTHAT IS THE RULE ? On this subjcct, as on many others, there is a vast difference of opinion between Protestants and Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholic has a compound rule, namely, scripture and tradition, or what he calls the written and unwritten word, proposed and explained by the church. This is the definition which has been given by Dr. Milner and others ; so that you will perceive that the Roman Catholic holds a two-fold rule. Scripture and Tradition — and a Judge or Inter- preter to explain it. The arguments upon this subject I shall have occasion to refer to in the course of the discus- sion. Protestants, on the other handj hold the Bible ALONE — the written word alone (to the exclusion of those books which are commonly called Apocryphal) to be the rule of faith. Now, Sir, let me here correct a mistake into which most Roman Catholic controversialists have fallen relative to the Protestant rule of faith. They conceive it to be the JBihle aloJie, i?iterpreted hy each mans •private judgment. At the outset of this discussion, and in order to remove difl&culty, I beg leave at once to protest against such a de- finition of our rule; or if our friends on the other side xoill so explain our rule, then let them remember this, that I distinctly call for documentary evidence to shew their explanation to be correct. I maintain that the Protestant rule is not the Bible alone, interpreted hy each mans private judgment.) but it is simply the Bible alone : and private judgment is only that which is exercised on the rule, and is no more the rule itself, than the telescope through which we look at the heavenly bodies is to be con- founded with the heavenly bodies themselves. To prove that I am correct in this definition of the Protestant rule of faith, I shall refer to the standard documents of some of the Protestant Churches. The first 1 refer to is the 6th Article of the Church of England : — " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation : so that whatso- ever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requi- site or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do un- deastand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." Then it gives a list of the books, excluding the Apocry- pha. So far for the judgment of the Church of England Mr. Tottenham s First Speech. 5 upon the subject. Now I hold in my hand the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland, and in it we read thus : — " Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable ; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church ; and afterwards for the better preserving and propa- gating the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and the world, to commit the same wholly unto icritivg, which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these (giving the same list as the Church of England), all which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life. III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of Divine insjnration, are no part of the Canon of the Scri])tures, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings." — Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. i. sect. 1, 2, 3. The Larger and Shorter Catechisms, which I have here, and which are in use in the Church of Scotland, distinctly define the rule of faith in the same manner as does the Confession of Faith, and the 6th Article of the Church of England. I have also the " Harmony of the Confes- sions" of the Protestant Churches of Saxony, Wirtemberg, Bohemia, and others, giving the same definition. Thus I have stated what our rule is— I have given do- cumentary evidence — and be it remembered that it is the Bible alone, not with the gratuitous addition " inter- preted by each man s private judgment.'' Now I shall proceed to establish, so far as I can in the time allotted to me, the authority and sufficiency of this rule. I do not feel myself called upon at this mo- ment to enter into the proofs which we may adduce for the genuineness, authenticity, and inspiration of the Scriptures, became I presume I am arguing with those who believe in all those things. It may happen, in the course of the discussion, that we shall be compelled to refer to the subject, and then I may be enabled to shew that we can receive the Bible as a divine revelation, inde- pendently of the infallible decisions, as they are called, of the Romish Church, or of any other Church. For the present, I shall content myself with this simple remark — The Bible could not have been the production of had men, because such men would have made a book more in unison with their own depraved tastes and inclinations ; and it could not have been the production of good men, because €) Dctvnside Diacussion.— First Dcnj. the 2^ery fact of the forgery would have been inconsistent with their goodness : therefore, as it coidd not have been the production either of good men or of bad men, it must have come from a source above man, and what other source can that be but God himself? 1 proceed now to establish these two ohservations : — First of all 1 shall endeavour to prove that the Scripture — the written ivord, without any addition — contains all things necessary to he believed for salvation, and therefore is a SUFFICIENT rule of faith; and, Secondly, I shall endeavour to advance a fexv conside- rations which, in my judgment, naturally lead to the conclu- sion that the written word is not only a sufficient rule, but likeioise the only ride of faith. First of all, then, I shall endeavour to prove, as briefly as possible, that the icritten word of God contains ivithin it every thing necessary to be believed for salvation, and therefore is A sufficient rule of faith. At the present stage of the discussion, as there are several other texts on the same point, I shall refer only to two passages. The first will be found in the 20th chap, of the Gospel of St. John, verses 30 and 31 : " Many other sions also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book." One would have supposed, if the passage stopped here, that the written word did not contain every thing neces- sary to be believed for salvation ; but, adds the Evan- gelist, " But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing you may have life in his name." Mark here what the Evangelist and the Apostle says — that those things, which he had written, were written /or the very purpose of their believing from them that *' Jesus was the Christ;' and the faith w'hich they were thus to possess was a saving faith, because the result was that they were to " have life in his name." Now, I say, that if even this single gospel of John contained within it suffi- cient truth respecting the v/ ay to eternal life— if in it alone is to be found a sufficiency, supposing we had no more, for a rule of faith— it follows, a fortiori, that in the whole written word all necessary truth is to be found. ^ Another passage to which I shall refer is in the 2nd Epistle to Timothy, 3rd chap, beginning at the 14th verse : — • "Continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have Mr. Tottenham s First Speech. 7 been committed to thee ; knowing of whom thou hast learned them ; and because from thy infancy thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which can in- struct thee to salvation, b)/ the faith which is in Christ Jesus." Now, Sir, all we w^ant is to be '' instructed unto salva- tion ;" and this, that we all so much require, the Apostle says the Scripture, the written word, is able to effect for us. Mark me, Sir, the Apostle here is speaking of the Old Testament Scriptures, because the canon of the New Testament was not at this time completed. To argue, then, as I did on the other text— if the Old Testament Scriptures by themselves were able to make a man wise unto salvation, they were sufficient, for the time being, as a rule of faith— and, a fortiori, the Old Testament, with the New, contains all things necessary to salvation, and, there- fore, is sufficient as a rule of faith. But we proceed to the following verses, the 16th and 17th of the same chapter: — " All Scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to cor- rect, to instruct injustice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." Observe here the result of the reception of the truths contained in the Scriptures. By the reception of them the man of God is thus " made perfect, and furnished unto every good work." Mark the strength and the generality of the expression — " he is made perfect and furnished unto every good work ;" if, then, the JBible, the written word itself, and even the Old Testament Scriptures, could make the man of God thus " perfect, and furnished unto every good work," I cannot avoid the consequence, that it con- tains within it every thing necessary to he believed for sal- vation, and therefore is sufficient as a rule of faith. So far for the first observation ; and now I think these statements will acquire additional strength from a second OBSERVATION whicli I Said 1 should endeavour to establish. 1 said I ^hoxAA produce some considerations derived from the Scriptures ivhich would, in my judgment^ lead to the conclu- sion, that the written word is not merely a sufficient, but is THE ONLY rule of faith. Here, I beg to observe, that, in strictness, I am not called upon to prove this, because it is in fact proving a negative; and we know that no person in argument is obliged to prove a negative. Sometimes it happens that a negative cannot be actually proved, though it may be per- fectly true all the time. The onus rather rests on my friends at the other side to produce an additional rule, besides the written word, and if they can authenticate it 8 Downside Discussion* — First Day. as having come from God, we shall at once yield submission to its declarations, and acknowledge it equally binding as the written word ; but, until that he done, we have no right, after having seen the sufficiency of the written word, to receive any other rule of faith. ' Although, therefore, 1 am not in strictness bound to attempt any proof upon this subject, yet I shall advance some considerations from Scripture, which naturally lead to the conclusion I have mentioned. First, let me observe, that the written law was the ONLY one luhich the J ewish Church had. It is true some maintained traditions, which, be it remembered, were condemned hy our Lord; but the only rule the Church really had w^as the written word. I shall give a few passages on this subject; and the first to which I shall refer, is in the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy, sixth and following verses :-— "And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart ; and thou shall tell them to thii children, and thou shalt meditate upon them sitting in thy house, and walking on thy journey, sleepina,- and rising. And thou shalt bind them as a sign on thine hand, and they shall be and shall move between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them in the entry, and on the doors of thy house." I beg particular attention to what is here stated. 1st, The written word of God was to be the rule of the people themselves to whom this was addressed. 2ndly, It was to be the rule by which they were to guide their children, for they were to teach these words which were written in the law " unto their children." 3rdly, It was not merely the moral law, the Decalogue, that was to be regarded by them, but the whole written law of God, because the chapter begins with the declaration " These are the pre- cepts, and ceremonies, und judgments, which the Lord your God commanded that I should teach you, and that you should do them in the land, into which you pass over to possess it ; that thou mayest fear the Lord thy God, and keep all his commandments and precepts." ver. 1 , 2. And likewise, be it remembered, 4thly, that the law was not to be transmitted orally, but it loas to he written: "Thou shalt icrite them in the entry, and on the doors of thy house." (ver. 9.) The next passage is found in the 11th of Deuteronomy, 16th and following verses : — "Beware lest perhaps your heart be deceived, and you depart from the Lord, and serve strange Gods, and adore them : and the Lord being angry shut up heaven, that the rain come not down, nor the earth yield her fruit, and you perish quickly from the excellent land, which the Lord will give you. Lay iip Mr. Tottenharns First Speech. 9 these my words in your hearts and viinds, and hang them for a sign on your hands, and place them between your , eyes. Teach your children tJiat they meditate on them, when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest on the way, and when thou liest down and risest up. Thou shalt urite them upon the posts and doors of thy house : that thy days may be multiplied, and the days of thy children, in the land which the Lord swore to thy fathers, that he •would give them as long as the heaven hangeth over the earth. For if you keep the commandments which I command you, and do them, to love the Lord your God, and walk in all his ways, cleaving unto him, the Lord loill debtrey all those nations before your face, and you shall possess them, which are greater and stronger than you." Now mark, 1st, a most important thing in the commence- ment of this passage. Here the Israelites were warned against falling into idolatry ; and what was that which was to preserve them from it? Why it was the written word of God, because immediately after the warning con- tained in the 16th and 17th verses, it follows, "Lay up these my words in your hearts and minds .... teach your children that they meditate on them, &c." — Then, 2ndly5 there is here repeated, what was said in a former place, that they should teach them to their children, and write them on the doors of their houses. And mark, 3rdly, the blessed consea^uences and promises connected with adhering, riot to the oral, but to the written word : — " That thy days may be multiplied, and the days of thy children, &c. — For, if you keep the commandments which I command you, and do them, to love the Lord your God, and walk in all his ways, cleaving unto him, the Lord will destroy all those nations before your face," &:c. ver. 21 — 23. Now there is no other rule recognized here but the written law, and that law is said to be able to effect that to which I have referred, and the adherence to it is accompanied with the blessed promises I have mentioned. Again in Deuteronomy xxxi. 11 — 13, we read thus : — " When all Israel come together, to appear in the sight of the Lord thy God, in the jilace which the Lord shall choose, thou shalt read the nor ds of this law before all Israel, in their hearing ; and the people being all assembled toge- ther, both men and women, children and strangers, that are within thy gates: that hearing they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and keep, and fulfil all the words of this law : that their children also, who now are ignorant, may hear, and fear the Lord their God, all the days that they live in the land whither you are going over the Jordan to possess it." Here, Sir, 1st, there is a reference again to the written law. And was it to be a rule only for a certain body among the Israelites, and not for the whole of the people ? Were the whole people to take the dictates of the priests of old, or were they referred to some infallible tribunal beside the written word? — not at all — for, 2ndly, we read in the 11th and 12th verses that this law was to be read " before all 10 Downside Discussion. — First Day. Israel, men, loomen, children, and the strangers that were within their o-ates." And not only this; but mark, 3rdly, the result which was to ensue, as in the former case ; '* that hearing they may learn and fear the Lord — that their children who are now ignorant, may hear and fear,'' &;c. Why, Sir, we hear a vast deal about the obscurity of the word of God, but in this passage we find that the reading of the law, the written law, which was thus commanded, was the very thing to 'preserve them from ignorance, and to lead them into the fear of the Lord. I shall now call your attention to the book of Joshua, chap. i. verse 8 : — " Let not the book of this law depart from thy mouth ; but tliou shalt meditate on it day and night, that thou mayest observe and do all things that are ivritten in it ; then shalt thou direct thy uay, and understand it." First of all, here is a negative exhortation, if I may so speak, to Joshua — he v/as not to neglect the written law. There is, 2ndly, a positive exhortation — he was not only not to neglect, but he was to meditate on it. I cannot imagine how he could meditate on the law without exercising that judgment which God had given him. Then, 3rdly, it was the written law, because it is said, that he might " do all things that are written therein'' — not all those things con- veyed by oral tradition, but all those things " written therein." And, 4thly, what was to be the result in Joshua's case ? I suppose he was not to understand the law ? -the law would be too obscure for him ? but what says the Lord ? " Then shalt thou direct thy way, and understand it'' Now we shall turn to the second book of Chronicles, or, as it is called in the Roman Catholic Bible, (from which, I beg to say, I have quoted all these passages) the second book of Paralipomenon, chap. xvii. verse 7 — 9 : — "In the third year of his reign (that is, of Jehoshaphat's) he sent of his -princes, Benhail, and Abdias, and Zacharias, and Nathanael, and Micheas, to teach in the cities of Jada ; and with them the Levites, Semeias, and Nathanias, and Zabadias, and Asael, and Semiraraoth. and Jonathan, and Adonias, and 'J'obias, and Thobadonias, Levites, and with them Elisama and Joram, priests. And they taught the people in Juda, having with them the book of the late of the Lord." Here is a fact recorded in the history of Jehoshaphat, and mark you, 1st, that when these individuals were sent about to teach the people, the rule that they carried with them was the written (aw — it was not a supposed infallible authority with which they as a bod3/ of men were invested, but it was the written law, for the text says, " they had 3Ir. Tottenham s First Speech. 11 with them the hook of the law of the Lord." And it is a very remarkable thing also to notice, 2ndl3^ that laymen, as well as piiests, were included in the commission, because we find in the 7th verse that he sent several princesy as well as Levites and priests, to teach the people out of the law of the Lord, In the 34th chapter of the same book, ver. 29 — 33, we read thus : — " And he (that is, Josiali the King) called together all the ancients of Juda and Jerusalem, and went up to the house of the Lord, and ail the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Priests and the Levites, and all the people from the least to the greatest. And the King read in their hearing- in the house of the Lord all the uords of the book. And standing up in his tribunal, he made a covenant before the Lord to walk, after him, and keep his commandments, and testimonies, and justifications, with all his heart, and with all his soul, and to do the things tliat were written in that hook which he had read. And lie adjured all that were found in Jerusalem and Benjamin to do the same : and tJie inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the covenant of the Lord the God of their fathers. And Josias took aioay all the abominations out of all the countries of the children of Israel : and made all that were left in Israel, to serve the Lord their God. As bug as he lived they departed not from the Lord the God of their fathers." Upon this circumstance, recorded in the liistory of Josiah, let me make one or two remarks. First of all, be it observed of this passage, as of others to which I have referred, that the law was to be for all the people, for the words are, " all the men of Juclah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Priests and the Levites, and all the p)eople from the least to the greatest.'' ver. 30. It was thus to be for all the people, no matter how ignorant they were in this world's knowledge; and I cannot understand, if the people of old w^ere to have the written law, which was not half so plain as the New Testament, why the people of the present day should be afraid to follow the direction of the written word of God. 2ndly, It was not the Priests merely who were to read the law to the people, but laymen too, even the King. Srdly, Observe it is not oral tradition of which the passage speaks, but the written law : for what did Josiah say to the people? He exhorted them " to do the things that were loritten in that book which he had read." Josiali was a good King, and the only law to which he referred was that "written in the book ;" and he not only read it for himself, and kept those sayings, but he " adjured all those in Jerusalem and Benjamin to do the same:'' he told all the people to attend to the written law, and there- fore he recognised it as the supreme rule that they were to follow. 4thly, What was the result of all this? We often hear that men, acting according to this obscure and uuin- 12 Downside Discussion. — First Day. telligible book (as it is called), namely, the Bible, get into strange notions, and a variety of other things are said re- specting it, upon which I shall not dwell ; but this was not the case with Josiah, for we find he had a clear knowledge of the things that were written. And what was the effect? First of all, he expelled idolatry — " he took away all the abominations out of the countries of the children of Israel ;" and, secondly, they were preserved during his whole life hy an adherence to the icritten law ; for, " as long as he lived," says the last verse, " they departed not from the law of the God of their fathers." I have only one more passage to which I shall refer, at present, out of the Old Testament ; it is contained in Isaiah xxxiv. 16 : — it is a short passage, but it says much. " Search ye diligently in the book of the Lord, and read." To what were the Israelites here directed, in order to find out any truth of God? They were directed, I suppose, to a living, speaking, infallible tribunal? I do not read anything about that. They were directed to follow oral tradition ? Not a word about that — but they were directed to follovj the written law: — " Search ye diligently in the hook of the Lord, and read!' It was not merely to be casually read, without the exercise of the judgment upon it, but they were to '* search it diligently i'' and, I am sure, they found the more diligently they searched, the more were they preserved from error. But so far, I think, this is dis- tinctly established, that the written law was the only one which the Jewish Church had. : — if they had another law, let us be told where it was, and let our oj)ponents produce the evidence upon it. Now, I proceed to another observation, which esta- blishes, in my mind, that the written word is to be re- garded as the only Rule of Faith. Our Lord and his Apostles invariably referred to the written word, as the standard of appeal. I shall read some passages from the New Testament on this subject ; and the first to which I shall refer, is the account of the temptation of our Lord in the wilderness, as related in Matthew, chap. iv. " Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he was hungry. And the tempter coming, said to him. If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread." v. 1, 2, 3. Here was the first temptation by Satan ; and how did our Lord overcome him ? Simply by the testimony of the written word of God— he referred to nothing else — Mr, Tottenham s First Speech. 13 *' Jesus answered and said, It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God."— (v. 4.) The devil still thought he had some hope, and we find he came with a second temptation : — " Then the devil took him up into the holy city, and set him upon a pin- nacle of the temple, and said to Jiim, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written, that he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall thej bear thee up," lest, perhaps, thou dash thy foot against a stone." — v. 5, 6. Jo Now, if there were another law, to which our Lord might have referred, doubtless, when it appears that Satan did not give way after the first temptation, we might ex- pect that our Lord would have referred to it ; but this was not the case ; he referred to the very same law as before " Jesus said to him, It is written, again. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."— v. 7- The devil made a third attempt : — " Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain ; and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. And said unto him, all these will I give thee, if, falling down, thou wilt adore me.'' — v. 8, 9. What was Christ's answer? Then Jesus saith to him, *' Begone, Satan, for It is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve." — v. 10. Here are three attempts of Satan to seduce our Lord ; and in each of the three cases, he was overcome by the simple testimony of the written word of God; and the conse- quence was, that " the devil left him, and angels came and ministered unto him."— v. 11. The 21st chapter of Matthew, contains the next passage to which I shall refer, the 15th and 16th verses: — " And the chief Priests and Scribes seeing the wonderful things tliat he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David, were moved with indignation, and said unto him, Nearest thou what these say ? And Jesus said unto them, Yea, have you never read, out of the mouths of infants and of sucklings thou hast perfected praise 1" Here was a recognition of the written law, as the only one to which the people had access, and by which they were guided ; and our Lord appeals to it in attestation of the circumstances that had taken place. He did not say, have you never heard, by tradition, conveyed from gene- ration to generation ? Have you never heard from a su- preme infallible tribunal, the Jewish Priesthood? but, have you never read ? — it is the written word he produces as a testimony. A similar case occurs in the 42d verse of the same chapter, 14 Downside Discussion. — Fi7'st Day. where, after the perusal of a parable, which was especially directed against the Jewish Priests, and the Pharisees, we read as follows : — " Jesus saith unto them : Have you 7iever read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner 1" There was a subject which vitally concerned the essen- tials of religion, tt was about Christ himself— the chief corner-stone of his Church — the very and eternal God — and whence did our Lord derive proof of what he said on this subject? Not from tradition — not from an in- fallible tribunal among the Jews— if such there was — but from the written word — " Have you never read, kc. ?" The next passage is in the 22d chapter of Matthew ; and this is a very remarkable chapter. I shall read the entire passage, beginning at the 23rd verse. — " That day — there came to him the Sadducees, who sav there is no resurrec- tion, and asked him, saying, Master, Moses said. If a man die, having no son, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up issue to his brother. Now, there were with us sev^en brethren ; and tlie first, having married a wife, died ; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother. In like manner, the second, and the third, and so on to the seventh. And last of all, the woman died also. -At the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven shall she be"? — for they all had her. And Jesus, answering, said unto them. You err, not kiwwihg the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Forin the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in Heaven. And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have yon not read that which was spoken by God, saying unto you, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacobl He is not the God of the dead, but of tlje living. And the multitudes hearing it, were in admiration at his doctrine. But the Pharisees, hearing that he had silenced the Sadducees, came together, &c." Now, attend to this very remarkable circumstance, — 1st. The Sadducees had fallen into error — they denied the resurrection. I know that some people tell us, that the reason of that error, was, because they rejected tradition, and 1 read this statement in a publication very lately. I think, however, our Lord was of a different opinion, be- cause he said, " you err," not because you neglect tradi- tion, but " 720^ knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." Then mark, 2ndly, how our Lord proves the doctrine that was denied. He proves it simply by a reference to the Scriptures : — " And concerning the resurrection of the dead" — the very doctrine about which they were in error — " have you not read that which was spoken by God, saying to you," and then he refers to a passage in the 3rd chapter of Exodus, and thus proves the resurrection of the dead fro7)) the written ivord, and not from any other authority. 3rdly, What was the effect of all this? The Bible is, we are told, a dumb judge— its testimony will never lead a man Mr. Tottenham a First Speech. 15 to beiiev^e^ — but lie must have more positive and striking authority. It had a different effect in the case of the Sad- ducees, for we find it stated in the 34th verse, — " But the Pharisees hearing that he had silenced the Sadducees, came together." He put them to silence — by w^hat ? — the WEITTEN WORD. I shall now call your attention to the 10th of Luke, 25th and 26th verses : — '' And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, tempting him, and saving, Master, what must I do to jtossess eternal life ? But he said to him, U hat is written in the law ? hoio readesl thoa ?" Observe the question the lawyer put ; it was the most impoi'tant question that a man could put — it was about his best and his eternal interests — it was about the way to obtain eternal life— and no question is of such momentous interest as that to every one of us. How did our Lord answer it? By a reference to tradition? By a reference to the authority of the Church? Not at all. But ^' ivhat i Browns Fifth Speech, 155 that I may shew thereby the inconsistency of his rule of faith ; not that I question their inspiration. I maintain, on the contrary, that Catholics hold the inspiration of Scrip- ture on far more secure grounds than our opponents do ; for I have shown that many books of Scripture are rejected by Protestants, because having no consistent rule to deter- mine what is inspired or what is not, they are left in un- certainty on that important matter. What I do, there- fore, is not to question inspiration, but to call upon Mr. T. to prove, accoi'ding to his principles^ the inspiration of the sacred books. He must show, hy the written word, that the whole of Scripture is inspired, and not this or that part only. To bring the discussion to a point, I will select the Gos- pel of St. Luke, or the Acts of the Apostles, or the Epistle to Philemon. Let Mr. T. prove, for example, that St. Paul was inspired to write this Epistle to Philemon, which he will find a matter of great difficulty. I am satisfied that he will not be able to make it good by any other au- thority, (and I hope he will attempt the task,) than by tra- dition and the authority of the Church. He may tell you that the Apostles were inspired to preach, (this even is a point upon which I might call for his proofs;) and that the Apostles were preserved from error ; but inspiration to preach and preservation from error are not inspiration to write; they are two widely different things. Besides, were the Apostles inspired in all that they orally delivered? If not, how will you prove that they were inspired in all that they ivrote ? Whence does it appear that inspiration was given them even to write at all? Now I will produce a proof from Scripture, that the Apostles were liable to commit mistakes, not indeed on doctrines of faith, but on other matters which they orally delivered, hi Acts xx. 25, the Apostle says to the elders of Ephesus, " Behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.'"' Here is a solemn declaration that he was coming no more amongst them ; that they should '* see his face no more." Did the Apostle Paul then never return to that scene of his la- bours? I find the most learned biblical critics, Protestants as well as Catholics, allowing that he did; and saying that the Apostle made a mistake when he declared that he should not return thither : so say St. Chrysostom, Theodo- ret, Pearson, Cappel, Usher, Mauduit, IBeausobre, Dod- dridge, and a variety of others whom I might cite on this 156 Downside Discussion, — Second Day. point. Now, how will you by your principles be convinced that the Apostles, who, although they could not err on matters regarding doctrines of faith, yet could err on other matters, were not only preserved from error, but inspired to write upon subjects of history, and \x^on purely domestic concerns, such as are treated of in the Epistle to Philemon 1 Again, Mr. T. has talked about the sufficiency of moral certainty. But I cannot persuade myself of his sincerity in upholding an error of the most dangerous consequence, that moral certainty of any kind will suffice for divine faith. The moment you begin to doubt the revelation of God, or you conceive it possible that the doctrines you hold by revelation can be erroneous, that moment you re- nounce divine faith. Now, however great your moral cer- tainty may be, there is always a possibility that you may be in error, which at once excludes divine faith ; for then it does not rest on the unerring word of God. Mr. T. has descanted upon three kinds of evidence ; — historical evidence, internal evidence, and experimental evidence. Speaking of historical evidence, he refers those doctrines which Protestants hold by tradition to historical testimony, considered as the modus tradendi,' the tradi- tionary manner in which they are handed down, but he does not admit the res tradita, which Catholics acknow- ledge. Catholics, it is true, receive tradition in its two- fold meaning; they admit the " modus tradendi," and the ^* res tradita." We consider the Fathers as the ^^ modus tradendi;'^ but we hold such doctrines as they have handed down to us by their morally unanimous testimony, whether contained in writing, or otherwise delivered, as the ^' res tradita ;" and these form a part of the articles of our belief. If Protestants do not admit this two-fold distinction, they will not be able to establish several of the doctrines which they profess to believe ; and amongst the rest, the canoni- city and inspiration of the Scriptures. Mr. T. speculated likewise on internal evidence. This, I maintain, is not adequate to prove the inspiration of Scripture. For, first, either it is conceded to all men, or a few only are able to discover it. If a few only, how are you to discern who have the benefit of this internal evi- dence?— which those are, who, by the internal sugges- tions of the Holy Spirit, can distinguish what is inspired Scripture, and what is not? But if (since all the books of Scripture are held by Protestants to be the only rule of faith) we must suppose that their internal evidence may Mr. Browns Fifth Speech. 157 be discovered by all men, whence comes it to pass that so many have differed as to what books constitute the canon of Scripture? Whence came it that Luther rejected from the canon so many books which English Protestants ad- mit ? Whence comes it that the German Protestants have been unable to discover the internal evidence which Mr. Tottenham claims for himself; and that therefore so many books are rejected by them which he receives? Whence comes it that, in the primitive ages, there was so long a doubt in the Church tipon several of those books, if they possessed internal evidence ? But this internal evidence is indeed a dangerous thing to meddle with. It frequently leads to fanaticism ; and we have seen a dreadful in- stance in a gentleman, who used to stand forth upon the platform of the Reformation Society to defend its tenets. I have heard him appeal with violent gesticulation to this evidence : I have heard him say that it was as clear as the splendours of the sun and moon are to our eyes. What has been the consequence of relying upon internal evi- dence ? The Rev, Nicholas Armstrong has been ejected from the Reformation Society, and is gone over to the fa- natical doctrines of Irving ! Such as this will be always the consequence of relying upon similar internal evidence. Bring a Mahometan before you, let him hear you admit the security of internal evidence, — and you will not con- vict him of absurdity. You say that you hold the Scripture by internal evidence, and he will tell you that he main- tains his belief in the Koran by the same. But I will bring this matter to a test. If there be such internal evidence as is described, it must be discoverable by all men. Now let us bring forward any one, not deeply read in the Scriptures; — I will set before him some of the apocryphal books and some of the inspired books, as they are distinguished by Protestants, and I will rest my con- clusion on the fact, that the ignorant Protestant will not be able to discern one from the other by that light and splendour of internal evidence which Mr. T. says is in the inspired writings. Think you that he will discover that the prophecy of Baruch manifests not this internal evi- dence ; and that the prophecy o^ Jeremy does manifest it ? Will he determine that the hook of Judges does exhibit it ; and that the apocryphal books of the Machahees do not ? If ever this internal evidence existed, it must have existed in the words spoken by Christ. Yet the Jews did not dis- cover in them its splendour : no ; nor does Christ say that 158 Downside Discussion. — Second Day. they are condemned, merely because they did not discover in his words any internal evidence that proved his divinity. He declares (John xv. 22, 24), that if he had not come and spoken to them, and done amongst them those things which no other man did, they had not sinned ; but now he adds they have no excuse for their sin. There cannot be clearer internal evidence in Scripture, than in the words which the Almighty himself utters. Now we find in 1 Sam. chap. 8rd, that the Lord spoke to Samuel three times. Did Samuel discover in the words that God thus spoke to him, any proof or internal evidence that they were the words of God, even though they were addressed to him by the mouth of God ? No ; he mistook them for the words of Eli ; he thought they were the words of the high priest. — In the book of Judges, chap. 7, we find Gideon not dis- cerning any internal evidence in the words of God ; for he required a miracle before he would believe them. Peter also, in Acts, chap. 12, does not discover, when the angel appears unto him, any testimony of internal evidence in his words. By a miracle only he is convinced that they were the words of a heavenly messenger, sent to him by God. There does not exist therefore any internal evidence in the Holy Scriptures, whereby the inspiration of all their parts is manifested. The Reverend Gentleman refers finally to experimental evidence. His experimental evidence is much of the same character as internal evidence. I will read a short pas- sage from a Protestant author, who was as much able to judge upon the point of internal or experimental evidence as Mr. Tottenham. Limbroch in his Theologia Chris- tiana, lib. i. c. No. 17, says — *' That there exists the divine Spirit, do one can know but from Scripture ; therefore, the divinity oj Scripture ought to he pre-stipposed and acknowledged, before any one can he certain that the testimony which he feels in his heart can be the testimony of the Spirit; otherwise a way is opened to enthusiasm For, if they be asked, how they can know the Scripture to be divine 1 They will answer, by the internal testimony of the Spirit. If they be urged, whence can they know that the testimony which they feel in their heart is the instinct of the Holy Spirit? They will reply, from Scripture. Besides the testimony of the Holy Spirit serves only to confirm those who experience it; for no other can be convinced by the private spirit of any one : but we require arguments by which others may be persuaded of the divinity of Scripture, and be brought to acknowledge it." Hence Protestants themselves have given up this point to Catholics, and in accordance with our doctrine have referred to tradition as the only means to assure them of Mr. Brown's Fifth Speech. 159 the inspiration of Scripture. Bell, p. 134, in his Down- fall of Popery, writes thus — " As Papists admit the Jews' tradition of the Old Testament to be God's Word, and withal refuse many other traditions of theirs: so Protestants admit this tradition (of the inspiration of the Bible) and reject all others." Jeremy Taylor, in his Dissuasive from Popery, part ii. remarks — •' It is said, that the Scripture itself is wholly derived to ns by tradition, and therefore besides Scripture tradition is necessary in the Church. No man that understands this question denies it For no man inquires whether the Scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation? Unless he beheve that there are Scriptures : that these are they : and that they are the Word of God : all this comes to us by tradition, that is, by universal, undeniable, testimony." Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity, book iii. No. 8, observes — " The question being, by what means we are taught this (that the Scnpture is divine and sacred). Some answer, that to learn it we have no other way than only tradition, and by experience we only know that the first out- ward motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture, is the authority of God's church." I wish, therefore, in conclusion, to impress this upon you, that the doctrines which Protestants hold upon the canonicity of Scripture and its inspiration, can be main- tained by the testimony of tradition onhj ; and moreover, that if they hold the canonicity and inspiration of Scrip- ture not to be matters of divine faith, the consequence is, that they have no divine assurance that the Scriptures are inspired, a proposition that will shock most of you. There are other doctrines dependent exclusively upon tradition, which I will, to-morrow, bring forward, and which it will be still more difficult to dispose of; for my opponents must either maintain them to be matters of divine belief, or, by giving that up, they will abandon a large portion of their faith. It follows, then, that, to be consistent, they cannot admit as a sole rule of faith the Scriptures alone ; that they must not only add tradition thereto, but also they must admit the authority of the church. [The discussion was closed for this day.] 160 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. Third Bay.— Friday, Feb. 28, 1834. SUBJECT : THE RULE OF FAITH (continued.) The Chairman. — Ladies and Gentlemen, the Discus- sion on the Rule of Faith will now he resumed. The Rev. E. Tottenham. Mr. Chairman, Ladies, and Gentlemen, — After a long interval from the time at which I quoted the passage, Mr. Brown, at the close of yesterday's discussion, referred to the text from the 2nd Epistle to Timothy, which, in my view of the matter, goes to establish most powerfully the sufficiency of the written Word as a rule of faith. I shall read the passage again — " Continue thou (says the Apostle Paul to Timothy) in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee ; knowing of whom thou hast learned them : and because from thy infancy thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct injustice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." Upon this passage Mr. Brown asks, are all necessary things contained in the Old Testament alone, or do we find only a portion of those things that are necessary? And he asserts that my argument, to be good for any thing, must rest on the position that all necessary truth is contained in the Old Testament. Now, if Mr. Brown had exercised his memory (and I am sure many here will recollect the fact), he would have known that, at the very outset of my commenting on this passage, I started with the assertion that it did prove that all truth, absolutely necessary for salvation, was contained in the Old Testa- ment Scriptures ; and the argument derived from it was, that, if this was the case with regard to the Old Testament alone, according to the testimony of this passage, a for- tiori, it must be the case with regard to the Old Testa- ment and the New together. Mr. Tottenham s Sixth Speech. 161 But my Reverend opponent, in this matter, seems to suppose (and this is just the mistake into which Dr. Milner falls, in his " End of Controversy,") that Christ, when he appeared in our world, came to introduce a new religion, and to give a new rule of faith! He came, how- ever, to do no such thing, but to give a fuller display of the very same religion that had been in existence since the fall. He came " not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.^' Pre- vious to the fall, indeed, there had been a covenant of vjorks between God and man, but immediately after the fall the covenant of grace commenced. Of this there have been different dispensations, under which (as we see by a reference to many passages in the New Testament, as well as in the Old) men were saved according to the same j)lan ^ though that plan was sometimes more darkly, and some- times more clearly, developed. We are told, moreover, that, if this text proves any- thing., it proves that the New Testament teas unnecessary. It proves, how^ever, no such thing ; for though Christ came, not to mtroduce an essentially new religion, but to give a fuller display of that religion which, since the fall, had been radically the same, yet the New Testament was necessary, for this latter purpose, and for declaring how all the types and prophecies of the Old, relative to his sufferings and death, had been fulfilled. The Old Testa- ment, therefore, was sufficient for the time being ; but when its prophecies and types were fulfilled, the New was necessary for the declaration of that fulfilment. Mr. Brown has, again and again, insisted that I am bound to prove that Scripture contains all necessary truth. This, I say, I have, again and again, proved ; and I con- tend, that the passage to which I have just now referred, supposing that there were no other in the entire Bible, proves it beyond question. For, if the written word can "•instruct unto salvation,''— Q,nd if "all Scripture, in- spired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to cor- rect, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be jjerfect, furnished to every good work,'' then it is diffi- cult, indeed, for an unprejudiced mind to avoid the con- clusion, that Scripture contains, within itself, all things necessary to be believed for salvation. An objection was raised to my arguing from the fact, that Christ and his Apostles quoted from the Septuagint, because, as my opponent says, Christ and his Apostles, being infallible, could distinguish between what was right M I(i2 Downside Discusrsion — Third Day. and what was wrong in the translation, I referred to the fact, when the subject of translations was introduced, only to shew that Christ and his Apostles recognized the Sep- tuagint, though it is well known that it was a translation not altogether perfect ; and I thought I might, therefore, fairly draw the inference, that, while it is important to have a translation as correct as possible, the poor man may be contented with one, though it be not ahsoluteli/ per- fect in every particular. When I asserted that Roman Catholics were divided upon the very foundation of their system, namely, the place where infallibility resides., Mr. Brown declared that there w^as no disagreement upon this point, because they all agreed that the infallibility was to be found in the church. Really, Sir, this word church is a most useful word to Roman Catholics in the controversy ; it seems to have a kind of talismanic effect in settling all differences. But whilst I admit, and did then admit, that Roman Catholics profess, generally., that infallibility is to be found ia the churchy I contended then, and proved then, and I still contend, that Roman Catholics are divided as to what precise locality m the church this prerogative of infallibility occupies. I quoted one council of Doctors which de- clared, that the authority of a council was superior to that of a Pope ; and another, that the authority of a Pope was superior to that of a council. I also referred to Dr. De La Hogue's Tractatus de Ecclesia, which is the class-book at Maynooth College, and to Charles Butler's Booh of the Roman Catholic Church, and these stated that the Ultra-montanists (or Italians) asserted the personal infallibility of the Pope, whereas the French Church denied such a doctrine, and said, that the Pope might be " deposed by the church, or a general council, for heresy or schism." These are my documKxNTS, and Mr. Brown, when giving a general denial, has not noticed the documents on which I based my assertion. Again — When I stated that Roman Catholics were ! divided also as to what con.^tituted a council universal or legal, Mr. Brown denied this division too, and he said, that all that was requisite, in order to constitute a council i universal and legal, was, that it should be an assembly of i Bishops, convened by the supreme Pontiff, and possessing \ full liberty of discussion. Now, w^hat hns Mr. Brown i done by that definition of the matter? He has actually, I by his own rule, thrown overboard eight out of the eighteen Mr. Tottenham s Sixth Speech. 163 General Councils, namely, the eight Eastern Councils : for it is a well-established fact that not one of them was sum- moned by a Pope, but all by the Emperors ; and this is a statement which I rest (amongst other authorities) upon the testimony of Du Pin, the Roman Catholic historian, who says, in precise words, that the first eight councils were summoned by the Emperors. If more proof were wanted on this point, I have a long chain of evidence here, which will establish it, although Mr. Brown denies that there is any division among Roman Catholics as to what constitutes the universality and legality of councils. The use I made of this point when I first pressed it was this : Roman Catholics speak of the security of the people— that, according to their system, they are taught the truth infallibly: but I say, they are encompassed with difficulties far beyond what the Protestant has to contend with. Even supposing that, when all necessary forms and circumstances are complied with, the Roman Catholic Church should declare the truth of God, yet inasmuch as the decrees of the Church are said to be put forth by a general council, with the Pope at its head, the Roman Catholic will have to inquire and find out a number of things, before he can be certain that any decree was put forth by a lawful council, and is therefore binding on him as divine truth. When the decrees of certain councils are put before him as profess- ing to contain truth, he will have to ask the question, *' How am I to hnoio that such councils are general?'' Then he finds three opinions, even among Roman Ca- tholic Doctors, as to what constitutes a council general : and he must satisfy himself upon that point, as well as upon what is necessary to make a council legal, before, even on his own principles, he can admit the decrees as a general expression of the truth of God. Tiiis is the use I made of the matter, as placing the Roman Catholic in a difficulty, out of which the poor man can never get. Mr. Brown observed upon what he styles an important declaration that was made by me, when I said that the Bible, strictly speaking, was not the object of faith but rather the means of it. Then he made a strong appeal to our good friends present, and asked them if such were their opinion : and he concluded by saying that he trusts, for the honour of religion, I have " committed myself V What I said then, however, I stand by, and I do not look for any such dreadful consequence as Mr. Brown would 164 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. apprehend. I did not say it was not necessary to receive the Bihle as a divine revelation, but I said thai, strictly speaking, the Bible was not the object of man's faith, but was the means of it. Let us, therefore, examine what the Scripture says on the subject, and we shall see whether my dreadful asser- tion, or Mr. Brown's denial, is most in accordance with it. In the 1st chapter of St. James and the 1 8th verse, we read thus— '* Of his own will hath he begotten us by the tcord of truth, that we might be some beginning of his creatures." Here we see the word of truth is the means which God uses for man's regeneration. Again, in the 1st Epistle of St. Peter, the 1st chapter and the 23d verse, it is said — " Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but iccorruptible, by the Word of God, who liveth and remaineih for ever." The same truth is in this place asserted by St. Peter. These two passages, therefore, prove that the Bible, ac- cording to the testimony of James and Peter, was rather looked upon as the means of faith than, strictly speaking, as the object of it. When I was j^esterday adducing the proofs and evi- dences upon which Protestants, independent of the infal- lible decision of any Church, received the Bible as a divine revelation — when I was adverting to the historical, internal, and experimental evidences of the truth of Scripture— Mr. Brown objected to the doctrine of morcd certainty, upon which I insisted. I said, that we received the Scripture, so far as historical evidence was concerned, on such evidence as amounted to moral certainty, though we have not actual mathematical demonstration of the matter, because such was absolutely impossible. In proving the genuineness or authenticity of any ancient book, 1 asserted that this was quite sufficient for us, and the ONLY species of evidence we could have ; and that, moreover, we were believing and acting, every day of our lives, on what we call moral certainty, without actual de- monstration. Of all this I gave practical instances. Mr. Brown, however, objects to such a foundation, and says, that it would not be sufficient on which to rest faith. Then, I ask in reply, what greater foundation than moral certainty has Mr. Brown, as a Boman Catholic, ivith regard to his religion? It is true, he will tell me he believes the Bible, and the doctrines of his religion, because the Church declares respecting them. But then, I ask, how does he 3Ir. Tottenham's Sixth Speech. 165 k7iow the Church ? How does he find out the Church ? And I wish to trace out this point, in order to shew that he has no greater certainty than the Protestant has, and I contend, not half so much. Hear Mr. Brown's own words as to the manner in which he discovers the Church. I hold in my hand a pamphlet, professing to contain the substance of the arguments used at the Cheltenham Dis- cussion, and published by Mr. Brown. In this he says — " Considering the Scripture as an authentic work, we are able to prove by \ its testimony the unerring authority of the Church ; the authority of the | Church proposes to us tlie unwritten word ; and upon its declaration, we form •' our act of Divine faith in the inspiration of Scripture." Mark, what is the first thing and the remote foundation upon which Mr. Brown rests all this 1 It is upon Scrip- ture simply as an authentic worh. Now, if I ask Mr. Brown to prove the authenticity of the Scriptures, he will prove it just hy the historical evidence I adduced yesterday, which is productive only of ynoral cer'tainty: and there- fore, if we trace the matter thus home, you see neither Mr. Brown, nor any other Roman Catholic, has at the last, any thing more to rest upon than moral certainty, although he complains of us for having no better foun- dation. With regard to the internal evidence for the Divine authority of Scripture, that I yesterday spoke of, Mr. Brown says, that species of proof can be of no conse- quence. Why? Because it is not palpable to all: and then he tells us that Luther did not see internal evidence in one book ; and other persons did not see internal evi- dence in other books, which we now receive as canonical Scripture. But, I ask, does it follow, that, because cer- tain persons Jo not see the evidence, therefore the evidence does not exist ? I know it to be a fact, that some Roman Catholic Divines (and perhaps in the discussion of the next subject I shall refer more particularly to it), namely, Cardinal Cajetan and others, did not see transuisiantja- tion in Scripture, but believed it simply on the authority of the Church ; and all Protestant Christendom doe$ not see transubstantiation in Scripture. Upon the same prin- ciple, therefore, as that upon which Mr. Brown has argued, I might say that Scripture proofs should go for nothing with him in favour of transubstantiation, because many do not see them. This is just as legitimate as Mr. Brown's conclusion, that internal evidence is not to be depended on, because some do not see it. Thus, his 166 Downside Discussion, — Third Day. argument is overthrown here by producing a parallel one respectmg a doctrine of his own Church. Amongst a number of quotations from Protestant divines, my Rev. opponent yesterday quoted Hooker, as if he spoke against the internal evidence of Scripture, and received the Scriptures solely on the authority of the Church. I shall give the passage that Mr. Brown quoted, but I shall do so at a little greater length than he ventured. Here are Hooker's words, in the 3rd book of his Ecclesiastical Polity, sect. 8 :— " Scripture teacheth us that saving truth which God hath discovered unto the world bj revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise, that itself is divine and sacred. The question then being by what means we are taught this ; some answer, that to learn it we have no other way than tradition ; as namelv, that so we believe, because we from our predecessors, and they from theirs, have so received. But is this enough ? That winch all men's experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied ; and by ex{)erience we all know that the first outtvard motive'lead'mg men to esteem of the Scripture, is the au- thority of God's Church." Here Mr. Brown stopped. I shall give you the rest : — " For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture, we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man, bred and brought up in the Church, to be of a contrary mind without cause. After- wards, the more tee bestow our labour vpon reading, or hearing the mysteiies thereof, the more ice find that the thing itself doth answer our received opinion concerning it; so that the former inducement prevailing so/neu^^at with us before, doth now^mch more prevail, when the very thing hath ministered farther reason.'* This is the whole passage, and we find by it that Hooker, so far from resting the belief of Scripture simplg upon the authority of the Church, merely says it is the first outward motive, not the last assurance, upon which we rest ; and that when, simply so far as regards the outward motive, we receive the Scriptures on the authority of the Church, we then find, bg an examination of the Scriptures themselves, that they present internal evidence of their divine origin. Thus, though we have some opinion of their divine origin befoi^e, though " the former inducement prevail sornewhat w'ith us," yet now he says, " Much more doth it prevail, WHEN THE VERY THING HATH MINISTERED FARTHER REASON." After this, will it be said that Hooker threw the internal evidence overboard ? Now, Sir, you will recollect that when I started on the first day in the consideration of the Apocryphal question, and when I adduced an array of evidence, external in its nature, to prove that the Apocryphal books, so called, were not to be received into the canon of Scripture ; when 1 shewed that the Jews did not receive them (which I proved Mr. Tottenham s Sixth Speech. 167 both on Jewish and Roman Catholic testimony)— when I referred to the fact that Christ and his Apostles did not recognise them — when I noticed ten or twelve catalogues in the early Church which did not admit them — when, I say, I entered upon these points, Mr. Brown complained that I should have touched upon the Apocryphal question at all, and insisted that I w^as bound in fairness to defend my own rule, and not to attack his. Since that (though I don't conceive I am bound to do so either by the rules or by the principles of honour which have been alluded to on the other side) I have abstained from the discussion of this question. But now I am happy that Mr. Brown has re- lieved me out of the difficulty in which I was placed ; for, by an observation which he made yesterday, he leads me directly to examine the Apocrypha on the ground of internal evidence. He says he will bring internal evi- dence to a point, and he asks, if any one will read the books called Apocryphal, and also the books generally acknowledged, is it possible that from the reading of those books, he would discover internal evidence in favour of the one and internal evidence against the other? He has thus led me himself to the subject, and I shall, therefore, give you something more in reference to it. I shall not dwell any more on external evidence, as I have sufficiently adduced that on the former occasion; but let me say, first of all, in reference to this matter of in- ternal EVIDENCE, that the prophecy of Malachi intimates that the prophetic spirit should cease with him^ until a cer- tain period which is mentioned. I refer to the 4th chapter of this prophecy, from the 4th to the 6th verses : — ^ " Remember tlie law of Moses, my servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, the precepts and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he blaall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers ; lest I come and strike the earth with anathema." Thus, when the Lord is speaking by his prophet, he says at the close of the book, " Behold, I will send you Elias the prophet, hefore^' 8zc. ; and is there not some- thing in this expression which intimates that the prophetic spirit should cease tillElias made his appearance on the stage of life? But r go farther, and say, that the writers of" the books of the Apocrypha, instead of claiming inspiration, as the writers of the books generally received are found to do, on the contrary, frerpiently disclaim the idea of such inspi^ 168 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. ration. I have several passages on this subject, and shall refer you, in the first place, to the 2nd chapter of the 2nd book of Maccabees, where we find that the author, so far from claiming inspiration, actually disclaims it ; for he tells us, that this hook was only an ahridgment which was drawn up from a work already in existence ! Look at the 2nd chapter, and let us begin at the 20th verse : — " Now as concerning Judas Machabseus and his brethren, and the purification of the great temple, and the dedication of the altar. As also the wars against An- tiochus the Illustrious, and his son Eupator ; and the manifestations that came from heaven to them tliat behaved themselves manfully on the behalf of the Jews, so that, being but a few, they made themselves masters of the whole country, and put to flight the barbarous multitude ; and recovered agaua the most re- nowned temple in all the world, and delivered the city, and restored the laws that were abolished, the Lord with all clemency showing mercy to them. And all such things as have been comprised in five books by Jason of Cyrene, we have ATTEMPTED TO ABRIDGE IN ONE BOOK," &C. &C. In this place, you observe, the author actually confesses that this 2nd book of Maccabees was nothing but an abridg- ment of five hooks icrltten hy Jason of Cyrene! Does this look like claiming inspiration, or rather, is it not a direct disclaimer on the part of the author? I think a person reading this book would soon find that it lacked internal evidence of its inspiration. The next passage 1 shall cite is in the same book, the 1 .5th chapter, 38th and 39th verses : — " So these things being done with relation to Nicanor, and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, 1 also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becomelh tJie history, it is ivhat I desired ; hut if not so -perfectly, it must be pardoned me." Now I ask you. Sir, and I ask this meeting, does suck language look like that of a man writing under the inspira- tion of God? He writes a book, and at the close of it he makes an excuse for the imperfections of his history ; he says, " If I have done well (there was no assurance about the matter) and as it becometh the liistory, it is what I de- sired ; but if not so perfectly (he appears to have had some misgivings) it must he pardoned me' ! I think there is abun- dant internal evidence in this passage alone that the book was not inspired by God. Let us turn now to the Prologue to the Book of Eccle- siasticus, and we shall discover evidence that the author of this book did not write under the inspiration of the Spirit of God :— " The knowledge of many and great things hath been shown us by the law and the prophets, and others that have followed them : for which things Israel is to be commended for doctrine and wisdom ; because not only they that speak must n?cds be skilful, but strangers also, both speaking and writing, may by Mr, Tottenhams Sixth Speech. 169 their means become most learned. My grandfather, Jesus, after he had given himself to a diligent reading of the law and the prophets, and other books, that were delivered to us from our fathers, h^\d a mind also to write something HIMSELF PERTAINING TO DOCTRINE AND WISDOM ; that such as are desirous to learn, and are made knowing in these things, may be more and more attentive in mind, and be strengthened to live according to the law. I entreat you, there- fore, to come with benevolence, and to read with attention, and to pardon us for those things in which we may seem, while we follow the image of wisdom, to come short in the composition of words; for the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when translated into another tongue," &c. &c. Here, first of all, this writer, alluding to the person who was the original author of the book, does not speak of him as professing to be under the inspiration of God, but merely says, " he had a mind to write something^'' after having studied the law and the prophets. Then the individual that translates begs pardon for any faults or errors into which he may have fallen in translating the book into another tongue. So far for the Book of Ecclesiasticus. Again, in the Qth chapter of the book of Judith, we find Judith coming forward and praying thus, in the 2nd and 3rd verses : — " O Lord God of my father Simeon, who gavest him a sword to execute vengeance against strangers, who had defiled by their uncleanness, and unco- vered the virgin unto confusion ; and who gavest their wives to be made a prey, and their daughters into captivity ; and all the spoils to be divided to thy ser- vants, who were zealous with thy zeal 3 assist, I beseech thee, O Lord God, me a widow." The only use 1 want to make of this passage is, that in this book of Judith the fact of the destruction of the She- chemites is looked upon with approbation; whereas, if you look at the 49th chapter of Genesis, you will find that Jacob condemned the murder ; so that, upon this matter of a moral nature this book seems to contradict the con- demnation in the book of Genesis. I may further call your attention to the 2nd book of Maccabees, the 14th chapter, 37th and following verses: — " Now Razias, one of the ancients of Jerusalem, was accused to Nicanor, a man that was a lover of the city, and of good report, who for his affection was called the Father of the Jews. This man had for a long time held fast his purpose of keeping himself pure in the Jew's religion, and was ready to expose his body and life that he might persevere therein. So Nicanor being willing to declare the hatred that he bore the Jews, sent five hundred soldiers to take him. For he thought by ensnaring him to hurt the Jews very much. Now as the multitude sought to rush into his house, and to break open the door, and to set fire to it, when he was ready to be taken, he struck himself loltli his sword ; CHOOSING TO DIE NOBLY rather than to fall into the hands of the wicked, and to suffer abuses unbecoming his noble birth." What do we find here ? that suicide is actually com- mended and approved of! It is not merely the simple fact which is related. This would be no proof against the in- 170 Downside Discussion,— Third Day. spiration of the book, for the inspired books of Scripture invariably, as I said yesterday, tell us of crimes and sins "without number, and this only shews the faithfulness of their historical narrations. But where is there an instance, in the whole of those books that are generally acknow- ledged as divine, of the approbation of crime? Here, however, in this verse there is mention made of a crime distinctly opposed to the Decalogue, and yet it is com- mended! Razias is said to " strike himself with his sword:'* and how does the writer comment on the act ? His lan- s^uage with respect to it is, "choosing to die nobly."! So that the committing suicide was dying nohly, in the es- timation of this writer! Is that in accordance with the mind of God ? Is that conformable to the law delivered on mount Sinai ? Assuredly not. Therefore, in the simple fact of the commendation of a sinful practice, there is abun- dant internal evidence that this book could not have been inspired by God. It is unnecessary for me to adduce any additional evi- dence at present respecting this matter. Mr. Brown, on the subject of internal evidence, has asked, " How can an individual reading the books which are called Apocryphal, and the other books which are generally received as di- vine, distinguish between them on the point of internal evidence ?" I have shewn you, at all events, how easily he could find out that the Apocryphal books have no right to be reckoned in the canon of Scripture; — because Ma- lachi intimates that the prophetic spirit should cease till the time of John the Baptist ; — because these books con- tradict the acknowledged books of Scripture; — because immoral practices are approved of in them ; — and because the writers disclaim rather than claim inspiration. Should there be still any doubt as to the internal evidence, re- member that I have given you, besides this, a long chain of external evidence against these books. Thus the Apo- crypha is destitute of either external or internal evidence in its favour, and, this being the case, we have established a very important fact, namely, that one portion of the Roman Catholic rule of faith has no foundation whatever: one portion, I say, for, be it remembered, that w^hile the Church of Rome holds Scripture and Tradition as her rule of faith, she recognizes the Apocrypha as part of the former. Wow, Sir, I have adverted to the points which Mr. Brown adduced in his last speech ; and as he confines me, Mr. Brown s Sixth speech, 171 as much as possible, to the defence of my own rule, in- stead of allowing me to attack his in addition, I need not trespass longer on your attention, till more evidence be adduced against the sufficiency of the Protestant Rule of Faith. ^ The Rev. T. J. Brown. In contending for Catholic doctrines, and against the Protestant Rule of Faith, I find myself involved in some difficulty as to the manner in which I had better proceed. I stated at the commencement of this discussion that I had a vast body of arguments to produce. The Rev. Gentle- man on the opposite side has been seeking in various ways to lead me off from the course of my arguments ; I have not got through by any means one half of what I purposed to adduce, and we have arrived at the third day of the discussion. If I answer his objections in detail, it will be impossible for me to fulfil the duty wherewith I am charged, of demonstrating that the Protestant rule is not sufficient. If I do not attend to the objections of the Rev. Gentleman opposite, he taunts me with shrinking from the difficulty. What, then, am I to do ? I must be di- rected, for it is the only guide that I can have, by the agreement upon which we entered when we proposed this discussion ; namely, that the first week should be allowed me to impugn the Protestant rule. I think it better, therefore, to go on with the arguments I have in store against it, and, accordingly, choosing the less of two evils, I must suffer some of the last-made objections to stand over for your future consideration. I have not, however, altogether passed by the objections of my opponents, nor is it my intention to do so. At present I shall cursorily notice a few of those which I consider the principal ones. Mr. Tottenham commenced by stating that 2 Tim. iii. 14. gives satisfactory evidence that the Bible does contain all the necessary truths of religion, and that these are all contained even in the Old Testament; therefore, he ar- gued, a fortiori, in the New Testament are all things ne- cessary for belief. Christ, he added, came not to introduce a new religion, but to complete the old. I ask, then, Mr. Tottenham whether he is able to produce from the Old 172 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. Testament satisfactory evidence of the Trinity, of three equal Persons in one Godhead ? This, I believe, w^ill be admitted generally to be one of the most essential truths of Christia- nity. Will it be said that the Old Testament contains all things now necessary to salva-ion, whereas it does not con- tain distinctly this doctrine? You admit, most of you, the necessity of baptism. Is baptism expressed in the Old Tes- tament ? As it is not expressed in it, I wish to know whether the doctrine of baptism is not included amongst the necessary truths of the Christian religion ? But there is delusion in such reasoning, and it has been attempted to be yjlayed off upon you throughout. There has not been that distinction kept up, which was requisite, between the necessary doc- trines, that is, essential doctrines, without which a man can- not he saved, and other doctrines which are not so essentially necessary, if they are not proposed ; but the rejection of a7iy one of which, when duly proposed, excludes from salvation. Now the Catholic doctrine, concerning which I have repeat- edly endeavoured to set right, not so much my hearers, as the Rev. Gentlemen, is, that all absolutely essential revela- tions are contained in the written word : but it cannot be proved that all the doctrines, all and every one of those truths which Christ came from heaven to reveal, and which he willed should be handed down to future ages, that all these are contained in the written word. You find, however, in Mark xvi. l6, that Christ does not limit our belief to any absolutely essential doctrines, regardless of disbelief in such as are not so absolutely essential ; on the contrary he has declared, without any exception, to his Apostles : " Go, preach the Go^peZ to every creature" — (by the word Gospel, 1 told you, what no one who is ac- quainted with the force of the Greek term can be ignorant of, that Christ meant the whole of the good tidings which he came down from heaven to communicate)—" Go, preach the Gospel to every creature ; he that believeth shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.'' Here no distinction between sufficient or non-sufficient, essential or non-essential revelations is made by Christ ; nor does it any where appear that all the revelations made by Christ to the Apostles, and intended for the edification of the Church in future times, are one and all contained in Scrip- ture. I recommend this consideration to your serious at- tention. Attempts have been again and again made to lead you from the right view of the case. With regard to difficulties about the Councils, and the Ml'. Browns Sixth Speech. 173 Catholics being at variance as to the place where infallibility resides, it is not necessary that I should enter into them, be- cause they do not regard the point at issue,— the Protestant rule. Suffice it that 1 observe, that no Catholic feels any uneasiness as to where the infallibility of his Church exists, or what are the legitimate conditions of Councils. He has, in the promises of Christ, security for his faith, which is sufficient for him, and will be sufficient for any who shall embrace our doctrines. He will then have clearer proofs than 1 find it necessary now to give, how little is the obli- gation of acquainting himself with the utmost precision where is the seat of infallibility. Meanwhile, I will repeat what I stated yesterday, not, as Mr. T. imputed to me, that infallibility resides in the Church merely, but that it resides in the body of pastors, in communion with their head. My opponent advanced that eight Councils were sum- moned, not by the Popes, whom we teach to be the visible head of the Church, but by the Emperors. The fact is, however, that the Emperors summoned certain Councils in conjunction with the Pope, but not one in opposition to him. Had they been so summoned, the doctrines pro- posed would not have been admitted by us, unless accepted by the subsequent approbation of the body of teachers and pastors. But I will tell you why the Popes exclusively did not summon certain Councils ; it was because the holding of Councils was sometimes attended with immense expense, for which the Popes had not adequate funds, and which occasionally made necessary an appeal to the royal trea- sury ; and because it was thought desirable that the Church and State should on certain occasions proceed hand in hand, a practice of which Mr. T. doubtless approves ; consequently, it was by an act of courtesy that the Popes did not unnecessarily dispute with the Emperors concerning the convocation of those Councils. 1 might shew, however, that not only no one of the Councils was convocated in opposition to the will of the Pope, or with- out his approbation ; but, moreover, that those who pre- sided were in no instance the Emperor or his Officers, but the Pope or his Legates, Mr. T. has endeavoured to get out of the difficulty in which he found he was involved by his declaration yes- terday, that " the Bible was 7iot an object of faith." He maintains the same to-day ; but what does he add ? " I did not say that it was not necessary to receive the Bible as divine revelation, but that it is not an object of laith.' 174 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. I am unable to reconcile the contradiction in which my Rev. opponent appears to have involved himself. He does say that the Bible is not an object of faith, yet he does not say that the Bible is not to be believed as divine. But if it be not an object of faith, how is it to be believed as divine? l£ it he believed as divine, in that case I cannot conceive how it is not an object of faith. I am quite at a loss how to explain this inconsistency, and must wait for some further explanation. Mr. Tottenham wishes to make you imagine that we are involved in the same difficulty as Protestants; that we can have no better security than they have, when we as- sent to the teaching of the Church. Were I to explain the manner in which an act of faith is formed by a child of Catholic principles, 1 should enter into details which I do not think necessary at present. I ought, however, to inform Mr. T. that there is a distinction, which is not at- tended to by him, between motives of credibility, and the testimony of God, upon which alone an act of divine faith can be founded. Motives of credibility must precede an act of faith. But the testimony of God is that upon which only an act of faith can be founded. Thus, were God now to declare to me his existence, al- though it would, in the first place, be necessary for me to have sufficient motives of credibility for assuring myself that I am not deceived by my senses, yet it would not be because my sense of hearing testifies that God has declared he exists that I should believe with divine faith his exist- ence. The certain testimony of my hearing is indeed the motive of credibility, whereby I am assured that the Al- mighty does testify to me his existence, in consequence of which, I submit to the word of God, and I produce an act of divine belief, because God declares it. Thus, divine faith is founded exclusively upon the word of God, to which it is led by motives of credibility ; and so it is with Catholics. We have, indeed, motives of credi- bility, assuring to us that the Bible contains the word of God : by motives of credibility we are led to admit the authority of his Church. Yet not on these, nor on mere moral certainty, does the Church propose to our faith the inspiration of the Bible. In advancing to an act of divine faith, in the inspiration of Scripture, we proceed thus: — The Scripture, in the first instance, is considered as an au- thentic work, without entering, as yet, upon the question of its inspiration. By the testimony of this authentic Scrip- Mr. Browns Sixth Speech. 175 tare, we are assured that, according to the promise of the Son of God, his Church is gifted with infallibility by the Spirit of Truth. This infallible Church then proposes to our belief, upon the declaration of God, the inspiration of the whole Scripture ; and, accordingly, we believe in its inspi- ration, and in all its contents, by divine faith, the motive of which is the declaration of God contained in his un- written word, proposed only by his unerring Church. Thus our act of divine faith rests immediately and exclu- sively upon the testimony of the word of God. Mr. T. cannot show that the Protestant faith is so securely grounded. Mr. T. has charged me with garbling a passage from Hooker. I can say with sincerity, however, that it was my wish to give it fairly. An author may be sometimes accidentally mis-quoted by any one : but those who know me know that no one more abhors an intentional mis-quo- tation. Accordingly, I have, over and over again, im- pressed upon those whom I have had to instruct in their theological studies, that they must carefully examine the whole context of a Protestant writer before they attempt to allege his testimony in support of Catholic principles. It is objected to me that Hooker calls the authority of . the Church merely the first outward motive. Now, instead of wishing to keep this out of sight, I really desired to call attention to it; for I still think that, since Hooker establishes thereby the authority of the Church, as the means by which the inspiration of Scripture is known, the quotation is not misapplied. If, however, my Reverend opponent still thinks that I garbled the first passage, I beg to refer him to a second, which is decisive of the inconsistency of the Protestant rule concerning the matter in question : " It is not the word of God which doth, or pomhlu can, assure us that we do well to think it is his word. For if any one book of Scripture did give tes- timony to all ; yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest, would require another Scripture to give credit to it : neither should we come unto any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way." — Eccles. Polity, Book 2, n. 4, p. 109 : Lond. 1705. Mr. T. misrepresented me, moreover, when he said that I brought forward Hooker to overthrow internal evi- dence. It was not with reference to internal evidence that ^ I alleged his authority : on that point I quoted from the " Theologia Christiana," of Limborch. Mr. T. has entered into a long discussion on the authen- ticity of the Apocrypha, into which he says that I led him, 176 Downside Discussion.— Third Day. by inviting any one to examine the book which he terms Apocryphal. How often have I to point out to you mis- presentations of my words. It is not correct, then, that I invited any one to examine the Apocrypha ; for, by pro- posing to enter into such an examination, I should have given my opponents the wished-for advantage of quitting the prescribed topic of controversy. What 1 did propose was, that w^e should make an experiment of the internal evidence of Scripture, by bringing forward into the assem- bly any Protestant, not deeply read in the written ivord, and that 1 would defy such a one, by any internal evidence, to distinguish the prophecy of Baruch, which we admit as inspired, and you reject, from the prophecy of Jeremiah, which is admitted by all. I will not enter further into the question, because 1 will not consume any more valuable time upon it, but go on with my arguments against the Protestant Rule of Faith. My present object is to convince you of your inconsis- tency, by showing that whilst you profess to believe that all revealed truths are contained in Scripture, you do at the same time admit several divine doctrines which cannot be shewn to be contained therein. It will be with regret that I shall say any thing mortifying to the feelings of my friends present ; but I am sure that they w^ill pardon me, considering the necessity imposed upon me of advocating my religion. I have already proved that the canonicity of the books of Scripture, and their inspiration, cannot be established but by the authority of the Church supported by tradition ; that is, the authority of the Church must be the chief mo- tive of credibility; but the unerring word of God, mani- fested by tradition, must be the immediate motive upon which your act of divine faith is formed. In confirmation of these positions, I adduced the authority of some Protes- tant divines of eminence. I shall now pass on to another point. Few of you will deny that baptism is a matter of divine institution, and, therefore, a matter of the highest consequence to every one. Accordingly, in the Catechism in your book of Common Prayer, I find the following questions and answers : '• Who gave you this name ?' " My godfathers and godmothers in my baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an in- heritor of the kingdom of heaven." . . . . " How many sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church ?" " Two only, as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say baptism and tlie supper of the Lord." Mr. Brown fi Sixth Speech. 177 Here baptism is declared to be of essential consequence to Protestants, and to be a sacrament that is generally necessary to salvation. Now turn to the 27 th of the 39 Articles — '' The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." Whence know you, my friends, that the baptism of young infants is most agreeable with the institution of Christ? Is it from Scripture? Then let the passage be quoted. But when I search the Scriptures in the exercise of that right which the Reformation Society concedes to the meanest outcast of society of putting his interpretation upon the word of God, I ayn unable to find any declaration of Scripture^ showing that it is most agreeable to the institu- tion of Christ, that baptism should be conferred on young infants. Let us observe the language of the sacred vo- lume— " Go ye, therefore," said Christ to his Apostles, " and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matt, xxviii. 19- — " He that helieveth and is baptized shall be saved ; he that helieveth not shall be damned." Mark xvi. l6. — '* Then Peter said unto them : Hepejit and be bap- tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Acts ii. fj8. — From these passages it follows that, admitting no Rule of Faith besides Scripture, baptism can be conferred upon adults only, since instruc- tion and repentance must precede it ; and I nowhere find any declaration of the written word of God which autho- rizes me to believe that the baptism of infants is conform- able with the institution of that sacrament by Jesus Christ. Upon what then is such belief founded ? I may be told, possibly, that the baptism of infants is a matter of discipline only. Yes; after you shall have satisfied yourselves by your only rule, the written word, that Christ willed baptism to be administered indifferently to adults and infants, then it may become a matter of discipline, whether it be administered in infancy, or in advanced years. But we are not speaking on any such point of mere discipline. Is it not, I ask, in the first place, an article of faith., at all events, amongst the members of the Established Church, that the baptism of infants is lawful? Upon what is that doctrine of faith founded? But, 2ndly, if you tell me that it is not a doctrine of faith, 1 ask, what right have you to administer baptism to infants, instead of deferring it till they come to that age when the Scripture evidently declares, that it entitles them to be made heirs of the king- 178 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. Join of God ? Unless you have the security of God's word that baptism, before the use of reason, is available to sanc- tification, you cannot be justified in giving baptism to infants ; or, in not repeating it, at least, when they come to years of discretion. 1 am sure that not one of you who has been baptized in infancy can have any tranquillity of mind, unless you believe, not as being a matter of opinion only, but as manifested by the clear declaration of God's word, that the baptism of infants is available to salvation. I shall be told, perhaps, that in 1 Cor. i. 16, it is said that St. Paul baptized the household of Stephanus, some of which you will argue were infants. This, however, amounts to a mere conjecture; but conjecture will not suffice to satisfy any one on the validity of infant baptism, whilst the word of God appears to be expressly against it. Moreover, as in St. John iv. 43, the text — " himself be- lieved, and his whole house^'' does not include infants, for they were incapable of belief, why should the preceding text include them ? I will now show you that several distinguished Protes- tants have conceded this point. But first allow me to quote from St. Augustine, who, in his 10th BookDe Genes, ab litt. cap. 22, writes — " The custom of the Church in baptizing infants, would not be at all de- serving of belief, were it not a point of Apostolical tradition." Ed. Ben. torn. 3, p. ^72. Origen, a very early writer, in his 5th book, c. 9, on the Epistle to the Romans, says : — " The Church hath derived its tradition from the Apostles of giving bap- tism even to infants." Now for Protestant authority. The eminent Jeremy Taylor, in his book " Episcopacy Asserted," section 19, argues: — " Baptism of infants is of ordinary necessity to all that ever cried, and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles. And wise men do easily observe, that the Anaba})tists can hi) the same probability of Scripture, enforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us, as we do of baptizing upon them, if we speak of immediately divine institution or of prac- tice Apostolical recorded in Scriptiire ; and therefore a great Master of Geneva, in a book he writ against the Anabaptists, was forced to fly to apostolical tra- dition ; and they that deny this, are by the just anathema of the Catholic Church, confidently condemned as for heretics." — " The fourth kind of tradi- tion, is the continued practice of such, as neither are contained in the Scrip- ture expressly, nor the example of such practice expressly there dehvered ; of this sort is the baptism of infants, which is therefore named a tradition; be- cause it is not expressly delivered in the Scripture, that the Apostles did bap- tize infants, nor is any express precept there found." Dr. Field's Book of the Ch. L. 4. c. 20. Mr. Browns Sixth Speech. 