place-strongly confirm the Protestant view of the subject. Whether Dr Wiseman misunderstands the principles on which the doctrine of Transubstantiation is opposed, I know not. He grievously misrepresents them.

The learned author next alleges that Roman Catholics, notwithstanding their belief in the change of substance, "call the sacred elements by the names of their appearances, after the consecration:" insomuch that, in the canon of the mass, the "bread” and “cup” are still mentioned—“ panem sanctum vitæ æternæ, et calicem salutis perpetuæ." May not, then, St Paul's language be consistent with a similar belief on the part of the Apostle? If the Apostle had anywhere used expressions really indicating his belief in a change of substance, the argument would be entitled to great consideration; but as we do not find that to be the case, it becomes us to allow such phrases as "this bread"—" this cup”— to have their due effect upon our interpretation of the contexts-more especially when we find that, by that plan, Scripture is brought into accordance with itself, and with those natural apprehensions of things, which we are never called upon to disregard. Roman Catholics can answer for their own meaning; and when, "both from its appearance, and from its properties," they call a substance bread-they can inform us (as they do) that they are really talking and writing of something else—of something essentially different:-but St Paul has not so explained

66

himself, nor has he given any just occasion for that kind of explanation; and those persons, who do not scruple to employ such strange perversions of language for their own purposes, ought assuredly to hesitate long, before they attribute them to the pen of an inspired Apostle.

Dr Wiseman, thirdly, dwells upon the miracle, of sight given to a man born blind, as recorded in the 9th chapter of St John. The Evangelist, in relating the occurrences subsequent to the miracle, uses the expression-"They say unto the blind man again;" and the learned author concludes that, as all reasoning from that expression, against the truth of the miracle," would be rejected with indignation”—so likewise ought all reasoning from the phrase "this bread," with regard to the doctrine of the Corporal Presence. Let us compare the circumstances of the two cases. In the one case, we have detailed to us, with the greatest particularity, the fact of sight given to a man born blindthe general surprise of the people—and the captious examination of the man himself, by the Pharisees. In the other case, we have no intimation of any intention to perform a miracle-no account of any miracle having been performed-no appearance of any one present having ever thought of a miracle. In the one case, during a long enquiry into the matter, the man, upon whom the miracle had been wrought, is called "him that aforetime was blind”— "him that had received his sight"-" the man that

was blind;"-and once-as if to avoid a cumbersome periphrasis, and yet adopt an expression which could mislead no one-simply, "the blind man." In the other case, what was originally bread, and what (as every one's senses testified) continued to be bread, is called by its own proper name, and by no other name. So opposed to each other are the two cases; in which Dr Wiseman seems to have discovered a sufficient degree of similarity, to enable him to reason from the one to the other. How great must be the mortification of being driven to have recourse to such arguments. There is, indeed, something so insipid in these closing animadversions, that the mortification, of having to put down a few words in reply, appears almost equal to that which must unavoidably attend the production of the animadversions themselves.... And yet Dr Wiseman perseveres in this sort of argument. "Again," he writes, "in Genesis [Exodus], after Aaron's rod on the one side, and those of the Egyptian magicians on the other, are said to have been changed into serpents, it is added: 'but Aaron's rod devoured their rods.' Therefore the infidel may conclude, that no change had taken place in the rods*." Here, as in the instance of the blind man, the change is positively stated; and stated to have been observed by those present; on what ground, then,

* Lectures, pp. 273, 274. The reference given is Gen. viii. 12, instead of Exod. vii. 12. I may observe that the references throughout the work are erroneous to a very troublesome degree.

can an inference be drawn, and be applied to an instance, in which not a word, respecting any change, is to be found?.... The miracle of water turned into wine (John ii. 9) furnishes the final. argument of this class: "When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew):"-Here the wine is called the water. Now, in the first place a conspicuous miracle was wrought, and acknowledged. In the second, can any thing be more obvious than that the term, the water, immediately refers to the term, the water that was made wine, just before? It was clearly used, as exhibiting what had preceded, in an abbreviated form. How unlike are all these passages, in themselves and their application, to St Paul's phrases" this bread"-"this cup"-in connexion with the subject to which they refer ! The modes of speech, touching the blind man, the rods, and the wine, can lead to no mistake, either in fact or in doctrine; but I would ask-If Transubstantiation had been designed for a primary article of the Christian faith, can we suppose that the very texts of Scripture, in which it is said to be found, should present expressions, so adverse to its truth, as the accounts of the institution of the Eucharist really do contain?

Passing over the learned author's remarks upon "the philosophical question" concerning the relation of our Lord's Corporal Presence to space and

time I have now only to advert once more-and but for a moment-to hermeneutical principles. We have ascertained their nature, and witnessed their operation, under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Dr Wiseman; who also, by way of contrast, mentions their effect, under the management of the Protestant Dr Eichhorn. On the one hand, hermeneutical principles are employed, as we have seen, to vindicate the literal meaning of the words of Institution-on the other, they are employed, as Dr Wiseman informs us, to construct a figurative meaning. With regard to the hermeneutics of the Lectures on the Eucharist, the work would certainly have been much more to the purpose without them. They offered, indeed, a vast collection of materials exquisitely adapted to the exercise of that intellectual dexterity, which the learned author is manifestly too fond of exhibiting:-a kind of dexterity well calculated to perplex or amaze the beholder-but altogether useless, if designed either to convince or instruct. Besides, the idea of dexterity is strongly associated with that of deception; and the spectator, who has at first been somewhat bewildered by appearances, may finally resolve to investigate the truth of things. In that case, the danger is, lest the ingenious artist may have been too subtile for his own purposes. The controversialist may then discover that plain dealing is the best-in argument, as well as in the general conduct of life; and that perversions and misrepre