Page images
PDF
EPUB

the world,”—it most distinctly declares, that our Lord Jesus Christ

foundation of the whole system of papal supremacy-then I do say it is time that we should have done is not any longer present corporeally. with secondary and contradictory You observe, therefore, that the testimony, and have recourse to the position which I am ready to prove first-rate and only harmonious source, to you, is that our Lord is not cor-the ORACLES OF THE LIVING GOD. poreally in the midst of us. The I say it is time that we should have first passage which I shall quote is done with writers who constitute contained in Acts iii. 21:-" Whom together but a nose of wax, that may the heaven must receive until the be turned and twisted to every and times of the restitution of all things, any side that a skilful controver- which God hath spoken by the sialist pleases; and that we should go mouth of all his holy prophets since to those pure fountains which both the world began." Whenever my of us acknowledge to be the inspira- learned antagonist may wish it, my tion of the Almighty, to those words rev. friend behind me will read from which the Holy Ghost teacheth, and the Douay Bible, for in both the not to the words which man's wisdom versions these passages are substanteacheth. tially if not verbatim the same.

Having shown you the conflict- This passage says, that the heavens ing sentiments of the fathers- inust receive our Lord "until the having explained to you the doc- times of the restitution of all things;" trine of the Church of Rome in but, according to the Church of reference to Transubstantiation, I Rome, he leaves heaven, and, body have now to observe that this doc-and blood, soul and divinity, bones trine involves first the following and nerves, appears upon the altar, important and momentous position: after the priest has pronounced the -If Transubstantiation be true, words, "Hoc est enim corpus meum. then observe, last Sunday, our Lord's Again (Matt. xxvi. 11), "Ye have the soul and divinity, body and blood, poor always with you, but me ye bones and nerves, were on every have not always." Observe, the altar and every chapel of the Church reference was here made to an of Rome; or, in other words, last act of beneficence. We read that, Sunday our Lord was corporeally "When the disciples saw it they and substantially present on the ten were indignant, saying, To what purthousand altars of the Church of pose is this waste?" Jesus anRome; and again at the Mass, cele-swered, "Ye have the poor always brated this morning in any chapel with you, but me ye have not of the Roman Catholic Church, our always." But if Christ was to be Lord Jesus was present on the altar, corporeally in the midst of his peosoul and divinity, body and blood, ple, then his disciples would have BONES and NERVES,-all, in fact, said, "We have thee always with that is required to constitute a true us;" whereas our Lord said, No, body. This is the first position in- " me ye have NOT always:" that is volved in this tenet. I shall pro- to say, he is not always corporeally cecd, therefore, to show, at the very present with his Church. Again, I outset of my remarks, that the Word refer you to 2 Cor. v. 16: "Whereof God most distinctly declares, that fore henceforth know we no man while our Lord is spiritually present after the flesh yea, though we High his Church,-"Lo! I am with have known Christ after the flesh, lways, even unto the end of yet now henceforth know we him no

[ocr errors]

more after the flesh." "Hence- of Trent ought to be cast "to the forth," says the apostle, we know moles and to the bats." I say, "Let him no more after the flesh." God be true, but every man a liar.” Though we have known him after Again, I quote another passage, the flesh, that is, though we have demonstrative of the untruthfulpersonally seen him, and gazed on that countenance which was "more marred than any man's," and beheld those tears which rolled down his cheeks, yet now "we know him no more after the flesh;" and, therefore, if Transubstantiation be correct, the apostle must be wrong; but both sides adinit that the apostle must be indubitably right, and therefore the inference must be, that the Church of Rome is necessarily and fatally wrong.

My next quotation is taken from the epistle to the Colossians, ch. iii. ver. 1: "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God." Now, observe, here is the statement most distinctly and plainly announced, that our Lord "sitteth at the right hand of God;" but the Church of Rome says, according to canons of the Council of Trent, according to the creed of Pope Pius the 4th, according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent, that our Lord is substantially and corporeally present, to the whole extent which I have repeatedly stated, upon every altar, at every chapel, and at every cathedral of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, then, the Scriptures say, "He sitteth at the right hand of God"-bodily, at the right hand of God. The Church of Rome says, he is upon the altar when the priest has said, "Hoc enim est corpus meum." I ask, then, whether I am to believe the one or the other? for I maintain, that if the canons of the Council of Trent be true, the Word of God must be untrue; but, on the other hand, if the Word of God be truth, then I maintain that the canons of the Council

ness of Transubstantiation, Matt. xxiv. 26: "Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: Behold, he is in the secret chambers, believe it not." Now the Greek word here rendered "secret chambers," denotes literally "boxes, cupboards, corners," &c. The Gospel says, "If they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the secret chambers," or the corners, or pixes, or cupboards, ye