179 I might go on with a long list of Protestant authorities. I hold a work in my hand, published by a Pi'otestant divine, entitled '' A Complete Collection of Devotions, taken from the Apostolical Constitutions, the Ancient Liturgies, and the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England." The third part, called*^ " An Ap- pendix," &c. consists entirely of extracts from Protestant writers of eminence in proof of tradition, amongst which are many express testimonies that the baptism of infants is derived from tradition only ; but this being the last day for discussing " the Rule of Faith," want of time forbids me to quote any more Protestant testimonies. Already I have given you the sentiments of men of great eminence amongst you. I shall be glad to hear, in opposition to them, upon what authority besides that of tradition, is the baptism of infants to be established, so as to be a matter of faith, and not of opinion only ; for we must keep wholly distinct faith and opinion. I now proceed to another point. If Scripture be the only rule of divine faith, I ask you again, how you re- concile with Scripture baptism by aspersion, or the pour- ing on of water, instead of baptism by immersion ? Look- ing at your Book of Common Prayer, under the head " Administration of Public Baptism of Infants," the rubric says : *' But if they certify that tlie child is weak, it shall suffice to pour loater upon it, saying the foresaid words :" This likewise must be not a matter of opinion, but of divine faith; otherwise, if you have no assurance of the validity of such baptism founded upon the word of God, you must be guilty of great impiety in not closely adhering to the only rite according to which Christ instituted this sacrament, as it is recorded in Scripture. Now, if we look to Scripture only, we must be satisfied that there is no valid manner of conferring baptism except by immersion. I prove it from the words of Christ, who prescribed to his Apos- tles that they should '' baptize aW nations, teaching them," &;c. The word in the original Greek, used by the Evan- gelists is BaTTTii^eiv, and this word signifies washing by immersion only, and not by the pouring on of water, or asper- sion. This interpretation is sustained by the authority of the most eminent Greek scholars, even Protestants. Casaubon, Camerarius, Grotius, Hammond, Valpy, Parkhurst, and others all declare this to be the meaning, and the only meaning in which Scripture employs this term. There- 180 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. fore, by Scripture no other mode of administering baptism is ordained but by immersion ; and baptism by sprinkling or pouring of water is authorized only by the unwritten word. I find again, if we look for the mysterious signifi- cation of baptism, that St. Paul describes it thus : '* Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Clirist were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Eoin. vi. 3 and 4. Now the mysterious signification is manifest in baptism by imnjersion : but, this death of the old man, and re- surrection of the new man, this mystical meaning is not found clearly in baptism by sprinkling, or by the pour- ing on of water. Again, if we look to the practice of the primitive ages, we find that baptism by immersion was the only usual mode of baptism, even down to the 13th cen- tury, and in the Greek Church even to the present time. 1 conclude, then, that if we are to be guided by Scrip- ture only, if the Bible is the only Rule of Faith, that sect which has departed from the Established Church, or rather which existed before the Established Church in other countries, the sect of the Baptists, and w^hich differs from the doctrine of the Established Church on this important point, triumphs ; and if there are any Baptists in this room, 1 tell them that by the literal meaning of Scripture, they are right in administering baptism to none but adults, and by immersion only; and I defy their adversaries to prove the contrary by the authority of Scripture alone. This becomes more evident by the candid concession of the Protestant author of the '* Second Answer to Bossuet's Exposition of Catholic Fai.h :" *' Aspersion corrupts, in some measure, the sacrament of baptism, and is an abuse which we are resolved henceforward to correct." The Protestants of the Established Church must indeed correct the abuse, or alter their Rule of Faith, and admit beside Scripture the unicritten word. It is extraordinary that there should be so much incon- sistency amongst the opponents of Catholics, between their rule of faith and their doctrine on practical points of the highest importance. What can be of higher impor- tance than the validity of baptism? Now I find that be- sides the cases which 1 have mentioned, there is another of great moment, arising from the circumstances under which baptism is sometimes conferred, and wherein the Protes- tant practice cannot be warranted by the written word, but Mr. Brown's Sixth Speech. 181 bij tradition only. You admit baptism by heretics ; nay, you admit the validity of baptism when conferred by those whom you call apostates and idolaters ; for you admit the validity of baptism by Catholic ministers, as you adnut the validity of their ordinations. Let Protestants assign the texts of Scripture whereby it is proved that baptism by heretics, or by any others than the legitimate ministers of the gospel, is valid. The commission which Christ gave was addressed to the Apostles only. Whence, then, do you know that heretics, nay, that apostates and idolaters are warranted in administering valid baptism? If Pro- testants can discover it, St. Augustine could not, who was as well versed in Scripture as the members of the Refor- mation Society. Listen to what he says, L. 5. De Bap- tismo, C. 23. *' The Apostles have left us no precept on that matter (the validity of bap- tism by heretics). But we must, liowever, believe, that the custom opposed to St. Cyprian derived its origin from apot^tolical tradition. In like manuer manxi things are observed in the Universal Church, and therefore are rightly believed to have been ordained by the Apostles, ihongli we Jind nothiog of them in writing." Ed. lien. torn. 9. p. 156. Again, in L. 2. chap. 7, he writes, — " This custom, I believe, descended from apostolical tradition, like many other things which are not found in the writings of the Ap.stles. nor in the subsequent Councils, and nevertheless, because they are held by the Universal Church, are believed lobe delivered and recommended by them." Tom. 9. p. 102. Here is an authority in the early ages assigning a very different rule of faith from that introduced 300 years ago. There was another celebrated writer who flourished before St. Augustine, the great St. Cyprian. So little could he discover in Scripture the validity of baptism by heretical ministers, that he held out against the general sentiment of the Church, which had not decided the controversy in his time, that there was no proof thereof in Scripture, nor proof in tradition ; for he appealed to tradition likewise, not being aware at that time that tradition was clear on the other side. It was not discoverable from Scripture to the whole Church of Africa ; for St. Cyprian not being able to find in Scripture any warrant or authority for baptisui by heretics, assembled the third Council of Carthage, which together with many of the oriental bishops refused to sub- scribe to that doctrine. But were it clear in the written word, St. Cyprian and the bishops of his opinion would have discovered it, as well as any members of the Refor- mation Society. There are several other similar inconsistencies, upon iS2 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. which want of time does not permit me to enlarge as I have done upon those above ; but I will only cursorily mention them, that you may consider them at your leisure. The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son^ is a doctrine which the members of the Protestant Established Church are bound to admit as an article of faith, and from which they cannot escape ; for they acknowledge the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds, both of which proclaim this doctrine of the pro- cession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son ; and in reciting the Athanasian Creed they do declare it is an article o{ divine faith, and that moreover the man who does not subscribe to it cannot be saved. Now the pro- cession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son cannot be established from Scripture only. Our adversa- i-ies may bring forward certain passages that may entitle them to affirm it as a matter of opinion, but they cannot establish it as an article of faith. This becomes strikingly manifest to you when you look at the whole Greek Church, which separates itself from the Catholic Church upon this very point, because they could not discover in Scripture any clear proofs that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. Another difficulty is the divine institution of Epis- copacy. The members of the Established Church are bound to hold its divine institution. 1 expected, when I agreed upon this discussion, that 1 should have found here Mr. Shanks, a minister of the Kirk of Scotland, and delegate of the Reformation Society, who does not hold that doctrine, and I thought that I might have had an opportunity of relieving its tediousness by inviting you to hearken to his arguments from the Protestant only rule of faith, against the divine right of Episco- pacy, and to Mr. T.'s, from the same rule, in proof of that divine right. In my opinion, Mr. Shanks would have had the advantage. Indeed, Jeremy Taylor, in his work, en- titled Episcopacy Asserted, has brought his proofs almost exclusively from the traditions of the Church. Why has he done this ? Because he found that he was not able to stand upon any other foundation than the doctrine of tra- dition, manifested by the authority of the Church. Baptism by lay persons is also admitted, if not by the articles and rubrics of the Established Church, yet by its ablest divines. I have looked at many of their theolo- gical works, and find them holding the validity of baptism Mr. Browns Sixth Speech. 183 by laymen. Now this is another point which cannot be established by the written word. Again, in the 15th chapter of the Acts, there is recorded, by St. Luke, this solemn declaration of the Apostles as- sembled in council at Jerusalem :— " It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us that ye abstain from blood, and from things strangled." When, therefore, in contradic- tion to this express prohibition of Scripture, Protestants partake of strangled meat or blood, they must rest on tra- dition only. I cannot enter into the arguments which authorize this conclusion, but must refer those that are dis- posed to consider them to a dissertation after the loth chap- ter of Acts, in Dr. A. Clarke's commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, where they will find this question handled at length by Dr. Delaney, and proofs, from the time of the Apostles to the present day, adduced for the continuance of the prohibition, the obligation of which cannot be con- sistently removed, except by the authority of tradition. Moreover, if your faith rests exclusively on the written word, why do you not admit, in your rite of administering the Lord's Supper, all those ceremonies which we find were observed by our divine Saviour in the Scripture; for, if Scripture is to be the only rule of faith— if tradition is not to be introduced as explaining its obscurity— you will not be able to show by what right you depart from those ceremonies. It is hij tradition only that you will be able to establish the lawfulness of your pruceeding. If it be argued that these are matters of discipline, I request to be informed, from Scripture, by what clear rule you distin- guish between faith and discipline in such matters ? Moreover, by your principles you cannot, in direct oppo- sition to Scripture, alter the discipline instituted hy it? How, then, do you prove the lawfulness of the change of the Sabbath from the day prescribed in the old law ? By the Fourth Commandment the Sabbath was to be observed on the seventh day of the week ; you keep the Sabbath upon the first day of the week : and Dr. Brett, a Protestant, in his " Tradition Necessary," p. 27, observes that, those who speak " most contemptibly of tradition pretend the highest zeal for the veneration of Sunday, though it is utterly impossible, without a miracle, to say which day is Sunday, but by tradition onlyJ" Another point, upon which you are guided by tradition, in your practice, is the omitting of the washing of feet, 184 Downside Discussion,— Third Day. which is prescribed by Christ, in John, xiii. 14, 15, wherein he declares, '* If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet ; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." That herein, likewise, you depend upon tradition only, I could confirm, if it were not that my time is too much limited, by the declarations of distinguished Protestants. Now this Catholic doctrine of tradition is not borne out by Protestants only, but by the authority of the most emi- nent of the early writers. In the first place, I appeal to the authority of St. Ignatius, the disciple of the Apostles Peter and John, who must have known distinctly, if any one could, what were the doctrines handed down by the Apostles relative to the rule of faith ; whether the Scrip- tures were the only rule of faith, or whether we are to look to tradition as a portion of that rule, and to the authority of the Church for the expounding of it. Moreover, at the time when St. Ignatius wrote, the Apostles were dead ; there- fore the objection cannot be urged that, during the Apos- tles' life-time only, it was not necessary that everything should be written. Now, of Ignatius, the disciple of Peter, and his successor in the chair of Antioch, it is recorded in the Church History of Eusebius, L. 3, cap. 36, that,— " As he was led through Asia, by his persecutors, he admonished the Chris- tians to beware of the false doctrines of Heretics, and to adhere tenaciously to the tradition of the Apostles: which, for the sake of security, he deemed ne- cessary, when on the eve of martyrdom, to commit to writing." This passage has been found exceedingly strong. What do our opponents do ? Some time since, I discovered that Dr. Fulke, a divine of the Church of England, in his " Defence of the English Translations of the Bible," p. 29, for the sake of deluding his Protestant readers, perverts the words, " which (tra- dition), for the sake of security, he deemed necessary, when on the eve of martyrdom, to commit to writing," thus, '^ which, by that time, he protested to he committed to writ- ing ;" as if it had been already committed to writing by the Apostles. But were this the meaning of St. Ignatius, there would be an absurdity in his calling the doctrines, to which he exhorted the Christians to adhere, by the name of tradition, any more than all the other portions of the New Testament which had been written. Besides, a mani- fest proof of Fulke's corrupt translation will be conspi- Mr. Browris Sixth Speech 185 cuous to any person who shall consult the original Greek. Let him open also the Latin versions of Eusebius, and he will find that even Protestants dare not support Fulke's translation. I have consulted Valesius, and he translates the passage as I have done. I have also consulted the Protestant translators, Musculus and Grynseus, and they render it in the same manner. I contend, therefore, that in the first ages, when the sentiments of the Apostles were well known, before the expiration of one hundred years after the death of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the rule of faith was not Scripture only, but also the unwritten word. It was the same in the century following. Tertullian thus expresses himself concerning a certain difficulty which had arisen : — " If Scripture has herein defined nothing, surely usao^e has, which usage has arisen from tradition." De Corona, c. 3. p. 101. Ed. Rigalt. 1675. Some objected, however, that even tradition ought to rest on written authority. In reply, Tertullian writes, that he will allow the force of the objection — " If no other practices can be adduced, whicli we noaintain on the exclusive title of tradition, without any written authority ivhatsoever." L. c. And he proceeds to enumerate several such practices, ob- served upon the authority of tradition only, amongst which were prayers and sacrifices for the dead, which I am sure our adversaries will not say are matters of mere discipline, but appertaining to doctrines of faith. Therefore, by these two Fathers (in the course of my arguments I have quoted others, and could produce many more, did not want of time restrain me), the practice and doctrine of the first ages is directly in contradiction to the Protestant doctrine, which has been established during 300 years only. Assuredly the first ages were much better qualified to judge of the real meaning of the Apostolical doctrine than those who came into existence 1500 years after the establishment of the Rule of Faith. 186 Downside Discussion,— Third Day, Rev. John Lyons. Mr. Chairman, — Ladies and Gentlemen,— I should not have come forward to answer Mr. Brown, were I not obliged immediately afterwards to leave this meeting, in order to return to my own ministerial duties. The Rev. Gentleman has given me much matter to answer, and at the same time has given a singular picture of tradition. You heard it often declared by my Rev. friend, Mr. Tottenham, that tradition was placed above Scripture by the Church of Rome, and I think my Rev. opponent has given you a very happy commentary on that expression. I find my Rev. opponent saying, and he quotes Scripture in support of his assertion, that he has learned "that repentance must precede baptism," and " that teaching must go before baptism." He says that he is taught these things out of Scripture ; but then tradition teaches him that a person is not to be taught before bap- tism ; here are tradition and Scripture clashing one with the other. Scripture, Mr. Brown says, teaches one thing, the tradition of his Church teaches another : by Scripture he is taught that repentance should go before baptism — from tradition he learns that it should not. How can the Rev. Gentleman reconcile these contradictions, and make Scripture and tradition both the word of God ? But again he tells us that there was no manner " of baptism lawful according to Scripture but by immersion." It appears by the Church of Rome's practice that she sprinkles infants — pours water on them — and here again we have tradition and Scripture directly opposed the one to the other. But the Rev. Gentleman tells us that baptism by immersion was practised even down to the 13th century: here we have the Church of Rome acting contrary to the practice of the Church during 13 ages ; so that it appears that the tradition by which she learned that infants were to be sprinkled, and not immersed, lay hid in the dust of ages for 13 centuries. Here then we have tradition opposed to the Holy Scriptures — opposed to the primitive Church — and opposed to the practice of 13 centuries. But the Rev. Gentleman put a question respecting the proofs of the doctrine of the Trinity being contained in the Old Testament. It is rather singular to put questions of this kind, when it is well known to all persons acquainted Mr. Lyons Second Speech. 187 with Jewish Synagogues, where the Law is read every Sabbath-day, that the descendants of Abraham believe that there is a Trinity of persons in the unity of the God- head : that doctrine is acknowledged to this day amongst them. But we shall come to the word of God. In the prophecy of Isaiah, at the 48th chap, you find three per- sons distinctly mentioned, and these three persons bearing the name of Jehovah. In the l6th verse it is said : — " Come ye near unto me, and hear tliis, I have not spoken in secret from the beginning : from the time before it was done, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent me, and his Spirit." Here we have three persons, — the Lord God — his Spirit — and the Being who was sent. Revert to the 1 2th verse, and you will learn who the Being is who was sent : — •• Hearken to me, O Jacob, and thou Israel whom I called, I am he — I am the nnsx and 1 am the last" — — The title of Jehovah in the Old Testament, and the title of the Lord Jesus Christ in the book of Revelations ; — and yet here " the first and the last," is said to be sent by the Lord God, and by his Spirit. Here then we have the Three Persons clearly revealed to us in this chapter. But again I must send the Rev. Gentleman to the 18th of Genesis, and let him turn to St. Augustine's commentary on that chapter, where he will find that Father saying that the three angels were the three persons of the God- head. Rev. T. J. Brown.— Please to give it correctly. He does not say so. Rev. John Lyons. — I should say, to Cyril of Alexan- dria's first book against Julian, where that Father thinks that there was a representation of the Trinity ; — for Abra- ham speaks to them in verse 3 as if " the three were but one." Mr. Brown says that the procession of the Holy Ghost is not to be found in Scripture. It is very odd, that when it is written in the Douay Bible, he could not discover it. In the Gospel of St. John, chap. 15, verse 26, it is said : — " But when the Paraclete cometh,whom T will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me." There is the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. The Rev. Gentleman says, *' it is not to be found in Scrip- 188 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. ture,*' and here we find it written in his own Bible ; and the note appended to it is this : — " This proves, against the modern Greeks, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son as well as from the Father : otherwise he could not be sent by the Son." Here is the procession of the Paraclete from the Father; — the text asserts he is sent by the Son, and therefore the argument is he must proceed from the Son also. In the Douay Bible we have thus the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and from the Son. The Rev. Gentleman also adverted to the " courtesy " of certain Popes, who acted most courteously indeed towards the Emperors. They received from the Emperors as much money as they required, and when by means of this largess they obtained power, they then put the Emperors under their feet, and trampled upon them, and this was "the courtesy" which the Emperors received from them in after ages. Mr. Brown asked yesterday, and he has frequently asked the same at different times of this discussion, that we should produce the command of the Lord Jesus Christ that Holy Scripture was to be written. I produced several commands in the book of the Revelation from the Lord Jesus to John that he was to write ; but all these quota- tions were " mere childish arguments" — unworthy of being answered. I can only reply in the words of Holy Scrip- ture, as contained in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, that — " God chooses the foolish things of this world that he may confound the wise: and the weak things of the world hath God chosen that he may confound the strong : and the base things of the world and the things that are contemptible hath God chosen, and things that are not, that he might bring to nought things that are : that no flesh should glory in his sight." But I am afraid that I misunderstood Mr. Brown yes- terday, when, after I sat down, and he had disposed of all my assertions, in a moment of time, he then declared that no such persons as Jansenists Rev. T. J. Brown.— That is not the way ?/o?« pronounced it. Rev. John Lyons. — Then it is a mere play upon words? Rev. T. J. Brown. — I said not only that there were no such persons as Jangenists, but that no such persons were members of the Catholic Church. Rev. John Lyons. — If I said Janffzenists, it was a mis- Mr. Lyons Second Speech. 189 take ill the pronunciation, and I am sorry that I offended Mr. Brown's delicate sense of hearing by such an error; but when I coupled them with Jansenius, a Romish Bi- shop, he must have known what I meant, the more especially as two or three Popes were engaged in the con- troversy,— as Jansenius was Bishop of Ypres, and the con- troversy was carried on so long, that it required several Papal Bulls to put a termination to it. I am sorry, how- ever, that I offended him by a mispronunciation. Mr. Brown has asked me to produce some doctrinal corruptions in the Douay Bible; — he says those I produced yesterday were mere verbal variations. I produced them yesterday to shew the great value attached to the autho- rized version by members of the Church of Rome, i?i making their own version so closely resemble ours. Now I shall bring him to some corruptions in his own book, and corruptions in doctrines, not in words. In the 3rd chap, of the book of Genesis, and the 15th verse, it is said : — " I will put enmities between thee and the voman, and thy seed and her seed, SHE shall crush thy liead, and thou shalt lie in wait for uek heel." There is a word inserted here that is not to be found in the Hebrew text, and yet the title-page tells me that this Bible is translated from the Latin Vulgate diligently, com- pared with the Hebrew, Greek, and other editions in dif- ferent languages. In the Hebrew, the word signifies " IT,'' or "he," refei-ring to " seed," and not " she." It is in this Bible, "she shall crush thy head." Here is a doctrinal corruption ; for what is the use generally made of this translation of the word in the Church of Rome ? It is to exalt the power of the Virgin Mary, and make her as the last Papal Bull hath made her, "the sole foundation," " the patroness" and protectress of the Church of Rome. But it is here said, " she shall bruise thy head;"— whose head was to be bruised ? it was Satan's head — that is, it was " the works of the devil that were to be destroyed," for the devil had brought the creature into subjection under him, and never could man rise against Satan, and crush his head by creature power. It is a prophecy concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, declaring that the God-Man, — he who " is God over all," should take our nature upon him, and come into this world "tj destroy the works of the devil," "to make an end of sin," and "to bring in an everlasting righteousness" for his own people. 190 Downside Discussion, — Tlm^d Day. But again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews there is ano- ther doctrinal corruption. In the 11th chapter of that Epistle, and the 21st verse : — " By faith Jacob dying blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and adored the top of his rod." Here this translation makes Jacob an idolator before the Lord, " adoring the top of his rod J" But we know the use that is made of this ; it is in order to sanction the Church of Rome in her adoration of images, as the note appended shews us. The note says — " In paying a relative honour and veneration to the top of the rod or sceptre of Joseph, as to a figure of Christ's sceptre and kingdom." I now pass to another doctrinal corruption contained in the 2nd Epistle of Peter, the 1st chapter and 10th verse, " Wherefore brethren labour the more, that by good works ye may make sure your calling and election." The words " good works" are not to be found in any Greek copies of authority ; the Church of Rome inserts the words " good works" because she depends so much upon " works," and therefore desires to have some verse in the Word of God to support her. Here, then, is ano- ther doctrinal corruption opposed to the whole Scripture, and to the honour of the living God, that " by our good works we are to make our calling and election sure." You will see a parallel passage to this in the 1 3th of Hebrews, and the l6th verse, — " And do not forget to do good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favour is obtained." Here again is another departure from the Greek, in order to support that doctrine of a mixture of faith and works, which is held in the Church of Rome as the ground of the sinner's salvation. But let us compare two of their Bibles ; first the Bible brought out by Pope Sixtus the Fifth, and then another by Pope Clement the Eighth. We have been told that there were 2831 errors in the Protestant Bible. In Dr. James's Bellum Papale, it is shewn that there were up- wards of 2000 errors in the " Infallihle Bible" of Pope Sixtus the Fifth, — it was so corrupt that Pope Clement the Eighth was obliged to put it aside altogether, and bring out a new edition. I shall advert only to one pas- sage to shew the difference in the two Bibles. The 2nd Epistle of Peter, the 1st chapter, and the l6th verse, is translated in the Douay Bible, — " We have not followed cunningly devised fables." Mr. Lyons Second Speech. 191 Tn Pope Sixtus the Fifth's Bible the word translated here *^ cunningly devised" is " Indoctas^' but in Pope Clement the Eighth's Bible he strikes the ** m" from the word, and reads it " doctas." Here are two words as opposed in meaning as they can be. In one copy it would be — *' We have not followed unlearned fables." In the other — " We have not followed learned fables." Here are two infallible heads unable to agree in the translation of a simple Greek word. The Reverend Gentleman has asked us to prove the in- spiration of the Epistles to Timothy and Philemon. It is rather unhappy, in a member of the Church of Rome, to ask any question about the inspiration of the Epistles to Timothy. I trust that the Reverend Gentleman will not treat me as a Scripture Reader was lately treated in Ire- land, being bound over to keep the peace for reading to a Priest the portion of one of these Epistles that I am now about to read to you, the Priest having assevered that he was put in terror of his life by the reading thereof. These are the words : — " Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, speaking- lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanks- giving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving : for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer." — 1 Tim. iv. 1—4. When there exists a Church amongst us that forbids us to marry, and commands to abstain from meats, more especially at the present season, we need have no doubt of the inspiration of the 1st Epistle to Timothy. I now proceed to propose, briefly, some few arguments in favour of the perfection of the Holy Scriptures. The Apostle Paul gives us to understand that he com- mitted to writing that which he had spoken. In the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, the 11 th chapter and the 23d verse, he saith — •• Fori have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." Now, if this word "delivered" were translated literally, it would be " traditioned" unto you. He then goes on to WRITE the things that he had "traditioned " or spoken unto them. Again, in the 15th chapter the 1st and 2nd verses: " Now I make known to you, brethren, the Gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received and wherein you stand : By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain." 192 Downside Dlscnssio7i. — Third Day- In these verses the Apostle distinctly tells us that the Gospel which he had preached, and which also they had received, he " now" made known unto them. He 7iow writes that very gospel which he had spoken to them ; and what does he tell them with regard to that which he had formerly preached to them ? He says, " By which also ye are saved." Thus, by the written Word of God — by what the Apostle Paul preached, and afterwards wrote, we can be saved. This is all w^e contend for, that " the Holy Scriptures can instruct to salvation through faith, which is in the Lord Jesus Christ." The Reverend Gentleman has said, that the Bible is the object of our faith — this we deny — we have no object of faith but one, the Lord Jesus Christ. But the Bible teaches us what we are to believe respecting Jesus, what we are to know and feel respecting ourselves — it opens to us the path to immortality — it dissipates the clouds of spiritual darkness, and shews us the undimmed rays of light and beauty which fall from the face of Jesus, '' who is the image of God," on a sinner's soul. Wherefore, we say it is only through faith in Christ, that the Scriptures can make us " wise unto salvation" — they are the means, but the great object of Protestant faith is Jesus— and Jesus only. But the Apostle Peter seems to have had no knowledge of any revelation beyond the written Word ; in the 3rd chapter of his 2nd Epistle, he thus writes: — "As also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures to their own destruction." v. 16. St. Peter acknowledges only the Epistles of St. Paul — he acknowledges only the written ivord of the Old Testa- ment—there is no mention whatever of tradition when he thus speaks respecting the Epistles of St. Paul. You will recollect a verse that the Reverend Gentleman quoted from the 1st of Acts, wherein we are told that Christ spake to his disciples for forty days, after he rose from the dead, and he tells us that secret things were then whispered into the ears of the Apostles, wdiich they put into the ears of the Church, and that the Church has carried them down to the present day. Now it appears that the Apostle John did not keep these "secrets" to himself, but committed them to writing, for, in his 1st Epistle, it is said, — " That which we have seen and have heard we declare unto you, . . . and these things we vvuite unto you that your joy may be full." chv\p. 1. v. 3. & 4. Mr. Lyons Second Speech, 11)3 And what, he had seen and heard he tells lis m the first verse : — "That which was from the beginning-, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of hfe— That we declare unto you." The way that he declared it was not by tradition, but by writing under the infallible direction of tlie Holy Spirit — " These things we write to you." — v. 4. But again, when I desire to see the perfection of Holy Scripture, I turn to that part of the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles to which the Rev. Gentleman has referred, to the account of that meeting which is conjmonly called the " Council of Jerusalem." How is the subject in debate settled by the Council I Difterent members stood up and spoke ; and finally James arose, and closed with these words : — " To this agree the words of the Prophets, as it is written." — v. 1.5, &c. The written word of God — the wordsof the Prophets — are adduced, to try whether the things which had been spoken in the previous part of the Council " were right and fitting- words ;" and then he quotes two passages from the Old Testament Scriptures. This was the way the Apostles managed a controversy wdierein doubtful matters came be- fore them. They deliver their opinions on one side and on the other, and then try do these " agree with the words of the Prophets, as it is written V In the 18th Psalm, in the Douay edition (the !9th in the authorized Version), it is w^ritten, in the 8th and fol- lowing verses, — " The law of the Lord is unspotted, con'rerting souls ; the testimony of the Lord is faithful, giving wisdom to little ones. The justices of the Lord are right, rejoicing hearts: the cnmmaudnient of the Lord isiight^ome, enlighten- ing the eyes. The fear of the Lord is holy, enduring for ever and ever : the judgments of the Lord are true, justified in themselves," In our translation, according to the Hebrew, it is — " The law of the Lord is pertect, converting souls." In the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, the 7th chap, and the 1st verse, it is written — *' Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctitication in the fear of God." From the 18th Psalm, you heard that " llie perfect law of the Lord is able to convert the soul." Here we read, that the same law of the Lord is able to perfect sanctification in the fear of God. Now, a thing which o 194 Downside Discussion. ~~ Third Dai/. is imperfect in itself cannot produce perfection in ano- ther. Although the Church of Rome has discovered that 300 fallihles can make one infallible, we have not yet arrived at such a point in discovery. What are the words by means of which we are to perfect sanctification in the fear of the Lord ? Revert to the last three verses of the 6th chap, of this 2nd Epistle, and you will there read quotations from the written word containing these pro- mises, " by which we are to perfect sanctification in the fear of God." Here are two passages, the one referring to the conversion, and the other ascribing the sanctification, of the children of God to the instrumentality of the written word. Again, in the 26th chap, of the Acts of the Apostles, and the 17th verse, are these words : — " Delivering thee from the people and from the nations unto which I now send thee, to open their eyes, that they may be converted from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a lot among the Saints by the faith that is in me." Here the enlightening of the eyes — the conversion from darkness to light — the bringing from under the power of Satan to God — the receiving of the forgiveness of sins— and a lot among the saints by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, were the things that the Apostle was sent to accomplish. How did he effectuate this work ? He tells us in the 22nd verse : — " But being aided bj the help of God, I stand unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other thing than those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come to pass." The Apostle thus informs us that the subject matter of his preaching was written in the Prophets and in Moses, and by that preaching he turned sinners " from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God" — the writ- ten word was brought home to their hearts in the power and demonstration of the Spirit— and they received for- giveness of their sins through the blood of Jesus, and an inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith in the same Lord. Therefore, the declaration of Mr. Totten- ham, respecting the 3rd chap, of the 2nd Epistle to Timo- thy, still stands unaltered : though assailed, it hath not been moved ; even that word — " All Scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to cor- rect, to instruct in justice." Herein is contained all that the child of God requires. He wants to be taught the knoAvledge of the one true God, Mr. Lyons' Second Speech. 195 and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent— he requii-es to be reproved for sin— to be corrected for iniquity — to be in- structed in the ways of righteousness, that he may be per- fectly furnished to every good work. So that the man who takes heed to the written law of God, and is taught by the Spirit, is furnished for every good work. If he can be perfectly furnished to every good work, by means of the written word, why should Jfie go to the many traditions of man's invention, and not take the word of the living God — that word given for conv^ersion, for sanctification, and for consolation to his own children, even to the very latest times. This is a solemn subject to us, that the Scripture contains the words of eternal life. I perceive that I must soon cease to addi-ess you. I be* seech you, as in the presence of the living God, that you will attend to the written word — *' All flesh is as grass, and all the glory thereof as the flower of the field. The grass is withered and the flower is fallen, because the Spirit of the Lord hath blown upon it. Indeed the people is grass. The grass is withered, and the flower is fallen ; but the word of our Lord endureth for ever." — You are " born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, by the tvord of God, who liveth and abideth for ever." — Isaiah xl. 6 — 8 — and 1 Pet. i. 23. The written word " shall judge" all men at the last day. " The book shall be opened," and then shall it be found whether men have lived in conformity with the de- clarations of that book, or whether they *'have forsaken the waters— the living waters," " and hewn out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." I do not w^ish to proceed upon man's opinion on the sub- ject of this Rule of Faith : I desire to stand firm and fast on the word of the living God ; to take that sword of the Spirit to smite down error and to establish the truth. The mind will be tossed hither and thither by human opinion — it will be distracted by men's jarring and discordant ideas — and you will find the man of one century disagreeing with the man of another ; but when we come to the word of God, and examine it from the first of Genesis to the last of Revelations, we will find a beautiful consistency there that the spirit of man can never produce — "we will read all things necessary to make us '* wise to salvation." As my time is short, I should like to advert to one circum- stance to which allusion w^as made by the Rev. Gentleman yesterday. He said that, by our constant appeal to the written word, and by being allowed to use our own judg- ment thereon, the members of the Protestant Church must run into every species of fanaticism. And then I was 106 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. grieved to hear such mention of the nanie of a dear bro- ther in the Lord, who, although he may have fallen into error, yet still he must be dear to the hearts of all who knovv^ him : he is dear to mine, as a Christian — as a de- voted man — and I would to God that every man profess- ing the name of Christian, loved the Lord Jesus Christ with the same sincerity, and was as devoted to the Lord as that man. 1 do not mean to attempt a defence of the errors into which he may have fallen, but in estimating a man's character, w^e ought not to imitate Satan and '^ win- now" him, for the purpose of finding the vile and refuse chaff, and neglecting the precious and good wheat. This is an established principle in the Protestant Church, regarding fanaticism (1 speak of the Church of England and orthodox Dissenters) : when a man becomes a fana- tic, he is cast out ; for instance : — the Anabaptists were rejected in Germany, England, and Scotland, by the dif- ferent reformers in those countries ; but it is not so in the Church of Rome : up to the present day a man may be a fanatic or aught else he pleaseth, provided he believe in the infallibility of the Church. The Protestant Churches reject fanaticism as forming any part of their system ; but the Church of Rome will hold and cherish fanatics in her bosom. I will now refer, on this subject, to a book, a portion of which the Reverend Gentleman is obliged to read every day, under pain of mortal sin ; it is the Breviary. I read in this book of a certain St. Francis, icho sailed over an arm of the sea on his cloak, carrying with him several companions in his voyage. — Breviar. 2 Aprilis, S. Francisci de Paula Con- fessoris, Lectio vi. I take another specimen — St. Philip Nerius ; he was a singular man ; he could discern a Saint from his smell — " Virginitatem perpetuo illibatam servavit : idque assecutus est, ut eos qui puritatem colerent, ex adore, qui verd secus, ex foetore dignosceret." — Bret- 26 Maii. Leetio vi. Further, in order that he might bear the fulness of divine love, the Lord, we are told, broke two of his ribs, to alloic his heart to beat more freely . Rev. T. J. Brown Will you read that? Rev. John Lyons — " Caritate Dei vulneratus, languebat jugiter ; tantoque Cor ejus aestuabat ardore, ut cum intra fines sues coiitineri non posset, illius sinum, confractis atque elatis duabus costulis, mirabiliter Dominus ampliaverit." — Lect. V. When Reverend Gentlemen speak of fanaticism, they Mr. Browns Seventh Speech, 197 siiould remember that it may he retorted upon them with ten-fold force. I no\V commend you to God and to the word of his grace, praying that the Spirit of the living God may de- scend on those who speak and on you who hear— that he may bless our hearts with a knowledge of his, own dear Son — and that we, together with the whole Church, may meet in that kingdom where there is no strife — no division — no enmity — but where a sweet stream of love will flow through every bosom, and oneness of feeling will possess every heart— then we shall grow up to the perfect man — into the measure of the stature of the fulness of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Rev. T. J. Brown. Very different, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the situation of the Rev, Gentleman who addressed you just now and my situation. I indeed have a press of argument which I find necessary to contract, even to the depriving myself of the advantage I ought to derive from the development of it; he, on the other hand, appears to have remaining so little of argument, that it is necessary for him to enter upon a serious and solemn discourse respecting the general advantages of reading the word of God. Now to every one of these advantages I subscribe ; but the conclu- sion to which he is bound to prove is yet far distant from his premises, viz., tliat the Bible cdone contains all the doctrines which Christ willed that his Apostles should hand down to future ages. That is the point at issue, and I earnestly call your attention to it. How can Mr. L. dare, in my presence, and in the pre- sence of those who attended here during the past days of the discussion, to assert, upon the authority, as I under- stand him, of Mr. Tottenham, that ice had advanced that tradition is placed above Scripture by the Church of Rome, notwithstanding the express and decisive declara- tion to the contrary which I gave in the exposition of our doctrine on the first day. How^ can any one, though re- peatedly cautioned against uttering misrepresentation, venture to come forward and calumniate us in this manner. 198 Downside Discussion. — Third Day, No wonder that many of you have been heretofore im- pressed with false notions of the Roman Catholic religion, when it happens that, in our very presence, ministers of the Established Church dare to impute to us an as- sertion in express contradiction to the language we em- ployed. Well did I to cite to you, on the first day, the authority of members^ even Bishops of the Established Church, who owned that we had l>een maligned and cruelly calumniated; and this calumny is to be persevered in against us, regardless of honour, regardless of charity, regardless of the God of truth. I had told you that we do not prefer tradition to the word of God. I had told you that we contend that all the primary essential doctrines of Revelation are contained in the Holy Scriptures. I had told you that the decisions of Popes and Councils we do not put on an equality with the written word of God, for we hold the inspiration of every portion of the Sacred Scriptures, and establish it on a firm basis ; but the deci- sions of Popes and Councils we do not pretend to be inspired, although we repose in the declarations of Christ, that he will be with his Church to preserve it from falling into error to the consummation of the world. There is then a wide difference between the belief imputed to us by the Rev. Gentleman who has just addre&sed you, and our creed. But what answer has been given to the argmments which I recently urged ? I had adduced many instances of doctrines which the gentlemen on the other side must take on the authority of tradition only. There was abun- dant scope for his ingenuity in reconciling such apparent inconsistency ; instead of which, another attempt was made at imposing u|X)n the audience, and I am repre- sented to you as teaching that there is a contradiction between Scripture and tradition. I said not so ; and I am tempted to employ terms in characterizing the pro- ceeding of my opponent which I should afterwards regret to have uttered. Now I neither teach nor believe that between them there is any real contradiction ; but pressing my opponents by what is termed an argumentum ad hominem, I exposed the fallacy of their " rule of faith" by showing that the ministers and members of the Established Church acknowledge, subscribe to, and believe in several doc- trines for which there is no clear proof in Scripture, and to establish which they must have recourse to the authority of the Church J supported by the traditions of past ages. Mr. Browns Seventh Speech. 199 I shall not dwell much at length upon such arguments as have been urged. There is but little to notice. 1 have, however, to remark that the texts produced from bcnpture to prove the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, did not prove clearhj the procession from both, but from the Father only. Now the great difficulty with the Greek Church is the j^rocessiori from the bon. The Greek Church has as much learning and acquaint- ance with the Scriptures as the Rev. Gentleman, yet it is not able to discover the procession of the Holy Ghost trom the Father and the Son. .i . i Referring to my arguments, Mr. L. told you that he had produced several commands for the Bible to be written. He did not, however, produce any texts expressing a command that the whole of revelation should be com- mitted to writing, although this was the point which he oup-ht to have established. What proof indeed was there of this in his In-inging testimonies from Scripture tliat certain portions of revealed doctrines should be, or had been written? Is there any immediate connection between the fact that portions of revelation have been written, and that the whole of revelation has been committed to writing. Mv position therefore was, that there appears no divine command for all the instructions which Christ gave to his Apostles, ALL the communications relative to matters of belief designed to be handed down to future ages, lor each one and all to be transmitted no otherwise than by the written word. This was my position; but the Rev. Gentleman takes credit for proving things v^hich 1 never denied, and on which I freely agree with him. What Mr. L. has advanced concerning the corruptions of the Catholic Scripture, I am obliged briefly to notice. Yesterday, by a quibble, he evaded the point upon winch I challenged him, to show that, in the different editions ot the Catholic Scriptures, there were any diff'erences o/i mat- ters of belief, 1 did not speak of literal or verbal varia- tions merely, but of doctrinal variations; and I maintained that of these there was not one on any article oj belie} m the various editions of our own Scriptures. Moreover, whatever diff'erent readings of these Scriptures do occur m our Bibles have all originated in unimportant variations of ancient MSS. ; and I shall just now have occasion, from the various readings of the Hebrew and Greek Mfet^. which we now have, and the variations in the modern Protestant translations of the Scriptures, to show the ad^ 200 Downside Discussion. -Third I^ny vantages of our Catholic translation ; for our Latin Vulgate' was published in the fourth century by St. Jerome, on the authority of MSS. to which, at the present day, there are none equal, or approaching in antiquity. Mr. L. attempted to prove the inspiration of the Epistles to Timothy from 1 Tim. c. 4, wherein it is fore- told that some shall in latter times arise forbidding to eat meat and to marry. What proof, let me ask, is there here, that the Apostle was inspired to tcrite the ivhole of these Epistles, because in the course of one of them, moved by the Holy Spirit, he predicts the future ? Does it thence follow that there was a command to write even this one Epistle ? Is there no difference between a prophet receiving a revelation from God with regard to certain points which he chooses to hand doAvn in writino- and his receiving a divine command to icrite every portion of the book which contains that revelation. But Mr. L. brought forward the text in question because he thought he should be able to persuade you that the Catholic Church was condemned by it. The Apostle says there shall come some who shall forbid to marry and to eat meats. Now ice do not abso- lutely forbid to marry ; that is another of the calumnies frequently uttered against us, and which I will cursorily notice. We do not prohibit marriage except when a person has voluntarily taken upon himself a solemn obliga- tion before God, that he will abstain therefrom ; we con- tend merely, that when a person has made such a vow, he shall fulfil the vow he has taken to God. Does not St. Paul, I Tim. v. 11, 12, condemn the yoimg widows who grew wanton, having broken their faith with God. The Rev. Gentleman tells you that we are pointed out by the Apostle, because we forbid to eat meats. Does this come from a minister of the Established Church ? If I open his own Book of Common Prayer, I find therein a table of " Days of abstinence and fasting," and I find enjoined by it to fast and abstain during the forty days of Lent. Whilst we, in compliance with the injunctions of our Church, fast and abstain during those forty days, a minister of the Established Church, whose Book of Common Prayer equally enjoins the same observances, comes forw^ard and applies to us a prediction of apostacy because we fulfil the injunctions of our Church, whilst he neglects the precepts of his. What sort of proceeding is thi^s? Who then were those to whom the Apostle alluded ? Mr. Brown s Seventh Speech. 201 There were certain heretics in the early Churcli, such as the Manichees, the Encralites, &.G., who did prohihit marriage and the eating of meats, because, as they taught, certain meats were bi/ their nature impure, and matrimony was always a sin. We, on the contrary, contend that the state of marriage is of itself holy, and that all meats are of themselves clean. But there was another assertion made which was still bolder. Yesterday Mr. T. told us that the inspiration of the Bible was not an object of faith, but the means only ; and now his Rev. Friend, with whom I suppose he holds communion, gets up in the presence of us all, and not only subscribes to that doctrine, not only declares that the inspiration of the Bible is not an object of faith, but con- tends that there is no other object of faith but the Lord Jesus Christ. Was it in a moment of thoughtlessness that he uttered that expression ; or was it the deliberate testimony of his unbelief? It was too shocking, 1 trust, to be his deliberate opinion. Yes! it has been declared in this assembly that not merely that the chief, but that the only object of faith of a minister of the Established Church is the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Trinity, according to Mr. Lyons, is not an object of faith. Let then Mr. T. report Mr. L. to the Reformation Society ; and let the Reformation Society exclude him from its platform, for not holding the essential doctrine of the Trinity as an object of his belief. For surely he ought to be excluded who does not hold that saving faith, which, according to that Society's teaching, is necessary in order that a Christian may be admitted to the presence of God. Some stories were read to you about Catholic saints. I know not whether Mr, T. is disposed to support Mr. L. who, erroneously, translated the passage which he read from the Latin, that many of the companions of St. Francis sailed over the straits of Sicily on his cloak. 1 will not, however, lose my time upon these stories ; they have no- thing to do with Catholic faith. We are not called upon to believe the particulars related therein, and I do not place any certain reliance upon any one of those stories ; I am as much permitted as you are to treat them as legendary tales. Mr. L. told you, that St. Francis and many of his companions swam over on his cloak ; but, 1 repeat, the Latin does not bear that meaning ; neither does it say, that '' Our Lord broke the ribs of St. Philip Neri." I now resume my reasoning against the Protestant Rule. 202 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. I had engaged to show, Jirst, that the Protestant rule is not supported by proofs, evident or presumptive; secondly, that it is contrary to the express language of Scripture ; thirdly, that it is contradicted in practice by Protestants ; and, fourthly, that it involved many other insurmountable difficulties. The first three of those positions have not been fairly met. I now come to the fourth. The remaining difficulties which encompass the Protes- tant rule arise from the obscurity of Scripture, and the insecurity of having for the only rule of faith, the writteri word of God, without a visible and unerring authority to expound its meaning. It has been repeated, that I am not to judge of the manner in which Christ willed his word to be handed down to our times. I do not, indeed, mean to say, that God could not have adopted this or that method of transmitting his revelations; but, I contend, that there is scriptural authority, as well as rational presumptions, against the fact, that Christ did will that, by the written word only, all the doctrines which he taught, should be conveyed to us. Now, I am entitled to the use of such reasoning as I have adopted, when, besides showing you how incompatible is the supposition of such an only rule with the conduct of the Apostles, and the practice of the primitive ages, I oppose to it, moreover, several manifest declarations of the inspired Volume, as well as the doctrines of Protestants on many points, which they cannot substan- tiate solely by the written word of God. Allow me, now, to lay before you some of the insurmountable difficulties of admitting Scripture as the only rule of faith, without an infallible expounding authority. The first is borrowed from the obscurity of the sacred text. I find in Scripture itself, evident proofs of this obscurity. In Luke xxiv. 13, is related the history of certain disciples who were going to , a village called Emmaus. These disciples were as capable | of understanding; the sacred volume as the thousands into | whose hands the work is now put, and yet they did not \ discover the very foundation of the doctrines of salvation therein; they did not discover belief in the resurrection of the Son of God. Accordingly, in the 27th verse, it is related, that Christ, " Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." In Acts viii. 30, 31, we read of an Eunuch, an officer of the Queen of Ethiopa, a man above the common rank, one who ought to have been able to understand the Scrip- Mr. Browns Seventh Speech, 203 ture, if Scripture is so clear in all its essential parts ; this man has before him the book of the Prophet Isaiah, he is reading concerning a fundamental doctrine of salvation, the passion and death of the Messiah. Does he under- stand the book? Does this man, having a mind above the ordinary calibre, comprehend what he reads therein ? — He does not : for it is related in c. viii. v. 30, 31 — " Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the Prophet Esaias, and he said, Understandest thou what thou readest ? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide 7ne? And he desired Philip that he should come up and sit with him." I refer you also to the 2d Ep. of St. Peter, iii. 16, where the Apostle says, "As also in all his (Paul's) Epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things hard to be understood, which they that are iinlearned and unstable wrest^ as thej do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruc- tion." Here is a solemn warning from the Apostle Peter, ad- dressed to all who are ignorant and unstable, that, on account of the difficulty of understanding the written word of God, they are in imminent danger of wresting, not St. Paul's Epistles only, but likewise the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. I shall be taught, perhaps, that the declaration of the Apostle applies, not to the Epistles of St. Paul, but only to certain mysteries of which they treat. — Yes ; so I shall probably be answered ; and this answer furnishes an illustration of the impossibility, without the guidance of some unerring authority, for a man to be so sure that he understands rightly the written word on dis- puted matters, as to be able to make thereon an act of di- vine faith. It is usual to refer to the Greek text in proof that the obscurity of which St. Peter speaks, and which he pro- nounces to be so dangerous to the unlearned and unstable, is to be explained of certain mysteries of which St. Paul had treated, because the Apostle uses the neuter pronoun oiQ^ which, it is said, can be substituted only for the neuter noun, signifying Mysteries, and not for the feminine noun, which is translated Epistles. Now, as few of you will be able to avail yourselves of the Greek text, I will endeavour to assist you. First, then, the Vulgate translation, made by St. Jerome, applies the Apostle's meaning to St. Paul's Epistles ; and this translation was taken from earlier Greek copies than any one now extant. Secondly, the feminine pro- noun atg, referrino- naturallv to the feminine noun, ejnslles, 204 Downside Discussion. — Third Day, is found in the celebrated Alexandrian MS., and in six other ancient MSS. Thirdly, Beza thought that read- ing more deserving of credit than the reading commonly adopted. Lastly, a celebrated Protestant Commentator upon Scripture, Dr.Macknight, examining the difficulty, observes that even if we do follow the ordinary Greek reading of the pronoun oiq, yet the sense more naturally points to the Epistles of St. Paul, by understanding the noun Tpcifiixaai, signifying letters or writings. Is there not here sufficient to convince you that, not by the mere text of Scripture alone, without an expounding authority, can you be assured of the meaning of Scripture, which is not to be got at even by having recourse to the origi- nal Greek, the authorities on one side being answered by authorities on the other, which are deserving of equal credit. This obscurity of Scripture is acknowledged even by Pro- testants, who own that they have not been able to discover that manifestation of divine light which is said to irradiate the minds and hearts of every one who reads the Scripture, and whereby ail can understand its meaning. I have not time to dwell upon this topic ; but, 1 hold in my hand (and, if I had not taken up so much time in refuting ob- jections, I should have read a portion of it), Locke's Com- mentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul ; and I invite any one who may happen to have the book in his possession, to peruse the preface, wherein he will find it acknowledged, that the Epistles of St. Paul were so obscure, that even Locke was not able to satisfy himself that he had ascer- tained their true interpretation. In acknowledgment of the obscurity of Scripture, I could quote the testimony of various other Protestants ; but I shall content myself with one only, as my time is short. Arnaud de Paelembourg, in his preface to the works of Episcopius, says, " All controversies amongst Cbristians are enveloped in profound darkness, as well on account of the depth of the mysteries they regard, as of the weak- ness of our understandings ; and there is not one of the different parties, that does not follow some passage of Scripture which, in his opinion, is probable." Facts, however, will appeal to your understanding more forcibly than the testimony of any single Protestant. A discussion, similar to the present, was held in the year 1566 at Waradin in Hungary, before Sigismund the First and the nobles of his court. The controversy was con- ducted between the New Arians on one side, having for their advocates George Blandrata and Francis David ; on Mr. Brown s Seventh Speech. 205 the opposite side by the Lutherans and Calvinists, whose champions were Peter Milvius and P. Caroli. Both parties were members of the new Reformation, but now arrayed against each other; both held one same rule of faith; both rejected tradition and authority; and both determined, if possible, to convict each other of heresy by the same ride. Day after day they disputed one against the other, and the result of each day's disputation left them as widely separated as they were before it. Texts from Scripture were brought forward on one side, and answered by the other ; interpretations and solutions were reciprocally offered. At last Milvius and Caroli, the champions of the Lutherans and Calvinists, appealed to the authority of tradition^ and quoted the belief of the Fathers. Then with just indignation the Arians rose up and said — " How dare you now to bring forward the au- thority of tradition in your disputes with Catholics. To be consistent with yourselves, either abandon the authority of men which you now oppose to the written word of God, or declare yourselves Papists." In like manner, to the gentlemen of the Reformation Society I say : " You hold many points which you are not able to sub- stantiate except by tradition; either change therefore your Rule of Faith which excludes tradition, or act more consistently and become Roman Catholics." Thus the discussion broke up ; the Lutherans and Calvinists withdrew in disgrace, whilst their antagonists were ap- plauded by the King and all the assembly. I shall be told, perhaps, that the obscurity of Scripture regards points upon which men may differ without dis- agreeing upon any matter of essential importance. Such probably is the answer that is already preparing for me. But the differences between Protestants prove that the obscurities of Scripture do not regard matters of little importance, but matters of essential consequence. Will you say that the doctrine of the real presence, as held by us, is not of es5e/2f/«Z importance? Are we not censured for it as being idolators ? Has it not been assigned as one principal motive and o;round of separation of many sects from the Church of Rome ? You will however find, next week, that we shall produce from Scripture testimonies which appear to us most clear in favour of our doctrine, whereas our adversaries will not acknowledge these pas- sages to be by any means favourable to us; they too on their sicle will appeal to other testimonies of Scripture, 206 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. of which we shall contest the meaning. Moreover, dissen- sions upon this matter have existed, not only between Catholics and Protestants, but amongst Protestants them- selves. The Lutherans and the Sacramentarians engaged in violent altercations thereon, approaching almost to a bloody warfare. Hospinian, in his Hist. Sacram. part. 2, anno 1525, fol. 32, tells us that when Carlostadius, one of the leaders of the Sacramentarians, was sitting over his cups with Luther, the conversation turned upon the difference of belief on the real presence. Luther put into his hand a piece of money as an earnest of future contro- versy ; and challenging him to the contest added, that the more virulent should be his invectives, the more he (Luther) would esteem him. Accordingly they did write against each other with scandalous acrimony ; and I doubt not that the gentlemen of the Reformation Society, and all sensible Protestants feel ashamed of the way in which those Apostles of their Reformation conducted that controversy. It is evident, however, that Scripture is not clear even on essential doctrines. — Is not the Trinity of Persons in the unity of the Godhead another essential point ? Yet upon the doctrine of the Trinity, which you seem to discover so clearly in Scripture, others find therein great obscurity. The Arians, a sect formerly more nume- rous than all the Protestants united, maintained that the consubstantiality of God the Son with his Father was not in Scripture ; and they would not agree to the meaning of those testimonies of the written word by which we prove it. Texts such as you allege were produced ; but they contended that they were obscure, and ought to be explained by contrary texts. — The Macedonians could not discover that the Holy Ghost was equal to the Father and the Son. Passages of Scripture were urged against them ; they, on their side, brought forward other passages which they contended were as clear as those alleged against them. — The unity of Person in Christ is of great import- ance to faith, yet the Nestorians could not discover the clearness of Scripture on this head. — The Eutychians, on the contrary, a sect which remains to this day, could not discover in Scripture a difference of Natures in Christ, but they contended that his human nature was absorbed by the divine. Here then there are differences, not between Catholics and Protestants only, but between those who differ from you as well as us, arising from the obscurity of Scriptwe in matters of the highest importance. Mr. Browns Seventh Speech. 207 Scripture is indeed so obscure, that I put it to your- selves whether any of you do make out the meaning of your only Rule of Faith by private judgment merely according to the principle of Protestants, or whether you do not depend upon the judgment and assistance of others. Do you collate passage wdth passage? Do you remove the obscurity of meaning in one place by the aid of others which are less obscure? Is it thus that you penetrate into the true sense of your only rule ? Or do you not have recourse to your commentators? Do you not apply to your ministers, and rely entirely on their opinions and guidance ? What else can account for Pro- testants remaining all their life in that sect in which they happened to be born ? The mere fact of having been born in a particular sect does not make Scripture clear in this or that sense ; yet you find generally that those who are born in the Established Church discover in Scripture the divine right of episcopacy ; the Presbyterians, represented in the Reformation Society by Mr. Shanks, find in Scrip- ture the Presbyterian doctrine, that Bishops are anti- scriptural, and that the Church should be governed only by elders. The Baptists find therein no authority for the baptism of infants ; and the Quakers find no authority for baptism at all, and conclude that therefore baptism ought to be omitted. Whence comes it, I repeat, that you are all sure to find your particular creed, according to the particular church in which you were born ? Is not this a proof that it is not upon the evidence of Scripture alone that you found your faith ? There have been clear-headed Protestants who have acknowledged this. I will quote briefly from Sir Richard Steele's dedication to Pope Innocent XI. of his translation of a work entitled " An Account of the State of the Roman Catholic Religion throughout the World." In p. 2, he remarks with great acuteness that With them (the Protestants) a claim is set up "to those privileges and perfections which you boast of as peculiar to your own. So that many of the most quick-sighted and sagacious persons have not been able to discover any other difference between us as to the main principle of all doctrine, govern- ment, worship, and discipline, but this one ; viz. that you cannot err in any thing you determine, and we never do. That is, in other words, that you are infallible, and ive always in the right." — p. 16. " For, at the same time that we are warmly contending against your disputants for the right of the people to search and consider the Gospel themselves, it is but taking care, in some other of our controversies, to fix it upon them, that they must not abuse this right; that they must not pretend to be wiser than their superiors ; that they must take care to understand particular texts as the Church understands them ; and WS Downside Discussion. — Third Day. as their guides, who have an interpretative authority to explain them. '\ his we find to be as effectual with many as taking the Scriptures out of their hands ; and because it is done in this gentlemanlike manner, and gives them an oppor- tunity of showing their humility, it passes very smoothly off without their con- sidering once the absurdity it leads to ; that (as doctors differ, and councils too) this method layeth a necessity upon two different men, nay, upon the same man in different circumstances, to understand the same text in two different, and often in two contradictary senses." In a similar' strain this eminent Protestant writer pro- ceeds for several pages, clearly showing that you derive your faith not from the exercise of your own private judg- ment, but from the authoritative explanation of Scripture given you by your ministers. Once more, then, I put it to you, can Scripture be the onli/ rule of faith? For that Christ instituted a rule we all acknowledge ; but what must have been the character of that rule ? We may cer- tainly rely upon the wisdom and goodness of Christ, that as he willed man to be saved, he would not have aban- doned each one to the exercise of his private judgment upon the meaning of such an obscure rule as this, of which he saw that so many various and conflicting in- terpretations would be given. 'Consequently ."scripture, without an unerring authority to expound it, cannot, I maintain, be the only rule of faith, since I have shown, even by your own practice, that it is so very obscure. Although we may not oppose our reasoning to any re- vealed doctrine of Christ, yet I contend that we may ai'gue from the known goodness and wisdom of God, that he would not act less wisely than a human legislator. I come next to the insemirity of the Pj'otestant rule. This is demonstrated from the uncertainty in which its different readings place you. You must borrow your meaning of Scripture, either from the original Hebrew text with regard to the Old Testament, and from the Greek with regard to the New ; or from your own trans- lation. Now, neither the Hebrew nor the Greek text are secure guides, neither is your own translation, because there have crept into all of them many corruptions. In the Hebrew text, the celebrated Dr. Kennicott has disco- vered between the edition of 1448 and that of Everardus Vanderhooght in 1705, 12,000 various readings. De Rossi, of Parma, has added thereto four quarto volumes. You will reply that these do not regard matters of much consequence. I have not now time to enter into this matter; but besides its various readings you are dependent for the correct meaning of the Hebrew upon the tradition Mr. Browns Seventh Speech. 209 of men most averse to the Christian religion, the Jews. For, we must either read the Hebrew text icitli or without the vowel points. Now these vowel points are additions to the texts : vowels do not appear in the writings of several primitive languages, in which words were repre- sented by consonants, and the sense must be made out only by the reader's supplying the vowels, so that widely different meanings may be given to the same word ac- cording to the vowels that are introduced. I may illus- trate this by an example in English p n c h : this, accord- ing to the vowels you supply, either signifies something that is not very pleasant, pinch ; or it may signify punch, which is more agreeable ; or it may stand for paunch. If then you tell me that you read the Hebrew Scriptures hy the vowel points, I ask from whom did you receive the vowel points? From the Jews, some hundreds of years after the introduction of the Christian religion, when Hebrew was a dead language. Then were invented those readings of the Sacred Text which were not probably the readings that the inspired writers designed, but the unau- thorized traditional readings of the Jews. Or, you will tell me you read without the vowel points. From whom did you borrow your method? It is again from the suspi- cious traditions of the Jews, or from some fanciful system of your own. The Greek text has been exceedingly mutilated. Dr. Mills enumerates 30,000 different readings in the different MSS. of the New Testament which he reviewed. I shall be told that these too do not affect the meaning upon matters of importance. I am prepared, however, to show they do affect the sense upon important points, and I will instance one or two. In John viii. 27, your read- ing is, •* Tliey understood not that he spake to them of the Father." Our reading is, " That he called God his Father." Now your reading is founded on the Greek MSS., and so is ours. But there is an important difference in the meaning of these different readings ; for ours proves the divinity of Christ which yours does not. In 1 John v. 6', you read, " It is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." P 210 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. Beza, a celebrated Protestant scholar and divine, reads upon the authority of Greek MSS. " The Spirit bearetli witness that the Spirit is truth." The difference here, too is important; for upon his reading Beza in his notes of his Greek Testament grounds belief in the private testimony of the Spirit. In Acts i. 11, you will find these words: — " This same Jesus which is taken up from you into Heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go iuto Heaven." Such is your reading. Beza cites three MSS. which he read : — " This same Jesus, he himself shall come, as ye have seen him go into Heaven." This also is an important variation, since Beza pretends, from the second reading, to draw an argument against the real presence. Here, then, we have a variety of readings which certainly tend to exhibit your rule of faith as inse- ewe ; and you have no visible unerring authority, on which you can rely to secure to you the meaning of your rule, the written word of God. This would have been the place, but the argument was anticipated yesterday, in which I should refer you to the various and corrupt readings of modern Protestant trans- lations. There is however another point which I shall briefly notice. Your meaning depends very much upon the different manner in which you punctuate the Scriptures. If the Scriptures were put into your hands without full-stops here or commas there, in fine, without any punctuation, or without being divided into chapters and verses, would you then be able to make Scripture the only rule of faith? Would then each one, by his private judgment, be able to satisfy himself upon the true reading of the Scriptures ? It may not be known to all, though to many it probably is, that the Scriptures, as originally delivered, had no divisions or distinctions, such as they now have, of chapters, verses, and punctuation. These are all of modern introduction. Yet, the sense will depend greatly upon the manner in which the divisions and punctuation are placed. What authority have you for reading in various places with commas which suggest one interpretation, and not with full stops, which give another. In Rom. ix. 5. you read: " Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." Mr. Browns Seventh Speech. 211 In this reading you find a manifest proof that Christ is God. Your conclusion is reasonable from the punctuation, as it is in 2/oiir printed copies : but there are others, Grotius and Socinus, who admit not that punctuation, and who cannot be proved by your principles not to have as much right as you to read the New Testament with such punctua- tion as thei/ deem best. Now by placing a full stop, after the words : — " Christ came," — the emphatic words " God blessed for ever," which form a separate sentence, are made not to apply to our divine Saviour, and thus you, who are without a visible unerring authority to expound the Scrip- ture, are deprived of this text to prove the divinity of Christ. Direct this reasoning to many other important passages of Scripture which I have not time to adduce, and you will be convinced that there is in the Protestant rule, by itself, no means of satisfying yourselves that you have the true interpretation of the inspired books. But WE are secure. Whence, you ask, is our security ? Our security is in the promises of God, that he will be with his Church till the consummation of the world ; that his Spirit shall lead it unto all truth ; that, according to the declaration of St. Paul, the Church is the jnllar and ground of the faith. Satisfied therewith, we receive the true in- terpretation of Scripture, on contested matters, from the unerring Church ; and, in so receiving it, we are certain, that we are not going astray from the real meaning of the inspired word of God. The Rev. E. Tottenham. Mr. Brown started in his last speech by expressing his supposition that it was in consequence of the lack of argu- ment on this side, that my reverend friend (Mr. Lyons), who has left the room, preached to the people on the value of the Scriptures. Now, it was not on account of any want of argument that my friend thus preached, but he doubtless recollected that he was a minister as well as a disputer, and that, though his primary object in coming here was to advance and to answer certain arguments, yet that the Apostle's exhortation holds good even in this place — to " preach in season and out of season." My opponent, 212 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. in his first speech to-day, adverted again to the text in Timothy, which has been brought forward several times during this discussion, and to an observation of mine with respect to it, — namely, that Christ did not come to intro- duce a new religion, but to give a fuller revelation of the same religion which had, in its fundamental principles, existed previously in the world. He said, " if this be a fact, how can you prove the Trinity, and how can you establish baptism from the Old Testament V Now, Sir, even supposing that I, individually, were placed in a diffi- culty on this point, and were consequently unable to prove either the one or the other from the Old Testament, I might, nevertheless, stand upon the Apostle's words, which say, that the Old Testament Scriptures, of which he speaks, were " able to make a man wise unto salvation.'' It matters not then ivfiat doctrines Mr. Brown asks me to prove out of the Old Testament. The Apostles words are sufficiently declarative of the fact that the Old Testa- ment Scriptures must contain all truth absolutely necessary to salvation. But my friend, who has left the room, has shewn you that the doctrine of the Trinity can be derived from the Old Testament, and he has referred you also to the practice of the Jews even at this day, who acknowledge the Trinity in their Synagogues. As to baptism not being proved out of the Old Testament, Mr, Brown should recollect that the corresponding rite of circumcision can be abundantly proved, if baptism cannot : and the reason why baptism cannot be proved from the Old Testament is obvious : it was introduced in the New Dispensation to occupy the place of circumcision in the Old. Mr. Brown has re-asserted, what he declares, he has often said, that all primary essential truth is contained in the written Word, but not all that Christ said, I am a little surprised at Mr. Brown's urging this statement again, because I admitted fully, from the outset, that we had no reason to suppose that all the things which Christ said are contained in Scripture. I contended that all necessary truth being contained in Scripture is enough to constitute it a, sufficient rule of faith. As to all that Christ said not being contained in Scripture, that is nothing to the point. St. John says, as I quoted yesterday, in his 21st chap, and 25th verse: — • " But there are also many other things which Jesus did : which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to con- tain the books that should be written." [ Mr, Tottenham's Seventh Speech. 213 Here the Apostle, by a strong figure, declares the im- possibility of every thing which Christ said or did, being written—Sind if such be the impossibility on the score of writing them — if '* all the world could not contain the books that should be written," — is it really a fact, as I asked before, that the Church of Rome has got these sayinofs and doings in her traditions? With regard to the difficulty that was started about knowing which councils were general or legal, Mr. Brown passes this over very summarily. He declares he will not enter into the subject, because no Roman Catholic feels a difficulty upon the point. Why, Sir, that may be very true, certainly. There mav be many Roman Catho- lics who do not feel a difficulty on this point, but I contend they are in a difficulty, and a most dangerous one too ; and it behoves them to consider it well, lest they may be resting their faith upon a human founda- tion. In reference to the eight Eastern Councils of which I spoke, my opponent said there was no instance of any council being held where a Pope or his Legate did not preside. 1 think, however (to go no further into the sub- ject), that Mr. Brown will find it very difficult to prove that, at least in the first Nicene Council, either Pojje or Legate -presided. A body of evidence can be adduced to prove that it was the Emperor Constantine who presided; or, if any ecclesiastic did preside, it was Hosius, a Spanish Bishop. The onus now rests on Mr. Brown to proiie that the Pope or his Legate presided : as for the Pope himself, the fact is admitted that he did not, on account of the infirmities of old age. Allusion has been made to a variety of subjects which Protestants believe and practise, but which, we are told, cannot be proved from Scripture. We are informed that Protestants, at least members of the Church of England, be- lieve in infant baptism ; and that Protestants generally, be- lieve in the change of the Sabbath : that they eat blood, and that they do not wash their neighbours' feet; and Mr. Brown contends that, because such is their belief and practice, while they cannot, according to his judgment, substantiate them from the Scriptures, therefore the Scriptures are in- sufficient as a rule of faith! Now, Sir, I think this is as complete a non sequitur as ever I heard in my life. How does the argument really stand for infant baptism, for the change of the Sabbath, and all the other points that Mr. 214 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. Brown maintains are not sanctioned by Scripture? If they were not to he found in Scripture the conclusion woidd he, not that the Scriptures were insufficient as a ride of faith; hut either that we were wrong in holding those things, (if they were directly opposed to Scripture), or, only, that they were matters of minor consequence, (if they were not supported by Scripture, but yet not contrary to its testimony.) That would be the legitimate conclusion. But I am not going just now to enter into proofs, in con- tinuation of what my friend said relative to these different subjects, particularly as this is my last speech, and I have something else to do. Let me here notice an inconsistency with regard to Mr. Brown's reasoning, which has followed him during the whole course of the discussion. He says, that ti^adition is the divine autho7^ity on which we receive the Bible as inspired. Now, mark that ; and yet, what did Mr. Brown attempt yesterday 1 Why, he endeavoured to prove the divine authority of tradition from the Bible! He asserts that w^e must know the inspiration of the Bible from tradi- tion, and yet he endeavours to prove tradition from the Bible; and if this be not aligning in a circle, I do not know what is. As respects the subject of baptism, although I am not about to enter at length into the proofs concerning it, yet I am going to refer to a kindred point, which is, perhaps, of as much consequence at the present moment. Mr. Brown says, infant baptism cannot be proved from Scrip- ture. Now, supjmse it cannot, that, as I before argued, would not prove the Bible to be an insufficient rule of faith, but would prove, at the most, that certain classes of Protestants are mistaken in holding infant baptism. I open, however, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and I read thus : — " That this law (i. e. of Baptism) extends, not only to adults, but also to infants, and that the Church has received this its interpretation from Apos- tolic tradition, is confirmed by the authority and strengthened by the concur- rent testimonies of the Fathers." Thus far for the introduction. Then the Catechism proceeds : — " Besides, it is not to be supposed that Christ our Lord, would have withheld the sacrament of baptism, and the gjace which it imparts, from children, of whom he said, " Suffer the tittle children, and stay them not from coming unto me ; for the kingdom of Heaven is for such" — from children whom he embraced — upon whom he imposed hands — whom he blessed. Moreover, when we read that an entire fannly was baptized by St. Paul, children^ icho are included in (heir number, must, it is obvious, have also been cleansed in the purifying waters of baptism. Circu?ncisi(i?i hw, which was a figure of baptism, aiFords a strong Mr. Tottenham's Seventh Speech, 215 argument in proof of this primitive practice. That children were circumcised on the eighth day is universally known. If then circumcision, " made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh," was profitable to children, shall not baptism, which is the circumcision of Christ, not " made by hand,'' be also profitable to them ?" Sec. &c.— Cat. Concil. Trid. Pars 2. de Bap. Sac. Now, Sir, I say that though the Church of Rome pro- fesses to have tradition in favour of infant baptism ; yet here the Catechism of the Council of Trent, pubhshed by order of Pope Pius v., proves irifant baptism by the very same Scrip- tural references by which Protestants of the Church of England prove it at the present day. And yet Mr. Brown says infant baptism cannot he proved from Scripture. I shall give you also the testimony of Cardinal Bellar- mine (andhe was a man of some weight, it will be acknow- ledged, in the Church of Rome) ont his subject : — " Although we do not find it expressly commanded that we should baptize infants, vet this is gathered with sufficient clearness from the Scriptures, as we have already shown." \ Then he goes on to observe : — " Besides, the tradition of the Apostles is of not less authority with us than Scripture." — Bell, de Sac. Bap. lib. i. c. 9. sect. 2. You see here that, independant of the testimony of tra- dition, Bellarmine asserts that, though there is no actual command respecting infant baptism, yet it 7nay be gathered from Scripture witli sufficient clearness. So far for the testimony of a Roman Catholic Cardinal, and of the Ro- man Catholic authorised Catechism, on this subject. But Mr. Brown attempted to evade one of the argu- ments which we might use on the subject of infant bap- tism by sayino^, " You will bring me to the place where it is said St. Paul baptized the house of Stephanas : and you will say there were children in the household : but that is a mere matter of opinion." It happens, nevertheless, that this is the precise argument which the Catechism of Trent has used: — " Moreover, when we read that an entire family was baptized by St. Paul, children, ivho are included in their number, must, if is obvious, have also been cleansed in the purifying waters of Baptism."— Cat. Concil. Trid. Pars 2. de Bap. Sac. There the Tridentine Catechism does teach there were children baptized in the case referred to, although Mr. Brown is not contented with the argument, inasmuch as he supposes it is a mere matter of opinion. The Rev. Gentleman further talked of baptism by sprinkling and by immersion, and he contends that the literal meaning' of the orio:inal word, is, that persons 216 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. should be baptised bi/ immersion, not by sprinkling. Then he refers to the case of the Church of England baptizing by sprinkling. It is unnecessary for me to enter into a criticism on the Greek word, but I beg Mr. Brown to notice the public and private baptism of infants in the Book of Common Prayer, and likewise the case of adult baptism, and he will find that the Church of England holds primarily baptism by immersion ; and it is a depar- ture from the regular rule when baptism by sprinhling is used. I shall give an extract from the service for the Public Baptismof Infants. After the Minister tells the Sponsors to name the child, the Rubric says : — •' And then, naming it after them, (if they shall certify him that the child may well endure it) he shall dip it in the water discreetly and warily, saying, &c. — but if they shall certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it, saying, &c.'' Next, at the close of the form of Private Baptism, and of the reception of such, as were privately baptized, into the Church, we read : — *' But if they which bring the infant to the church do make such uncertain answers to the priest's questions, as that it cannot appear that the child was baptized with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, (which are the essential parts of Baptism) then let the ])riest baptize it in the form before appointed for public baptism of infants ; saving that at thedippiug of the child in the font, he shall use this form of words, &c." I go now to the Baptism of those of Riper Years ; and this is the declaration : — " Then shall the Priest take each person to be baptized by the right hand and placing him conveniently by the font, according to his discretion, shall ask the godfathers and godmothers the name; and then shall dip him in the WATER, or pour water on him, saying, »kc." In these three instances the jjrbnary laio., you perceive, is baptism by immersion: and then there is a departure from it allowed, in certain cases, according to the Rubric. Mr. Brown seemed to be very much offended at a de- claration made, by Mr. Lyons, namely, that Roman Ca- tholics placed tradition above the Scriptures; and he adds, that Mr. Lyons made this assertion in corroboration of what I had previously said. Now, what my Rev. friend shewed w^as, that {according to Mr. Browns reasoning in those several cases that he adduced) tradition and Scripture would contradict each other : and, therefore, if Roman Catholics hold their sentiments upon those several points from tradition, they must have 'practically made tradition superior to the written word. As to my- self, I yesterday quoted a passage from Bellarmine, in Mr. Tottenham s Seventh Speech. 