fore I shall occupy the time of the meeting with other proofs than those already adduced, 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. It 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 welfare 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 real, though spiritualized body; yet not spiritualized as our opponents would have it so as to exclude the reality of his bodily presence; you behold the Catholics of the world appealing to Scripture for incontrovertible 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; feeling what I 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, concerning 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

Christian friends, I am sure you feel that it is most desirable that you should obtain that assistance which such information will afford you, in discovering the real meaning 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 standardbearers of that unfortunate change, were not able to convince themselves, and did not dare to endeavour to convince their followers, that Christ is not present in the holy Eucharist. Although Mr. Tottenham has relied upon Julian's silence respecting the doctrine of Transubstantiation as negative evidence, that it was not a doctrine entertained in Julian's time, and has thus sought assistance from the conduct of one whom he calls an "illustrious 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 Luther 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 difference 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 illustrious 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

infinitely more respectable authority, (which I am sure every Christian will feel,) founded on the writings of the early Christians. Melancthon, who was distinguished among those who introduced changes in religion about 300 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 I reflected upon what may 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 col, L 3-p. 603. 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 opposition 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 one baptism.

Let me ask your attention now, Christian friends, to a testimony for which, I am persuaded, you will feel infinitely 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 alternative, 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

of denying, and leading others to deny to Jesus Christ, that homage which is due to him, from those who know his divine character, in the holy Eucharist, because they see him not, thus forget, as it seems to us, the admonition 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 interpretation of the passage of Scripture which relates to this important 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 sanctity, that he was sufficiently instructed in the doctrines of Jesus 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 Rome 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, when 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

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 own conceits 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 contend that they used it with the disposition of our Reverend opponents,) as the only guide necessary to lead to the discovery 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 flesh 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.”- διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σαρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆθος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὑπερ αμαρτιων ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν, ην τῇ Χρηστότητι ὁ πατηρ ἤγειρεν.

My Christian friends, is not this evidence that St. Ignatius of Antioch believed that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ,-not the figure of it merely, as is contended by our opponents, but the flesh of Jesus Christ, which suffered for the sins of men. Surely it was not merely a figure which was nailed to the cross, as the Gnostics maintained, 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, under your doubts and in our debates how the Scripture is to be interpreted on this subject, you may wisely have recourse 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 was journeying to Rome by order of the Emperor 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 attachment to his Lord and Saviour, that like another great