I find, however, that, with reflecting men, or, at least, with those who are considered able divines, on the Protestant side of the question, it has become much more usual than it used to be, to acknowledge that this is not the method in which the text should be examined. They are disposed to allow, that we have no right to consider the apparent impracticability, or impossibility of the doctrine, but must let it stand or fall fairly and solely by the authority of Scripture; and, however the circumstances may be repugnant to our feelings or reason, if proved on grounds of sound interpretation, admit it as taught by God Himself. To establish this concession, I will content myself with a single authority, that of one who has been not merely the most persevering, but also (for the expression is not too harsh) one of the most virulent of our adversaries; and who, particularly on this subject of the Eucharist, has taken extraordinary pains to overthrow our belief. Mr. Faber writes in these words, on the subject now under consideration;

"While arguing upon this subject, or incidentally mentioning it, some persons, I regret to say, have been too copious, in the use of those unseemly words, 'absurdity and impossibility.' To such language, the least objection is its reprehensible want of good manners. A much more serious objection is the tone of presumptuous loftiness which pervades it, and is wholly unbecoming a creature of very narrow faculties. Certainly, God will do nothing that is absurd, and can do nothing impossible. But it does not, therefore, follow, that our view of things should be always perfectly correct, and free from misapprehension. Contradictions we can easily fancy, where, in truth, there are none. Hence, therefore, before we consider any doctrine a contradiction, we must be sure we perfectly understand the nature of the matter propounded in that doctrine: for otherwise, the contradiction may not be in the matter itelf, but in our mode of conceiving it. In regard to myself, as my consciously finite intellect claims not to be an universal measure of congruities and possibilities,—I deem it

to be both more wise and more decorous, to refrain from assailing the doctrine of Transubstantiation, on the ground of its alleged absurdity, or contradictoriness, or impossibility. By such a mode of attack, we, in reality, quit the field of rational and satisfactory argumentation.

"The doctrine of Transubstantiation, like the doctrine of the Trinity, is a question, not of abstract reasoning, but of pure evidence. We believe the revelation of God to be essential and unerring truth. Our business most plainly is, not to discuss the abstract absurdity, and the imagined contradictoriness, of Transubstantiation, but to enquire, according to the best means we possess, whether it be indeed a doctrine of Holy Scripture. If sufficient evidence shall determine such to be the case, we may be sure that the doctrine is neither absurd nor contradictory. I shall ever contend, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation, like the doctrine of the Trinity, is a question of evidence." pure

These observations are extremely sensible; and the comparison which the author makes with another mystery, as I shall shew you later, sufficiently demonstrates it to be correct. However, I do not, of course, mean to shelter myself behind his authority, or that of any other writer; I will not content myself with saying, that sensible and acute, yes, excessively acute reasoners against us, admit that any fancied difficulties or contradictions are not to be weighed against our interpretation; and thence conclude, that having, I trust satisfactorily, examined the allegations on the other side, and proved them insufficient, we cannot, according to the obvious rule of interpretation, depart from the literal sense. I have no such intention, my brethren. On the contrary, I mean to meet these difficulties, but without departing one step from the ground which I have chosen from the beginning. I laid it down as my method and rule of interpretation, that the true meaning of words or texts, is that meaning which the speaker must have known would be affixed to his words by those whom * "Difficulties of Romanism," Lond. 1826, p. 54.

he addressed, and that we are to put ourselves in their situation, and know what means they had for explaining his words, and then interpret according to those means alone. For we are not to suppose that our Saviour spoke sentences, which those who heard Him had no means of understanding, but which we alone were afterwards to understand. If, therefore, we wish to ascertain what were their means of interpreting the words in question, we must invest ourselves with the feelings of the Apostles, and make our enquiry in their position.