217 which he declares that though all necessary truths are contained in Scripture, yet " the true sense of the Scrip- tures depends upon the unwritten tradition of the Church :" and what I said was, that it is practically putting the un- written word above the written, if the sense of the latter depends upon the interpretation of the former. Respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost, you will remember that my Rev. opponent, in his first observations on that subject, stated that the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son could not be proved from Scripture : but in his last speech he has admitted that the text quoted by Mr. Lyons proves the procession from the Father, but not from the Son. Even wnth regard to this latter point, however, he has taken quite a dif- ferent view from the Rhemish Annotators, for in the note on the passage in the Rhemish Testament, we read thus : — " This provfs, against the modern Greeks, (to whom Mr. Brown referred) that the Holy Ghost proceedetli _/7om the Son, as well as from the Father: olherwhe he could not be sent by the Son." If Mr. Brown is content to be at issue with the Rhemish Annotators, in order to maintain his point, he certainly may. Allusion was next made to some observations of Mr. Lyons' yesterday as to the variations in the Douay Bible. In order to correct a false impression that appears to have rested on the minds of our friends on the other side, 1 must re-assert, what I believe 1 stated in my last speech yesterday, namely, that the object of Mr. Lyons at that time, was not, primarily, to shew the corruptions existing in that version, but to point out tJiat successive editions of the Douay Bible had apj^roximated nearer and nearer to the authorized version of the Scriptures ; and this was done for the purpose of vindicating the latter, which we sup- posed to have been attacked by Mr. Macdonnell, no title having been given to the Bible upon which observations had been made by him. The proof of the inspiration of one of the Epistles to Timothy which my friend adduced, did not appear to satisfy Mr. Brown ; and at this dissatisfaction I confess I am not at all surprized. He declares, how^ever, that the Church of Rome does not foi'bid marriage! This state- ment requires no comment. I shall simply let Mr. Brown's declaration 2:0 forth to the world, to be viewed in 218 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. connexion with the practice of the Church of Rome; and let the people judge upon the subject for themselves. But, with regard to abstaining from meats, and fasting, the Rev. Gentleman, instead of meeting the argument that was derived from the text in Timothy, has fallen into the error, of which I was accused on a preceding day, as if it were a heinous sin, I mean retort, Mr. Macdonnell brought a charge against me, that, instead of defending my own Rule of Faith, I was retorting upon theirs. Now, in the case before us, Mr. Brown was reminded of a cer- tain point chargeable against his Church, and instead of defending the point, he retorts upon the Established Church, and he says, that our Prayer-book inculcates fasting , as well as the Church of Rome. Were 1 to act upon Mr. Mac- donnell's principle, I should not feel called upon to notice this retort ; but I shall do so in order to show^, that, in the present case, it does not hold good. I allow at once, that the Church of England does not consider fasting to be wrong : nay, she admits it to be scrijjtural. Why, then, does she differ from the Church of Rome ? — 7iot because the Church of Rome incidcates fasting ; but because she makes it a msittev of constrriijit , and perverts it to unscriptural pur- poses. I have a number of Roman Catholic Catechisms in my hand, and I shall read a few extracts in reference to this point. In the " Abridgement of Christian Doc- trines," revised by the Right Rev. Dr. Doyle, chap. 9, we have this question and answer : — '• Q. For what is fasting available? A. First, for the remission of sius, and appeasing the wrath of God, accord- ing to that, ' Be ye converted unto me in your whole heart, in fasting, and weeping, and mourning.'" The next is a Catechism by the Most Rev. Dr. J. Butler, " revised, enlarged, approved, and recommended by the four (Irish) Roman Catholic Archbishops, as a general Catechism for the Kingdom." — In the 20th Lesson I read thus : — " Q. Why does the Church command us to fast and to abstain ? A. To mortify our sinful passions and appetites, and to satisfy for our sins, hy doing penance for tJiem." I have also, " An Abstract of the Douay Catechism" — The Rev. T. J. Brown. — That is not to the point. The Chairman. — It appears to me, that he is answering the argument. The Rev. E. Tottenham resumed. — I am shewing only that Mr. Broions retort upon the Church of England, does not hold good. I am pointing out the imrpose of fasting Mr. Tottenham s Seventh Speech. 219 in the Church of Rome, as distinguished from that in the Church of England : however, the extracts I have given, are sufficient for my purpose, without any others m addition. It is on account of the purpose, and not on ac- count of the practice, that we object to the Church of Rome, and hence Mr. Brown's retort goes for nothmg. It has been stated, that Mr. Lyons went even farther than I did, and made assertions still bolder. He declared, that, in strictness, we have no other object of faith but THE Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this Mr. Brown makes an appeal similar to what he made yesterday, and hopes, as he then did, that, for the honour of religion, Mr. Lyons had committed himself, and that it was in the thoughtless- ness of the moment he made the assertion. jNow, how did Mr. Brown meet my friend's statement? " If Christ," says he, " be the only object of faith, then the Trinity is not an object of faith." this, I think, is one of the most extraordin ary arguments that has yet been adduced , because the Rev. Gentleman ought to know what is involved in having Christ as an object of faith. A belief in a Trinity OE PERSONS IN THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD 13 ESSENTIALLY INVOLVED IN HAVING ChRIST AS THE PROPER OBJECT OF FAITH : for Christ cannot be properly the object of faith except we believe in his supreme and proper Deity. — That is the foundation-stone on which the whole economy of salvation rests : and, therefore, the argument of our an- tagonist is a ridiculous one indeed on this subject. ^My friend, Mr. Lyons, referred to a very troublesome book, the Breviary ; and Mr. Brown says, he does not wish to enter into the stories there recorded, a few of which Mr. Lyons gave. Why does he not like to enter into them ? because, he says, they have nothing to do with the subject. Nevertheless, how really stands the case ? Mr. Brown argued against the Protestant Rule of Faith, that it led to fanaticism, and he instanced a case which he supposed to be in point. Mr. Lyons then shewed, that, under the Roman Ca- tholic Rule, there was as much fanaticism, nay more, than under the Protestant ; and, therefore, by this process, he an- swered the original argument of our opponent, by shewing that it jwoved too much. But the Breviary, I find, has been thrown overboard altogether by the statements on the other side ; and, I do not know how our friends can reconcile such conduct with the requirements of the Council of Trent, which has sanctioned the Breviary as icell as the Missal. The obscurity of Scripture has been agam dwelt 220 Downside Discussion . — Third Day . on, and we have been referred to the close of the Gospel of St. Luke, where the account of the journey of the two disciples to Emmaus is given, and of the manner in which Christ joined them and entered into conversation with them. We are told that these two disciples did not discover the truth of Christ's mission and resurrection in the Scriptures, and, therefore, the Scriptures could not have been a suf- ficient Rule of Faith to them. I think our friends on the other side might have found an answer to this objection in my comment upon this passage in my opening speech. For how did Christ prove the things concerning himself? from nothing else but the written word of God. In chap. xxiv. 25 — 27, we read — " Then he said to them ; — O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all things which the Prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded to them in all thl Scriptures the things that were concerning him." Then he says, in the 44th verse — " These are tlie words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the Psalms, and in the Prophets, concerning me." No other rule was here recognised by Christ, but the three great divisions of the Jewish Scriptures, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Reference has also been made to the 2d Epistle of Peter, 3d chap. 15th and 16th verses; and, in truth, I was a little astonished that this passage, being so great a favourite, had not been quoted before. I intended to have anticipated it, as this is my last address, but I am glad it has been brought forward by the other side. It is as follows : — " Account the long-suffering of our Lord salvation, as also our most dear biother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you ; as also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things ; in which are certain things, hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." This, we are informed, proves, that some things in Scrip- ture are " hard to be understood :" and hence an argu- ment is deduced against the Scriptures as the only Rule of Faith. Mr. Brown anticipated an objection which might be raised as to the things of which the Apostle speaks, namely, that they referred to certain truths contained in St. PauVs jEpistles, and not to the Epistles themselves; and he spent some time in endeavouring to meet the ob- jection. Now I shall give him the benefit of all his state- ments on this point ; because, although I might adduce Mr. Tottenham's Seventh Speech. 221 criticism to refute the force of his interpretation, I think the matter can be settled satisfactorily without such criti- cal dissertation— for the passage asserts what I did not deny. / set out with admitting the fact. I said it was to be expected that there would be some difficulties and ob- scurities in the Scriptures, just as there are m Creation and in Providence ; but I adverted to texts in the written word of God, to shew, that, in all things pertaining to sal- vation, the Scriptures laere svfficientlij plain. I adverted to a text in Peter, as the best expositor of Peter ; and what did we find him saying, in the UJth verse of the first chap- ter of his second Epistle ? — '« We have." says be, " tlie more firm prophetical word : ^hereunto ye do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place." So that here Peter says, even of Prophecy, (confessedly the most difficult part of Scripture) that it is " a light that shineth in a dark place." I admit that there are obscu- rities and difficulties, but the expression " certain things," does not imply (but the contrary) that all things in the Epistles of Paul are hard to be understood. And, then, mark, Peter gives no prohibition against the reading of Scripture, or the appealing to it as the Rule of Faith, be- cause there are " things hard to be understood." Here was an opportunity for bringing in the unwritten word, or the Infallibility of the Church. But there is not a word about such matters. He merely cautions them against wresting the difficult portions of Scripture, and every Christian Minister would do the same ; but so far from not sanction- ing the duty of reading and appealing to the Scriptures, he' proceeds rather, by the terms used, to encourage their perusal. Besides, I may ask, if the people to whom the Apostle alludes, did pervert the Scriptures, how comes it to pass (on Roman Catholic principles), that they were al- lowed to retain them without a prohibition ? At all events, they must have had them, before they could have perverted them. The Rev. Gentleman has drawn our attention to the 8th chapter of Acts, where we read, that the Eunuch required Philip to instruct him. Almost all Mr. Brown's argu- ments, in the course of his last speech, went on the suppo- sition that we were opposed to instruction. Now, on the contrary, we contend for the importance of instruction, as the very existence of a body of ministers in the Church proves. We look upon teachers as valuable for the purpose of guiding the people to, and of commenting on, the Rule 222 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. of Faith ; but we call upon those who are taught not to receive any thing but what can be proved to be true bi/ the Rule of Faith. Statements were also made relative to the supposed in- security of the Protestant Rule of Faith, arising from the various readings in the original languages. Now, let me say, in reply (though Mr. Brown has anticipated some- what of the answer), that the various readings do not af- fect the fundamejital doctrines of the Christian faith. I do not say that there are not any which occur with respect to passages that have a reference to doctrines. This may be the case, but what I contend for, is, that, from all the number of which Mr. B. spoke, no various readings can be produced affecting doctrines, without those doctrines being most clearly and powerfully established by othei^ texts of Scripture, respecting which there is no doubt on the ground of various readings. There is, therefore, no diffi- culty or insecurity arising from this point. But, then, the Infallible Church of Rome has, I suppose, been quite /ree from various readings ! Take an example. Pope Sixtus the 5th issued an edition of the Vulgate, in which he pro- nounced an anathema against any one that should alter it " in minima par ticidd :'' but. Pope Clement the 8th issued, shortly afterwards, another edition, in which, as my friend Mr. Lyons told you, he altered two thousand passages in Sixtus the 5th's Bible ! I have here a regular account ot all the variations by Dr. James, in his work entitled, Del- lum Papale. We were told, that we had to depend upon the Jews for the text of the Hebrew Scriptures. Now, if we may trust the testimony of a credible historian, we may very well depend on the Jews (though they were not favourable to Christianity), so far as regards the Old Testament Scrip- tures. We have the testimony of Philo Judseus as to the extraordinary care they took of those writings : — • " They would not," he says, " change a single letter in them ; but would rather die a thousand deaths than that any thing should be altered in those laws and statutes." — Phil, apud Euseb. de prcepar. 'Evangel, lib. 8. So that we see the Jews were exceedingly careful on these points. My time is passing on ; and there is another objection which has not yet been started, but which I wish to notice, lest it should be started in the next speech ; though I do not think it fair that new matter should be then introduced. The objection is this : — that even if it were to be admitted, Mr, Tottenham s Seventh Speech. 2'23 that the Scriptures were once sufficient, yet there have been several books lost, which are specified in both the Old and New Testaments, and this loss proves the insufficiency of the remainder. I beg, at the outset, to dispute (for many reasons into which I do not feel called on now to enter) the loss of any books of Scripture. But, suppose any were lost, that would not prove that what we have now, is insufficient as a Rule of Faith ; for, the 20th chap. of John (to which I have so frequently referred) proves, that al] absolutely essential and necessary truth is contained in that one Gospel, supposing there were none other in existence, and, therefore, afortiojd, in all the books we have at present. Moreover, if any books have been lost, how has this come to pass ? What a tolerable specimen of guardianship has the Church of Rome, that claims to be the depository of the Sacred Volume, manifested in having suffered them to he lost I I think that members of the Church of Rome should put upon their Ministers the task of accounting for the unfaithfulness of the Church in not preserving them. But, I would remind you, also, that it does not follow, because certain books have been referred to in Scripture, that they have been inspired books. The onus rests on the other side to prove that they were inspired. If the principle be adopted, that, because certain books are referred to in Scripture, they must needs be inspired ; then, upon the same principle, I might prove that certain heathen jjoets were inspired ; for, in the 17th chapter of the Acts, and elsewhere, the Apostle Paul quotes from heathen poets. As this objection has not been formally started, these ob- servations will suffice to show, that there is no argument in it against the Protestant Rule of Faith. Now, Sir, I have arrived at my last speech in the discus- sion of the first subject ; and, in concluding, I would beg our friends not to take a confined view of any isolated argu- ments, but to look at both sides of the question, and to take a general view of the whole. I started with laying down a principle, which, I contend, is not met: in fact, confessedly, the texts to which I referred, with the excep- tion of two or three, have not been noticed : but, it has been said, over and over again, — " they shall be left for the public to read in the printed report !" I set out with proving from texts of Scripture, that the written word con- tained all necessary truth to be believed. Then I esta- blished, by a long series of passages, that there was no 224 Downside Discussion. — Third Day . other rule used in the Jewish Church, but the written word. I quoted also a number of passages relative to the con- duct of our Lord and his Apostles, all proving, invariably, that the written word was the onlt/ standard of appeal, they having never referred, in a single instance, to any other standard. One or two supposed cases of the contrary Mr. Macdonnell attempted to deduce from the Qth and 10th chapters of Acts. In one of those cases it has been shewn, that it was not for the purpose of being instructed in the faith, that Paul went to Ananias, but that he might" re- ceive his sight," be *' filled with the Holy Ghost," and be " baptized." The second, (namely, that respecting Cor- nelius) proves nothing, because, even if the facts of the case were correctly stated on the other side, the passage would only establish that, during the life time of the Apostles, their oral teaching did constitute a part of the Rule of Faith, tvhich we admitted; but contended also that that oral teach- ing was by them committed to writing, to be, with the Old Testament, the Rule of Faith for future ages. On the other side, you will recollect, that various and numerous were the objections started. It was stated that the Bible could not be the sole rule of faith be- cause Christ did not command it to he written : but it was said in reply that, independant of any actual command which was adduced, the Holy Ghost inspired them, and that was equivalent to a command. It was urged that the Apostles preached in the first instance, and that Christ commanded them to instruct by preaching, but not by writing. We answered that they did preach in the first instance without writing, because they were in- fallible diXxXhoYiiie^ themselves, proving the truth of what they taught hy miracle ; but we established also that they com- mitted to writing the truths they preached, and the re- markable testimony of Iren^us was adduced upon this subject, giving precisely the same explanation that ice gave. There were objections, moreover, with regard to various readings and translations, &;c., which, you remember, we answered in different ways. Arguments were also urged on the ground of the alleged obscurity of Scripture, and its liability to conflicting interpretations. Amongst other replies to these, we pointed out how the Roman Catholic Rule was open to a similar objection. I showed instances of Roman Catholic Doctors mistaking the doc- trines of their church. I gave one instance of Soto and Vega misinterpreting the decrees of the Council of Trent Mr. Brown s Eighth Speech, 225 on Grace and Justification. I shewed you also that Bel- larmine and Catharinus differed on the subject of Inten- tion, as propounded by the same Council. Other argu- ments were advanced which I have not time to reca- pitulate. You will see they affect not the main question^ hut are mere captious objections. I have shewn that the Scriptures testify of their own sufficiency, and that the written word was ever the standard of appeal in the Jewish Church, and was also recognized and enforced as such by the practice of our Lord and his Apostles. Now, until you meet with far more solid arguments than have yet been advanced, I recommend every one present to have recourse to THE Scriptures, which, according to the statement of the Apostle, — " can instruct unto salvation by the. faith which is in Christ Jesus.''— If you want peace, pardon, and instruction, go in a humble and teachable spirit, to that word of which David says — " Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my paths," The Rev. T. J. Brown. The Rev. Gentleman need not apprehend that 1 shall act in any dishonourable manner towards him, in my clos- ing speech. I hastened rapidly through many arguments which 1 wished to have displayed more at length, because I was desirous of not having to enter now upon new topics, to which I reflected that he would not have an opportunity of replying, and from some on that account, I abstain alto- gether. His objections, however, I must briefly notice. Some of those which I shall refer to were urged on foi-mer days; the others were brought forward during the last speech. With respect to the eight Eastern Councils, Mr. T. main- tains that they were assembled by the Emperors. I might admit that, in the sense I explained on a former day ; but this I contend for, and he will not be able to shew the con- trary, that they were all presided over by legates or depu- ties from the Holy See. — He calls my attention to the first Nicene Council. 1 accept the challenge on that point. The President of that Council was Osius, the Bishop of Cordova, who had ?io title to preside, except as a legate of Q 22G Downside Discussion. — Third Dai/. the holy see ; for nothing else than that woukl have quali- fied him, a bishop of an inferior see, to hold precedence of those Bishops who represented the patriarchal churches. That Constantine did not preside is a matter which appears to me quite clear as any thing in history. Mr. Tottenham seeks to refute my objection against the Protestant rule that it is in contradiction with the practice of Protestants on the administration of baptism to inftmts, by alleging the authority of the catechism of the Council of Trent, which cites the testimony of Scripture in favour of infant baptism. This is one more of the many artifices which I have had to expose. That the authority of Scrip- ture may be brought forward to confirm the validity of infant baptism I do not deny ; but what 1 asserted was that those proofs alone are not sufficient, either to convince the Baptists, or to establish the validity of such baptism. It is true, therefore, that the catechism of the Council of Trent, does quote Scripture in favour of infant baptism ; it does not, however, rely upon the authority of Scripture a^ alone conclusive, but as confirmatory only of tradition. Hence the catechism of the Council of Trent is not at variance with itself, nor with the reasoning which I employed. Mr. T. labours to remove another difficulty regarding baptism by asper^sion, by telling me that Protestants hold immersion to be the ordinary means of conferring baptism. This is not the point in dispute. I contended, and I still contend that those Protestants are inconsistent with their only rule of faith, who approve of baptism as valid, under any circumstance whatsoever, which is not according to the Scriptural mode of conferring it. I afterwards showed, first, that most Protestants do hold as a matter of faith, that baptism by sprinkling, or the pouring on of water is valid : and, secondly, I argued that therein they proclaimed the insecurity of the very fundamental principle of tlieir Reli- gion, by admitting as valid a mode of baptism, which Scripture does not authenticate. The differences in the edition of the Bible of Sixtus Quintus and Clement VIII. have been again brought for- ward. It was not for fear of meeting that, or any other objection, that I have passed by several which were urged, but I did so because the force of the arguments which I had in store would have lost much of their weight, if too far separated. I now reply, first, that these variations, in the editions of the Scriptures by Sixtus and Clement, do not affect any mailer of faith or doctrine : secondly, that Mr. Browns Eiyhlh Speech. 227 Sixtus Quintus prohibits all unauthorized persons from making- any alteration ; but he could not prohibit those whose authority was equal to his own. As to the alterations that were subsequently adopted, they arose from various readings in the several MSS. that were in- spected. Now although when the MSS. of Scripture dif- fer, Protestants, who admit of no visible unerring authority, cannot be secure of the true reading of the Bible put into their hands, yet we, who acknowledge a Church with which Christ has promised to be to the end of time, and to keep it from error, we are secure that the variations in our Scriptures are concerning matters of little conse- quence ; that is, that there are not among them any of such moment as to lead to errors on points of feiih and mo- rality. My Rev. opponent returned to the objection advanced by Mr. Lyons that we place tradition above Scripture. He does not indeed pretend, (as at first I understood him,) that I had expressly so stated ; but he tells me that it is a conse- quence from my reasoning. I deny that consequence altogether, and the validity of the argument, whereon he sought to establish it. This argument was grounded upon an erroneous understanding of the meaning of some Catho- lics who have said that the written word depends upon the unwritten. Now this is true, in some instances ; for, as I observed in my opening speech, in certain points the written word is very obscure, and of this I am prepared to produce undeniable evidence, though I shall not do so, because no reply being allowed I wish not to act unfairly. There are, you must admit, some instances in which the ob- scurity of Scripture is palpable, and I affirm that one of the advantages of tradition is to clear up the obscurity of the written word. We do not, however, teach that the mean- ing of the written depends upon the unwritten word, on all j^oints of doctrine, but on some only. Let Mr. T. or any one look at our books of religious instruction, or examine our theological treatises, and he will find that Scripture alone upon many points suffices to prove our doctrines ; and, that on otheis, although we have recourse to tradition, it is not as being superior to the written woi'd, but as ex- plaining more satisfactorily the meaning thereof. Mr. T. allows my declaration to go forth to the world that, amongst Roman Catholics, there is no prohibition against marriage. Yes ; but let it go forth witli the expla- nation which 1 gave : that we look not upon marriafje as 228 Downside Discussion — Third Day, forbidden, but we look upon that man as guilty of a crime who breaks the vow of continency which he has made to the Lord. When a man, after having seriously reflected upon the obligations of celibacy, and having so- lemnly engaged before God to fulfil those obligations, violates his solemn engagement, then we hold that he commits a crime ; not because marriage is dishonourable or sinful (for we reverence Scripture, and Scripture calls the state of marriage honourable,) but because it is criminal not to pay our vows to the Most High. Mr. T. tells us that the Church of England does not pi-ohibit fasting : but it goes further, it prescribes fasting, and appoints certain days ivhereon fasting and abstinence are to be observed. If, then, the quotation from Timothy be applicable to us, it is applicable to the Established Church also ; but it applies not to one or the other, because we neither of us enjoin fasting as absolutely necessary to salvation, nor do Catholics say that any meats are in themselves impure, but we hold, as the members of the Church of England must hold, accord- ing to their Book of Common Prayer, that fasting is lawful, that it is useful, and that it is obligatory to com- ply with the legitimate commands of the church, which for good motives hath enjoined fasting. Protestants and Catholics agree upon these points in principle, therefore they ought also to agree in practice. Mr. T. appealed to 2 Pet. i. 19, '20. " We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place — until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts ; knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." Of this passage of the inspired Epistle you have heard Mr. Tottenham's exposition. But it admits of a different interpretation, which does not mi- litate against the Catholic doctrine ; and by a leading principle of the Reformation Society, which authorizes the meanest outcast of society to interpret the written word of God, 1 am entitled to prefer that interpretation which is, moreover, confirmed by the approbation of several Pro- testant Commentators. According to this, the meaning of the Apostle merely is, that prophecy is more sure than mira- cles ; for miracles may deceive us, inasmuch as we may sometimes mistake for them diabolical works; but with regard to prophecy there is no such danger. To the testimony of St. Peter, in evidence of the obscu- rity of Scripture, Mr. Tottenham replies that the Apostle Mr. Broimis Eighth Speech, 229 does not prohibit the reading of the Epistles of St. Paul, althoui^h he does acknowledge that there are in them many obscurities and difficulties, which he says - the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction. If Mr. T. does not see a proUhition in this passage, he at least will see a luarning ; and a warning agamst the danger to be apprehended from reading certam portions of a work, is equivalent, under many circumstances, to a prohibition.— This leads me to consider an objection which has been urged a2:ainst the prohibition of reading the Scriptures contained in the rules of the Index. Mi% T. maintains that no man can be authorized to prohibit the reading of the sacred word ; but his assertion is not warranted by any declaration of holy writ. \\ e maintain that a Church was appointed by Christ ; we maintain by the express words of Christ, that he who does not hear his Church, should be likened unto an heathen man and a publican; we maintain that this Church, thus constituted by Christ, and endowed with the Spirit of God, is the Roman Catholic Church, therefore we justly hold that it has authority to prescribe what is useful for its followers. Now, the Catholic Church, seeing that the Scriptures at the time of the Reformation were distorted by a variety of explanations, which not only exposed many to the danger of damnation, menaced by Christ in Mark xvi. 16, but also that those various interpretations were dangerous to the well-being of society, made a temporary provisioii against the indiscriminate reading of the word of God by the people ; hut it left discretionary authority with those who were best capable of judging of the danger or utility that individuals might derive from it, namely, their pas- tors, to allow the reading of the Scriptures to all those to whom it would not be personally dangerous. This temporary prohibition does not now exist in this country ; the Scriptures are unrestricted, and I have read to you an extract from a letter of Pius the 6th, in which he not only approves of the printing of the Scriptures in the vernacular tongue, but he recommends the reading of them by the Laity. I could substantiate by other proofs the lawfulness ot the practice of the Church, in prohibiting the indiscrimi- nate reading of the Scriptures under certain circumstances. I might refer to the practice of the Jewish Church, which practice Christ did not condemn. The Jewish Church did not tolerate the reading of every part of the Scriptures 230 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. to those to wboni it might be dangerous ; young men, till they arrived at the age of thirty, were not allowed to read the Book of Canticles and certain other portions, because it was apprehended that it might be perilous to them. Look also at the evils that have actually arisen from this universal reading of the Scriptures ; so that unless the ab- solute necessity of their being open to indiscriminate pe- rusal )je established by proofs as clear as the sun at noon- day, (and I have not heard any such adduced,) it is natural to conclude that there must be authority in the Church to prevent this indiscriminate reading. If we look, first, at the condition of Protestant Germany, Germany the cradle of the Reformation, as its present condition is described in four sermons preached in 1825 before the University of Cambridge, by the Rev. Mr. .Rose, a Clergyman of the Established Church, wdio had been sent over to Germany to investigate the state of the faith in the Protestant Churches of that country, we have set before us details of infidelity, that are enough to make a man's hair stand on end. Mr. Rose tells us of Profes- sors of Divinity, of those who are pastors of the people — of those who are the highest in Ecclesiastical dignity, holding doctrines and maintaining interpretations of Scrip- ture, which are worse than any thing that one could have imagined. There are some who endeavour to resolve into natural causes and effects, all the miracles of Christ. We read that he walked upon the water; but thei/ tell you that the Greek particle IttI means simply that Christ walked on the land bi/ the water's side. IVe read in Scripture of a man cured by Christ of the palsy ; thej/ tell you that Christ only replaced a dislocated joint. We read of Christ directing Peter to find the tribute money in the mouth of a fish ; one of the learned Protestant Professors of Germany, Paulus, tells us that there was no miracle in this, that Peter was only enjoined to catch a fish, and from the sale of it provide the tribute money. Are not these melancholy instances of the danger arising from the indiscriminate use of the Bible? These Protestant Di- vines go much further, (for however they may be dis- owned by you, yet they are entitled to the appellation of Protestants : 1st, because they protest against the Catholic Church ; and, 2dly, because they maintain that the Bible is the only Rule of Faith, and that each man's judgment is the only authority to which he must submit in ascertain- ing its meaning) ; these men have gone to such extremes Mr. Browns Eighth Speech. 231 as to deny that Christ was the Messiah, or a Prophet ; some have placed him a little above Mahomet, and others have asserted that he was inferior to that impostor. Such are consequences of the unlimited perusal of the inspired volume. Listen to the following extract from a Protestant author, the Rev. Mr. O'Callaghan, in a work entitled, "Thoughts on the Tendency of Bible Societies, as affecting the Established Church and Christianity itself, as a reasonable service :" — " In opjiosition to the Church of Rome, the first Reformer loudly and justly asserted the right of private judgment in expounding the Scriptures. Duly understood there is no riglit more certain than this; but anxious to emanci- pate the people from the authority of the Roman Pontiff, they proclaimed it without explanatf n or re:,t fiction, and tlie consequences were dreadful But if the flagitious madness of foreign peasants, interpreting the Bible for them- selves, be afflicting to the friends of humanity and rational piety, the history of England, during a considerable part of the seventeenth century, offers little to console them. At this time, prayer and preaching and reading the Scrip- tures were at their height ; Scripture authority was pleaded for every atrocity. Words of high and sacred import were polluted by the vulgar lips of ignorant Enthusiasts. . . . These historical facts have often astonished the good, and startled the pious. Engrossed by such feelings, the reader too often overlooks their awful moral, that the Bible without note or comment, is unfit for the perusal of the rude and iUilerate. Misunderstanding its meaning, and misapplying its precepts, they will employ it to countenance every ruling passion, and sanctify every favourite vice. Wl^at has happened bejh)e, may happen again; and, therefore, the Bible Societii are called upon to pause, and calmly consider their plan of religious instruction, lest, instead of pure Christianity, thev circulate hy- pocrisy, fanaticism, and impious delusions among the lower classes of society." Accordingly the work of Mr. Rose, who had attentively examined the religious condition of Germany, shows us that the infidelity of that country is chiefly owing to the indiscriminate use of the Bible interpreted by each one's private judgment; and he says, pp. 215, 2l6, that many who trembled at the rapid progress of infidelity, sought to save themselves by returning to the Church of Rome. The Rev. Mr. Phelan, a Protestant Clergyman, quoted p. 81 of " Reflections, &c." by the Rev. Mr. Wix, Curate of St. Bartholomew the Less, speaks thus on the subject: — " In the first place, the united Church does not maintain that all the dis- putes between her children and the sectaries can be determined satisfactorily by-the Bible alone. In support of episcopacy, infant baptism, and some other tenets, she refers to the concurrent voice of antiquity, and the universal prac- tice of the primitive Church, as historical comments upon the inspired volume. In truth the Dissenters have completely overreached Churchmen in drawing them into a league, of which it appears to be a principle, that the Bible without note or comment is all-sufficient for the determination of religious controversy ; though I cannot but believe that several persons nominally of the national religion, were perfectly aware how much they conceded when they joined the fallacious confederacy." 232 Downside Discussion. — Third Day, Hence the Rev. Mr. Wix writes, p. 80 : — " It was not contemplated by the earlj Reformers, who, disgusted with the multifarious errors of boasted tradition, asserted that 'Holy Scripture eon- taineth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith ;' (6th Article of the Church of England,) that the time would arrive when every individual with the Bible in his hands, would consider himself qualified and justified to form his own faitli, and to re- ject all that had been concluded on in the piety and learning of his ancestors, which did not accord with his own notions ; but now this folly, this pride, this worse than folly and pride united, has prevailed to the alarming extent, that each person considers himself at full liberty to form or to choose whatever faith he pleases, and to deny doctrines, however plainly revealed, which are above his comprehension. Thus, in the profaneness of reason, unchastised by the ad- monition and teaching- of Divine Kevelation and ancient persuasion, the pro- minent articles of Christian faith are denied by those who call themselves the disciples of the meek and humble Jesus." Ought not, therefore, the members of the Established Church to pause, ere they put into the hands of the people the Bible without comment, preaching up at the same time the uncontrollable right of every man to put upon it his own interpretation? Ought they not to pause before they join the Reformation Society, in setting this forth a& a leading principle, that " every meanest outcast is com- manded to exercise his judgment upon the meaning of the contents of the sacred volume?" Mr. T. says, that the ministers of the Established Church do not exclude persons from receiving instruction. But I maintain that herein they act contrary to their declared principles ; for if every man is commanded to exercise his own judgment upon the meaning of the contents of Scripture, as this command can come from no other than God, who is above the Re- formation Society and all mankind ; if, I say, there be such a divitie command, then those are guilty of interferino- with the order instituted by the Almighty, who attempt to give a bias to the understandings of others by unwarranted instruction, instead of leaving them to the exercise of their own private judgments. Mr. T. rested an argument upon the solicitude with which the Jews endeavoured to secure the Bible from cor- ruptions. In the time of Philo they might have done so, but in Justin's time they did not ; for, in his dialogue with Trypho, he censures the Jews for several corruptions which they had maliciously introduced into the sacred volume. You have heard from Mr. Tottenham that Catholic doctors differed in their interpretation of the decrees of the Council of Trent, and he named Soto and Vega, Bellarmine and Catharinus, who he said entertained opposite doc- Mr. Browns Eighth Speech. 233 trines. But let me repeat what I said before ; they differed not on doctrines of faith, not upon doctrines which the Ca- tholic Church had defined ; upon all defined matters, Soto and Vega, Bellarmine and Catharinus, professed one same creed with the rest of the Church, or, for the preservation of unity, they would have been rejected therefrom. They disputed, therefore, but merely upon scholastic questions ; upon opinions which were left to the inquiry of any indivi- dual. For the Roman Catholic Church exercises no tyranny over the minds of men ; it only puts forth its au- thoritative definitions, when the necessity of maintaining unity makes it essential that the Church should determine on certain points, what is and what is not to be believed. Mr. T. urged against us, in the course of the discussion, the oft-quoted conduct of the Bereans, in Acts xvii. 1 1 , 1^2. " '1 hey were more noble than tliose of Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed : also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few." Now the conclusion to which Mr. Tottenham applies this quotation, viz. : — that the Bible is the only ride of faith, is by no means proved therefrom. The Jews of Thessalo- nica rejected the testimonies alleged from Scripture by St. Paul, without examining " whether those things were so," and are therefore justly condemned, whilst the Jews of Berea, " who searched the Scriptures daily," are com- mended : so tee, without implying thereby that the Bible is the only rule of faith, commend those who differ from us when they search the Scriptures whether the testimonies we allege from them be so, and are thus led to believe our doctrines, rather than those who refuse even to examine the proofs upon which our doctrines rest. It has been argued that St. Paul did not refer the Jews to tradition; but let it be borne in mind, that Christian traditions, of which alone we a''e disputing, the Bereans would refuse to admit ; — that therefore, St. Paul must have appealed to Scripture, and not to such traditions, which only commenced with the oral instructions of the Apostles, and would not, on that account, serve to convince the Jews. It has been also remarked that Christ rebuked the Devil by Scripture only and not by tradition. But for this it was sufficient that, on such an occasion, the testimony of tradition might have been less suitable than that of Scrip- ture. We too refer to the Scripture alone, on those occasions wherein we have no sufficient evidence in tradition ; and 234 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. on other occasions, when we might apj^eal to the authority of tradition, we sometimes content ourselves with referring only to the written word. You were told that Christ himself condemned the tradi- tions of the Pharisees. So do we condemn the traditions of men. Borrowing the distinction which Mr. T. made between the modum tradendi ; and the res traditas, I wish to observe that we too think those guilty of a monstrous violation of that reverence which is due to the Scriptures, who admit as of equal authority with them, the traditions of men, meaning that the res traditce, the things delivered, are of men; for our traditions can be called the traditions of men only as to the modum tradendi, because by means of men they come down to us ; but the res traditoi, the things handed down, which are admitted as a portion of our be- lief, are not of men, but proceed /rom God himself. John XX. 30, 31. has also been repeatedly objected to us, and has been again and again discussed. I still maintain that the argument deduced therefrom by the advocates of Protestantism is a mere delusion. Like them we profess that " those things w^ere written that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God ;" we profess too that belief in Christ the Son of God is one of the primary essential doctrines of the new law ; but what we maintain is that neither this text, nor any other that has been alleged declares, clearly and precisely, that there are no doctrines handed down by Christ, besides those which are contained in the written word ; and this is the real question which I have endeavoured to keep before you. If there be a single revealed truth, whether amongst the primarily essential, or amongst the less essential doctrines of Christian revela- tion ; whether you consider that a man can absolutely be saved without its belief, or not ; yet if it be duly proposed to any one and rejected, however unessential it may appear, that moment he exposes himself to damnation : for Christ has declared without restriction, " he that believeth not shall be damned/' Let me now offer a few remarks on the arguments that have been adduced on the other side, on the manner they have been replied to in ours, and on the course of reasoning which has been adopted by us. I still contend, therefore, and the printed Report will satisfy you whether I am cor- rect or not, that Mr. T. evaded the principal position which he ought to have established, namely, that all the revelations communicated by Christ for the belief of his Disciples are contained in the Bible only. That is what he started with: Mr. Browns Eighth Speech. 235 that no doctrine had been handed down by Christ for the benefit of liis Church in future times, but what is contained in the Bible. Now, instead of establishing this point, you will find that he endeavoured to mislead you ; sometimes even by misi-epresenting my sentiments. He has been endeavouring to put me in opposition to the Council of Trent, but I am sure my friends who surround me do not think that he has succeeded, and I trust next week to convinceyou that the Council of Trent is not at variance with my statements, on the points whereon we are said to differ. —My Rev. opponent has likewise endeavoured to persuade you, by instancing Bel- larmine and others, that there have been divisions amono- Catholic divines. In my reply I have shew^ed you what w^as the nature of their differences, and that they did not turn on any matter of Catholic faith. You have been told that there are errors in our Scriptures. I shewed by the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Curtis that there are gross cor- ruptions of the text, in your translation, whereas in our versions the alleged variations do not, in a single instance, amount to a matter of any consequence ; they arise solely from the different reading of MSS., without once affecting a doctrine of divine faith. Mr. T. rejected the explanations which I gave from Protestant commentators on the Bible, and the authority also of Protestant divines, supporting in many instances the arguments which I adduced. I know that he is not bound by them ; I know that according to his own prin- ciples he, as well as " every meanest outcast in society," is authorized to put his own interpretation on the word of God ; but it is a strong argument in my favour, that, while the Catholic Church and all its followers maintain but one faith, the ministers of the Protestant Church, its bishops, divines, and commentators, as well as the ignorant mem- bers thereof, are so extremely divided amongst them- selves, that many of them in the sincerity of their hearts, when not carried away by their prejudices against the Catholic Church, have maintained against their brethren the very doctrines which that Church professes. What, on the other hand, was the method which I had purposed to adopt ? It was my intention to adhere closely to the matter proposed for controversy, and not to have quitted it until the close, had I not been,* sometimes, almost com- pelled to do so by the taunts of my opponents. I am not conscious, however, that I have sought to evade any dif- 236 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. ficulties, and in this last speech I trust I have met, as far as my time has allowed, those that are considered the most important. I should indeed have attended to them earlier, but knowing that it would be expected of me not to intro- duce any new topic into my concluding speech, 1 thought that it might be well employed in refuting former objec- tions. Mt/ course of argument has been this. I proposed to establish four points. First, I argued that the Protestant rule was not supported upon proofs either evident or pre- sumptive : evident proofs there are not ; and presutnptive proofs would indeed go far enough to establish mo7Y«Z certi- tude, but not the certitude of divine faith. For I must repeat that although divine faith may be said to include, yet it is far above moral certitude, which cannot attain to that degree of security whereon divine faith places the man who relies upon it. Divine faith rests upon nothing else than the unerring word of God ; and is incompatible with even the least apprehension of error, with which moral certitude is accompanied ; it cannot, therefore, rely upon mere presumptive evidence. I shewed, moreover, that presumptive evidence was against the Protestant rule. For this purpose I appealed to the conduct of the Apostles : — also to the conduct of the primitive Christians, who mani- fested no solicitude to diffuse the Scriptures ; who took no pains to translate the Scriptures ; and for whom, in a word, it was impossible that the rule of faith, could have been the Scriptures alone, because it was neither possible for the multitude of primitive Christians to obtain sufficient copies for that purpose, considering the difficulty and expense of purchasing them, nor if obtained could the immense ma- jority read them. I then proceeded to my second point, that Scripture itself authorizes tradition. First, I proved that it was impossible for all the doctrines of revelation to be contained in Scrip- ture. This argument instead of being fairly met, was con- tinually evaded by your being told, what I never questioned, that all essentials are contained in the written word. But, re- plied my opponents, "what has become of the other revealed truths, w^hich you maintain not to be contained therein ?" I have shewn you what became of many ; for even Pro- testants themselves hold several articles of belief, which they cannot substantiate by Scripture alone. It cannot, however, be required necessary of me to enumerate all the revealed doctrines preserved by tradition. It is sufficient Mr. Browns Eighth Speech. 237 that we, according to our principles, are not implicated in any difficulty concerning them ; for at the same time that we maintain tradition as forming a part of our rule of faith, we hold that there is an unerring visible authority, which makes known to us, as circumstances may require, such doctrines of tradition as we ought to admit among our articles of belief, and by the help of which we may ascer- tain the true meaning of the written word. Next I passed to other proofs from Scripture, shewing that the Apostles did not propose to themselves to commit all the doctrines of revelation to writing, but reserved many for oral instruction ; that this oral instruction was called, in Scripture, tradition ; that means were taken by the Apostle Paul to hand down to coming times certain oral communications, by means of men, and not hy writing ; and I called, in support of my proofs, the evidence of Protes- tant commentators of considerable weight amongst those of their own communion. Then I proceeded to establish, by an argumentum adhomi- nem, which presses against the leading principle of those I am contending with that, by their own admission., Scripture alone cannot be the only rule of faith. In order to demon- strate this, I did not deny the canonicity of the books of Scripture ; it was not necessary for me to deny a single one of the points of faith which our Protestant friends hold in common with us : I only contend that, according to their principles, they cannot establish, except hy tradition.^ several doctrines, which those at least are obliged to maintain, who admit the Book of Common Prayer. In the course of my observations I also exhibited Protestants in opposition to each other, upon important points; nay upon the necessary doctrine of baptism. This argument was met by an attempt to shew that we support infant baptism by Scripture, which was not solving my objection ; besides I have reminded my opponents that although in support of infant baptism we adduce Scripture, as containing confirmatory proofs of its validity, yet that our main proofs rest upon tradition ; and 1 quoted several Protestant divines to the same purpose. But my time is near its close, and compels me to abandon any further review of the line of argument which I have pursued. In conclusion, permit me to propose to your serious reflection, how the Protestant system, which authorizes such latitude of belief amongst its members, can constitute that faith which must be, according to the declaration of 1238 Downside Discussion.— Third Day. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians, " One,'' as there is but '* one Lord, and one baptism ?" Can a heterogeneous compound of discordant believers, all of whom are termed Protestants, be that Church which Christ promised should be one, as he and the Father are one. John xvii. 32? Can Protestantism be a sound faith, and yet St. Paul teach sound doctrine in Gal. chap. v. where he enumerates *' variances, strifes, and heresies among the works of the flesh," which exclude from the kingdom of heaven ? How, in the Protestant faith, can be verified the promises of Christ, that he will be with his church to the end of time, and that the Holy Spirit shall teach it all truth? Matt, xxviii. 20. John xiv. 16. How shall a Church that is so divided against itself be the kingdom of God ? since Christ declared. Matt, xii. 25., that " every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation." How, in fine, shall that Church which maintains such opposite doctrines, be as described by St. Paul, in 1 Tim. iii. \b. " the pillar and ground of the truth ?" I have now only to add that this is the first occasion whereon, in public controversy, my voice has been addressed to you in defence of the Catholic doctrines ; and, unless compelled to defend the conscientious belief of Catholics, it will probably be the last. From what you have heard it is your duty to consider, whether Catholic doctrines are those revolting and contradictory absurdities which you have been taught to suppose? — whether Catholics do not endeavour, by the exercise of a sound judgment, to foi-m their faith according to the dictates of reason and revela- tion? Above all, let me entreat you not to neglect the grace that is now offered you : for, the abuse of grace on this occasion may lead hereafter to reprobation. I thank sincerely this most respectable audience for the attention with which it has heard me, so diff'erent from the manner in which, at other meetings. Catholic advocates have been heard ; and I am sure that such conduct can- not fail to be pleasing to the God of all truth, whose in- terests I have humbly endeavoured to advocate. The Chairman. — I have the honour to announce to you, that the discussion on the first subject has now been con- cluded. The second subject, namely, the Sacrifice of the Speech of the Chairman, h)C. 239 Mass, will be investigated, if God will, on Wednesday next. On the motion of the Rev. Mr. Macdonnell the Chair- man then vacated the chair, and was succeeded in hi* office by J, Hussey, Esq. The Rev. Mr. Macdonnell. I have great pleasure, having had much of that expe- rience to which my Rev. friend has alluded, to bear testi- mony to the difference of conduct manifested by our excel- lent Chairman, from that manifested by many placed in similar situations. I have very great pleasure in moving that the thanks of the meeting be given to the Chairman. The Rev. Dr. Coombes, Roman Catholic Missionary at Shepton-Mallett. I second the motion. I think that our approbation is due to the gentleman who has presided, and to the Rev. gentleman on the other side. He has conducted the dis- cussion to his credit, and with uncommon temper and patience. Nothing offensive has been uttered on the other side ; every thing courteous has been observed. This is such a pei feet contrast between the present discussion, and various religious discussions that have taken place else- where, in this country, that I think it may be considered a model. I compliment the Rev. Mr. Tottenham as a person of extreme moderation, and I think the meeting will join with me. We are certainly divided with respect to religi- ous principles, but in other respects, so far as charity and civility, and gentlemanly conduct are concerned, I shall always look upon that gentleman with the highest i*espect. The Chairman. I am deeply sensible of the honour you have done me in proposing a vote of thanks, which I feel that I do not deserve. I have humbly, and to the best of my ability, endeavoured to discharge the duties imposed upon me. If I have failed at all, it has been through bodily infirmity, and that trepidation which you may have noticed when I took the Chair. Suffer me to say, in extenuation, that it is the first time 1 ever had the honour of presiding at a public meeting. I have been a spectator at many, but this is the fubt occasion on which I have taken the Chair. 240 Downside Discussion. — Third Day. But if, indeed, I have been enabled to perform the duties required of me, I cannot take the credit to myself; you will pardon me, and the solemnity of the occasion will justify me, if I say, without fear of the least degree of cant or hypocrisy being imputed to me, that I am fully persuaded I am indebted, in the first place, to Him, whose providence has placed me in this most responsible situation ; and it is a curious coincidence, which you will permit me to notice, that the rules which I have read, and by which this discussion has been guided, are dated on the day of my birth. But having acknowledged the first source, whence I derived power to attain the approbation which you, in your courtesy, have expressed, allow me to say, secondly, that 1 am indebted to yourselves — to you, gentlemen, who have so ably and so eloquently defended your respective systems ; and, thirdly, to the meeting at large. It may appear trifling to use the simile, but, in truth, you have made me little better than a time-piece. My duty I have endeavoured to discharge faithfully, and it has been my delight and privilege to act with the ut- most impartiality ; nay, even to command my looks, lest there should appear to be some irregularity in the vibra- tions of the pewtZw/wm. Such is the humble instrument I have most resembled. The pendulum is, however, now at rest, and 1 cannot vibrate on either side ; my duties are at an end ; but, if it please God, I will resume the Chair again on Wednesday next, should it be your good pleasure. In conclusion, permit me to say that this has been the most orderly meeting I ever witnessed, and is worthy the imitation of every meeting in this great land, and from one extremity of the British Empire to the other, I trust it will be duly appreciated. Thus ended the Discussion on the " Rule of Faith.' DISCUSSION AT DOWNSIDE, SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. THE DISCUSSION AT DOWNSIDE Fourth Day, — Wednesday, 3Iarch 5th, 1834. SUBJECT: THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. The Chairman, on taking the Chair, said, Ladies and Gentlemen, as there are probably some now present, who did not take any part in the discussion of the first subject, perhaps it may be well for me to detain you a few moments whilst I read again the rules by which the dis- cussion is to be regulated. (The Hon. Gentleman then read the Rules.) The Rev. T. J. Brown. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, —The matter upon which I am now invited to address you is indeed of vital importance ; and I feel sensibly the awful responsi- bility which I take upon myself, when I come forward to advocate, concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, the doc- trine of the Roman Catholic Church. It is a matter I have said of vital importance ; for it was upon this point, principally, that the Calvinists rested the lawfulness of their separation from the Roman Catholic Church. That Church they said, could not be the Church of Christ, which was involved in an error so great as is implied by the doctrine of the Real Presence, and the Sacrifice of the Mass : it had thereby, they alleged, fallen into idolatry, for a length of time, and thus, not having been supported by the promises of Christ, the Roman Catholic Churcli could not be the true Church.— I feel full well all the dif- ficulties of my present situation : I know that there are arrayed against us prejudices conceived almost in infancy, prejudices which have been nourished in maturer years, 244 Downside Discussion.— Fourth Day. &-. )rejudices which have been confirmed even by old age. Tow then shall I apply myself to my task ? It is, by entreating, in the first place, that you will, as much as possible, divest yourselves of any preconceived notions, respecting those points of Catholic doctrine which I am about to develope. Yet I am fully sensible that it will be extremely difficult for you, if not impossible, so far to free yourselves from those cherished prejudices of your early and riper years, as that they shall place no obstacle in the way of my doing justice to my cause. My duty prescribes that, in the first place, I should lay before you the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church ; and if that doctrine appear unreasonable and absurd, I bid you recollect that it is the doctrine, not of a small por- tion only of Christendom, but, of by far the largest portion ; that it is the doctrine which was maintained by the whole Church before Protestantism made its appearance ; that it is the doctrine of Christianity from the east even unto the west ; finally, that it is the same doctrine which was held by such men as Pascal, Bossuet, Fenelon, and Descartes, by men distinguished in different countries and in different ages, by their soundness of understanding, and the acqui- sitions which they made in every science. Do not then, at the outset, condemn me as advocating an absurdity. I beg also to observe that before proceeding to establish directly the Catholic belief concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, it is necessary that 1 should satisfy you fully con- cerning another very essential doctrine ; and Mr. T. is well aware of the necessity under which I labour of advocating the real presence of Christ upon our altars, as well as the sacrifice which we make of him thereon. When, indeed, we first met to propose this discussion, I was of opinion that those dogmas were not so essentially connected, but that Mr. T. might be satisfied with bringing his objections against the Sacrifice of the Mass alone. As however, he thought differently, I am willing that our doctrine of the real presence shall be fairly controverted, as well as that of the Sacrifice which we offer ; and consequently I shall first establish that part of our Creed which relates to the former subject. Our doctrine on the Real Presence is stated by the Council of Trent, Session 13, cap. 1 : — " The Holy Synod openly and plainly professes, that, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially present under the Mr. Browns Ninth Speech. 245 appearance of those sensible objects. Nor in this is there' any repugnance; that Christ, according to his natural manner of existence, should always remain in heaven at tlie right hand of his Father, and that at the same time, he should be present with us, in many places, really, but sacramentaHy, in that way of existence which, though in words we can hardly express it, the mind, illuminated by faith, can conceive to be possible to God, and which we are bound firmly to believe. For so all our forefathers — as many as were members of the true Church of Christ— who wrote on the subject of this Holy Sacrament, openly professed." This doctrine of the Council of Trent is confirmed in a small Catholic work entitled : — " Roman Catholic Prin- ciples," whch I have here, and from which I shall read the following short extract : — " Christ is 7iot present in this sacrament, according to his natural way of existence ; that is, us bodies naturally exist; but in a manner proper to the cha- racter of his exalted and glorified body. His presence then is real and substan- tial, but sacramental; not exposed to the external senses, 7ior obnoxious to corporal contingencies." This is the real doctrine of Catholics, with respect to the manner of Christ's presence in the sacrament of the altar ; and I doubt not that it conveys to your minds, a notion of our doctrine, very different, in many respects, from that in which it has hitherto been conceived by you. The objections which will probably be brought against this part of our belief, will lead to its further development. The belief of Catholics concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass is correctly stated in the same work from which I read the last quotation : — " Our Saviour in leaving to us his body and blood, under two distinct species or kinds, instituted not only a Sacrament, but also a Sacrifice ; a commemora- tive sacrifice, distinctly shewing his passion and death until he come. For as the sacrifice of the cross was performed by a distinct effusion of his blood, so is that sacrifice commemorated in this of the altar by a distinction of the sym- bols. Jesus, therefore, is here given not only to us, but for us ; and the Church is thereby enriched with a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice, usu- ally termed the Mass : propitiatory we say, because representing, in a lively man- ner the passion and death of our Lord, it is peculiarly pleasing to our eternal father, and thus more effectually applies to us the all-sufficient merits of the sacri- fice of the cross." I subjoin one other quotation from Sect. 14 of the " Exposition of Catholic Doctrines," by Bossuet, as tending more efficaciously than the extract which I have just given, to remove any erroneous impressions which you may entertain with regard to our true doctrine on the question before you. " The Church is so far from believing, that any thing is wanting to the sacrifice of the cross, that she deems it, on the contrary, so perfectly and so fully sufficient, that whatever is afterwards added, has been instituted to cele- brate its memory, and to apply its virtue. We acknowledge, that all the merits cf the redemption nf mankind is derived from the death of the Son of God : when. 246 Downside Discussion. — Fourth Day. therefore, in the celebration of the divine rarsteries, we say : We offer to Thf e this holy victim ; ue pretend not by this oblation, to mahe or to present to God a netc payment of the price of our saliaiion ; but to ofer to him, in our behalf, the merits of Jesus Christ present, and that infinite price which he once puid for us uyoH the cross.'' TIiu?, then, in the sacrifice of the altar we do not offer a new sacrifice : nor do we seek to supply any deticieucies in the sacritice of the cross. We believe that, so far as regards the price of our redemption, the one sacritice of the cross was fully sufficient ; but by the sacrifice of the altar we hold that there iii applied to us, in a more perfect man- ner than by oin* prayers or by our other good works, the merits of that oie sacrifice. Having truly stated the doctrine of Catholics on those two important points, I come to the proofs by which our belief is substantiated. Hei-eafter it will be my duty to lay before you the arguments whereon we build our doctrine of the nature and efficacy of the Sacrifice of the 3Iass : at present I must beiiin by establishing the Real Pi'esence. For if I am able once to convince you of the truth of the Catholic creed on this^ point, namely, that we have upon our altai*s Jesus Christ, truly, really, and sub- stantially present, not indeed after the manner of a natural body, but after an iiivisible, spiritualized, a?id sacrame}ital manner, then there will be much less difficulty in satisfy- ing yoti upon the ofleriuir which we make of him to his eternal Father, and the ends for which we make that ottering. Let me, then, claim your earnest attention to the proofs which I am about to adduce. Those proofs are so manifest in Scripture, regarding the questions proposed for discussion, that were we to hold with Protestants the written word to be the only rule of faith, yet by it alone would they be sufficiently demon- strated. They may, indeed, be illustrated and supported by an appeal to the belief of the Church in the primitive, and subsequent ages; but to my view ** the Real Presence," and " the Sacrifice of the 3Iass" can be clearly substan- tiated by the written woi\i. I proceed therefore to argue therefrom. The first proof to which I direct your attention, is the 6th chap, of the Gospel of St. John, which contains, as we expound it, th^' promise made bv Christ of bestowing: here- after upon men, his body and blood. ]N'ow I be«^ your serious attention to the language held bv our blessed Sa- viour in this chapter, and to the arguments which it fur- nishes. In all ages it has been expounded, as 1 am going to Mr. Brown s Nhith Speech. 247 expound it to you, although amongst ancient Catholics there may have been a few, — they were very few, — who have taken a difte rent view from that which I am about to propose. To Protestants in these latter times, however, it was reserved to contest with vehemence the meaning of this chapter, and it is my duty to vindicate the ancient exposition of the language of our divine Master, by such arguments as I trust will make an adequate impression on your minds. In the early part of this chapter we read of a splendid miracle performed by our Saviour. He fed 3,000 men with iive barley loaves and two small fishes; and after all were satisfied there remained twelve baskets of fragments. Sub- sequently to this miracle, the Jews sought to make him their king, but he ci'ossed the water and proceeded to Ca- pernaum. On the following morning he was met by the same multitude, in whose presence, and for whom he had worked that splendid prodigy. The 25th verse commences with a discourse of our divine Saviour to them, upon which we cannot too much and too seriously meditate. In the 26th and 27th verses, our blessed Lord blames the avidity with which they sought for material food : — " Ye seek me," says he, " not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life." Having thus blamed their eagerness after material food, he proceeds, in the 29th verse, to inculcate the necessity of faith in him whom God had sent. In the 32nd, 33rd, and 34th verses, he extols the admirable excellency of a bread which he came from heaven to bestow ; and he exalts it far above the bread which was given to their fathers in the desert. In the 35th verse he call himself the bread of life : — " I am that bread of life ; he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and ha that believeth on me shall never thirst ;" but in tchat sense he is the bread of life, he does not yet expound, and we must look hereafter for a clearer mani- festation of his meaning. In the 36th verse he reproaches his hearers with their want of faith. In the 37th, 44th and 45th verses he insists anew upon the absolute necessity of divine grace. In verses 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, and 46 he ap- peals to his divine origin, whereon he establishes the most secure motives of his credibility. In the 47tli verse again, he insists on the necessity of belief in him — *• Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everJasSiiig life." 248 Downside Discussion. — Fourth Day, You have observed that hitherto, although he has declared that he is the bread of life, yet he has not clearly expounded in what sense he is to be so understood ; but that, with great energy, he appeals repeatedly to their faith, refers them to his celestial origin, and insists on his divine mis- sion from his Father. What means this solemn exordium ; this gradual and imposing introduction of the doctrine which he is about to propose ? Is there, then, something which he is about to manifest, that will be extremely diffi- cult of belief? We shall soon see whether there is not reason to presume that our divine Saviour had some such difficulty in view, which he thus gradually and cautiously introduced . I wish moreover to observe that, the method, almost always adopted by our heavenly Teacher, is distantly to announce any great mystery which he intends hereafter to propose, or to accomplish. Thus we find in the 3rd chap, of St. John's Gospel, that he prepares his Disciples for the mystery of baptism, — which he instituted subsequently to his resurrection : — " Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." In this very 6th chap, of John, he forewarns his hearers of his future ascension ; and frequently he directs the atten- tion of his Apostles to his approaching sufferings, to his resurrection, to his ascension into heaven, and the descent of the Holy Ghost : miraculous events which were hereafter to be accomplished. Now the motives why our divine Saviour thus announces beforehand the mysteries which afterwards he fulfilled are, amongst others, in the first place, that he might fix upon a firm foundation the faith of his hearers in those mysteries, when they should witness their future fulfilment ; secondly, that he might raise their minds to an eager expectation of the accomplishment of his pre- dictions; thirdly, that thereby, he might consult the weak- ness of man by sparing him the too lively impressions which would be made upon his senses by suddenly placing before him such splendid prodigies. Is there, then, I repeat, any great mystery in this chapter, which Christ is now about to propose, and which is hereafter to be completed? His manner naturally leads us to expect it, and the more we examine his words, the more we shall find them warrant that persuasion. I have pointed out the strong motives upon which Christ Mr. Browns Ninth Speech. 249 claimed the unbounded confidence of his audience ; his appeals to his mission, to his miracles, to his divine origin : let us now listen to the announcement of the doctrine it- self, to which this exordium leads. I invite your atten- tion to the 5 ] st verse : — " I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever; and the bread that I ivill give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." There can be no doubt as to the literal meaning of the words which Jesus Christ has just announced : " The bread that I will give is my flesh'' The only question, therefore, to be submitted to you, to me, and to all the followers of Christ, is, are these words to be explained figuratively ? or, are they to be understood literally ? It is said by Protestants in general, (for I except the Luther- ans who agree on this point with Catholics,) that by these words Christ signifies that he will give us to partake of his flesh, after a figurative manner only. But, I put it to your common sense, whether we at this distance of time, are better able to comprehend the real meaning of Christ, than were the Capernaites and his disciples who were pre- sent ? Surely they were better able to judge than we can of his meaning, by his looks, by the tone of voice in which he addressed them, and by various other circumstances. What then, I ask, is the sense in which he was under- stood by the Capernaites, and by his disciples? Let us look at the 52nd verse : — " The Jews therefore strove among themselves saying, How can this man give tis his flesh to eat ?" From these words it is, indeed, quite clear, that the Capernaites understood the words of Christ, not in a figu- rative, but a literal sense ; they understood that he pro- mised to give them really and substantially his flesh to eat. Such was the only interpretation which they could give to them. And hence sprung their sin ; that instead of rely- ing upon the divinity and power of Jesus Christ, as to the manner in which his words, taken literally, were to be ful- filled, they only attended to the vain and foolish sugges- tions of human reason. They did not conceive any other manner in which flesh could be given them to eat, than after a raw and bloody manner, such as they had seen it in the shambles ; or as it was served up at their meals, cooked and dressed. They understood distinctly the words 250 Downside Discussion. — Fourth Day. of Christ to convey to them a promise, that he would bestow his flesh truly and substantially ; but they undertook to explain the precise manner in which they were to receive his flesh, and hence they said : " How can this man give us his flesh to eat ?" Without meaning any offence, allow me to call your attention to two important observations. When the Ca- tholic doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Sa- crament has been announced to you, how have you re- ceived it? Have you rejected it merely because your rule of faith the Scripture teaches you to reject it ? or have you not repeatedly condemned our doctrine because you thought it absurd? Has it not, I ask, been too frequently thrown aside by Protestants, not because having tried it by the word of God they judged it inconsistent with revelation, but because they said with the Jews : " How is it possible that Christ can give us his flesh to eat ? How is it possible that the doctrine can be true which the members of the Roman Church hold ?" Allow me now, that I may better elucidate this matter, to change for a moment the scene. Suppose a delegate of the Reformation Society addressing an ignorant audience, and that he is expounding to them the 6th chapter of St. John; that in the course of this exposition he discovers himself to be misunderstood ; that his audience, instead of receiving the meaning of this chapter as it is received by Protestants generally, and as this organ of the Reformation Society wishes it to be received, a portion at least of his ignorant hearers are scandalized at the sense which they attribute to his words. I will suppose that they understand them as the Roman Catholics, and the vast body of Christians have in all ages, and do at this moment ; and that, offended thereat, they ask: " How is it possible for Christ to give us his flesh to eat ?" What would be the conduct of this organ of the Reformation Society, or of any Protestant minister ? Would he not tell them : — " You are under a grievous mistake, I do not mean that you are to eat truli/ and substantially the flesh of Christ. There is nothing in what I said which you cannot easily comprehend . I speak of eating in figure only ; I speak of eating spiritually of the body of Christ by faith alone, and not truly and in substance." Is there any preacher of the word of God who, seeing his words so mistaken, as I sup- pose the meaning to be mistaken of the organ of the Re- formation Society, would not immediately think it his Mr. Browns Ninth Speech. 251 duty thus to correct the error of his hearers? And when he should propose such a correction, how simple and easy of understanding would his doctrine become ? For, who can be scandalized, when he hears that he is to partake of Christ's flesh, merely by a mysterious memorial in figtire only, hy faith only, and not truly, really, and substantially. Such as I have described you will acknowledge, would be the conduct of a member of the Reformation Society. Does then Christ, let me ask, thus expound his meaning? Does he correct the error into which, if the Protestant interpretation be correct, it is quite evident the Caper- naites fell? Let us listen to the manner in which, in the 53d verse, Christ explains himself to his mistaken hearers ; mistaken, I say, if the Protestant interpretation be right. " Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in jou." Exercising my judgmentupon the meaning of this passage of Scripture, I am forcibly struck by the words of Christ my heavenly Instructor. With the missionaries of the Refor- mation Society, all their explanation of the 51st verse vv^ould tend to remove the impression that the words of Christ are to be understood otherwise than figuratively ; that they are expressive of any thing more than a spiritual manducation ; but our divine Saviour, who came to an- nounce to ignorant men the truths of revelation, gives no hint whatsoever of a figure ; on the contrary, in the sub- sequent verses he six times confirms the literal meaning which his words carried with them in the 51st verse. He must undoubtedly have perceived the great mistake into which the Capernaites had fallen, if Protestants are right ; yet, instead of even insinuating that there was any mis- take, and offering to correct it, he makes it almost impos- sible for them to suspect that they had misunderstood his meaning. He repeats the same assertion six times ; he confirms it not only by the explicit language which he uses, but by the solemn affirmation with which he opens the exposition of his doctrine in the 53rd verse — " Verily, verily, I say unto you. Except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of Man," &c. If the Churchman will tell me that, notwithstanding the clear manner in which Christ here expresses himself, his words are to be understood not literally, but figuratively, how, I ask, will he be able to convince the Quaker that the words of Christ are not with equal reason to be under- 252 Downside Discussion.— Fourth Day. stood figuratively, where in the 3rd chap, of St. John's Gospel, he announces the efficacy of that baptism which he was hereafter to institute : — " Verilj, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ?" If in one place we are to regard the express words of our divine Saviour only after a spiritual and figurative manner, by what rule of interpretation are we, in other similar expressions, not to understand his words spiritu- ally and figuratively ? How will the Church of England Protestant, with consistency, be able to subvert, by Scrip- ture, the doctrine of the Unitarian'? To his argument from that apparently decisive declaration of Christ: "I and my Father are one," the Unitarian would be justified in replying that such words are to be understood spiritu- ally and figuratively, meaning only a moral unity. Should the member of the Established Church urge those words of the Eternal Father : " This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased," the Unitarian might answer, that Christ is the beloved Son of God by adoption in a figure, and not in reality. God forbid that I should hold such a sentiment, or advocate such a doctrine; my only object is to expose the inconsistency of the generality of Protestants who, by no other authority than their private judgment, make up their contradictory systems of belief by arbitrarily expounding, in a literal sense, one portion of Scripture, Viwdi figuratively another. There is one more observation which cursorily I glanced at, not long since, and which I think is of such importance for determining our blessed Saviour's meaning, as to de- mand a further development. If Protestants are right in their interpretation of this passage of John, how, t ask, were the Capernaites wrong ? In what could their error consist? They only rejected that which Protestants re- ject ; what these considered as absurd and impossible, viz. that Christ should have meant to bestow his flesh and blood truly, and substantially, upon those who receive him, this they too considered as absurd and as impossible, and therefore refused to admit it. There is no appearance whatever that the Capernaites thought of rejecting, or would have rejected the doctrine of the presence of Christ, understood after a spiritual manner ; that they would have been scandalized at the manducation of his flesh in figure only. I ask therefore wherein consists the error of the Capernaites, according to the Protestant interpretation of Mr. Broivns Nhith Speech. 253 Christ's meaning'? If the Capernaites rejected that only which Protestants reject, and if they did not reject that which Protestants hold, it would follow that, according to Protestants, the Capernaites were not guilty of any error of faith ^ but of a mistake only as to the meaning of Christ. But if this were the case, would he not have corrected a mere mistake such as this"? Indeed w^e perpetually find that, when his hearers mistook the meaning of his words, or at least when his disciples not less than many of the ignorant people mistook them, he failed not to set them right. Is it then to be conceived that in this instance he will leave them in involuntary error? For if He did not intend his language to be received in the sense in which his hearers understood it, but as Protestants now under- stand it, not of a real but of a figurative manducation, — foreseeing in his infinite wisdom that the universal church in future ages would fall into the erroneous meaning in which, as Protestants suppose, the Capernaites conceived his doctrine, — he would, according to the ideas of his wis- dom and goodness which we are authorised to entertain, have corrected those false impressions. He might by a single word have removed such erroneous notions ; and he would not surely have been less indulgent than we may suppose a minister of the Protestant faith would be to his hearers. Now, instead of this indulgence, instead of cor- recting any supposed error of the Capernaites, instead of telling them that he meant his words to be understood in figure only, and not in reality, he confirms six times, be- tween the 5 1 st and 59th verses their literal meaning. Thus it was impossible for the Jews to understand the language of Christ figuratively, and hence it becomes unreasonable for us to explain it figuratively. 1 have been arguing upon the supposition that Protestants are right, and that the Capernaites had, therefore, only mis- understood their divine Instructor. I maintain, however, that the Capernaites were not simply mistaken as to the principal meaning w^hich they put upon the wordsof Christ ; that, on the contrary, in rejecting that meaning they were actually guilty of^osi^it'e unbelief; and thatwhen they asked, " How can this man give us his flesh to eat ?" they, like Protestants, refused to believe, because they could not under- stand. Yes ; there was not merely a mistake, but an express act of unbelief on their parts ; for if we look into the 64th verse, we find that Christ in direct terms cen- sures them for their want of faith. " But there are some 254 Downside Discussion.— Fourth Day. of you that believe not.'''' Now, if the Capeniaites committed a sin against faith in rejecting Christ's words according to the sense in which tliey understood them, and as it is quite evident that they understood them in their literal meaning, it follows that the literal was their right meaning, and that what they thus rejected was the very object of the act of faith which they ought to have formed; that, therefore, the words of Christ are to be understood, not of a mere figu- rative and spiritual, but of a true, real and substantial manducation. Let us borrow an illustration from those who reject the union of the human nature of Christ with his Divinity, in the ]>erson of the Son of God. Now they are guilty of unbeliefs only because it is a matter of revelation that Christ is truly and really the Son of God ; so that if it were not clearly manifested by divine revelation that he is truly and really the Son of God, they would not be guilty of an error against faith in rejecting his divinity. It fol- lows, in like manner, that the Capernaites could not be guilty of unbelief, unless the opposite doctrine, — that which they rejected, were truly the doctrine which they ought to have believed, and this doctrine is that j)roposed by the Catholic Church. But the Capernaites, says an ancient expositor, chose to imagine that the body and blood of Christ could not be substantially given to them, except after that j^alpable and aimed manner which their senses suggested ; and hence it was that they rejected his words ; whereas, on the contrary, they ought to have grounded their belief on the words ojf Christ by regarding, not the manner which their sensual and carnal imaginations suggested, but exclusively his truth, whose divinity had been manifested in the miracles of which they had been witnesses. So it is with regard to those who at this day dispute the meaning of the doctrine of Christ's presence in the sacrament. That dispute should not turn upon the apparent reasonableness or unreasonable- ness of his alleged doctrine, but solely on the manifestation or non-manifestation of such doctrine by the word of God. And let me observe that, if the Capernaites were guilty of a crime in rejecting the doctrine of Christ, because it seemed absurd, notwithstanding the proofs they had of his mission and his divinity, Christians who now reject this same doc- trine upon a similar vain pretext of its absurdity, having motives of credibility far greater than the Jews had, are much more criminal in the sight of God : for the Jews had Mr. Browns Ninth Speech. 255 then witnessed some only of his miracles, whereas we Chris- tians have witnessed a variety of more splendid prodigies ; the Resurrection of our Redeemer from the dead, his Ascen- sion into heaven, and the miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost to confirm the Apostles and the future Church in the true doctrines of Christ, even to the consummation of the world. I will now resume the exposition of the 6th chap, of St. John. At the 59th verse it is said, — " These things said he in the Synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum." V. 60. " Many therefore of his disciples, wlien they had heard this said, This is a hard saying, who can hear it." Let us again pause here. We have before us a melan- choly example, indeed, of the weakness, pride, and obsti- nacy of human judgments ; also of the danger of incredu- lity, which far from yielding to the repeated declaration of Christ, become more and more hardened, spreads around, and is not confined to the ignorant portion only of Christ's hearers, but finds its way amongst his disciples also. But this very infidelity of the disciples is of utility to us, as was subsequently the incredulity of Didymus ; for Christ was ever ready to expound to his disciples, when requested by them, the meaning of his words, which sometimes he left in their obscurity to the multitude of his hearers. Does Christ then remove, so far as regards his disciples at least, the persuasion which his language had created in their minds, corresponding with that produced in the minds of the Capernaites, of a real, and substantial, not a symbo- lical manducation, and by faith only? No ; we find on the contrarv that he confirms it. Read the 6 1st and 62nd verses, — " When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them doth this offend you 1 What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up wliere he was before V Thus, instead of removing their diflficulty, he tells them that it shall be greatly increased. Now this is not the case if the Protestant interpretation of the sacred text be ad- mitted ; for it was not more difiicult to understand how Christ was to be received spiritually by a mere memorial, and how his flesh was to be eaten by faith in him, after his ascension into heaven, than when on earth. Faith easily ascends to the throne of the Almighty, quite as easily as it regards the object nearest to it. But by the Catholic inter- pretation the difl[iculty is really, and conformably with the declaration of Christ, increased ; indeed we find amongst 256 Downside Discussioti, — Foiirth Day. the objections urged against the Catholic belief in the real presence one that is raised from this very difficulty of con- ceiving Christ present on our altars, now that he has ascended up to where he was before at the right hand of his Father. Moreover, by those words, Christ removes the false notion of the Capernaites and his disciples, as to the manner in which they were to partake of his flesh ; for they understood it, according to the apprehension of natu- ral reason, of the eating of his flesh after a gross, carnal, and bloody manner ; but by those words : — " What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before," he says sufficient to remove from their minds that degrad- ing and erroneous notion. We will now proceed to the 63rd verse, — ** It is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing ; the words that I speak unto you they are spirit, and they are life." You probably imagine, my Protestant Friends, that these words are the key to all which Christ has hitherto spoken ; that they clearly recal us from a literal, to a spiritual and figurative sense. Such is the interpretation which your divines put upon this passage. To me, I must acknowledge, they do not convey any such meaning. In the first place, the language of the foregoing verses is too perspicuous in my judgment, to be explained away by a passage which is not very clear ; nay, much less so than those upon which I ground my faith. Secondly, had Christ intended these words to serve as a key to the pre- ceding part of his discourse, is it at all conceivable that the Capernaites and his disciples would not have understood them in that sense ? — that they, who by paying attention to his general manner, to the tone of his voice, to his looks, his gesture, &;c. had advantages as hearers beyond what we have in merely reading his words, would have persisted in their mistake, had he thereby meant to recal them, as Pro- testants suppose, to the idea of a spiritual and figurative manner of eating ? Would they not have returned to him and acknowledged their error in too hastily forsaking him ? Would they not have cast themselves at his feet and said : — " We have sinned, O Lord, in disputing thy words, which thou hast vouchsafed to render thus intelligible to our understanding ?" Did they do any thing of this kind .'' If we read on, we shall find such was not the case. I will first, however, lay before you the Catholic interpreta- tion of this passage. By " the Spirit that quickeneth,'' we Mr. Browns Ninth Speech, 257 understand divine grace ; the *\flesh'' that " profiteth no- thing" is the corporal senses, the carnal co7Tupt reason of man. We find these terms employed in that meaning in several places of Scripture, as in Rom. chap. viii. 1. ** There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the Jiesh but after the spirit." In Matt. chap. xvi. ver. 17. we find the term jfiesh, similarly applied : — " And Jesus answered and said unto him : Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-j onas, forjiesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." We are therefore warranted by Scripture in understand- ing in a like sense the words of the 63rd verse in the 6th chapter of John, which so understood are in accordance with the language of Christ, throughout all this discourse. Proceeding to the 64th verse we read : — " But there are some oT you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him." The incredulity of his disciples is here censured by Christ. He reproaches some of them that '^ they believed not." Now what was it which they refused to believe? Jt was, like the Capernaites, that Christ would give his flesh and blood, after a true and substantial manner, for their manducation ; — not a doctrine so little repulsive to reason as that he would give himself after a figurative and spiritual manner. But would Christ have thus con- demned them for unbelief, were not the opposite doctrine to be truly received by them and us, as an article of reve- lation. In verse 65, our blessed Saviour thus continues his discourse : — " Therefore I said unto you, that no man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father." Here again he declares that gi-eat grace is necessary to understand his words in their true meaning. Now, ac- cording to the Protestant explanation, I cannot see how any such great grace is requii'ed. For, what is more easy than understanding them of a spiritual and figurative man- ducation ? What is more usual than for a man, when he is going to absent himself from his friends, to leave with them a token of his former intimacy ? But to believe the Catholic Doctrine great grace is necessary; for though it is not contrary to, it is above the comprehension of human reason. s 258 Downside Di sen ssiofi.