vealed. They do understand them, and quite as well as the more learned and philosophizing." By this I understand the Dr. to put the two classes upon an equality. But when he comes to speak of the trial of the faith of men, in which so many are wrecked for eternity, he says:

*

a

"Most men, at one period of life or another, and especially educated men, pass through this fiery ordeal, &c. trial in which the faith and hopes of so many are consumed," &c. (Dis. 37, 57.)

And by this I understand him to mean distinctly, that educated men, especially, are more exposed to this severe trial, and more of them are lost, in proportion to numbers, than among those of "common honesty and discernment." And is not this giving the advantage, in point of fact, to the uneducated, and saying, in substance, "ignorance is the mother of devotion" among Protestants ?

And so Mr. Campbell, speaking of that passage, "there are some things hard to be understood," says:

"Philosophers, as they love to be called, are generally the most unteachable, and the greatest wresters and perverters of the Scripture. Peter had those too wise to learn in his eye, when he speaks of wresting the Scriptures; and not the simple, honest, and unassuming laity." (Debate C. & P., 266.)

Now if I understand Mr. C., he does say that, in point of fact, there is more religious error among the learned than among the "simple, honest, and unassuming laity." And is not this making "ignorance the mother of devotion" among Protestants ? *

But I find this charge denied by Catholic writers. And, indeed, I cannot see how it can be found in the Catholic theory. That system assumes to put them all upon an equality. It has

That I was right in my construction of Mr. C.'s language appears clear from a passage in his debate with Mr. Rice, page 905.

"The land is full of infidelity. Your schools, your colleges, are full of skepticism. The great majority of your educated men are infidels."

Now Mr. C. does distinctly state, as a matter of fact, that Skepticism and Infidelity are mostly found in the institutions of learning, and among educated men, while Christianity is best understood by the "simple, honest, and unassuming laity."

the same tribunal to construe for all; and it equally requires implicit submission from all. The poor and the rich, the high and the low, the learned and the unlearned, are each and all elevated to the same sublime faith-the same exact construction of the law. There is practical justice, beauty, reason, and logic in this theory:

"All states can reach it, and all heads conceive."

I am but a man. I am no wiser or better than others. I cannot reasonably have any more confidence in my individual judgment and construction of the Scriptures, than I can in those of any other man of equal capacity, sincerity, and means of information. Certainty I must have, or I cannot rest. Where then can I find it?

"Plant of celestial seed-if dropt below,

Say in what blessed' soil thou deign'st to grow."

Shall I be compelled to seek elsewhere than in any Protestant communion for that consistency, system, and unity, that did unquestionably dwell in the Church of Old? Must I be driven, at last, into the alleged "Man of Sin "-the "Great Apostasy" -the best-abused Church in the world? That Church against which charges enough, and grievous, are made, if true, to sink a universe? The alleged false-the base-the corrupt-the venal-the cruel-the apostate Church? The oldest, and yet the most unpopular-the most hated-the most suspected-the most despised-of all the Churches of Christendom? Is it possible that I must go there to find that faith, and that certainty, that will satisfy a hungry, but honest soul? How can I endure the thought of confessing my sins to a mere man? My pride says I cannot, but grace whispers "you can, if truth requires you." And so I will, if it is right. I resolve to follow truth, wherever it may lead me. There's reason and sense in truth. There's logic and honesty in it. There is certainty, and there is consistency in it. Let me only know it. If it can be found in the Old Church, I go there. The consequences I will take. If such a step subjects me to censure, I will bear it. I would rather suffer in this world than in the next. It may subject me to many evils for a long time,

-"if long in life can be."

But what of that? Unlimited space is wider than the world, and eternity longer than life. Heaven, and all that Heaven means, are worth a struggle-a sublime and manly struggle. Was Christianity ever designed to be popular with the mass of evil in this world? Does it indulge men's passions? Does it pamper pride? Does it flatter men in any way? Oh! no. It could never have cost so much if it did. He who wins Heaven, must struggle. He must be prepared to resist the onset of earth. He must expect its dire opposition. He must fight.

