be deduced from Scripture. Bellarmine-the great controversialist of the 17th century-was aware, of what Dr Wiseman does not seem to be aware that learned and able enquirers may have reason not to be convinced by the proofs usually alleged for the same doctrine. The Schoolman indeed and the Cardinal had really studied the subject; the one with a much more penetrating mind-the other with a much more solid erudition-and both of them with a far greater desire to ascertain the merits of the case than can be traced in our modern lecturer. To say that those writers would not have adopted the sentiments which Dr Wiseman has not scrupled to use in the last paragraph, is to say but little. I cannot conceive such sentiments to be avowed by any man, who has ever thought seriously of the matter; who has thought, I mean, for the purpose of finding the truth, and not for the mere invention of arguments in defence of an opinion. Have we not been taught, by the learned author himself, that there are passages of Scripture, in which, when literally interpreted, two material objects appear to be identical-insomuch that "we are compelled to fly, by a positive repugnance and contradiction, to another”—a figurative-" sense?*" What warrant has he for thinking that the words of Institution are not to be reckoned amongst those passages? Is it for him to descant upon what must result from

66

every rule of correct interpretation"-whose volume

* Lectures, p. 179; also the present volume, p. 276.

abounds, almost beyond example, in false principles and erroneous applications-in misstatements and contradictions of all kinds? Is it for one who is scarcely ever right, even by accident, to decide that the literal meaning of certain texts is so indubitable, that to accept or refuse them, in that sense, is to choose between belief or disbelief in the Saviour of the world? I repel, as I have said, such language with indignation; and I affirm that, in adopting it, Dr Wiseman has arrogated to himself much more of the judicial authority, than would have been justified by a far more masterly performance.

The learned author enters upon the subject of his sixth lecture, by complaining of those Protestant writers who have commenced their disquisitions on Transubstantiation, by dwelling upon the fact that it is contradicted by our senses:—that which the Roman Catholic affirms to be the real, substantial body of Christ appearing to be bread-and that which he affirms to be the real, substantial blood of Christ appearing to be wine. I am no advocate for inverting the natural order of things. To ascertain the doctrines of Scripture we ought certainly to betake ourselves to the examination of Scripture; and yet be very careful not to leave behind us such portions of understanding and information as we happen to possess. The course of investigation however, which we are in the present instance pursuing, having been marked out by Dr Wiseman himself, the mistakes of others in this respect can

not affect the enquiry now in progress; and therefore we may at once go on with the main subject.

The learned author affirms that, at the Institution of the Eucharist, a miracle was wrought: in other words, that the bread was substantially converted into the human body of our Lord Jesus Christ-and the wine substantially converted into his actual blood. On what evidence is this affirmed? Many wonderful works, performed by our Lord, are recorded in the Gospels-with the particularity with which eye-witnesses would naturally relate striking events. He first manifested his power by turning water into wine; and the circumstances are related with great exactness, together with the admiration excited at the taste of "the good wine" in that manner produced. The conversion of bread into flesh, and of wine into blood, must be as astonishing an event, as the turning of water into wine: what account of the change do we find in the Gospels? No account whatever: not a trace of a miracle can be discovered. We read of bread and of wine: we read of words spoken: but the senses of those present, by which alone the bread and wine could be known to be really such before the words were spoken, attested the same truth after the words were spoken. A like difference exists, between every instance of a miracle related in the Gospels, and the case in question. The changes specified as miraculous invariably struck the senses: the supposed change in the Eucharist was in contradiction to the senses.

If, then, the alleged change of substance of the bread and wine be opposed by the testimony of the senses, we once more ask, On what evidence does the fact rest? Did our Lord distinctly state that, notwithstanding appearances, such a change had really taken place; and did the Apostles indicate that they understood him to have so stated, and that they believed him, notwithstanding appearances? Nothing of the kind. The evidence is derived from words which are not only susceptible of a more obvious and a more easy interpretation, than that which is produced as a voucher for the fancied change-but which have been understood, in that more easy and obvious sense, by men, to say the least, as wise, as learned, as upright and as pious, as the most eminent among the members of the Church of Rome. To declare what I conscientiously believe to be the truth, there is not, I am persuaded, any interpretation that ever was devised, of any other portion of the New Testament, at once so unfitted to the context, so opposed to the general tenor of Scripture, so inconsistent with the natural conceptions of the human mind, so fraught with evil consequences, as is the Roman Catholic explanation of the words of Institution.

Dr Wiseman-persevering in his unwarranted assumption, that the words of Institution were intended to be understood to imply a substantial change in the bread and wine, and that the Apostles did so understand them-goes on to consider the

I

kind of "estimate of our Lord's power which they must have formed by witnessing his actions*." once more protest against this assumption. The question is not what were their impressions of his power-but whether that was an occasion on which they would conceive that his power was brought into exercise. The Apostles, as the learned author justly observes, were plain, uneducated, unsophisticated men—not philosophical reasoners. Our Lord had repeatedly worked miracles in their presence: he had in an instant cured diseases-removed deformity-restored withered limbs-raised the dead; -he had walked upon the waters-he had fed thousands by means of a few loaves and fishes. The Apostles therefore must have been fully convinced of the divine power of their Master, and competent judges of the truth of a sign or wonder of which they were witnesses. But were these persons likely to imagine a miracle to have been worked where no change was exhibited before them? Dr Wiseman concludes that, when our Lord, in presenting the bread, used the words, "This is my body," no idea of any impossibility in the case could have occurred to them. How should it? Changes they had witnessed — instantaneous, stupendous changes and they must have dwelt much and often on the power which had effected them. But, in the Institution of the Eucharist, there was no appearance of change: there was nothing to suggest * Lectures, pp. 205--209.