-— Fourth Day. In the 66th verse it is related — . " From that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away ?" If the words of Christ were understood by the Apostles figuratively, it was now at least the time for them plainly to declare it. Yet, on what did they ground their adher- ence to Christ? Let us hearken to Peter who answered for the rest : — " Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life.'' Upon this he builds his faith : not because he understood what was proposed to his belief; not because the words of Christ suggested nothing more than a figurative and spiritual manducation ; but, as if they far exceeded the comprehension of human reason, he believes because Christ had spoken : — " Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life." The Rev. E. Tottenham. Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in the discussion of this subject under the most painful and agitated feelings. Indeed, Sir, such has been the difficulty of my case, that, did I suppose it at all possible, I would have souoht for the postponement of the discussion ; but, upon considering the subject, I could not justify myself in seeking the gra- tification of my own private feelings at the expense of the public convenience. But, Sir, when 1 look around this assembly, and think of one who took a deep and intense interest in the inves- tigation of this subject — when I call to mind a valued individual who has acted to myself with almost more than a mother's kindness, and recollect that she, though present during two days of this discussion, lies now with the silent dead — under such circumstances. Sir, you w^ill admit with me that I am but little competent, physically speak- ing, to engage in the work which is before me. I shall not, however, dwell upon my own feelings. I shall only press the matter upon our friends here present in the way of solemn warning. My dear friends, the individual to whom I refer, came here in the full enjoyment of health and strength ; she was the very life of the circle in which she moved ; but how soon has she been called from this Mr. Tottenham's Eighth Speech. 259 f^arthly scene! Oh! then, let this solemn event he deeply impressed upon all your minds, and may it lead you to remember that the subjects under discussion are of vital and eternal importance. Sir, you will excuse me, and I am sure the meeting will, for these few remarks; and I now proceed to notice, as well as 1 may be able, and looking for the Divine assistance, the observations which have been made upon the subject on the other side of the question. I cannot but admire the degree of tact (if 1 may so speak) which the Rev. Gentleman manifested at the com- mencement of his speech. You will remember that he threw oat an assertion ad captandiwi, namely, that this and other doctrines, were known and held by the whole Church before Protestantism had its existence. Now, Sir, some individuals may be under a mistake on this subject, as there is an implication of the novelty or lateness of Protestant principles, in such observations. I must re- mark, therefore, in explanation, that the name of Protes- tantism has been late in its origin, but not the principles of Protestantism ; and I might as well argue against Chris- tianity itself, because the disciples were not for a consider- able period called Christians, (namely, 'till they were so called in Antioch, as we read in the 11th chapter of the Acts) as argue against Protestant princijiles simply be- cause the name Protestant did not exist 'till a late period. I am prepared to shew, if necessary, if/m^ the essential j^rin- ciples of Protestantisyn have their foundation in the oracles of God; and if I can prove that, then Protestantism is the old religion, and not the novelty which it is often charac- tei'ised as being. Mr. Brown stated very justly that it was necessary for him, before proceeding to the investigation of the Sacrifice of the Mass, to establish the doctrine of the real presence. Yes, Sir, this was necessary ; and it is necessary for him, moreover, to go a step) farther, and not merely to establish simply the doctrine of the real presence, but likewise the doctrine of the real bodily ^presence. 1 may as well state at the outset of my remarks, in order to avoid subsequent difficulty, that w^e do not quarrel with the doctrine of the real presence, provided it be a real spiritual presence loith the faithful, such as the Church of England recognizes in her communion service, when she savs — " For then (that is, when ' tcith a true penitent heart and lively faith we re- ceive that holy Sacrament') we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood"— but in order to establish the SCO Downside Discussion. — Fourth Day. doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, as maintained by the Church of Rome, Mr. Brown must establish not merely this, but also as I have just said, the doctrine of the real bodily presence. We have been presented with a statement of the doc- trine of the Church of Rome upon the subject of Tran- substantiation. The Rev. Gentleman has referred us to the 13th Session of the Council of Trent, and to a book called " The Principles of the Roman Catholic Reli- gion ;" and he has taken pains to impress upon us the fact, that Christ is not present in a natural, but in a sa- cramental body. 1 am not going to quarrel with this statement of the doctrine, so far as it goes ; but I may be permitted, for the clearer exposition of it, to introduce a quotation of essential consequence derived from an autho- rity which my Rev. opponent will not dispute. I hold in my hand the Catechism of the Council of Trent in the original language, and from it I read the following extract : — " Now in this place it is to be explained by the pastors, that in this Sacra- ment are contained not only the true body of Christ, and all the consiituents of a true body, such as the bones and nerves, but also Christ whole and en- tire. It is right to teach that the name of Christ is that of the God-Man, that is to say, of one person, in whom the Divine and human natures are united ; that the Holy Eucharist, therefore, co7itains both substances, and whatever is included in the idea of both, the Divinity and humanity, whole and entire, the soul, the body and blood of Christ, with all their component parts, all of which faith teaches us, are contained in the Sacrament." — Cat. Concil. Trid. Pars 2. de Euchar. Sac. These are strong expressions, and for this reason I have quoted the passage. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, (the authority of which no Roman Catholic can dispute,) when defining the kind of body with which Christ is present in the Sacrament, uses, you observe, the terms bones and nerves — " velut ossa et nervos" — and it is a remarkable fact that, inasmuch as this sounds rather harsh in our ears at the present day, the Rev. Mr. Dono- van, Professor of Rhetoric at Maynooth College, in his translation, has omitted this strong expression of the origi- nal. So far by way of more enlarged explanation of the doc- trine in debate, derived from Roman Catholic documents. Now, Sir, my Rev. opponent said, that the proofs of the Roman Catholic doctrine upon this point appeared to be very strong from Scripture; and although, he says, they might be illustrated by an appeal to the church in the first ages, yet he thinks the testimony of Scripture quite sufficient. Accordingly, he proceeds to argue from Mr. Tottenham s Eighth Speech. 261 the written word. I rejoice that this disposition is mani- fested on the other side ; and if we agree to settle this point, as well as all other doctrines, by an appeal to the "oracles of God," I think we shall come to a more speedy- termination of the controversy than we otherwise should. I shall not, until a subsequent address, notice the defini- tions which have been given respecting the Sacrifice of the Mass, as my adversary has confined himself in his first speech to the discussion of Transubstantiation : but shall proceed at once to examine the argument which he has ad- duced on this latter subject from the 6th chap, of John ; and this is the oiili/ one I have at present to attend to. Mr. Brown made some very lengthy observations upon this chapter. I shal], first, refer to those observations, se- condly, I shall give you my reasons for supposing that this passage of Scripture is not to be taken in a literal, but in R figurative or sjnritual manner; and, thirdly, I shall ad- vance some general arguments against Transubstantiation. The Rev. Gentleman declares (here was an argument ad caj)tandu7n) that this passage has been expounded in all ages of the Church as he then expounded it, and that it was only in latter times that such an interpretation was con- tested ! In reply to this sweeping assertion, I beg to state that an individual, whose name stands high in the Church of Rome, I mean Cardinal Bellarmine, when writing on the Eucharist, admits that there were several Roman Ca- tholic doctors who, so far from being among those in all ages who have explained the chapter as it was explained this day, have actually given it up, as not at all applicahle to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and have sought a proof of that doctrine eitiier from other parts of Scripture, or from the authority of the Church. And, moreover, did I not wish to keep as much as possible to the testimony of God's word alone, / could produce extracts from loriters in every age of the Church, giving a very different interpretation from that which Mr. B, has advanced. I have before my mind at this moment a most striking comment of St. Au- gustine on this very portion of Scripture. It was asserted also, that the Lutherans agreed with Roman Catholics in their interpretation of this chapter. Now, to whatever extent there may be agreement, there certainly is yet a manifest disagreement, unless indeed it can be proved that Consubstantiation is the same as Tran- substantiation. It is probable, said Mr. B. (after a long introduction) 2i)2 Downside Discussion.— Fourth Day. that the Capernaites and the disciples would have under- stood our Loixl on this point, better and more correctly than we can do. This, however, is not at all so probable ; and if Mr. Brown will investigate the manner and conduct of the multitude and of the disciples, with reference to Christ's preaching generally, I think he will agree with me ; for we positively know that thei/ constantly mis- understood Christ, and gave a wrong interpretation of the views and principles he laid down. In the course of the three days discussion on the rule of faith, you will recollect that several times the ignorance of the disciples with re- spect to Christ's resurrection was brought forward, and we saw that that ignorance was most palpable, although he had previously spoken to them at various times upon the subject. Jt does not follow, therefore, that the multi- tude and the disciples were more likely to understand the conversation of our Lord in this chapter better than we could at the pi'esent day. My opponent dwelt very much upon the view which the Capernaites and others took of Christ's words, and he put a case as follows: — " Suppose, said he, an organ of the Reformation Society were addressing an ignorant mul- titude in such terms as those used in the 6th of John, and they were scandalized, as were the Capernaites on this occasion, would not the individual correct their mistake, and explain the difficulty arising from the manner of his expression, if he intended they should understand him figuratively, and not literally." Therefore, he says, it i* natural to suppose that, if Christ meant his words to be understood figuratively, hewoidd have told them so. Whe- ther he did make such an intimation or not, we shall pre- sently see ; but to Mr. Brown's case it may be sufficient to reply, that all analogies drawn from the conduct of finite man, must necessarily be imperfect, and too often savour of presumption. We have no right to pry into what Christ ought to have done, but it is our business to take the sim- ple fact and bow in submission to what he has done. The 64th verse of the chapter has been commented on, as one which is advanced by Protestants generally, to show the spiritual and figurative meaning of our Lord's words : " It is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing. The ivords that I have ipt>ken to you are spirit and lij'e." Mr. Brown has attempted to explain away this passage, but it is a remarkable thin^ that, while he endeavoured to explain the terms " the spirit" and " the flesh" (as con- Mr. Tottenham s Eighth Speech. 263 trasted with each other) in the commencement of the verse, he never once noticed the concluding jjai^t of the verse, which seems to be still more expressive and decided. In this concluding part the very words that Christ had used in the course of the chapter were referred to, and Christ says, not merely " It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing," but also, " The words that I have spohen to you are spirit and life." Here we have our Lord^s own comment upon his former expressions, shewing that it was in a spiritual and figurative sense that he meant his words to be understood. Reference has also been made to the 63th verse : — " But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who thej were that did not believe, and who he was that would beiray him." Upon this Mr. Brown asks, " What was it which they refused to believe?" and he answers, " that Christ would give his flesh and blood, after a true and substantial man- ner, for their manducation." I wish Mr. B. had inves- tigated the circumstances detailed in the chapter more particularly, and perhaps he would not have hazarded the assertion that it Avas for unbelief of such a dogma as this that he censured them. My view is, that he reproved them generally for unbelief in him, and if he had any par- ticular reference, it was to the case of Judas Iscariot. If my opponent will examine the statements of the chapter he will find this to be the case : — " There are some of you (says Christ) that believe not. For he knew from the beg-inning who they were that did not believe, and uho he was that would betray him." Then he closes the chapter, after Peter's confession of faith, not in such a doctrine as Roman Catholics would maintain, but in his own person and mission — " We believe and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God ;" — he closes the chapter, I say, by declaring — " Have not I chosen ycu twelve, and one of you is a devil? Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon ; for this same was about to betray him, where- as he was one of the twelve." Secondly, I shall proceed to give some reasons (addi- tional to any that may have been anticipated by me) why I am led to suppose that this chapter is not to he tahen in the literal signification for which Mr. B. contends, and therefore does not support the doctrine of Transubstantia- iion as held by the Church of Rome. I. I beg to observe, that it does not appear positively 264 Downside Discussion — Fourth Day. that Christ here alludes to the sacrament at all. He was urging the necessity of what he spoke of on his hearers at that very moment, and we know at that very mo- ment the sacrament was not instituted. If his words in- volved a duty which it was requisite for them to perform at that very time, they could not have referred to the sacrament, which was not at that time instituted. At all events it rests with our opponents to pi^ove that he alluded to the sacrament. Until they prove that distinctly, they derive no argument from the words of Christ contained in this chapter. The Roman Catholic Doctors, of whom I have just now spoken, as mentioned by Bellarmine, admit that it does not refer so precisely to the sacrament. II. Another reason which I would advance for supposing that this chapter is not to be taken in a strictly literal sense is, that when Christ says, " Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you," if he spoke of his literal body and blood, and the necessity of receiving each, he would be then enjoining a practice which was decidedly contrary to the Mosaic law. In the Mosaic \si\Y abstinence from blood was urged upon the people in the strongest terms, and, be it remembered, that this was a precept which was retained and enforced in the Christian dispensation also, according to the testimony of Mr. Brown himself in last week's dis- cussion. Now we read in the Gospel that Christ came " not to destroy the law but to fulfil it ;' and therefore we- cannot suppose that he would have inculcated a duty upon the people whicli (especially while the law was still in force) would have destroyed and not fulfilled an express precept of that law. III. If you take the words of the chapter in the literal acceptation which Mr. Brown v/ould attach to them, they would prove far more than my Rev . opponent is willing to admit; and that in two ways. First of all take the 54th verse : — " Except yon ent tlip fiesli of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." Now, if this is to be taken in the strictly literal sense that Mr. Brown contends for, then what is the conse- quence ? It follows that — no matter how Christian soever a man's character may be — no matter how scriptural so- ever a man's faith may be — except he literally eats the flesh of ChriU and drinks his blood, he shall not have life in him! So that, according to this literal interpretation. Mr. Tottenham s Eighth Speech. 265 the obtaining of eternal life depends upon the simple fact of receiving the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. The literal interpretation, however, proves too much in another way, as we find from the 5.5th verse : - *' He that eateth my flesh and drinketb my blood hath everlasting life." If we take this, too, in the strictly literal interpretation which our opponents would attach to it, it would follow that, though a man's character be never so bad — though his profession be hollow, and his faith unsound — yet if he eats the flesh of Christ, and drinks his blood, he has ever- lasting life! This must be the conclusion, according to the Roman Catholic view of the passage, for the divine testimony is such without any qualification. If, therefore, our friends on the other side will insist on the literal sig- nification of these terms, I ask them to be consistent with themselves, and to admit that their interpretation, if car- ried out to the full length, will prove far beyond what Scripture warrants, and that, in the two ways I have mentioned. IV. There is another point (and this is taking the Roman Catholic upon his own principles) which I desire to press upon our Roman Catholic friends present. We may talk, before the discussion is over, of what is called " Commu- nion in one kind." Well, then, I ask you to look at the 54th and 55th verses of this chapter in reference to this point. If you take them in a strictly literal sense, and if, according to that interpretation, it is absolutely necessary^ in order to everlasting salvation, that Christ's blood should be taken as well as his flesh, then what is the consequence upon your own principles ? The consequence is, that none of the laity can be saved, because none of the laity receive the cup. You will tell me of the argument called conco- mitancy ; that he who receives the body receives necessa- rily the blood with it. But I say this excuse is of no avail, for there is no drinking of the blood according to such a plan. It is a subterfuge to get out of the difficulty con- nected with this passage, for I maintain that it is essential (according to the literal interpretation of it, for which you contend) to drink the blood, as Vv^ell as to eat the flesh : and therefore, upon your own principles (not upon my arbitrary conclusion), the laity cannot be saved, because they do not drink the blood, as well as eat the flesh. You see to what lengths your literal interpretation will carry you ! 266 Downside Discussion. — Fourth Day. V. But, if these be some of the reasons why thei-e is a difficulty in interpreting this portion of Scripture literally, I may be asked, ichat is the real meaning of it? and to this I shall now direct your attention. I take the ex- pressions, " eating the flesh" and '' drinking the blood" of Christ, simply to denote the act of believing upon him. I find that Christ, in all his discourses, uses a variety of expressions and figures similar to this, whereby he accom- modates the matter to our finite understanding, and ex- plains to us more fully wliat faith means. For example, he expresses faith by the act of coming : — " Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden." Faith is ex- pressed in the Old Testament by the act of looking : — " Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth." Many similar instances might be given. In this manner the act of eating and drinMng, of thus feeding, as it were, upon Christ, is also a figure, constantly used in the Bible, simply to denote the act of believing upon him. Now, if you refer to the 34th and 35th verses of the chapter, this wdll appear in rather a striking manner. We read — " They said therefore unto him : Lord, give us always this bread. And Jesus said unto them : I am the bread of life ; he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thint." This verse seems to be a keg to what is meant by the terms eating and drinking ; that it is not a literal eating of the body or drinking of the blood of Christ that is in- tended, but that these expressions are used to denote the act of believing and reposing upon him for our everlasting salvation. And moreover, although Mr. Brown may dis- pute the application of the 64th verse (to recur again to what has been already noticed), I think it gives another striking key to the meaning of our Lord's previous obser- vations, w^ien he says himself, at the close of them, " The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." For these reasons, amongst others, I am led to imagine (and the meeting will judge whether the reasons are stronger or w^eaker than those mentioned on the other side) that this chapter is not to be taken in a strictly litercd sense, but in a figurative and spiritual one : and that the expressions w^e have been considering denote the believing upon Christ, and not literally and actually the receiving of his body and his blood. Mr. Brown has as yet adduced no farther proof than this chapter, and I feel therefore at 3Ir. Tottenham s Eighth Speech, 2G7 this moment rather at a loss how to proceed. I did cal- culate that, in the course of an hour's speech, we should have more portions of sacred writ referred to, in the reply to which J might have occupied the time allotted me. However, as such has not been the case, I shall now betake myself Thirdly — to some general arguments which, I conceive, make against the fact of the hodily jjresence of Christ in the Euchai'ist. I refer first of all, to the 26th chapter of St. Matthew, which contains the words of the institution, and 1 shall read the whole of the passage. I shall not at present in- vestigate the pi'ecise terms upon which our friends on the other side will dwell, leaving my observations on these points till they are adduced in order : but I shall merely call your attention to one feature in the passage, which I think militates against the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Commencing at the 26th verse, the Evangelist writes : — " And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke : and gave to his disciples, and said : Take ye, and eat, this is my body. And taking the chalice he gave thanks, and gave to them, sajdng, j3rink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father." Here our Lord had used what are called the words of consecration — he had pronounced over the elements of bread and wine the words " This is my body — This is my blood." Therefore, on Roman Catholic principles, the physical change should have taken place, and the bread and wine should have been transubstantiated into Christ's body and blood. But how do we find our Lord expressing him- self after these words were uttered ? He does not seem to intimate any jyhysical change in the wine, for, after all the other expressions, he adds in the 29th verse : — " I say unto you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father." You perceive our Lord calls it the fruit of the vine even after the words of consecration had been used, and when, upon Roman Catholic principles, transubstantiation should have taken place. A similar line of argument is suggested by the 11th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where the Apostle Paul also gives an account of the institution of the sacrament. In the 23rd verse he beg-ins thus : — " I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving- thanks, broke and said ; Take ye and eat, this is my body which shall 2f)8 Downside Discussion. — Fourth Day. be delivered for you ; this do for the commemoration of me. In like man- ner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying : This chalice is the New- Testament in my blood : this do ye, as oft as you shall drink, for the com- memoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore who- soever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove him- self : and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice." Now, Sir, let us ask here, did the Apostle suppose that, after the utterance of the words of consecration, there should take place a change of the substance of the bread and wine into the suhstcmce of our Lord's hody and blood ; No such thing : for, after he had supposed the recital of those words, we find him no less than three times speak- ing of the elements as if they had undergone no physical change : — " As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, &c. — Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice, &c.— But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice." — Verses 2C, 27, 28. Thus we have our Lord's comment in the 26th chapter of Matthew, and the Apostle Paul's comment in the 1 1th chapter of the 1 st Epistle to the Corinthians, and we find each caUing the elements bread and wine even after conse- cration. These two considerations seem to furnish evi- dence that neither our Lord nor his Apostle could have recognized anything like the Transubstantiation which is held by the Church of Rome. In connection with this, I may observe that there is an- other remarkable expression both in the words of the in- stitution, as recorded by Luke, and also in the account given by St. Paul in the chapter just quoted. Our Lord says, when he gives the bread, in Luke xxii. 19 : — " This is my body, which is given for you. Do this/or a commemoration of me.'' The Apostle also, in speaking of the matter, says in the 24th and 25th verses of the 1 Ith chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians : — " And (Jesus) giving thanks, broke and said : Take ye and eat : this is my body which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying. This chalice is the new testament in my blood : this do ye, as often as ye sliall drink, for the commemoration of me." ' I argue then that the simple fact of the expression com- memoration or remembrance being used, seems to be proof of the bodily absence of Christ. It appears to convey the idea that, however he may be every where present in his Divinity (which we both are ready to admit), yet that at Mr. Tottenham s Eighth Speech. 269 the same time in a bodily sense he is 7iot present ; for how could a thing, properly speaking, be done in remembr^ance of an individual, if he were actually present at the time ? Another passage to which I shall advert is the 26th verse of the same 1 1th chap, of 1st Corinthians : — " As often (says the Apostle) as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord until he come." Mark the expression, " u^'TIL he come." I ask you. Sir, is it possible to conceive that the expression, " until he come" would be used here by the inspired Apostle, if Christ tve7^e actually present in a bodily sense at the time ? No, Sir, the very expression involves the idea of his bodily absence: and, if this be the case, the Apostle Paul was far from maintaining the doctrine of Transubstantiation held now by the Church of Rome. Let me now bring you to the 3rd chap, of the Acts of the Apostles. You will recollect that, on a previous occa- sion, during the history of our Lord, he used the remark- able words : — "The poor you have always with you : but me you have not always." John xii. 8. Now the Apostle in this passage in the Acts, seems to be carrying out the same idea that was at that time ex- pressed by our Lord himself; for, speaking of Christ, he says : — " Whom Heaven indeed must receive until the times of the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy Prophets from the beginning of the world." — Verse !2l. Here it is distinctly asserted that the heavens are to re- ceive Christ until the times of the restitution of all things. In what sense are they to receive him ? The Apostle cer- tainly alludes not to his Deity, for, in that point of view, he is every where present^ both in heaven and earth. He refers evidently to his human nature ; so that the passage affirms that his body is in the heavens, and that theyretahi him, as to his body, till the restitution of all things. See- ing that this is the fact, I am at a loss to conceive how the doctrine of Transubstantiation can be true. Having thus adduced these few points much sooner, from the circumstances mentioned, than I had intended, I shall now cease, trusting that, in the next speech we have to make on this side of the question, we shall have more matter to reply to than at present. I trust that we shall come more to the marrow of the question. We are at present discussing the comparatively unimportant point 270 Doivnside Discussion. — Fourth Day. (thougli to a very great extent an important one) of the manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. I am anxious to get beyond this, into the question of greatest moment, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to shew the evil consequences that are made to result from the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Solicitous as I am to make this advance, T trust that proofs will be adduced as quickly as possible, in order that we may have occasion at once to reply without loss of time. The Rev. F. Edgkworth. ' Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, — Many con- siderations present themselves to my mind, affording faci- lities where I apprehended, previous to the commencement of this discussion, difficulties in meeting the members of the Reformation Society. The Rev. Gentleman who has just addressed the meeting, has, on the present occasion, as he did at various times last week, repeated his deter- niination, never to presume to say what (rod ought to do, but to content himself with learning with all humility what he has done. In that sentiment, which is entirely a Catholic sentiment, but which is faintly participated in by most of our Protestant brethren, in that sentiment, 1 most fully concur. It is a sentiment which, on account of its consequence, particularly distinguishes the Catholic Chris- tian from his Protestant brethren. What is the imputa- tion most frequently brought against us ? It is easy to ex- press it in one word : it is, that the Catholics believe to excess. Yes, Sir, the Catholics do believe all that God declares, though, in the revelations of the Supreme Being, there are, and we contend there must be, things which very far surpass the understanding of man. I, therefore, rejoice at Mr. Tottenham's frequent expression of his con- viction, that it is his duty and my duty, and it is the duty of every Christian, with all humility, to receive the reve- lations of God, and not to deny the truth of the smallest part of them, on tho, ground that we cannot, with our present limited understandings, comprehend its import. But, Sir, I shall rejoice exceedingly if the Rev. Gentle- man, besides making this sensible declaration of his disposi- tion to submit his understanding to the revelation of God, — if he will allow that disposition to influence him tlirough- Mr. Edgewortlis First Speech. *27i out the whole discussion. But I consider that he has de- parted from that which he has declared to be his duty : it seems to me that the laboured explanation which he has given of the 6lh chap, of John is a departure from it, to be ascribed to no other motive (I do not wish to impute any sinful motive) than the natural desire, of which per- haps he is scarcely conscious, of not believing the decla- ration of Christ that he would give his " flesh" to eat, and his '^ blood " to drink, because the belief of such a doctrine is "hard" to his understanding: it was "hard" to the Jews. I shall be glad to notice the various things to which that Rev. Gentleman diverted the attention of the meet- ing ; one word in passing bestowed upon some of them will be suflicient to prevent their being again mentioned. He has introduced a mistranslation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. We are not here to defend that particular translation to which he has alluded. I and every other Catholic must feel disappointed at any failure or departure in the translation from the original text; but perhaps it will satisfy Mr. Tottenham, if I at once tell him that we believe that we receive, in the Holy Eucha- rist, the body and blood of Christ whole and entire ; there- fore not excluding " the hones and nerves^' and all the other circumstances which the gentleman has mentioned. We believe, my Christian friends, that Christ made a so- lemn promise that he would give his followers, not a manna from the clouds, such as fell down upon the Israel- ites in the desert, but some food of a different nature and superior efficacy. In explanation he declared that this food should be his own person. " / am the living bread which came down from heaven." He over and over again pledged himself to give his " flesh" to be eaten, and his " blood" to be drunk. In one thing there is perfect unison between us and the Rev. Gentleman opposite; on both sides w^e are convinced that these declarations are to be found in the Holy Scrip- ture ; we enjoy in common the happiness of knowing that these are the words of one who cannot deceive us — that they are the w^ordsof a God-Man, whose truth, whose power neither of us can question. 1 may remark that 1 am now proceeding upon an argument which I lament can be of little weight with Unitarian friends who are present; my business is with opponents who yet are united with me in firm belief in the divine and human natures of Jesus 272 Downside Discussion. — Fourth Day. Christ. Mr. T. as well as myself fully depends upon the character of Jesus Christ : he knows that our Lord can- not deceive us, and that our Lord has power to fulfil his promises; and, therefore, that if Christ made any promise on this or any other occasion, that promise must be re- deemed. With this preparation of mind and heart, induced by our common faith, 1 now. Sir, most confidently return to the consideration of the 6th chapter of St. John's Gos- pel ; and to it I entreat the attention of our Protestant friends, to some the subject may be novel, but to all, I trust, it appears most important. For our respective creeds on this subject involve practical consequences, which 1 cannot conceal from myself for a moment to be other than such as affect our prospect of salvation. In recalling your attention to the 6th chapter of John, it is not necessary that I should read at length the texts which have been already quoted, they are probably in the me- mory of every one present ; but I will offer a few expla- natory remarks. The Jews asked our blessed Redeemer what sign he had to " shew, that they might see and believe in him.'' Now he had just wrought a splendid miracle ; he had just multiplied five loaves and two fishes into suffi- cient sustenance for 5000 persons. Yet, from a desire perhaps to see a greater miracle, though many of them were induced to follow him on this occasion by a still less defensible desire of receiving corporeal food, they de- manded some sign or miracle that should warrant their faith in him ; and, as if it occurred to them, as it must occur to our minds, that this was not a respectful or rea- sonable petition, inasmuch as he had just before shewn a sign — performed a splendid miracle — they, in defence of their curiosity or incredulity, contrasted the miracle which they had just witnessed, with the miracle wrought in fa- vour of their forefathers in the desert. " Our fathers,'* they said, " did eat manna in the desert;'' signifying that the manna from the clouds was as great a sign as the feed- ing of 5000 with a few loaves ; they looked for a greater sign before they would become his disciples. Our Saviour then, in reply to this demand, promises to give them some- thing more precious than the manna ; he promises to work a greater miracle ; and it appears to me impossible for the Rev. Gentleman opposite, with his creed respecting the nature of the Eucharist (for I believe he will admit that ancient term), it is utterly impossible for him to shew that Mt\ EdjewortJis First Speech. 273 a more striking or splendid miracle was wrought by Jesus Christ in favour of his followers, or a more precious food given to them than the manna which fed the Israelites in the desert. But how natural and intelligible is the whole passage with our belief of the nature of the holy Eucharist? You have, perhaps, been accustomed, Sir, to regard your Catholic brethren with pity, because they believe that the bread can be changed into the body of Christ and the wine into his blood. But, for a moment, figure to your- selves that our faith is correct ; suppose you were assured by a voice from heaven, (though that could not be to my mind more clear than the voice of Jesus Christ speaking from the Gospel of St. John) — but suppose you were thus assured that our opponents are in error, and that the Catho- lic Church is correct, when she teaches that the bread and wine are by divine power changed into the body and blood of Christ ; suppose for a moment that this is the true doc- trine, I ask you, my Protestant friends, if you could not at once explain the argument which our Saviour uses to the unbelieving Jews ? Do you not, on the assumption that our faith is the correct faith, behold a strength and clearness in the argument of our Saviour which you did not discover before? Is there not, as we regard the Eu- charist, something infinitely more precious and splendid than the manna which fell from the clouds to feed the ancient people of God? That was called the food of angels : but this bread which Christ prepares for his fol- lowers is termed " the bread of God'' (ver. 33) ; and he ex- plains to the Jews, in part, in what way this bread which he would prepare for his followers, should excel the bread which was given to the Israelites in the desert. " / am that bread of Vfe' (ver. 48). Is not this readily understood by those who believe as the Catholic Church believes? We believe that Christ is really present in the eucharistic food; that he is, as he declares (ver. 51), tliat " living bread lohich came down from heaven,' and which is given from Christian altars. Jesus proceeds then to promise to those who shall eat of this bread, that they shall live for ever : and he adds; *' the bread which I will give is mg flesh for the life of the world.'' Now here, I entreat my Protestant friends to endea- vour to divest themselves of previous feelings, — I will not term them prejudices, unwilling to give offence ; — but, if all present will endeavour to divest themselves of all previous T 274 Downside Discussion. — Fourth Day. impressions, and to come, as if this were the first time, to the examination of this subject, what will be their inter- pretation of the words of our Redeemer ? Christ says, that he will give something more precious to his followers than the manna which the Israelites received in the de- sert; he says he will give them bread from heaven. I believe, our friends opposite would give their disciples only bread from the earth. Our Saviour proceeds and says, "/ ««?. the bread;'' and we, my friends, we Catholics believe that lie is the bread ; and we give that bread from our altars wliich he declares himself to be. Then he says, " the bread which I ir ill give is my flesh for the world.'' Our friends on the opposite side say, " It is 7iot his flesh." The Jews said, " How can this be done? Hoiv can this man give us his flesh to eat ?" They had witnessed his many splendid miracles ; yet this promise which he now made of giving them food, which should be his own per- son, appeared to them something far more stupendous than any of his works which they had yet seen. But mark how he repeats the declaration, when refusing to receive this doctrine, they said : — '' How can be give us his flesh to eatl And he — Amen, Amen — I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." — (v. 54.) " My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed," — (v. 56.) " He that eatelh my flesh, and diinketh my blood, dvvelleth in me and T in him."— (v. 57.) Now, my Christian friends, let me again call your attention to that interpretation which the Catholic reader necesarily puts upon this passage, — an interpretation which, I am persuaded, will appear to many of my Protes- tant friends, at least as natural as any other, although it includes the subjection of our understanding to the re- vealed wisdom of God. Our Saviour, in declaring that " unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood ive have no life in us," challenges our attention to two points, — belief and practice. He declares that his flesh and his blood are provided for our food by him ; and he declares that, unless we partake of that food, we shall not have life. Now, our friends, our Pro- testant brethren, who have not been acquainted with this truth, as it has always been expounded by the Catholic Church, in the first place, do not believe the words of Christ; they may not be conscious of their disbelief, but they do not in fact believe that in the Eucharist, or in any Mi'. Edgeworth's First Speech. 275 other way, they receive the flesh and blood of Christ, or that his flesh is truly meat, and his blood truly drink. In consequence of not believing this doctrine, they take no care to find out those persons who have been ordained to suc- ceed the apostles, to perpetuate this spiritual food which Christ has provided for his followers. The unhappy re- sults of their error, on this point, are twofold. In the first place, they do not believe the words of Christ ; and they who refuse to believe him are in danger of a judgment, which I am sure it is my earnest desire and constant prayer that every one who now listens to me may escape. Secondly, they do not feed their souls with the body and blood of Christ : and yet such nourishment for our souls Christ has pronounced to be essential to our everlasting welfare. Again then, my Christian friends, I confidently, nay, earnestly entreat you, to give your minds to the study of this 6th chapter of the Gospel of St. John, not only here, but when you have left this place, when you are in your own houses, in solitude preparing yourselves by prayer, and looking to the Almighty to give you grace, that all ignorance may be chased away, and that you may dis- cover the truth, whether it is to be found in the doctrine of our friends opposite, or in the doctrine of the Catholic Church. I entreat you to ponder w^ell the words you find in the 6th chapter of St. John. I am convinced that if not all, (I speak from much experience had with my Protestant brethren,) I am convinced that, at least, many of you will say in your hearts, '' If Christ is God, I will not dare to dispute the truth of his declarations. Nor will I put limits to his power. And as Christ is God, then, when he tells me that he will give me ' his flesh to eat and his hlood to drink,' I must feel convinced he has provided such a banquet for my soul. Where shall I find it?" Christian friends, I will tell you where to find it, — in the Catholic Church ; our Reverend opponents will acknow- ledge that you will not find it in the Church established by law in this country. It is of much more importance than the Reverend Gen- tleman opposite seemed to be aware, that we should esta- blish the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. He is very anxious that we should go hastily to the second branch of the subject, the Sacrifice of the Mass ; but you will recollect, you are all aware, that there are other two days yet before us, during which, 276 Downside Discussion, — Fourth Day. with the blessing of God, we shall have full time to proceed with that discussion. But I feel, perhaps, more strongly than he does the importance of our previously discussing thoroughly the doctrine of the real presence of Christ; for if Christ is not present on the altars of the Christian reli- gion, in his *' body and blood," perhaps our time will not be well spent in discussing whether we ought or not to offer to the Supreme Being mere bread and wine. It is our belief that Christ, who now sits at the right hand of his Father in the eternal kingdom of Heaven ; — it is our belief, that this Divine Being, for the nourish- ment of our souls, shrouds his glory and conceals it under the appearance of bread and wine. It is our belief, that he first of all wrought this change of the bread and wine into his own sacred body at his last supper, there fulfilling the promise which he had previously made, as is recorded in the 6rh chapter of St. John. It is our belief, that when he had done this, he commanded his apostles to do the same thing. The apostles did of course what he had commanded them to do, after his visible presence was with- drawn. They also took bread and wine, and pronounced the words which he had ordained ; and the faith of the apostles, I maintain, we shall have ample time to ascer- tain. The faith of the apostles, and the faith of the early Christians, as can clearly be shewn by an appeal to such writings as are still extant, was, that when the words ap- pointed by Jesus Christ, were uttered by the apostles, or by any, legitimately ordained, to succeed to, or be asso- ciated with them, in the ministry, — that when these ap- pointed vvords were pronounced, then the bread and wine became changed in substance ; the bread became the body of Christ, and the wine became his blood. That is the faith of Catholics ; and although the Reverend Gentle- man opposite has expounded the 6th chapter of St. John in a vv^ay at variance with our belief on this point — although he has laboured much to shew that the words of Christ, " unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man you cannot he saved" signify nothing con- trary to his doctrine, which is, that without eating the flesh of our Lord, and without drinking his blood, we may be saved, (for remember that is the doctrine of the Refor- mation Society — that is the doctrine of the Church esta- blished by law in this countrjO— and although he has thus expounded the 6th chapter of St. John, I most confidently, as I said befoi'e, refer you, again and again, to the study Mr. Edgeworth's First Speech. 277 of these inspired words, assured that iiiaiiy of you will come from that study, saying : ' far be it from me so to dis- tort the Word of God, as to say that the flesh of the Son of Man signifies bread, and that the blood of the Son of Man signifies wine, — that the declaration of the Son of God, " unless you actually eat his flesh and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you," signifies no more than this, that " unless ye take real bread and real wine to represent my body and blood, ye shall not have life in you." ' I am sure that scarcely any of you will come to that conclusion, and feel satisfied that he has fairly interpreted the Word of God. It is in the recollection of the meeting, that the Rev. Gentleman opposite, several times last week, declared his belief, that if we had only the gospel of St. John and no other portion of the inspired writings, we should have suf- ficient to guide us to heaven ; this was in support of his opinion, that the written word is a sufhcient rule of faith. All that was necessary for him to know was contained, so he contended, in the gospel of St. John. Now he has told you to-day that he believes (but he said this with some de- gree of caution, which, perhaps, will be rendered more visible hereafter), that the 6th chapter of St. John does not refer at all to the rite instituted by our Saviour at the last supper. Well now, if the 6th chapter of St. John does not refer to the last supper, there is no other passage in that gospel which speaks of that solemn rite. Yet it is laid down in the Book of Common Prayer which the gen- tleman uses, and which he would wish me to use in con- junction with Scripture, to find out the way which leads to heaven, that, of the sacraments instituted by our Lord, the supper is one of those which are generally necessary for the salvation of men. Now, if it is generally necessary for the salvation of mankind, and if no mention of it is to be found in the gospel of St. John unless in the 6th chap- ter, which I solemnly aver does refer to that Facred rite, but which accordingly to the Rev. Gentleman does not, then I say, either that he cannot find all the knowledge necessary to salvation in the gospel according to St. John, or that its 6th chapter must be referred to the Lord's sup- per. I will not lay further stress on this, because I feel that Mr. T. has inadvertently committed himself, and on this or other points we ought not to involve his Protestant brethren in the same mistake. He had offered various reasons for interpreting the 278 Downside Discussion . — Fourth Day. 6th chapter of the gospel of St. John in a figurative sense. Now to these various reasons, I do not at pre- sent pay any attention, convinced of the overwhehning testimony which this gospel contains of the truth of Catholic doctrine ; namely, that there is in the Eucharist, the real flesh and the real blood of Jesus Christ. I know well that it is more agreeable to the reason of man to ex- plain away the mysteries of religion ; but just as the gentle- man opposite prefers expounding the 6th chap, of St. John in a figurative sense, affirming that it is the mode more agreeable to reason, so, our Unitarian brethren choose to expound those texts of sacred Scripture which refer to the divine nature of Christ, in a sense which would make him out to be a mere creature ; and on the very same ground as Mr. T. has chosen, does the Unitarian do this, because he is prepared to tell us, that he cannot conceive how the Supreme Being could so far debase himself as to take on him our human nature. He cannot understand this ; and certainly the charity that God here exhibits to- wards us, transcends our comprehension. But when the Rev. Gentleman opposite, as well as his Catholic brethren, bends his understanding to the belief of the incarnation of the Son of God — after that mystery, the greatest of all mysteries, he ought to find no difficulty in believing that Christ can be present under the appearance of bread and wine on the Christian altars ; he ought to have no diffi- culty in believing this, if he can find any thing in Scrip- ture that declares this to be the truth. Again I say, the gospel of St. John, the 6th chap, does declare this. We now proceed to the passage to which the Rev. Gentleman has asked your attention. Matt. xxvi. 26. These are the words in which the Evangelist St. Mat- thew, c. xxvi. V. 26, describes the fulfilment of the promise made by Christ, as recorded in the 6th chap, of St. John. ** And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and brake it, and gave to his disciples, and said, Take ye and eat, this is my body." I am speaking to those who believe the power and truth of Christ, to those who believe in his divinity. I ask, could he change bread into his body? You will at once answer Yes. I speak to those who believe in the inspiration of the sacred Volume, and it is here stated, that he took bread and declared it to be his body ; did it become his body, or did it not? Again, I appeal to the faith you have in the character of Christ, as a divine being. To that ques- tion our friends opposite, and Protestants generally an- Mr. Edgewortlis First Speech. 270 swer, that it is not the body of Christ ; but to that ques- tion the Catholic world replies — It is the body of Christ. Again in the next verse ; " And taking the chalice, he gave thanks ; and gave to them saying ; drink ye all of this.'' What was that which the chalice contained ? — '^ This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many unto the remission of sins T Did not Christ shed his real blood upon the cross for the sins of mankind ? Does he not here declare that the chalice which he tendered to the Apostles and bade them drink of, contained that blood which he was about to shed for the remission of the sins of the world ? Do not tell me this involves circumstances and things which we cannot comprehend, and therefore need not believe. That would be a fitter answer from per- sons who did not believe in the truth of Scripture, or did not believe in the divine character and power of our Saviour ; but such a reply I do not expect to be whispered by any one who regards the power of Christ as infinite, who regards Christ as God ; he tenders the chalice saying that we are to drink of it, for it contains the blood shed for the remission of the sins of the world. We who believe his character to be divine, must humble all our senses before his declaration : we must chase away whatever objections our reason or the prejudices of our education might fur- nish ; and say: * as this declaration is made by the Son of God, I believe it ; I believe therefore he changed the bread into his body, and the wine into that blood which he shed for the remission of the sins of the world.' St. Mark xiv. 22. narrates, in nearly the same language, the institution of the Holy Eucharist : — *' And as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed and brake it, and gave to them and said, take ye ; this is my body. And he took the cup ; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many." In St. Matthew it is added : — " I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when 1 shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father." In the Gospel of St. Mark xiv. 25. we read : — " Verily I say unto you I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God." The Rev. Gentleman opposite has asked us, " Is not this a proof even after the words of consecration as employed by our Catholic brethren, that our Saviour declares it still to be wine ?" No, my Christian friends. No : Christ has already told us this is his blood which should be shed for 280 Downside Discussion. — Fourth Day. Ihe remission of the sins of the world. If he calls it now the fruit of the vine we see the reason for this figurative language : it being still such in appearance, still such to the eyes and to the taste, and to all the senses of man ; but if it is still only the fruit of the vine, and if the words of consecration effected no change in it, why did he call it his blood 1 We give a reason why figurative language should be still employed, why, first, the sacred elements should still be called the bread of God, the bread of life, or simply bread ; why in continuance the consecrated contents of the chalice should be called wine ; they were still such to the senses of man, but that mere appearance loses its influ- ence before the testimony of faith, before the testimony of the word of God. Our corporeal senses have been pros- trated before the unerring words of the Son of God ; he has declared that the bread became his body and the wine his blood ; the person who receives that declaration with faith, as I trust that most of you do, has no difficulty afterwards when he finds these two same things which to the senses of man are still unchanged mentioned in terms such as the senses would suggest. But I will proceed to the 1 Cor. chap. xi. I might first adduce most striking passages from the preceding chapter; but other opportunities will present themselves ; having but little time left, I prefer drawing your attention to the 11th chapter beginning at the 23rd verse. If the Rev. Gentleman should give one interpretation of the words used by our Saviour in his last supper in instituting the Eucharist, and 1 or any other Catholic should give another interpretatation, and if in consequence of these contradic- tions some of you should remain in doubt to which side you ought to be inclined, you would naturally feel anxious to see some other passage of sacred Scripture that might throw light on this the disputed matter. I most confidently challenge the gentlemen opposite and must invite the atten- tion of all our friends present to the language of the in- spired St. Paul as w^e find it here in 1 Cor. xi. 23 : — " For I have received of the Lord that lohich also I delivered unto you.'' He now recounts what he received in revelation from the Lord Jesus Chiist: — '* That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and f^iving thanks he brake it, and said, Take ye and eat ; this is my body which shall be delivered foi you ; this Join commemoration of me." St. Paul says it is the body of Christ; Catholics hold Mr, EdgewortJis First Speech. 281 the same language ; most of our Protestant brethren say it is not the body, it is merely sl figure. " After the same manner he also took the chalice when he had supped, say- ing, This chalice is the new testament in my blood : this do ye, as often as you shall drink, in commemoration of me." The Catholic expounds these last words most naturally; and I maintain that our friends opposite cannot reconcile them with their belief, without labouring, I think, unsuc- cessfully to satisfy you that they expound them according to the truth. Moreover, in what manner can mere bread and wine " shew the death of our Lord?"" But on the other hand, when, according to the Catholic faith, under this appearance of bread and wine lie concealed the true body and blood of Christ, you see by faith the victim which our Saviour made himself, when he submitted to the ignominy and the pangs of death. In our perpetual commemora- tion of this rite according to his command, you see we are constantly ^'' shelving forth," according to our faith, " the Lord's death ;" and the Catholic Church will be marked throughout the world by having its altars daily honoured with the celebration of the rite instituted by our Saviour at the last supper. On the Catholic altars to the end of the world will be shewn forth the death of Jesus Christ, according to the command given to his ministers. More- over,— "Whoioever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." According to Protestant belief^ how is a man ^'•guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" who receives mere bread and wine, however unworthily ? According to the Catholic belief of Christ's body and blood being there, you may understand that whosoever shall 'presume to partahe of this divine food unworthily , shall be guilty of jw of aning the body and blood of Christ. But the Apostle continues : — '* Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.*' And accordingly, in the Catholic Church, the man who is conscious of sin feels repulsed from the altars of religion ; he feels it would be a crime to presume to partake of the holy Eucharist, containing, as he knows it does, the body and blood of Christ. He feels repulsed from this holy banquet, and let me tell you that our practice is invariably to instruct those who approach the table of the Lord, first to pj^ove themselves ; and if they see any stains of sin in 282 Downside Discussion.— Fourth Day. their souls, to remove them by sorrow and penance, and having recourse to those who have succeeded the Apostles in the ministry, that they may exercise the power which is given to us in our ordination (w^hich seems in some sort to have been given to the Rev. Gentleman opposite when he was ordained), namely, the power to forgive sins. — " Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained. Let it not be said this belongs not to the subject ; it may not seem to enter into the main portion of it, but I ex- pound it to you to shew you how we understand and act upon the text last quoted from St. Paul. " For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." If the Lord's body is not there, how can he [Time expired.] Rev. J. Lyons. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, — On the last week of the Discussion the Rev. Mr. Brown complained sadly of the trying circumstances under which he was placed in disputing about the Rule of Faith. Now, I do think that he will labour under much more trying circum- stances this week : being called upon to disprove an asser- tion which appears to us contrary to common sense. It would be as reasonable to ask a man to prove the assertion that a fish is not a horse, as to require of us to disprove the assertion, that what we see to be a piece of bread, and know to have been made in a baker's shop, is actually *' the body, blood, soul, divinity, bones and nerves of the Lord Jesus Christ." Now all present must acknowledge that this is a great difficulty to meet. The Rev. Gentlemen have referred us to the 6th chapter of John, and have dwelt very largely and for a considerable length of time on it. As Mr. Tot- tenham has already commented on it, I shall only offer a few remarks in addition to what has been already spoken. Mr. Edgeworth when speaking upon it, called our atten- tion to a very remarkable miracle that had been wrought by our Lord in the desert, and then he tells us that the Eucharist is a miracle. Let us draw the parallel Mr. Lyons Third Speech, 283 between the real and the asserted miracle— let us see whether there be any family features between them. In the first place, when we turn to the miracle wrought in the desert, where above five thousand were fed with five barley loaves and two small fishes, we see that the loaves were made of barley which grew in the ground — sprung up and ripened — then it was brought to the mill and ground down, and then it was sent to the baker and made into barley loaves. In the Eucharist you might see a similar miracle to this, because the wheaten bread grows in the field, is brought to the baker and then it is made into paste or wafers ; a part is transferred to a Roman Catholic chapel in the neighbourhood, and part is applied to the daily sus- tenance of the human body. So far we see the parallel between them — but let us go farther. The five barley loaves were presented to the people to eat, " they did all eat and were satisfied." There was first the giving of thanks previous to eating. The people had more than sufl[icient of the bread to eat — so that twelve baskets full remained over and above, after the multitude had been satisfied. But now let us come to the miracle of transub- stantiation. First of all, this wheaten bread, or cake, or wafer, is brought and laid on the altar ; there are many words pronounced over it, some in a loud voice, some in a low tone, and others only whispered secrete, uttered as it were " secretly." When these words are uttered there is no visible change ; the wafer remains the same in its colour, in lis form, in its taste— ihevQ is no sensible tran substantiation, and yet it is immediately held up before the people, and they are all called to bow down and worship it. But this was not the case in the miracle in the desert; the barley loaves were not held up as God to be worshipped, but in the case of transubstantiation the wafer is immediately said to be God. In the miracle in the desert they ate and were filled, but in the asserted miracle of transubstantiation no sooner is the wafer deified, than in order to shew great affection for their God, they immediately devour him. It reminds me of the story of two sharks that were said to be so strongly attached to each other that when the female died, the male in order to shew his affection ate her up, lest some other shark should come and devour her. This is the case with regard to the consecration of the piece of bread. It is first made into a god, and then the people to shew their reverence to this god, first bow down and worship, and then eat him. 284 Downside Discussion. — Fourth Day. In the 32nd chapter of Exodus and the 20th verse, we are told that Moses — " Laying hold of the calf which they had made, he burnt it and beat it to powder, which he strowed into water, and gave thereof to the children of Israel to drink." This was the golden calf that Aaron had made at the time that Moses was upon the mount with the Lord God, and Moses, in order to shew the contempt he poured upon it, ordered it to be beat to pieces, to be ground into powder, and the people of Israel, to shew their abhorrence of it, were commanded to drink it ; here we have a parallel case with transubstantiation. The Roman Catholics are re- quired, as soon as they have worshipped their god, to eat him. Moses shews us that whatsoever passes into man is contemptible, and therefore with regard to the Eucharist, to say that it contains in it the '' body, soul, blood, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ" pours the most utter contempt on our Lord and Saviour. But again it is asserted to be a mystery equal to the Trinity. A mystery is somewhat that does not contradict our senses. It may be above our understanding, but it is not contrary to it. I take the mystery of the Resurrection; in the 15th chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians the Apostle says, it is " a mystery." The Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ is in the 1st Epistle to Timothy 3rd chapter and loth verse, called " a mystery." The union between Christ and his members — although it is trans- lated in the Douay Bible a sacrament— yet it is " a mys- tery." Here are three mysteries of Scripture, the Resur- rection of the Dead, the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and the Union between Christ and his People, and there is no- thing contrary to the senses, though there is much above the understanding : yet we are called upon by the express declaration of God to believe these things, and they are laid before us to exercise our faith. We may, as I have just now said, not understand them, but they do not contradict any of our senses. But let us look at the asserted mystery of transubstantiation. In the first place I shall ask by what compressive process (and we live in days of great invention) — could the " body, and soul, and divinity, the head, the members, and the feet of the Lord Jesus" be compressed into the flatness of a thin wafer, and then be translated to that which we see standing there, [pointing to the altar.] I believe there are few of us that would like our bodies to be conipres!?ed in such a manner. Here is Mr. Lyons TJiird Speech. 285 the first difficulty that meets us in this asserted mystery— we do not find these difficulties, contradictory to our senses, in the case of the Incarnation, nor of the Innity, nor yet in the Resurrection, nor in the Union of Christ with his People. . ,, I will not dwell any longer on this point, but will call your attention to the Gih chapter of the Gospel ot bt. John, to the verses that Mr. Ed^eworth alluded to there- in. He first began with the 30th verse— " What sio-n therefore dost thou show that we may see and may believe thee? What^dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert as it is written, He o-ave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said to them : Amen, amen. I say to you, Moses gave you not bread from heaven but my Fatlier giveth you the true bread from heaven, hor the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven and giveth life unto the world. 1 bey said, tlierefore, unto him : Lord, give us always this bread. The Jews were, as usual, seeking after a sign, and no sio-n would the Lord then give them, as he had oftentimes re1*used at other periods. But he now turns the conversa- tion to a more profitable subject, he begins to advise them not " to labour" so assiduously " for the bread that perisheth," and to forget the spiritual nourishment of their never-dying souls. While they were intent upon what they should eat, and what they should drink, they were altoo-ether forgetful of the immortal spirit that should soon pass° before the throne of the living God ; and, therefore, Jesus again brought them back to the great question, lor althouo-h he might work a miracle, yet the miracle would not of^'necessity work fiiith in their hearts, according to the testimony of Jesus, that if they '' did not believe Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." He accordingly continues to speak to them, and they say, *' Give us always this bread. How does Jesus then explain his words ? " Jesus said, 1 am the bread of life, he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst." Thus he explains what he meant by "the bread of life: it was that spiritual nourishment that he was to give, through faith, to all his own people. The conversation is then carried on further, and immediately he lays down the truth which was the real cause of off*ence to the Jews— a truth which has a severe anathema pronounced against it bvthe Church of Rome; and, therefore, it is not to be wondered at that it was not adverted to on the other side :— " All that the Father giveth me shall come to me ; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out." 28(> Downside Discussion. — Fourth Dmj. The words which offended these people are recorded in the 65th and 66th verses — " There are some of you that believe not, for Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe, and who he was that would betray him. And he said : Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me unless it be given him by my Father." Here was the true occasion of the disciples being offended: for it is instantly added *' After this many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him." For further proof of this I refer you to the 43rd and 44th verses — *• Jesus therefore ansv^'ered and said to them : Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me except the Father who hath sent me draw him, and 1 will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the Prophets, And they shall all be taught of God." The true cause of offence was because Jesus abased the j)ride of their hearts, by shewing that in their own might or power they never could come to the living God — that all their own works done before the influence of the Spirit upon the soul were only vain and empty things that never could recommend them to the grace of the living God, — to the blessing of eternal salvation. But as such doctrine comes under a very heavy anathema in the decrees of the Council of Trent respecting justification, they were wisely passed over by the gentlemen on the other side, and the whole occasion of offence ascribed to the words, '^ eating the flesh" and " drinking the blood." In order to understand aright the meaning of the words " eating the flesh, and drinking the blood," you must recollect that in Scripture it is usual to speak of the Christian, and say, that he is " born again" — that he "grows," and " increases," and "walks," and "falls." Now all these things are spiritual — he is spiritually " born again,'' and he spiritually grows into the Lord Jesus Christ, he walks in the spirit, and he falls into sin. Here, then, we find all these words of common applica- tion to the body of man applied to the soid, and to the spiritual state of the Christian before God ; and therefore we say that the words " eating and drinking" are used in the same sense of accommodation in order to shew the necessity of the close union that must subsist between the Lord Christ and all his members. It only shews us that, while the Lord dwells " in our hearts by faith," we become a part of his mystical body, and we live by him, and are strengthened by him. It is by the spiritual feeding of our souls on the Lord Jesus, by faith, that we become members of his body, in that spiritual union which shall never be dissolved. It shews, more- Mr. Lyons Third Speech. 287 over, that as the natural body must hunger and thirst after food when deprived of it for some time, even so must it be with the soul that has " tasted and seen that the Lord is gracious." There must be an " hungering and thirsting after righteousness" — a coming by faith to Jesus to receive, as the Apostle says, fresh '* supplies of the Spirit of the Lord." But again we can shew that even if this chapter did refer to the Sacrament, yet it could not mean the literal eating of the body and drinking of the blood of Christ, because, if it did, it icould contradict the old laio. Christ came into the world " to fulfil all righteousness." The sacrifices under the law were types and figures of Jesus, and none more so than the sin-offering. Now let us advert to the sin-offering referred to in the 6*th chapter of Leviticus, and the last verse — " For the victim that is slain for sin, the blood of which is carried into the tabernacle of the testimony to make atonement in the Sanctuary, shall not BF. EATEN, biit shall be burnt with fire." The priest was not allowed to eat of this sin-offering. The Lord Jesus Christ was offered up for us, or as the Apostle Peter expresses it, "He died, the just for the unjust, that he might reconcile us to God." ^' He bare our sins in his own body on the tree." " He was made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteous- ness of God in him." According to the law, the sin-offer- ing was not to be eaten, but, according to the new rule of Romanism, the sin-offering is to be eaten. Here, then, we find the law of the Church of Rome departing from the law of God. In the Book of the Law it is said '* it shall not be eaten ;" in the Book of Romanism, " it shall be eaten." I speak to wise men : judge ye w^hich ye ought to obey, God or man. When the Rev. Gentleman passed further on, he ad- verted to the wondrous " miracle of Transubstantiation." I have read of one miracle as being wrought by this Tran- substantiation. Our friends on the opposite side must believe it, though we are not bound to do so. We are told of a certain Saint who existed from Ash- Wednesday to Ascension Thursday on the Eucharist alone ! This " mira- cle" comes to ns attested by the authority of the Breviary. We shall now consider some of the other remarks of the Rev. Mr. Edgeworth. He brought us at once to the 26th chapter of Matthew, and he says this was a fulfilment of the 6th of John. We turn to the 26th of Matthew : In the first place it is said in the 26th verse — 288 Downside Discussion.— Fourth Day. " Whilst they were at supper Jesus took bread and blessed, and broke ; and gave to his disciples, and said : Take ye and eat : This is my body." In the opening of the verse we read that — " Jesus took bread" — that he " blessed it" — that he "gave it to his disciples" — that he said " take ye and eat"— (they could only take bread) and then he said, " This is my body." That the word " this" cannot refer to the body of the Lord Jesus is very evident from many parallel passages in the Holy Scriptures. Where the word " is" joiiis words of tico different significations^ then it means to represent. Thus, in the 5th of Ezekiel: there is in the opening of the chap- ter a certain command — " Thou son of man take thee a sharp knife that shaveth the hair ; and cause it to pass over thy head and over thy beard : and take thee a balance to weigh in and divide the hair." Then in the 5th verse it is said : — " Thus saith the Lord God, Tins is Jerusalem." Was the head, the razor, or anything connected with shaving, Jerusalem? yet it is said, '* this is Jerusalem." There is the word " is" used in the sense of " to represent." In the 13th chapter of the Gospel according to St. Mat- thew, the word "is" occurs several times in the sense of " to represent." In the parable of the sower, our Lord says :— ^ " Pfear ye the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, there cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart : this is he that leceiveth the seed by the way-side." Then he alludes to the stony ground, and says : — " This is he that heareth the word," &c. and SO he proceeds with the remainder of the parable. But let us come to the Church of Rome, and ask what she means in her Litany, when she says that the Virgin Mary IS " the morning star," — " the ark of the covenant," — "the queen of the heavens,"— " the queen of the world," — "the star of the sea," — and so on? Is she really all these various things ? Is she all these at one moment ? Or does she assume each of these characters at successive mo- ments ? Is she " a star," and " an ark," and " a queen," and " an intercessor," and "a foundation?" But if the word "is" must be taken in its literal acceptation, she must be so, according to the Church of Rome. Thus even in the Church of Rome the word "is" signifies " ^o re- prese7it.'' Again, — in the canon of the Mass we are told that until all the icords are pronounced, there is no transub- Mr. Lyons' Third Speech. 289 stantiation ; tliat is, until the priest closes the sound of the last letter there is no transubstantiation ; so that when he had pronounced the words, " this is my bod — "(or rather, the Latin of them) the bread is not transubstantiated— -it was still bread ; for he must say, " this is my body,'' so that by the acknowledgment of Roman Catholics themselves, the word '* this" must refer not to the fleshly body of our Lord, but to the bread he was then holding up in his hands. But if these words be interpreted so as to mean his literal body and blood, how numerous are the difliculties that occur in such an interpretation. Our Lord must have held his body in his hand at the same time that he was received by the twelve Apostles ; so that he must then have had thirteen bodies ; he must have had (it is an awkward thing) his two hands in his two hands, and there must have been twelve other bodies of the same person partaken of by the Apostles. These are serious difficulties to meet — very serious, and such as require the strongest and most unquestionable proofs to substantiate them. But the words in the 27th verse must be taken figura- tively; for, as Mr, Edgeworth acknowledges, it was the *' contents" of the chalice, and not the "chalice" itself which was changed. He says, *' Wliat did it contain? Blood ;" — then he adds, " it was the blood which was about to be shed." The Evangelist says, "Taking the CHALICE, he gave thanks." If we are to interpret the 26th verse literally, I would ask the Church of Rome to take this (2,1th verse also literally, and thus make the chalice the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not the " contents," but " the chalice," which, according to the Roman Catholic system of interpretation, is changed into the blood of the Lord Jesus. " Taking the chalice, be gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying. Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new testament — (this chalice that he was then holding in his hand) — which sliall be shed for many unto remis- sion of sing.'' As Mr. Edgeworth was reading out of the Protestant version of the Holy Scripture, he used the word "i,9" un- wittingly, whereas, both iyi the canon of th.e Mass, and in the Latin translation of the Bible, it is not "the blood which IS shed," but "the blood which shall be shed;" evidently shewing that there had been as yet no shedding of blood, and therefore shewing that it was impossible for the disciples to drink the blood, when it was not yet drawn from the veins of Christ. Our Lord then shews U8 his meaning, when he says : — u 290 Downside Discussion. — Fonrth Day. " I will not drink from henceforth of this ihvit of the vinf, until that dar when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father." Thus Christ clearly tells us that the wine in the chalice still continued what it w^as, even " the fruit of the vine," that there, was no transubstantiation, that there was no physical change effected in it. We w^ere also referred to the 1 1th chap, of the 1st Co- rinthians, and Mr. Edgeworth read us various passages therefrom. In the SSrd verse Paul shew^s what he re- ceived of Christ ; in the 24th verse he goes on to specify particulars, namely, the account concerning the Sacra- ment of the Lord's Supper; in the 25th verse he uses the v/ord " chalice :"—" This chalice is the new testa- ment of my blood ;"--in the 26th verse he still calls it "the bread and the chalice;" in the 27th verse, "the bread and the chalice;" in the 28th verse, " the bread and the chalice." The Apostle Paul, by using these words, "bread," and " chalice," so frequently, shews that he did not believe in any transubstantiation of the ele- ments of bread and wine; for if he received this dogma, he would not have so repeatedly called it " bread and chalice." Mr. Edgeworth dwelt for some time on the 26th verse: " As often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord until he come." Mr. Tottenham adverted to the circumstance of Christ being absent from this world in a bodily form, and shew^ed from this verse that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper could not contain his actual body ; for we are commanded to " eat this bread," and " drink this chalice," " until he come.'" Holy Scripture of the New Testament informs us of only two personal comings of our Lord ; the first coming in order to suffer and atone for sin, and " bring in an everlasting righteousness ;"— the first coming in order that he might procure gifts for men,— and bear up his own sa- crifice before his Father's throne in heaven, and from thence pour dow^n the richest blessings on the children of men : and his second coming, when he is to appear — " In a flame of fire, yielding vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thes. i. 8. In the day of his second coming we are told that " every eye shcdl see him,'' and he " shall come in the clouds of heaven." In the 1st chapter of the Acts we are informed that, when the Apostles were gazing up to heaven after the Mr. Lyons Tliird Speech. 291 fiscended Saviour, two men stood ])y tliem, and told them, " In like rnannei' as ye have seen him go into heaven, so shall he come again." He ascended in his bodily form, and they were to see him come again to the world in the same manner. But according to the doctrine of Transub- stantiation be comes every day, and it may be every hour of the day, invisibly on the altars of the Roman Church. In these wafers he is not seen, and yet it is promised "that every eye shall see him," when he comes " the second time without sin unto the salvation of his people." But again, the Rev. Gentleman also introduced the 29th verse:— " He tliat ea^eth and drinketli unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." And he asks this question : '* How was it possible that we could be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord, unless the body and blood were actually present?" It is very easy to comprehend this, if vv'e will compare it with other passages in the word of God. The word "dis- cerning " is used ia Scripture in a spiritual, and not in a bodily sense ; for wqyq it bodily presence that was here intended, the word " discern" would not have been used. The Apostle Paul is reproving the Corinthians because they did not spiritually discern the commemoration of the Lord's death in the bread and wine laid before them. He blames them for abusing the Sacrament, — for eating too much of the bread, and drinking so much of the wine as to cause intoxication. Now if it were the blood of Jesus which was in the chalice, that " blood which cleanseth from all sin," it could never be the cause of such iniquity. It appears that the blood in the chalice, contrary to our notions of blood, is of an intoxicating quality ; but as we have never drunk human blood in the Protestant Church, we leave such cannibalism to the Church of Rome, and we call on her to tell us how it can intoxicate him who drinks of it. Compare the 1st Corinthians, 2d chapter, 12th verse. Spiritual discernment is there spoken of — " Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the spirit that is of God, that we may know the things that are given us from God." Then the Apostle goes on to the 14th verse — " But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Sjurit of God, for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand because it is spi- ritually examined " (iliscerned). Here is the true reason why they could not " discern the 292 Downside Discussion, — Fourth Day. body of the Lord," because it was not there substantially but spiritually, and the carnal mind that comes to the sacrament without faith cannot discern the nature of the things there represented. The Apostle says, " He cannot understand because it is spiritually examined." Then he adds, " But the spiritual man judgeth all things and he himself is judged of no man." In these verses he inter- prets the meaning of the word " discerning," and shews us clearly that it was not the bodily but the spiritual presence of the Lord that was there. We are also asked in what manner could mere bread shew forth the death of the Lord, and are then told, that " Roman Catholics have the true faith, because they believe that the body and blood of Christ Jesus are in the sacra- ment." Now, both in Protestants and Roman Catholics, it must be an act of faith — for did any Roman Catholic ever see the body and blood of Christ? Did he ever see it in the Eucharist ? Did he ever see the number of his limbs — the features of his face — the various motions of a living body? I believe he cannot see these things, and therefore the Roman Catholic is bound, as we are, to re- ceive it hy faith. It is by faith that we spiritually eat the body and drink tlie blood of Christ ; and the Roman Ca- tholics must receive it by faith, because they cannot see the body and blood of the Lord as there present. As I have but a short time at present to speak on this subject, I will make a few remarks on what Mr. Brown has said. He tells us, that sacrifice was necessary in order to apply the sacrifice of Christ : this subject we shall consider more largely when we come to the Sacrifice of the Mass, and I pass therefore to another assertion which he made regarding the 6th chapter of John, that, he said, would put an end to the argument. In the 64th verse it is written, — " It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. Then the interpretation which is given by an infallible teacher, of an infallible church, is, that the flesh there means corrupt flesh. Now, when I examine different parts of this chapter, I find that the word "flesh" is ap- plied to our Lord, and, if it signify literal flesh— then, that must be applied to the literal flesh of our Lord. I do not say that this is its meaning, but Roman Catholics de- sire to have it thus interpreted— and therefore, if, accord- ing to Mr. Brown, it signifies corrupt flesh, then the Mr. Lyom Third Speech. 293 Reverend Gentleman has fallen into the heresy of those who say that our Lord took a body defiled and contami- nated with sin, but Holy Scripture tells us, that he was *' holy, harmless, unde'filed, and separate from sinners." In the 19th and 20th verses of the 10th chap, of Hebrews, the word flesh is used to signify the real flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ: — " Having therefore, brethren, confidence in the entering into the Holiest by the blood of Christ ; a new and living way which he hath dedicated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh." Here the word " flesh" is not used in the sense of cor- ruption. I am willing to grant that, in many parts of Scripture, it is used in the sense of corruption ; but, in the 6th chapter of John, according to the Roman interpreta- tion it is applied to the flesh of Jesus, and therefore it cannot be corrupt. In the 64th verse, therefore, the word " flesh" cannot mean corrupt or contaminated flesh — " It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing." How is it possible, that that which is natural could nourish that which is spiritual I It is the Spirit only that can act on spirit, — first, for its conversion, then for its enlargement into the glorious liberty, wherewith the Lord Jesus maketh free. We might partake of human flesh, day after day, ac- cording to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, but how would our souls be benefited thereby I That flesh must, like all other flesh, " perish in the using." We would still require spiritual food, for by that which is natural or material, our souls never could be strengthened, — never could grow and increase into the " measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." It is " by the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus that we are made free from the law of sin and death," and it is by the very same " Spirit taking of the things of Jesus, and shewing them to our souls," that we are strengthened and comforted from time to time. It is by means of this Spirit that we are brought into union and fellowship with the Lord Jesus. It is, spiritually, that we eat the food that the Lord has given us. We there, in spirit, behold as it were the death and sufferings of Jesus, represented to us in the emblems which he has given us. And, in the sacrament, whilst we are commemorating the dying love of our Lord, we should also bear in remem- brance our own sins, that caused him to die so painful, so accursed a death as that of Calvary's cross. In the commu- nion of the Lord's supper our souls should ])artake of joy as flowinir to us from a sense of the love of Christ, there 294 Downside Discussion.— Fourth Day. represented, whilst at the same time we should be abased to the dust in ourselves, when we herein are taught the depths of iniquity within us — the exceeding sinfulness of our hearts, which nothing but the blood of Jesus can cleanse away — even the blood of " the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world." The Rev.T. J. Brown. After the protest that had been entered by Mr. Tot- tenham, in the last week's discussion, against the Catholic advocates dictating, as he charged us with doing, how the Almighty ought to act, I did not indeed expect that we should have heard of difficulties suggested by human reason against tJie mi/stejy which I advocate. I had, how- ever, cautioned you against them by calling your atten- tion to the fact, that difficulties of the same character were raised by the Jews, when our divine Master declared that he would give them his flesh, " How,'"' they said, *' can this man give us his flesh to eat." Yet such objec- tions have been, again and again, during the speech of Mr. Lyons, addressed to you, in order that your faith may not be established tipon the icord of God ; that testimony to which alone you should appeal, when the contested object of Revelation is a mystery. — Similar difficulties have, indeed, oftentimes been adduced by opponents of Protestantism against the most essential doctrines of Reve- lation. How, then, is it possible for a minister of the Esta- blished Church to defend his oivn creed with consistency, after he has thus set an example, in his attack upon okts, — of scrutinizing the obscurities of faith by the faint light of human reason and the weak judgment of man ? The con- sequences are fatal to revealed religion if this examination by man of the secrets of God be permitted. Toulmin, in his Life of Socinus, defending his appeal to reason against the mysteries of the Incarnation, writes : — " There is no other wav of evading tlie force of the Papist's argument for Transubstanliation, from the express words of the institution." Spinoza endeavoured, by a like process, to explain away the mystery of the Trinity, and all other mysteries. How did the defenders of Christianitv, Protestant as well as 3Ir. Browns Tenth Speech. 