66

are not to believe it." Is it not, then, infatuation and folly to teach that our Lord is present in the consecrated wafer; that he is put into a pix, and carried about, and presented to the adoration of the people for worship? which the Church of Rome herself owns to be the worship of Latria, the supreme wor ship given to God. This, then, is my first position. Whenever my antagonist shall bring forward his arguments, I shall be prepared, in the strength of God, and by the aid of his Holy Spirit, to reply to them. Transubstantiation will be placed before you in the course of this important discussion, and then, if the wafer "be God, then you are to worship it." I use the words in a figurative sense, and add, "If the Lord be God, then follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." If Protestantism have truth on its side, it is, my friends, at the peril of your precious and immortal souls that you reject it; but if the Roman Catholic Church have truth on her side, then it is equally at the peril of your immortal souls that you reject it.

I say, the matter now before us is to be fairly, fully, and impartially discussed. I am, therefore, prepared to demonstrate, that the position of

[ocr errors]

The next quotation is from the Gospel of St. Luke, xxiv. 39:

the Church of Rome is no sacred pointedly declare that our Lord" is position-a position not warranted not here;" but that "he is risen;" by the word of the living God. My and, if risen corporeally, that he is Roman Catholic antagonist will necessarily not here corporeally. reply, "Very true; but may not the body of Christ be in many places at once; so that while that body is, in" Behold my hands and my feet, a sense, now seated at the right that it is I myself: handle me and hand of God,' may it not also be see; for a spirit hath not flesh and strictly true that it is also to be bones, as ye see me have." Now found upon the altars of the Roman to what did our Lord appeal? He Catholic Church?" Now, in the says, see me with your eyes, behold first place, this destroys the nature me and see, that a spirit hath not of a true body. Is it not the cha- flesh and bones as ye see me have; racteristic of our blessed Redeemer but the Church of Rome says, that that "in all things it behoved him his BONES are present on the altar of to be made like unto his brethren;" every chapel in the Roman Catholic that is, in every peculiarity and fea- Church; yet our Lord delares, that ture, and characteristic of real huma- unless ye see his wounds, unless ye nity," sin only excepted," of which behold his flesh, ye do not behold he was clearly and utterly void; yet his bodily presence, and, therefore, in all other points, observe, it be- he is not bodily and substantially came a necessary characteristic of present on the altar. The host that our blessed Lord that he should be the priest holds has neither hands like unto his brethren." Now, if nor feet, nor (I use the words of the that be the case, he cannot be cor- Roman Church) bones, nor nerves, poreally here and be corporeally at nor body, nor blood; ergo, it is not London, and at Edinburgh, and at the bodily presence of our Lord Paris, all at the same instant. It is Jesus Christ. I quote another pasa necessary characteristic of a true sage from St. John, xx. 27: "Then body to be only present, as far as saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy we know, in one spot at once. finger and behold my hands, and To show you that this is not a reach hither thy hand and thrust it mere idea of my own, I will quote into my side, and be not faithless, from the sacred penman these words but believing." Now, observe, our (Matthew xxviii. 5, 6): "And Lord, after his resurrection, retained the angel answered and said unto upon his body the marks of the the women, Fear not ye; for I nails on his sacred hands and of know that ye seck Jesus, who was the thorns about his once bleeding crucified. He is not here; for he brows, and of the spear that is risen, as he said." The words wounded his holy side. And, obare substantially the same in the serve, when Thomas doubted that Douay Bible. Now observe what he was present-thought that Christ is admitted in this? The angel had not risen, and that he was not most distinctly said, "He is not bodily present among them, what here;" why? because "he is risen." did our Lord say? Our Lord put What, then, is the inference? That it to the test in this most decisive he cannot be here bodily, and yet manner,--" Handle me and see ; risen, and bodily at the right hand | thrust thy hand into my side, believe of God at one and the same mo- the marks of the nails, and see that ment. The Scriptures plainly and it is I myself." Now, if you take

[ocr errors]

the wafer on the altar of the Church | express declaration that our Lord, of Rome, has that any trace of the when he cometh to us in his bodily wounds? Has that any features presence, he comes like the lightdemonstrative of the characteristics of a natural body? If I speak to it, will it reply? If I ask it a question, will it say, "Handle me, and see, and believe; that a spirit has not flesh and bones "" What then must be the inference, if we take the criteria of our Lord's presence as given in the Gospels-if we take the plain and explicit testimony of sacred writ? The inference must be, that our Lord is not present in his body and blood, soul and divinity, ossa et nervos-bones and nerveson the altars of the Roman Catholic Church.

