Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

HAMMERSMITH DISCUSSION.

FIRST EVENING, TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1839.

SUBJECT:

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

REV. JOHN CUMMING.-Let it be distinctly understood, in opening the following discussion, that I have no political or party ends to subserve-no personal animosities to indulge-no end, save the glory of Him whose I am, and whom I serve. My adversary appeared at one of our meetings, and then, and twice since, challenged me to discuss the awfully momentous points that are at issue between us. As he is a member of the Committee of the Roman Catholic Institute, officially sanctioned, and, de facto, an expositor of his faith, I have this day met him, to contend, not for victory, nor in a display of mere gladiatorship, but for the faith once delivered to the saints.

The doctrine of Transubstantiation is so extravagant to my mind, that I could have wished my antagonist had opened the discussion. To be sure of the very words, the ipsissima verba of both Churches in reference to the Eucharist, as I mean to repeat and adhere to these words, I will quote from the authorized and recognised canons, articles, and formularies of either com

munion.

Council of Trent, Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist :

CANON I. "If any shall deny. that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, there is contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but shall say that he is only in it in sign or figure, or power, let him be accursed."

[ocr errors]

CANON II. If any shall say, that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and remarkable conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, while only the appearance of bread and wine remains, which conversion the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation, let him be accursed."

CANON VI. "If any shall say, that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored, and that outwardly with the worship of Latria, and therefore that he ought neither to be venerated by any especial festive celebration ried solemnly about in according to the univ

[ocr errors]

able rite and custom of the Church, epitome of Catholic doctrine and or that he ought not publicly to be belief." p. 145. Coyne, Dublin, 1826. exhibited to the people that he may "Jam vero hoc loco a pastoribus be worshipped, and that the wor-explicandum est non solum verum shippers of him are idolaters, let Christi corpus et quidquid ad veram him be accursed." corporis rationem pertinet VELUTI OSSA ET NERVOS sed etiam totum Christum in hoc sacramento contineri."-De Sacramento Eucharistia,

"It is also in this place to be

CANON VIII.-"If any one shall say, that Christ, as exhibited in the Eucharist, is only spiritually eaten, and not also sacramentally p. 241. Venetiis, apud Aldum, 1582. and really, let him be accursed." After these authentic and bind-explained by the pastors, that there ing documents from the canons of is contained not only the true body the Council of Trent, I beg leave to of Christ and whatever belongs to add an extract from the creed of a true condition (or definition) of a Pope Pius IV., which my learned body, such as BONES AND NERVES, opponent professes:-"And that in but also a whole Christ." the most holy sacrifice of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation."

[ocr errors]

In these documents we have the full and unshrinking explanation of Transubstantiation. In my references to the doctrine, therefore, I will adhere to these authorized terms as closely as possible, in order that, if offence may be taken at my phraseology, the Church of Rome may have, as is most justly due, the credit or discredit of it.

I now extract from the Confessions of the Reformed Catholic Churches of England and Scotland our views of the Eucharist :

:

Thirty-nine Articles.-" The supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

The next authorized document of the Church of Rome from which I shall quote is THE CATECHISM Or THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. On this document Dr. Doyle, in his "Essay on the Catholic Claims," makes the following remarks :- "This Catechism is a most authentic exposition of our faith, inasmuch as it embodies and explains not only the doctrinal decisions of that Council, but also the several articles of the creed commonly called the Apostles' Creed-the commandments of the decalogue the precepts of the Church, the mass, and the sacra- "Transubstantiation (or the change ments as they are received and of the substance of bread and wine) understood by all Catholics. This in the supper of the Lord, cannot be catechism has also been approved of proved by holy writ, but is repugand published by the Pope, and nant to the plain words of Scripture, assented to by all the bishops in overthroweth the nature of a sacracommunion with the see of Rome, ment, and hath given occasion to so that it may be considered an many superstitions. The body of

Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper is faith. The sacrament of the Lord's supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

"The wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as St. Augustine saith) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in nowise are they partakers of Christ, but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing."

doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called Transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath been, and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea of gross idolatries."

Thus I have laid before you the bane and antidote. Let me now proceed a step further towards the discussion of this question, and glance at what I expect to be a favourite field with my opponent. I am perfectly persuaded that my Confession of the Church of Scot- learned opponent, too conscious land.-"In the supper, rightly used, of there being no proofs for TranJesus Christ is so joined with us, substantiation in the Scriptures, that he becometh the very nourish- will have recourse to what are ment and food of our souls. Not called the Fathers, and amid their that we imagine any Transubstan- mutilated and contradictory fragtiation of the bread into Christ's ments, he will fish up, as from natural body, and of wine into his muddy waters, many a specious natural blood, as the Papists have perniciously taught and damnably believed; but this union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus, in the right use of the sacrament, is wrought by the operation of the Holy Ghost, who, by true faith, carrieth us above all things that are visible and carnal and earthly, and maketh us to feed upon the body and blood of Jesus, which was once broken and shed for us, which now is in heaven and appeareth in the presence of his Father for us."

Westminster Confession, adopted by the Church of Scotland.-" Worthy receivers outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally, and corporeally, but spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death. That

pretext. It is, therefore, most important, in the outset of this discussion, to lay down the precise amount of authority due to the FATHERS, in order that my opponent's quotations may always go for what they are worth.

1. These writers of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, are not the fathers strictly so-called. The apostles and evangelists are the fathers of the Christian Church. The so-called fathers were mere voluntary recipients and distributors of the waters of life received from the original fountain, and, most unfortunately, the contents have not only caught the taint and flavour of the earthen vessels, but have become miserably diluted by human speculations, coloured by Eastern philosophy, and, ere they reach us, filtered of their more vital and precious ingredients.

2. The fathers are universally admitted to be fallible. Both the Church of Rome and the Protestant Church admit this.

that can be quoted, or appealed to, are a mere fragment of the writings of those who actually composed on doctrinal subjects, or who were better employed. Those lost may have held opinions contrary to those that are left, so that if all the fathers that remain were, as they are not, unanimous in favour of Transubstantiation, it would not avail. The opinions of the remaining fathers on this doctrinal point, even if unanimous, would not, from these facts, weigh a feather with me; for what are the opinions of a thousand fallible books against the contrary judgment of one inspired and infallible penman?

3. Many of them have erred, and that too on fundamental points, in the opinion of the Church of Rome. I call the most serious attention of every Roman Catholic in the room to the following extract of one of their own chief doctors, Delahogue, in proof of this:-" In order that one may be called by the name of father, it is not required, indeed, that he shall have committed no errors; since St. Justin holds an honourable place among them, who thought that the happiness of the pious dead was to be postponed till On this tenet of Transubstanthe day of the final judgment. St. tiation, the fact is, the fathers Irenæus, who patronized the error held three distinct and antagonist of the Millennarians; St. Cyprian, opinions. This I am ready to prove who believed that the baptism con- by references, the moment my oppoferred by heretics was to be re-nent requires them. One section peated. Moreover, Origen and Ter- holds the opinion of the thirty-nine tullian, who have erred in so many articles and the Westminster Conpoints, have been constantly reckoned fession. A second section holds conamong the fathers."-Treatise on substantiation-and a third section, Ch. 3d edit. 1829.

partly from scholastic mutilationThis opinion of Delahogue is of partly from hyperbolic phraseology itself sufficient to shake the pro-partly from their application of fessed confidence of Roman Catho- the name of the thing signified to lics in writings partly mutilated- the symbol, is twisted by the Church partly corrupted-partly erroneous, of Rome to the countenance of a and wholly uninspired and fallible. dogma of the ninth century-Transubstantiation.

4. The fathers contradict each other. The Council of Trent, ch. I am prepared, this evening, if i. sess. 21, admits that they give required, to show that Augustine, various interpretations on the 54th Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, verse of the 6th chapter of John; Tertullian, and Theodoret, mainand Bellarmine (De Sac. Euch. lib. tain the doctrine of the Reformed i. ch. v.) gives a catalogue of doc-churches on the Eucharist; in other tors and learned Romanists who give words, I am prepared to quote pasthe Protestant interpretation to sages from each of these fathers, in the above verse. which they proclaim the doctrine of 5. The fathers were never deputed the Protestant Church in reference to give forth the voice of the church to the Lord's Supper. This is my on Transubstantiation, or on any first position. In the second place, other dogma. They were neither I am ready to prove that others of authorized nor delegated to do so. the fathers maintained Consubstan6. In the next place, all the fathers | tiation. Irenæus and Chrysostom

are the advocates of Consubstantia- | fathers, has positively anathemation, if their language be taken tized the opinions of some of the literally. And, in the third place, most distinguished of them. Cy. I candidly admit that a remnant of prian holds that all the apostles the fathers, whose sentiments my were equal in power, but the Church learned antagonist will quote to- of Rome holds the man anathemaday, employ language which may be tized that does not give to Peter pleaded as strongly in favour of the supremacy. St. Jerome excludes Transubstantiation. At the same the Apocrypha, and therefore HE time, I would add, that Bellarmine, comes under the anathema of the a distinguished advocate of the Church of Rome. Augustine oppoChurch of Rome, says, it is not ses appeals to Rome, and therefore wholly improbable that there is not HD comes under the anathema of a passage in the Word of God so the Church of Rome. Ambrose express as to compel the admission of deprecates the judicial power which Transubstantiation, and he quotes the Church of Rome assumes for several distinguished scholastic di- her priests, and therefore HE is anavines, who admit that it may not be thematized by the Church of Rome. in the Word of God, and, that there Irenæus gives the creed as the only is not, in the Word of God, a pas-tradition. St. Chrysostom advosage that goes to compel the doc-cates the indiscriminate reading of trine of Transubstantiation.

the Word of God. St. Athanasius holds the sentiments of the Protestant Church, and not of the Church. of Rome, in reference to the sacre l canon. These fathers all come under the curses of Trent. The fathers hold sometimes, some of them, the doctrines of the reformed churches; sometimes, some of them, the doctrine of Consubstantiation, and are by the Tridentine fathers anathematized for it; and sometimes, some of them, in different passages, are so highly oriental and figurative, that they have given occasion to the doctors of the Church of Rome to deduce from them the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Again, I may also repeat that the Council of Trent admits that, on the 54th verse of the 6th chapter of St. John, which probably my learned friend will bring forward this evening, and which I will require him to prove to be descriptive of the Lord's supper at all, there are varions interpretations. I may mention en passant, that Justin Martyr did not know of certain ceremonies essential to the worship of Roman Catholics, such as the ringing of bells, the elevation, and the adoration of the Host, and many other similar rites. I am prepared to show, in the next place, that the Church of Rome has, contrary to the practice of the fathers, withdrawn the cup from the laity, maintaining that the officiating priest alone ought to partake of the cup, and that it is quite sufficient for the rest to par-inspired, and by the Church of Rome take of the bread alone, as containing the whole body and blood, soul and divinity of the Son of God.

Iam prepared to show, from documents, that the Church of Rome, who professedly makes much of the

Now, I ask, what does this imply? Why it amounts to this: that if these fathers are so contradictory of each other, and of themselves-if they are admitted on both sides not to be

not only to be fallible, but also to have erred, and thereby are virtually under the anathemas of Trent,-if it has been admitted by the Roman Catholic Church that they have erred in points that go directly to the

« PoprzedniaDalej »