295 Catholic, meet his speculations? By protesting against his impious daring, and the abuse of man's reasoning faculties, as I now find it my duty to do against similar excesses of Mr. Lyons. Perusing lately the excellent work of the distinguished Protestant, Abbadie, " Sur la Religion Chretienne," I was much interested in observing the principles which, in his 3rd vol., p. 329 and following pages, he defends the mys- teries of our common faith, especially the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, against the sophisms and difficulties which the infidel Smalcius endeavoured to collect, from their alleged contradiction to the human understanding. Smal- cius maintained that it was absurd to believe any thing contrary to reason ; and hence he came to this conclusion, that if the Scriptures did evidently assert that God was made flesh, yet he would not believe it as being unreason- able ; because, said he, reason was given to man that he might determine thereby what should be admitted into his creed, and what should be rejected. In refutation of this impious position, Abbadie argues, in the 1st place, that the principle of Smalcius overturns all gospel truth ; *' For it has pleased God," he says, quoting the Apostle in 1 Cor. i. 21, "by the foolishness of our preaching to save them that believe." The Christian, therefore, ought to look up to the word of God, as to the motive and ground- work on which to establish religious truth, and not be guided by reason in opposition to the light of revelation. He contends, in the second place, and I particularly urge this in opposition to the line of argument taken up by Mr. Lyons, 1st, that to argue from reason against a mystery is to destroy faith ; for " we walk by faith, and not by sight," 2 Cor. v. 9. 2ndly, that it destroys or renders grace unavailing ; for if nothing is to be believed but what we can comprehend by the feeble and obscure light of our understanding, it follows that grace would not be neces- sary to faith ; it follows, also, that the Apostle is wrong when he declares in Heb. xi. 1 , that " faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen'' In the third place, Abbadie argues that if nothing is to be believed which surpasses the comprehension of reason, revelation becomes useless — God has no means witbin his power whereby he may be able to dissipate the darkness which involves the human understanding — and man may proudly prefer his own knowledge to that of God. A fourth ai-gument brought by Abbadie is, that if men 206 Downside Discussion.— -Fourth Dai/. were not to believe except what they understand, the Al- mighty Being, to whom we owe submission on every point, would not receive from us as much obedience as parents do from their children, who believe many things exclusively on the authority of their testimony. He con- tends, in the fifth place, that if the sanction of reason must first be had, God would lose thereby his right to command the proud mind of man to submit. He puts forward this objection on the partof Smalcius: — " Reason is the foundation of faith ; therefore faith cannot be more certain than reason." Abbadie answers, that reason, it is true, has to furnish the motives upon which the credibi- lity of a doctrine is established ; but the moment sufficient motives of credibility point out revelation, that moment we are to dismiss the objections of reason, and to receive the revealed truth, purely and solely because God has manifested it. Hence he comes to this conclusion (and it is very applicable to the objections that are urged against the Catholic rule), that the positions of Smalcius are blas- phemies ; that if the proofs contrary to the mystery of the Incarnation of God were a thousand times stronger than they really are, and that if it appeared to us a thousand times 7nore absurd and more difficult to be believed, yet the moment we find it manifested by the God of truth w^e are bound to believe it. To the objections of the Rev, Mr. Lyons 1 beg to return similar answers ; and to add that I tremble for him and the Protestant Church, if he and its ministers continue to set an example, such as he has shown, to those who are disposed to attack the myste- ries of faith by their apparent opposition to reason. The actual state of Protestantism in Germany displays a dread- ful warning, where the whole system of revelation is over- turned by ministers of the Protestant Church, and by Pro- testant Professors of Theology, precisely because they find it at apparent variance with their human notions. I shall now notice some of the objections of Mr. T. which have not been replied to, I must own that I am always at a loss how to aiford him satisfaction. At one time he calls upon us to put forward arguments for our doctrine, and then he says we ought to answer his objec- tions. 1 was perplexed by this difficulty during the dis- cussion of the last week, and J am now again similarly circumstanced ; but I will endeavour to extricate myself first by replying briefiy to his objections, and then going 9n with my defence. Mr. Brown s Tenth Speech, 297 His first objection, from the Catechism of tlie Council of Trent, which declares Christ to be present in the Eucha- rist with his bones and nerves, has been answered by my Rev. Friend near me. I wish to observe, in addition, that the CathoHc faith is, that the body and blood of Christ are wholly and svhstantially present in the Eucharist, which doctrine is based upon the word of God. When, therefore, the Catechism of the Council of Trent more ex- 2)licitli/ declares hoiv the body and blood of Christ are icholhj and substantially present, it cannot mean to con- tradict that simple exposition of our doctrine which in my first speech I read to you from the Council of Trent itself. What, then, we are called upon to believe is, that Christ is present substantially and wholly; understanding the manner of his presence to be such as the Council of Trent represents it; that is, that Christ is present in the Eu- charist, with his bones and nerves, not after a visible man- ner, not after the manner of a natural body, but after a mysterious, spiritual, and sacramental manner; that is, a manner beyond our conception, as, in their controversies with Unitarians, our opponents of other creeds must acknow- ledge that it surpasses their comprehension how Christ, being man, was, notwithstanding, really and truly God. The Rev. Gentleman remarked that my arguments were ad captandum , when I said that all ages concurred in my exposition of the 6th chap, of St. John ; but you may recollect that, anticipating his objection, I only stated that it was generally so explained by the interpreters of all ages, for I was aware that there were a few, a very few, how- ever, compared with the immense mass of Catholics, who expounded it differently. The Catholic Church exercises, indeed, no tyranny over its subjects; on points where faith is not immediately concerned, and in interpreting'- passages of Scripture which are not essential to the esta- blishment of a defined doctrine, it leaves us l^o exercise our own judgment. Accordingly, on the preceding days, I told the Rev. Gentleman of the other side, that we are allowed to use our own discretion, except in those matters whereon the Church, supported by the Spirit of God, has defined what we are to believe. Although, therefore, in their interpretation of the 6th chapter of St. John, some few Roman Catholics have diff*ered from the great majo- rity of their brethren, yet, exercising lawfully my judg- ment, I cannot hesitate in adopting that commonly re- ceived exposition which 1 have laid before you, and which 298 Downside Discussion.— Fourth Day. has not been at all disproved by any arguments of my Rev. opponents. Mr. T. objects that, by excepting Luther from the num- ber of our adversaries on the doctrine of the real presence, I was guilty of a misstatement, because, he says, Luther did not believe in transuhstantiation, but cons ubs tan tiation. What has that to do with my argument ? We are not dis- cussing the doctrine of transubstantiation ; that is, whether, as Catholics profess, Christ is present by a total change of the elements, or by the introduction of a second substance, as Luther maintained. All that I advanced w^as the fact, that Luther held with us the substantial presence of Christ. Mr. T. tells you that, according to me, the multitude ought always to have understood the meaning of Christ's words, and he thereupon quotes an occasion on which it mistook them. I did not say that Christ w^as bound always to speak clearly and manifestly, but what I maintain is that, when from the context it appears that Christ is speaking plainly and manifestly, we are authorized to un- derstand his words according to their ordinary acceptation. If, indeed, the discourses of our divine Teacher are not to be understood literally, w-hen there is no appearance of figure (as in the 6th chap, of St. John, from the 53rd to the 59th verse) where he employs expressions so clear and precise, that none more so could have been chosen, what satisfactory rules can be given to direct men in exercising their alleged right of private judgment. We are told, that the meaning of Christ is sufficiently explained by the G4th verse of the same 6th chapter of St. John : — ** 'J'here are some of jou that believe not, but Jesus knew from the begin- ning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him." From this it is argued, if I understand the objection, that the reprimand of some of Christ's disciples was for unbelief in him, with a particular reference to Judas Iscariot, men- tioned in the latter part of the verse, — " who should betray him." Now I invite your attention to the context, and you will find two distinct propositions; the first of which regards those who did not believe the words of Christ, the second him who should betray him ; and of both it is declared that he knew them from the beginning. But the former part of the verse, that there were some who believed not, can apply to those only, who in verses 5G, 53, and 60, refused belief in the real manducation of his flesh. Mr. Tottenham observes thai, in the INIosaic law, absti- Mr. Browns Tenth Speech. 299 iience from blood was enjoined : whence he argues that what is said in this chapter, of the blood of Christ being given to the Jews to drink, was necessarily to be understood in a fi-urative, not in a literal sense. Did we hold the mean- ing of Christ to be that his blood was to be drank accord- ing to the gross manner which the Jews supposed, and as it was prohibited in the old law, then, indeed, Mr. lot- tenham might attach some importance to his objection. It was, probably, some such difficulty which the Jews con- templated when they said, " How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" But it is not against the clrinkino' ol our Saviour's blood according to the Catholic beliei that such an objection should be raised; for we do not main- tain that Christ gives us his blood to drink, after the natu- ral nmnnev in which is drank the blood of victims that have been offered in sacrifice, but, as 1 have stated re- peatedly, after a spiritualized, mysterious, and sacramental manner. It is only by Protestants bearing m mind this correct notion of our doctrine, that I can have a chance ot justice being done to the truths I defend. Accordingly, in the early part of this day's discussion, I warned you how your prejudices would be appealed to against us, and in what difficulty I should be placed in advocating doctrines, concerning which you have had very erroneous ideas im- pressed upon you from your infancy. My Rev. opponent contended that my argument proved too much ; that it matters not what a man's fmth is, unless he receives the body and blood of Christ. My argument did not attempt to prove any such thing. I contended that there is a divine command on the part of Christ lor all to participate of his body and blood ; whence it follows that those who have the means are as much bound to partake of the body and blood of our Saviour, as every man is enjoined to believe all the doctrines of revelation, so soon as they are proposed to him ; according to the words of Christ in Mark xvi. l6— " Go preach the gospel to every creature ;^ he that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned." As, therefore, damnation is the consequence of the rejec- tion of any one of the known doctrines of revelation, whicli was the point I endeavoured to establish during the discus- sion on the former three days, it is equally true by the de- claration of Christ, that every man who has it m his power and who is, or ought to he, persuaded by the argumjts proposed to him of the reality of the body and blood ot 300 Downside Discussion. — Fourth Day. Christ m the sacrament of the altar, that, if he has it in his power, he is bound to participate thereof. But if Mr. Tottenham means that faith alone will save a man, he him- self has to contend with a difficulty similar to that in which he wishes to involve me. In the 3rd chapter of St. John's Gospel, verse 3, Christ said — " Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born again be cannot sea tbe kingdom of God." Hereupon his Church professes that baptism is of ordi- nary necessity. Now, Mr. T. has as much to do in order to reconcile this with his notion of the sufficiency of faith alone, as he imagines I have in extricating myself from his objection. But, he goes on, according to the Roman Catholic inter- pretation,— no matter how wicked a man may be, if he eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ ; for Christ says : — " He tbat eatetbmy flesb and drinketb my blood sball bave eternal life." I wish then, to ask Mr. T. whether he now maintains that the words of Scripture are to be always understood literally, without any exercise of man's discretion and iudo-ment upon their true meaning? When in St. Luke chap. xi. 10. we are assured by Jesus Christ, that *' Every one that asketh receiveth," — can any one pretend that these words are to be taken in their strictly literal meaning: that whatever man says, " O Lord, grant me this or that," although his heart be full of evil, and of impure desires, and he meditate wickedness at the very moment whilst he is in the presence of God, that such a one shall receive what he asketh ? Now as you expound this text, not of the wicked man, but of him who repents, and petitions with worthy dispositions, so are we justified in putting a similar interpretation upon the promise of Christ in1;he 6th chapter of St. John, that, " Every man that eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood shall be saved," provided his disposition be such as the excellency of the sacrament requires. The Rev. Gentleman argues that, from this chapter, all are bound to receive the communion under both kinds, under the form of bread and the form of wine. This, how- ever, is a topic which does not belong strictly to the sub- ject before us, and I will therefore answer merely in the words of the Council of Trent, Sess. 21. cap. 1 :— - " He wbo said : — ' Except ye eat tbe flesb of tbe Son of Man, and drink bis blood, ye have no Hie in you,' bas likewise said : — ' If any one shall eat of this bread, be shall live for ever;' and be wbo said :— ' He tbat eateth my flesb, and drinketh my blooJ, bath everlasting life,' likewise said :— « Tbe Mr. Browns Tenth Speech. 301 bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world ;' — he, in fine, who said : — he that eateth my flesh and diinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in hira,' hath nevertheless said : — ' he who eateth this bread shall live for ever.' " Mr. T. quoted the 34tli and 3.5th verses of the 6th chap, to show our Saviour's meaning to be that by faith we are all to partake of him. You may recollect, however, that when I was expounding the 35th verse, I observed that hitherto there was an obscurity about the words of Christ, and that our Saviour's true meaning was only afterwards manifested from ver. 51. tover. 59- Mr. T. adduced an objection against the real and bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, from St. Matt. xxvi. 26. wherein Christ said : — • " I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, till I drink it new in the kingdom of my Father." Now, in the first place, if Mr. T. will look at Luke xxii. 1 7 — 20, he will find a solution of his difficulty, which was pointed out by St. Fulgentius, in the primitive ages of the Christian Church. The 17th and I8th verses are as follows: — " He took the cup, and gave thanks and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves. For 1 say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." Here we find the objection that has been urged ; but afterwards in the 20th verse another and different cup is mentioned, and it is of this second cup that Christ says : — " This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you." Thus mention is made is made of tivo different cups or chalices ; the objection is borrowed from the language spoken of the first chalice ; our faith is founded upon the terms applied to the second. But, in the second place, we sometimes call the sacramental appearance of the Eucharist bread and wine ; for we are accustomed to speak of things as they appear to our senses. Accordingly, in the book of Exodus vii. 12. Aaron's rod, after it had been changed into a serpent, is still called a rod : and in the Gospel of John ii. 9. the water after it was changed into wine, is still called water. To the objection from 1 Cor. xi. 23 — 28. where, after the consecration, the Eucharist is still spoken of as bread and wine, my answer is the same as above ; that Scripture, after a substantial change, doesnotalwaysspeakof the thing according to what it is become, as in the instance of Aaron's rod in Exodus chap. 7-, which was called a rod after it had become a serpent. — Mr. T. says that commemoration J502 Downside Discussion. — Fourth Day. and remembrance signify absence ; they signify, indeed, that there is no visible presence, but they do not signify that there is no presence whatsoever. We commemorate the presence of God when we pray to Him: yet we believe that God is every where present; " for in him we live, and move, and have our being." By prayer, therefore, and frequent rejection upon God we call him to mind, not implying thereby that we consider him to be absent, but because he is not sensibly present, but after an invisible and spiritual manner. Mr. T. quoted from the .3rd chapter of Acts, ver. 21, wherein it is said of Christ, " Whom the heavens must receive until the time of the restitution of all things." In order to meet the difHculty which he raised therefrom against the possibility of Christ's bodily presence in the Eucharist, I must recal your attention to the statement of the Catholic doctrine, which I read to you from the decree of the Council of Trent, wherein it is said, that although we believe Christ to be truly present in the Eucharist, we do not pretend that he is present after a natural manner of existence, but only after a inysterious and sacramental manner ; constituting thereby not two distinct bodies, but two different manners in which the same body exists. Moreover, if Mr. T. will insist upon his objection, let him explain hoAV Christ, being in heaven until the time of the restitution of all things, appeared to St. Paul on earth, as we read in Acts ix. 4 — 8 ? " And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And rlie Lord said, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest ; it is hard for thee to kick ao^ainst the pricks. And he, trembling and astonished, said. Lord, what wilt thou have me to do 1 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." If, therefore, Mr. T.'s objection is of any weight against us, it may just as well be urged by infidels against the apparent discrepancy between the 3rd and 9th chapters of the Acts. 1 might refer you to several other passages in which the presence of Christ, even to mortal sight, after his ascension, is related in the most explicit terms. In 1 Cor. XV. 8, you will find that Christ appeared to St. Paul, and was seen of him ; you will find it likewise re- corded in Acts vii. 5^^ that St. Stephen saw Christ ; yet it is not to be supposed that the eyes of a mortal man pene- trated into the heaven of heavens, where Christ resides. Hence the text adduced does not prove that Christ cannot be present on earth at the same time that he is present in Mr. Browns Tenth Speech. 303 heaven, especially as we suppose that the mode of his pre- sence in the sacrament is not after the manner of a mate- rial, but of a spiritualized body. Lastly, I contend that this text ought not to be urged against us at all, be- cause the meaning of the original Greek is ambiguous ; accordingly we find that Hammond, Camerarius, Beza, and other Protestant divines understand by the original of this passage, " that Christ took possession of heaven /or the government thereof,'' and not that he is now in heaven never to be again on earth, in any mamier, until the last judgment, thus, even according to its literal significa- tion, it does not bear out Mr. T.'s meaning. Of the difficulties raised by Mr. Lyons I mean to take but little notice. He contended that the words of Christ could not refer to a literal eating, because in the old law the sin-offering was not eaten. But why, I ask, are we in the new law to be bound by the rites prescribed in the old? — or why could Christ, who came to institute a new sacrifice, that of himself on the cross, not also institute the manducation of his sacramental body and blood with- out being bound by the prohibitions of the old law ? One objection I find that I have passed by. Mr. T. contended that the 6th chapter of John was to be under- stood of a receiving by faith only. Christ, he said, is there speaking of actually bestowing himself in food ; the Jews, therefore, could not understand him oi diuy future partici- pation of his real body and blood in the sacrament which was not to be instituted until long afterwards. We find, however, in the 51st verse, where Christ describes the manner in which he is to be received, that he says, " the bread which I will give is my flesh." It is evident, there- fore, from the express words of Jesus Christ that he speaks of di future eating and drinking of his body and blood. It is now time that I should resume my arguments in support of the real presence, or, (since Mr. T. objects to that term,) of the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucha- rist. These arguments are deduced from the institution of the sacrament as it is recorded by the evangelists. The terms in which that institution is related having been recently read to you by my Rev. Friend who preceded me, I shall not trespass upon your time by repeating them ; but if you will attend, 1st, to the manner in which the evangelists relate the institution of the sacrament — 2ndly, to the language which Christ employs— 3rdly, to the subject matter of the institution— 4thly, to the time 304 Doivnside Discussw?i. — Fourth Day. at which that institution was made — you will be convinced that the w^ords of Christ are to be understood in their plain and literal sense. To-morrow I purpose to review clearly and fully the objections that have been and may be brought against their literal meaning ; and I trust that I shall be able to satisfy those whose minds are not already convinced, that, according to the laws of figurative lan- guage, it is impossible for the words of Christ to mean in this place a merely figurative presence ; which, moreover, not one circumstance of the institution warrants. In the first place, then, if we look to the usual manner in which the evangelical narration is conducted, we shall repeatedly find the inspired writers solicitous to guard their readers against mistakes in matters of far less impor- tance than the real or symbolical presence, in the Lord's Supper, of the body and blood of Christ. Thus, St. Luke ch. iii. V. 25. in mentioning the reputed Father of Jesus, who had truly taken flesh of his Virgin Mother, lest any mistake might arise that Christ had been begotten like other men, the Evangelist cautions against such an error, by saying : " being as was supposed the son of Joseph." — In like manner, in chap. xii. 1 . having recorded the warn- ing of our Divine Master; " Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees," he immediately adds, in order to prevent mistake, the explanation given by Christ of his meaning : " which is hypocrisy.'' — In St. John's Gospel, ii. 19- we read: "And Jesus answered and said unto them, de- stroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Lest, however, any error might ensue, the same Evangelist, in the 21st verse, explains the figurative expression of our Lord : "But he spake of the temple of his body.'' — In St. Matthew, xi. 14. we read: " If ye w^ll receive it, this is Flias, which was for to come ;" which is inter- preted in the 1st chap, of St. Luke's Gospel, verse 17 : — " He shall go before him in the sjnrit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just." From these pas- sages I repeat, that if the Evangelists are so cautious to prevent errors, in matters of much less moment than the bodily or the. figurative presence of Christ in the Eucharist, assuredly in this instance they would not have left us with- out some warning, were the language which they employ intended not to be understood literally. By what system, then, of interpretation do you make out, that the words of the institution imply not a real, but a figurative pre- Mr. Broiviis Tenth Speech. 305 sence ? especially as they do most explicitly, in their na- tural meaning, express a real and substantial presence. In fact, there is no one hint of a figure in the evangelical narration. Let us, in the <2nd place, look at the language of Christ: **This," says he, *' is my body."— "This is my blood." Now, it is manifest that we ought not to understand in any but their literal sense the words of Christ, and of the inspired writers, if we wish to come at their true meaning; unless we have some solid ground on which to build our figurative interpretation. If the Scripture is sometimes to be explained figuratively, it at least cannot be so w^here the literal meaning is obvious and natural ; but only in those cases where its language is clearly expressive of figure ; or when, from certain conventional observances, it is evident that men are speaking figuratively ; or when there is given some intimation that figurative language is intended. But when Jesus Christ, at the institution of the Sacrament, tak- ing bread in his hands, said : " this is my body;" the bread was not obviously and naturally a figure of Clirist's body ; — nor was it conventionally a figure of his body, for it was never agreed among mankind that the body of Christ should be represented by bread; — nor did Christ intimate that he meant bread to be a figure of his body. Therefore, I con- tend that Protestants have no right whatever to interpret those words of Christ figuratively ; that, on the contrary, there can be no words more clear, none more expressive of his real and true bodily presence. Our Divine Instructor was not bound, on all occasions, to lay aside figures of speech ; but when we hear him declare of the bread : " This is my body," and of the wine: "This is my blood;" when he does speak thus clearly, it is a wicked wresting of the meaning of Christ's words, to give them a figurative interpretation . Let us observe, in the 3rd place, the subject matter of the institution. The Protestants of the Established Church are surely willing to acknowledge, that when Christ in- stituted the Eucharist, he proposed a doctrine oi faith ; — that he instituted a sacrament ; — that he gave a command- ment; — that he bequeathed a testament to his Apostles and their successors. Now, every one of these circumstances requires that his meaning should be most unquestionable. First, where a doctrine of faith is proposed, figurative language would be misplaced. Every word should then be clear ; for there is such a natural tendency to error and division amongst mankind, that it would almost be lead- X 306 Downside Discussion.— Fourth Day. ing them into heresy, were a doctrine of faith to be an- nounced in figurative terms. Secondly, a Sacrament ought to be proposed in words, the meaning of which is mani- fest. Accordingly, whenever we meet with the institution of a sacrament in the new law, we find that the terms whereby it is expressed, are free from ambiguity. If, on such an occasion, there be any figure employed, it is — either when describing the effects of a sacrament, and not when recording its institution ; as in St. John iii. 3 : — " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God ;" — — where the figurative term, horn again, is used in refer- ence to the effects only of baptism ; — or when the meaning of the figure is quite evident. Thus, in a passage of St. Luke's Gospel, chap. xxii. verse 20, which is frequently objected to us : — " This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you ;" — — the word cup is indeed to be taken figuratively ; but ir is a figure so common, and so well understood, that there is no more danger of any mistake whatever, than that a man, who has been told to driiik a glass of wine, could imagine that he must swallow not merely the wine, but the glass besides. There is then a wide difference between the figure expressed by the words : — " This cujj is the new testament in my blood ;" and any figure said to be con- tained in those others: — '^This is my body;" " This is my blood." The Rev. E. Tottenham. Mr. Chairman, — Mr. Brown complains sadly to-day, as he did frequently during the discussion on the Rule of Faith, of the difl^iculty in which he is placed. He says, that if he answers our objections, we tell him to prove his own doctrine; and if he attempts to prove his own doc- trine, we tell him to answer our objections. Now my Rev. opponent may consider this a difficulty, but I want to put him in a still greater one, namely, to do both the one and the other ; to prove his own position, and also to answer the objections that are started against it. In the observations which I shall make in my present address, I shall first, in following up the remarks of my friend, notice a few of Mr. Edgeworth's statements ; and then occupy the remainder of my time in replying to Mr. Mr, Tottenham s Ninth Speech. 307 Brown. Mr. Edgeworlh seems to imitate tlie example of his Rev. friend, by enlarging much on the 6th chap, of John, and he has repeatedly told us that Christ said he would give his body and blood, and that it is our business to believe the words that Christ has uttered. Now it is quite useless for the two Rev. Gentlemen to be telling us again and again that Christ said he would give his body and blood; and to be reminding us that Christ used the words ; " This is my body," or, '* This is my blood." There is no dispute about that; we all admit that our Lord used the expressions: but the real point in dispute is, what is the sense in which he used them ? Nothing is therefore established by ringing changes on the simple fact that the words were used, unless there be solid reasons adduced to shew that they are to be taken in a literal^ and not a figurative sense. Mr. Edgev/orth dwelt upon the passage in the 6th of John, about the *' bread which came down from heaven;" and he seemed to fancy he had placed Protestants in rather an awkward predicament, when he said, "I believe our friends would giv^e only bread from the earth!'* The Rev. Gentleman may believe this, but I can tell him that it is not the fact. It is true that we do not take his interpre- tation of this passage; but it is equally true that we do not give the people merely bread from earth. For what is the meaning of the term " bread from heaven," of which our Lord speaks ? He means not by it the descent of the manna in the wilderness, but the descent of him who was God, to take unto him our nature. " The bread of God is that which cometh dounjrom heaven, and giceth life to the world." — Verse 33. This is the bread which is to be fed upon hi/ faith, even " God manifest in the flesh," — and this spiritual 7nan~ ducation of the soul is that which is far more intimately connected with the eternal interests of man than the literal reception hy the mouth of the actual body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The Rev. Gentleman has also indulged in a twofold Kimentation over Protestants. He tells us, first, that Protestants do not believe the words of Christ; and, se- condly, that they do not believe that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist. With regard to the first lamentation, it is a mere no- thing, for Protestants do profess to believe the words of Christ, and the dispute between them and Roman Catho- lics is, as to the manner in 'which those ivords are to be vn- 308 Downside Discussion,— -Fourth Day. derstood. And as to Protestants not Ijelieving that the literal, substantial, body of Christ is in the Eucharist — (so far as I can see at present, and so far as this discussion has thrown light upon the subject) I do not think this is a great subject for lamentation. While, however, I regard not the subjects of Mr. Edgeworth's lamentation, I yet beg you to bear in mind one point which he has urged. He has told you, when you go home this day, in the solitude of the chamber to read the 6th of John, and he has exhorted you to seek the Divine assistance, that you may understand it, and he anticipates great things to his cause as the result of all this. I tell you to do just the same; to read that chapter throughout ; to read it not partially, not taking one clause or one expression, and omitting another ; but to read it in all its bearings, and to look, with a believing and prayerful heart, for the blessing of the Spirit of God, and you will pardon me for saying that, under such cir- cumstances, 1 have just as good anticipations as to the result as the Rev. Mr. Edgeworth. But Mr. E. thinks he has found me " inadvertently com- mitting myself " ^ust as Mr. Brown thought several times in the discussion on the Rule of Faith. I asserted that, before Roman Catholics could derive any assistance from the 6th of John, with respect to Transubstantiation, it was incumbent on them to jjrove that it refers at all to the Sacrament. How then does Mr Edgeworth attempt to catch me committing myself? He brings us back to an observation 1 made on a preceding day, that, if we had only the Gospel of St. John, we should in that case find all essential truth contained in it. I made this assertion upon the testimony of the Gospel itself which says : — " These are written thai you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name." — John xx. Si, Now, in connection with that observation of mine, upon which I have so frequently enlarged in the discussion on the Rule of Faith, my Rev. opponent reasons thus : — " If," says he, " you impress upon the meeting that the sacra- ment of the Eucharist is not spoken of in the 6th chapter of John, what other proof have you, in that gospel, of the sacrament at all ?" and then he refers to the Book of Com- mon Prayer which says the sacraments are " generally necessary to salvation." I confess I cannot see the diffi- culty here at all ; nor can I discover the awful manner in which I have " committed myself." In the first place, the Book of Common Prayer does not declare the sacraments absolutely, but generally, necessary — that is, when there is Mr. Tottenham* s Ninth Speech. 309 no impossibility or lawful hindrance that they should be administered and received. But what I say, in order to get out of the supposed difficulty, is this :— If it were God's good pleasure that we should have had onli/ the gospel of John, and if the 6th chapter does not refer to the Sacra- ment of the Lord's Supper, then, in such a case, that sacra- ment would not have been necessary, because it ivoidd not have been revealed. But God has been pleased to give us instruction with respect to that Sacrament from o^//er books besides St. John's Gospel, and therefore we hold tliat now it, as well as baptism, may be said to be " generally neces- sary to salvation." f brought an objection against the doctrine of a physical change in the Elements from the account given of the Lord's Supper in the 26th chapter of St. Matthew, and 1 1th of 1st Corinthians, where, after the words of consecration are supposed to be uttered, the Elements are called by their original names. Some comments were made upon this objection, and Mr. Edgeworth says,—" They are truly bread and wine to the testimony of the senses, but this testi- mony is to be set aside by that of the words of Christ." Now let me ask our Rev. opponents how they know that the words of Christ are in the Bible at all? If they can show me any other way by which they know the expres- sions, " This is my body, and this is my blood" are in the Bible, except by the testimony of the senses, then I shall give up the argument. They object to the senses when employed against Transubstantiation, and yet the very foundation of their oivn belief in that doctrine is nothing but the evidence of the senses ! They know that the words, on which they build that doctrine, are in the Scripture, either by the evidence of the sense of sight, by which they behold them ; or by the testimony of the sense of hearing, when the church or the minister declare their existence. They cannot, 1 repeat, positively discover the ivords upon which this day they are resting the doctrine of Transub- stantiation but by the evidence of the senses, and yet they reject the testimony of the senses with respect to the sub- stances which, according to that doctrine, are supposed to be physically changed ! As I am anxious to go to-morrow to the discussion of The Mass more particularly, I shall take this opportu^ nity of enlarging a little upon this subject of the senses, in order to shew that it is proper to employ them in all cases in which they are capable of being exercised. I maintain that this is a Scriptural methoi] of proceeding. All miracles 310 Downside Discussion — Fourth Day. were brought to the test of the senses. If we reject their legitimate testimony, ice lay the foundation of universal scepticism ! not only may we disbelieve any thing ice please in general matters, but we have no proof even of the resur- rection of the Lord Jesus Christ, that cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith. The truth of that fact was esta- blislied, in the first instance, simply by such testimony, and therefore we read, in various passages of Scripture, that, when the Apostles dwelt upon the fact of Christ's resurrection, they always appealed to the evidence of the senses in attestation of its truth. Look at the 13th chapter of Acts, the 30th and 31st verses : — " God raised him (?. e. Christ) from the dead the third day: who uas seen many days, by them who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who to this present are his icitnesses to the people." There the proof of the resurrection of Christ is derived simply from the fact that he luas seen for many days after that event by certain individuals. If you advert further to the 15th chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, you will find the subject of the senses treated of at length : and St. Paul is, in this chapter, speaking of this very circum- stance of the resurrection : — ♦' Now I make known unto you, brethren, the Gospel which I preached to you, which also jou have received, and wherein you stand ; by which also you are saved, ifyouliold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. For 1 delivered unto you first of all, which I also received : how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures : and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." — Mark now how the testimojiy of the senses, as to his resurrection, is introduced : — " And that he was seen by Cephas ; and after that by tlie eleven. Then was he seen by more than five hundred brethren at once ; of whom many re- main until this present, and some are fallen asleep. After that, lie was seen by James, then by all the Apostles. And last of all, he ivus seen also by me, as by one born out of due time." — Verses 1 — 8. In this passage the fact of our Lord's resurreciion, which had been foretold by the Scriptures, is affirmed. This fact is the foundation stone of the Christian faith, and St. Paul makes its truth to rest upon the circumstance that he was seen by the Apostles and others — that is, upon the testimony of the senses. Now look at the opening of St. John's 1st Epistle, and what is his language? — " That which was from the beginning, wliich we have heard, which we have seen witJi our eyes, which we have looked vpon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life : for the life was manifested ; and we h-dve seen and do bear witness, and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father, and hcit'ii appeared to us: That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto 3'ou, that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship may be with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ," — Chap. i. ver. 1 — 3. Mr, Tottenhams Ninth Speech, 311 In the former chapter, the 15th of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, there was an appeal to the evidence oi sight, for the establishment of our Lord's resurrection : and here St. John, when speaking of the Incarnation of the Lternal Word, in terms very analogous to those he uses in the commencement of his Gospel, and ivhen icriting in oppo- sition to those (the Gnostics) who said the senses were de- ceived with respect to the real humanity of Christ, makes an appeal, not only to the evidence of sight, but also to the evidenceof AeaHw^ and of ^oz^c/i. ^ ^ These are a few of the many passages of bcripture trom which we prove that the exercise of our senses is proper in the investigation of things of which the senses can take cognizance. Let us then apply this to the doctrine ol 1 ran- substantiation. There are the elements of bread and wme, and if we look at those elements, after consecration, we see that they are bread and wine— if we taste them, yve have additional proof that they ai-e bread and wine— if, m short weapplyanyone ofoursenses, the samefact is attested, namely, that the bread remains bread, and that the wme remains icine. Let me not be told (as Mr. Edgeworth has insinuated), that the testimony of the senses will set aside the words of Christ at the institution. We contend that it is in harmony with those words, rightly understood ; and by usino- it, we are only adopting, as I have already stated, the very same means which a Roman Catholic must adopt, in order to ascertain that the icords on which he rests his doctrine are in the Bible at all I would only repeat, that, if it be again affirmed that the use of the senses, on our parts, is riot in this matter legitimate, our friends on the other side are called on to answer the question already put " How, except by the evidence of the senses, do they kno'w, that the words, on which they build their doctrine, are really to be found in the Bible ?" I now proceed to notice the observations of Mr. Brown. He says that, after the protest I made— (and to this Mr. Edgeworth also alluded)— he did not expect that the ob- jections which Mr. Lyons started on the ground of rea- son would be urged against a mystery. He has spoken much of the necessity of not exalting reason above the testimony of Revelation, and in almost all of what he has advanced on this subject I am happy to agree with him. There is, however, a distinction to be observed. I i^gv^^ with Mr. Brown that, if a truth be revealed in the Bible, be it never so mysterious, we are bound to receive it upon the authority of God, satisfied that, though our hnite 312 Downside Discussion. — Fourth Day. understandings may be baffled, God can never reveal a doc- trine tbat involves a real contradiction. But Mr. Brown, in objecting to Mr. L3^ons' line of argument, in the present case, ASSUMES that Transuhstantiation is a revealed mystery! This is the point that we dispute. We believe that it is not revealed. Besides, if arguments were adduced on this subject/ro7/z reason^ these arguments did not occupy the foreground, and stand simply by themselves, thus obtaining a prefer- ence over arguments derived from the word of God. The principle we hold is, that, if we are first satisfied that any doctrine is not in the Bible, we may then advert to reason on the subject. This is just the order w^e have followed, and with reference to some arguments, derived even from rea- son, to which my friend referred, let me tell Mr. Brown that they are expressly sanctioned by Scripture. If he turns to the 24th chapter of St. Luke, in which it is men- tioned that the women came to the sepulchre to look for the body of the Lord, he will find it declared in the 6th verse : — •♦ He is not here, but is risen." Now this expression implied -that he could not be, so far as his body is concerned, in tivo places at one time : and thus the testimony of Scripture supports my friend's argu- ment from reason. There is no parallel, let me say, (though an endeavour has been m.ade to establish one) between the doctrines of the Trinity and of Transuhstantiation. The doctrine of the Trinity is totally and entirely above our reason, as the na- ture of God must necessarily be, and we have nothing else but the testimony of God himself on which to believe such a doctrine ; and as it is too much to expect that man's finite understanding could fully grasp the infinity o/ deity, it is at once a proud and inconsistent thing to reject the Trinity on the ground that it is above our comprehension. But the case is not the same with respect to the doc- trine we are now investigating. Transuhstantiation is decidedly contrary to our reason ; we can make out innu- merable cases of contradiction to reason in it ; whilst I maintain on the other hand that objections to the Trinity cannot be derived from the fact that it is contrary to rea- son ; for the fact is, that reason can but scantily exercise itself on the Divine essence, and therefore has not sufficient premises from which to draw a legitimate conclusion on the score of contradiction to itself. Reason is bafilied, not con- tradicted, by the Trinity —Reason is expressly contradicted Mr. Tottenham s Ninth Speech, 313 by Transubstantiation. Hence, the parallel does not hold good. Mr. Brown does not seem to be pleased with my state- ment that some of his arguments were ad captandum ; par- ticularly that in which he declared that all ages were agreed in the interpretation he gave of the 6th chapter of John. He said he was aware that some Roman Ca- tholics, but very few, differed from him in his interpreta- tion of this portion of sacred writ, Now I refer to this again only to make one observation. If some- Roman Catholic divines have interpreted the 6th of John in the same manner as Protestants have done, then at all events Mr. Edgeworth will admit that his interpretation, upon which he insisted so much, and which he affirms, if not in precise words, yet in substance, to be as clear as the sun, is not so very satisfactory and conclusive. But with regard to the objection drawn from the Mosaic law against the doctrine ofTransubstantiation, as mentioned in my first speech to-day, my opponent says, that, if the blood was drunk in a literal manner, then indeed our side might have a triumph on this point ; but that this argu- ment does not militate against the Roman Catholic doc- trine, for they do not hold that the blood is taken after a literal manner. Why, Sir, our friends on the other side all day long have been labouring, (if I may borrow an expres- sion from themselves) to prove that the 6th chapter of John is to he positively taken in a literal manner : and really, if the text is to be literal and not literal at the same time, I think this is almost a greater miracle than Transubstantia- tion itself! I come now to the remarks made by the two Rev. Gen- tlemen on the words of the institution. This is the second kind of proof adduced to-day upon the subject under con- sideration. Mr. Edgeworth repeated the words, '' This is my body," and thereupon he asked the question, " Could he change the bread into his body ?" But the question. Sir, is not, could he do it, but, has he done so ? This is the point at which I wish to arrive. Have we any reason to sup- pose, from the words he used, that he willed the bread should be changed into his body ? I must say that I do not think the observations of Mr. Edgeworth were very generous, when he said that Protestants generally declared it was not Christ's body, while Christ himself said, " This is my body." Such is an unfair representation of what Protestants believe. They do not interpret the passage, as if Christ said, " This is not my body," in the open manner 314 Downside Discussion. — Fourth Day. stated by the Rev. Gentleman. They believe Christ said, " This is my body," but the point in dispute is, whether he spoke literally or figuratively on that occasion ; and, instead of vague and idle declamations, to this point I shall at once come. The words are found in the 2(3th chapter of St. Matthew, and, as they have been read before, I shall not repeat them now at length. I shall give you a few reasons for my belief that they are to be taken in a figurative, and not in a literal sense. Mr. Brown has prefaced his observations on this portion of Scripture by saying, that to-morroiu he will meet all the objections. It was wise in him to prepare your minds in this way. If therefore Mr. Brown intends to meet the objections, I trust my hearers will bear away those objec- tions firmly fixed in their minds ; and then investigate impartially whether they are set aside by the observations we are led to expect. He has also told us that our Lord, when uttering, and the Evangelist, when reciting, the words of the institution, would have been cautious in preventing mistake, and would have given a warning if there were a liability that the words should be misunderstood, which, he contends, was likely, if the passage was to be taken not literally, but figuratively. My position, however, is, that there was no such danger of mistake on the part of those to whom the words were spoken, for the disciples were (from circum- stances to which I shall presently advert) ^wi^eprep<2re^ine into " the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ") is but preliminary. I there- fore intend to go now more fully into that which consti- tutes the main question ; and I do so the more readily, because, even were I to give the gentlemen on the other side the benefit of all their reasoning yesterday and to-day, and admit fully the doctrine of Transubstantiation, I should still contend most strenuously against the Sacrifice of the Mass, The state of the case is precisely this. It does /zo^ follow that, even if Roman Catholics p^rove the bodily pre- sence of Christ in the Eucharist, they prove of necessity the truth of the doctrine which affirms that he is offered up as a victim by his priests in the Sacrifice of the Mass. To establish this latter point, they must produce arguments additioncd to those upon which they build Transubstan- tiation. But, on the other hand, it does follow that, if we disprove the bodily presence of Christ, we disprove at once, without any more lengthened investigation, the jrropitia- tory nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass ; for, if Christ be not present in a bodily sense, he cannot be offered as a real victim in the Mass. This being the state of the case, F might be content wit)» simply disproving Transubstantiation, and letting the 342 Downside Discn&sion. — Fifth Day. building (i.e. the Mass) tuQible of itself when the founda- tion is thus removed ; or, I might even grant Ti'ansub- stantiation, and still contend against the Mass. However, as I have given a considerable time to the former subject, I shall now engage myself more particularly with that of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which, as 1 have said, is the main question to be debated, and upon which I just entered at the close of my last speech yesterday. At different periods of the discussion on Transubstan- tiation this subject was hinted at. Something was given in the w^ay of definition as to the doctrine of the Church of Rome respecting it. As I have already commented on Mr. Brown's definitions, and matters connected therewith, near the close of my last address yesterday, I shall merely repeat one or two of the definitions given m the authentic documents of the Church of Rome herself, that those not then present may know what we are about. The Creed of Pope Pius IV. (received by every Roman Catholic) makes this declaration : — " I profess likewise, that in the Mass tliere is offered to God a true, proper^ and propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead." Observe here, that, in the Church of Rome, the sacri- fice of the Mass is regarded not mei^ely as a commemorative sacrifice, 7iot merely as a sacrifice of application (which I showed you, in the speech before referred to, was quite untenable) but likewise (as I there also intimated) that it is held mainly as " a true, proper, and jjropitiatory sacri- fice for the sins of the living and the dead'' Moreover, one of the canons of the Council of Trent, speaking to the same effect, pronounces the following anathema : — " If any one shall say that the Sacrifice of the IMass is only a sacrifice of praite and thanksgiving, or a bare commenwration of the sacrifice made upon the cross, and that it is not propitiatorii, or that it profits onl}' the receiver, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for tlieir ains, pains, iatisf actions, and other wants, lkt iiim be accursed." — Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. Can. 3. ds Sac. Miss. This being the doctrine, as promulgated, not by an' indi- vidual, but by the Church of Rome herself, I shall now resume my argumeiits against it, learing the arguments in favour of it to be adduced by our opponents, and after- wards to be replied to by us. I adverted briefly to this point towards the conclusion of yesterday's proceedings. 1 then produced one general argument against the Sacrifice of the Mass, which was branched out into two particulars. The argument was founded on the fact that the Mass was destitute of Mr. Tottenham s Tenth Speech. 343 THE ESSENTIALS OF A PKOPER AND PROPITIATORY SACRI- FICE. The two particular essentials which I then noticed, and of which I maintained the Mass to be destitute, were, first, the destruction of the victim; and secondly, a sacri- ficing priest to offer it. I challenged our antagonists to prove from Scripture that there is any such officer, under the ^Qw Testament dispensation, as a sacrificing priest, except the Lord Jesus Christ himself. This argument need not, however, be repeated, as a reference lack to it will suffice. Pursuing then my reasoning against the Mass, 1 come now to a species of negative argument, the purport of which is, that there is a total silence respecting it in those parts of Scripture where {if there were to he such a continued sacrifice under the New Testament dispensa- tion) lue might most reasonably expect to find it. I advance this by way of negative argument, and I shall come pre- sently to abundant argument of a more positive kind. ^ I shall' take three cases from the New Testament in which this most strikingly appears. I. The commission given to the Apostles. This is de- clared in the 28th chapter of Matthew 19th and 20th verses : — " Going therefore teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and behold, 1 am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." Here was a commission given to the Apostles, to go and teach all nations, and to administer sacraments ; but there is not the slightest, not the most distant, reference to any- thing like the offering of a continued literal sacrifice as being a part of their duty. The celebration of the Mass is not merely a distinguishing employment, but perhaps the chief one, of the Roman Catholic priesthood. Now if the celebration of the Mass ivere intended to be the chief, or one of the chief, official employment, of the ministers of the gospel under the New Testament dispensation, it may well strike us as extraordinary that, when a commission was given to the first preachers of the gospel, there should not have been the most distant reference to any thing like such a sacrifice. II. I take another case from the Epistles to^Timothy and Titus. In these Epistles the Apostle Paul gives them directions as to what they should do in the Church. He mentions in the 2nd chapter of 1st Timothy the duty with regard to prayer for all men. In the 3rd chapter and 344 Downside Discifssio7h~ Fifth Bay. elsewhere, the duties that devolved on Bishops and Deacons. In the 4th chapter and the 13th verse, he directs Timothy to " attend to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine;'' and in the 4th of Snd Timotliy, to "preach the word:" to be " instant in season and out of season/' Many other passages might be cited, in which various directions are addressed to these two ministers, " that they might know how they ought to behave themselves in the Church o/God" — (see 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15.) directions which include the grand distinguishing parts of Christian worship, and the duties of Bishops and ordinary ministers ; and I ask, if these epistles were written /or the express and avowed purpose of direct- ing Timothy and Titus how they should behave, and act in the Church, and in conformity with the office which they bore, is it to be supposed that— if the celebration of the Mass was to be their chief or one of their chief concerns — thei^e shmdd not be the most distant reference to it in the three ejjistles ? III. Let me notice another instance, from the Acts of the Apostles, relative to the assembling of the Primitive Christians for worshij), and to their proceedings in general ; and here we find the same silence. In the <2nd chapter of Acts and the 42nd verse, the Disciples are said to have continued " in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the coryimunication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers'^ In the 6th chapter, when a murmuring arose respecting the Greek widows, the Apostles said, " vv-e will give our- selves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the ivordr Again, in the v20th chapter and 7th verse, we read that " on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them." Other passages also might be mentioned, to show that, in the account of the assembly of the Primitive Christians for worship, and of their proceedings generally, there is a reference to the offering up of prayer — to the sacraments — to preaching — to those things which constitute the chief parts of divine service ; but there is a total silence relative to anything like a sacrifice being offered up, which was to be (as the Mass professes to be) a " proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead." I have thus taken these three remarkable cases: — 1st. The commission to the Apostles. 2ndly. 21ie letters written to Timothy and Titus for the purpose of instructing them as to their duty in the Church ; and, Srdly. The evidence furnished by the account given of the assembling of the Mr. Tottenhams Tenth Speech. 345 Primitive Christians for worship, and of their general pro- ceedings, in the Acts of the Apostles. It will not do for our friends on the other side to reply " Such an argument proves too much, for many other things, which we mutually practise, are omitted, and this argument would thus throw over- board other points, as well as that against which it is now directed." 'Tis true there may not be, in the cases I have adduced, a reference to some other points which, however they may be useful and important and not con- trary to the Bible, are yet not of the essence of Christian worship ; but the force of my argument rests upon the fact, that while (especially if we take the three cases together) all the grand pecidiarities of Christian worship and ministerial duty are noticed, not a syllable is expressed regarding the sacrifice of the Mass, although that is (upon Roman Catholic principles) the most striking peculiarity of Christian vjorship, and its celebration one of the chief con- cerns of the priesthood. Let me now adduce a few passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews, which will enable me to follow up the fore- going negative argument with others of a more positive and direct kind. The 23rd and 24th verses of the 7th chapter I quoted at the close of yesterday's discussion, and on them I need not dwell farther. But let me pass on to the 26th and following verses : — " It was fitting that we should hare such an high priest (i. e. Jesus) holy, innocent, and undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens : who needeth not daily, as the other priests (i. e. the priests of the old law) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people's ; for this he did once, in offering himself," In this passage two things, bearing upon the subject in hand, are stated with regard to the offering of Christ — first, the simple fact that it needed no repetition, as the sacrifices of the Jewish dispensation did ; and, secondly, the reason of this, namely, that there was a sufficient sacrifice for sin in his one offering, — "for," the Apostle adds, ''this he did ONCE, in offering himself." This text, therefore, distinctly proves that Christ was to be offered hut once ; and I say that the explanation which has been given by the Church of Rome, for the purpose of getting out of the difficulty in which she is placed by such passages, has been very artful, when she affirms that the Mass is a continuation, and not a repetition, of the sacrifice on the cross. With- out entering into the particulars of this distinction, I simply leave it to the judgment of the meeting to decide, whetlier or not, when the Scripture affirms the absolute 34(i Doiinside Discussion. — Fifth Day. perfection of Christ's one offering., and when tlie inspired writers so frequently states as one of the distinguishing dif- ferences between the offering of Christ, and of the Jewish priests, that his was to be once^ whilst theirs were many times.) there is room left for supposing, with respect to his sacrifice, the idea of continuation or repetition, or any thing of the kind ? I call your attention further to the Qth chapter of this same Epistle, the 11th and 12th verses: — " Christ, being come an high priest of the good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hand, that is, not of this creation : neither by the blooJ of goats, or of calves, but by his own blood, en- tered once into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption." There the same fact is repeated which was asserted in the foregoing quotation, that Christ " entered once" into the Holy of Holies (z. e. into Heaven) ; and then what is added ? the great and glorious truth that he has obtained eternal redemption. Now take a man in whatever section of the globe you please, and let him be reduced to the lowest state of degradation by his sin, and what can he 'possibly want beyond kternal redemption? and such a blessing, we are assured, is obtained by the work of Christ, and by his one entrance, with " his own blood.,*' into the Holy of Holies, to present it before the mercy-seat of God. Oh! then, my friends, trust in the perfection of this one offering which has obtained "eternal redemption," instead of depending, in aiiy degree (how small soever that may be) on the supposed efficacy of the Mass, or of any thing else, for your everlasting peace. Allow me here to remind you of the use I yesterday made of the 22d verse of this chapter — " Without shedding of blood there is no remission" — to overthrow the pro- pitiatory nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Although the verse comes before us now in order, yet, having already spoken on it at the time mentioned, it is unneces- sary to repeat what has been said. I merely refer back, therefore, to the latter part of yesterday's discussion for its application, and now proceed onward to the examination of the 24th and two following verses of the same chapter : " For Jesus is not entered into the Holies made with hand, the patterns of the true : but into lieaven itself, that be may appear now in the presence of God for us. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest en- tereth into the Holies every year with the blood of others : for then he ought to have suffered often from the beginning of the world : but now oiwe at the end of ages, he hath appeared/or the destruction of sin, by the sacrifice of himself." Observe here, 1st., the expression in the 25th verse, Mr, Tottenhants Tenth Speech. 347 er where it is said of Christ, " Nor yet that he should offt himself ofteri." I care not whether our friends opposite talk of the repetition of his sacrifice, or the continuation of it, for this text is decidedly against either the one or the other. <2ndly. Mark how St. Paul lays down the principle, that a proper offering of Christ involves his actual suffer- ing. " Nor yet that he should offer himself often for then he ought to have suffered often from the beginning of the world." Such is the statement of the Apostle, and such the connection which he establishes; and his affirma- tion therefore, which constitutes one of the premises of my argument, is, that Christ cannot he properly offered with- out actually suffering. But Christ does not actually suffer in the Mass. This will not be affirmed on the other side ; and, even if it were, Scripture would prove the contrary, a* I have shewn by Romans vi. 9, near the close of my last speech yesterday. The conclusion, therefore, is, that Christ is not properly offered, in the Mass ; and, if Christ be not properly offered in the Mass, then the Mass cannot be " a proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead." 3rdly. Bear in mind that the striking expression *' once'' is again used in the 26th verse — " But now once at the end of ages, he hath appeared for the destruction of sin, by the sacrifice of himself." It certainly is very remarkable, that the Apostle should dwell so positively upon the fact of Christ's one offering, and that he should so continually reiterate the assertion that he was " once offered" — hath " appeai-ed once for the destruction of sin" — " entered once into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption" — offered " one sacrifice for sin" — " by one oblation hath perfected for ever them that are sanc- tified," and so on in many other cases. All this reitera- tion of similar phraseology has some particular design in it, and overthrows the pretensions of any sacrifice that professes to be " propei* and propitiatory," except the " ONE sacrifice' which Christ himself " once offered." 4thly. I would only notice further the expression in the 26th verse, that Christ hath appeared "/or the destruction of sin by the sacrifice of himself" This is the reading of the Douay, or Roman Catholic, version, and it is stronger than the Protestant translation ; and I ask, if Christ hath appeared for the destruction of sin by tho saci'ifice of himself, where is the necessity for any other sacrifice, professing to 348 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day. be a proper and propitiatory one, or for a repetition or continuation of the sajne, to which we are to look in any respect ? There is no ground for it ; but more than this, the very fact of the professed existence of such a sacrifice practically/, if not professedly, denies (as we shallsee pre- sently) the perfection and efficacy of that one sacrifice which Christ presented unto God for sinners. Now let us take the 27th and ^8th verses of the same chapter : — " As it is appointed unto men once to die, and, after this, tbe judi^ment : so also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many ; the second time he shall appear without sin, to them that expect him, unto salvation." This is an important passage ; but without dwelling on the strong expressions employed, which repeat what I have already more than once asserted, 1 shall beg you merely to observe the parallel drawn here between a man di/ing once and Christ being offered once. ^^ As it is ap- pointed unto men once iodic — so Christ was once offered ;" and until our fi'iends on the other side can prove that a man can die more than once, 1 do not think tliey can prove that Christ is to be offered more than once ; and then what becomes of the Sacrifice of the Mass? I proceed to the opening of the 10th chapter : — " For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things : by the self-same sacrifices, which th-^y offer c.imiinuaHy every year, can never make the comers thereunto perfect : for then they would have ceased to be offered ; because the worshippers once cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer." What is the argument of the Apostle in this place ? It is that the repetition or continuation of a sacrifice argues its imperfection ; and the converseho, also states, namely, that a perfect sacrifice ceases to be offered, i. e. is not to be con*- tinned or repeated. He declares that the sacrifices under the Levitical dispensation could " never make the comers thereunto perfect, for then {i. e. if they could do so) they v/ould have ceased to be offered." But the very fact of their constant offering proved that they could not make the comers thereunto perfect, that is, proved their own im- perfection. Now, the legitimate deduction from this argu- ment, viewed in connection with the Roman Catholic doc- trine of the Mass, is — first, that the Sacrifice of the Mass, professing to be "proper and propitiatory," and a con- tinuation at least, if not a repetition, of the Sacrifice of the Cross, practically argues the imperfection of the Sacrifice of the Cross ; and, secondly , that the Sacrifice of the Mass, Mr. Edgewortlis Second Speech. 349 professing to be a continued sacrifice, practically argues its own imperfection. The first deduction contains doctrine positively false, for Christ " by otie oblation hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." But, as it is legitimately drawn from the premises, the falsehood must be traced home to the pre- mises ; and as ojie of those is the argument of the inspired Apostle, the falsehood must rest on the other — and this, truly, is not very favourable to the pretensions of the Mass. The second deduction, (drawn from premises which consist of the Apostle's argument and the admitted doc- trine of the Church o{ Home,) flatly asserts the imperfec- tion of the Mass, and tells, therefore, much against its claims to be ^'propitiatory for the sins of the living and the dead." The Rev. F. Edgeworth. We have been again and again reproved by the Rev. gentleman, who has just sat down, for not coming at once to the point, which he regards as the principal point in this discussion ; namely, the Catholic doctrine, respecting the Sacrifice of the Mass. We must claim for ourselves the privilege of pursuing our own course in propounding this doctrine to the assembly, and in giving the multitude of proofs which surround us, that this doctrine is not the invention of man, — that it is delivered in the Holy Scrip- tures, and that it has been received by the illustrious Christians of all ages, in the sense in which the Catholic Church propounds it at this day. Mr. Tottenham tells us he does not regard the doctrine of Transubstantiation as the main subject of our discus- sion ; but yet he reminds us of the importance of our clearly proving, in the first place, that the bread and wine are, by a divine power, changed into the body and blood of Christ ; because, he says, if he upset the dogma of Tran- substantiation, then, without any further trouble, he may take his leave of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Sacri- fice of the Mass. To this I cordially assent; and there- 350 Downside Dismission.— Fifth Day. fore I shall occupy the time of the meeting with other proofs than those already adducecl, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is to be found in Holy Scripture. If Mr. Tottenham cannot find a proof of this doctrine in Holy Writ, at least the preponderance in number, talent, and virtue of the Christians in every age have found it there. ]t is true, Mr. Tottenham expounds the sacred volume in one way, and his Catholic opponents in another ; you, therefore, have before you the painful spectacle of men, equally reverencing the inspired word of God, equally impressed with the truth that if we depart from that word in faith, or in practice, we endanger, in proportion to that departure, the v/elfare of our immortal souls ; on both sides, we appeal to the Holy Scriptures; you hear us, on our part, solemnly averring that in the Scriptures there is the plainest, incontrovertible evidence that the Redeemer of the world has provided nourishment for all his followers, in a mysterious manner, giving us, under the appearance of bread and wine, his own precious body and blood — his true and real body — not indeed after the carnal manner which is ascribed to us over and over again, but his own r^eal, though spiritualized body ; yet not spi- ritualized as our opponents would have it — so as to ex- clude the reality of his bodily presence ; you behold the Catholics of the world appealing to Scripture for incon- trovertible evidence, that this doctrine is the doctrine of Christ: on the other hand, you have the Rev. Mr. Tottenham and Mr. Lyons, and others, occupied in describing our faith on this point as credulity, deserving of almost unqualified scorn and contempt. Perhaps it is due to Mr. Tottenham to draw a distinction between him and the Rev. Mr. Lyons ; but, in making that distinction, I could not refrain from saying things which would be painful to individuals present ; feehng whatl might justly do, I yet desist. But, Christian friends, how stands the discussion ? You have before you persons of equal sincerity, equally possessed of natural gifts, equally claiming the advantages of education, and long study of the Scriptures ; yet, con- cerning the salvation of mankind, we utterly disagree in our interpretation of the sacred volume. Do you not feel that it would be most interesting to you to know, in what sense, the earliest Christians — the first-fruits of the labours of the Apostles of Christ— understood the important words, the meaning of which we are now discussing? Yes, my Mr. EdgewortKs Second Speech. 361 Christian friends, I am sure you feel that it is most de- sirable that you should obtain that assistance which such information will afford you, in discovering the real mean- ing of the words of Christ. It would not be altogether irrelevant to remind the meeting of what I expect Mr. Tottenham will not remind you, that some of the leading- men at the time of the first Reformation, the standard- bearers of that unfortunate change, were not able to con- vince themselves, and did not dare to endeavour to con- vince their followers, that Christ is not present in the holy Eucharist. Although Mr. Tottenham has relied upon Julian's silence respecting the doctrine of Transubstan- tiation as negative evidence, that it was not a doctrine entertained in Julian's time, and has thus sought as- sistance from the conduct of one whom he calls an " illus- trious Pagan," — I apprehend he will not take you to Luther, another illustrious personage. Mr. Tottenham who went so far for a negative argument, has left it to us to adduce a positive and more than a countervailing one from l.uther himself. To which of the two will Mr. Tottenham adhere — Julian or Luther ? Be that as it may, we have it in writing from Luther, that he would have felt infinitely obliged to Carlostadius, or any other who would have persuaded him, (Luther,) that in the holy Eucharist there was nothing but bread and wine — not from his love of truth, but hatred to the head of the Church ; but Luther confessed himself overwhelmed by the clear words of Christ — " This is my body ; this is my blood." — Epist. ad Argent. Tom VII. Luther was unable, with all his eagerness to innovate, to deny the force of words so clearly showing the presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist. Mr. Tottenham will not presume to say again that we are not aware of the dif- ference between the doctrine of Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation, which he imputed to Mr. Brown the other day ; but if we do not dwell upon the distinction here it is, because it is not to our present purpose. All I would have you remember of Luther on this matter is, that he was not less disposed to revile the Catholic Church, than the apostate Julian (I will not call him " an illus- trious Pagan") was disposed to attack the Church of Christ ; but Luther, with all his disposition to overturn the Catholic Church, could not prevail upon himself to deny the presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist. I will quote one more Protestant authority before I proceed to •352 Downside Discussion.— Fifth Day. infinitely more respectable authority, (which 1 am sure every Christian will feel,) founded on the writings of the early Christians. Melancthon, who was distinguished among those who introduced changes in relio-ion about '30O years ago, and was termed by his followers the phoenix of his age, thus writes to (Ecolampadius upon the subject of the Catholic doctrine of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist — " Not only have t reflected upon what mav be said on both sides, but also I have examined the doctrine of the ancient Fathers on this matter. After this full inquiry into all that appears most conclusive on either side, forgive my saying that I do not approve of your sentiment ; for I find no strong reason that can satisfy my conscience in departing from the strict meaning of Christ's words."— In Epist. Zuinglii et (Ecol, L 3— p. 6io. Bas. 1592. I produce this evidence to show that Protestants who lived in a time of great turbulence, and who evinced by a long series of actions the most determined spirit of opposi- tion to the Catholic Church, that such men as Luther and Melancthon were not able to persuade themselves, without the most manifest violation of the written word of God, to deny the presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist. But perhaps, my Christian friends, you feel little or no respect for any thing that may be found in the writings of Luther, or any of those who laboured with him to produce the changes of religion that distinguished our history 300 years ago. It is not my desire to impress you with a feeling of respect for anything which such men wrote or did ; for it is to their crime of raising themselves up against the authority of God's Church, that we are to trace the unhappy divisions that now exist amongst us. Had it not been for these men, all of us here assembled, might now have been worshipping God with one heart and one soul, and professing but one faith as we profess to believe in one Lord, and have been regenerated in the waters of 07ie baptism. Let me ask your attention now. Christian friends, to a testimony for which, I am persuaded, you will feel infi- nitely greater respect. You have before you the fact that, whilst the gentlemen opposite and ourselves appeal to the written word of God, we cannot come to one and the same interpretation of the passages, which we mutually feel to be of great practical consequence ; and the painful alter- native, as Mr. Tottenham insisted most correctly yesterday, is either that we are guilty of idolatry if we are wrong in our belief that Christ is present in the Eucharist ; or, if we are right, Mr. Tottenham is himself guilty of the crime Mr, Edgeworth's Second Speech, 353 of denying, and leading others to deny to Jesus Christ, that homage which is due to him, from those who know his cfivine character, in the holy Eucharist, because they see him not, thus forget, as it seems to us, the admo- nition given by our Saviour to the incredulous Thomas : " Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed." I am sure, indeed, that if the Rev. gentleman opposite believed with me, that in the holy Eucharist there is the real body and blood of Christ, that there is Christ himself as he is now at the right hand of the Eternal Father in the kingdom of heaven ; if, I say, he believed that doctrine as I believe it, he would not for one moment hesitate to fall down before the Eucharist, as I fall down, to pay that supreme adoration which is due to Jesus Christ. But it is our misfortune to differ in the interpre- tation of the passage of Scripture which relates to this im- portant doctrine. Let us then go to those Christians who were in immediate communication with the Apostles, and I ask your attention to documents, the authenticity of which Mr. Tottenham is too well informed and too well disposed to dispute. In the first place, I call your attention to a letter, which is extant, which was written by St. Ignatius, the Martyr. It may be well to tell the meeting some circumstances concerning St. Ignatius. He succeeded St. Peter in the see of Antioch. You may judge from his being selected to succeed this great Apostle, that he was a man of at least some sanc'tity, that he was sufficiently instructed in the doctrines of Jqsus Christ, that he was a man who fully understood those passages of the sacred writings, the meaning of which is now the subject of discussion. This same St. Ignatius, after labouring many years as an Apostle, after performing all the functions of a Bishop, was sent by the Emperor Trajan to B,ome to be put to death for his faith ; and it pleased God to raise him to the dignity of martyrdom, in the year 107 of the Christian era. With these circumstances in your minds, you must be desirous to know what he believed and taught concerning the holy Eucharist. In his journey to Rome, y/hen he was within what he deemed a few days of his glorious death, he wrote a letter, a copy of which I now have in my hand, edited by a learned Protestant (R. Russell, 1747.) He addressed it to the Christians of Smyrna, and reminds them that he had the happiness of seeing the Lord Jesus after his resurrection from the dead. He 2 A 354 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day, professes his "belief in his divinity ; he warns them against innovations upon the truth, for it seems that even then, there were those who ventured to put forth their ovv^n con- ceits and crudities in the place of the revelations of God, asking men to adopt them ; even at that early period, there were some who denied the humanity of Jesus Christ. Using their private judgment, (but I do not con- tend that they used it with the disposition of our Reverend opponents,) as the only guide necessary to lead to the dis- covery of the truth, they thought it derogatory to the Supreme Being, to say that He had truly taken upon Himself human nature, — that He had really suffered ; they maintained that He had done these two things only in appearance. St. Ignatius speaks in terms of horror of these persons, and observes that, amongst the consequences of their errors, they — *' Abstained from the Eucharist, because they did not acknowledge that the Eucharist is the Jlesh of Jesus Christ which suffered for us, and which the Father in his goodness raised from the dead. Thus by their opposition to this gift of God, their inquiries end in destruction." hd to jxij bjioXoytlv Ttjv i.vxcipi'yTiav aartKci elvai tov (TOJTijSrog 7][j,Cjv l^jcrov Xpicrrov, Tr]v vTTsp ajxapTiuJV ijixCov TcaQovaav, ijv ry XpijcrrorrjTL u Tranjp ijyiwiv. My Christian friends, is not this evidence that St. Igna- tius of Antioch helieved that the Eucharist is the flesJi of Jesus Christ, — not the figure of it merely, as is contended by our opponents, but tlie flesh of Jesus Christ, vjhich suf- fered for the sins of men. Surely it was not merely a figure which was nailed to the cross, as the Gnostics main- tained, but that flesh which the Father raised up from the grave. Here you have testimony for which you will feel respect. If it does not come with the convincing power of a text of Holy Scripture, it is at least authority to which, tinder your doubts and in our debates how the Scripture is to be interpreted on this subject, you may Avisely have re- course to assist you to discover the truth. The same blessed Ignatius the Martyr wrote an epistle to the Christians at Rome, on an occasion which must awaken a deep interest in the breasts of us all. At a very advanced period of life, after forty years of apostolic labours, he Avas journeying to Rome by order of the Em- peror Trajan, to be sacrificed for his attachment to the faith of Christ. In this epistle, he entreats his Brethren of the faith not to interpose their prayers that his life may be prolonged ; he is anxious to shed his blood — he had long laboured in the ministry, and such was his attach- ment to his Lord and Saviour, that like another great Mr. Eclgewortlis Second Speech. 855 apostle and minister of Christ, his earnest desire was " to he dissolved" that he might for ever be united to him whom he so much loved. Then he tells them — " I take 710 delight in the pleasures of this life ; I long for the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, ichicli is the fiesh of Jesus Christ the Sou of God, who is at length born to us of the race of David and Abraham ; — and the diink of God — I long for his blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life." — Aprov Qeov diXo), dprov oi/jooi'ioi^, ap-ov^wi/g, og eariv aap^'lijcov XpLcrrov rov viov rov Qeov, rov yevonevov Iv v(rT£(roj eic (nzepfxaTOQ Aa[3id Kai A[3paaf.i' Kcd 7r(xJf.ui Qeov OeXoj to alfxa ccvtov, o etJTiv ayciTci] a^Qaprog Kal CUVVCWQ ^01], In the hands of his guards, and on his journey, he could not celebrate nor receive the Eiicharistic mystery of the altar. Yet mark his ardent desire to partake of food wdiich would enable him to live for ever. And what terms does he employ? Say, is this the language of a Catholic, — or a Pro- testant ? We delight to use it. But would the Rev. gentle- men opposite employ it, in speaking of Christ in the Eucha- rist 1 Unhappily they would not. Yet itis the language of an illustrious martyr of the early Church, one who had been a disciple of the apostle St. John, and the immediate successor of St. Peter in the see of x\ntioch ; — in fine, it is the language of one who could remember having seen the Lord himself after his resurrection. My Protestant friends, you will bear in mind that the blessed Ignatius suffered his glorious martyrdom, as early as the year 107. I proceed now to give you the testimony of St. Irenseus who was a disciple of St. Polycarp : — Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna, by the appointment of the Apostle John : he governed that portion of the Church for seventy years, and terminated his earthly career by martyrdom. It was this St. Polycarp that instructed Irenseus in the Christian religion; and St. Irenssus declares he had the instructions of St. Polycarp written " i?i his heart, not on jjcqjer.'' I do not bring this forward with a view to insinuate that he had not rendered himself familiar with such of the sacred writings as were in his possession^ but to shew his attachment to the doctrines which he had received from his predecessor, and the purity of the channel through which those doctrines have been trans- mitted to us. The truths he had received from Polycarp were " loritten in his heart.'' Let us then look in our dis- putes, with appropriate feelings of respect, to St. Irenaeus who died in the year 202. We find in relation to the doc- trines which we are now discussing, in his fifth book against heresies, chapter 11th, (I have by me the Oxford edition, which the gentleman opposite or any of his friends may consult,) the following words : — 356 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Dmj» " Certain heretics," be says, " in denying the resurrection of our bodies in a state of incorruption, virtually maintain that the Lord did not redeem us with his blood ; that the cup of the Eucharist is not the participation of his bluod, 7ior the bread which we break, the participation of his body." Again, he asserts that — " The FAtcharist is the body and hlood of Christ ; and that our bodies, nourished by that Eucharist, then laid in the earth and dissolved in it, shall in due time rise again." Again, in book the 4th, chapter 34, we find him tri- umphantly asking certain heretics who denied that Christ is — *' The Son — the Word — the Creator of the world, how they could prove that the bread over which the words of thanksgiving have been pronounced, is the body flf their Lord, and the cup of his b'ood." He is adverting to errors the exact nature of which I could more fully explain ; but it is not necessary on the present occasion. 1 have quoted these passages which show, incidentally but powerfully, that our faith respect- ing the Eucharist then prevailed ; it was not denied by heretics, who yet denied other important truths oi' the Christian religion. But 1 may bring a charge against our Rev. friends opposite, of refusing to admit what even these heretics, against whom St. Ireneeus writes, are found to have admitted; for they deny that, when they communi- cate to you the Sacrament, as it is generally termed b}^ Protestants, they communicate to you the real body and blood of Christ. I ask your attention now. Christian friends^ to the testi- mony of St. Justin Tvdio suffered martyrdom in l63 or 167. In a w^ork which he addressed to Antoninus, a Pagan Emperor, with the view of conciliating the persecutors of the Christian religion, he expounds, as far as he can, con- sistently with the secrecy observed at that period by Christians, — a point of discipline which you will more fully understand, before this discussion terminates, — he expounds such and so much of the Christian doctrines as would lessen the rage of the Pagans, and put an end to the cruel persecutions which every wdiere followed those who embraced th religion of Christ. He addressed the Em- peror thus : — ^ " Our prayers being finished (it is a graphic narration of the public Chris- tian devotions of every day,) we embrace one another with the kiss of peace. Then to him who presides over the brethren is presented bread, and wine tempered with water ;" (just, my Protestant friends, as Catholics do at this dayin the Sacrifice of the Mass) " having received which, he gives glory to the Father of all things in tlie name of the Son and the Holy Ghost. These Mr, Edgeivorth's Second Speech. 357 offices being duly performed, &c., the ministers whom we call deacons, distri- bute to each of the assembly a share of the sanctified bread, and the wine, and the water." Eecollect he was writing to a Pagan, who could form no idea of the substance which lay Qoncealed under the ap- pearance of the bread and wine, St. Justin adds : — " This food we call the Eucharist ; of which only they are permitted to take, who believe the doctrines which we teach, and who have been regenerated by water for the remission of sin, and who live as Christ ordained. We do not take these gifts as common bread and common drink ; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour, made man by the xcord of God, tookjiesh and blood for our salcation, — so, ive have been tauglit." Mark these words, my Protestant friends, ice liave been taught that the food which has been blessed by the prayers of the words lohich he spoke, and by xohich our blood and Jiesh, in the change, are nourished, is the flesh and BLOOD OF THAT Jesus INC ARM ATE. Catholics at this day are taught the same doctrine — that the Eucharistic food is the flesh and blood of the Saviour, who became man and died for us ; but, my dear friends, this is not the doctrine believed and preached by our Kev. opponents. This doc- trine is not taught to Protestants as it was to St. Justin, and the early Christians. I deeply regret it, because this is a doctrine involving the condition of all of us on the other side of the grave. Let me then express my heartfelt grief that this doctrine is rejected by most of you, who now listen to me ; not that I presume to charge you with crime in this ignorance of an important Gospel truth ; it is only the Almighty who is to judge the secrets of all hearts. But these are occa- sions, my Protestant brethren, which the Almighty, I am persuaded, whatever men may have had to do in bringing them about, designs as opportunities for removing baneful ignorance on a most important Christian doctrine, — igno- rance, of which you have been unconscious, and for which hitherto you may not have been responsible, the culpa- bility of which 1 ascribe not to your immediate parents; but it lies at the door of your progenitors who fell from the Unity of Faith. It is amongst the fatal fruits of that har- dened, that desperate course, pursued by such men as Luther and others, who presumed to innovate upon the truths that had been handed down from the days of the Apostles. I might here draw your attention, or rather the atten- tion of the Rev. gentlemen opposite, to the mangling, the wilful mantrlino: of these texts which I have adduced from S58 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day. the writings of St. Justin, found in a work entitled the Anatoimj of the Mass ; but if I were to convict the gen- tleman who is the author of this outrage, Mr. Shanks, or any gentleman opposite, it would not serve any general or public purpose, and perhaps it would only distract your attention from the clear and forcible fact, that St. Justin testifies that the Christians in his day believed the Eucha- rist to be the i^eal flesh and the real Mood of Jesus incar- nate. Such authorities as I have now referred to, super- abound. Few of you can have had an opportunity of possessing or studying the writings of the early Chris- tians ; but, be assured that they are records which deserve greater respect than you have been taught to pay to them. As, however, time hastens, I am content, for the present, to pass on to the testimony of Theodoret, a Chris- tian Bishop, and writer, who flourished about the year 431. He is the author of three dialogues against the Eutychians, wherein the speakers are called Orthodoxus, and Eranistes. There are none present who deny the human nature of Christ ; it is not, therefore, to establish the truth of Christ being really man, that I make the fol- lowing quotation, but to show you, from the doctrine inci- dentally proposed in a discussion carried on upon a dif- ferent subject, that Christians, in the day of Theodoret, believed what now the Catholic Church believes respecting the Eucharist ; that bread and wine are, by the power of God, when the ordained words are pronounced by the ministers of Christ, changed into the body and blood of Christ. Orthodoxus, the opponent of the Eutychian heresy, says to Eranistes^ its advocate ; — " Tell me of what are the mystical symbols offered by the priests, symbo- lical'? — Eranistes. Of the body and blood of the Lord. — Orthodoxus. Of his true body or not ? — Eranistes. Of his true body. — Orthodoxus. Very well; for every image must have its original. — Eranistes. I am glad you have named the divine mysteries. "What name do you give to the offering which is made before the priest's invocation? — Orthodoxus. This must not be told openly ; for there may be soine present who arenot initiated." Let me observe, parenthetically, that there was a some- thing which took place in the devotion of assembled Chris- tians, which was deemed most sacred, and ivas not ex- founded to the world. But to return to the dialogue. Eranistes says : — *' Then answer me in hidden or obscure terms. — Orthodoxus. We call it an aliment made of certain grains. — Eranistes. And what name do you give to the Other symbol 1 — Orthodoxus. A name that expresses a certain drink." Mr. Edgewortlis Second Speech* 359 You must perceive, my friends, that he meant bread and wine, as the things offered "before the priest's invoca* tion." *' Eranistes. And what are they called after the consecration? — OrthodoxuS. Tiie BODY of Christ and the blood of Christ. — Eranistes. So you believe that you partake of the body and blood of Christ? — Orthodoxus. So I do believe, Eranistes. Then as the symbols of the body and blood of Christ were different before the consecration by the priest, and after that consecration are changed, in the same manner, we (Eutychians) 'assert that the body of Christ, after his ascension was changed into the divine essence." His argument in favour of a denial of the human na- ture of Christ was a bad one, yet you see the course of it, that the Christians of his day regarded that which was put on the Christian altars as bread and wine, before the words of consecration were pronounced by the priests of Christ, but after the consecration as " the true body and Mood of Christ.'* This, 1 say again, is our doctrine — Ca- tholic doctrine — but it is not the doctrine of the Rev. gentlemen opposite. I might easily multiply the proofs from the earliest VvTiters ; but I shall take opportunities at a later period of this discussion to add similar testimony to that which I have now adduced. I am of opinion, that if you give due attention to that v/hich is already before you, you must come to this conclusion— that the Catholic doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist— namely, that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, is not a doctrine found out yesterday, nor a hundred years, nor a thousand years ago. We have proved that it was the doctrine delivered by Christ, and faithfully handed down by the Apostles, clearly expressed by St. Ignatius the immediate successor of an apostle ; clearly taught by St. Irengeus, the disciple of St. Polycarp (St. Polycarp, you will recollect, was the disciple of St. John) ; clearly testified by St. Justin, the elegant apologist of the Chris- tian religion before the frown and persecution of pagan power ; clearly established again in the writings of Theo- doret, and from that time handed down to this day, as I could easily shew you, and as is allowed by— I will* not as yet say, more candid — but, as far as 1 can judge at pre- sent, by more learned Protestants than our Rev. oppo- nents in this discussion. If the doctrine of Transubstan- tiation is false doctrine, will the Rev. gentlemen tell me when the truth was manifested to the world ? If this is false doctrine which we have expounded to you, how was it that the martyr Ignatius should have fallen into it? 360 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day. How was it that he should have been permitted to be re- garded in after ages as a most distinguished advocate of religion ? If this is false doctrine, why was there not a reclamation made by some one, when St. Justin in his apology to Antoninus declared it to be the doctrine of Christians? I feel persuaded that these are questions which though they may be pronounced irrelevant, cannot be replied to in any other way, by the Rev. gentlemen opposite, than by saying that the most distinguished Chris- tians in the first ages, distinguished by their piety, by their learning, by their deaths— for most of them suffered martyrdom for their faith— did believe that which the Catholics now believe ; namely, that Christ is present in the Eucharist truly and really — that the bread and wine are changed into his body and blood by his unlimited power. I am unwilling to weaken the impression which I am sure such testimony must make on the minds of all impartial inquirers after truth, by adverting as I could easily do to the mistakes, I trust the involuntary mistakes, into vvdiich the Rev. Mr. Tottenham has fallen in attempt- ing to refute the observations I made the last time I addressed the meeting. It is of very trivial importance, ultimately at least, whether you understand or misunder- stand the Rev. gentleman ; but it is of infinite import- ance that all of us. Christian brethren, should arrive at a clear knowledge of the truth upon the doctrine of the Eucharist. Recollect what is before us. Discard that false liberality which asks " Why discuss this doctrine ? why investigate these matters? You will live more at ease and peace, if you will not entertain these inquiries." Repudiate, I repeat it, that false liberality. As the gen- tleman opposite has said, the practical consequence of this doctrine involves matters belonging to our eternal welfare. If our doctrine is false, we pay homage to a mere creature, mistaken for Christ ; if our doctrine is ^?'we, and that it is true you must at least be inclined to say, then those gen- tlemen are engaged in a most perilous and disastrous course, by persuading men to withhold that homage and adoration which are due to Jesus Christ, present in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. JIfr. Lijons'' Fourth Speech. 361 The Rev. J. Lyons. I coiNCTDE in the opinion of Mr. Edgewortli, that dis- cussion is not false liberality, and that it may lead to much o-ood. We have had a practical exemplification ot it m this and yesterday morning's discussion. Yesterday, 1 used the expression, " the infallible teacher of an infallible Church r but this morning's discussion has taught me that 1 should have said, '^ the independent teacher of jm infallible Church ^ as Mr. Brown appears to think that he is at perfect liberty to form what judgment he pleases on books of authority in the Church ot Rome. The Rev. gentleman has told you that the Breviary is a book ot un- doubted authority ; and then he asserts that he is at liberty to reject any historical parts of it, that his own iudo-ment may not peculiarly commend. Ask Mr. Brown what authorised formulary of the Church of Rome allows of such an assertion. He is commanded to receive the Breviary ; and no exceptions are made to any words m it_-it must be the whole Breviary, and nothing but the Breviary ; he is not allowed to cast out a smgle syllable ; and if he had read the Roman Ritual, he might have found that — .< First the Breviary, and then the Roman Missal were to be published with Biuch care ulness and pastoral diligence."-(Quamobrem fel. record Paus ?apaV. Breviarium primum, et deinde Missale I^^™^"^' ^^" ^^^^^^ et diligentia elaborata Pastorali providentia edenda censuit.-Rituale Kom. p. 4. ed. Venet. 1786.) In this same book, the use of the Breviary miracles is declared to us. In pages 99 and 100, we read that when the priest goes to visit the sick, he is to tell them -particu- larly the examples of the saints, which are of great use — '< Ac priesertim Sanctorum exempla, quae plurimum valent." Again, we are told — - - He will likewise propose to the sick person the martyrdoms and exam- pies of the saiuts."-Proponet etiam agrotanti . . .Sanctorum martyna et ex- empla. But then it is added — -These, however, are to be suggested opportunely and discreetly^ trouble, and not comfort may affect the sick."-Ha3C tamen opportune et discrete suggerantur,ne aegroto molestia, sed levamen otteratm. But Mr. Brown tells us that the legends of this book are not essential to be believed ; and then adds that it is 362 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day, broken up into certain portions for each clay, and read within the v/alls of this Sanctuary. It is rather extraor- dinary to read in the hearing of young men ''' legendary tales,'' which certainly ought to form no part of the worship of God. The Rev. gentleman has told us that there are only a few miracles in this book, which can be rejected or received, according to his own judgment. While Mr. Brown was speaking, I took up one of the volumes, in which I reckoned fifteen ; if we multiply fifteen by four, (the number of volumes of which the Breviary consists) we should have sixty miracles ; and if time permitted me to reckon them all, there would be found a number nearer to one hundred and sixty than sixty, which Mr. Brov/n feels himself at liberty to reject, without the slightest shadow of authority ; so that here we see the benefit of this discussion, that the Rev. gentleman has been induced to think and speak for himself. Yesterday, Mr. Brown said that he would answer my arguments, drawn from reason and common sense, by some references to the work of Abbadie on the Christian religion ; and then he asserted that Transubstantiation was as undoubted a truth as the Trinity. This is a "priTzczpzi /^e^zVzo," begging the question. We deny that Transubstantiation is revealed in the Holy Scriptures. The Rev. gentleman has not yet proved it from Holy Scrip- ture, and we cannot receive it upon any other authority. Mr. Brown reminds us that we ought not to use any ^ argument from the understanding on this point. I will read one passage from the v/ord of God, in addition to those which you have already heard from my friend, Mr. Tottenham. It is contained in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 10th chapter, 15th verse, where the Spirit of God by the Apostle thus writes — "I speak as to wise men, judge ye yourselves what I say." And of what was he about to write ? Even respecting the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ; the Apostle there- fore gives us full liberty to judge concerning these matters, and surely if Paul called upon the Corinthians to use their judgment on the Lord's Supper, Mr. Brown should not deny us the same liberty of judging respecting the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Apostle proceeds to say— " The chalice 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 V* Mr. Lyons Fourth Speech. 863 Mr. Brown referred to various passages in the Acts of the Apostles yesterday, in support of the opinion that he holds of Christ's coming down upon the earth in his bodily form at different times after his ascension ; and from thence he argued that he might come down in a bodily form into the wafer on the altar. There is no force in the argument, because it is impossible to prove from those passages that Christ came down to the earth ; and had the Rev. gentleman read a little further in the book of the Acts, he would have found in the 26th chapter, (he quoted from the 9th) and the IQth verse, that he did not come down upon earth at all ; because there we read — "Wherefore, O ting Agrippa, I was not incredulous to the heavenly visionJ' Here Paul speaks of it as a ^' heavenly vision" — not as an event that took place on earth, but as a vision that he saw in heaven. Mr. Brown also turned your attention to the 7th chapter of Acts as another proof that Christ came down to earth. This is rather an unhappy quotation to make, for in the ooili verse we read — " But he, (Stephen) being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glorv of God,and Jtsus standing on the right hand of God.'* He did not see Jesus on earth, he saw him '^ standing at the right hand of God.'' ** And he said, Behold, I seethe heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God." Mr. Brown has again brought us back to the 6th of John. I shall once for all meet his remarks on this chapter with this simple proposition ; there is but one way of salvation from the fall of our first parents down to the latest period of time. There is only " one Lord," and then, as the Apostle argues, there can be but "one faith." In the 11th chapter of Hebrews, it is clearly declared that from the earliest period of the world's fall, i'aith alone was the grand means for the salvation of the children of God ; but according to the assertion made by the Rev. gentleman from the 6th of John, it is abso- lutely necessary, literally to " eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ." I ask, how was it pos- sible for Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or any of the Patriarchs to be saved ; for it is said in that chapter — •' Except you eat his flesh, you have no life in you." Now then, if these words are to be taken in their literal construction, it must follow that Abel, and all the Patri- archs of old, were shut out of the pale of salvation. But 364 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day. when we take these words in the sense of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, all appears plain and intelligible to us. Mr Brown alluded to the miracle narrated in the 2nd of John. He said that the miracle at Cana in Galilee, and what he pleases to call the miracle of Transubstantiation, are similar to each other. If you recollect the parallel I drew yesterday between the loaves and fishes in the desert, and apply the same parallelism to the water converted into wine in Cana, and the asserted miracle of Transubstan- tiation, you will quickly perceive what dissimilarity there is between them. 1 shall now turn to some remarks that Mr. Edge worth has made, and I do say, that he has not attempted to answer a single argument brought foricard bij Mr. Tottenham. The Rev. gentleman has brought against us the charge of having used *' ridicule and scorn" against the doctrine of Transub- stantiation ; and he appears to think this a very unscrip- tural, if not anti-scriptural, mode of handling the doctiine. I think it, however, a very scriptural method, perfectly scriptural, as I can prove from reading two or three verses of the word of God. If the Rev. gentleman will turn with me to the 3rd book of Kings, the 18th chapter, and C6th and following verses, he will there read — " And thej took the bullock whicli he gave them and dressed it : and tliey called upon the name of Baal from morning even till noon, sa3ang, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered : ani they leaped over the altar that they had made." We might apply the same language to the wafer on the altars of Roman Catholic Chapels ; we may cry to it very long before it will hear us — " And when it was now noon, Elias jested at them, saying: Cry with a louder voice, for he is a god, and perhaps he is talking, or is in an inn, or on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awaked." Here is strong irony, deeply-cutting sarcasm, against the prophets of Baal. In the book of the Prophet Isaiah, 44th chapter, 12th verse, it is written — " The smith hath wrought with his file, with coals, and with hammers he haih formed it, and hath wrought with the strength of his arm : he shall hunger and faint, he shall drink no water, and shall be weary. The carpenter hath stretched out his rule, he hath formed it with a plane : he hath made it with coiners, and hath fashioned it round with the compass, &:c. And it hath served men for fuel : he took thereof, and warmed himself: audhekindledit, and baked bread : but of the utST HE MADE A COD, AND ADOUED IT ; lie made a graven thing, and bowed down before it. Part of it he burnt with fire, and with part of it he dressed his meat : he boiled pottage, and was filled and was warmed, and said : Aha, I am warm, 1 have seen the fire. But the residue thereof he made a god, and a graven thing for himself: he boweth down before it, and adoreth it, and prayeth unto it, saying : Deliver me for thou art my God. M7\ Lyons Fourth Speech. 365 Tliey do not consider in their mind, nor know, nor have the thought, to say I have burnt part of it in the fire, and I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have broiled flesh and have eaten, and of the residue thereof shall I make an idol ? Shall 1 fall down before the stock of a tree V Here was cutting irony on the part of the Prophet Isaiah when inspired of God ; he reproaches them because they made part of the wood a graven image, and part of it they put beneath their usual food, in order that they might dress it. We can say the same of the wafer of the Roman Catholic, part of the paste is sent to the Chapels to be transubstantiated into a god, and other parts of the same have been made up into bread, in order that it may be eaten. I know of an instance in the v/est of Ireland, where one portion of the wafers has been sent to the Roman Catholic Chapel for the purpose already mentioned, and another portion is used for the ordinar}^ purpose of sealing deeds. The Rev. gentleman need not speak of " the unutterable sarcasm," which he says I used towards the w^afers, when we find such strono; lano-uas-e written in the words of the living God. Mr. Edgeworth has also told us that the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as now taught, is one that has been received in all ages. I must beg leave to deny this, for when I refer to the primitive forms of ordination, and compare them with the present forms of the Church of Rome, they are quite dissimilar. I will read the present form of ordination used in the Roman Church; and also the ordination service which was used in early times. In the 4th Councilof Carthage, A. D. 398, Canon 4, we have part of the primitive form of ordination — " When the Presbyter is being ordained, the Bishop blesses liim and holds his hands over his head, likewise all the Presbyters who are present hold their hands near the hands of the Bishop over his head." In the Apostolic Constitutions the prayer v/hich was used at ordination, is given to us — " Look upon tliis thy servant added to the Presbytoryj by the suffrag-e and judgment of all the clergy ; and fill him with the spirit of grace and of coun- sel, that he may help and govern thy people with a pure heart — so that bein^ filled with healing powers, and aptness in teaching the word, he may instruct thy people, and may serve thee sincerely with a pure heart and a willing mind, and may blamelessly perform the ministrations for the people, through Christ." This prayer, with the laying on of hands, as related above, constituted the form of primitive ordination. The ordination service as used in the Church of Rome at the present day, is very different from this. The book I hold in my hand is the Pontificale Romanum ; it was published by Clement the 8th, Urban the 8th, Benedict 366 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day, tlie 14th, and Pius the 7th. At page 52, (eel. Rome 1818) part of the present form of the ordination of priests is given us — " Receive power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Tvlasses, as well for the living as for the dead, in the name of the Lord. Amen." In the prii/j-itive form of ordination, there is no mention made of " offering sacrifice to God" — nothing of *' cele- brating Masses," but simply " performing the ministra- tions for the jDeople." So that if we compare the form of ordination in the ancient Church with that now used in the Church of Rome, we have one strono; negative argu- ment, that they knew nothing about the doctrine of *' offering Sacrifice to God," in the Sacrifice of the IMass. Mr. Edgeworth has dwelt for some time upon the " j^ain- ful spectacle" of seeing men differ from each other. It is a " painful spectacle," but it is one that must be endured to the end of the present dispensation. The Rev. gentle- man must remember it is also painful to see Popes op- posing Popes — Councils anathematizing Councils — the Pope excommunicating St. Cyprian and many Bishops, and other ''painful spectacles" that we could bring forward in modern times, as well as in ancient days, if it were ne- cessary to dwell upon the subject. Mr. Edgeworth, in speaking of the body of Christ, says it is not "a carnal body;" and Mr. Brown has told us that it is *' a spiritual, sacramental, and real body." The Reverend gentleman denies it to be carnal ; but then, I would ask, ivhat are hones and flesh ? what are tody and hlood? Are not these carnal things ? How then can the Reverend gentleman say that there is nothing " carnal" in this sacrifice, when tliey confess with their ovm lips, that there is in it "body and blood, and bones and nerves?" It is rather singular that they should deny the carnality of the body, when they use terms that signify carnality. The Reverend gentleman has spoken of the Refor- mation— of Luther — of Melancthon — and he has told us of '* an unfortunate change that took place three hundred years ag-o." He has not, however, informed us whe- ther it is unfortunate for the Church of Rome to be deprived of much of her authority and power, or unfortu- nate for us to be delivered from the yoke of bondage and ignorance. It has, however, no connexion with the Sacri- fice of the Mass, I shall therefore dismiss it. The Rev. gentleman tells us, that if it had not been for Luther and other suchmen,we shouldnowhavebeen all of one mind. 3Jr. Ltjons Fourth Speech. 367 I beg leave to tell him, that although Luther was the in- strument, it was the allwise God who wielded that instru- ment, in order to effect our separation from the Church of Rome — in order that we should not believe as the Church of Rome does, that a piece of bread is made into a god, and then that Vv'e should fall down and worship it. We have to thank God alone, that thus he hath delivered us from such an act of idolatry^ as we shall have occasion to shew it to be, in our further arguments against the Sacri- fice of the Mass. Mr. Edgeworth then proceeded to various quotations from the Fathers. He quoted Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Ireneeus, and Theodoret. I shall select only two of these quotations, one fi-om Ignatius, the other from Justin Martyr, and I think that if the Rev. gentleman had read them before he quoted them, he would not have adduced them as evidence. I have now lying before me a copy of the book from which he quoted, it is " The Faith of Roman Catholics confirmed by Scripture, and attested by the Fathers, &c." Mr. Edgeworth first read an extract from Ignatius, which concludes thus : — <' I desire to drink of God, his blood, which is chanty incorruptible and eternal life." This passage clearly shows us, that he used the Avord blood in a figurative sense. He says that it is "charity incorruptible and eternal life." Does the Rev. gentleman mean to say that Ignatius believed in the Transubstan- tiation of blood " into incorruptible charity and eternal lihV Mr. Edgeworth also tells us that Polycarp was instructed by Ignatius. Now, if Polycarp learned from Ignatius, it must have followed that Polycarp held that the blood of Christ was *' incorruptible charity and eternal life." But passing on further, the Rev. gentleman says, that the Fathers were proving that the flesh is capable of eternal life. We, of the Church of England, use words very similar to the Fathers on this subject, and therefore there is not that great discrepancy between us and the Fathers on this point that has been asserted. In the Communion Service of our Church, we have these words — *' That our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell ia }iim, and he in us," Now, the argument that is based upon these words is this, that by the participation of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, our souls are washed in his blood from 2GS Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day. the spots and stains of sin, and that our bodies will be raised up to eternal life together with the body of our Lord. In the 8lh of Romans this truth is plainly set before us, in the 1 1 th verse— " If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Thus it appears that the same Spirit which quickeneth our souls, is to quicken up our mortal bodies ; it is not therefore a corporal receiving of the literal body and blood of the Lord, that will raise up our bodies, but it is in con- sequence of our spiritual union with his body. In conse- quence of that spiritual union, no member of Jesus shall ever perish, for the very same spirit that hath put breath into the never dying soul, shall also quicken up the mortal body in the day of the Lord Jesus — " He shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his Spihit that dwelleth in you." In the quotation from Justin Martyr, there is mention made of bread and wine tempered with water, and he says :— " This food we call the Eucharist, of which they alone are allowed to par- take, who believe the doctrines taught by us, and have been regenerated by water for the remission of sins, and who live as Christ ordained. Nor do we take these gifts, as common bread and common drink." Here is not a word about ''the body and blood." Ifl pleased, I could bring forward other passages from Justin Martyr, where he speaks of tbebread and wine remainingthe samein substance after consecration. In order to account for Justin Martyr's silence respecting the body and blood, Mr. Edge- worth informs us, that the words " body and blood,'' were not used, because Justin was writing to an heathen em- peror. I should be sorry to find that holy fathers of olden times, were governed by the spirit of expedienc}^, which governs too many in the present day; that, because he was writing to an emjoeror, he was afraid to declare what he believed to be the truth of God. I would rather be inclined to think, that he was a holy man who would never refrain from explicitly declaring even to princes and kings of the earth, the truth as it is in Jesus. No feeling of expedi- ency would restrain him from following in the path of his blessed Master and of the Apostles, who boldly spake the whole truth, before the governors of the earth, and before kings and emperors. I will now follow the example of my friend, Mr. Mr. Lyons* Fourth Speech. 369 Tottenham, and leaving the doctrine of Transubstan- tiation, pass on to " the Sacrifice of the Mass." — There can be no true Sacrifice in that of the Mass, for this reason — first, because there was no true sacrifice in the last Supper ; for, if there were no true sacrifice in the last Supper, there can be none in the Sacrifice of the Mass, which is said to be a continuation of it. Whatever, then, the last Supper was, so, according to the declaration of the Church of Rome, must be the Sacrifice of the Mass. If there were a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice of- fered in the last Supper, then, if it can be proved that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a continuation of it, there would be a proper and propitiatory sacrifice ; but if there were no true and proper sacrifice in the Lord's Supper, as ad- ministered by Christ, then there can no ti-ue and proper sacrifice in the Mass. JVow, we also say, that, in order to constitute a true sacrifice, there must be a sacrificing priest, and also the shedding of blood. In the last Supper there was no shed- ding of blood, because the Lord was still living ; he was sitting at the table in the presence of all his Disciples, ex- ercising all the functions of life ; he was speaking to them, and was blessing, and distributing the bread and the cup; he spoke many words of kindness and comfort to them; and these things sbevv-ed that he was still a living man ; and that still his life's blood was flowing warmly from his heart throughout his members ; and, therefore, there being no shedding of blood in the last Supper, it must evidently follow, that the Sacrifice of the Mass, said to be a con- tinuation of that Supper, cannot be " a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice." Moreover, I ask the gentlemen on the other side, to prove that Cbrist was a priest at the last Supper. They will find it hard to establish this point from Holy Scrip- ture. If they endeavour to shew, that he was then con- secrated to the office of a priest, I shall bring forward proofs to evidence that it did not occur at that period. Until the arguments are adduced to shew that he was then a priest, I shall remain silent on the subject. We are also told, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is " an unbloody sacrifice." I cannot understand how this can be, because a true sacrifice for sin required sheddbig of blood, and it is said, besides, by the Church of Rome, to be in the cup, on the altars, and that it is poured from the cup into the mouth of the priest ; yet we are told that there is no shedding of blood, whilst, at the same time, the priest 2 B 370 Downside Discussion.— Fifth Day. is said to drink the blood from the chalice. According, then, to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, there must be blood in what they call '' the unbloody sacrifice." We might go on to shew further, from the novelty of private masses, that there was no such doctrine believed in. former times, as the Sacriiice of the Mass ; because all the antient liturgies require both the priest and the people to be present, and both parties to receive the cup ; but such a thing as " a private mass," Vv^e never hear or read of; and Bellarmin says, that the only way he can possibly collect that there were private masses, is " ex conjectura," *' by conjecture." " For, althougli we no where expressly read that Sacrifice was offered bj the ancients, without the communioa of any person or persons besides the priest,- nevertheless, we can easily gather it from conjecture.*' — Bellarm. de Mis. lib. 2. c. 9. There is another argument that lies against this Sacrifice of the Mass. It is impossible for an individual to know whether there be any real Transubstantiation ; and unless there be real Transubstantiation, there cannot be any sa- crifice in the Mass. It appears, that there are very many essential requisites in order to constitute Transubstantia- tion , there" are certain defects, which, if they occur, then there is no real or true conversion. In the Roman Missal we find, that " There may be defects in the mailer, the form, and the officiating priest." The defects of the matter may result from many things : — " If the bread be not made of wheat, or if a quantity of jiny other j^rain be mixed with it; or, if it be any otherwise corrupted, then there is no Sacra- mftQt. — If it be made with rose, or any distilled water, the consecration is doubtful. — If the wine be turned sour, or be made from sour or unsound grapes, there is no consecration." How can a communicant know that there has not been some other grain mixed with the wheaten flour, of which the wafer is made ? If there he, then there is no true conversion. How can any man tell, whether the grapes of which the wine is made, were ripe or not ? Another defect may arise from a diminution, or change in the icords of consecration, part of which are muttered too low to be heard by those present. The third deficiency may be the result of" want of intention" on the part of the priest : — \^ *' If he do not intend to consecrate, but acts in a delusory manner; like- Mr, Lyons' Fourth Speech, 371 wise if any Hosts remain, through forgetfulness, on the altar, or any part of the wine, or any Host lies concealed, when he intends to consecrate only those which are visible ; likewise, if he have before him eleven Hosts and intends to consecrate only ten, not determining which ten he intenis, in these cases there is no consecration, because the intention- is kequiued." — Rom. Miss, de defect, cir. Mis. occur. How can any member of the Church of Rome, possibly enter into the mind and feelings of the officiating priest? how can he know, whether he has an intention of doino- that which the Church commanded him to do — that is, to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ ? He must have a glass placed over the priest's heart, in order that he should read all the intentions that are passing through his mind ; for the intention of the priest is absolutely necessary to constitute a true change in the elements of bread and wine. Therefore, when any, or all of these things are wanting, — defect in the^ matter— defect in fonn, and defect in intention-^ there is no Transubstantiation. From the defects that may occur in the elements, and in the intention of the priest, it is manifestly impossible for a Roman Catholic to know^ whether the substance before him is merely bread and wine, or that it is what assertion would make it — the body and blood of his risen Lord. The Sacrifice of the Mass sets aside the doctrine of faith in the Lord Jesus. According to the sophistries brought from the 6th of John by our opponents, it is asserted, that, by the simple act of eating the body and drinking the blood of the Lord, persons become partakers of eternal life. If, then, we can get eternal life by such a process, where is the use of faith ? for the *' opus operatum," or " the thing done," is sufficient to ensure salvation. But, what saith the Scriptures? In the Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle writes most fully on the doctrine of Justification, and tells us, in the 3rd chapter, 24th and following verses : — Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed to be a proi)itiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice for the remission of former sins, throuo-h the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time : that he him self may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ.'*' In these verses we learn, that it is *' through faith m the blood" of the Lord Jesus that we obtain eternal life. God hath been just in proposing his Son to be a propitia- tion for sin, and then freely justifying those who believe 372 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day. in his name. In the opening of the 5th chapter, are also these words : — "Being^jusTiFiED THEREFORE BY FAITH, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ ; by whom also we have access through f^ith into this grace wherein we stand." Again, in the 2nd chapter and 8th verse of the Epistle to the Ephesians, are these words — " For by grace you are saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God, not of works, that no man may glory." In opposition to these verses, the Church of Rome would make it appear (by her interpretation of the passages in the (Jth of John), that the act of receiving the wafer ensures eternal life ; for a period at least, (for it is asserted, that the individual can finally fall from that state of grace) but still, as long as the wafer shall remain uncorrupt, that having Christ in him, it is impossible for him to die eter- nally. But, the Apostle tells us, that it is " through faith, not by works, that we are saved." In the Epistle to the Hebrews, 8th chapter and 4th verse, it is written — " If then he were on earth, he would not be a priest : seeing that there would be others to ofifer gifts according to the law." Here the Apostle informs us, that Christ is not on earth, for if he were on earth, he would not be a priest. Now, if Christ be not on earth, bodily present in the wafer, it is utterly impossible that it can be a true sacrifice, because there can be no true propitiatory sacrifice, where the body and blood of Christ are not. And, again, in the Qth chapter the 7th and following verges, he leads our minds to the day of atonement. — •' But, into the second, the high-priest alone, once a year; not without blood which he oiFereth for his own, and the people's ignorance," 6lc. &c. The Rev. T. J. Brown. Of the arguments adduced by Mr. Lyons I shall take only a passing notice ; indeed, I believe 1 shall have to notice more of misrepresentations than of arguments. He contended that as Christ was in heaven when he was seen by St. Stephen, therefore Christ cannot be in the Eucharist. It is indifferent to the principal argument that I adduced, whether Christ was seen by St. Stephen in the heaveji of Mr. Browns Twelfth Speech. 373 heavens, or only in that heaven which, as Mr. Tottenham has explained the Greek term, encompasses our earth ; for it is plain that he appeared to St. Paul on earth ; whence this conclusion is evident, that, whilst Christ's natural body is at the right hand of the Father, it may be after another manner elsewhere. Mr. Lyons asks how Abra- ham and the other Patriarchs could be saved, according to our interpretation of John vi., without eating of the flesh of Christ?— and I ask Mr. Lyons to tell me, how could Abraham be saved without being baptized ?— for it is no less expressly said in John iii. 5, " Unless a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Mr. L. said that I had introduced a parallel between Transubstantiation and the miracle of Cana in Galilee. I introduced no such parallel ; I only alluded to the miracle of Cana to shew that as in 1 Cor. xi. 23, and subsequent verses, the Eucharist is called bread after consecration; in like manner, after the miracle of Cana in Galilee, the wine was called by the appellation of its former substance, water. Mr. L. accuses Mr. Edgeworth of saying that the body of Christ in the sacrament was a carnal body — Mr. Lyons. — No, no. Mr. Brown. — Was not a carnal body. Mr. Edgeworth said only that the body of Christ was not eaten after the carnal manner in which the Jews understood the doctrines of Christ. Mr. L. censures Mr. Edgeworth's quotation, as if Justin Martyr did not use the words " body and blood" of Christ in the passage which Mr. E. adduced. Now, if the Rev. gentleman had paid any attention to the language of that quotation, which he actually had lying before him, he would have read these very precise and clear words : — " Nor do we take these gifts as ccmmon bread and common drink, but as Jeny% Christ, our Saviour, made man by the word of God, took flesh and blood for our salvation; in the same manner we have been taught that the food which has been blessed by the prayer of the words which he spoke, and by which our blood and flesh, in the change, are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus incarnate,^' I will now examine the objections of Mr. Tottenham. He has told you that 1 was serving the cause of infidels by the objections which I urged against the Protestant rule of faith. But be it remembered, that when I argued against the inconsistency with which it appeared to me to be disfigured, Mr. T. did not deprecate such objections upon the plea that in his rule there was any mystery, or I 374 Downside Discussion, — Fifth Day. should not have attempted to argue from reason against it. We, on the contrary, have always contended that such doctrines concerning the Eucharist and the Mass are pro- found mysteries ; our opponents, therefore, are they who, as I have repeatedly shew^n, by relying on the difficulties suggested by reason, furnish with weapons the enemies of the Christian name. The Rev. gentleman says that I have not answered the objection, that " hair was Jerusalem," and that this ex- pression is an example of a figure parallel with that used in the words of the institution, " This is my body," Ezek. V. 5. " And tliou, son of man, talce tliee a sharp knife, take thee a barber's razor, and cause it to puss upon thine head and upon thy beard : then take the ba- lances to weigh, and divide the hair, &:c. U'his is Jerusalem.'' Now I put it to the common sense of any one, — v/hether in this instance, the language of the inspired text is through- out so evidently allegorical, there is any similarity to the language which Christ used at the last supper, under cir- cumstances in which every thing should be clear and explicit ? I am called upon by Mr. T. to explain the celebrated passage from Exodus xii. 11, " It is the Lord's passover;" and I think it is no difficult matter so to explain it as would satisfy even Zuinglius himself, if his judgment were not too prejudiced, that this cannot be placed on a parallel with the words of the institution. First, I call your atten- tion to the evidently mysterious circumstances preceding the passage in question : — *'Thus shall ye eat it ; — with your loins girded — your shoes on your feet — and your staff in your hand, — and ye shall eat it in haste ; it is the Lord's passover." These prepare the mind against a literal inter- pretation ; they are a sort of previous warning that a typical meaning is intended. There was consequently no danger of mistake— no danger of any one's imagining that the paschal lamb was literally the passover of the Lord. But, on the contrary, if the words of Christ at his last supper, whereby he instituted the Sacrament, w^ere in like manner intended to be understood figuratively, the danger of mistake was imminent; nay, if Protestants be rig-ht, such mistake was universally made from the earliest times, as the authorities we have adduced prove. But, 2ndly, there is another exposition of the objected passage even more satisfactory. Recollect what 1 said when we dis- cussed the Rule of Faith, that (as is well known ■) the Mr. Broivns Twelfth Speech. 375 better informed of my heavers,) jnmctuation in the Scrip- tures is of modern introduction — that when they were originally delivered there was no such guide to their meaning'. Well, then, let me take the Scriptures as I am entitled to take them, unfettered by your present punctua- tion, and all the difficulty becomes immediately removed. " Thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand ; ye shall eat it in haste.'' Then, the concluding part of the verse, " It is the Lord's passover," will be the commencement of a new sentence, and, without any reference to the paschal lamb, is explained by the words w^hich immediately follow — '* It is the Lord's passover, /b?' / icill pass through the land of Egypt this night" &c., leaving no parity betiveen the tw^o cases. Lest it escape me, I am desirous of reading', before going further, an extract from a work in estimation amongst Protestants, where one of your celebrated writers says of those arguments which have been so often, in. spite of my appeal to the good feelings of my opponents, brought against us. I recommend to Mr. L3^ons, who I doubt not has read Faber's " Difficulties of Ilomanism," the following passage : — *' While arguing," he observes, '-on this subject (the doctrine of Transub- stantiation), some person^, I regret to say, have been far too copious in the use of those unseemly terms absurdity and impossibility. To such language the least objection is its reprehensible want of good manners. A much more seri- ous objection is, the tone of presumptuous loftiness which pep.vadfs it, and ichich is ivhollv unbecoming a creature of very narroio faculties. Certainly, God uill do nothing- absurd, and ca7i do nothing impossible. But it does not therefore exactly follow, that our vieio of tilings should be always perfectly correct, and -wholly free from misapprehension. Contradictions we may easily FANCY, ichei^e in truth there are none. Hence, before we venture to pronounce any particular doctrine to be a contradiction, we must be sure that we per- fectly understand the nature of the matter propounded in that doctrine ; for, otherwise, the contradiction may not be in the matter itself, but in our mode of conceimng it. In regard to myself, as my conscientiously finite intellect claims not to be an universal measure of congruities and possibilities, I deem it both more wise and more decorous to refrain from assailing the doctrine of transubstaii' tiation, on the ground of its alleged absurdity or imj)ossihility. " By such a mode of attack we in reality quit the true field of RATio^JAi, ANB satisfactop.y ARGUMENT We believe the rovelations of God to be essential, unerring truth. Our business, therefore, most plainly is, not to discusstlie abstract absurdity and the imagined coiitradictcriness of tran- substaniiation, but to inquire, according to the best means which we possess, whether it be indeed a doctrine of hoiv scripture. If sufficient evidence shall appear to be the case, we may be sure that the doctrine is neither absurd nor contradictory. Eeceiving the Scripture as the infallible word cf God, and prepared with entire prostration of mind to admit his declarations, I shall exer contend, that tlte doctrine of transubstantiation, lihe the doctrine of the Trinity, is a question of pure evidence; consequently, not to be judged of by its appearing to us possible or impossible." pp .ol, 55. 376 Downside Discussion,— Fifth Day. If this does not satisfy him, I wish to call his attention to one or two more short quotations from Protestant writers. Clarke, on the " Being and Attributes of God," p. 10, writes thus: — " When once any proposition is clearly demonstrated to be true, it ought not to disturb us, that there be, perhaps, perplexing difficulties on the other side, which mereljyb?- tcant of adequate ideas of the manner of the existence of the things demonstrated are not easy to be cleared. Indeed, were it possible there should be any proposition which could equally be demonstrated on both sides of the question, or which could on both sides he reduced to impli^ a contra- diction (as some have very inconsiderately asserted), this, it must bp confessed, would alter the case. Upon this absurd supposition all difference of true and false, all thinking and reasoning, and the use of all our faculties, would be en- tirely at an end. But when to demonstration on the one side ihere are opposed on the other oydy difficulties raised from our wa7it nf having adkquate ideas OF THE THINGS THEMSELVES, this ovglit not to be esteemed an objection of any real weight.'' Humphrey Ditton, in his discourse upon the Kesurrec- tion, part ], sect. 4, p. 15, London, 1714, says, — " They must leave ofi all their quiblding and disputing, and take whatever they find plainly revealed in the Gospel ; remembering that though infinite wisdom and goodness can never possibly oblige them to believe any thing that is really absurd and contradictory, or do any thing which is unreasonable ; yet they may be obliged to believe and practise many things which uncoxquered PREJUDICE MA\ TELL THEM ARE ABSURD AND UNREASONABLE, and wllicll they may think to be so, by using themselves to judge'of the ways of God too much by human rules and measures." I wish the gentlemen on the other side had the candour of Faber, Ditton, and several other Protestant divines, whose writings I have before me, but from whom I have not time to quote more largely. Mr. T. has denied that the catechetical discourses prove my point ; for, he observes, it is an undoubted fact that Cyril does not refer " the secret" to the presence of Christ, but to the mystery of the Trinity. I shall not dwell long in establishing the contrary, for it can be speedily made evident. First, then, I call your attention to that quota- tion which 1 made just now from St. Cyril, wherein he sj^eaks of an important communication made to the Cate- chumens, and with regard to which he had, till then, he remarks, ohse7^ved secrecy. Now such secrecy referred to the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass as appears not only by that quotation, but also by an express testi- mony of the Synod of Alexandria, A. D. 340. Speaking of the Meletians — " Tliey are not ashamed," the Fathers say, " to celebrate the mysteries before the catechumens, and, perhaps, even before Pagans, forgetting that it is written tliat we are to conceal 4he mystery of the king ; and regardless of the precept of the Lord, that we must not cast holv things to the dcgs, or pearls Mr, Browns Twelfth Speech. 377 before swine. For it is unlawfid to lay the mvstikies open to the iininitiated, lest through ignorance tliey should turn them to ridicule, and lest the catechu- mens should become scandalized through an indiscreet curiosity.'' — In the Apol. of S. AthanaHus against the Aiians, torn. i. p. 133. Paris, 1698. Now, the CELEBRATION of the mi/steries, concealed from the catechumens, cannot be the doctrine of the Trinity. Moreover, that by the mysteries was understood the sub- stantial presence of Christ, and the sacrifice of his body and blood on the Christian altars, is proved from a book, written by St Ambrose, almost exclusively on this subject, and entitled " De Mysteries" — " Concerning the Myste- ries." Again, St. Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia, in his fifth discourse, observes that he had put off until the paschal discourses — *' 'Jo speak of the ceremonies described in Exodus, on the manner of cele- brating the paschal sok'mnity, because," adds be, " this splendid night re- quires our instruction to be adapted rather to the circumstances of the time, than to the lesson of the day, in order that the Neophytes may, for the first time, be taught in what manner we partake of the paschal sacrijice.'* I will add only one more quotation taken from Letter 16, Tom. 2, p. 20, Ed. Bened. of St. Augustin's works, where Maximus of Medaurus, tauntingly asks — " What is this God, which you other Christians consider as particularly be- longing to yourselves, and which you say you see present in your secret places?" Et in locis abditis prsesentem nos videre componitis ? This cannot be the mystery of the Trinity ; but it evi- dently is the mystery of the Eucharist. I could advance innumerable other proofs to the same effect. But, said Mr. Tottenham, Julian the Apostate knew nothing of Christ's presence, nor of Transubstantiation, or he would have charged the Christians with its absurdity. I have read a little on this subject, and I wish to inform Mr. T. that the silence of the apostate Emperor, respecting the mystery of the Eucharist, in those parts of his writings which have come down to us, may satisfactorily be ac- counted for by several reasons. First, Julian's work con- sisted originally, as St. Cyril of Alexandria tells us, of three books, of v»hich there are preserved to us at most but one, in the refutation of Julian by St. Cyril. Now, although the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not ridiculed in that one hook which remains, does the conclusion hold that it was not ridiculed in the others that are lost ? In the second place, it is by no means certain that we have this one book entire. Thirdly, the discipline of the secret, re- garding the sacrament, will account for the omission by St. Cyril of any invectives penned by Julian against it, if 378 Downside Discussion.— -Fifth Day. such had existed. Indeed, we find that, from rever- ence for the secret, Cyril does, jjrofessecUy , pass over much of the ridicule which Julian has thrown on the mystery of haptism. Now, as St. Cyril passes over a portion of the ridicule which Julian attempts to throw on one mystery, may we not suppose that he v/ould pass over that which may have heen directed against another, far more august and more surpassing human understanding. In the fourth place, Mr. Tottenham sadly fails in his argument, which proves too much, viz., that even the Resuri-ection of Christ was not in the 4th century, an article of Christian beliefs For if Julian's object had been to turn into ridicule the mysteries of Christianity, surely he would not have passed by that of the resurrection. Now, iii the one book that alone remains of the three which he composed, there is not a word against that important doctrine ; yet to Pagans we know that our Saviour's resurrection afforded as fruitful a theme for declamation and abuse of the Christian i^eligion, as now does the doctrine of Transuhstantiation to our op- ponents. I beg leave now to call your attention to an important consideration; that the discipline of the secret, w^hich, as I have shown I hope to your satisfaction, regarded principal!}^ the mysteries of the Eucliarist, and of the Sacrifice of the ]\Iass, was a discipline inconceivable ac- cording to the Protestant belief; but that, supposing the Fathers held the Catholic doctrine of the real presence, not only does the motive of that discipline become intelli- gible, but ]noreover highly necessary. li' the Primitive Fathers had held the doctrine of Protestants, what was more easy than to meet the charge of mysterious secrecy which was oftentimes urged against them as a crime? — what more easy than to bring their accusers to their places of v/orship, and to say : "We have no mysteries which v/e are ashamed to exhibit : enter our assemblies, and you will see nothing that siiould create scandal." But, far from acting thus, they cautiously' abstained from revealing the mysterious rites vfhich were performed at their religious assemblies ; and hence were circulated against them the most grievous calumnies. Moreover, the very nature of some of those calumnies that the Christians put to death an infant — that they drank its blood, and ate its fiesh, which could have had its origin only in the imperfect notion which had got abroad respecting what took phice in their secret wor- ship,— forms another argument in favour of their belief in Mr. Browns Twelfth Speech. 379 the substantial presence of Christ. Nay more, the Gnostics, having some information of what was clone by the Christians, used, m imitation thereof, actually to put to death and devour a new-born infant in their profane rites. A similar confirmation is drawn from the practice of the Valentinian Mark, who in order to counterfeit the Chris- tian sacrifice, was accustomed to infuse, by some juggling trick, a red substance into the wine in the chalice, which he then pretended had become blood. This, which I re- peat was meant to be an imitation of the mystery, sup- posed to be performed in the Christian temples, is a proof, that, in the earliest times, some change of substance was sup- posed to take place upon the Christian altars, even by those who could not entirely penetrate into the secrecy that was observed. I contend, then, that this discipline is a strong- argument for us ; because there v/as 7io motive that could have induced the Christians to affect such secrecy, if they "believed the Protestant doctrine ; but there was the strongest motive if they believed the Catholic doctrine. In the latter case they would apprehend that scandal might result from the revelation of so incomprehensible a mys- tery, and that foul Uasphemies would be vented against it by the Pagans of early times, such as are uttered daily by those icho now attach it. Accordingly, we actually do find these two reasons assigned by the early Christians, among the motives they had for observing secret their belief in the mystery of the Altar. St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, in his sixth catechetical discourse, p. 106. Paris, 1720, says *' We make use of obscure expressions before the catechumens^ in order that those who are not instructed may not he injured by them." The synod of Alexandria, held in 340, speaks thus : " It is not lawful openly to disclose ihe m3'steries to the uninitated, lest through ignorance they ahould ridicule them, and lest the catechumens should happen to be scandalized by an indiscreet curiosity." In his seventh book against Julian the Apostate, above quoted, St. Cyril writes — •' That he would have been afraid of being understood by the uninitiated, be- cause," said he, " people genertdly ridicule what they do not understand, and ignorant persons, not aware of the weakness of their own minds, despise what they should must of all admire." I have before me other passages to the same effect, which I might adduce, and vfhich clearly establish that the Discipline of the Secret regarded the mysteries of the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass, which were con- cealed sedulously in the primitive Churcli. Now, as I have more than once observed, had it held the Protestant 380 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day. doctrine, the primitive Church could have had no motive for such conceahiient. What could be more satisfactory than to challenge the Pagans to inspect their assemblies. " In the mysteries which we celebrate," they might have said, " you will find nothing but a morsel of bread, and a little wine, given to be eaten and to be drank, as figures merely of Jesus Christ, whose flesh and blood we eat and drink hy faith only.'' But you have heard a very different language held by the holy Fathers. I now pass to the principal point of this controversy, — the discussion of Avhich 1 thought it necessary to defer, because I considered it quite essential that I should establish, in the first place, the doctrine of the real presence ; or, as the advocates of the other side choose to call it, the bodily presence of Christ. What is meant by the term sacrifice ? Of this we have various definitions given us by Protestants. I shall, at present, refer only to that which is put forward by Me- lancthon, in his " Apology for the Confession of Augs- burgh" : — " Opus quod Deo reddimus, ut eum lionore afficiamus: — any service which we render to God, that we may honour him." Now, I object, and the gentlemen on the other side ought to object, to this definition of Sacrifice ; for it is proved to be incorrect by the written word of God in the Prophet Hosea, chap. vi. verse 6 — • " 1 desired mercif, and not sacrifice." Here, mercy is opposed to sacrifice, and yet mercy is a w^ork whereby we honour God. Other Protestants have considered a sacrifice to be every good icork we do, because occasionally we find in Scripture such works called Sacrifices ; but you will always see appended thereto some term w^hich distinguishes them from a real sacrifice. They are sacrifices of praise^ or sacrifices of a troubled spirity (fee, and not simply sacrifices. Protestants have objected to us also a passage in the 10th book of St. Augustin De Civitate Dei, where he says — " Every good work is a true sacrifice." But he did not intend to define what constituted the essential difference of sacrifice, but only what makes a sacrifice acceptable. Every good work is " a true," that is, an agreeable sacrifice ; but as yet we have not arrived at a proper definition of a real sacrifice. A sacrifice, ac- cording to the idea given us by the Holy Scriptures under the law of nature and of Moses, may be accurately defined : Mr. Browns Twelfth Speech, 381 " The oblation of a sensible thing, consecrated by a mystical rite, with some change of the victim, and presented to God alone by his legitimate minister in acknowledgment of his supreme power over all creatures." The matter of a sacrifice must, therefore, be something- sensible, in order to unite men in public worship ; and it must be consecrated by a mystical rite, whereby that which before was profane is made sacred, according to the derivation of the term Sacrifice from two Latin words — sacrum facere. Now, we contend that we have on our altars such a real sacrifice ; that of which I laid before you yesterday a correct exposition in certain extracts from Catholic writers, and which, on account of the great importance of the subject, I think it necessary to repeat in this place : — " Our Saviour," writes the author of Roman Catholic Principles, " in leav- ing to us his body and blood, under two distinct species or kinds, instituted not only 2i Sacrament, but also vl Sacrifice ; a commemorative sacrifice, distinctly shewing his passion and death until He come. For as the Sacfifice of the Cross was performed by a distinct effusion of his blood, so is that sacrifice com- memorated in this of the altar by a distinction of the symhols. Jesus, there- fore, is here given not only to us, but for us ; and the Church is thereby en- riched with a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice, usually termed the Mass : propitiatory we say, because representing in a lively manner, the passion and death of our Lord, it is peculiarly pleasing to our eternal Father, and tlnis more effectually applies to us the all-su^fficient merits of the Sacrifice of the Cross." Bossuet in the 14th section of his " Exposition of Ca- tholic Doctrine," thus expresses himself: — " The Church is so far from believing, that any thing i& wanting to the Sa- crifice of the Cross, that she deems it, on the contrary, so perfectly and so fullq sufficient, that whatever is afterwards added, has been instituted to celebrate its memory, and to apply its virtue. We acknowledge, that all the merit of the re- demption of mankind is derived /rom the death of the Son of God ; when, therefore, in the celebration of the divine mysteries, we say : We offer thee this holy victim ; we pretend not by this oblation, to make or to present to God a new payment of the price of our salvation ; but to offer to him, in our behalf, the merits of Jesus Christ present, and that infinite price which he once paid for ?ts upon the cross." This is the correct representation of the Catholic doctrine by which we should be judged, and I request you not to regard those different notions that are oftentimes mali- ciously imputed to us. In proof that this Sacrifice of the Mass is the true Christian sacrifice, I call your attention to the prophecy of Malachi, chap. i. verse 10, 1 1 — " T have no pleasure in you saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles : and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure oflfering." Now, observe here, first, the rejection of all ancient sa- crifices, " I have no pleasure in you saith the Lord of 382 Downside Discussion, — Fifth Day. Hosts, neither will I accept cm offering at your hands. Observe, secondly, the prediction of a new sacrifice which is to take place of the ancient sacrifices. " From the rising of the sun even unto the going dovv'n of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles ; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering." Observe, in the third place, the universality of this sacrifice, '■^ from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place, Sfc." Attend also I request you to the force of the terms employed in this magnificent prediction — " in every place incense shall be offered unto my name." In the Hebrew text it is Quether, signifying, according to Parkhurst, either incense, or sacrifice. The term rendered here " a true oblation," is in the Hebrew Minehah or Mincha, signifying any off'ering or victim, but, as Parkhurst says, usually signifying an offering com- posed of the finest flour. Now, in the exercise of our judgment, these characteristics of the future sacrifice are fulfilled in the sacrifice of our altars only ; and are not fulfilled either in the sacrifice of the cross, or in any other kind of sacrifice, which has existed in the Christian dis- pensation. First, the matter of the sacrifice, Minehah or Mincha, expresses in its literal and more usual meaning, an oblation formed of the finest flour , such as is the visible and external matter of the sacrifice of our altars. Se- condly, in the sacrifice of our altars, we have a victim far superior to anything that was off*ered among the ancient sacrifices. Thirdly, in the sacrifice of our altars is ful- filled that part of the prediction ^^ from the rising of the sun until the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles ; and in every place incense shall be off'ered to my name, and a pure off'ering ;" the Catholic sacrifice being celebrated at every hour of the day, ac- cording to the diff'erence of latitudes in the Christian world. For as the Catholic religion is the religion of the Christian globe, and its members constitute the largest portion of "believers beyond all comparison, its Sacrifice may be truly said to be offered, " from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same." Those characteristics predicted by Malachi, to be ful- filled in the Christian sacrifice, are not fulfilled in the sacrifice of the Cross ; therefore the sacrifice of the Cross was not the sacrifice predicted by that Prophet. First, the sacrifice predicted by Malachi is to be in every place. 3/r. Browns Twelfth Speech. S^ Now, we well know that the sacrifice of the Cross was offered but in one place, upon Mount Calvary. The second circumstance of the sacrifice predicted by Malachi is, that it shall '* be offered from the rising of the sun till the SToino^ down of the same." — Now the sacrifice of the Cross has neither been offered in every place, nor was it offered ** from the rising of the sun to its going down," but it con- tinued only from the sixth hour, that is mid-day, until the ninth hour. Thirdly, the sacrifice of Malachi is to be offered amongst the Gentiles ; " my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place," &c. The Sacrifice of the Cross did not take place among the Gentiles, but in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Therefore, I repeat, the circumstances foretold are fulfilled in the Sacrifice of our altars, and not in the Sacrifice of the Cross. Neither are those characteristics of the predicted Sacri- fice fulfilled in a commemorative Sacrifice of the Cross, as many Protestants have imagined : I speak of a mere com- memoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross, by faith or figure only ; for ojirs is a commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross, but containing in reality the victim thereon offered. First, the sacrifice spoken of here, in the words of the text implies a real, true, and substantial sacrifice. The term Minehah, or Mincha, implies most distinctly a real oblation, and not an oblation in figure only. Secondly, in the old law were mang figures of the Sacrifice of the Cross, not less expressive thereof, nay, in some re- spects, even more so than any commemorative sacri- fice among Protestants in the new law ; for example the sacrifice of the paschal lamb. Yet it is said in the 10th verse that the Lord had "no pleasure in them, nei- ther would he accept an offering at their hands." Thirdly, a mere figurative sacrifice would not deserve the high encomiums passed, by the prophet, upon the sacrifice which he foretels. Fourthly, in the Protestant Church / am unable to discover ang public sacrifice, even such as is commemorative merely. In your Common Prayer Book, I find it related indeed that Christ did offer a sacri- fice. I find, too, in the invocation upon the bread, the words of Christ pronounced, "This is my body;" — but I find no form of offering to God that which is placed upon tlie Protestant tables as a sacrifice commemo- rative, even, of the Sacrifice on the Cross. Hence a very celebrated Protestant, Dr. Grabe, was so dissatisfied with the Litargy of the Established Church, which he confessed 384 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day. did not contain the sacrifice announced by the Prophet, and whereof he discovered splendid proofs in the prac- tices of Christian antiquity, that from the ancient liturgies he extracted a different form of worship, including a real oblation and sacrifice, which he introduced into his system . Lastly, this sacrifice predicted by the prophet is not fulfilled by any sacrifice of good works, as other Protes- tants have maintained. First, this is to be a pure oblation ; good works, as the 12th of the 39 Articles says, are not in every respect pure. Secondly, this is to take place of the unclean sacrifice of Jews ; but the Jews could perform S07ne good icorhs. Thirdly, it is to be accompanied hy incense. This the Reverend gentlemen opposite will be disposed to explain figuratively, as they did the words of the institution ; but exercising my judgment, as they authorise " every meanest outcast of society" to do, upon the meaning of the sacred text, to me it appears too em- phatical to be employed figuratively. Fourthly, the term Minehah, or Mincha, expresses, as I have again and again said, a true and real oblation. From all these cir- cumstances I argue that the sacrifice predicted by the Prophet is not the Sacrifice of the Cross — that it is not a mere figurative commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross — that it is not the sacrifice of ^ooc? icorks only — therefore, it remains that it should be the sacrifice of the Catholic Church : for this is the only sacrifice which combines all the characteristics applied by the Prophet to the sacrifice he foretells. Such is the result of our interpretation of Scripture. Now, as these gentlemen give out that " every meanest outcast of society is commanded by God to exercise his private judgment upon the meaning of the sacred text," I contend that they are not justified in inter- fering with what they assert to be a Divine command — that there is an inconsistency in their coming forward to force upon us their new system of religion, different from that "we have so long held. I maintain that by their principles we are justified in our interpretation, and they are not justified in attempting to interfere with our belief. 1 go on to a second proof, borrowed from Ps. ex. 4. " The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec ;' which words are in Hebrews x. 24. applied to Christ. In the exercise of my judgment 1 might rest upon this proof; but on the present occasion 1 shall not dwell upon it, not Mr. Tottenham s Eleventh Speech, 085 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 im- press 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 oj his speech, he has scarcely glanced at a single argument that had been adduced in my address ! Mr. Edgeworth says that I expounded the passages cited on this question in one way, and that Roman Ca- tholics expound them in another ; and he tells us it is a painful spectacle to see men differ in the interpre- tation 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 quota- tions (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, / could easily occupy my three-quarters of an hour in giving passages from the Fathers of the Church against the doc- trine of Transubstantiation. I believe it would be found, upon a full and accurate examination, that the doctrine was perfectly iinknown in the early ages, and to the really primitive Fathers ; however, suppose the Rev. Gentleman and myself were 7io%o 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 com- plains? He says there exists a difliculty, 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 / quote another Father appearing to give a different inter- pretation ; 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 386 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day. 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 endea- vours 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 compli- cated a system as that of the Church of Rome, he should all atonce see the truth in all its purity and glory. It was natural that the casting off of error should be gradual, and thei-e- fore several of the earl]/ 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 be- cause 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 ice are in a difficulty because Luther differed from us some- what on this subject, what will our friends opposite think of the difficulty in which they are placed, when they recol- lect that many of the Divines in their Church have differed with them, being compelled at last to confess the fact that Transubstantiation ivas not to he jwovecl from Scripture ; and have taken refuge in some other authority whereby to prove this doctrine. Let us select a few in- stances. Cardinal Cameracensis says : — " Transubstantiation cannot be proved from Holy Writ." Cardinal Cajetan declares: — •' There does not appear out of the Gospel ayiy thing to compel us to under- stand these ivords literally, namely, ' This is my body :' and truly that presence in the Sacrament, which the Church holds, cannot be proved from these words of Chi-ist unaided by the declaration of the Church," — See Bishop Cosin's " History of Transubstantiation," jfor 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 : — Mr. Tottenham s Eleventh Speech. 387 "-" For Scotus, whom Cameracensis follows, says three things. * * * He says, secondly, that there is no passage in Scripture so express as evidently to compel the admission of Transubsta7itiation without the declaration oj the Church.'^ Then follows Bellarmine's comment — " And this is not wholly improbable; for although the Scripture ahove cited seems to us sufficiently clear to convince any man who is not self-willed, yet whetlier this be so may well be doubted, seeing that the 7nost learned and keen- sighted men, stick as more purticularly was Scotus, think differently." — Bell, de Sac. Euch. lib. 3. c. 23. Here we have Roman Catholic divmes admitting that Transiibstantiation 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 empha- sis 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 Avish to impress upon the minds of those present the authority o/swcA 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 error — there 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, T 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 1 should not hesitate so much as I would at the present moment, but I confess, after a 388 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day. knowledge of what we have heard to-day, I should hesi- tate very considerably. You have listelaed to Mr. Lyons whilst quoting from a book, whose authority is indisputa- ble, namely, the Missal ; and you have seen that (even supposing we were to admit the doctrine of Transubstan- tiation 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 dovv^n 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 want- ing— if there be defects in any of these points, the testi- mony of the Roman Missal is, that in none of those cases is the consecration valid, and of course there takes place no Transuhstantiation. Therefore, I say, icith the liability to such defects and contingencies as these, even if 1 believed Transuhstantiation abstractedly, I should hesitate much about falling down to adore the elements. A considerable portion of time has been occupied in producing extracts fiom the Fathers. Mr. Edgevvorth 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 Tran- suhstantiation. For, be it observed, the passages cited from the Fathers which merely c«/Z the elements " the body and blood of Christy" which merely iLse the terms '•' flesh and blood," do not prove the doctrine. We have no hesitation in using just the same terms as Justin Martyr and Igna- tius do ; and, as you heard before, we employ, in the Communion Service of the Church of England, the ex- pression, " 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 Transuhstantiation ; for they are but the echo of Scrip- ture, 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 })een made to, I rnust say, a most unfor- tunate 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 Mr. Tottenham s Eleventh Speech. 389 true faith, and the latter of the Eutychian heresy), as con- tained in the writings of Theodoret, we read thus : — " Orthodoxus. Tell me, now, the mystical sijinbols, which are offered to God by the priests, of what are they the siimbols! — Eranistes. Of the body and blood of the Lord. — Orthod. Of his true body or not? — Krun. 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' iavocation. — Orthod, This must not be said openly ; for some may be present who are not initiated.— Eran. Answer, then, in hidden terras. — Orthod. We call it an aliment made of certain grains. — Eran. And how do you tall the other symbol? — Orthod. We give it a name that denotes a certain beverage. — Eran. And after the con- secration 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 Transub- stantiation ? 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 exist- ence of them. And in the latter part, that is merely said, which every Protestant admits (as I told you a few mi- nutes ago), that after consecration the elements are called the body and blood of Christ, but not that they are actu- ally 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 i^erverts 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 diffe- rent 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 sub- stance." 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 7neaning 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 (oVffiag), AND SHAPE, AND 090 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day. AVPEARANCE : AND THEY MAY BE SEEN AND FELT JUST AS THEY WEUE BEFOUE CONSECRATION."— Theod. Dial. Opera, vol. iv. p. 84, 85. Lutetiae Paris. 1642. Such, you perceive, is the testimony of Theodoret him- self, that the elements continue, after their consecration, in their original substance, form, and appearance. Sir, I do not wish to occupy my time in referring at large to the Fathers, when I have more important branches of evidence to adduce ; but as ^^Z5 passage is generally deemed one of considerable moment, I have referred to it at some length in order to shew, first, that even so far as it was quoted by my opponent it does not prove any thing for Transubstantiation ; and, secondly, that when the con- tinuation of it is given, it proves directly the reverse. Here I rnay take leave of Mr. Edge worth for the pre- sent, and direct my attention to the observations of Mr. Brown. You will remember that, on ^previous occasion, he had charged me with putting weapons into the hands of Socinians and infidels by the line of argument adopted against Transubstantiation. In reference to this statement, while I endeavoured to point out its futility, I retorted by charging him with doing the same, more extensively and truly, in the discussion on the Rule of Faith. And how does he attempt to evade this retort 1 He asserts that the eases are not parallel, because I do not rest my argument, in the latter instance, on the fact of the Rule of Faith being a mystery, whereas he says his doctrine of Transub- stantiation is a mystery. When attempting to establish this want of parallelism, he might have recollected what had been more than once affirmed on our side, that if by this he means a revealed mystery, he is proceeding altoge- ther on a j^etitio princijni — a begging of the question. He is assumhig that Transubstantiation is revealed, which is just the 2^oint that we dispute. Upon the passages, " This (i. e. the hair) is Jerusalem"— " It is the Lord's Passover"— and others of a similar kind, I shall dwell no longer, for we have rung changes enough upon those parallelisms ; and we may leave to the meeting and to the public at large to judge on which side truth and consistency lies with regard to them. But Mr. Brown seems to rejoice at the apparent triumph he gains, because Mr. Faber and others have thrown the arguments from reason overboard, and he wishes we pos- sessed the candour of those Protestant divines. This, after all, makes very little for the question itself, nor does it Mr. Tottenham's Eleventh Speech. 391 much affect our candour. It is only the private opinion of a few individuals, setting aside a particular line of argu- ment, the force or weakness of which is of course to be judged of hy all before whom it comes. I would notice, however, more particularly one passage quoted from Clarke, '' On the Being and Attributes of God."— (/See quotation at length in Mr. Broions last speech.) — Observe accurately the wording of it : — " When once any propositionis demonstrated to be true, it ought not to disturb us that there maj be perplexing difficulties on the other side, &c. &c. But when to demonstration on the one side, there are opposed on the other only diffi- culties raised from our want of having adequate ideas of the things themselves, this ought not to be esteemed an objection of any real weight." Wh}^ Sir, that is just what I have said from the beginning. I stated, (pp. 31 1, 312, and 339) that if once the doctrine of Tran substantiation could be clearly deynonstrated from Scriptui^e, then we should give up all other arguments. I said, in speaking of the objections from reason, that, while we would not argue against a doctrine from reason in the first instance, nor reject it because it was myste- rious, it was yet fair to use such objections when we had first proved to our oivn satisfaction that the doctrine was not in Scripture ; and this is just the course we adopted. Just now I caught Mr. Edgeworth in giving only a por- tion of a passage from Theodoret which (as he supposed) suited his purpose, and now, with respect to one from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, I have detected Mr. Brown in a simi- lar proceeding. The latter gentleman calls our attention to Cyril's catechetical lectures, and in reference to the secrecy observed in the primitive Church, he endeavours to prove that the doctrine of the bodily presence was the grand secret of the mysteries. Now I before asserted that it was not. I did not, indeed, affirm that the Trinity was the only secret, but that it was the grand secret of the ancient mysteries. Look, however, at the passage Mr. Brown quoted. He began his citation thus — (see p. 379, 1st quotation : — " Neither yet do we openly speak concerning them (that is, the mysteries) to the Catechumens ; but we often speak many things covertly ; in order that the faithful, who know them, may understand us, and in order that the Cate- chumens who maybe ignorant of them may not be injured." This is, I believe, the same passage, though the transla- tion happens to be a little different. Now what are the words that immediately jwecede it ? *' These mysteries," says St. Cyril, " the Church communicates to him who is quitting the class of the Catechumens. For it is not customary to reveal them to tlie heathens : nor do we propound to a heathen the mysteries concern- ing THE Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.'* 392 Downside Discussion. — Fifih Day, You perceive, therefore, that it was the mystery of the Trinity to which Cyril referred, as being, at least, the principal subject of secrecy ; and when he had spoken what I have quoted, he then proceeds in the language which Mr. Brown adduced. Mr. Brown attempts to establish the fact of Transub- stantiation being held in the early Church, by referring to the charges made against the primitive Christians of their being in the habit of putting to death an infant, and de- vouring literal flesh and blood. He thinks they must have believed in the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, else there would have been no foundation for such a charge. This charge, I reply, might have originated in a misapprehension aud perversion of the doctrine of the Eucharist as held hy Protestants, seeing the elements were called (as by Protestants) the body and blood of Christ, as well as from the fact of Transubstantiation being literally liekL However, if we follow out the circumstance alluded to in its historical details, we shall see that so far from establishing Mr. B.'s position, it proves decidedly that the early Church did 7«oif believe in Transubstantiation. I shall give you the statement of this charge made upon the primi- tive Christians, and their answer, from a fragment of Irenasus which has been preserved by CEcumenius : — " The Pagans, wishing to ascertain the secret ceremonial of the Christians, apprehended their slaves and put them to the torture. Impatient of die pain, and having nothing- to tell \v\\\c\\ mi^ht i)lease their tormentors, the slaves, v/ho had heard their masters say that the Kucharist was the body and blood of Christ, forthwith communicated this circumstance. \V hereupon the tormentors, fancying that it was literal blood and flesh which was served up in the myste- ries of the Christians, hastened to inform the other Pagans. These imme- diately apprehended the martyrs, Sanctas aud Blandina, and endeavoured to extort from them a confession of the deed. But Blundina readily and boldlij answered, How can tJiose who through piety abstain even from lawful food, be capable of perpetrating the actions which you allege against them?" — Iren. apud (Ecum.in 1 Pet. ii. 12. Here is the statement of the charge in tlie words of Ire- noeus ; but when the martyrs were brought forward, and the charge preferred in their hearing, theg positively denied its truth. This they could not have done ivith strict vera- city if they believed that Christ's body and blood were substantially present in the Eucharist ; therefore I con- clude that their denied of the charge, ivhen thus made in connection with the celebration of the Eucharist, involves the fact that they could not have believed in Transubstayitia- tlon. At last, Sir, Mr. Brown has ventured to approach the Mr. Tottenham s Eleventh Speech. 393 Sacrifice of the Mass ; so that we have, during almost the entire of two days out of three, been engaged (so far, at least, as the opjwsite side is concerned), in what may be called preliminary matter! Mr. Edgewortli complained of my having constantly reproved our opponents for not coming to the Sacrifice of the Mass, w^iich I asserted was the main point of discussion. I do say that it is the main point of discussion, and therefore it was not to be expected that it should have been deferred so long ; for, though it is true that the onus rested on the other side to prove Transuhstantiation, and though, without such proof, they could not really succeed in establishing the Mass, yet you will recollect what I said in my last address (p. 341.) — that even were I to grant Transuhstantiation to he true^ I should still contend against, and strenuously object to^ the Saci'i- fice of the Mass. We mighty therefore, have had the subject sooner, but, 1 suppose, we must be satisfied that it has come to light at last. My Rev. opponent has given us a definition of the term sacj-ijlce^ according to his view^ of it, and he has also re- stated the doctrine of the Church of Rome, as put forth by certain Roman Catholic writers. With respect to his defi- nition of sacrifice I cannot admit it as an accurate one. First of all, it is said to be *' the ohlation of a sensible thing," and therefore the definition is 7iot comjwehensive enough for the idea of sacrifice in general ; for though the term is primarily applied to literal sacrifices, yet it is often- times (as we shall see) applied to merely spiritual services, which would not be included by such a definition as Mr. B. has given. And then, secondly, even as a definition of a literal sacrifice it is not accurate, for it speaks only in a vague manner of " so7ne change of the victim ;" whereas I have already shown you that, in a literal sacrifice, there must be the actual destruction of the victim. While, there- fore, in the definition of a literal sacrifice we would con- sider (as my opponent has said) the *' matter as something seyisihle, '' ^wdi also declare, not merely " som£ change" but the destruction of the victim, yet in the definition of sacri- fice in general, as including literal and spiritual sacrifices, that given by Melancthon seems to be accurate and com- prehensive.— (See Mr. B.'s speech, p. 380.^ — Nor does Mr. B.'s objection to it from the passage in Hosea apply, because mercy there is not opposed to sacrifice in general, but to literal sacrifice, as the latter part of the verse (where the term " burnt-offering" occurs) declares. The meaning of the expression is, that God desired a spiritual service, or 394 Downside Discussion, — Fifth Day, the service of the heart, and not merely the service of external and literal sacrifice. Requesting you to hear in mind the arguments I have already adduced against the Mass, especially from the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and begging you also to remem- ber not merely Mr, B's definition of the Mass, given by Roman Catholic individuals {see p. 381), but also mine, given from Roman Catholic documents (seep. 318, 319, and 342), I shall now read the passage from Malachi, in which members of the Church of Rome affect to find the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is contained in the 1st chapter, 10th and 1 1th verses : — " I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts : and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is g-reat among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to ray name a clean oblation : for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hosts." Now Mr. Brown, in making use of this passage, rests mainly on the universality of the off'ering spoken of, and on the force of the terms emj)loyed. He has given a variety of reasons why the sacrifice mentioned cannot have refer- ence to that of the cross, which I am at once willing to grant; and he likewise contends that it cannot refer to merely spiritual sacrifices, by whatever name they may be called, which I beg leave to dispute. I shall now investigate this portion of Scripture, and you will perceive my business is to show that it does not of necessity apply to the Sacrifice of the Mass. I. Mr. Brown rests on the term '' sacrifice'^ (as it is translated in the Roman Catholic version), or " incense" (as it is in the Protestant), as intimating a literal sacrifice, which, inasmuch as it cannot be that of the cross, must, he says, be that of the Mass. Now Mr, B.'s part is to prove that it must refer to the Mass ; whereas, if 1 prove that it 7nay not^ I shall have done sufficient. I contend, then, that we have no right to argue from the simple use of the term sacrifice in this passage that it must mean the sacrifice of the Mass. This would be a most extraordinary conclu- sion. I remember in other places of Scripture (and Mr. Brown has hinted at this), that prayer is called a sacrifice — that praise is called a sacrifice — that a " broken and contrite spirit," and that the bodies of believers, devoted to the service of God, are said to be sacrifices to God. How do we therefore stand ? If Mr. Brown contends that, be- cause the word sacrifice is used in this passage, it must of necessity medin the Sacrifice of the Mass, upon the very Mr, Tottenhams Eleventh Speech, 395 same principle I might argue that prayer was the Sacrifice of the Mass — that praise was the Sacrifice of the Mass — • and that the bodies of believers constituted the Sacrifice of the Mass ; for all these things are called sacrifices as well as the offering spoken of in the passage of Malachi. It is impossible, therefore, to deduce a positive argument in favour of the Sacrifice of the Mass, simply from the use of the term sacrifice, seeing that that term is applied to many other things in Scripture beside literal sacrifices. II. Let us come to the other expression, ** a clean oblation,'' or a " pure off'ering," as it is in the Protestant Bible. Mr. Brown thinks this also proves the Sacrifice of the Mass ; but looking at the term I contend that it does not necessarily prove literal sacrifice at all. Until, therefore, Mr. Brown demonstrates that the word is confined to the notion of a literal sacrifice (and not merely that such is its usual signification, even if that were the case), he has manifestly proved nothing to the purpose, for as long as the word mag have another signification, his argument for a literal sacrifice derived from it cannot be conclusive. On the other hand, if I can show you that the term is posi- tively applied to other things besides literal sacrifices, then I shall have sufficiently invalidated my opponent's argu- ment that the term must of necessity apply to the Mass. Look, then, at the 66th chapter of Isaiah, and you will read thus in part of the 1 9th and 20th verses : — ** And they shall declare my glory to the Gentiles : and they shall bring all your brethren out of all nations/or a gift to the Lord," &c. The word which is here translated a gift (and which ma- nifestly means a simple offering, or dedication, and not a literal sacrifice), is the same term which is translated obla- tion in Malachi ; and this proves that the term is not con- fined to the idea of a literal sacrifice, but that sometimes it simply signifies a gift or an offerifig. III. The fact of universality spoken of in the text does not prove that it has reference to the Sacrifice of the Mass, for although Mr. B. has boasted of the extent of Roman Catholicism, that sacrifice has never yet been (but much the contrary, if you consider the great extent of Hea- thenism) universal, and I may venture to add, as my own opinion, that it never will be. IV. Thus we see that my Rev. antagonist hasbynomeans positive proof that this passage refers to the Mass, for I have shown you that at least it 7nay be otherwise. Now, 396 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Daij. in a disputation, the individual who supports the 'nega- tive, does quite enough if he shows that his adversary has not established his point. He is not called upon, unless he pleases, to produce affirmative arguments. Since, therefore, I have pointed out that this passage does not necessarily support the Mass, I am not called on to point out what it does support. However, I may ob- serve, before I leave the consideration of it, that I think it refers to spiritual sacrifices^ by whatever different names they may be called. Most of Mr. B.'s objections to this view will find an answer in substance, though not in form, in what 1 have already stated. I would only add, that, according to the language of this passage, those spiritual services may well be called sacrifices, for they are often so called in Scripture (as I have sliown) — they may well be called a clean oblation or offeriiig, for although in them- selves (as Mr. Brown says of good works) they are not pure, yet, in every sincere believer in Christ, they are accepted not in themselves, but perfumed and purified by the Redeemer's merit, which is " the altar that sanctifies the gift" — and such spiritual sacrifices also accord well with the language of the prophecy, that ihey shall be offered " in every j^fece;" for we know that the time is coming when " the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.'' V. I v/ould only observe further with respect to this pas- sage (as we have heard a great deal to-day about the Fa- thers, and as our opponents lay such stress on their autho- rity), that I have before me several quotations from the Fathers, commenting on, or introducing, this passage, and giving the very same interpretation as Protestants give. For example, Tertullian, when writing against Marcion, says, — " In the Church the Lord God is blessed : as the propliet Malachi expresses it, ' In all places a pure oiFering ;' namely, gl>^rifiiiiig arid blessing him uHth prayers and hymns, A pure oftering, as Malachi says, is an honest prayer from a pure conscience." — Cont. JMarc. lib, 3. Such was Tertullian's mode of understanding the pas- sage. Theodoret, whose name has been already men- tioned to-day, says, in commenting on this chapter : — " By incense and pure offering we are to understand the knowledge and wor- ship of God, as our Lord said to the woman of Samaria, (John iv. '23.) ' But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall uorship the Father inspirit and in truth.' And the Apostle (t Tim. ii. 8.) ' 1 will there- fore that men praq every uhe re, lifting up holv hands, without wrath or doubt- ing.' "— Theod. in Mai. i. 10. Mr. Tottenham's Eleventh Speech. 