It is said, then, that we must depart from the literal sense of our Saviour's words, because that literal sense involves an impossibility, or contradiction. The simple enquiry to be made, is, therefore, could the Apostles have reasoned in this manner; or could our Saviour have meant them so to reason? Could they have made the possibility or impossibility of any thing He uttered, be the criterion of its true interpretation? And if He did not intend that for a criterion, which, as you will see, must, if used, have led them astray, it is evident, that by it we must not interpret the text. I beg you to observe, in the first place, that the investigation into possibility or impossibility, when spoken with reference to the Almighty, is philosophically of a much deeper character than we can suppose, not merely ordinary, but positively illiterate and uneducated men, to have been qualified to fathom. What is possible or impossible to God? What is contradictory to his power? Who shall venture to define it, further than what may be the obvious, the first, and simplest principle of contradiction,—the existence and simultaneous non-existence of a thing? who will pretend to say, that any ordinary mind would be able to measure this perplexed subject, and to reason thus—“ the Almighty may, indeed, for instance, change water into wine,, but that he cannot change bread into a body." Who that looks on these two propositions, with the eye of an uneducated: man, could say, that, in his mind, there was such a broad distinction between them, that while he saw one effected by the power of a Being believed by him to be omnipotent, he still

But

held the other to be of a class so widely different, as to venture to pronounce it absolutely impossible? Suppose, again, that such a person had seen our Saviour, or any one else, take into his hands a certain portion of bread, seven or five loaves, and with these very identical loaves, as the Gospel narrative tells us, feed and satisfy three or five thousand individuals, so that basketfuls should remain of the fragments; not creating more substance, but making that which existed suffice for the effects of a much larger quantity, and then were told that the same powerful Being could not make a body, or other food, be at the same time in two places; would he, think you, at once be able directly and boldly to pronounce in his mind, that although he had seen the one, although there could be no doubt that the agent was endowed with such superior power to effect it, yet the other belonged philosophically to such a different class of phenomena, that his power was not equal to effecting it? I will say, that not merely an uneducated man, but that the most refined reasoner, or the most profound thinker, if he admitted one of these facts as having been true and proved, could not pretend to say that the other belonged to a different sphere of philosophical laws-he could not reject the one from its contradictions, in spite of the demonstration that the other had been.

Now, such as I have described, were the minds of the apostles, those of illiterate, uncultivated, men. They had been accustomed to see Christ perform the most extraordinary works -they had seen Him walking on the water, His body consequently deprived, for a time, of the usual properties of matter, of that gravity which, according to the laws of nature, should have caused it to sink. They had seen Him, by His simple word, command the elements, and even raise the dead to life; they had also witnessed those two miracles to which I have alluded, that of transmuting one substance into another, and that of multiplying a body, or extending it to an immense degree. Can we, then, believe, that with such minds as these, and with such evidences, the apostles were likely to have

words addressed to them by our Saviour, which they were to interpret rightly, only by the reasoning of our opponents,that is, on the ground of what he asserted being philosophi cally impossible?

Moreover, we find our Saviour impressed His followers with the idea, that nothing was impossible to Him; that He never reproved them so severely as when they doubted His power. "Oh! thou of little faith, why dost thou fear?" He had so completely inspired his followers with this feeling, that when they applied to Him for any miracle, they never said, "If thou canst,—if it be in thy power;" it was only His will which they wished to secure; the man with the leprosy accordingly exclaims,-" Lord, if thou wilt thou canst make me clean.”"Lord," said Martha, "if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died, but even now I know that whatever thou askest of God He will give to thee." To this extent, therefore, had their faith in Him been strengthened, as to believe that whatever He asked of God, whatever He willed, that he could effect. Nor is this all; but our Saviour encouraged this belief to the utmost. How did He answer the man with the leprosy? "I will, be thou made clean." "Your cure depends on my will; you were right in appealing to this attribute—the mere act of my volition will effect it." How did he reply to Martha? "Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me, and I know that thou hearest me always." He confirmed, therefore, this idea in them, that nothing was impossible to Him. Moreover, we hear him commend the faith of the Centurion: "I have not found such faith in Israel!" And why? Because the Centurion believed and asserted, that it was not even necessary for our Saviour to be present to perform a miracle. 66 Amen, amen, I say to you, that I have not found such faith in Israel," not such an estimate of my power as this man had formed. Now, therefore again, if such was the conviction of the apostles, and if our Saviour had taken such pains to confirm it in them, that nothing whatever was impossible to Him, can you believe for a moment, that He meant them to