Page images

but it is for the sake of the accu- !for the future more correctly, more rete explication it contains, that I substantially, when he touches upon take the liberty of reading it to the this hallowed, this mysterious sublearned gentleman as a kind of ject. Two of them I shall repeat, theological lesson. Speaking of in order to show that the poet is a Transubstantiation, he says sound theologian, if St. Gregory of * Unshaken tenet ! sacred creed !

Nyssa, who wrote nearly five cenEnroll'd in faith's eternal deed,

turies before Pascasius Rhadbert, Unehang'd by Time's all-changing flood !

|knew anything of the matter, viz. Bread turns to flesh, wine turns to blood ! What far transcends the mind of man, “ That in each fragment there remains With all its pow'rs to sound or scan; Whate'er th' unbroken whole contains." What to the eye of mortal shroud, Seems one impenetrable cloud,

-Letter to St. Gregory of Nyssa, Is clear'd by faith's bright beaming eye,

A.D. 372.
Though Nature and her laws defy.
What lies before the visual rays

St. Greg. Nyss. Catechetica Orat. Is but appearance-Faith displays

vol. ü. Edit. Bened. p. 122: “Now The glorious form, what signs conceal, The virid eyes of faith reveal.

we must consider how it can be Whate'er th' incredulous may think,

possible that one body, for ever disThe flesh is food, the blood is drink. Yes, Christ is in each species whole, | tributed to so many myriads of the Body, Divinity, and Soul!

| faithful, over the whole world, should Whoe'er this sacred feast partake, be in the distribution whole in each Their food they neither cut nor break,

receiver, and should itself remain Nor yet divide ;-but oh! admire! East guest receives it whole entire ! in itself whole.” Let one alone, let millions eat,

Thelearned gentleman continued: Alike each takes the self-same meat. This way, and that, though crowds repair,

|-The reverend gentleman says, as Each owns an undiminish'd share. if it were a concession, that all things The good, the bad, alike are fed ; | are possible with God, yet in the Oh! how unlike the self-same bread

very same breath he limits the power In the sweet graces it bestows! Tis death to these, 'tis life to those.

of God, and declares that reason Death to the bad its sources give,

insists that Transubstantiation is The good participate and live, Behold what sweets, what bitters flow

not possible to God. I do not say be From the same fountain, bliss of woe. has uttered those very words, but Whene'er the sacrament is broken his reasoning tended to that point Tis but fraction of a token ;

|to-night, notwithstanding all these Let not then firm faith be shaken, But remember what is taken !

learned men I have quoted have deThat in each fragment there remains clared that it is possible. Luther Whate'er th' unbroken whole contains.

does not believe it to be TransubA sign, that in the hands is borne, No substance is asunder torn;

stantiation, but he maintains consubNo; that which symbols represent, stantiation ; that Christ is thereIs undiminish'd, is unrent;

that the bread remains there; and Lo! then the bread of angels made Th' ethereal food for sons of shade;

the Catholic believes TransubstanThe sons of earth, like sons of heaven, tiation. But what kind of rule of Eat bread of true celestial leaven ; Sweet food that never knows decay,

| faith must that be among Protes. Of mortal man the prop and stay,

tants, I ask, when the father of To dogs not to be cast away.

Protestantism, Luther, thus expliThis sacred mystery to unfold, Was Isaac sacrificed of old;

citly states his opinion, and when all "Tis this the paschal lamb foreshow'd, other Protestants of the present day, For this from heav'n the manna flow’d." |

men and women among you, take Now to these verses I call the the Bible in hand, and are enabled learned gentleman's attention, that to draw their own inference, one he may now know how to reason saying that it is purely spiritus,

that Christ is not there, and that I say, love is God, since the Evangelist they are merely taking it in remem- affirms that God is love. Again, when brance of his death and passion, it is said that “God is love,” is that another, that it is his body together to reduce the Supreme Ruler of the with the bread? What kind of rule universe to the level of the Lucretian of faith is that which says, “ the god, who exercised of old so great a Bible without tradition ?” what kind dominion over the whole heathen of rule of faith can that be, where world? Is it to do that? No; and the Protestants of this country if the sentiment is not implied in the differ, as I have said, on such funda- expression of the Evangelist, neither mental tenets? where we find Calvin is it in that of St. Ignatius, when positively excluding, by a merciless he says “the Sacrament is love." decree, Protestants of the Church The Catholic feels and knows of England from the kingdom of that it is “ love”-ay, unbounded heaven, as he does the Catholic ? [In love, when he comes, - after hav. consequence of a murmur, Mr. F. ing approached with a pure heart, said, That is Calvin's Catechism.] and abstaining from all that is irreThose are his own words, and I can verent and all that is impure in prove it. Well, but what I wish to thought, in word, and in deedknow is, if the words of Christ are when he comes away, after having so plain, how is it that a man of approached that holy, that consoling Luther's acuteness and discrimina- table—when he comes away from tion was unable to draw a figurative it, oh! I would appeal to my Cadeduction ? That is the point I wish tholic brethren, if they do not feel the learned gentleman to answer their hearts glowing with an un

