occasion, they would also understand him literally on the other occasion.

The conclusiveness of the present argument depends entirely upon the establishment or the nonestablishment of the bishop's opinion relative to the matters which occurred at Capernaum. Now the totally different views of that question taken by his lordship and myself, bring us of necessity to totally different views of the language employed by Christ in the institution of the Eucharist. The bishop, maintaining that Christ was from first to last literally understood by the disciples in the synagogue at Capernaum, maintains also, that he was literally understood by them at the institution of the holy supper. I, on the contrary, maintaining, on the ground of Christ's own explanation as interpreted and received in the early church, that he was at length figuratively understood by the disciples at Capernaum, maintain, that he was also figuratively understood by them at the institution of the Eucharist. Under this aspect, therefore, the matter resolves itself into the question, which of the two litigants has most satisfactorily established his opinion in regard to the purport of Christ's language at Capernaum.

2. While the bishop thus argues, with whatever cogency, in favour of the literal interpretation of the language employed by Christ in the institution of the Eucharist, he brings forward also certain objections to that figurative interpretation of it which is preferred and adopted by the church of England.

(1.) He urges, that, previous to the institution of the Eucharist, bread had never been taken as a sign of our Lord's body. Whence he contends, that the consecrated bread cannot be legitimately viewed as a sign or type, or image or symbol.*

With the ostensible premises of this argument I am little concerned. They may be very true, as the

*Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 293, 294.

bishop thinks: or they may be very false, as the early fathers of the church believe.* With the ostensible premises I concern not myself: my business is with the conclusion. Now that conclusion strikes me as altogether unwarrantable. Let the objection of the bishop be disguised as it may, when thrown into a regular form, it will run as follows:

Unless a word has already been used figuratively, we have no right so to interpret it in any particular instance. But the word BREAD was never used figuratively as denoting Christ's body, previous to the institution of the Eucharist. Therefore the figurative interpretation of it, in the case of the Eucharist, is inadmissible.

Such, when regularly drawn out, is the bishop's argument. In his own statement of it, the true premises are altogether concealed; and certain spurious premises, which may be very accurate or which may be very inaccurate, so far as matter of fact is concerned, are alone brought forward to notice. The bishop makes his conclusion to depend upon the alleged circumstance, that, previous to the institution of the Eucharist, bread had never been taken as a sign of our Lord's body: whereas the conclusion really depends upon the proposition, that unless a word has already been used figuratively, we have no right so to interpret it in any particular instance. Now the utter falsehood of this proposition must be plain to the very meanest capacity. If it be received as true, it will indeed make short work with the whole family of metaphors: for it is quite clear, that, if previous use by earlier writers be necessary to consti

*To a person so well skilled as the bishop in the works of the ancient fathers, I do not think it necessary to point out, by a formal adduction of instances, how perpetually they consider bread and wine, when mentioned in the Old Testament, to be signs or figures of our Lord's body and blood. Two of the most favourite passages, adduced for this purpose, are Gen. xiv. 18. and Gen. xlix. 11.

tute a legitimate metaphor, no metaphor whatsoever can be in existence; inasmuch as, at some period or other, every metaphor must have been used for the first time.

(2.) The bishop attempts to show, that the expressions, I am the door and I am the vine, are NOT homogeneous with the expressions, This is my body and This is my blood. Whence he contends, that the homogeneous scheme of interpretation, insisted upon by the church of England, is certainly unteable.*

I am unable to comprehend the force of the reasoning, by which he would disprove the homogeneity of those several expressions. To members of his own communion, who may perceive what I unfortunately cannot perceive, his reasoning will doubtless appear valid; but it will have small weight with those, who have not been already convinced through some other medium. I claim not to be a very profound rhetorician; but, after all the labour which the bishop has bestowed upon the subject, the expressions, I am the door and I am the vine, and This is my body and This is my blood, strike upon my own apprehension, as being strictly homogeneous, and as being alike figurative or metaphorical. In the construction of them I can see no difference. The fault may be my own; but such is the fact. When Christ says, I am the door; both the bishop and myself understand him to speak figuratively: when he says of the consecrated bread, This is my body; I am unable to perceive, why I MUST NOT understand him to speak figuratively, and why I MUST understand him to speakliterally.t

• Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 295.

†The bishop of Meaux, much in the same manner as the bishop of Aire, attempts to make out a case, that, while the expression I am the vine MUST be figuratively interpreted, the expression This is my blood MUST be literally interpreted. Hist. des Variat. livr. ii. § 26, 27.

His case works no conviction in my own mind; and, apparently, it would have met with no better success, had it been propounded to the ancient fathers. The speaker, at least, in Theodoret's Dialogues, who bears the characteristic name of Orthodoxus, and who argues against the doctrine of a physical change in the consecrated elements then first propounded by the Eutychian heretics, contends, that our Lord honoured the visible symbols with the name of his body and blood, BECAUSE he had previously called himself a vine. Hence it is clear, that the orthodox church of the fifth century understood the two expressions, I am the vine and This is my blood, in the same sense: that is to say, she alike understood them figuratively or metaphorically. See Theodor. Dial. i. oper. vol. iv. p. 17, 18. Lut. Paris, 1642. The reader will find the entire passage cited below, Book i. chap. 8. § I. 1.

I

CHAPTER VI.

Respecting the Latin Defence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, from the secret Discipline of the early Church.

THERE are few matters of theological antiquity more curious and extraordinary, than the secret discipline ef the early Christian church.*

Assuredly, as the bishop of Aire most justly remarks, those persons greatly err, who would place the rise of this institution no higher than the fourth century. Origen, in the third century, perpetually refers to it; and its existence in the second century may clearly be gathered from the writings of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. I am myself unable to trace it, at least distinctly, any higher than those fathers. Justin may possibly allude to it: but I cannot venture to hazard an assertion respecting the words of that ancient author.*

The bishop thinks, that this discipline originated with the apostles themselves; and he attempts, by various authorities, to make good his opinion.

I more than doubt, whether he has succeeded. He shows indeed, what we all knew, that the primitive christians, from a lawful wish to escape persecution, conducted their worship secretly in regard to the pagans: but this is a very different thing from that discipline of the early church, which was conducted secretly in regard to the catechumens. The rise of

* Discuss. Amic. Lett. viii.

† See Justin. Apol. i. vulg. ii. p. 55.