897 I have several other quotations to the same effect, but I shall give only one short extract more from Jerome, for I do not think the testimony absolutely essential, and only advert to it briefly, in order to shew that, tver^e it really necessary to produce it, we are not so destitute of this species of testimony as our opponents would pretend, Jerome says, when giving his comment on this passage : — " The Propliet teaches that the prayers of holy men should be offered to the Lord, not only in the single province of Judea, to which the sacrifices were confined, but in every place." — Jerom.in Mai. i. 10, 11. Here he interprets the passage as speaking of the prayers of holy men . The prophecy of Malachi is the only portion of Scrip- ture that has been as yet adduced by Mr. Brown in defence of the Sacrifice of the Mass. He hinted at ano- ther just before he sat down, but had not time to bring it out in form. We shall therefore look anxiously for some additional proof to-morrow. When I last spoke, I produced a number of passages, especially from the Epistle to the Hebrews, which seemed to me to overthrow this doctrine of the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass. I think I closed my address with the consideration of the opening of the 10th chapter of that Epistle, where the Apostle argues that the repeti- tion or continuation of a sacrifice argued its imp>erfection, Sfc. Therefore I maintained that the existence of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which is called, "a true, proper^ and pro- pitiatory sacrifice," practically argued the insufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, and argued, in addition thereto, its oicn insuflticiency. Now, Sir, I shall call your attention to the same chapter at the 10th verse : — '' In the which will (the will of God) we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once." I request you to mark again in this place what I so fre- quently adverted to, namely, the remarkable fact that the Apostle, all through this Epistle, is constantly using the term once, as if to guard against the possibility of any thing starting up in the primitive Church, or in future ages, like a repetition or continuation of the Sacrifice on Calvary. Farther, in the 11th and following verses we read : — " And every priest (i. e. of the Levitical dispensation) indeed standeth daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins : but this man (Jesus) offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God ; from henceforth expecting until his enemies be made his footstool. For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." 398 Downside Discussion. — Fifth Day, Observe here, 1st, the contrast that is drawn between the offering of Christ and that of the Jewish priests. The)' stood " dailT/ ministering (my friends, there are others to whom this description is strikingly applicable) and often offering the same sacrifices, which could never take away sin." Bat on the contrary it is said of Christ, '' This man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God ; from henceforth expecting until his enemies be made his footstool." 2ndly. Take notice of the reason why he offered hut one sacrifice, and did not ordain a continuation of it. It is found in the simple fact of the perfection of the one that he had offered: — "For hj one oblation" — nothing about continuation or repetition — '' he hd^ih perfected" — and has he perfected for a time only ? No — but *' he hath per- fected for ever them that are sanctified." If then. Sir, the testimony of the Bible thus comes to me, and tells me that Christ has offered one sacrifice for sin — and that by this one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified — shall I be engaged in ministering, as the Jewish priests of old, in the offering up of a repetition or con- tinuation of that sacrifice, or shall I not rather take refuge with my whole heart in the one offering which alone can bring peace and pardon to my soul ? There is one more passage that t shall cite from this chapter, the 18th verse : — " Now where there is a remission of these (that is, sins, for in the previous verse it is declared ' their sins and iniquities I will remember no more') THERE IS NO MORE AN OBLATION FOR SIN." We find there is remission of sin even for the guiltiest in the atonement and satisfaction of Christ. Yes, what- ever be the plans that human wisdom and ingenuity could devise, the testimony of God stands still firm and immutable, that " the blood of Jesus Christ CLEANSETH FROM ALL SIN," 1 Johll i. 7- If SO, the Apostle tells us " there is no more an oblation for SIN.'* Where then, I ask, is the Scriptural authority for the sacrifice offered up continually in this Chapel, and in other places in the different quarters of the globe ? I shall not dwell further on the subject to-llay, but shall conclude with expressing my earnest prayer that the Lord may lead each one of you into the acknowledgment and belief of " the truth as it is in Jesus." Sixth Day. — Friday, March 1th, 1834. SUBJECT : THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS (continued). TfiE Chairman took his seat at the usual hour. The Rev. T. J. Brown. Mr. Chairman; Ladies and Gentlemen, — I have to resume my address to you by an exposure either of had faith on the part of the champions of Protestantism, or of ignorance. You may recollect that yesterday Mr. Lyons cited from " The Apostolical Constitutions,'' a prayer addressed to priests at the time of their ordination, from the language of which prayer he directed you to conclude, that the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass was not held at the time when those Constitutions were written. 1 have the Apostolical Constitutions before me, in Cote- lerius's edition of the " Patres Apostolici," and shall quote from the same prayer, p. 407. The Rev. Gentleman read the ^r^^ part of the prayer; I wish to call his atten- tion to its last part, observing that he ought to have quoted the whole prayer if he intended any except a mere captious argument to be brought from it, against the Catholic doctrine. The conclusion of the prayer is in these words — " Grant, O Lord, that he (the newly ordained priest) may serve thee with a pure mind and willing soul, and that, through thy Christ, he may accomplish immaculate sacrifices for the people." Ta^ vTTsp rov Xaov itpovpyiag aixojfiovg t/creXy. The Greek text is as decisive as any thing that Mr. Lyons can require. Moreover, in order to establish yet more decisively, that in the Apostolical Constitutions occur the terms obla- tion and sacrifice, and that they are therein expressed as clearly as in our Ritual of these times, I appeal to " the Invocation at the Ordination of the Bishops," in chap. 400 Downside JDiscussion. — Sixth Day. V. book viii. A little beyond the middle of that chapter I find in the prayer offered for the Bishop at the time of Consecration, the following words : — " May he be pleasing to tliee in meekness and clean heart, contiiniallu, blamelessly, and irreprehensibly, offering vp to thee the pure and unhloodii Sacrifice, which, through Christ, thou hast appointed, the Mystery of the New Testament." — Kadapav Kai avaijxaKTOV Qvaiav — ro jUWffr?;piov T)]q kchvijq I might refer Mr. L. to another place in the Aposto- lical Constitutions, respecting the duty of priests. In the 4th book, chap. 20th, at the concluding part of the chapter, are these words : — ** Let the priest teach, offar, baptize, and bless the people." You now, 1 trust, think with me, that Mr. Lyons ought to have read to the end of that chapter, from which he affected to quote against us. These " Apostolical Consti- tutions," I should observe, are works of very great anti- quity. They were not written, it is true, by the Apostles, but are certainly of very early origin. They profess to contain the doctrines delivered by tradit on in the first ages of Christianity, and were committed to writing so soon as the cessation of " the Discipline of the Secret" permitted that tho forms of the sacred rites might be published. I regret to say, that I have a somewhat similar re- proach, of unfair quotations, to make against Mr. Totten- ham. He had previously told us, that Fathers were op- posed to Fathers, and my reply has been, and still is, that neither were the Fathers opposed to each other on points of Catholic belief, nor to us, in any of those matters where we differ from the Protestants of the present day. Mr. Tottenham did, however, adduce passages from some of the Fathers, to show that they rejected the explanation I gave of the prediction of Malachi. He first quoted Tertullian from his 3rd book against Marcion. The pas- sage occurs, hov/ever, in the 4th book ; not that this is a mistake of much consequence except to myself, as it occa- sioned me to lose a large portion of my time in endeavour- ing to discover the quotation in the original. It occurs in the 1st chapter of the 4th book. " Non est voluntas mea in vobis, inquit Dominus, et Sacrificia non exci- piam de raanibus vestris ; quoniam a solis ortu usque ad occasum glorificatum est in nationibus nomen meura, et in omni loco Sacrifxcium noniini meo ofFertur, et Sacrificium mundum, scilicet simplex oratio do conscientia pura." Tertullian is here quoting from the 1st chap, of Malachi, ver. 10 and 1 1, which, according to his version, concludei Mr. Browns Thirteenth Speech. 401 thus ; — " And in every place sacrifice is offered to my name, and a clean sacrifice;'' *' that is," says he, "an honest prayer from a good conscience." On these last words the Rev. Gentleman raised his objection. 1 maintain that Mr. T. did not read, with attention, the passage, or he would have observed that in the text of Malachi, there are two terms relating to sacrifice, rendered in your English ver- sion, " incense J' and " a pure offering ^ I have before observed that the Hebrew term " Quether," which is named, in the Protestant Bible, *' incense" expresses *' sacrifice," as well as " incense." Tertullian, therefore, who follows this interpretation, is only explaining the first term of the prediction, namely, '^ incense," or "sacrifice," and in reference to that alone, he expounds " sacrifice" to be '' an honest prayer from a good conscience:" but he does not, in this place, give an explanation of the second term of the prediction — " a pure offering." However, in other parts of his works, there are frequent occasions whereon he speaks of " altars and oblations. " In the next place, Mr. Tottenham urged the exposition of St. Jerome, as referring the prediction of Malachi to the prayers of holy men. Now I will read to you the whole of St. Jerome's comment on the passage in question, and you will then be able to judge whether it bears out Mr. Tottenham's position. " It is a fixed rule," says he, " that when a prophecy manifestly refers to future events, we are 7iot to weaken it by uncertain allegories. The present pro- phecy regards the Jewish Priests, who brought improper victims to be offered, to sigaify to them, that spiritual victims would succeed to carnal, and that not the blood of bulls and goats, but perfumes, that is the pnyers of the Saints, should be oftered to God." So far Mr. T. seems to be right ; but he ought to have read, (as Mr. Lyons should have done, when he quoted from the Apost. Constitutions) the whole of the context. — Immediately after those words — " Not the blood of bulls and goats, but perfumes, that is, the prayers of the Saints should be offered to God," — St. Jerome goes on thus: — " And that, not in one province, nor in one city : but a clean oblation in every place, such as is offered in the Christian ceremonies : — for from, the rising of the sun 'till the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles." Here, then, the two distinct terms of the prophecy are both referred to, and explained ; whereas, Mr. T. having cited St. Jerome's exposition of the first of them only, stopped short, and left you to suppose that it was the whole of the explanation which the holy Doctor gave of Mala- chi's prediction. 2d 402 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day. The third authority adduced was from Theodoret. I have not that part of Theodoret's works to which my op- ponent refeis ; but I have this morning seen in three pub- lications by distinguished authors, Sardagna^Tournely, and Bellarmine, that Theodoret makes the same application of Malachi's prophecy as St. Jerome does, explaining the first^diVtoi good works ; but from the secoTzcZ part, deducing a clear proof of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, in the Christian dispensation. The authority of the Fathers Mr. Tottenham affected to undervalue ; and at the same time he sio:niiied that he could brmg them against us in vast array. I beg, however, to tell him, w^bat, I believe, he well knows, that all the passages he could produce are merely o&5c?^re passages ; and I heretofore assigned a reason why, if the Fathers be- lieved, as we believe, regarding the real presence and sacrifice of Christ on Christian altars, they ought, in their public discourses and writings, to be piirposefy obscure, on account of the Discipline of the Secret . and, al- though Mr. T. pretends that the secret referred princi- pally to the Trinity, yet he admitted that it included the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Altar, and Christian Mysteries in general. By this Discipline, the Fathers ivere hound to be obscure in such of their books as were designed for general inspection ; but, for the same reason, they were obliged, on other occasions, to expound ivitliout any oh- scurity, viz. to the new Christians, what were the real doctrines of Christian Revelation. We are to look, there- fore, to their catechetical discourses for the true meaning of the Fathers. Accordingly, my quotations were taken from these ; and, in them you fi.nd no obscurity, no af- fected concealment. Not only do the Fathers express clearly, that the body and blood of Christ are present, but they explicitly declare that a real change takes place ; that what was before bread, is no longer bread ; and that what was wine before, is no longer wine ; that the Bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the Wine is changed into the blood of Christ. If Mr. T. has a single passage from any of the catechetical discourses, which will support his doctrine against me, he is called upon to produce it. Mr. T. made use of an artful attempt to deceive those to whom he addressed himself. He alleged the authority of Rofiensis, Scotius, Cajetan, and several others, wdio, as Bellarmine testifies, were unable to discover Transid)- stantiation in the Scripture. But was it here that the Mr. Browns Thirteenth Speech. 403 impression resulting from Mr. T.'s argument was designed to stop ? Is it nof evident that he sought to confound Transiihstantiation with the substantial presence of Christ in the Sacrament; and thereby to insinuate that those Catholic Divines, whom he cited, confessed that they could not see, in the Scriptures, proofs of such substantial presence? If he did mean this, he labours under a griev- ous error ; for not one of those who found a difficulty in discovering clear evidence of Sciipture, in support of Transuhstantiation, extend any such difficulty to the other mystery. Mr. T. said, likewise, that the quotations which had been adduced from the Fathers, prove no more than what Protestants are willing to admit , namely, the true and real presence of Chrst in the Eucharist, which the Fathers call the Lord's Body and Blood, just as Protestants are willing to call it. Really, I do not know vv^hether Mr. T. thought it worth while to attend to our quotations, but they v/ent much farther than he represents. I will recall them to his attention. You may recollect, that I quoted the following, from the 4th Mystagogical discourse of St. Cyril of Jerusalem : " Jesus Christ, once, in Cana of Galilee, changed ivater into icine by liis will alone ; and shall ^ve think it less worthy of credit, that he changed icine into his 6^ Of/ ?— Invited to an earthly marriage, he wrought this miracle, and shall we hesitate to confess that he has given to his children his body to eat, and his blood to drink? Wherefore, with all confidence, let us take the body and blood of Christ. For, under the type or figure of bread, his body is given to them; and, under the figure of wine, his blood is given ; that so being made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, you may become one body and one blood with him Wherefore, I conjure you, my brethren, not to consider tliem anymore as common bread and wine, since they are the body and blood of Jesus Christ, according to his words : and although your sense "might suggest that to you, let faith confirm you. Judge not of the thing by your taste, but by faith assure yourself, without the least doubt, that you are honoured with the body and blood of Christ. Tliis knowing, and of this being assured, that what appears to you bread, is not bread, but the body of Chnst, altJitmgh the taste judges it to be bread ; and that the ivine ichich you see, and which has the taste of ivine, is not wine, but his blood!" Is this merely declaring that the body of Christ is pre- sent, as Protestants acknowledge it ? St. Gregory of Nyssa, in his long Discourse, addressed not to the Catechumens, but their instructors, the Catechists, Tom. 2. cap. 37, p. 537. Ed. Par. l6l.5 — says, " By virtue of the benediction, the nature oi visible things is changed into his body And so I now believe that the bread, sanctified by the word of God, is transformed and changed into the body of Christ." St. Ambrose in his Book '* de Initiandes,"Tom. 4, c. 9, p. 350, 351, Paris, l6l4, teaches the newly baptized, that 404 Downside Discussion, — Sixth Day. *' by the benediction nature itself is changed.'' After remind- ing them of the change (as I read yesterday) of the rod of Aaron into a serpent, and subsequently back again into a rod, he goes on to tell them, that " If the blessing of man be powerful enough to change nature, what must we not say of tlie divine consecration ? For the sacrament which you receive is accomplished by the word of Christ. If the word of Elias could call down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ be able to change the nature of created things ? If the word of Christ could draw out of nothing what till then had no existence, shall it not be able to change the things that exist, into that which they are not?" If these quotations shall not be thought sufficient, I will produce many others to the same purpose : but I really have not time to lose unnecessarily upon a point which is as clear as the day-light. For the present, therefore, I content myself with calling your attention to the authority of an eminent Protestant divine, and bishop, who acknow- ledges that the Fathers did frequently speak of a t7nie and substantial change. This Protestant writer, Dr. Samuel Parker, in his work entitled, " Reasons for abrogating the Test," (p. 13) states :— *' It is evident to all men that are but ordinarily conversant in ecclesias- tical learning, that the ancient fathers, from age to age asserted the real and substantial presence in very high and expressive terms." He then recites the terms used by the Greek Fathers, all of which are strongly expressive of a substantial change ; also the corresponding terms used by the Latin Fathers, which, he says, are " agreeable with the Greeks, Conver- sion, Transmutation, Transfiguration, Transelementation, and at length, Transubstantiation ; by all which," con- tinues this Protestant Bishop, " they expressed nothing more nor less than the real and substantial presence in the Eucharist." He goes on (p. 62) to censure some who had departed from the true and real doctrine of the Church of England, and concludes: — (p. 65, QQ.) *' If they own a real presence, we see from the premises how little the con- troversie is between that and Transubstantiation, as it is truly and ingennonsly vnderstood hij all the reformed Churches. If they do not, they disown the doc- trine both of the Church of England, and the Church Catholick ; and then, if they own only a figurative presence (and it is plain they own no other), they stand condemned of Heresie by almost all the Churches in the Christian world : and if this be the thing pretended to be set up (as it certainly is by the authors and contrivers of it), by renouncing Transubstantiation, then the result and bottom of the law is, under this pretence, to bring a new Heresie by law into the Church of England." That, I repeat, is the testimony of a Protestant Bishop, of Oxford, Dr. Samuel Parker. Mr. Tottenham has owned that under the Discipline of the Secret several particulars are included, although he contended that it had reference chiefly to the Trinity. Mr. Browns Thirteenth Speech, 405 This is sufficient for my purpose ; but had he not made this avowal, I could have adduced sufficient proofs to have shovrn not only that the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, was an object of the Discipline of the Secret : but, that this, and the Sacrifice of the Mass were its principal objects. But here Mr. T. presumed to say that he had caught us, as we had caught him, in man- gling the texts of the Fathers. He reproached me with not having gone far enough back in my quotations from St. Cyril, or 1 should have found that he did apply the principle of the Secret to the doctrine of the Trinity. Well ; I am willing to accompany Mr. T. as far back as he has gone for his quotation. Do I understand Mr. T. to say that his translation differs from mine ? I Avill first read mine ; and if it be disputed, he may appoint to com- pare it with the original, any Greek scholars whom he may choose to name ; and I will name others on my side. " Just so tlie cliurch discovers its sacraments to those who leave the class of Catechumens: — (Me is here speaking of the discovery of the object of the Secret:) for ue declare not to the Gentiles the hidden mysteries of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." From this Mr. T. wished you to understand that the belief of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were the hidden mysteries contained under the Discipline of the Secret. According to my interpretation of the passage, those words refer not to a belief in the Trinity, but of certain hidden mysteries of the Christian religion, revealed by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I cannot pass by a grievous charge brought against my friend Mr. Edgeworth, by Mr. T., of suppressing a most important part of the dialogue of Theodoret. My Reverend friend has assured me, and 1 cannot question such assur- ance, that he did not pass over any portion of the dialogue in question, for the j^uiyose of suppressing any thing therein. But I will, moreover, show you that the very part which he did not quote, contains something more de- cisive than the preceding words that he had quoted, in favour of the Roman Catholic doctrine. I shall not, for want of time, read from the dialogue at length, but I will call your attention to the most important portion of that which was cited, and afterwards to that which Mr. T. omitted to cite. First, observe, Theodoret declares that there is a mystery, which he will not reveal : — " Tell me, therefore," says Eranistes, " what do you call the gift that is offered before the priest's invocation?" Orthodoxos. — "This must not be said openly ; for some may be jnesent ivho are not initiated !" 406 ■ Downside Discussion.^ Sixth Day. Hereby, he prepares us for a certain studied ohscurity. Next, he speaks of the symbols before and after consecra- tion. Now, if I did not misunderstand Mr. T., he confounded Theodoret's doctrine concerning the symbols after conse- cration, with what he says of them before consecration ; — ■ Eranistes having asked, " How do you call," &c., goes on thus— "As the symbols of the body and blood of Christ were different before the consecration of the priest, and after the consecration are changed, in the same manner we (the Eutychians) say, the body of Christ after his ascension was changed into the divine essence." We now come to the part which Mr. Tottenham says that Mr. Edgeworth omitted : — "Thou art taken in thine own net; for, after the consecration, the mystical symbols lose not their proper nature ; they remain in the former substance, and ghape, and appearance." Hence Mr. Tottenham argues, that Transubstantiation, or a change of substance was believed not to take place. He ought, however, to know, for it has been confessed by the most eminent of Protestant controversialists, by Claude, in his answer to Nouet, p. 476, by Aubertin " Eucharistie de I'Ancienne Eglise," p, 787, and others, that the Fathers understood frequently by the words substance and nature, not what ice noio understand thereby, but the extern cd and visible qucdities of a thing. This they prove by several examples, to which I could add many others. There is no necessity, however, of my doing so, as Mr. Tottenham is not, I presume, ignorant of the fact: but if he wishes it, I will lay them before you, for I have them prepared. But what did Mr. Tottenham suppress? A most im- portant part of the passage. He charged my friend, the Rev. Mr. Edgeworth with having omitted that which we can easily slioio to be unessential, whilst he himself has omitted that'to which he will find it extremely difficult to give a solution. I should observe, here, that the trans- lation which Mr. Tottenham gave of this passage, is not the certain meaning of the Greek text ; for, it is interpreted by many Greek scholars, not as he renders it : — " the mystical symbols remain in their former substance, figure, and appearance," but — " in the shape and form of the former substance" Theodoret adds : — " They are understood to be what they have been made ; this they are believed to be j and as such they are adored." These last words, which Mr. Tottenham omitted, are a Mr. Browns Thirteenth Speech. 407 most important testimony in favour of our doctrine. I will conclude this subject, by referring Mr. T. for one moment, to the authority of a celebrated Protestant Theologian, whose comment upon the language of Theo- doret, confirms the explanation which, in the first instance, I proposed. The justly celebrated Leibnitz, in his Sys- tema Theologicum, p. 227, writes thus; — "Gelasius, the Roman Pontiff, gives us to understand, that the bread is changed into the body of Christ, whilst the nature of the bread remains; he means its qualities or accidents. For in those days they did not express them- selves with perfect precision and metaphysical accuracy. In the same sense Theoloret says, that in this change, which he calls fisTalSoXr], the mystic sym- bols are not deprived of their proper nature." Here we have Leibnitz confessing that Theodoret means by the term Jiatare, (or substance, for among the ancients these terms were indifferently used,) not what we meta- physically and correctly now understand thereby, but qualities or accidents. One word more in answer to another objection which has been urged. Mr. T. brought forward the history of Blandina, recorded by St. L-enssus, as disproving that the ancient Christians believed in Transubstantiation, or the real presence. I will, therefore, read the fragment of Irenseus, which preserves that history, and you will see whether Blandina denied the real presence in the sense in ivhich we understand it ; or whether she merely denied the earned and sensible manner of eating the flesh of Christ, in which the Capernaites understood his words, when he promised to them his flesh and blood. The frag- ment in question has been preserved by (Ecumenius, and was, I believe, first cited against the Catholic doctrhie by Archbishop Tiilotson : — " When the Greeks had taken some slaves of the Christian Catechumeni (that is, such as had not been admitted to the sacrament), and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians, these slaves having nothing to say that mig'lit gratify those who offered vio- lence to them, except, only, that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the blood and body of Christ ; they, thinking that it was really blood and flesh, declared as much to those who questioned them. The Greeks taking this, as if it were really done by the Christians, discovered it to oihers of the Greeks, who, hereupon, put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture, to make them confess it. To whom Blandina boldly answered, ' How could they endure to do this, who by way of exercise (or abstinence) do not eat thatfiesh which may lawfully be eaten.' " The answer of Blandina naturally should correspond with the question proposed. Now, the question was, whe- ther the Christians did that which was calumniously asserted of them, that they ate and drank human flesh and blood after a carnal manner ; for it was said, as I think I told you yesterday, that they devoured children 408 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day, in their solemn worship ; Blandina answered, according to the meaning of this question, that they diidi not eat Jiesk and drink htood. It is, therefore, unjust to say that she denied the reality of Christ's presence, understood after the manner of the Catholic belief; or, after any other manner than that only, in which the Pagans understood it. Mr. Tottenham replied to my exposition of Malachi, that by " pure offering," was meant, the works of those who have genuine faith^ which, though not pure of them- selves, are pure through Christ. But does he not remem- ber that I answered, by anticipation, this objection? I observed that the Jews had genuine faith, and that they had good works. I think the Rev. gentleman will not be disposed to deny this, after he shall have looked (as I sup- pose he has often done,) into the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the faith of many holy Jews is highly extolled ; and as faith is the foundation of good works, 1 believe my opponent holds that where there is pure faith, there are good works. These Jews, I imagine, had as much of genuine faith as Mr. Tottenham will assert — that any have now a-days ; this, therefore, was not the future sacrifice which Malachi predicted : — it remains, con- sequently, in confirmation of my argument, that what he predicted was, the oblation or sacrifice of the Catholic Christian dispensation. Mr. Tottenham urged against me a passage from Isaiah, chap. Ixvi. ver. 19, 20, where the word Minehah, or Min- cha, is not understood literally, but figuratively. I thought, that I had answered yesterday, the difficulties about figures. Figurative language must be judged of by its circumstances, and by the sense of the context : and where there is danger of error, language is not to be understood figuratively. Now, the prophet Malachi is opposing the sacrifice that was to be offered in future ages to \h.% sacrifices of the Jews, As then, the sacrifices of the Jews were Zi^e?'«Z sacrifices, so the sacrifice which he predicts, was to be a literal sacrifice. The remaining objections I will notice before the close of the discussion ; but I must go on now with my argu- ments, as my time is drawing to a close, and it will be said that I have furnished nothing to be answered. I invite your attention to my third proof, — the figures in the old law, of the sacrifice of the new ; and principally to that of the Paschal Lamb. The Paschal lamb was de- cidedly, and indisputably, a figure of Christ. In 1 Cor. chap. V. 7j Christ is called, " our passover." Now, this Mr. Browns Thirteenth Speech. 409 type of Christ in the old law, according to its mysterious circumstances, is fulfilled by the sacrifice of the mass, not hy the sacrifice of the cross. For, first, the mysterious circumstance of the consumption of the Paschal Lamb in the evening, we see fulfilled in the New Testament, where Christ in the evening declared ; " This is m_y body which is broken for you," — " this is my blood which is shed for you." On the other hand, we know it was not in theeven- ing that the sacrifice of the cross was offered, but at mid- dag. The Paschal Lamb was off'ered in commemoration of the passage of the angel, and the liberation of the Israelites. The mass is likewise offered in commemora- tion of the true passage of the Saviour of Israel from mor- tality to immortality ; whereas, in no sense was the sacri- fice of the cross offered in commemoration, but it is com- memorated to this day in the sacrifice of our altars. Thirdly, In the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb, the victim was eaten tridg and not figuratively ; in the sacrifice of the Mass, the victim is truly eaten, but the victim as sa- crificed on the cross could not be eaten. Fourthly, The sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb could be eaten only by those who were circumcised : — so the sacrifice of the Christian, the sacrifice upon our altars, can be received by those only who are spiritually circumcised, that is, who are cleansed and pure ; but the sacrifice of the cross was for all mankind. Therefore the figurative circumstances, I contend, attendant upon the Paschal Lamb, were fully completed in the sacrifice of the Mass, and not in the sa- crifice of the cross, consequently, the sacrifice of the Pas- chal Lamb, being a figure of Christ sacrificed, was the figure of him as he is offered in the sacrifice of the mass, not as he is offered in the sacrifice of the cross. A fourth argument to which I now call your attention, is the words of the Institution of the Lord's Supper, Luke chap. 22, ver. 19, 20 : — "He," (Jesus) " took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you : this do in rememhvance of me. Likevinse also the cup after supper, saying, This is the New Testa- ment in my blood xchich is shed for you." 1 Cor. chap. xi. ver. 24, "And when he had given thanks, he brake "it, and said. Take eat : this is my body which is broken for you ; this do in remembrance of me." Matt. chap. 26, ver. 28 ; " For this is my blood of the New Testament, ivhich is shed for the remis- sion of sins." I maintain that by these words spoken by Christ, at his last Supper, was instituted a true sacrifice. There we have a true sacrifice, where is an offering of a victim to God, 410 Downside Discussion, — Sixth Day, with an effusion of blood. But in the text I quoted just now from St. Luke, there is express mention made of an ohla- tion, and an effusion of blood. ** This is my body given for you, this is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you.'^ In the other passages which I adduced, we find a similar language recorded by the inspired writers. Now, this giving, or offering of the body, and shedding of the blood of Christ, here mentioned, apply not to the sacrifice of the cross, nor to a 2'> fomentation to the apostles of the mere figure of Christ in the bread and wine.— Not to a mere presentation of the figure of Christ in the bread and wine to the apostles, who alone were present, for it is not said (St. Matthew, chap. 26, ver. 28,) "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you,'' but, '■'for many, for the remission of sins." (St. Luke xxii. IQ,) " This is my body which is given to you,'' but, "/or you." — It does not refer to the sacrifice of the cross : for, first, the sacrifice of the cross was to take place afterwards, and the words are of the present time : " This is my body, which is given for you : This is my blood, which is shed for you.'' I shall be told that in our version we do not read is, but shall be. Protestants, how- ever, have not a right to call in question the reading of their own version of the Scripture, from which I quote, especially as in this place it literally corresponds with the original Greek. Secondly, Christ says : " This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Now, the cup can have no connexion with the sacrifice of the cross ; but it has with the Eucharist. Christ adds: — "This do in remembrance of me." But it is not the sa- crifice of the cross which we are to repeat in remem- brance of Christ ; it can be, therefore, only the sacrifice of the Eucharist, which the apostles and their successors are ordered to offer, as the ministers of Christ, in remembrance of him, in remembrance of the sacrifice he once offered upon the cross. I proceed to another argument founded upon 1 Cor. chap. x. ver. 18—21 : " Behold Israel after the flesh : are not thej which eat of the sacrifices par- taters of the altar ? What say I then ? that the idol is anything, or that which is ofTered in sacrifice to idols is anything \ Eut I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God : and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils ; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and th& table of devils." We find here that the cup of the Lord, and the table of Mr. Brown's Thirteenth Speech. 411 the Lord, are put in opposition to the cup of devils, and the table of devils. We know, moreover, that upon the table of devils were offered true oblations, literal sacrifices : consequently, when to the cup of devils, and the table of devils the apostle opposes the cup of the Lord, and the table of the Lord, for the argument to be good, there must be, in either case, a reality of substance in the victims offered ; that is, as there was a a true and literal oblation upon the table of devils, so there must be a true and literal oblation upon the altars of the Christian dispensation. To confirm my reasoning, I may have recourse to a work written by a member of the Reformation Society, which is so far at least of authority, as his argument is supported by Scripture. I find Mr. Shanks, in his translation of " the Anatomy of the Mass," to which he has prefixed certain observations of his own, I find him stating at p. 23, that there is a real sacrifice pointed out by the apostle in the words adduced : — " The apostle," says he, '* contrasts the table of the Lord, and the table of devils, putting them in direct opposition to each other. Ye cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and tl\e cup of devils ; ye cannot eat of the table of the Lord and the table of devils." He had just before said, " That the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils." The things sacrificed, are, therefore, the same with the meat-offerings, and drink-offerings signified by the cup and the table of devils. In like manner, the meat-offerings, and drink-offerings, signified by the cup and the table of the Lord, iverealso sacri- Jices in the apostles' estimation; otherwise, the contrast he has instituted is greatly defective. As the meat-offerings, and drink-offerings presented upon the table of devils, were sacrifices, soicere the bread and wine upon the table of the Lord; and, consequently, these were called oblation or sacrifice." You hear Mr. Shanks declaring that, in the text which I have quoted, there is designated a true and literal sacrifice in the new law. If there be a true and literal sacrifice, what other, then, can that sacrifice be, but the sacrifice oj the mass ? 412 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day. Rev. J. Lyons. I WOULD not have risen thus early in the meeting to-day, were it not for the same cause that obhged me to speak at the same time on the last clay of the past week. I am under the necessity of returning immediately to fulfil my own ministerial duty in a distant place; and, therefore, I now occupy the place of Mr. Tottenham. There were some remarks read yesterday by Mr. Brown, from a work of Mr. G. Stanley Faber, but as they merely applied to myself as an individual, I will not take any farther notice of them. There were some others from a work by Dr. Samuel Clarke, when writing on the Attributes of God, also directed personally, I also pass these over in the same manner. I now pass to the consideration of some remarks made by Mr. Brown on the subject under discussion. He com- mented upon a quotation I made yesterday from the Apos- tolical Constitutions. I think he must have mistaken when he said that I did not read down to the end of the passage. / read the luhole passage, and then translated it. I read beyond the Greek v/ord, Lepovpyiag. But Mr. Brown says, that the translation of the word ought to be, " doing sacrifice." If I have made a mistake in the translation of this word ttpovpytac, by rendering it as meaning spiritual services^ I have erred, in what Mr. Brown must acknow- ledge to be good company — that is, with a copy of the Vulgate Bible, brought out by Clement the Eighth, in which the same Greek word is translated in that meaning. In the 15th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, the word iepovpyovj/ra, is used. How is it translated in the Vulgate? by the word Sanctificans . By translating the word into *' ministering," I have the infallible authority of the Church of Rome in support of my rendering, and, therefore, Mr. Brown ought to have brought no charge of mistranslation against me. Moreover, when I take up the English trans- lation of the Vulgate Bible, I read thus, in the 15th and ]6th verses, — " That 1 should be the minster of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles, sancti- fying the Gospel of God." Now here is the very word that Mr. Brown says ought to be translated '' doing sacrifice ;" rendered in the transla- tion of his own church «* Sanctifying'" If I have erred, I have gone astray in company to which Mr. B. cannot ob- ject. Mr. Lyons Fifth Speech. 413 Mr. Brown has told us, thtit, if I had read the Aposto- lical Constitutions entirely through, I would have found another passage therein, ahout " unhloody sacrifices." — Now, truly, if I had read ahout " an unhloody sacrifice," it would never have entered into my mind to interpret it as the " bloody sacrifice" of the Lord Jesus. I could not imagine that the words " bloody," and " unbloody," sig- nified the same idea. Mr. Brown then read the passage, wherein it is said — " Thou hast appointed an unbloody sacrifice through Christ." It would be rather an odd thing for a man to offer up sacrifices of self through himself. If the " unbloody sacri- fice'* means Christ, then he must have offered himself through himself — " Thou hast appointed an unbloody sacrifice through Christ." Mr. Brown has adverted to the verse in Malachi, on which some remarks w^ere made yesterday, and he quoted the Hebrew words in the passage, which are translated " incense," and " oblation." I beg Mr. Brow^n's attention to the Hebrew words and their translation. " From the rising of the sun, even to the going down, my name is gieat among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and tliere is oftered to my name a clean oblation : for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." M.il. i. 1 1. Now it has been said by some, that there is great uncer- tainty with regard to the translation of the Hebrew^ language from certain things called vowel points, they being of late invention only, and that without these we could not possibly know how a word ought to be pronounced ; but I beg leave to differ from this opinion respecting the uncertainty of Hebrew, for when we examine the Jewish rolls which are kept in the ark of the synagogues, w^e find none of them with vowel points ; but, nevertheless, the Jews can read them accurately. We know that all Hebrew scholars can read indifferently with or without points ; and Park- hurst, to whom reference has been made on the opposite side, rejects the vowel points altogether — he esteems them as Rabbinical things that ought to be cast aside by all Christians. We now come to examine this term which is translated in our Bible, by the word " incense ;" in the Roman Catholic version by the word " sacrifice." The Hebrew word which is here translated " sacrifice," in 414 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day. other parts of the Douay Bible is translated " incense." Because the sacrifice of the Mass was not to be tortured out of it inthose other parts, therefore the word is correctly- rendered " incense ;" but when it is wanted, as here, to wrest the doctrine out of the verse, then it is translated "sacHyzce." I V, ill give a few passages from the Douay Bible to shew where it is thus translated " incense." In the 4th Book of Kings, the 18th chapter, and the 4th verse, we read thus : — *' He destroyed tlie higb places, and broke the statues in pieces, and cut down the groves, and broke the brazen serpent which Moses had made: for till that time the children of Israel burnt incrnse to it : and he called his name Nohestan." In this verse the v/ord is translated " incense," and is the same Hebrew word, which, in the 1st of Malachi, is translated " sacrifice." Again, in the 30th of Exodus, and the 7th verse, the word is rendered " incense." " And Aaron shall burn sweet-smelling incense upon it in the morning." x^gain, in the 3rd Book of Kings, the 3rd chapter, and the 3rd verse, it is translated " incense." In the 9th chapter of the same book, verse the 25th, it is also trans- lated " incense." Here are four or five passages where the Hebrew word is rendered properly ; but when w^e come to Malachi, the translation is changed, and the word " sacrifice''' is used. We now come to the word 'nr\':i^ (Mincha) of which we have heard so much. I am not aware of any passage where it strictly means " a sin-ojferi7ig ;" but " the bread-offering" and " meat-offering" which v/ere constantly used together with "'the sin-offering.'' I will give an example from the old law. In the 2nd chapter of the book of Leviticus, in the ] 1 th verse, it is written, " Every oblation that is offered to the Lord, shall be made without learen, neither shall any leaven or honey be burnt in sacrifice to the Lord." In the first verse you will see what the sacrifice was — it was one of *' fine flour," and called '* a meat-offering." A meat-offering was not a sacrifice for sin — the sacrifice for sin must have been an animal whose Mood could he shed. In the 30th of Exodus there is another example of this. In the Qth and 10th verses it is said — " You shall not offer upon it incense of another composition, nor oblation, and victim, neither shall you offer libations. And Aaron shall pray upon the horns thereof once a year, with tlie blood of that which was offered for sin, and shall make atonement upon it in your generations." Mr. Lyons' Fifth Speech, 415 Here is a distinction drawn between the " oblation" and *' the victim," the one being an offering made up of flour — the other an animal, whose Mood teas to be shed. But Mr. Brown>has told us, that in the verse in Malachi, the term could not but mean the sacrifice of the Mass. Now the sacri- fice of the Mass is said to be '* a true, proper, ?in{\. propiti- atory sacrifice;" and therefore to he- so, there must be the shedding of blood; but in the meat-offering there could be no shedding of blood, because it was merely a cake made with flour. Thus it appears, from various passages, that the word nTOtt (MinchaJ means the " meEit-offering ;" and I could shew by as many more, that it was used for a common gift, bestowed by one man upon another, and is not applied exclusively to the meat-offering, and not in any verse, to the victim offered up as a burnt-oifering. But Mr. Brown has informed us that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not a continuation of the sacrifice of the cross, but a continuation of the Lord's Supper. Now this asser- tion is in direct opposition to the Council of Trent, which declares, in the 2^2nd Session, chap. 2nd, that the victim offered in the Mass is one and the same as that which was offered on the Cross. The Council then asserts, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a continuation of the sacrifice of the cross, that there is " one and the same victim." But we have been told, that it is not a continuation of the sacrifice of the cross, but that it is a continuation of the last supper. A long parallel was drawn between the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, and the supposed sacrifice of the Mass ; and again, we were referred to the words of the institu- tion. On these words I will only make one more remark. Mr. Brown said, that we can have no objection to his quoting from the Protestant Bible. I have not the slightest, but the Council of Trent has the greatest objection to it; and tells him in the 4th Session, that he must not presiwie to use any translation but the Vidgate in public disputa- tions. Though we do not object to his using the Pro- testant Bible — the Council of Trent most assuredly does. Now how do we read in the Vulgate the words of the institution 1 They are translated in the future tense — " effundetur;" and in the Douay translation " My blood that SHALL be shed." There was no shedding of blood at the Institution — that was yet to be done. Upon the Canon of the Mass, moreover, a splendid eulogium has been passed by the Council of Trent, which tells us that every word is 416 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day. pure, that it is — free from all error ; and it to be observed that the Latin word, which is used in this Canon, is in the future tense — " efFundetur" — '' shall be shed." As some remarks have been already made on the lOtli chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, it is not necessary again to go over the same ground. I will, therefore, only advert to a quotation that has been made of the 20th and 2 1 st verses of that chapter : — " But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils. You cannot drink the clialice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils : — you can- not be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils." It is concluded from these verses, that to be "a par- taker of the Lord's table," means to be '' a partaker of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord Jesus." Ac- cording to the same interpretation, I may be allowed to argue, " that the heathen must have partaken of the body and blood of the devil," for the same form of words is i^ised — "Ye cannot drink of the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils." " The chalice of the Lord,'" it is argued, means the " blood of Christ :" and, according to the same rule, I may say, that "the chalice of devils," means "the blood of devils." It is also said—*' You cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and the table of devils:" — if " the table of the Lord," means " the body of the Saviour," then I may argue, by the same rule of interpretation, and say, " the table of devils" must mean " the body of the devil," so that this interpretation proves rather too much. I now proceed to consider some particulars respecting the Sacrifice of the Mass; and call your attention to the difference between the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and that Sacrifice. You have been told that the one is a continuation of the other; but when we come to com- are them, we will find some particulars in which they o not agree. Now, the first thing that strikes us, is this— that Christ spake in a language which the people understood, but the Canon of the Mass, being written in Latin is quite unintelligihle to the mass of the people. Here is the first difference. 2ndly. At the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the cup passed round to all — " they all drank of it ;'' but when the Sacrament is administered in the Church of Rome, only the officiating Prie^^ partakes of the cup. Here is the second difference, and, therefore, proves, that the one cannot be a continuation of the other. I Mr. Lyons' Fifth Speech. 417 Srdly. In the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, there was no shedding of blood ; but the Sacrifice of the Mass is said to be " a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice ;" therefore, there must be, to constitute it such, the effu- sion of blood. 4thly. Christ said, " Do this for a com- memoration of me." The Canon of the Mass is somewhat different : — there it is said — " Communicating and venerating, in the first place, (in primis) the memory of the glorious and ever- Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, and of our Lord Jesus ChristV' Here is a serious difference. In the one it is to be taken '' for a commemoration'' of the Saviour ; in the other, to honour the memory of a creature— the Virgin Mary. 5thly. Christ said, when he was giving the cup to those who were around the table : — "This is my blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins," but after the priest has secretly pronounced certain words, whispering them over the cup, he then says, — "This is the chalice of my blood, of the New and eternal Testament : THE MYSTERY OF THE FAITH." We do not read these words in any of the gospels, yet are they inserted in the canon of the mass. 6thly. There is also this difference — in the Lord's Supper, we read only of wine ; there may have been water mixed with it ; but we read only of wine — it remains for the gentlemen opposite to prove that there was water ; but in the chalice on the altar, there is mixed wine and luater ; and the Council of Trent pronounces an anathema against any who say that they ought not to be mixed. Thus you see, by comparing these together, that there are most serious differences dis- covered between them. There is a book which has already given some annoy- ance ; it is called the Breviary; and, perhaps, what I am about to quote from it may be amongst some of the " le- gendary lore" contained in it. For the 3rd of May is a service for the " finding of the Holy Cross." In this we read that when — "Adrian was emperor, Alexander, governing the church, converted a great part of the Roman nobility to Christ. He appointed that only bread and wine should be used in the mystery ; but ordained the wine to be mixed with water j on account of the blood and water which flowed from the side of Jesus Christ ; and added it in the canon of the Mass.'' Here is the first intimation of the wine and water being mixed ; and it occurs in the time of the Emperor Adrian. Q, E 418 Downside Discussion.-^ Sixth Day. Thus, by tlie acknowledgment of this Breviary, it appears that the mixture was first made a considerable length of time after Christ's crucifixion, and did not take place before; for it is said that it was done " on account of the water and blood which flowed from the side of Christ," when pierced with the spear. I cannot think that the author's of the Canon of the Mass believed that there was a substantial conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of the Saviour, when I read these words : — *' On which vouchsafe to look with a propitions and serene countenance : and deign to receive them as thou hast received the gifts of thy righteous child Ahel, and tlie Sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham." Here the sacrifice is equalized with the ofi"erings of Abel and of the patriarch Abraham. The former offered a lamb, and the latter a ram, that was caught in the thicket — they both offered in sacrifice onlj/ creatures ; and reasoning ac- cording to the canon, it must follovv', that in the sacrifice of the mass there are only " the creatures of bread and wine'' Further on, in the same canon there occurs much to militate against a belief in the minds of the per- sons who composed it, that the body and blood of the Lord were substantially present. In another place it is thus said. '* Mav it please thee — that the Sacrifice which I, unworthy creature, have offered to the eyes of thy JMajesty, may be accepted by thee." Is it to be believed that we creatures are to pray that the Lord of Heaven and of Earth would accept his own Son ? Hath he not declared it over and over again, in the everlasting gospel, that, " This is my beloved Son in ichom J am well pleased?'' Hath he not declared by the very fact of the resurrection, that he hath accepted the sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour ; and shall we dare to offer up our prayer that God may receive the sacrifice, when he hath put to his own broad seal and stamp that he hath received the righteousness and atonement of the Son of his love ? And yet, here in the canon of the mass, is a prayer that the *^Lord may accept those things offered on the altar. There was a latent feeling in the minds of these men — there was a misgiving within them that the substantial body and blood of the crucified Saviour were not in the mass, or they never could have asked God to receive him at their hands, knowing that his sacrifice had been already received. There is also another reason that induces me to reject this doctrine of the Mass—ii leads to idolatry. There is no Mr. Lijor.s Fifth Speech. 419 use in softening terms, it is better to use plain language, so that there can be no misunderstanding. In speaking yesterday respecting the defects that may take place in the form, matter, and intention of the priest, you heard me remark, that even according to the admission of the Church of Rome herself, there was great danger of idol- atry. It will not excuse any to say at the last day that they were ignorant of the act that they were committing. If such an excuse v/ere to be admitted, the heathen might apologize on the same ground, and say, *' we thought that God was in the wood and stone, and, therefore, we bowed to them :" this excuse cannot be taken, for it icould sanction every species of idolatry. We are told that *' the whole substance of the bread is changed into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood;" but then it is said the species still remain, (that is, the colour, the external appearance, the form, the taste, &:c.,) as they were before consecration. We say, that it is rather extraordiimry that the substance should change ivithout any alteration in external appearances. We know that when the water was converted into wine at the mariage- feast, that it changed colour and taste — its species were changed as well as its substance. But we are told that, in the wafer, all these outward things still re- main ; and, therefore, even taking for granted that the substance was converted, yet, the species still re- maining, there are creatures still before us, and, there- fore, if we bow down to them and vv'orship them, we mix the things of the creature and the Creator. Here, then, we see a direct act of idolatry is committed, even if the assertion of the substantial presence of the Lord could be proved. For, if the presence of God in any part of creation be sufficient sanction for worshipping that place or substance, then shoidd we bow down to all parts of crea- tion, for God is everywhere present : — ** If I ascend into heaven tbou art there : if I descend into hell, thou art pre- sent. If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea : even there also shall thy hand lead me : and thy right-hand shall hold me." " The Lord's ways are in a tempest and a whirlwind and clouds are the dust of his feet." "He ascended upon the cherubim, and he flew upon the wings of the winds." Wheresoever we are, there is the presence of God around us on every hand — " For, in him we live, and move, and have our being." If, therefore, the presence of God in any place would sanction us in bowing down to it, then ought we, as I have said, to worship every part of creation — the heavens above 420 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day. — the earth beneath — and the water under the earth. Therefore, the mere fact of the presence of God in a place, or substance, is not sufficient authority for us, that we should bow down and worship the thing in which he is said to be. There is another serious evil to which this doctrine leads ; it rohs the children of God, if there be any in that church, of the cu]). There is given to them the emblem of death; they are robbed of the symbol of life. They may talk of concomitance — of the blood and the body being together in the wafer ; but, we say, it is utterly impossible ; it is a thing that never can be proved. If we merely present the body to be partaken of, we only give the emblem of death ; we are laying them under the condition of death, whilst, by withholding the cup, which is the emblem of life, — for in the blood is the life of the animal — we rob them of their title to life ; therefore, we reject the Sacrifice of the Mass, on this ground also, because it plunders the laity of the cup of blessing and of life. The Sacrifice of the Mass opposes the finished icorh of the Lord Jesus. It declares that his work is not finished ; for continuance proves inefficiency, as you will see in the 10th chap, of Hebrews. On this subject I cannot enlarge — time will not permit. It also opposes the efficiency of the work of the Holy Spirit ; for if the reception of the substantial body and blood be sufficient to give eternal life, then there is no necessity for the agency of the Holy Ghost, " taking of the things of Christ," and applying them to our souls. I must now hasten to a close, even before my al- lotted time has expired, as I am rather hurried, in conse- quence of the distance that I have to travel ; but, previous to my leaving, I should wish to make a few remarks apart from the immediate discussion of the subject before us. And, in the first place, to tlie Rev. Gentlemen opposite. If I have unnecessarily offended them by what I have said, I apologize for it ; I am rough in style, and unpolished in diction, and unformed to rivet or chain down the minds or imaginations of men; but I have not yet learned the art of smoothing down what I be- lieve to be the truth, to make it more palatable to any man ; if, then, I have unnecessarily offended the Gentle- men, I am sorry for having hurt their feelings ; but, still, one portion of the truth that I have uttered, I cannot re- tract. I would wish to be reminded, as, no doubt, they also Mr. Lyons' Fifth Speech. 421 would, of the ministry that I have received. We have heard that time is fast rolling onwards to a close, and that soon " we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ," to render up an account of our ministry, when we shall have to answer, not for our own souls alone, but for those precious souls entrusted, to our charge ; and, woe will be unto us, if we be found not to have preached, the gospel to the people ; woe will be to us, if we dispense not the words of eternal life to them ; woe will be to us, if we warn not the wicked man from the evil of his ways, if, peradventure, it may please God to have mercy upon him, and turn his heart to the Lord. These are truths that we should always desire to bear in mind, knowing that we watch over souls as " those who must give ac- count." To the young men of this j^icice I desire to speak the word of exhortation. You are now receiving lessons of much human wisdom, it may be, in this place, and your minds may be filled -with these things — but recollect that there is a higher wisdom than this world can give you — there is " the wisdom that cometh down from above," that wisdom which man never can impart to you.' — There is a wisdom which God only can teach you by his holy Word and Spirit. If you are only seeking the wisdom of this world, you are like a tree planted on the bank of some mighty stream — its waters cause the leaves to bud, and become green, and the boughs to expand and spread on every side ; but at that very hour that the waters are causing the tree to rear its head on high, and stretch its boughs abroad, they are also, imperceptibly it may be, undermining its root, and preparing its ruin. So it is with you ; if you be only growing in human wisdom, it will infallibly undermine all your happiness, and cast you into eternity without a foundation whereon to rest. But if you be planted by the side of that river which flows out of the City of God ; if the Holy Ghost be working in your hearts by the word, and teaching you " the things which belong to your everlasting peace," then you have a foundation that cannot be moved — then will you be going from strength to strength, and from glory to glory, till you appear before God in Zion. And to you, my hearers in general, I speak a few words. We met here last week, and one who sat amongst us is now numbered with the dead. She enjoyed health as many of you do this day. She was rejoicing in the circumstances attendant on this discussion, in its being a means of 422 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day. bringing out the truth of God before the people. You may be rejoicing in this also, but let me ask, have you an experimental acquaintance with that word ? I do not ask you hath it entered your understanding, but hath it been grafted into your hearts? Have you be- come acquainted with God, that you may be at peace with him ? Have you appropriated to yourselves those " exceeding great and precious promises" which are made to you in the word of God ? For even you likewise may soon, like her, be carried away to the eternal world, and then will your destinies be fixed, then will you enter on an unchangeable state — " as the tree falleth even so shall it lie." O there is a serious — an awful — con- sideration in having the truth of God laid before our mind — we must be either the better or the worse for it — it must be either " the savour of death unto death" to the soul, or " the savour of life unto life" — The Chairman. My dear friend — it is with great pain that I rise to call you to order. What you have been stating finds a ready response in my own breast, but I have a duty to perform, and if this digression, excellent though it be in itself, is permitted by me, I am of necessity bound to permit other digressions also, I beseech you to pardon me if I have transgressed, and to be assured that it is with great regret that I interrupt you. Rev. J. Lyons. — I vv^ill not resume the discussion. I thank the Chairman and the gentlemen opposite, and all present, for hearing me during the time I have addressed them. The Chairman — I hope you rightly understood me. The Rev T. J. Brown. As on several other occasions, my friends, 1 have to begin by correcting a few misrepresentations. It has just been said by the last speaker, that the Council of Trent forbids our using any other translation of the Bible than the Vulgate, against which prohibition he pretends that I have offended. 1 beg, therefore, to lay before you the passage to which the Gentleman referred : — ' Statuit et declarat S. Synodus, ut ha?c ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu ia ipsa Ecclesia pz-obata est, ia publicLs lectionibus. Mr. Browns Fourteenth Speech. 423 disputationibus, prcedicationibus, et expositlonibus, pro anthenticd habeaturj et ut nemo illam rejicere quovis pr?etextu adeat vel pritsumat." " The holy Synod determines and declares that this ancient Vulgate editioa must be considered as authentic in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions J and that no one shall dare or presume to reject U upon any pretext whatever." What a wide difference between the rejection of the Catholic version, and the reading of a quotation from the Protestant translation ! I am also misrepresented, as having said that the Sa- crifice of the Altar is not the same as the Sacrifice of the Cross. I cannot charge myself with having said so— The Rev. E. Tottenham.— No ; what Mr. Lyons said was, that you had declared the Mass to he a contimiation of the Sacrifice which you suppose to have been instituted at the last Supper. From this declaration (inasmuch as we do not consider the latter to be the same as the Sacrifice of the Cross,) ice conclude that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not the same as that of the Cross. The Rev. T. J. Brown. — It is not the same as to the maimer only of the Sacrifice; for in the one instance it was a blood?/, and in the other an unbloody Sacrifice ; in the Sacrifice of the Cross, Christ was present after a visible manner and suffered; in the Sacrifice of the Altar, Christ is not present after a visiJole manner, and does not suffer. Such is the Catholic doctrine which I hold, and which I maintained from the beginning. Such is the doctrine which I read to you from approved Catholic works, and I know not how any person can be so captious, as to pretend to mistake my meaning. Before proceeding to produce certain other arguments from Scripture in support of my position, I must briefly correct a little misapprehension which may have been, created in your minds. Mr. T. has said that anathema has been pronounced by the Council of Trent against those who deny that the "Sacrifice of the Mass is Propi- tiatory, and who assert that it is merely commemorative. If thereby was meant to be insinuated that according to the Catholic doctrine the Mass is not a commemorative sacrifice, I reject it as another of those unholy endeavours to create prejudice against the Catholic belief. The Sa- crifice of the Altar we hold to be a commemorative sacri- fice ; but, as it does not exclude the real, though sacra- mental, presence of the victim offered, at the same time that it is Commemorative, it is also Propitiatory. This was fully declared in the '* Exposition of Catholic Prin- 424 Downside Discussion.— Sixth Day. ciples," with which I opened my observations, the first time that I addressed you on this subject. Mr. T. contends that there are wanting, in the Mass, two essentials to a Propitiatory Sacrifice ; that there is not any destruction of the victim, and that there is no sacrificing priest; — " there is no Sacrificing Priest," he said, " but the Lord Jesus Christ." I ask Mr. Totten- ham, did he not, yesterday, maintain that the prayers and praises of a contrite heart, and the bodies of believers were sacrifices? If he did, I find not therein any de- struction of a victim. — I ask him, moreover, if it were not possible for the Lord Jesus Christ to have instituted such a sacrifice as that of the Catholic Altar ? If it were possible for him to have instituted it, where would be the destruction of the victim ? There could not be a real and sensible destruction of himself ; there must be, consequent- ly, only a mystical destruction. In the supposition, there- fore, (and who will dare to deny its possibility?) that Christ had instituted the Sacrifice of our Altar, such a Mystical Destruction as would be found in the event of that institution, is that which exists in our Sacri- fice. For we hold that, upon the Priest's pronouncing the words of Consecration over the bread, the Body of Christ, is truly present upon our altars, — that upon his pronouncing the words of Consecration over the wine, the Blood of Christ is truly present, by the change of the substance of bread and wine, as the primitive Fathers, from whose writings I read to you extracts, expressly declare ; and that this pre- sence of Christ's body and blood is aher s. spiritualised, ylo- 7^ified, and sacramental manner. Now, the virtually distinct and separate production, first of the blood and next of the body of Jesus Christ, by the force of the words of conse- cration, (although by accident and on account of natural concomitance, Christ is wholly and really present under each species) constitutes that mystical destruction of the victim, which preserves to the Mass the character of a true sacri- fice. Moreover, the external species, containing substan- tially Jesus Christ, are received by the priest, and hereby is completed the jnystical destruction of the victim. I know well that this explanation is not intelligible to many of you ; nay, it might be that not in three, nor yet in six days would a doctrine, involving so much Mystery, be made intelligible to untutored understand- ings. You must recoll^t, lll)wever, that we are discuss- ing what we hold to bf a Mystery, and that, to pretend Mr. Brown's Fourteenth Speech* 4*25 to analyse a mystery, or to account for a mystery, or to fathom the depths of a mystery, is what no man, but he whose judgment is weak, will dare to presume to do. Mr. T. objected that, in the New Law, there is no sacri- ficing priest. His argument was founded upon this, that, in the New Testament, the term 'lepedc expressive of a sacrificing priest, is not applied to ministers of the New Law.— But, if that term be not so applied in the New Testament, it does not convey to my mind the persuasion that v/e have not a true Sacrificing Priest ; for it appears to me (in the exercise of my right to interpret Scripture), that there are motives of prudence which would have caused the use of that term to be withheld by the inspired writers. At the time when the Evangelists, and the other authors of the New Testament, wrote, the temple of Jerusalem continued to exist, wherein were offered Moody victims, and the priests who sacrificed those bloody offer- ings were termed 'lepttc- Now, in order to prevent any one from confounding the sacrifices cf the Old Law with the sacrifice of the New, and the character and duties of the Sacrificing Priests of the Old Laic, with the cha- racter and duty of the sacrificing Priests of the New, — the term which expressed a Sacrificing Priest in the Old Law, would not be applied to those of the New Testament. But so soon as the bloody sacrifices ceased in Jerusalem, the name was restored ; and hence, in the earliest Litur- gies of the Christian Church, we find the term in ques- tion applied to the Priests of the Christian Dispensation. Mr. T. called your attention to certain negative ar^-u- ments. You have heard, however, so much of posi- tive evidence on both sides, that I think myself justified in not spending my time on arguments that are negative merely. I proceed, therefore, to consider the difficul- ties raised from the Epistle to the Hebrevv^s. I wish to observe, in the first place, that the object of the Apostle was to shew to the Jews whom he addressed, that they were not to depend for salvation on the works of the law, but upon grace through the merits of Christ. His argu- ments, throughout, are directed to the Jews ; according to ichose 7iotions, sacrifices should be often offered, and in a bloody and visible manner. It was to persons labouring under these misconceptions that the Apostle wrote ; conse- quently, his language and reasoning would, naturally, be entirely directed against the particular prejudices of the people, whom he sought to confute. In this, then, 426 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day. I discover the key for disclosing the true meaning of the Apostle. His words were addressed, as I have said, to those who knew of no victim of sacrifice but a visible one; at least their prejudices taught them to consider as a true sacrifice that only which was visible and bloody ; and by opening the sense of the Epistle to the Hebrews by this key, I am furnished with an exposition of the objected texts of the Apostle, that is quite in conformity with the Catholic doctrine. I claim no merit to myself for any discovery. The learned Fathers of antiquity, men quite as holy, men quite as profoundly versed in Scripture lan- guage, men quite as fully endowed with the Spirit of God, as any members of the Reformation Society, interpreted the language of St. Paul as I interpret it. They under- stood it as I do ; they used the same key to which I have directed you ; and I borrow my exposition of the mean- mg of the Apostle, from the exposition of those who derived the true meaning of Scripture from the Apostles. Whatever modern teachers may presume to say on Divine matters, to me it appears unquestionable that, if there arise a doubt concerning the meaning of Revelation, we are to seek its solution from those who received their interpretation of Scripture more directly from the Apostles, — the early Christian Doctors, and the writers of the pri- mitive Liturgies. Opening the 17th Homily of St. Chrysostom upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, I find that the exposition which I am about to give of the Apostle's meaning, coincides with that which he gave ; and there are many other great authorities by which it can be confirmed. St. Chrysostom, m the Homily to which I have referred, teaches that we offer daily on our altars a true sacrifice, far more efl[ica- cious than the sacrifices of the Old Law, being the same with the Sacrifice of the Cross ; and that we have a true priesthood, Jesus Ciirist being our High Priest, and our victim. Thus is reconciled the prediction of Malachi with the language of the Apostle. Mr. T. objected to us, Heb. ix. 10 — 12. " Christ entered once into the holy place having- obtained redemptioa for us," &c. Our solution of this passage — " that Christ's Sacri- fice on the Cross is not repeated, but continued on our altars,'' the Rev. Gentleman pretended was an ai^tfid one. I know, at least, that it has been received by those holy and learned men, in olden times, who were well able to Mr, Brown's Fourteenth Speech. 427 judge whether there was any artifice in such an explana- tion. I find, moreover, this interpretation borne out by the testimonies from Scripture that I have before adduced, — the prediction of Malachi, and other passages which can- not be easily and satisfactorily reconciled with St. Paul, but by admitting this answer, — that our Sacrifice is a con- tinuation of the one Sacrifice of the Cross, and is not a new and distinct Sacrifice from it. Mr. T. argued from the 22d verse of the 9th chapter, wherein it is said — " without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin," that the propitiatory nature of the Catholic Sacrifice is overturned. Mr. T. has read the context, and in all probability he must have seen, or if he will read it again, he will see that it refers exclusively to the sacrifices of the Jews ; that it is not a declaration of the only means by which a sacrifice can be propitiatory. St. Paul is speaking, I repeat, of the sacrifices of the Jews; and amongst the Jews the propitiatory sacrifice was to be a Moody sacrifice : but he does not seek to define what is essentially necessary to every propitiatory Sacrifice, especially in the New Law. You have heard Mr. T. quote the 9th chapter, verses 24 — 26, whence he formed this syllogism. If Christ is to be often offered, he must often siffer ; but Christ does not suffer often ; thei-efore Christ is not often oiiei'ed in the Sacrifice of the Mass. But, suppose loe exercise our right of private judgment; suppose we interpret the lan- guage of the Apostle, of a visible and carnal offering; that we conclude, from the alleged text, merely that Christ cannot indeed be visibly and carnally often offered, without often suff'ering; and that we maintain this to be the true meaning of the Apostle : the premises are thus cut from under Mr. T., upon which he rested his con- elusion, that the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass cannot be truly a propitiatory Sacrifice. Suppose, I say, that we, by the exercise of our private judgment, put this inter- pretation on the text of the Apostle, in which we are borne out by the authority of antiquity ; it removes at once a difficulty which it is impossible, otherwise, to re- concile with other declarations of Scripture. Mr. T. quoted verses 27, 28, wherein there is a parallel between man dying once, and Christ being offered up once ; whence he concludes that, as man can die but once, so Christ can be but once offered. That Christ can be but once offered, that is, after a bloody manner, is our doctrine, 428 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day. as I have again and again repeated. Christ's sacrifice on the cross cannot be renewed after that manner in which he sacrificed himself thereon : nay, all the merits of the sacrifice of our altar are referable to that sacrifice. But the question is, whether, because Christ cannot be offered a second time in a bloody manner, therefore Christ's offer- ing on the cross cannot be continued and applied to us hy an unbloody oblation. This is all we contend for, and this is the explanation we give of the doctrine of the apostle, reconciling thereby the conflicting passages which Mr. T. produced on the one side, and which I adduced on the other, from Malachi, from the words of Christ at his Last Supper, from the Epistle to the Corinthians, and from the figure of the Paschal Lamb. — What will you, my friends, say to this contrariety of interpretation? Most of you, I apprehend, already feel persuaded, that the arguments on cither side are such that you cannot venture to decide between them ; and this persuasion, if followed up, must either conduct you to the necessity of adniitting the authority of some guide besides each one's private judgment, or it will mislead you to scep- ticism and infidelity. Mr. Tottenham charged us v/ith usurping the priesthood of Christ. It is a charge that is, indeed, eutirely unfounded. We do not pretend to succeed Christ in the functions oihis Ministry. Vv'e maintain that he has no successor therein : that he is for ever ; vvdiereby he is distinguished from the priests of old, who succeeded to each other in the priest- hood by carnal generation, having e^z<«Z powers and pri- vileges. Christ is a priest /or ever, after the order of Mel- chizedec. Christ is supreme in the povv^er and excellence of his Ministry. He is ever interceding for us. But the Catholic doctrine is, that whilst Christ is supreme in the Sacerdotal Office, he has established upon earth visible delegates, not equal to him, but his Ministers, who were appointed when he ordered the Apostles to go and preach the Gospel to all nations. We hold, then, not that we are equcd to Christ, but only that we are his visible Mi- nisters and Delegates ; not claiming as due to ourselves the honour or merit thereof, nor any higher distinction than that of being the Representatives of the One High Priest, from whom we receive certain powers and privi- leges, some of which my Rev. opponent also claims for the Priesthood to which he belongs. Mr. Tottenham maintained, and Mr. Lyons had done the Mr. Browns Fourteenth Speech, 429 same, that Catholics cannot be certain whether the Sacri- fice of the Mass has been really offered, because they are not certain whether the matter thereof was valid. I ap- prehend that a somewhat similar difficulty must encom- pass the Gentlemen opposite. Mr. T. no doubt holds, in conformity with his Church, that baptism cannot be admi- nistered by any but natural water. If, therefore, doubt about the validity of the matter may exist on our side, there is some room for doubt on his side also. But we had a great deal said about the security of moral cer- tainty, during the Discussion of last week. Mr. T. con- tended that moral certainty was sufficient to satisfy reasonable men. Now we can have this moral certainty with regard to the validity of tlie matter of our sacrifice ; for we have the testimony of our senses assuring us that the bread and wine is proper bread and proper wine ; we have also a moral certainty, resulting from the known good character of those who present this matter of the oblation upon the altar. This moral certainty is ordina- rily sufficient for man. Mr. Tottenham contended that there would be always a doubt as to the Intention of the Priest. 1 cannot assert with confidence what are the Rev. Gentleman's opinions with regard to the necessity or otherwise of Intention ; but, perhaps, he will explain to us whether he considers that Baptism, given by a Minister of the Established Church who (being in truth an infidel) should say within himself, — " I mean not to confer any Sacrament ; I intend to wash the outside merely ; I am going to mock the institu- tion of Clirist ;" — whether he considers that such a bap- tism would be valid or not? I am not quite sure, as yet, what answer he will give me ; but he Vv^ill determine, by his solution of this difficulty, the answer I shall make to his objection. However, we are but Men; in few in- stances can we arrive at greater than moral certainty ; and moral certainty we may generally have with regard to the intention of the Priest. The Rev. Gentlemen on the other side apprehend that the want of due Intention on the Priest may betray us into idolatry ; that there is danger of our falling down to adore mere bread and ivine, instead of adoring Jesus Christ, whom we presume to be present.- — Do not suffer yourselves to be deceived by this, or by the many other evil insinuations which have been made against us. Idolatry is only com- mitted when we pay to a created thing that loorship which 430 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day. is due to God alone. Supposing that, by accident, no con- secration should be made of the bread and wine, and that there is external homage paid before that which, by mis- take, is not the Body and Biood of Christ, yet, in such case, there is no Idolatry ; for there is none such, when the Mind is not paying to a Creature the Worship which we owe to no other than God. Our adoration is designed for the Son of God alone, whom we presume to be sacra- mentally but substantially contained under the appearance of bread and wine; so that if, by accident, on account of any defect in the consecration, He were not to be sacra- menially upon our altars, yet to Him only we refer our Adoration ; and ice never pay any adoration to the mere external symlols, nor to the Elements of Dread and Wine. However, the doctrine of Adoration, and the difficulties that are urged against it, belong to Protestants of the Es- tablished Church as well as to Catholics, although not, perhaps, to all the members of that Church at the present day ; for I must observe that many variations have" been mtroduced, since the establishment of Protestantism in this country, into its worship and belief: and these varia- tions will continue to take place, so long as Protestants reject Authority, which alone can confine men to the true meaning of Holy Writ. But I speak of Protestants, high in veneration amongst you who have admitted the same Adoration of the Eucharist that we admit; and whose doctrine is open to the same difficulties as are brought against us. 1 v/ill read to you a passage from Bishop Forbes, in his " Treatise on the Eucharist," b. -2. c.ii. sec- tion 9 th: — ** The sounder (and more sensible) Protestants malce no hesitation to adore Christ in the Eucharist. Yov, in receiving the Eucharist, Christ is to be adored with true Latria," Again, section 8th, — ** 'Tis a monstrous error of the rigid Protestants, who maintain that Christ is Tiot to he adored in the Eucharist, except by an invfard adoration of mind, but not with any outward act of adoration, such as kneeling, or other such posture of the body. All these do not believe aright of the presence of Christ in the Sa- crament, he being there in a wonderful, but real manner." Thorndyke, in his " Epilogue," b. 3. chap. xxx. p. 350, writes thus : — ** I suppose the body and blood of Christ may be adored, wheresoever they are ; and must be adored by a good Christian, where the custom of the Church which a Clnistian is obliged to communicate with requires it. And is not the presence thereof in the Sacrament of the Eucharist a just occasion to express on the spot, by that bodily act of adoration, the inward honour, which we al- vrays bear towards our Lord Jesus Christ, as God? " Mr, Browns Fourteenth Speech. 