Again, to come a little to tradi- bounded and ineffable love for their tion. Let not the learned gentle- blessed and adorable Saviour-their man spend his tine in quibbling sweet Redeemer! We believe on particular passages, and intro- most firmly that Scriptural docducing parallels where no parallels trine; and if we labour under a exist; but let him grapple with me deception as to the doctrine, I exat once like a genuine theologian, claim again--for I cannot repeat it and tell me how it is that Transub- too frequently - let any of our stantiation arose in the world? Does learned theologians of the ninche deny that I can deduce it, in teenth century point out the time regular succession, from age to age? when it first arose in the world; He quotes another passage from St. the time, I say, when men were Ignatius, to do away with that ever- first deluded by conspiring priests. memorable extract. But what says If they can do it, we will then it? Why it proves only that Igna- acknowledge that we have been tius uses some figurative expressions labouring under gross delusion afterwards, which, as he conceives, and error. But he talks of the totally annihilate the great original. “ perilousness of the doctrine," on Why, in the Evangelist St. John, the supposition that our Lord is we see the very same definition not there. I see no danger at all. given of God, namely, “ God is There is no idolatry in it, even if love;" but it is not to be taken the Host is not consecrated. I am literally, and it is just the same adoring Christ, whom I believe to when St. Ignatius happens to say be there. The lost is consecrated, “the Sacrament is love." Now, if as the reverend gentleman knOES vou tic me to the literality, then I l it is, and I believe Christ to be there

You cannot, you tell me, conceive goes and falls down at the feet of a this. Can you conceive the way in fellow-warrior of a king, taking him which the Holy Ghost appeared in for the king, and pays worship to the form of a dove? I ask you, him; I mean, what is called worship was it tangible, was it matter? You in Scripture, to a great man. Does will, of course, reply no; and there- he therefore offend his Majesty, as fore I say, that in our sacrament, committing a disloyal act ? His which we call the Eucharist, the Majesty knows very well he is bread, which has all the properties labouring under a mistake; and will of bread after the words of conse- Christ be offended by our thinking Cration are pronounced, is no longer him present, and adoring him, bread; but according to our doc- when he is not present? The trine, Christ, our Saviour, is there learned gentleman has observed in the Sacrament. Here the learned very triumphantly, that “the Spirit gentleman, in the uncontrolled exer- quickeneth.” Yes, I say, and that cise of his reason, calls us idolaters is a subject which occupies many in adoring this. Why, the Unita- / laborious pages of the great St. rian calls you idolaters for adoring Augustine, in order to prove that Christ as God, they believing him it is not the body and the blood to be only man. The Unitarian alone that we take in the sacraand Socinian say so. But a man, ment, unanimated by the immortal quite as learned as my reverend Spirit of Christ, but that it is the friend, and gifted with at least as Spirit of Christ which renders the much keenness and penetration Sacrament which we take so efficaas my reverend friend can lay claim cious ; it is that glorified, that celesto, has acquitted us of idolatry, tialized, that spiritualized body, as even if Christ be not there. received in the Sacrament, which

Dr. Johnson, as you all know, in renders it so efficacious, so overBoswell's life of him, is recorded to flowing in its effects, upon the soul have said, that “ The Roman Ca- of its receivers. tholic, even if Christ be not there, An observation made by the is not guilty of idolatry.” Again, learned gentleman, with regard to my learned opponent talks about a Bellarmine, I must positively conCatholic priest, who has come over tradict, as never having come from to his Church, and a bright orna- | his pen, and I defy him to prove it. ment of his Church he is, laughter] It is, that that learned theologian “one of those dead weeds thrown ever doubted for a moment of Tranover into your garden,” as the face. substantiation. tions Swift expresses it. The rev. Rev. J. CUMMING.—I did not gentleman says this Nolan did not say so! What were the words? believe in the consecration of the Mr. FRENCH.—You said that on Host, and, as a consequence, infers the 54th verse of the sixth chapter that he could not consecrate. I of St. John, he held the Protestant maintain that, as a priest, though interpretation of that text, according bad, he still could consecrate. As I to the opinions of certain divines, said before, the Catholic believes &c. You mentioned Jansenius too. that Christ is present, and I would Rev. J. CUMMING.--Read the refer my friend to the learned Dr. words, if you please. Lingard, who has the following Mr. FRENCJI.-While he is lookobservation, which may serve to ing out the words, I will make a dlustrate my meaning. “A man few observations. Gentlemen, I am

