« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
that St. Matthew was not a believer before consecration: I and my oppoin Transubstantiation, for by him nent agree in this ;-the real ques. our Lord declares the contents of tion is, what is it called after ? St. the chalice, “ the fruit of the vine,” Matthew says it is “the fruit of the WINE, after the prayer which tran- / vine." This is decisive against its substantiates, according to the being the literal blood of Christ, Church of Rome, has been offered. “ it is the fruit of the vine." Now, if I ask the learned gentle I may here mention an allusion man, or his Church, is it the blood I have jotted down, according to of Christ, or is it wine that remains which my friend thanked God that I on the altar after the consecrating had not "the keys of the kingdom prayer? both tell me at once, of heaven.” Now I do not thank plainly and distinctly, it is the blood God that he has not; I pray God of Christ, it is not wine. I go to that he may know where these keys the Gospel of Matthew, and I ask are to be found, and that to him the holy evangelist what it is after may be revealed speedily those consecration, and he tells me it is glorious truths, which, like ploughwine. Now, am I to believe the shares, will pass through the fanChurch of Rome, which says it is tastic imaginations of man, and “the blood of Christ,” or am I to indicate the simple and ennobling believe the sacred evangelist, who truth, as it is revealed in the says it is “the fruit of the vine?” Gospel What must I conclude ? Most My opponent quoted, as proof of surely truth compels the assertion, Transubstantiation, another passage, however kindly charity may dictate 1 Cor. x. 16:4" The cup of blessing the expression, that the sacred Evan- which we bless, is it not the comgelist is right, and my antagonist munion of the blood of Christ? The with his Church fatally and awfully bread which we break, is it not the wrong.
communion of the body of Christ?" In the Gospel of Luke, it is He believes the words, “is it not called “ the fruit of the vine" before the communion of the body of the consecration of the elements, Christ ?” to prove that we actually and in the Gospel of Matthew, it is participate of Christ's literal body. called “ the fruit of the vine” after But let my opponent mark the exconsecration. Now, perhaps Mr. pression which occurs in this quotaFrench will say, Luke and Matthew tion, “ we break.” My opponent contradict each other; this neither holds there is a whole Christ in he nor I will admit. We explain it every particle of the Host—that, if by a fact, perfectly true of all the divided into twenty thousand parts, evangelists, that one relates one there would be a whole Christ in occurrence more fully than another. every single part. But the apostle Thus, for instance, St. Matthew and says, “the bread which we break," St. Luke give narrations, undoubt- and if that bread be the corporeal cdly, which St. John does not give; body of Christ, we actually break and all we infer from this is, that that body, and thus, the proofs of one evangelist gives a fuller narration Transubstantiation assumed by my of particular circumstances, than opponent, are disproofs on his own another feels it his call from heaven showing. If he says that the expres. to rive. And therefore we say boto sion, “the communion of the bodr of are true; it is perfectly true what Christ” denotes actual participation Luke asserts, that it was wine of his natural body, then must the apostle's woruls, “ fellowship with the while her stings pierce to the derils," denote incorporation into heart, and “the issue is death.” their nature. It means, evidently, After discussing the Rule of Faithin the spiritual blessings of the which I shall not touch to-night, body of Christ, the precious benefits feeling that a subject, so extensive of his love, peace, joy, holiness, and important, requires a separate happiness, grace, faith, hope, and night-the next topic of my antafull and eternal fruition of his gonist was Communion in One glory. Thus there are two texts Kind. quoted by my friend which turn Now, we came to discuss Tranout, when plainly met, examined, substantiation; but he strikes off and analyzed, to militate most from it to talk about communion in powerfully against him, instead of one kind, and the merits of the for him, confirming the position with English translation, and the prowhich I commenced, that when you priety of the translation of the wish to crush the argument of a Greek words n and kai. His church Roman Catholic, you had best go to contends for communion in one kind, the very texts he quotes, and you though both kinds are, on his own will find the most complete extin-principles, enjoined in the 6th chapguishers there. (Laughter, and ter of John :-“ Except ye eat the cries of " Order!”