ning that streams amidst splendour and amidst beauty from the east even unto the west. And therefore, my learned adversary will be prepared to show, that when the priest has pronounced the words of consecration, our Lord comes down upon the altar amid the coruscations and the glory wherewith the lightning shines and buries itself in the far distant west. But since we know that we behold no such rays or splendour accompanying the assumed bodily presence of Christ on the altar of the Church of Rome, we justly infer that he is not bodily, substantially, and corporeally there. I quote the Acts of the Apostles,

apostles) looked stedfastly toward heaven, as he went up, behold two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come

I know my friend will fashion most ingenious and subtle discriminations about the existence i. 10, 11: "And whilst they (the of species and accidents; but, remember, we must have a decisive declaration. It is either a simple piece of flour and water, or it is what the Church of Rome calls it, -the body and blood, soul and divinity, bones and nerves of the Son of God. No scholastic discrimina-in like manner as ye have seen him go tion as to accidents and species will into heaven." How did he go into satisfy your judgments on the point, heaven? He rose in an impresespecially as there seems to be an sive, beautiful, and glorious manner. overwhelming torrent of inspiration Well, the Holy Spirit says, when he to bring contempt and odium on the comes again, he is to come preawful notion by which the minds cisely in the same way. Now we of our Roman Catholic friends are have seen him go into heaven one blinded and deceived. It will re-way, i. e. amid glory and splendour: quire the most circumstantial and lucid demonstration to show-in the very teeth of such a volume of sacred disproofs — that Christ is present, in the way in which he is explained to be in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the altars of the Roman Catholic Church.

then, we ask, is it the fact in the experience of the Church of Rome that he thus comes to their altars? Will my Roman Catholic antagonist, or any Roman Catholic priest, maintain that the moment the words are syllabled, Hoc est enim corpus meum, that our Lord comes down Iquote next, Matthew xxiv. 27:- from heaven amid beams of glory "For as the lightning cometh out and of splendour, when he appears of the east, and shineth even unto upon the altars of the Church of the west, so shall the coming of the Rome? And yet, I must believe, Son of Man be." Now here is an if God's word be true, that

shall so come in like manner," as concerning the truth of Christ's the apostles beheld him retire from body and blood in the Eucharist. this dismantled, evil, and sin-stained This monk, by Bellarmine's admisworld. The inference must be so; sion, was the first author who wrote and I know not how any one, with seriously and copiously concerning this blessed book in his hand, can it; so that 800 years passed away venture to affirm otherwise, I know before any author wrote seriously not how the Church of Rome can and copiously about the bodily prepronounce her anathema on me for sence, and yet, during these 800 believing what the Holy Spirit de- years, the fathers and other doctors clares-I repeat, the inference must had written copiously and seriously be, that our Lord is not corporeally on almost every doctrine and duty. present upon the altars of the Roman Again, Duns Scotus, Fellow and Catholic Church, as far as I can find Professor of Divinity at Merton the evidences of that presence, as College, Oxford, in the beginning of these are here distinctly and empha- the fourteenth century, allows that tically proclaimed. The last pas- Transubstantiation was not always sage which I shall quote, is from necessary to be believed, and that Revelations i. 7: Behold he the necessity of believing it was cometh with clouds, and every eye consequent on the declaration of shall see him, and they also which the Church, made at the sanguinary pierced him; and all kindreds of the fourth Council of Lateran, in 1215, earth shall wail because of him." under Innocent III. Durandus, I then ask, if he thus "cometh with Bishop of Meaux, acknowledges his clouds," is there any evidence of it, inclination to believe the contrary of is there any semblance of it in the Transubstantiation, if the Church had Roman Catholic Church when the not obliged men to believe it. [Here wafer is turned into the body and the rev. gentleman's hour expired.] blood, the soul and divinity, bones and nerves, of the Son of God?

I shall not, on the present occasion, bring forward other disproofs of this most extraordinary dogma, i. e. that our Lord is present corporeally on the altars of the Church of Rome. But I would just mention one simple fact respecting the origin of this notion, which, indeed, I ought to have done before. The doctrine of the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist was first started on the occasion of a dispute as to the worship of images, in opposition to which the Council of Constantinople, in 754, contended that Christ had left us no other image than the bread-the image of his body. Rhadbert Paschasius, a monk of the ninth century, according to Bellarmine, was the first who had seriously and copiously written

Mr.FRENCH.-Ladies and gentlemen, it is to me, I candidly confess, in rising to address you, a most pleasing and delightful spectacle to behold so many persons, of either sex, this evening, assembled together, for the noble, the exalted purpose of hearing, in solemn silence, and with the calm composure of minds open to conviction, the cause of sacred truth luminously explained, and, with the help of Almighty God, which I believe both my reverend friend and myself have with fervour implored before our entrance into this room, not only luminously explained, but vigorously as well as copiously defended. Yes, my friends, truth, sacred truth, will this day, by the efforts of the successful combatant, be placed before you, in all its native majesty and

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »