sentences should be supposed to have no effects when passed undeservedly, still their effects may be real, when passed deservedly: 3. That, though they are supposed to take effect in all cases, whether deserved or undeserved, still there is nothing in this inconsistent either with what we know from Experience of God's natural providence, nor from Revelation of His extraordinary providence, nor with any sound notions of natural justice.

§ 4. The Miracle of the Eucharist not contradicted by the Senses or by Reason.

Protestants, in their zeal to refute the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, have not been contented with arguments against it from Scripture, which supplies us with its proper refutation, but have indulged in appeals to the Senses and to the supposed suggestions of Reason. Such appeals are certainly redundant, and they appear to me to be weak, but as they carry satisfaction to some minds, I should never have noticed them, if Transubstantiation was the only doctrine they were urged against. It appears, however, that they do not rest here, but interfere with the Scriptural Miracle of the Eucharist, just as much as with the unscriptural glosses that have been put upon it.

1. It is said that the Eucharistic bread and wine cannot be supposed to become that very Body of Christ which was broken for us, and that very Blood of the New Testament which was shed for

us, without supposing that the Body and Blood of Christ are at the same time present in two places, in Heaven and on the Altar; and that this is a contradiction.

Now I am convinced that upon serious reflection faithful Christians will admit it to be no contradiction. As to the sense in which it is true to say, the Body and Blood of Christ are present on the Altar, many persons may entertain doubts about it; but that there is any contradiction in supposing the very Body of Christ, which is in Heaven, to be also on the Altar, they will, I think, see to be an ignorant prejudice1.

For, it must be recollected, that, where the bread is said to be the very Body of Christ which was broken for us, and the cup the very Blood that was shed for us, it is meant that they are the same in that sense in which our bodies after the Resurrec

1

[If this statement appear to any one startling, from its seeming contrariety to the Rubric of our Church about kneeling at the Holy Communion, he may consider, 1. Whether the use of the word Natural in that Rubric does not go far to do away the contradiction. The Church of England clearly intended to deny any gross corporal presence, such as is implied in the coarse questions frequently debated in connexion with Transubstantiation. In short, she affirms a spiritual Presence, and the Author affirms the presence of a spiritual Body. 2. In so far as there is any contradiction, it is not on a sacred Truth, but in a point of Philosophy: on a Premiss, not on a Conclusion: on such a matter, that we may fairly doubt the accuracy of the reasoning on which the revisers of the Liturgy proceeded, without impugning their statement as contrary to the Word of God.]

tion will be the same with our present bodies. The same undoubtedly will be those bodies which shail rise from the grave with those which descend into it; the same in the strictest sense; the same in that very sense in which they can alone now he said to be the same that they were formed in the womn. But "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in Incor ruption; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in pow it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." So then the very same Body of Citat which was broken for us, though then a natira. Body, is now a spiritual Body. But surely it nesis but little reflection to suggest to us, thar of the nature of spiritual bodies we know either with regard to their relation to place, the manner of their union with the w..

In what

sense they can be said to be present any where we know not; nor in what their identity onsleta; for how new matter can become part of them, toa nå matter be detached from them. Of these things in regard to our natural bodies we hare very indie tinct conceptions; much less distinct than most persons seem aware of. But to argue, as if we had distinct conceptions of them in the case of spiriWe tual bodies, is very wild and random indeed. do not know where Heaven is, or how Christ's body can be said to be in one place rather than in another; or in how many places it may be at once; or how any portion of matter can become part of Christ's Body, or cease to be so; or how its appear

ance would be affected by the change. In fact, our whole notions on the subject, if we have any, must be mere guess-work; and are as much more likely to be wrong than right, as any guess we may make about history or science, is more likely to prove a fancy than a fact. So that to set aside the positive proof, whatever it may be, of the Miracle of the Eucharist, on the ground that it contradicts some one or other of these guess-work notions, is like refuting Newton's system out of the theories of the Schoolmen.

2. This Miracle is supposed to be in some especial manner contradictory to the experience of the Senses. So much so, that many who regard Mr. Hume's argument on the general question of Miracles as an atheistical sophism, yet consider a particular modification of it to be in this instance both applicable and pious.

Mr. Hume argued that the Experience, which teaches us to rely under certain circumstances on the accuracy of human testimony, is more liable to error than the Experience which teaches us that the course of nature is uniform: and therefore that, when human testimony otherwise credible is brought forward to prove that the course of nature is not uniform, it is less difficult to suppose the testimony erroneous than the thing testified true. So too I have heard serious persons argue that were the Miracle of the Eucharist revealed in Scripture so distinctly as not to admit of evasion, they would rather disbelieve their eyesight which told them

the existence of the text than the concurrent testimony of two senses which prove that no change takes place in the bread and wine'; or, as some with less reverence express themselves, that they would rather believe the Bible false than the Miracle true.

This method of arguing does not seem becoming in the professed followers of Him who has said, "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." But what I now object against it, is not so much its unbecoming character as [the confusion of thought which it seems to indicate.]

If persons who who argue thus would only bear in mind that the Miracle of the Eucharist professes to be a double miracle, the [making] of the Body and Blood of Christ for our spiritual food, and the preservation of the sensible bread and wine to exercise our faith, they would perceive that what their senses tell them exactly accords with the professed character of the Miracle. It is true they see and taste nothing but bread and wine; but these are the only things that they would see and taste, if the double miracle took place. So that their argument runs thus: the Miracle of the Eucharist cannot take place, because our senses tell us exactly what they would tell us if it did take place; the thing cannot be true, because, as far as appearances go, it seems to be true. This is really the very

1 [What they say is rather, that they cannot do more than doubt, when both facts seem to come alike through the same sense. And they only refer it to Transubstantiation.]