flesh and drink the blood of the My ingenious antagonist, after Son of man," &c.; but he says, these mistakes, entered into a dis- just now, if you eat the flesh, the cussion on the Rule of Faith. I blood is contained in the flesh: but have the happiness to announce,“ drink the blood” is the expression that, that question will be discussed used by the evangelist; it is not, on a subsequent evening, and I am you will observe, eat the flesh that fully prepared, while God gives me contains the blood, but “ DPINK.” strength and grace, to meet him on What, now, will my learned friend that subject; on this and every say? Will he reply, this is only a other question I implore my Roman figure? Why then, let me ask, does Catholic friends, to think and weigh he so continually ply me with twits the truth they hear. Oh, do not and taunts as to " tropes and orienlet, either the variety or the beauty talisms," when he is so extravaof your forms and ceremonies, or gantly guilty of such orientalisms, the loud pretensions of the Church | as to assert, that eating flesh means of Rome, and her votaries, dazzle drinking blood, yet figurative, figu and delude you! These forms are rative, is the sin he has anathemano evidence of her mercy or truth. tized and rejected every time he has They are the gilding of death-the risen? drapery of evil. They remind one Again, since the subject of of the vampire, which, when it communion in One Kind has been stings, a person, flutters over and introduced, I will, en passant, reply fans him with its wings, to prevent to one or two of his points in this him from feeling the power and digression. He quoted the passage: penetration of the sting, until at _“Whosoever shall eat this bread last it enters into the quick and and drink this cup, unworthily, shall destroys the principle of life; so be guilty of the body and blood of the Church of Rome beclouds with the Lord,” as a mis-translation in incense, and dazzles with ceremo- our authorized version. I admit fizal splendour, to deceive; but all that n is more probably correct; nay
I might extend sits extraets, to the
fathers overboard, and can afford to its co do so, with all these extracts and in testimonies in my favour. Mr ODIO ponent quotes from the fathers passages which seem to imply Tran- Transubstantiatin substantiation, and I quote passages 'cato which, if I am to adopt the literality and re of interpretation which he contends! the for, plainly denounce the novel tenet of Transubstantiation. Now la let me concede what is obvious the that if construed on the principle to of my opponent, the fathers posilor tirely contradict each other. what then is the alternative! We just a to the grandfathers, St. Paul, and a St. Matthew, and St. Mark, and ca St. Luke, and St.John, and St. Peter, Transubsta and St. James, seeing that their / professing progeny, the fathers, solit contradict one another, that no no confidence is to be reposed in theirlis expositions of divinit the infallible Word of God is the only oracle of truth, the standard of perfection. To illo trate its superiority let me suppos
wscast his fesh or drink chemical analysis-a plain, blant
book he canals peasant, on seeing the ingenious
his teeth the sacrament and persevering inquirer, trying to * Hond of Christ. " - find the precise part of the river at
Je TOL I. p. 50L when this tant began, says, “G ten sier extracts, to the fountain-head, and if you and de l quote them find the colour there, it belongs to
stohize the er. the river, but if you do not find it tracts of my opponent.
of Opponent. I cast the there, it must have been added in i j these extracts and neoas to it." So say I; if, in er.
i famour. My op- ploring among the fathers, of whom on the fathers my learned friend is so fond, we find
to impls Tran. Transubstantiation here and Pur. and I quote passages gatory there-Saint-Worship in one,
Sopt the literality and Relie-worship in another, surely
hich he contends the plan for ascertaining if these
ince the novel tenets (on the supposition that they Merantiation. Now, are to be found in the fathers) are
that is obvious, the original inspiration of God, is med on the principle to go to the primæral fountains, the me the fathers posi- oracles of heaven, and if there, they to each other, what are right, if not there, they are of
stireWe just go human birth and fallible authority. bers St. Paul, and Now, I say to my friend, Mr. French,
St Mark, and Go to the fountain; if you find bn and St.Peter, Transubstantiation there, I will acspeing that their quiesce in it at once, and embrace
The fathers, so it as a dogma of faith; if you do other. that no not, and I am prepared to show it
eposed in their is not there, then let Mr. French of divinity. I go to come over to me.
of God. This My opponent next quoted a pasJe of truth, the sole sage in his own book about Aaron's erfection. To illus- rod, and said it was seen to be a writy let me suppose, rod till Moses took hold of it, and into the Thames, as it became a serpent. He then took Hammersmith, you the serpent by the tail, and it bePaint, or colouring came a rod. My opponent myste.
'a poisonous riously proves Transubstantiation onld be anxious to by shaking alternately the rod and that taint began, or the serpent before your eyes, and needed from the foun- perplexing where he cannot conYou begin to trace it vince. Moses saw it to be a rod
on come to Henley- / when it was a rod, and he saw it to : you go on still fur- be a serpent when it was a serpent;
it upwards, and you and of course was convinced. by his e taint as you proceed, andeceived senses, that in the one
I less discern- case it was a rod, and in the other bnt bere
erceptible, a serpent. ible.
r subtle My opponent next transported us
it passes by Hammersmith
to the sixth chapter of the Gospel ture unless according to the unaniof St. John. The onus probandi, mous consent of the fathers; but or the necessity of showing that the fathers have various opinions. the sixth of John refers directly to Mark that! one holds one view at the Eucharist, belongs to my anta-one time, and another view at gonist. First, then, I call on Mr. another. Then I ask my learned French to prove that John vi. friend how he is to explain this does refer directly to the Lord's article of Pope Pius's Creed, that he Supper. He says, “my impression will “not interpret the Bible unless is so and so." I do not want his according to the unanimous consent impressions ; I want arguments. of the fathers ?” Mr. French in After he has done this, he will be that creed has declared that he will able to explain, for the honour of “not interpret Scripture, unless acthe Church, the contradictory testi-cording to the unanimous consent monies she contains on this point of the fathers.” Now, when I show,
Cardinal Cameracensis :-*. Tran- as I am showing at this moment, substantiation cannot be proved that there is no such thing as "the from Holy Writ."--In 4, d. 11.q.6. unanimous consent of the fathers," drt. 1, 2.
what is it but an actual padlock on Cardinal Roffensis, Cardinal Caje- my friend's powers of interpretatan, and also Scotus, (in 4 sent. d.ll. tion, so that he must not dare to 9.3,) all concur in the same thing interpret Scripture until he has got
It is clear these distinguished what is not to be had—their unaninames in the Roman Catholic Church mous consent. (Laughter, and cries were not possessed of eyesight so of “Order !”] Here is the creed keen as my learned opponent, who of Pope Pius. The perplexity besees it plainly in the sixth chapter longs to it and its possessors. Mr. of John.