But are those manifold charges against the Old Church true? If so, she has been a hoary-headed sinner for many a long and weary century. Who can then estimate the evil she has done? False and apostate from her early faith-recreant to the heavenly trust of her Lord-she has filled the world with error and misery. If this be true, she ought to be despised.

But it may be that these charges are untrue. Her faith, after all this mighty mass of acrimonious and passionate accusation, may be the pure and holy faith once delivered to the saints. She has always, and at all times, and in all places, for more than fifteen hundred years, as conceded by many of her enemies, claimed it to be true. It may be that her very firmness in resisting all ambitious novelties, has brought upon her the unceasing opposition of all sectaries, in every age and clime, of whatever tenets and character; and her very consistency, her beauty, and invincible courage, may have brought against her all the malice and ridicule of all infidels, past or present. Who knows? If we concede that she is the true Church, for the sake of the argument only, (and she may be such, as the thing is possible,) then would not the bitter and relentless opposition of all the proud, the vain, the ambitious, be levelled against her? Would not every demagogue in religion-every wild enthusiast-every man of a cold, suspicious disposition-every self-willed individual, be against her? Did not our Lord say, Woe unto you when all men speak well of you: for so did their fathers of the false prophets?

There is something remarkable in the history of this venerable Old Church, even as stated by her enemies. Mr. Campbell says she "is older than any other sect now existing." She is older! Her continued existence for so long a period, under this

alleged accumulation of errors, is one of the most remarkable circumstances in the world's history. And the more errors are charged upon her, and the more bitterness there is displayed in attempting to sustain these allegations, the more difficult it is to account for this most remarkable moral phenomenon. If, indeed, she be the true Church, then her unfailing existence is easily accounted for; because the promises of that poor, despised Nazarene never yet did fail. And slander never did make a modest charge-malice always lays it on thicker and thickerand hatred forever overshoots the mark. And it seems as if God, in His infinite wisdom and mercy, has given the true Church this protection.

I will, then, look into these charges calmly and dispassionately. I will endeavor to make a fair and just allowance for in dividual human frailty. I will judge the past by the circumstances existing in the past. I will try to place myself back in the olden time. I will interrogate the distant ages gone by. I will commune with the venerable departed. I will judge them by that charity wherewith I wish to be judged. At least so far as my poor abilities will allow. I will then make up my mind, and upon that conviction I will act. I will not halt between two opinions. My face is set for the truth, and when I find, I mean to follow it.

CHAPTER XII.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

§ 1. There were two main points in the discourse of our Lord.

THE Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence, and the Protestant doctrine of the real absence of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper, are as much opposed to each other as any two precise opposites can possibly be imagined. There can be no medium between the two-no possible middle ground. Christ is either present or absent. If present, the Catholic is right—if absent, then the Protestant is right.

If the Catholic doctrine be true, it is a tender, sublime, and awful dogma-if false, a monstrous invention-a pure fabrication. If not in the Church originally, and not among the doctrines once delivered, it must have been introduced as a whole, and not in piecemeal. There could, from the very nature and reason of the thing, have been no middle doctrine-no shades of opinion, gradually preparing the minds of Christians for the reception of this great perversion of the true faith. It was one bold leap from the well-understood and generally received doctrine of the real absence, to that opposite, so hard to flesh and blood, the Real Presence.

The first portion of Scripture relied upon by the Catholic, is found in that wonderful chapter, the sixth of St. John. The first twenty-five verses are taken up in giving a history of the stupendous miracle of Christ in feeding the multitude, and His subsequent occupations until the next day. On the second day, the crowd again came around Him, and His discourse to them commences at the 26th verse, and extends to the close of this long chapter.

It was the practice with our Lord and His apostles to suit