431 i^gain, In page 351 : — *' Not to baulk that pardon, which hath led me to publish these mj senti- ments, I do believe that it \vaa so practised (adoration was paid) and done be- fore receiving the symbols in the ancient Church ; which I maintain to have been from the beginning of the true Church of Christ, obliii;ing all to conforia to it, in all things, within the power of it." This language was held by the Defenders of the Esta- blished Church, men to whose talents I am sure my Rey. opponent is ready to do homage. — 1 shall soon refer you to many of the Fathers supporting this doctrine, that adoration ought to be paid to Christ in the Sacrifice of our Altars. Their belief, therefore, was exposed to the same objections as are urged against ours ; yet these early followers of Christ found not any danger of Idolatry in the Adoration of the Eucharist, to deter them from that belief which we have received from the Scriptures, and which is confirmed by their testimony. — I observed above, that the Protestant Established Church was not always the same in its doc- trines and principles as it is now. Mr. Tottenham knows that it has gone through many changes, and that in the first Liturgy, published by Edward VI., and in that of Eliza- beth, it was allowed to pay a solemn act of adoration, when receiving the Eucharist, which is prohibited in your modern rituals. Having sufliciently, I trust, gone through Mr. Totten- ham's objections, and as there is not much time remain- ing, I deem it necessary to hasten on with my proofs in support of the Mass. In Acts chap. xiii. ver. 1, 2, we read :— " Now there was in the Church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers: as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cy- rene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said," &cc. The term, which is rendered in the Protestant version ^^ ministered,'' in the Greek is AeLTovpyovvTOJv. Now this term, I contend, expresses a real sacrifice ; "as they mi- nistered'' being equivalent to *' as they sacrificed." In proof of this position, first, we have the authority of a man who was not, in many respects, unfavourable to the Protestant doctrine, the celebrated Erasmus, who actually translates this passage, *' when they were offering sacri- fice,"— " Sacrificantibus illis.'' Secondly, Mr. T. must allow that the term must mean here, as it does every where else, at least public service of some kind. Now I request he will inform us what that public service was, in •which those Disciples were employed ? He must not tell me that it was the administering of sacraments, or preach- 432 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day. ing ; for, if lie looks to the text, he will find that they ministered to the Lord ; whereas the administering of a sacrament, or preaching, is addressed to the i^eople? — He must not tell me that it was the ministry of puhlic Prayer ; for, if he will read the third verse, he will find prayer distinguished from " the ministering to the Lord," and subsequent to it. It remains, therefore, that " they ministered to the Lord" hy sacrifice, or the offering up of a victim ; whereof we find far more clear and distinct proofs in the next and following ages of the Christian dispensation, in which, how^ever, there would not have been a trace of sacrifice, if they had not received such doctrine from the Apostles themselves. Thirdly, I may confirm, by other strong considerations, my interpretation of this text. We find the earliest rituals used by Chris- tians called by the name of Liturgies. The Greeks call them AtL-ovpyial, a term similar to that which is employed in the Greek Scripture for the word "ministering," from which I derived my present proof. Now the true mean- ing of this word AsLTovpyial will be explained, by opening those Liturgies, and seeing v/hat is the sort of public mi- nistry w^hich they prescribe. We find, therefore, those Liturgies (bearing, as they do, a name that corresponds with the term which, in the text just now quoted, you translate "ministering,") explicitly exhibiting to us, not only belief in the real presence, not only a change of sub- stance, and belief in Transuhstantiation, but also, and principally, belief in the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ ofiered on Christian Altars. Yes! such sacrifice is as clearly expressed in the earliest Litur- gies as it is in our modern Catholic Rituals. From the sense, therefore, of the term AeL-ovpyuu, I am justified in my conclusion, that the word in the text adduced AeiTovpyovPTcov, is of similar import, meaning the minister- ing of Sacrifice. I entreatyour reflection upon another argument in con- firmation of this interpretation. The Greek language, to this day, is not altogether a dead language ; it has been altered in some respects, but still it is a living and spoken language. To the Greeks of this day, therefore, it is not without reason that we may appeal, for the true meaning of the Greek term in the text adduced. Now, I would gladly leave the present Controversy to the decision of any Greek Priest, whether the term wdiich the Greeks still use to express " the Sacrifice of the Mass" is not the very Mr. Browns Fourteenth Speech, 43^ term used In the text of the apostle, from which I have just argued. From all this, then, 1 contend that there is iji the Acts of the Apostles, a term which explicitly/ signifies the Sacrifice of our Catholic Priesthood. The Protestant authorities, which yesterday I adduced, recommend us to have recourse, on disputed questions, to those who first received from the Apostles the true mean- ing of the doctrines of Revelation. Indeed, it is incon- ceivable how the Church, to which Christ promised his Spirit, and with which he declared that he would abide to the consummation of the world, could have fallen into gross Error, Error involving Idolatry, in the first, second, and third ages after the resurrection of Christ. If, then, we appeal to the rituals, which are records of the faith of those primitive Christians, we find most clear and un- deniable testimony that they admitted the Sacrifice of our Altars. I know not at what period Mr. T. will contend that the *' Idolatry of the Mass'' crept into the Christian Church. I maintain that, at no period, can he show that Idolatry found its way into the Universal Church, thereby falsify- ing the promise of Christ, that he would be with his Church to the end of time. However, Protestants do assign different periods when " the Idolatry of the Mass," they say, crept in ; but there are few, if any, who fix it before the termination of the fifth century. Now I have here a palpable fact, which will demonstrate that, prior to the fifth century^ the present Catholic doctrine was held on Transuhstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass^ on the Sacraments, and on most other dogmas of faith : there are, indeed, but very few of our doctrines which are exceptions to the conclusiveness of this argument. Early in the fifth century, several persons, called Nestorians and Eutychians, fell off from the Catholic faith. These sects have existed, and do exist, to the present day. Now it has been clearly demonstrated, that the Nestorians and Eutychians did maintain, before their separation, the same belief asi^e do still, concerning the Sacrifice of the Altar and Transuhstantiation ; for into other points it is not necessary on this occasion to enter. We have the Liturgies of the Nestorians and Eutychians ; and these Liturgies, as you will hear just now, express, as clearly as words can ex- press, the belief we maintain in those important doctrines- 2 F 434 Downside Discussion, — SixtJt Day. Here is another general argument, which is also a paL pable one ; an argument, which, 1 trust, vs'ill reach the understanding ofeyery one of my present hearers. There was a time, Mr. T. will not deny this, when the Catholic doctrine was universally held. My Rev. opponent may select the period when Berenger impugned the Sacrament of the Altar, or any other, when I care not, if there be but some period assigned upon which I can rest my reasoning ; even if it be as near to our time as that in wdiicti Luther endeavoured to invalidate the Catholic doctrines. Recollect, moreover, that those doctrines were not specu- lative, hut practical (iGctrines. They were the practical doc- trines of those Christians who lived at that period which Mr. T. may choose to assign ; as often as they repaired to their Churches, they worshipped Christ present in the Sacra- ment, and the Sacrifice of our Altars. Now, they must have known what they worshij^ped, and what they professed to receive when they participated in the Eucharist. Re- flect, also, that the generations of men do not commence and terminate together, but are mixed up one with an- other, so that the young men oiiYiQ present, are acquainted with the old men oi ih.Q preceding generation. From this I reason ; first, that no one generation can be ignorant of what the preceding generation had practically believed ; and, that thuswe may ascend from generation to generation, till we reach the times of the Apostles. Now, whatever period be assigned, (and some period must be assigned,) when all believed the Catholic doctrine in the Sacrament apd Sacrifice of the Altar, this universality of belief being once admitted, it is impossible that the Protestant doc- trine could ever, prior to that belief, have prevailed ; — that ever, antecedently, therefore, it could have been held by the Church that the body of Christ was Jiot substantially present in the Sacrament, and not substantially offered in the Sa- crifice of our Altars. For, had any j)receding generations ■universally entertained the Protestant doctrine, how could they have all come round to embrace the Catholic doc- trine ? Suppose, as must then have been the case, that there had been a schism amongst them upon this matter, we might have found some taking up the Catholic doctrine ; but all would not have embraced it : — or if, at the sup- posed period, a doubt, however strong, had arisen in fa- vour thereof, we might, perhaps, find such doctrines Mr Browns Fourteenth Speech, 435 afterwards held, but bi/ 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 Eccle- siastical history, of the novelty of these doctrines. Pro- tests would have been entered ; — Councils would have been assembled ; — Heretics would have cliarged the Ca- tholic Church with her falling off from the Unity of Faith, and with introducing change and novelty into her doc- trines: but there never was a period in which such Coun- cils were held, such Protests entered, or such charges brought. Hence I contend, that they never were a no- velty : 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 AriuSj or Macedonius, or Berenger, or Luther, or any other, that was not publicly follov/ed by Dissensions, — by Protests, — by Writings, — by Councils — by proofs palpable in Ecclesiastical records, and marking the pre- cise time when such novelties found their way into the Church. Now, nothing of this kind can be shown in re- gard 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 woidd 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 doc- trines of Transubstantiation, and of the Mass, without their having been handed down from the first ages, the Simo- nians, 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 436 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day, 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 cor- roborated 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 commence- ment 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 Constan- tinople, hoping to engage him to approve the novelties of Protestantism ; and in union with the Protestants, to con- demn the Catholic Church. This was accompanied by an artful letter, wherein Melancthon tells the Greek Patriarch that Protestants admit the doctrine of the leathers of the Greek Church ; also its general Councils, although Me- lancthon knew that the second council of Nice was ex- pressly 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 unsuspect- ing 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 1 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 Transubstan- tiation and the Mass, from the Catholic Church, con- sequently, 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 Mr, Tottenham s Twelfth Speech. 437 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 froin 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 com- plaining of the existence either of had faith, or of igno- ranee, on the part of the advocates of Protestantism, which had been exhibited in what he considers the partial quo- tations 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 con- nected), I confess I am not disposed to conmient 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 assem- bly, but have rather tended to establish what I advanced. 438 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day. 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 souo-ht to brins: 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 icitnesses to certain facts, but do not like to take them as positive authorities. I do not under- value \h.QVi\,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, 1 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 Transubstantia- tion 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 other- wise. Such is the distinction drawn by Mr. Brown ; but, at all events, he must recollect that, even though this dis- tinction were admissible in the other cases, it does not apply to the passage 1 quoted from Cardinal Cajetan. That passage spoke thus : — «• There does not appear out of the Gospel any thing to compel us to Mr. Tottenham's Twelfth Speech, 439 UNDERSTAND THESE WORDS LITERALLY, namelj, * This IS my body ;' and truly THAT vRESEScz, tvhich 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 clear- ness and perspicuiti/ 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 fullj/. But, that I may not seem entirely to disregard the pas- sage, I shall place in juxta-position with it another quota- tion from Cyril, and let Mr. Brown give a consistent inter- pretation 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 pro- duced. 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 pas- sage he has quoted from Cyril be correct, namely, as im- plying Cyril's belief in the substantial change of the bread and wine in the Eucharist, then, from that just cited hyme, I may conclude that Cyril held a 'physical change iri the ancient chrism or ointment after consecration, because he compares the change of the Iread in the Eucharist to that change. But, in fact, never was any change believed to 440 Downside Discussion.—Sixth Day, take place in the chrism hut a moral change : therefore, when Cyril compares the change in the hread 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 suj^pressing 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, a/ter cnnsecraf Kvpio)) and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them, Separate me Saul and Barnabas icr the work whereunto I have taken them. Then thej, fast- ing and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away." — Actsxiii. 1 — 3. In this text Mr. Brown discovers the Sacrifice of the Mass ! He says, the expression, translated " ministering," denotes public service, and must refer to a real sacrifice, because it was said to be directed " to the Lord ;" whereas the administration of Sacraments, and preaching, are directed to the people. But, may I ask, are not prayer and praise directed unto the Lord as well as a literal sacri- fice ? There is, therefore, no validity in this observation. Again. — He supposes the term cannot refer to prayer, be- cause prayer is mentioned in the 3rd verse ; and this men- tion, he thinks, distinguishes it frop:i the *' ministering to the Lord" in the 2nd verse. Now, I say, that is the very reason why I should assert that it did refer to prayer* Mark the expression in the 2nd verse — " As they were ministering to the Lord ^nA fasting" And, it is said in the 3rd verse — " Then they fasting and praying.'" The word '•\fasting" is repeated in the 3rd verse, and thus we are fairly left to conclude, that " ministering to the Lord," and " praying," mean substantially the same thing. — Further, Mr. Brown contends, that it must mean a literal sacrifice (and, that sacrifice, he concludes to be the Mass) from the force of the Greek word, tvanslsited "ministering." To this I re^ly, first, that the Vulgate (that Latin version of the Scriptures, which is certainly looked upon as high authority in the Church of Rome) does not translate the Mr, Tottenham's Twelfth Speech, 451 Greek term by a word which means literal sacrifice, but by the word " ministrantihus" which means simply minis- tering. But, secondly, to point out the consequences of Mr. Brown's interpretation, and to show, that the word on which he rests, does not necessarily imply sacrifice at all, much less the Sacrifice of the Mass, I shall refer him to a few passages where it occurs. 1. Let us take the 13th of Romans and 6th verse. Speaking of governors and magistrates, the Apostle says : — " For they are the ministers (Xetrovpyoi) of God, serving' unto this pur- pose." The original word translated " ministers" here, is radi- cally the same as that translated " ministering" in this passage of the Acts. If Mr. Brown, therefore, rests upon the force of the Greek word, as necessarily referring to literal sacrifice, then, what can / prove upon the same principle? I can establish from its use in Rom. 13, the extraordinary doctrine. That every magistirite is to offer literal sacrifice ! 2.1 refer again to the 15th chapter and £7th verse : — " For it hath pleased them ; and thej are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things ; they (the Gentiles) ought also in carnal things to minister (XeiTovpyijaai) to them (the Jewish be- lievers.)" Here, again, is exactly the same ivord used. Therefore, if Mr. Brown argues correctly from the 13th of Acts, that it must mean a literal sacrifice, I can prove, upon the same principle, that the Gentiles spoken of in this passage, were to offer a literal sacrifice in carnal things to the Jewish believers! But this, you perceive, is a gross absurdity. 3. I shall give only one more quotation out of the many that might be adduced to show that the word does not mean of necessity, or primarily, literal sacrifice. It is contained in the 1st chapter of Hebrews, 14th verse, where, speaking of angels, St. Paul says — " Are they not all ministering (XeirovpyiKu) spirits, sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation 1" The same word is here also employed ; and if its mean- ing be such as Mr. Brown would make it in the 13th of Acts, then the interpretation of this passage would be — " Are not the angels all ministering spirits ; — or, spirits that offer literal sacrifice — for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation ?" 452 Downside Discussion.—- Sixth Day. Thus have I carried out Mr. Brown s own scheme of interpreting this word, and we see it hy no means necessarily means sacrifice at all, but that such. an idea would oftentimes introduce palpable absurdities and false- hoods. If Mr. B. again contends, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is proved from the 13th of Acts, he must explain to me the passages of Scripture to which I have now re- ferred, according to the meaning he would affix to the word in question. Mr. Brown next entered, at considerable length, into an historical review of some circumstances connected with the subjects we are debating. It is impossible for me, at the present stage of my address, to follow him into all; but I must notice a remarkable fact stated by my op- ponent, for which I am much obliged to him — namely, that the Eutychian heretics and others, maintained precisely the same doctrine as the Roman Catholics do on this subject. Indeed, I am very ready to admit it; and, in connection with the admission, I maintain, distinctly, that Transubstantia- tion is of heretical origin — that it formed the basis of the heresy of Eutyches. If Mr. Brown can take advantage of this, he may. The Fathers, of whom we have heard, spoke, I admit, in strong terms of the Eucharist, and of a change taking place in the elements : I contend, how- ever, that the passages speak of a moral change, not a •physical — a change in the use of the elements, and not in their nature, which is the doctrine held by the Church of England in the present day. But, I do believe that the first introduction of this doctrine of Transubstantiation (though in a rude state and without a name), was at the time of the starting of the Eutychian heresy, for the argu- ment of the heretic (as we heard yesterday) was this : — *' As the symbols then of the Lord's body and blood were different before the consecration of the Priest, and after that consecration are physically 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." It was in answer to this, that Orthodoxus made the reply, already quoted more than once. I may observe, too, that the reply could have no force against Eutychianism, except upon the supposition that the modern Boman Catholic doctrine of Christ's bodily presence in the Eucharist, was disbe- lieved BY ThEODORET in THE FIFTH CENTURY. But, said the Rev. Gentleman, surely there would have Mr. TottenTiatris Twelfth Speech, 453 been pr^otests and opposition against this doctrine, if it had been introduced at any time as a novelty. And so there were protests and opposition. J wonder that any man, who professed to be acquainted with Ecclesiastical history, should start such a point as this. When the Euty- chian heresy began, the doctrine of a physical change in the elements (on which it was based) was opposed by Theodoret, as we have seen ; also by Pope Gelasius ; and, afterwards, by Ephrem of Antioch. Does not Mr. Brown recollect, moreover, that, when Paschasius put forth the doctrine in the 9th century in a more regular form, and after that period also, there were many men, and able men too, who strongly opposed the doctrine? Among them were Bertram, John Scot, Erigena, Berenger, and others — not to forget Rabanus Maurus, who used the remarkable expression concerning it — " This Error HAVE WE OPPOSED WITH ALL OUR MIGHT." I find my time has nearly expired for the present, and I have but one speech more to make. I beg, therefore, to observe, that, connected with this subject upon which we have been debating, is that to which Mr. Lyons referred before he left the room, as one of the baneful consequences that are made to flow from the doctrine of Transubstantia- tion, I mean, the withholding the cup from the laity , This is a most striking point, and particularly so, when not merely we can produce the words of the institution — not merely can we produce other texts of Scripture, which tell us that the wine was to be given to all, as well as the bread, and, likewise, that all received the wine as well as the bread — but when we can likewise adduce the confession of the Church of Rome herself, that, in the early ages of the Church, the administration was in both kinds I Yes, Sir, we have heard much of antiquity to-day, and yesterday ; hwihere is a point in which antiquity is manifestly «^aiws^ the Church of Rome, by her own confession, for, in the Council of Constance it is admitted that, in the early ages, they gave in both kinds. Dr. Delahogue, also, in his Class-Book of May- nooth College, says it was so till the \%th century : and yet the Church, in her wisdom, has, in these latter times, chosen to take the cup from the people. Upon this point I shall just read the reasons assigned for keeping the cup from the laity, as I find them in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, a book of undoubted authority in the Church of Rome : — 454 Downside Discussion, — Sixth Day^ " The Church was, no doubt, influenced bj many and most cogent reasons, not only to approve, but also to conjirm by the authority of a decree, the practice of communicating under one species : 1. The greatest- caution was necessary, lest the blood of the Lord sjiould he spilled on the ground, which could scarcely be avoided, if it were administered in a large assemblage. 2. Besides, when the Holy Eucharist ought to be always in readiness for the sick, it were very much to be feared, lest, if the species of wine should remain too long unconsumed, it might become vapid. 3. Besides, there are a great many who cannot bear the taste or smell of wine." — Cat. Concil. Trid. Pars 2. de Euch. Sac. These are three of the cogent reasons. I will now give you the fourth [The Chairman then observed, that the Kev. Gentle- man's time had expired.] The Rev. F. Edgeworth. Mr. Chairman, — Let it be understood by the Meeting, that this is the last occasion, on which it can be addressed by the Advocates of the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist — the doctrine of Transubstantiation ; meaning, that a total change of substance is effected, by the power of God, in the bread and wine which are taken to the altars of the Catholic Church ; — and the equally important and dis- puted doctrine, that, in the Sacrifice of the Mass, as it is offered on the same altars, there is a true, and proper, and propitiatory Sacrifice, instituted by Jesus Christ. — As, then, this is the last occasion on which we have an opportunity of speaking on these doctrines, it will, at once, be understood, that I can follow the Rev„ Gentleman opposite, in all his objections to them, but very briefly ; in order that I may have an opportunity of laying before the meeting, which, at the present time, includes many persons, who have not before attended our discussion, an outline of the arguments taken from the Scripture, and from such other sources as may be deemed to possess au- thority, to establish our doctrine and practice. With regard, therefore, to the various observations Mr. Edgeworth's Third SpeecJu 455 which Mr. Tottenham has just addressed to the meeting, T shall neither pretend to notice them exactly in the order which he has selected, nor to touch upon any others than those which he seemed to consider the most important. He has just told you, that one of his heaviest charges against the Catholic Church is, that it withholds from the laity the cup. Certainly, this subject is nearly allied to the subject in debate ; but, I must maintain that it is not exactly a part of the matter chosen for our present dis- cussion ; and I should waste the precious moments which remain, if I entered on this new topic at length. Accord- ingly, 1 shall content myself with referring the meeting to No. 4, of a series of pamphlets published by Mr. Brown, entitled, " Catholic Truth Vindicated.'' In that pamphlet will be found a summary of the arguments which Catholics use, to show that, to receive the Eucharist under one form, is not contrary to any command received from Jesus Christ; and that such discipline does not deprive the laity of any portion of the rite instituted as essential by Jesus Christ. Not only will you find this charge, irregularly introduced by Mr. Tottenham, disproved by the arguments of Catho- lics, but you will, moreover, see it acknowledged by many Protestants, to be without any foundation. Let me observe by the way, that on this, and on every other disputed point of doctrine, our Protestant friends may, by having re- course to Catholic works, by consulting the Catholic clergy, by conversing with well-instructed Catholic lay persons, easily inform themselves wdiat are our real doc- trines, and upon what they are founded. Mr. Tottenham observed, that he thought we were dis- satisfied with the appeal w^e had made to the evidence which. Scripture affords of the truth of our doctrines. He must allow us to speak with more authority than he can, of the degree of satisfaction which we feel on this, or any other subject. I tell him, that ive are perfectly satisfied that the Holy Scriptures most clearly establish the Catho- lic doctrine, and the Catholic practice ; and as clearly condemn that gentleman, and those who, denying the truth of the words of Jesus Christ, omit to receive that nourishment for their immortal souls, Vvhich our divine Saviour has provided, and the non-reception of which, he has told us, will be punished with the loss of eternal happiness. ♦* Except you eat the flesh of the ^Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."— John yi, 54. 456 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day, We are perfectly satisfied with the testimony which the Holy Scripture affords ; we have appealed to it as confi- dently as Mr. Tottenham has done ; and if we have failed in convincing him of the correctness of our exposition of the written word of God, it may be, that we have not equally failed with the rest of the assembly. At any rate, Mr. Tottenham's right to appeal to the Holy Scriptures, and to expound them, according to the light which he fancies God has given him, is not greater than my right to do the same, — if he will adhere to his own principle. Mr. Tottenham has remarked, that we have not noticed in detail, his quotations from Cardinals Cameracensis, Ca- jetan, and some other Catholic divines, who, according to his statement, have expressed an opinion, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not to be found in the Holy Scrip- tures. Now, this is not much to the purpose. Last week I observed, that he quoted some few divines on other topics, in a similar way ; he contended, that Cardinal Bel- larmine, and others, were not satisfied that particular texts of Scripture proved the doctrine of Purgatory. Now, it appears to me, that Mr. Tottenham is conscious of a wish and expectation, that such statements would lead the meeting to infer, that Cardinals Cameracensis and Caje- tan, and other divines he mentioned, differed from the Ca- tholic Church, on the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and on the doctrine of Purgatory. I defy him to sustain this unjust inference. His only advantage, if advantage it be, is, that they were not satisfied that certain texts, to which we appeal ordinarily in controversy with members of the Established Church, ought to be appealed to for the pur- pose for which we use them. But he well knows, and must, allow, that the divines which he has enumerated, were a very small minority in the Catholic Church ; that the far greater number of our divines, and of the Fathers, pre- eminent for learning and piety, have uniformly expounded the texts in question, as we have done throughout the pre- sent discussion. Mr. Tottenham seems to cling with some affection, to the charge brought against me yesterday, of purposely, (for it was so insinuated, when he said, he had " caught me,") oi purposely curtailing a quotation from Theodoret. But, as Mr. Brown has drawn your attention to his act of curtailing, which, inasmuch as his attention to the passage, appears to have been more deliberate than mine, is less Mr. EdgewortJis Third SpeecJi. 457 easily explained, perhaps I ought to take no further notice of the matter. However, I must remark, that though he has, at last, read the words which he at first omitted, he has not laid that stress upon them which he ought to have done, and which he knows they deserve. The words that follow those which he said I had purposely left out, dis- tinctly tell us, that the Christians, in the time of Theo- doret, did, in effect, ' adore what we have upon our altars, after the words of consecration. Mr. Tottenham lays no stress on that ! He is a master of emphasis ; and when he avoids laying the stress w4iich is due to those words, I think I am justified in saying, that he is endeavouring to make an escape from the meaning of Theodoret, and the force of his testimony. Mr. Tottenham contends, that the present tense some- times signifies the future ; and, therefore, he begs leave to understand the passage which describes the institution of the Eucharist, in the future tense, contrary to the autho- rized Protestant version of Scripture, and thus comes over, for once, to the Catholic version. Whether you will grant him that permission, I know not ; and, in truth, it matters little. Mr. Tottenham proceeded to say, that even if Christ did establish a Sacrifice at the last Supper, it must have been typical. I here beg to remind him, and the meeting, of an expression which he has repeatedly used to my edification, — so as to lead me to hope that he will one day see, in all their clearness, the truth of those doctrines which he now opposes — namely, that he will never presume to prescribe to Christ, the Son of God, what he ought to do. Now, he has ventured to do this ; for he says, if Christ instituted a sacrifice, it must have been typical. By this term, he means that it must have been simply figurative ; which is equivalent, in my judgment, to saying that Christ could not institute a real sacrifice, or his argument is nothing to the purpose. Now, then, we have Mr. Tottenham, who has exhibited a far greater share of wariness than Mr. Lyons, stating what Mr. Lyons, in his innocence, asserted before ; namely, that Christ could not institute the holy Eucharist in the sense and meaning in which it is regarded by the Catholic Church. To this declaration I wish to fix Mr. Tottenham. If he means to say, that Christ had not the power to give his 58 Downside Discussion.-— -Sixth Day, body and blood to be eaten and drunk — as the Catholic Church believes and teaches that he has done— then, I think it no longer worth while to appeal to his knowledge of the Scripture, or to take further pains to convince him of his errors ; for, if he adheres to this declaration — if. I say, he prescribes limits to the power of J esus Christ, the ground which I thought, on a former occasion, was com- mon to both parties in this discussion, he does not share with us. But, after all, I must think, that Mr. Totten- ham believes the divine nature of Jesus Christ ; and, con- sequently, that the power of Christ is infinite— Az5 wisdom — his truth unquestionable. Reminded of this, and that his own mind is finite, Mr. Tottenham does not, I am quite sure, deliberately intend to say, that Christ could not do this ; if he were, then. Christian Brethren, I would pass from Mr. Tottenham, and appeal to your belief, at least, in the words of Scripture. Mr. Tottenham tells us, however, that Christ could not give the Apostles, at the Last Supper, his real body and blood — that he could not give them a command to perpetuate that sacred rite. Go, then, to the words of the institution — there you will find him saying to the Apostles — ''Take, eat; — This is my body — 'This is my blood which is shed," or about to be shed — (take either version— I lay no stress on the diffe- rence— ) " for the remission of sins — drink ye all of it." But our arguments throughout have, as the Rev. Gen- tleman knows, been addressed to those only who believe in the divine nature of Christ, who know his power to be unlimited, who feel therefore that it is not for them to set boupds thereto, and that Christ can declare and do things which our understandings cannot grasp. Hence the only question which ought to have arisen between us was, has Christ said this, or that? Has Christ ordained this, or that? No one should have argued, so as to imply that in- dividuals might come to the discussion with this reserve ; " I will believe Christ's words if they appear to be reason- able, I will obey his ordinances when I think there is no contradiction in them, to the testimony I receive from the senses, or other sources.'^ Mr. Tottenham is most incorrect when he imputes to us the assertion that there is no Priesthood in the new law. Mr. Tottenham. — J said it, speaking of a sacrificing priesthood — not you. Mr. EdgewortKs Third Speech. 459 Mr. Edgeworth. — In commenting upon the words of Mr. Brown, my Rev. opponent appeared to me to say that Mr. Brown had acknowledged he had not succeeded Christ in the Priesthood. Mr. Tottenham. — Yes. Mr. Edgeworth.— If he means to impress on your minds, that we allow there is no Priesthood in the Chris- tian law, he imputes to us that which is not true. Mr. Tottenham. — The latter observation which Mr. Edgeworth has repeated, was mi/ deduction from Mr. Browns admission. Mr. Edgeworth. — Then 1 will say that the deduction has been drawn from nothing that Mr. Brown said. We do maintain that there is a priesthood of the Christian law ; and if we held otherwise, as Mr. Tottenham does, we should be opposing our puny wisdom, to that of a vast array of Christians, in every age and country, from the establishment of our holy religion, down to this moment. The Rev. Gentleman said the other day, with some caution, ^^ strictly speaking, there is now no priest \' although he himself is honom-ed with that title, in the established Church. He has since become more cautious, and has frequently said, ' there is no sacrificing priest.^ I am aware that the established Church does not put forward a claim for its priests to the title of Sacrificing Priests ; but if the Establisiied Church of this country which is so small a fragment of the Christian world, does not put forward such a claim, it is no reason why w;e, for the first time since the days of Christ and the Apostles, should cast aside the title which has ever distinguished the ministers of Christ. Mr. Tottenham complains that his negative arguments have not been sufficiently adverted to by our side ; he has required us to notice the passages of the Holy Scripture, where, according to his presumption, there should have been mention made of the power of the priesthood to offer up sacrifice, if any such power were instituted by Christ. But the Rev. Gentleman is too good a logician to think that I ought to employ much of my time in disposing of such remarks. I will, however, remind you of the impressive words in which Christ commissioned his Apostles to go forth, and preach to every nation the necessity of '' ob- serving all things whatsoever he had commanded" Mr. Tottenham cannot pretend that Christ here enumerates the 460 Downside Discussion, — Sixth Day, functions of the sacred ininistry. He had previously in- structed the Apostles m the detail of those things which his followers were to observe ; and he had assured them that although they might not understand at present, the Divine Spirit should be given to them, to bring to their minds whatsoever they had forgotten, or expound to them what- soever they had misunderstood. We, accordingly, know that, although only these few words were used in the com- mission, '' Go — teach — Baptize,'' j^i many other things were faithfully remembered, practised, and "transmitted by the Apostles, after their Divine Master had withdrawn his visible presence from the earth. Mr. Tottenham seems to have kept his mind perfectly closed against the arguments addressed by Mr. Brown, with respect to the ancient discipline of the Secret. To some now present, for the first time, this matter is, pro- bably, perfectly novel, To many who attended earlier in the discussion, it is still obscure ; but in a few words, I will remind the meeting generally, that in the early ages of the Church, the Apostles and their successors did not, for sacred reasons, promulgate at once and every where, all the mysteries of revelation. It w^as their duty to preach the Gospel to mankind; in the discharge of this duty, for reasons to be mentioned presently, they did not, at once, draw attention to some of the most sublime mysteries of their divine religion. They waited till their hearers were pre- pared by grace, and gradually led by instruction to become fit to receive, in all its fulness, the knowledge of Revela- tion, and the belief of those things which men were com- manded to know and practise, in order to receive eternal life. Mr. Tottenham is aware, and I hope the meeting will bear it in mind, that there is undeniable evidence of that ancient discipline of keeping secret from the vicious and ignorant, and even the partially instructed, until a fu- ture and more favourable season, the knowledge of some of the most incomprehensible mysteries of Revelation. Our Saviour himself, at his Last Supper, (on which solemn occasion all the circumstances recorded by the Evangelists should be attended to,) when he instituted the holy Eucharist, the sacrifice of the New law,— the Mass, — had none present with him but his chosen twelve. Amongst his holy ordinances this was a most precious pearl, which they were not incautiously to cast to swine. Mr. Edgeworth's TJiird Speech, 461 His prophetic declaration to the multitude, that he would give them ' his flesh to eat and his blood to drink,' had been met by a burst of scornful incredulity, and even the abandonment of many of his disciples. John vi. 5S, 67. It is also proved by most authentic records of antiquit}-, that the successors of the Apostles, seeing the storm raised around them by Pagan prejudices and power, guarded, as far as they could, by the discipline of Secrecy, the Mys- teries of the Christian religion from the profane jests, the cavils, and contempt, which unenlightened human reason would not hesitate to direct against them. Evidence of this has been adduced on our side, from the instructions of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, from the writings of St. Ambrose, from Theodoret, and others ; it would be very easy, moreover, to adduce yet more abundant testimonies, — showing too clearly to be questioned by Mr. Tottenham, that the discipline of the Secret prevailed throughout the Christian world, for more than the first 400 years, and until the power of paganism was no longer arrayed against the spread of the Gospel. Now this same spirit of cautious anxiety, which undeniably was felt, durino- more than four centuries, to guard the most sacred and most important parts of Christian doctrine from the unholy gaze, and the profanations of the Heathens, may, I con- tend, be a good reason why the inspired writers have not said more than was just necessary to give evidence of the divine institution and nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which, according to Malachi, was to be offered, from the rising of the Sun unto the going down of the same, till the end of the world. Mr. Tottenham cannot deny the ex- istence of the ancient discipline of the Secret ; let him then say when it begun 1 Mr. Tottenham felt exceedingly uneasy, as it appeared to me, and unwilling to answer the question which Mr. Brown put in reply to one of his objections, namely, — is Mr. Tottenham certain — and on what grounds — that he has re- ceived baptism ? In reply, he merely says that we are to defend our doctrines, and not to assail his.— The Reverend Gentleman contended, that we cannot be certain whether the bread and wine used for the Sacrifice of the Mass, are such as Christ ordained ; and therefore, that whenever we adore the victim offered up on our altars, we never can be 462 Downside Discussion*^Sixth Day, perfectly assured that we are not committing an act of idolatry. Is Mr. Tottenham, with his undeniable talent, unable to distinguish between the real idolatry, of which we should be guilty if Christ were not God; and the mere mistake of which we should be guilty, were we to adore Christ, the true God^ presuming him to be present where he was not. Mr. Tottenham knows well, and understands the distinction ; I hope, therefore, that for the sake of truth, to us, who are oftentimes charged with the crime of idolatry, he will employ a portion of the time he has left in doing us justice. Returning to the allegation of our uncertainty respecting the most solemn act of the Catholic religion, I maintain that it is unreasonable to urge it against us. If Mr. Tot- tenham's reasoning is worth anything, let him state what certainty he has of his baptism ? Baptism is necessary for his eternal salvation : now my Reverend opponent knows not the intention of the priest who baptized him, with more certainty than the Catholic knows the intention of the priest who consecrates. Natural water is the necessary matter of Christian baptism ; he is not more certain that natural water was used, than we are that the Catholic Priest takes proper bread and wine to the altar of God. He may say this has nothing to do with the charge of uncertainty which exposes us to the dangers of idolatry ; but the meeting must see that the argument of uncertainty is completely retorted. If, then, Mr. Tot- tenham knows not how to sustain his confidence in his baptism, I will tell him. Baptism has been made neces- sary to salvation, by a God who loves us with an infinite love ; consequently we may rely with confidence that his goodness will protect us effectually from the appalling dan- gers to our eternal v/elfare, which, if Mr. Tottenham's ar- gument were sound, would menace us at every step, and on every side, and against which no human vigilance would be a sufficient guard. I have asked Mr. Tottenham to tell us if he denies that the Sacrifice of the Mass, as it is celebrated in the Catholic Church, has come down to us from the time of Christ ; I have asked him to tell us when our doctrine and practice in this matter first prevailed? He says, relatively to Transubstantiation, it appears to him that it began in the days of the Eutychians. Has he forgotten the testimonies •A Mr, EdgewortUs Third Speech, 46^ which I adduced yesterday from the Apostle St. Paul, from St. Ignatius, the hishop of Antioch, who, he must know, lived before the fifth age, the time of the Euty- chians, and who, having been a disciple of Peter, and his successor in the government of the important see of An- tioch for a long series of years, finished his mortal career by laying down his life for the faith of Christ ? That holy father, (I am glad to have heard a member of the Refor- mation Society adopt an unusual phrase, and style him holy^) — that holy father distinctly says, as I read to you yesterday, that the Gnostics, in denying the human nature of Christ, were led into this mistake, ^that they abstained from the Eucharist, which is the flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ.^ Mr, Tottenham, or his friend, Mr. Lyons, said that it still remained to be ascertained in what sense Ignatius termed the Eucharist ' the flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ.' Can any one be at a loss to understand these terms? St. Ig- natius says that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ ; and, as if to meet such doubts as Mr. Tottenham avows, he adds, ' that flesh which suffered for us, andiohich was raised again from the dead.* Can there remain any doubt that St. Ignatius, this immediate successor of the Apostles, held the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which Mr. Tot- tenham can trace no higher than the days of the Euty- chians I Passing over many other testimonies of the Fathers, which, if time permitted, I could demonstrate that the origin of Transubstantiation is vainly fixed at the time of the Eutychian heresy, I solicit Protestant at- tention to the ancient liturgies, which describe the doc- trine and forms of the solemn religious practices of the early Christians. Go to these liturgies, and what do you find there? Do you find the doctrine which Mr. Totten- ham propounded 1 Do they profess, or even insinuate, that communicants received only bread and wine at the Eu- charist, accompanied by a sort of undefined presence of Christ ? Do you find any such a doctrine in the ancient liturgies? — in the liturgy of St. Basil? — in the liturgy of St. Chrysostom ? — in the liturgy of St. James \h.Q Apostle ? Though I have no time left to make extracts from these most venerable records of primitive doctrines and usages, an edition of them lies before me, which is not questioned by the most learned Protestants ; and these liturgies detail ^64 Downside Discussion* — Sixth Day. doctrines and practices, such as you will not find in the law-established Church of this country — but, yet, such as are found in every part of the Catholic Church throughout the world. You will find there solemn prayers prepara- tory to some great occasion ; that great occasion is de- scribed. Bread and wine are taken to their altars ; the Priest is there with the people in common devotion ; at that which they call tlie time of Consecration, he invokes the divine blessing ; he fulfils a command, according to these liturgies, and renews a rite which Christ instituted at the last Supper ; the bread he declares to become the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ. Prayers, too, are used, to which I invite the attention of those amongst our Protestant friends, whose station in society, and whose education enable them to procure and read the ancient Liturgies in the original languages. They will find that the Catholic doctrines of Transubstan- tiation and of a true proper Sacrifice in the new law, are not innovations of to-day, or yesterday ; but that they reach far back into antiquity, and link us with the Apostles, and through them with Christ. Remember, my friends, that we have shown these doctrines to have been entertained and believed— those practices to have been cherished by men whose virtue and whose learning none present will call in question ; by St. Cyril, St. Ambrose, St. Gaudentius, and others, who must be respected in the annals of the Christian religion. Remember, that the Catholic doctrine and practice of this day, re- specting Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass, are the very doctrines which those luminaries of our religion cherished and defended. Is it for Mr. Tottenham to shake an attachment to these doctrines and practices 1 Does he think that the new and flickering light which may be off"ered to us by the Reformation Society, will drive us from our ancient Church ? or, that we can shut our eyes to these witnesses of the primitive times who are arrayed before us? Finally, can Mr. Tottenham desire to bring us over to his doctrines, which we judge to be a flat denial of the words of Jesus Christ in the Holy Scrip- tures ? I can only, now, in the most summary manner, recapitu- late the scriptural arguments used in proving to the world that our doctrine and practice are founded on the word of Mr, Edgewortlis Third Speech. 465 God. The sixthchapter of St. John records thepromlsewhich our Saviour made, that he would give to his followers something more precious than the manna which the fore- fathers of the Jews had eaten in the desert ; — that he would give them bread that came from heaven ; — that he is that bread ;— that he will give them ' his flesh' to eat, and ' his blood' to drink. Many around him refused to believe in his power to redeem this promise, — precisely as, it seems to us, ourfriends on the opposite side, and all that are attached to their religious system, do at this day. Our Saviour then reminded the incredulous Jews of the consequence of unbelief : — " he that helieveth in me hath everlasting life" the converse of which is, that they who refuse to believe in him, have no solid hope, and have not * everlasting life.' In this chapter of St. John, is declared, six different times, the doctrine that there is provided for us, as food for our souls, the real flesh and the real blood of Jesus Christ, received, not hideed in the carnal manner in which the Jews understood him ; yet received in reality, and not in figure only, as our friends on the opposite side declare. Go from this promise in the 6th of St. John, to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and you find our divine Redeemer, at the Last Supper, fulfil- ling the promise which he had previously made. He took bread and declared that it was his body : he took the cup and declared it to contain his blood: he gave a command to his Apostles to do that which he had just done. I must, for the last time, call your attention to the 1st Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, chap. xi. St. Paul here afiirms, that he had learned, by revelation, this same doctrine ; and he charges with a great crime those who receive this spiritual food unworthily, telling them, that they ' receive damnation, not discerning the Lord's body' If the body of Christ was not there, where was the ground of St. Paul's charge that they did not discern it ? But, it being really there, as the Apostle had learned by revelation, he most properly and consistently reproved them for eating it like common food. We next proceeded to prove to you, the divine institu- tion of the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Prophet Malachi foretold, distinctly, that the Jewish sacrifices, as they no longer pleased the Almighty, should, at the appointed time, cease ; and they have ceased : — that they should be succeeded by *' a pure oblation offered from the rising of the 2h 466 Downside Discussion. ^—Sixth Day. sun to the going down of the same ;" — accordingly ^' among the Gentiles,^' and in every place, there is offered this pure oblation, in the Sacrifice of the Mass, which takes place on the altars of the Catholic Church. Christ commanded his Apostles to do that which he had done ; he gave them his body and blood to eat and drink, assuring them, that through his body and blood there was remission of sins. This we have proved to have been the uninterrupted prac- tice of the early Christians, and of the greater number of Christian Believers, from the time of the Apostles and their immediate successors, until this day. The Rev. E. Tottenham. I RISE now, Sir, to conclude this very important dis- cussion. Mr. Edgeworth commenced his closing speech by saying that he would follow my arguments hut briefly, and not pretend to touch on any except those which I seemed to consider of most importance. This, I acknow- ledge, was something better than the way in which he acted yesterday, when, as I then told you, he did not fol- low my arguments at all. In my reply I shall notice first the remarks which the Rev.Gentlemanmadeprevious to his summing up, and then endeavour in conclusion, as he has set the example, to give an outline of the arguments that have been used on this side of the question. Mr. Edgeworth referred to one of the heavy charges which I brought against the Church of Rome, namely, that of taking the cup from the people, and he seemed unwilling to waste the precious moments which were allot- ted to him, in entering upon this subject, but contented himself with a reference to a pamphlet published by Mr. Brown, in which the Roman Catholic arguments on this point may be found. Now, my impression is, that though Mr. Edgeworth may think this subject " not exactly apart of the matter chosen for our present discussion," there is yet so close an alliance as to warrant our introduction of Mr. Tottenham's Thirteenth Speech. 467 it. Looking upon the depriving the laity of the cup as a consequence made to flow from the doctrine of Transuh- stantiation, the Rev. Gentleman must excuse my maintaining that his remark was quite unfounded, when he said that this subject was " irregularly introduced''^ by me. However, as this is the last speech I have to make, and as our opponents have no opportunity of reply, I shall not enter more largely on this topic, but leave it to the consideration of those whom I address. Tiiey can examine the matter for themselves, and judge whether the reasons I was quot- ing from the Catechism of the Council of Trent when my time expired on the last occasion, or any other reasons, can out-weigh the strict and j^ositive command of Christ that we should receive the wine as well as the bread. This will appear particularly striking, when they bear in mind that to which I also adverted in my previous address to- day, namely, that the Church of Rome has confessed in the Council of Constance tfiat the administration was originally in both hinds, and that Dr. Delahogue in his Theology, which is one of the Class-books at Maynooth, acknow- ledges the practice of communion in both kinds to have existed till the period of the ticelfth century. I have here to correct a mis-statement, to which I am sorry to say Mr. Edgeworthhas constantly given utterance, relative to our principles and professions. He declares him- self perfectly satisfied with the testimony of Scripture that has been adduced, and he repeats a statement which he had already made more than once, namely, that we, by reject- ing his exposition, deny the truth of the loords of Christ. Sir, need I repeat that this charge is grossly unfounded. We admit the truth of the words of Christ, wherever they may be found, with at least as much readiness as our friends on the opposite side ; but I beg them to remember what I have already stated, that, w*hile v/e do not deny the truth of the words of Christ, we very strongly dispute the correctness of the interpretation they have put upon them. This, be it observed, is the point at issue, and not, whether the words of Christ, in themselves, are true or not. The Rev. Gentleman has alluded to the Roman Catholic divines whom I quoted yesterday on the subject of Tran- substantiation, and he imagines I was anxious that the conclusion should be drawn by my hearers, that they dif- fered from the Roman Catholic Church as regards the doctrine in question. This " unjust inference" he defies 4G8 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day, me to sustain. Now really, Sir, Mr. Edgewortli lias talked about just nothing here, for, if he took the trouble of exer- cising his memorij, he would have recollected that, so fiir from desiring such an inference to be drawn, I distinctly guarded against it, and stated the very contrary to that which lie would attribute to me. So far from labouring to prove that those Roman Catholic Divines did not hold Transubstantiation, the sum of my statement was, that they could not iind it clearly in "^ Scripture, (which was enough for me,) and therefore took refuge for it in the authority of the church. This will appear evident if you remember my quotations, to which I refer you. Judge you whether our statements have been represented fairly on this point, or not. We have had Thcodoret introduced again, but as I think his testimony has been adverted to sufficiently often on both sides, I shall, without further observations, leave the public to decide upon this niatter from the printed repoi't. My Rev. opponent next recalled our attention to the use of the words in the present tense in the Institution of the Eucharist, and how does he follow up what Mr. Brown had said on this point? He represents me as saying that " because the present tense is sometimes used for the future, you must allow me to interpret in the future tense in the instance before us." This was not, however, the force of my statement. What I wanted to prove by the statement was this, (as will appear by a reference to my argument,) that, inasmuch as the present tense is constantly used in Scripture ichen the future is intended, our opponents had no positive authority for taking advantage of the use of the present tense in the words of the Institution, as proving that a Sacrifice was actually offered at the time. But, Sir, we have had a long lecture about the impiety o^ prcscribiny to Christ, and happy should I be if the sub- stance of that lecture had been observed 07i the part of our opponents. I leave it to the meeting to judge, icho, during the course of this discussion, has prescribed most as to the manner in wliich God should act. / appeal fearlessly to wy speeches for a refutation of lllr. Edgeu'orth's charge. From the very commencement of the discussion I have been ohjecting to such a method of procedure ; and have he^n pointing out hoio our antagonists have frequently adopted it. But the Rev. Gentleman specifies a particular instance, iu which he says I have be^u guilty of a similar Mr. Tottenham s Thirteenth Speech. 4G9 error. 1 had stated, in a former speech, that if Christ instituted a Sacrifice at the last Supper, it must have heen typical, not propitiatory, properly speakinf^. The connec- tion in which this statement stood I need not repeat, but the statement itself has been made by Mr. E., the basis of his charge that I prescribed to Christ. Most pei'sons, how- ever, will, 1 think, be able to see that when I used the ex- pression " it must have heen typical, and not strictly propi- tiatory," there was no iirescrihincj to Christ what ought to have been done, but tJie mere statement of a Scriptural fact, that every Sacrifice previous to that on the Cross was typical, and not, in a strict and proper sense, propi- tiatory. Mr. Edgeworth dwelt a considerable time upon an ex- pression which he said was used by Mr. Lyons and myself, viz., that Christ could not do so and so. Now, Sir, I pro- test at the close of this discussion against the imputation of certain principles to us which v^e disclaim. We do not question Christ's power ; we glory in the fact that Christ is not merely man, but God ; and therefore we question his power no more than we should question the power of the ever blessed and eternal God. It is needless for me to waste time in refuting Mr. Edgeworth's charge, though twice or thrice repeated by him. Those who have given us their attention know that we argued all along simply on what Christ had done, and that we have been constantly endeavouring to bring our opponents to argue in a similar manner. In reference to the term " Sacrificing Priest," (if I must come to this subject again), you will bear in mind that there has not heen an attempt to 'prove the authority of such an ofiicer under the New Testament dispensation. This is an important point in the controversy. Mr. Brown has told us that there were certain '''■prudential reasons" against the use of the title in the New Testament, and Mr. Edge- worth has said that it " has ever distinguished the ministers of Christ since the days of our Lord and his Apostles" — but THE FACT IS POSITIVE all the time, that tliere have not heen any Scriptural texts adduced, to prove the lav fulness of the office (except as belonging to Christ personally) under the New Testament economy. It strikes my mind as very remarkable that, if the title or office of " Sacrificing Priest" has been received and acknowledged, as Mr. Edgeworth says, since the days of our Lord and his 470 Doivnside Discussion, — Sixth Day, Apostles, 710 text of the New Testament can he adduced in support of it, Mr. Eclgewortli has again adverted to, and given us, according to his views, a sketch of the ancient discipline of the Secret, which was introduced by Mr. Brown. He complains that I seemed to have my mind perfectly closed against the arguments adduced from this source by his Rev. friend, and this conclusion he draws, 1 suppose, from the fact, that I have not latterly referred to the subject. My reason, however, was this ; first of all, I had referred to the dis- cipline, as I thought, sufficiently yesterday ; and secondly, it is in my judgment quite a minor point in the controversy. I take, as I said before, the testimony of the " oracles of God" above the discipline of secresy in the early church, or any other discipline. 1 wish to stand by what that word says, notwithstanding all the arguments that may be urged against us ; for, be it remembered, that it is actually throvv- ing dust into the people's eyes to refer them to the huge folios of the Fathers. How is a poor man ever to discover what he is to believe? Our opponents will tell him that Cyril, Theodoret, and Augustine said so and so, and I can tell him that they and others said quite another thing. It may be well for learned men to inves- tigate this subject, who have the means of coming at the real truth hy a diligent examination of the evidence in question ; but how is a j^oor unlettered man tb decide, if he is to be guided by testimony similar to this — if such is to be the rule by which he is to form his belief? We have the Bible, blessed be God ! in our own language at the present day, and the prophet says — '^ To the LAW rather, and to the testimony ; and if they speak not according to this word, they shall not have the morning light." — Isa. viii. 20. Be not bound then by the testimony of men, however valuable it may be in its jolace. They w^ere at the best fallible, and most of you can never authenticate the evi- dence adduced from them, because most people are not in a capacity or situation to refer to those huge and immense folios; but you all can refer lo the Bible, and judge you this dag on which side the powerfid testimony of the word of God has been, found in this matter. The Rev. Gentleman asks me to tell when the discipline of the Secret began. I am unable to connect this with the question of the truth ov falsehood of Transubstantiation, or Mr» Tottenham s Thirteenth Speech, 471 the Sacrifice of the Mass. Did I think it a matter of material consequence at present, I might show that, while Mr. E.'s attempt to prove it from the Scriptw^es is indeed futile, its origin may perhaps be traced to the second cen- tury ; but, at all events, as the question was not started on our side, but on that of our opponents, as tending, in their estimation, to corroborate their doctrine, the onus rested with them to prove when it began, not with 2is. The question of the alleged idolatry connected with the Mass, has been introduced once more, and Mr. Edgeworth has, like Mr. Brown, endeavoured to retort the subject of uncertainty on me. On this, however, I feel it quite unne- cessary to dwell more, notwithstanding the wish of my op- ponent that I should give a portion of my timeto it. I have, already, I conceive, spoken sufficiently on the subject, and corroborated my statement by a reference to the history of Israel, iti the case of the golden calf; and, whatever else might be said, 1 am now content to let my previous state- ments go before the public, in connection with the dis- tinctions drawn by the Rev. Gentleman on the other side. Mr. Edgeworth, in treating again of the Fathers and ancient Liturgies, has come to an old practice, yet one which I do not regard as very strong in an argument upon any doctrine. He asks me to tell him, if the sacrifice of the Mass did not exist in the Apostles' days, when it began to be celebrated. Why, Sir, if I were] not able to tell Mr. Edgeworth when the sacrifice of the Mass was first instituted, or Transubstantiation first introduced, (I do not enter beyond what I have already stated, into the question whether I could, or could not, point out the exact era of their commencement,) but what I say is, If I were unable to give the precise date of their first institution, I cannot at all see what that has to do with the question of their truth or falsehood. I contend that my inability to point out the exact beginning of any doctrine (supposing such inability to exist,) would not prove that doctrine ne- cessarily to be true ? You recollect the details of one of the parables uttered by our Lord, which teaches us that it was when men slept that the tares were sown. We might, therefore, as legitimately argue that the tares were not sown, because the precise time at which that took place could not be told, as for Mr. Edgeworth to argue thatTransubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the Mass, must be true, if we were unable to point out the precise era at which they were first started. 472 Downside Discussion,— Sixth Day. But in reference to my statement, that I could trace the doctrine of Transubstantiation, even in its rudest shape, no higher than the period of the beginning of the Euty- chian heresy iji the fifth century, he asks me, have I for- gotten Ignatius, and others, who flourished before the fifth century ? No, Sir, I have not forgotten Ignatius, nor the others. I thought that I had disposed of their testimony ah-eady. Mr. Edgevvorth quoted from Ignatius, and Justhi Martyr, but I asserted at the time that neither Ignatius nor Justin Martyr went a step farther than I could go. They simply call the elements "-flesh and hlood" and declare the bread to be no [longer common hread, and the wine to be no longer common wine. Would not a Protestant willingly use such lano'uage 1 As I said in my last speech yesterday, we use these terms in the Communion Service of the Church of England. There- fore these testimonies of Ignatius and others, do not bear on the reaZ point in dispute ; ihey assert nothing more than the Church of England asserts at this day ; and, in both cases, though the terms " flesh and blood" are used, the language, we contend, involves nothing beyond the real spiritual j^resence of Christ in the Eucharist. Before I proceed to give an outline of the arguments tee have employed, I must notice one assertion made by Mr. Edgeworth, in his summary of the Roman Catholic arguments. When speaking of the 11th chapter of 1st Corinthians, he ventured to afiirm that no answer had been given to the text in that chapter where the Apostle speaks of their ' rM discerning the Lord's body.' He asks, how St. Paul could speak of discerning it, if it were not there? I beg to remind Mr. Edgeworth that his argument deduced from this passage was answered, — I do not say to his satisfaction, — but an ansicer luas given by Mr. Lyons, in his speech the day before yesterday. However, 1 will just say a word again upon the passage, as he did not seem to be satisfied. In the first place, it strikes me that the Apostle does not mean to call upon communicants to discern, in a literal sense, the body of the Lord ; but the expression ' not discerning,' {fi)) ciaKptvojv) means ' not making a difference,' as to the body of the Lord. I shall prove this by a parallel passage where the same term is used. In the 15th chap. Acts, verses 8, 9, St. Peter thus speaks in the council at Jerusalem: — *' God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them (the Gentiles) the Holy Ghost as well as to us (the Jews). And put no difference (^ovdiv diUpivs) between usand them, purifying their hearts by faith." Mr» Tottenham s Thirteenth Speech. 473 Here is one instance out of several in which the same ex- pression occurs in the original ; and I maintain that this is the meaning of the text in Corinthians — " not discernino- the Lord's body" — not making a differnce between ordinary bread and that tohich had heen consecrated as the figure of Christ's body ; not looking upon the elements as changed in their use, though not in their nature. And this was the very faidt into which the Corinthians had fallen, because, as we learn from the context, they had abused the Lord's Supper, and had not regarded the bread and wine as being applied to sacred purposes, and being no longer common bread and common wine. Moreover, I may re- mind you also of that on which Mr. Lyons insisted — how does a Roman Catholic discern the body of the Lord in the Eucharist ? It will be confessed that he cannot dis- cern it literally : and if he cannot, the passage proves nothing for him. It is only hy faith he can discern it, and we, in like manner, discern by i'aith the spiritual presence of our Lord and Saviour with " the faithful in the Lord's Supper." Want of time. Sir, now prevents my entering further into the subject before us. In drawing, therefore, to a close, I would endeavour, so far as t have opportunity, to offer a few remarks hy icay of summing up. The two subjects which have been discussed during the last three days have been, the Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice of the Mass. 0 In support of the former, the sixth chapter of St. John was adduced on the other side, where our Lord said, " Except you eat the liesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you ;" and other texts of similar import in that chapter were dwelt on. To this we replied, as you will remem- ber that the onus rested on our opponents before they could make use of that chapter, to prove that there was a reference at all in it to the Sacrament ; and I noticed the opinions of certain Roman Catholic divines, who, upon the authority of Cardinal Bellarmine, admitted that there loas no such reference. It was then shewn you that our Lord must have spoken figuratively or spiri- tually, and not literally, because if he had enjoined the literal partaking of his body and blood, he would have been enjoining a practice contrary to a precept of the Mosaic law; whereas we know, according to the tes- timony of Scripture, that became " not to destroy the law. 474 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day. but to fulfil it.'* It was shown further that, if Roman Ca- tholics take this passage in a strictly literal sense, " IJx- cept you eat, kc. and drink his blood, &c.," upon their own principles, the laity vjould be lost, because the laity do not, strictly speaking, drink the blood, however they may receive the flesh. The real meaning was pointed out from the 35th verse of the chapter, and that meaning appeared to be that by the terms " eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ," the act of believing upon CArzs^ was denoted. We saw that constantly such figures are used to express faith ; and, in this connection, I noticed how Christ employed the terms " coming, looking, eating, drinking," &;c. not to denote the literal act, but the believing upon him ; and it appeared that Christ gave the key to the whole in the 64th verse, when he said, " The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."" The words of the Institution were then brought forward — " This is my body, this is my blood." Our opponents insisted that they should be taken literally — we in- sisted that they should be idi^en figuratively. The reasons why we urged this figurative interpretation were these : — ■ 1st. That the figurative interpretation was according to the general analogy of Scripture language. We referred to such passages as — " That rock was Christ;" " This hair is Jerusalem;" and a variety of others of a parallel kind, which shewed that this figurative mode of expression was quite common among the Jews at that time, and, there- fore, that the Apostles were quite 2:>repared to understand the words of the Institution in a figurative sense. Then, 2ndly, it was shewn that this figurative mode of expression was in accordance with the general mode of speaking in all languages: for, as was remarked, it is quite common for us, in speaking of pictures or maps, to say, " This is such a person;" or "This — speaking of a map — is such a coun- try ;" though we only mean by the term " is " that it " re- fresents.'' Furthermore, Srdly, we pointed out that the figurative interpretation icas according to the context, be- cause, as our friends on the other side confessed, " This cup is the New Testament in my blood," was to be under- stood figuratively. 1 observed that if they interpreted one part figuratively, /was justified in interpreting the other figuratively; and that the inconsistency rested with Mew, as interpreting one part literally and the other figuratively. Moreover, the passage in the 1st Epistle to the Corin- Mr. Tottenham's Thirteenth Speech. 475 thians was referred to, about " discerning the Lord's body." To this I have just replied, and therefore it is not neces- sary to advert to it again. Then the Fathers were adduced in support of Transub- stantiation. I observed that they spoke strongly with regard to the Eucharist, but it was, I contended, of a moral change rather than a jihysical they spoke, however highly wrought their language may sometimes have been. Other remarks were made respecting the Fathers at vari- ous periods of the discussion which will be seen more particularly in the Report. Against Transubstantiation it was urged that the ele- ments were called hread and wine both by our Lord and the Apostle Paul even after consecration. It was shown you likewise, that our Lord was absent from earth as to his body " till the times of the restitution of all things." This was proved by a passage in the Acts, and hence it was concluded that, however he might be present as to his deity, he was not present in a bodily sense in the Eucharist. Other arguments from Scripture, were urged, upon lohich I have not time to dwell. It was also argued that the doctrine of Transubstantia- tion contradicted the senses — that when we exercised any or all of those senses upon the elements, after consecration. they gave their unanimous assent to the fact that there had been no substantial change. Kemember, too, that this species of reasoning was not a departure from our princi- ples (as was asserted on the other side) ; for though we adduced arguments from the senses, yet ice based them upon texts of the sacred volume ; and we shevved you that the evidence of Christ's resurrection, according to the testi- mony of the Apostles, was found in the fact that he was seen by various individuals and collective bodies, who ate, and djank, and conversed with him after he rose from the dead. Hence we had scriptural authority for the argu- ment from the senses, and Mr. Brown, although he re- jected this argument in our case, yet 7nade use of the evi- dence of the senses himself in one point. We say, there- fore, that we have the testimony both of the senses and of Scripture, that no substantial change takes place in the bread and wine, but that the bread remains bread, and the wine remains wine. They may be changed in their use, but they are not changed in their nature. We proceeded to consider, in the second place, "The 476 Downside Discussion, — Sixth Day, Sacrifice of the Mass." On the Roman Catholic side the prophecy of Malachi was urged, in which God de- clares,— " From the rising- of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles ; and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation.^' It was shewn, however, that neither of the terms used here necessarily imply anything like literal sacrifice, much less the Sacrifice of the Mass. Not the term " sacrifice,'* because it is applied in Scripture to a variety of other things besides literal sacrifice — such as prayer, and praise, and the bodies of believers — and, therefore, if the system of interpretation adopted on the other side were correct, namely, that, because the term is used, it must mean the Sacrifice of the Mass, I might prove, on the same prin- ciple, thdii prcLyer was the Sacrifice of the Mass, ov praise, or any of the other things to which also the term is applied. Nor could the term " clean oblation' (it was pointed out in continuation) refer to anything like the Sacrifice of the Mass, till our opponents could prove that the word was confined in Scripture to a sacrificicd meaning. That it was not so confined was shown by a reference to a passage in the 66th chapter of Isaiah, where the same word was applied to persons, and translated " gift'' or *' off*ering." In this manner we endeavoured to establish that the prophecy naturally referred to the various spiritual sacrifices that were to be off'ered to God " from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same." Our opponents adduced also, in support of the Mass, the language of the institution, " My blood which is shed." Respecting this we pointed out that there could be no valid argument derived from the use of the p)resent tense, because, in the Bible, that tense was constantly employed xohen the future was intended; and the inconsistency of our adversaries was exhibited in the fact that they argued from the use of the present tense in the Greek text and in the Protestant translation, while the Vulgate (their stan- dard Latin version), the Canon of the Mass, and the Roman Cat] lolic English version of the Scriptures, read the passage in the future tense. The passage in the 13th chapter of Acts, ver. 1, 2, which speaks of certain disciples " ministering to the Lord," was likewise brought forward ; and the Rev. Gentlemen at- Mr. Tottenham s Thirteenth Speech. 477 tempted to deduce the Sacrifice of the Mass from this ex- pression. But I showed, in the course of my investigation of Mr. Brown's statements respecting this passage, that, by the same rule of interpretation, I might prove maqis- trates and others, yea, even angels, to be sacrificing priests also. Against the sacrifice of the Mass there were a variety of objections urged. There was a parallel drawn by my friend, Mr. Lyons, between the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as originally instituted, and the Sacrifice of the Mass ; and you have seen in what points they differed from each other. It was shown, also, that the essentials of a proper sacrifice were wanting in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore, that it could not be " true, proper, and propitia- tory." There was no destruction of a victim in it; and, more- over, you have seen that tJiere has heen no attempt to prove from Scripture the existence of the office of sacrificing priest under this dispensation, except as respects Christ himself. Therefore, if the destruction of the victim and a sacrificing priest be ivanting, there can be no proper sacri- fice in the Mass, and consequently the Creed of Pope Pius IV. is false, when it calls tlie Mass " a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice." We adduced, also, a negative aro*u- ment, the substance of which was this : — that in those places of Scripture where we might most naturally expect to find such a sacrifice mentioned, if it were revealed, viz. in the commission to the Apostles, the conduct of the early Christians recorded in the Acts, and the letters to Timothy and Titus, there is not the slightest allusion to any such thing^ Moreover, a variety of passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews were dwelt on ; and you will remember how constantly the Apostle Paul made use of the term *' owce," repeating it again and again, as if to guard a2:ainst the most distant approach to that which might derogate from the honour and sufficiency of Christ's one offering. Furthermore, other passages established that " without shedding of blood there is no remission," and the Sacrifice of the Mass, being confessedly an unhloody sacrifice, could not therefore, obtain remission, that is, be propitiatory. You have seen, also, how the early part of the 10th chap, of Hebrews demonstrated that the repetition or continua- tion of a sacrifice proved its imperfection ; and how, on this principle, the Sacrifice of the Mass, professing to be a con- tinuation, if not a repetition, of that on the cross, practi" cally asserted the insufficiency pf the sacrifice of the Cross, 478 Downside Discussion. — Sixth Day and also its own insufficiency. You heard, likewise, the argument from the 9th chapter of Hebrews— that Christ could not be offered vjithout suffering, and that, as he does not suffer in the Mass, he cannot he offered in the Mass, and therefore the Mass is not a " true, proper, and pro- pitiatory sacrifice." Were I to give you an outline of every portion of the arguments employed on this subject, I should go on in this manner for a length of time, but the period which is allotted me for addressing you is rapidly expiring, and / must therefore forego any further summary. I can only earnestly request you to bear in mind what has been said, particularly the different passages of Holy Writ that have been adduced, which set before us the truth that Christ ** by one oblation hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." This text is a declaration which, in itself, is sufficiently strong on which to take our stand, and it has not been noticed on the other side. It not merely asserts the value of Christ's offering in general terms, but it tells you particularly, that, by that " one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified;" as the Apostle says in another passage, which 1 quoted yesterday, " Christ entered once into the Holies (i. e. into Heaven) having obtained eternal redemption." I asked the ques- tion before, and I ask it now again, What can a man want beyond eternal redemption ? and that inestimable bless- ing— that glorious result— is said to be obtained by the one finished work of Immanuel, when he entered into Heaven, " the holiest of all," and presented himself before his Father as the victorious surety of sinners. In conclusion, then, I say, first of all — (and I do it in the exercise of that charity and faithfulness, which I have endeavoured to exhibit all through this Discussion, and which I would desire to manifest to the very close) — that, if these be the testimonies of the Bible respecting the great salvation of the Lord Jesus, it becomes us, who profess to be the Ministers of the Gospel — the heralds of salvation — to bethink ourselves on this momentous point — to " make full ^^roof of our ministry" — to bear in mind the '' woe" denounced against those who '' preach not the gospel" — to examine our hearts diligently and faithfully, lest in any manner we should give even a p)rac*- tical denial to the complete redemption effected by CHRIST. And to you, my hearers in general, I say, remember thti Mr. Tottenham! s TJiirteenth Speech, 479 fearful consideration that my friend, Mr. Lyons, sought to impress upon you at the close of his last address. He told you, that the hearing of the truth made you either better or worse, and so it is. The Gospel never left any man as it found him ; it either proved, as the Apostle says, " the savour of life vinto life, or of death unto death," to his soul. The declaration of truth increases a man's privilege, and therefore places him under a far "weightier resjyonsibilitT/ than if such privilege was not his. Bear in mind, then, your present situation. You have had opportunity, during this week and the past, of com- ing to this place to hear those gentlemen on the one side, and my friend and myself on the other. We have put forth arguments on each side : we have endeavoured to substantiate our respective beliefs. Recollect, therefore, that of this, as of every other opportunity of discovering " the truth as it is in Jesus," you will have to give an account when you come to stand before the tribunal of the Most High. Some of you may imagine, perhaps, that it is pleasant to observe the conflict of argument, while you may not think of your own deep interest in the questions discussed ; but I remind you that, not only should your intellects be exercised in the investigation of truth, hut your hearts affected by its immense importance. Do not think we are disputing for victory — it is for truth we contend. Do not think we have been speaking about non-essential things, about matters of minor consequence — it has been said on the other side, and I repeat it now, that we have been talking about things that concern the salvation of the soul. Oh ! then, exhibit that wisdom which becomes intelligent and immortal beings — show yourselves anxious about your best, your truest, your eter- nal interests — and seek the Lord, encouraged by the pro- mise that those who seek '•'shall find him, when they search for him with all their hearts" Let there be no delay — no hesitation — no Felix-like postponement to *' a more con- venient season," that may never come. Remember the melancholy case that has occurred among yourselves, and take warning from this to flee before it be too late, to the refuge set before you in the Gospel — to look by faith to that Almighty Saviour, who " taketh away the sins of THE WORLD," and who is " the end of the law for RIGHTEOUSNESS TO EVERY ONE THAT BELIEVETH." 480 Downside Discussion, — Sixth Day. The Chairman. The concluding words of the eloquent advocate, whom you have just heard, dissolves this meeting, and with the dissolution of the meeting my office is at an end. As the individual who has occupied this Chair, a duty yet remains to be performed which 1 would not omit; but I will endeavour to trespass no longer on your attention than is absolutely necessary for its discharge. In the first place, I would offer a humble tribute of admiration to the Gentlemen on either side of me, to whom we have listened with such unabated interest. I doubt not but that to you. Ladies and Gentlemen, as to myself, it has been a matter of astonishment, that, in such a sharp and lengthened collision of rugged thoughts and hard arguments, the combatants should have elicited the truth without wounding each other. If, in this arduous conflict, wounds have been received, I trust that, as pro- fessing Ministers of a meek and lowly Saviour, a balm will be sought for and applied whereby they can be healed. Having thus ventured to offer a few words of commen- dation to the Rev. advocates generally, I would now beg to pay an acknowledgment to the Rev. Gentlemen on my left, in particular. I feel much pleasure in expressing to them, both for my friends and for myself, our sense of the courtesy, I may say kindness, with which they have treated us since the moment that we crossed the threshold of this College. They will allow me to say, that, al- though the religious differences which separate us be great, and they may never pass away, yet that there is one thing which will remain, and the memory of which we shall cherish — and that is the recollection of their courtesy. And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, permit me address a parting word to yourselves, a word, too, of merited com- mendation. The talents and the moderation of the Rev. and learned champions must have been exercised in vain — it would have been utterly in vain for them to have elicited the truth, if you had not extended to them a most patient and most attentive hearing. Not only, then, as Chairman of this meeting, have I to thank you in behalf of the cause itself, for which we have been assem- Concluding Speeches. 481 bled, for the manner in which you have performed your part in the task, and (considering how powerfully the feel- ings have been excited, and how painful it must have been so entirely to restrain them) the task was no easy one, I have to thank you for myself. I came to this Chair with no small degree of apprehension, lest I should compromise its dignity by some failure in the performance of its duties. But the harmony, the propriety of demea- nour, and the peace, which have not been once inter- rupted during the whole period, have rendered my office a mere sinecure. Your conduct has covered ail my defi- ciencies. In truth, I have been a mere regulator of time and, as it were, a pendulum vibrating between the conflict- ing parties on the right and left, — and the only duty de- volving on me seemed to be the care of i*egulating the vibrations with strict impartiality. Possibly it may be expected, that I should now advert 1o the Discussion itself, and attempt to lay before you a summary of the ai'gu- inents. But this, assuredly, is no part of my office. I depose the balance before you — examine the scales your- selves— it is for you and for the Public, and not for me, to determine w^iich scale preponderates. Were my pri- vate opinions of a ton or a talent weight, or lighter even than a feather, I should deem myself unworthy of the place I have occupied, were I to cast that feather into the scale. With these few words I take my leave. Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you for your indulgence, and I humbly bid you farewell. The Rev. E. Tottenham : — Before any other step be taken, I beg to say, I rise with the greatest possible plea- sure, on the part of the Reformation Society, to thank tlie Rev. Gentlemen on the other side, and the members of the College generally, for the use of this Chapel, and also for the extreme kindness and accommodation which have been afforded us during the whole Discussion. On the motion of the Rev. F. Edgeworth, seconded ])y the Rev. T. J. Brown, E. T. Caulfeild, Esq. vacated the Chair, which was then occupied by Daniel French, Esq. Mr. Edgeworth said — I have great pleasure in ex- pressing my own individual gratitude to the gentleman who has just left the Chair. I am sure the feeling, which from the first moment of the discussion to the present in- stant, I have cherished, has been fully participated in by every Lady and Gentleman, in reference to his conduct, 2 I 482 Downside Discussion. — Slith Day. and uninterrupted attention to the important matters which have necessarily occupied a great portion of our time. His conduct has been unquestionably impartial ; and the final act which you have just witnessed, stamps what I would wish to say, rather than what 1 am able to say, upon the conduct he has shewn in performing the office of Chair- man during the Discussion. I beg to move, that the thanks of this meeting be presented to Edwin T. Caulfeild, Esq. for his kindness and attention, and his undoubted impar- tiality throughout this Discussion. Samuei. Day, Esq. seconded the motion, which was unanimously adopted by the meeting. Edwin T. aulfeild, Esq. — ^I had almost, or, rather, had altogether desired that you had dispensed with, rather than conformed to, the complimentary usage which I am called to acknowledge. I do not feel assured of deserving; this compliment, of thanks, although it be but a customary one — nor am I disposed to take to myself the credit which, perhaps, your courtesy might seem to warrant. And yet, in saying this, I should be grieved if you thought that I was unable to appreciate your kindness. — It is really be- cause I am in danger of overrating, instead of not appre- ciating, your courtesy, in this matter, that I shrink from regarding it as my desert. Suffer me to offer you a child-like, but not, I hope, a childish illustration of my meaning. Those present who are parents, may have observed, that when a child has received something it values very highly, or that possesses a great and obviously intrinsic w^orth,the child will run to the parent to entreat that the treasure may be kept till the owner is capable of making a fitting use of it. I do ac- knowledge myself to be but as a child in Christianity, as regarding praise. Praise when deserved is one of the most precious gifts man can receive. This is a solemn occasion and a solemn place, and I do not conceive it an unbecoming illustration of this high estimate of praise, when I refer, in confirmation of my opinion, to the solemnities of the last great day. — Praise is the language which the people of the Lord shall hear when entering the kingdom He hath prepared for them. — " Well done, thou good and faithful servant." To return, then, to your commendation, suffer me to say that I am afraid of it ; I dare not receive it. — I beseech you, therefore, take and keep it for me, 'till I am more worthy of it, — and then, perhaps, it may not be abused. — Conchdhig Speeches. 4S3 If I have done any thing to merit praise, I must acknow- ledge that I ascribe it entirely to Him alone to whom all praise is due ; — were I to take that merit to myself, my conscience tells me that I should defraud the living God. Thus terminated the proceedings. They were conducted throughout with the greatest harmony, and during the six days not a solitary instance occurred of any interruption, arising from the expression of either approbation or dis- approbation, or from any other cause. It had been arranged (see page 441) by the Reverend Disputants to refer the translation of the disputed passage in Theodore t's Dialogues to some Greek scholars mutually selected. In the absence of others, however, it was sub- mitted, after the discussion, to Daniel French, Esq. a Roman Catholic Barrister, who gave it as his opinion that the passage admitted of different translations. It was agreed, therefore, to subjoin the entire passage in the original : — Op^o^. 'EtTre roivvv, ra jJLVffTLKa avjjijJoXa Trcipct rwv lepoji^Uyioy TM 0£w 7rpo(7(p€p6fxeva, Tiv(t)v karl avfilSoXa; EpavtoT. Tov ^EffTTOTiKov (Tojfxarug re /cat a'/^aroc. Op^oE. Tov ovT(i)Q fTwfxaroQ, i) ovk oi'Tiog ; TLpaviffT. Tov ovtujq, Op^o^. "Apiara' )(p?/ yap elyai to rfjg eiKovog ap'^irvKoV koX yap 01 i^(oypa.(f)ot rrfv (l}V(nv fiifiovi'Tcu, Kcd rCJv opw/ieVwv ypa(f)ovat rag eiKoyag. Epartorr. ^AXrjOeg. OpS'oo. El roivvv TOv ovrojg aojfjLarog avriTvira eort ra S'ela fj-vfTTTipia, rrcof^a lipa effrl Kat vvv tov AecnroTOv to aoifxa, ovk eig ^eoTi^Tog (pvffiv /jerajjXridev, aXXa S'eiag S6^r]g avaTrXrjadev. EpaviOT. Etc Kciipov tov Trepl tQv Qumv fxv(TTr]pio)v EKLvqaag Xoyov' evTevdev (TOi yap ^et'sw rov ^ernroTiKov rriofxaTOg ti]v elg krepav ([)V(7iv fieTa(3oXi]V' airoKpivai toivov irpog Tag Efxag epojTijffeig. Op-S'O^. 'ATTOKpiVOVfXai. UpaviffT. Ti KaXelg to Trpoj^fpojutrov cwpov irpb Ti)g \EpaTiK)]g k-iKXi](T£ii)g ; Op^oc. Ov )(p>/ aa({)ojg elTrelv, eltcog yap rivag af.ivi]Tovg Trap- Eivai. EpavtCT-. A\viyiiaTis)^(x)g y airoKpifrig tVrw. Op^od. TriV EK TOIMVCE ffTTEp/uaTlOV Tp0(p{]V. Epai'trrr. To (^e eteoov rrvf^iftoXov ttwc orofiai^OfiEV ', 484 Op^oc. Koiyvv Kcd tovtu uvoj^ia^ Tro/xaroc tlcoQ ar^fxuii'ov. Eoavicrr. Mfra ciye tov ayiaafxbv ttwc Tovra Trpoorayvplueii; ; OpB'o^. IjCJfjia Xpirrrov, kcu aifxa Xpiarov. EpavtoT. Kal TtLaTEvetg ys awfiaroQ Xpiffrov /x£ra\a/.i/3cu^€tj/, Kttt alfxaroQ ; Op^oh. "OvTio TTiarevoj. EjOavio-r. "OcTrfo Toivov ra avfx(3o\a tov ceaTroTiKOv aMfiuruQ 7-f KoX aifiaroQ, cxXXa fxev e'ktl irpo rriQ upaTLKtig EiziKXriaeiOQ, /.lera ci ye rt]v £7rk\7](nv fJETaf^aWerai Kal Evepa yivercu' ovro) to CEmroTt- Kov aio^ia, iiETCL T))v dvd\i-i\piv, eIq Tt]V ovaiav fXET eJdX^Qi) Ti]v ^Eiav. Op^o^. 'EctXwe ate v(prjv£e dpKvmV ovU yap jLiera tov ayiutr- fjLOv rd fivaTiKa avfi(io\a TiJQ oiKEUtg t^torarai (pv(JEh)g' fXEVEi yap kirl Tfjg TTpoTEpdg ova Lag Kal rov axr]i.iaTog Kal tov Eicovg, Kal opara EffTi, Kal diTTd, o~ia Kal TvpOTEpov i]v' voE~LTaL CE d-KEp eyivETO, Kal friffTEVETai, Kal TrpoaKwilTai, we EKelra ovTa dVcp TrioTEVETat. JlapdQEg Toivvv rw ap-^ETVTTo) Tr^v EiKora, kuI o\pEi Tt]v ojxoLOTrjTa' \oi) ydp EOiKEvat Ttj dXrjdEia tov tvttov- Theodoret. Dial. II. vol. iv. p. 125. edidit. Schulze. 8vo. Halse, 1772. THE EI^D. Ut NORMAN, PRINTEIJ, MAIDEN LANE, COVENT OAKCEK. '-./''