French knows that the Council of Bellarmine enumerates the fol- Trent has said the opinions of the lowing Roman Catholic doctors who fathers are “various" on the pasgive the Protestant interpretation sage of John vi. referred to, and of one of the most important texts, yet he says he will not interpret (John vi. 54,) viz. Gabriel, Nicolas but according to “the unanimous Cusan, Thomas Cajetan, Tapper, consent of the fathers !" I say then John Hessel, and Cornelius Jansen. that he is bound to shut his mouth - I now refer to a passage of the on the sixth of John. His own Council of Trent, which contains Church, by the Council of Trent, the sentiments of the Church of declares there are “various” interRome on the sixth of John :- pretations of the holy fathers, and "Neither is it truly to be gathered yet he says he will not interpret from that saying in the sixth of without “the unanimous consent of John, that communion in both kinds the fathers ;" and therefore I say, was taught by our Lord; however Mr. French's interpretation of the it be understood by us, ACCORDING sixth of John is one of the most un. TO THE VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS warrantable liberties he ever took in OF THE HOLY FATHERS AND DOC- his life. (Laughter, and "Order.”] TORS.”—Chap. i. sess. 21.
Let me go to the sixth of John. " The various interpretations of the (and I am sorry I have only five fathers!" (I thought the fathers minutes left to refer to it.) pe were « unanimous !") My friend opponent says, this chapter says he will “not interpret Scrip- directly to the body and
I give up this whole matter, if he this startling question, and pause pleases, and say it is n, “or," and for a reply. that our translators erroneously used Mr. FRENCH.-Shall I give you “and." I acknowledge that our a reply-do you wish a reply now? English translation, which Dr. Doyle If so, I will give you one. declared to be “a noble production, Rev. J. CUMMING.–Very well. with all its faults," has imperfec- Mr. FRENCH then rose and said, tions, but if all its errors were cor- in explanation, - During the first rected, you would find they would centuries of the Church, down to only tell more in favour of those | the earliest period, we received, bv glorious, indubitable, and distinc- books and by tradition, from the tive truths—the deity of Christ, the earliest times of the apostles, that offices and personality of the Holy it (i. e. the Eucharist) was often Spirit, expiation through the blood administered in liquid, and often of Christ, and through that alone, administered in dry, that is, the and sanctification by the Spirit. Host alone. Several instances have But suppose I concede this to be a occurred of this kind. That of St. mis-translation, and read, “whoso - Ambrose receiving only the Host ever shall eat this bread, or (n) on his death-bed is an historica. drink this cup of the Lord unwor- | fact; and we havethily, shall be guilty of the body Rev. J. CUMMING.—Is my stateand blood of the Lord.” I say this ment the fact ? proves not communion in one kind; Mr. FRENCH.-Yes it is ; and in if I eat the bread “unworthily," I consequence of spilling the wine, am“ guilty of the body and blood and other indecorous things, such of Christ. If I drink the cup | as spilling what we call “ the pre“ unworthily," I am “ guilty of the cious blood of the Saviour," it was body and blood of Christ also,” | administered in this manner. It is just as if I break the law in one now generally administered in one point, I am guilty of all. But I kind. The discipline of our Church go down the chapter to see the on that point is favourable, but it is apostle's explanation of his mean- always an article of the Catholic ing, and I read (as in the 26th) in faith, that he who receives it in one the 29th verse :-“ For he that kind, receives alleateth AND drinketh unworthily, Rev. J. CUMMING.–Now am I eateth and drinketh damnation to right? himself.” Now, if you eat the Mr. FRENCH (in continuation). bread unworthily, you are guilty of —And in some countries, to this bis body and blood, if you drink day, it is received in both kinds. this cup unworthily, you are guilty Rev. J. CUMMING.—That is preof both. And therefore we feel cisely all I want. It is plain that that “ eating and drinking" must the body and blood, the bread and necessarily explain “eating or drink- the cup, were formerly given to the ing.” But the Church of Romelaity. It is equally plain both are says, “communion in one kind is not given now. Delahogue says, here proved.” I call on my learned “ It is evident that from the time antagonist to explain how this doc- of the apostles till the 12th centrine was never detected from this tury, the practice prevailed in the text before, why, for eleven centuries Roman Church, that the laity rethey permitted the laity to have the ceived the Eucharist in both kinds, cup, and then withdrew it? I ask as is now the case in the Greek