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 Transubstantiation 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 devouring 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 by 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 held. 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 not believe in Transubstantiation. I shall give you the statement of this charge made upon the primitive Christians, and their answer, from a fragment of Irenæus which has been preserved by Ecumenius:

"The Pagans, wishing to ascertain the secret ceremonial of the Christians, apprehended their slaves and put them to the torture. Impatient of the pain, and having nothing to tell which might please their tormentors, the slaves, who had heard their masters say that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ, forthwith communicated this circumstance. Whereupon the tormentors, fancying that it was literal blood and flesh which was served up in the mysteries of the Christians, hastened to inform the other Pagans. These immediately apprehended the martyrs, Sanctus and Blandina, and endeavoured to extort from them a confession of the deed. But Blandina readily and boldly answered, How can those 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 the words of Irenæus; but when the martyrs were brought forward, and the charge preferred in their hearing, they positively denied its truth. This they could not have done with strict veracity if they believed that Christ's body and blood were substantially present in the Eucharist; therefore I conclude that their denial of the charge, when thus made in connection with the celebration of the Eucharist, involves the fact that they could not have believed in Transubstantiation.

At last, Sir, Mr. Brown has ventured to approach the

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 opposite side is concerned), in what may be called preliminary matter! Mr. Edgeworth complained of my having constantly reproved our opponents for not coming to the Sacrifice of the Mass, which 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 Transubstantiation, 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 Transubstantiation to be true, I should still contend against, and strenuously object to, the Sacrifice of the Mass. We might, therefore, have had the subject sooner, but, I suppose, we must be satisfied that it has come to light at last.

My Rev. opponent has given us a definition of the term sacrifice, according to his view of it, and he has also restated the doctrine of the Church of Rome, as put forth by certain Roman Catholic writers. With respect to his definition of sacrifice I cannot admit it as an accurate one. First of all, it is said to be "the oblation of a sensible thing," and therefore the definition is not comprehensive enough for the idea of sacrifice in general; for though the term is primarily applied to literal sacrifices, yet it is oftentimes (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 " some 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, therefore, in the definition of a literal sacrifice we would consider (as my opponent has said) the "matter as something sensible," and also declare, not merely "some change," but the destruction of the victim, yet in the definition of sacrifice in general, as including literal and spiritual sacrifices, that given by Melancthon seems to be accurate and comprehensive. (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

the service of the heart, and not merely the service of external and literal sacrifice.

Requesting you to bear in mind the arguments I have already adduced against the Mass, especially from the Epistle to the Hebrews; and begging you also to remember 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 (see p. 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 11th 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 great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my 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 offering spoken of, and on the force of the terms employed. He has given a variety of reasons why the sacrifice mentioned cannot have reference 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 I prove that it may 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 concluI 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, because the word sacrifice is used in this passage, it must of necessity mean the Sacrifice of the Mass, upon the very

sion.

same principle I might argue that prayer was the Sacrifice of the Mass-that praise was the Sacrifice of the Massand 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 offering," 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 may 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 positively applied to other things besides literal sacrifices, then I shall have sufficiently invalidated my opponent's argument that the term must of necessity apply to the Mass. Look, then, at the 66th chapter of Isaiah, and read thus in part of the 19th and 20th verses :—

you will

"And they shall declare my glory to the Gentiles: and they shall bring all your brethren out of all nations for a gift to the Lord," &c.

The word which is here translated a gift (and which manifestly means a simple offering, or dedication, and not a literal sacrifice), is the same term which is translated oblation in Malachi; and this proves that the term is not confined to the idea of a literal sacrifice, but that sometimes it simply signifies a gift or an offering.

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 Heathenism) universal, and I may venture to add, as my own opinion, that it never will be.

IV. Thus we see that my Rev. antagonist has by no means positive proof that this passage refers to the Mass, for I have shown you that at least it may be otherwise. Now,

in a disputation, the individual who supports the negative, 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 observe, 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 I 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 shown)-they may well be called a clean oblation or offering, for although in themselves (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 they shall be offered in every place;" 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 would only observe further with respect to this passage (as we have heard a great deal to-day about the Fathers, and as our opponents lay such stress on their authority), 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 prophet Malachi expresses it, In all places a pure offering; namely, glorifying and blessing him with prayers and hymns. A pure offering, as Malachi says, is an honest prayer from a pure conscience."-Cont. Marc. lib. 3.

Such was Tertullian's mode of understanding the passage. Theodoret, whose name has been already mentioned to-day, says, in commenting on this chapter:

"By incense and pure offering we are to understand the knowledge and worship 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 worship the Father in spirit and in truth.' And the Apostle (1 Tim. ii. 8.) I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath or doubting.' "-Theod. in Mal. i. 10.