Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

because I am not satisfied that we have therein a warrant for the Catholic sacrifice; but because I find that it would lead, in order to establish it satisfactorily, to a longer discussion than time will now permit..

THE REV. E. TOTTENHAM.

MR. CHAIRMAN,-Before I proceed to notice any thing that has been advanced on the other side, I wish to impress strongly on the minds of all in this assembly that, when Mr. Edgeworth stood up to speak, professedly in reply to me, from the commencement to the very close of his speech, he has scarcely glanced at a single argument that had been adduced in my address!

Mr. Edgeworth says that I expounded the passages cited on this question in one way, and that Roman Catholics expound them in another; and he tells us it is a painful spectacle to see men differ in the interpretation of these passages of Holy Writ. What then is his expedient in order to get us out of the difficulty? He refers to THE FATHERS, and he gives a variety of quotations (and professes to be able to give many more) from the writings of those who lived in the early ages of the Church. Did I think it at all necessary to my argument, I could easily occupy my three-quarters of an hour in giving passages from the Fathers of the Church AGAINST the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I believe it would be found, upon a full and accurate examination, that the doctrine was perfectly unknown in the early ages, and to the really primitive Fathers; however, suppose the Rev. Gentleman and myself were now to occupy our time in adducing passages on each side of the question, let me ask, how would that get us out of the difficulty of which he complains? He says there exists a difficulty, when we have but the simple text of Scripture, and, in order to remove it, he refers to the primitive Fathers--but then he quotes one Father, appearing to give one interpretation, and I quote another Father appearing to give a different interpretation; and thus (on account of the impossibility of our mutually examining the quotations, in all cases, at the present moment, and then, after examination, either admitting or rejecting them), instead of the difficulty being removed, it is marvellously increased. How is a poor

2 c

and unlearned man to be relieved from his difficulty by such a course of proceeding, when he can know nothing of the opinions of the Fathers upon texts of Scripture, unless he takes them upon trust.

But, in referring to that " most unfortunate change" (as he termed it), the Reformation, the Gentleman endeavours to place us in a degree of difficulty because Luther and others of the early reformers did not at once throw off all the errors which we believe to exist in the Church of Rome, relative to this very subject. Now it was too much to expect, that when a man came out of so complicated a system as that of the Church of Rome, he should all at once see the truth in all its purity and glory. It was natural that the casting off of error should be gradual, and therefore several of the early reformers had, for a time, and some of them up to the period of their death, somewhat of error commingled with the mass of truth which they held. This was all very natural; but are we placed in any difficulty because Luther held somewhat of that which we believe to be error in the Roman Church? Not at all, for we profess not to follow Luther farther than Luther follows Scripture. But I retort the argument on my Rev. opponent. If we are in a difficulty because Luther differed from us somewhat on this subject, what will our friends opposite think of the difficulty in which they are placed, when they recollect that many of the Divines in their Church have differed with them, being compelled at last to confess the fact that Transubstantiation was not to be proved from Scripture; and have taken refuge in some other authority whereby to prove this doctrine. Let us select a few instances. Cardinal Cameracensis says:—

"Transubstantiation cannot be proved from Holy Writ."

Cardinal Cajetan declares:

[ocr errors]

"There does not appear out of the Gospel any thing to compel us to understand these words literally, namely, This is my body:' and truly that presence in the Sacrament, which the Church holds, cannot be proved from these words of Christ unaided by the declaration of the Church."-See Bishop Cosin's History of Transubstantiation," for the two preceding extracts.

[ocr errors]

And yet indeed Mr. Edgeworth insists upon the clearness with which these words prove Transubstantiation, and expresses his great astonishment that we should be so slow in apprehending them in that meaning which he attaches to them! Scotus held the same view as those already quoted, but instead of reading his testimony I shall produce an extract from Cardinal Bellarmine :

:

He

"For Scotus, whom Cameracensis follows, says three things. * * * says, secondly, that there is no passage in Scripture so express as evidently to compel the admission of Transubstantiation without the declaration of the Church." Then follows Bellarmine's comment

And this is not wholly improbable; for although the Scripture above cited seems to us sufficiently clear to convince any man who is not self-willed, yet whether this be so may well be doubted, seeing that the most learned and keensighted men, such as more particularly was Scotus, think differently."—Bell. de Sac. Euch. lib. 3. c. 23.

Here we have Roman Catholic divines admitting that Transubstantiation cannot be proved from Scripture, and believing it simply on the authority of the Church; and yet we are told it is marvellous that we cannot see this doctrine so plainly written in the Word of God!

My opponent seems to have dwelt with peculiar emphasis upon the expression employed by me with respect to Julian, the "illustrious Pagan." Now, if I used such an expression, as I believe I did in passing, I need scarcely observe, in extenuation, that I did not apply the term in reference to his principles, for of course his principles I

must abhor.