extreinely sorry to be under the and the wine into his blood. “They necessity, as I have been this even- walked no more with him!” Christ ing, of following out my friend's ar- was no longer their divine Master. guments, so as to have been unable They could not brook the idea of a to expatiate on that divine sixth man, even a man-god, telling them chapter of John, in reference to the that he would give them his flesh to Catholic doctrine of Transubstantia- eat and his blood to drink. “They, tion. I should have pointed out to therefore, walked no more with you most clearly, as I read verse by him.” He then turned to Peter, verse, that either our blessed Saviour and said, “Wilt thou also go away?" was an idle, ay, an incomprehensible and Peter replied, “Lord, to whom squanderer of words, in misusing should we go? thou hast the words and torturing human language, or of eternal life." It was that same that he meant verily to impress on Peter who was the first bishop of his disciples, that he was about to the Catholic Church. It is that leave us that divine legacy of his Catholic Church which has handed love, his flesh to eat and his blood to down to you the Bible, from age to drink. Were not the disciples of the age, together with the immortal docdivine Saviour, who must have known trine of Transubstantiation. Genhis language much better than Dr. tlemen, I believe I must close Adam Clarke did, whose arguments abruptly-not for want of matter, my learned opponent copies—were but for want of time.-{Here terminot they (the disciples) suppressed nated the first evening's discussion.] [impressed] with the idea, that he did mean what he said? Of many We certify that this Report is faith. it is said, “ they walked no more with him;" that is, that they lapsed

fully and correctly given. into Protestantism, they lived and


D. FRENCH, Esq. died Protestants : protesting against

'Barrister-at-Lau. the possibility of our Saviour's Chas. MAYBURY ARCHER, turning the bread into his body




(Continued.) Rev. J. CUMMING.–Throughout | plary manner; and I know that my the past part of this important dis- Roman Catholic fellow-countrymeil cussion in which we are engaged, I are too intensely interested in the have experienced, I confess, the decision of this question to give to utmost courtesy from Mr. French, it any other treatment than that of and I think you will all acquiesce a profound, anxious, and prayerful in my opinion, when I say, that we attention. During the course of my have been most fairly treated by the quotations last evening, I had occaChairmen. The audience, also, hassion to extract a passage from Belconducted itself in the most exem | larmine, the distinguished cardinal and advocate of the Church of Rome, on that occasion, that this chapter respecting the sacrament of the (6th of John) could not refer to the Eacharist; and, in making that Eucharist directly, and I had occaquotation, I gave you the reference, sion to reiterate and to press the ar"book iü. ch. 23,” which belonged guments used on that point, until I to another quotation, instead of should extort from my friend, either "book i. ch. 5, De Sacramento Eu- a direct declaration that the chapter charistia." If the slight mis-state- does not refer to the Lord's Supper ment, in giving “book iij." instead at all, unless in a spiritual sense, or, of "book i.” has either misled Mr. on the other hand, a pledge to bring French, or occasioned him any un- forward such arguments as should necessary trouble, I hope he will satisfy a dispassionate audience that attribute it to a mere lapsus linguæ. it does refer to the sacrament of the

Having made these remarks as to Eucharist. Only, mark you, no the misquotation of figures, you will person is called to prove a nega. observe that the passage is verbatim tive !-recollect, this is a principle et literatim as I quoted it. I have in logic. I am not called on to it here in the original Latin; and as prove that it does not my learned my opponent has Bellarmine in his opponent is called on to prove that hands, he can accompany me, while it does. Now, observe, Bellarminc I give the translation from the has admitted, in the extract which Latin:-“ Moreover,” he says, “al. I have given, that there are in the most all Catholics will have the Church of Rome, whose tongue is Fords of John vi. understood of the ever so eloquent of unity, doctors sacrament of the Eucharist or of the and dignitaries who allege that the sacramental eating of Christ's body 6th chapter of John does not refer in the Eucharist. But there are to the Eucharist. some few who, the better to disprove Illustrious and distinguished doctke lassites and Lutherans, hold that tors, in his own Church, declare this chapter meddleth not with any that it does not describe the Euchasacramental eating of Christ's body rist. The question, therefore, is and drinking of his blood, of which resolved into this :--If Mr. French sort are Gabriel, Nicolas Cusanus, be right, the distinguished doctors Thomas Cajetanus, Ruardus Tapper, of his own Church inust be wrong. Joannes Hesselius and Cornelius It is true Cardinal Bellarmine says, Jansenius. All these Catholics, with that these illustrious Roman Cagreat consent, teach that this chap-tholic divincs held this opinion on ter intreatetb of the sacramental the 6th of John the better to refute tating of Christ, which doubtless is the Hussites, the Lutherans, and most true.”-Book i. ch. v. heretics ; but I never can be so un

On the former evening I think I charitable as to believe, that these irrefragably demonstrated, that John illustrious names have studiously vi. is not an account of the Eucha- concealed their real mind, and denied rist; and my opponent, indeed, has that this chapter refers to the Eupractically admitted that it was an charist; or, in other words, told a irrefragable demonstration; for he falsehood for the unworthy end of bas found it to be the most prudent refuting the heretics. Why, if it course to retreat from the arguments | be truth, let it stand on its own which I adduced, and to leave them eternal, immovable basis, — never antouched in all their power and in let it be sacrified to any ulterior all their conclusiveness. I proved ends. If untruth, then let us at

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »