This is sufficient for my purpose; but had he not made this avowal, I could have adduced sufficient proofs to have shown 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 mangling the texts of the Fathers. He reproached me with not having gone far enough back in my quotations from St. Cyril, or I 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 will first read mine; and if it be disputed, he may appoint to compare it with the original, any Greek scholars whom he may choose to name; and I will name others on my side.

"Just so the church discovers its sacraments to those who leave the class of Catechumens:-(le is here speaking of the discovery of the object of the Secret:) for we declure 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 I cannot question such assurance, that he did not pass over any portion of the dialogue in question, for the purpose of suppressing any thing therein. But I will, moreover, show you that the very part which he did not quote, contains something more decisive 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 present who are not initiated!"

Hereby, he prepares us for a certain studied obscurity. 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 consecration, 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 shape, 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 l'Ancienne Eglise," p. 787, and others, that the Fathers understood frequently by the words substance and nature, not what we now understand thereby, but the external and visible qualities 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 important part of the passage. He charged my friend, the Rev. Mr. Edgeworth with having omitted that which we can easily show 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 translation 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; and as such they ARE ADORED.'

These last words, which Mr. Tottenham omitted, are a

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 Theodoret, confirms the explanation which, in the first instance, I proposed. The justly celebrated Leibnitz, in his Systema 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 themselves with perfect precision and metaphysical accuracy. In the same sense Theodoret says, that in this change, which he calls μɛraßoλŋ, the mystic symbols are not deprived of their proper nature."

Here we have Leibnitz confessing that Theodoret means by the term nature, (or substance, for among the ancients these terms were indifferently used,) not what we metaphysically 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. Irenæus, as disproving that the ancient Christians believed in Transubstantiation, or the real presence. I will, therefore, read the fragment of Irenæus, which preserves that history, and you will see whether Blandina denied the real presence in the sense in which we understand it; or whether she merely denied the carnal 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 fragment in question has been preserved by Ecumenius, and was, I believe, first cited against the Catholic doctrine by Archbishop Tillotson :

"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 might gratify those who offered violence 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 others 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 that flesh which may lawfully be eaten.""

The answer of Blandina naturally should correspond with the question proposed. Now, the question was, whether 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

in their solemn worship; Blandina answered, according to the meaning of this question, that they did not eat flesh and drink blood.

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 themselves, are pure through Christ. But does he not remember 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 suppose 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, I 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 assertthat any have now a-days; this, therefore, was not the future sacrifice which Malachi predicted :—it remains, consequently, 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. lxvi. ver. 19, 20, where the word Minehah, or Mincha, 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 the sacrifices of the Jews. As then, the sacrifices of the Jews were literal 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 arguments, 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 decidedly, and indisputably, a figure of Christ. In 1 Cor. chap. v. 7, Christ is called, "our passover.' Now, this

type of Christ in the old law, according to its mysterious circumstances, is fulfilled by the sacrifice of the mass, not by 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 my 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 the evening that the sacrifice of the cross was offered, but at midday. The Paschal Lamb was offered in commemoration of the passage of the angel, and the liberation of the Israelites. The mass is likewise offered in commemoration of the true passage of the Saviour of Israel from mortality to immortality; whereas, in no sense was the sacrifice of the cross offered in commemoration, but it is commemorated to this day in the sacrifice of our altars. Thirdly, In the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb, the victim was eaten truly and not figuratively; in the sacrifice of the Mass, the victim is truly eaten, but the victim as sacrificed 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 sacrifice of the cross, consequently, the sacrifice of the Paschal 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 remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This is the New Testament in my blood which 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, which is shed for the remission 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,