Mr. E., as I have just now stated, refers to the opinions of some of the Reformers, but he takes care to add, that he does not wish to impress upon the minds of those present the authority of such men! It was their crime, he says, that they separated from the Church of Rome, and had it not been for them, we might have now been united in the same faith! Yes, Sir, we might; and the Reverend Gentleman could have told us moreover, that if the Apostles-those men who were said to have “turned the world upside down," had not gone to the various nations in the world, to disturb the unity of spiritual death which existed among them, we might have been to this day enjoying the unity of Paganism. Unity, Sir, is a good thing, but then it must be unity of a right and Scriptural kind. There may be unity of error— there may be unity of spiritual death-and it was the duty of the Reformers, and it is equally ours, to protest as loudly against such a false and hollow unity, as to be anxious for that unity which has truth for its essence, and Christian principle for its foundation.

With regard to the subject of Idolatry, upon which we insisted, I am told that, if I believed the doctrine of Transubstantiation, of course I should not hesitate to fall down, as Roman Catholics do, to adore the Host. I must admit that perhaps I should not hesitate so much as I would at the present moment, but I confess, after a

APPEARANCE AND THEY MAY BE SEEN AND FELT JUST AS THEY WERE BEFORE

CONSECRATION."-Theod. Dial. Opera. vol. iv. p. 84, 85. Lutetiæ Paris. 1642.

Such, you perceive, is the testimony of Theodoret himself, that the elements continue, after their consecration, in their original substance, form, and appearance. Sir, I do not wish to occupy my time in referring at large to the Fathers, when I have more important branches of evidence to adduce; but as this passage is generally deemed one of considerable moment, I have referred to it at some length in order to shew, first, that even so far as it was quoted by my opponent it does not prove any thing for Transubstantiation; and, secondly, that when the continuation of it is given, it proves directly the reverse.

Here I may take leave of Mr. Edgeworth for the present, and direct my attention to the observations of Mr. Brown. You will remember that, on a previous occasion, he had charged me with putting weapons into the hands of Socinians and infidels by the line of argument adopted against Transubstantiation. In reference to this statement, while I endeavoured to point out its futility, I retorted by charging him with doing the same, more extensively and truly, in the discussion on the Rule of Faith. And how does he attempt to evade this retort? He asserts that the cases are not parallel, because I do not rest my argument, in the latter instance, on the fact of the Rule of Faith being a mystery, whereas he says his doctrine of Transubstantiation is a mystery. When attempting to establish this want of parallelism, he might have recollected what had been more than once affirmed on our side, that if by this he means a revealed mystery, he is proceeding altogether on a petitio principii—a begging of the question. He is assuming that Transubstantiation is revealed, which is just the point that we dispute.

Upon the passages, "This (i. e. the hair) is Jerusalem❞— "It is the Lord's Passover"-and others of a similar kind, I shall dwell no longer, for we have rung changes enough upon those parallelisms; and we may leave to the meeting and to the public at large to judge on which side truth and consistency lies with regard to them.

But Mr. Brown seems to rejoice at the apparent triumph he gains, because Mr. Faber and others have thrown the arguments from reason overboard, and he wishes we possessed the candour of those Protestant divines. This, after all, makes very little for the question itself, nor does it

much affect our candour. It is only the private opinion of a few individuals, setting aside a particular line of argument, the force or weakness of which is of course to be judged of by all before whom it comes. I would notice, however, more particularly one passage quoted from Clarke, "On the Being and Attributes of God."-(See quotation at length in Mr. Brown's last speech.)—Observe accurately the wording of it :

"When once any proposition is demonstrated to be true, it ought not to disturb us that there may be perplexing difficulties on the other side, &c. &c. But when to demonstration on the one side, there are opposed on the other only difficulties raised from our want of having adequate ideas of the things themselves, this ought not to be esteemed an objection of any real weight."

Why, Sir, that is just what I have said from the beginning. I stated, (pp. 311, 312, and 339) that if once the doctrine of Transubstantiation could be clearly demonstrated from Scripture, then we should give up all other arguments. I said, in speaking of the objections from reason, that, while we would not argue against a doctrine from reason in the first instance, nor reject it because it was mysterious, it was yet fair to use such objections when we had first proved to our own satisfaction that the doctrine was not in Scripture; and this is just the course we adopted.

Just now I caught Mr. Edgeworth in giving only a portion of a passage from Theodoret which (as he supposed) suited his purpose, and now, with respect to one from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, I have detected Mr. Brown in a similar proceeding. The latter gentleman calls our attention to Cyril's catechetical lectures, and in reference to the secrecy observed in the primitive Church, he endeavours to prove that the doctrine of the bodily presence was the grand secret of the mysteries. Now I before asserted that it was not. I did not, indeed, affirm that the Trinity was the only secret, but that it was the grand secret of the ancient mysteries. Look, however, at the passage Mr. Brown quoted. He began his citation thus-(see p. 379, 1st quotation:

"Neither yet do we openly speak concerning them (that is, the mysteries) to the Catechumens; but we often speak many things covertly; in order that the faithful, who know them, may understand us, and in order that the Catechumens who may be ignorant of them may not be injured." This is, I believe, the same passage, tion happens to be a little different. words that immediately precede it?

though the translaNow what are the

"These mysteries," says St. Cyril, "the Church communicates to him who is quitting the class of the Catechumens. For it is not customary to reveal them to the heathens: nor do we propound to a heathen the mysteries concerning THE FATHER, and THE SON, and THE HOLY GHOST."

« AnteriorContinuar »