the same character. This consideration will lead us to put into the back ground the controversy about the Holy Eucharist, which is almost certain to lead to profane and rationalistic thoughts in the minds of the many, and cannot well be discussed in words at all, without the sacrifice of godly fear,' while it is well nigh anticipated by the ancient statements, and the determinations of the Church concerning the Incarnation. It is true that learned men, such as Stillingfleet, have drawn lines of distinction between the doctrine of transubstantiation, and that high mystery; but the question is, whether they are so level to the intelligence of the many, as to secure the Anglican disputant from fostering irreverence, whether in himself or his hearers, if he ventures on such an argument. If transubstantiation must be opposed, it is in another way; by showing, as may well be done, and as Stillingfleet himself has done, that, in matter of fact, it was not the doctrine of the early Church, but an innovation at such or such a time; a line of discussion which requires learning both to receive and to appreciate."--Vol. iii. No. 71. p. 8.

Now let the reader compare the preceding quotation from the Oxford Tracts with the following from Professor Turton's masterly reply to Dr. Wiseman, and he will be amazed at the exact agreement between the Romanist Lecturer and the Oxford Writer.-" Dr. Wiseman proceeds to compare the objections, from natural appearances, to the doctrine of Transubstantiation—with the objections, of a similar kind, to the doctrine of the Trinity. All the experience,' he writes, ‘and observations of philosophers, on the law of numbers, must have led them to conclude that the very term, Triune, or three in one, was opposed to natural reasoning; and yet we receive the doctrine, on the authority of Scripture.' Does it then, in his opinion, make no difference, whether we are considering the material objects, about which the doctrine of Transubstantiation is concerned--or the mode of the Divine existence, in

relation to the Trinity? Can he suppose that we are as capable of judging in the latter case as in the former? The learned author knows very well-as well as every reader of this volume -that the fact is far otherwise. If, indeed, I were to enter upon an extended argument on this point, it would seem as if I imagined him to have alleged the instance of the Trinity, with any other design than to mystify the subject; and that would be to derogate from the character of his understanding, in a manner of which I should be sorry if there were any example, in the present work. With a similar feeling, I mention, without discussion, the instance of the Incarnation adduced for the same purpose. The result, however, of the dissertation, on reasoning from external appearances, shall be transcribed:

'Thus much may suffice upon the motives given for a necessity of rejecting the literal sense of the words of Institution. You have seen that it is contrary to the first principles of hermeneutics to allow any such supposed difficulties to interfere in their interpretation, or to enter as an element in it; you have seen, that they can no more be admitted in regard to the Trinity, Incarnation, or any other divine mystery. This is more than sufficient to justify us in refusing to admit them into the disquisition of this doctrine.'” (p. 218.)-Turton on the Eucharist, p. 302.

As the same fallacy pervades the statements of each of these writers, the same refutation is equally applicable to both. I will, therefore, take the liberty of introducing in this place Professor Turton's unanswerable exposure of Dr Wiseman's sophistry." Bellarmine, as we have seen-and some of the ablest defenders of the Roman Catholic faith-have allowed that the language of Scripture, according to the ordinary rules of interpretation, is not of itself sufficient to establish the doctrine of Transubstantiation; maintaining that, for that purpose, recourse must be had to the authority of the (so called)

infallible Church; which determines, not only what is Scrip ture, but what is the meaning of Scripture. Now, whatever the learned author may think, people in general will be of opinion, that Bellarmine, and other great advocates of the same cause, understood the import of Scripture language quite as well as Dr. Wiseman, and made as good use of it in argument. When, therefore, they find this zealous lecturer laying down the law, as if he had completely settled the point in question, by virtue of Scriptural Proofs-they will be pretty well satisfied that he has greatly overrated his own achievements— and much more so, when they take into account the precise value of his exertions for that purpose. In short, to represent the conversion of bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ as a mystery positively revealed in Holy Writ-and thus to exhibit those who urge the improbability of such conversion, from the observed qualities of material things, as in a manner fighting against God-is what Dr. Wiseman has ventured to do, but what sober-minded men of all persuasions will agree in thinking that he ought not to have done. It is because the mystery is not clearly revealed in Scripture-and because the doctrine relates to things cognizable by the senses -that men may, without impiety or presumption, pay some attention to arguments drawn from their knowledge of material objects.

For myself, I should not perhaps be disposed to go so far, as some people would, in the use of arguments of the kind just mentioned; but so long as I retain the use of my understanding, I cannot but proceed to the extent which I am now about to mention. Christianity was, by divine appointment, founded on miracles; that is, on events of the truth of which the senses of men were judges. I should therefore beforehand deem it very improbable that the religion, so founded on the testimony of the senses, would contain anything relating to objects of the senses, which could not be believed, but in contradiction to

rest.

the senses; because in that case, the religion would have the appearance of undermining the ground upon which it had to The least, however, that could be expected, in such a case, would be-that there should be no ambiguity-no doubt of the point being designed to be a matter of faith. Again, on a survey of the New Testament, we find sensible objects made, so to speak, the elements of divine knowledge-earthly things the steps to heavenly things. As an external revelation, therefore, Christianity, from first to last, arrives at the understanding and the affections, by means of those faculties which give us intelligence of the process of nature. In other words, for the establishment of Christianity, several of the laws of nature underwent a temporary suspension, in the presence of those who were sufficiently acquainted with them to know that they were suspended; and our Lord, in his instructions, availed himself of that ordinary intelligence, which he knew that the people possessed, of natural appearances. Under these circumstances, we ask for the text in which we are required to believe something, affirmed of material objects, in contradiction to the evidence of the senses; and we are referred to a passage, in which our Lord, just before his crucifixion, is instituting a rite to be observed, in remembrance of him, by his disciples then present, and by the faithful to the end of time. Without again reciting particulars familiar to every one, we are, it is alleged, there required to believe that the ́bread and the wine which our Lord presented, as his body and his blood, and which, to every sense capable of distinguishing one thing from another, still continued to be bread and wine, were really converted into the material body and blood of Christ. Now this does appear to be in itself the very grossest conception that ever entered into the mind of man—a notion of such a character as to make almost every other extravagance of opinion look, on comparison, contemptibly small. A true account of the rise and progress of the doctrine, would form a

curious chapter in the history of human nature. But let that pass. The strange doctrine now treated of can be deduced, from the words referred to, solely by the most rigorously literal interpretation which it is possible to apply to any passage whatever :—a mode of interpretation which can seldom be applied to our Lord's discourses, without extracting meanings which no sane mind can suppose to have been intended. On the contrary, by interpreting the words conformably to what was obviously designed for common apprehension-in short, as the general tenor of our Lord's language requires—the bread and wine become the symbols, the tokens, the memorials of the body and blood of Christ, thereafter to be received in remembrance of him. Now I do maintain-not only in justice to that reason to which Revelation makes its first appeal, but from reverence for those Scriptures which are designed to direct us, where reason cannot but fail to do so-that a case is here presented, in which the testimony of the senses has an undeniable claim to be taken into account. On their testimony, Christianity was founded-the truth of their testimony was every where assumed by our Lord in his discourses:— did, then, our Saviour, when leaving his disciples, propose to them a doctrine, relating to objects before their eyes, which, at once set at nought that evidence on which their faith rested? We cannot believe this on the dubious interpretation of a single text. It ought to be stamped upon the page of Scripture in characters too distinct to be mistaken."-Turton on the Eucharist, p. 298-302.

Upon the doctrine of transubstantiation, Southey has made the following striking observations in his Book of the Church. "If the boundless credulity of mankind be a mournful subject for consideration, as in truth it is, it is yet more mournful to observe the profligate wickedness with which that credulity has been abused. The Church of Rome appears to have delighted in insulting as well as in abusing it, and to have