Images de page

How was it that he should have been permitted to be regarded in after ages as a most distinguished advocate of religion? If this is false doctrine, why was there not a reclamation made by some one, when St. Justin in his apology to Antoninus declared it to be the doctrine of Christians? I feel persuaded that these are questions which though they may be pronounced irrelevant, cannot be replied to in any other way, by the Rev. gentlemen opposite, than by saying that the most distinguished Christians in the first ages, distinguished by their piety, by their learning, by their deaths-for most of them suffered martyrdom for their faith-did believe that which the Catholics now believe; namely, that Christ is present in the Eucharist truly and really-that the bread and wine are changed into his body and blood by his unlimited power. I am unwilling to weaken the impression which I am sure such testimony must make on the minds of all impartial inquirers after truth, by adverting as I could easily do to the mistakes, I trust the involuntary mistakes, into which the Rev. Mr. Tottenham has fallen in attempting to refute the observations I made the last time I addressed the meeting. It is of very trivial importance, ultimately at least, whether you understand or misunderstand the Rev. gentleman; but it is of infinite importance that all of us, Christian brethren, should arrive at a clear knowledge of the truth upon the doctrine of the Eucharist. Recollect what is before us. Discard that false liberality which asks "Why discuss this doctrine? why investigate these matters? You will live more at

ease and peace, if уси will not entertain these inquiries.' Repudiate, I repeat it, that false liberality. As the gentleman opposite has said, the practical consequence of this doctrine involves matters belonging to our eternal welfare. If our doctrine is false, we pay homage to a mere creature, mistaken for Christ; if our doctrine is true, and that it is true you must at least be inclined to say, then those gentlemen are engaged in a most perilous and disastrous course, by persuading men to withhold that homage and adoration which are due to Jesus Christ, present in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.


I COINCIDE in the opinion of Mr. Edgeworth, that discussion is not false liberality, and that it may lead to much good. We have had a practical exemplification of it in this and yesterday morning's discussion. Yesterday, I used the expression, "the infallible teacher of an infallible Church;" but this morning's discussion has taught me that I should have said, "the independent teacher of an infallible Church;" as Mr. Brown appears to think that he is at perfect liberty to form what judgment he pleases on books of authority in the Church of Rome. The Rev. gentleman has told you that the Breviary is a book of undoubted authority; and then he asserts that he is at liberty to reject any historical parts of it, that his own judgment may not peculiarly commend. Ask Mr. Brown what authorised formulary of the Church of Rome allows of such an assertion. He is commanded to receive the Breviary; and no exceptions are made to any words in it-it must be the whole Breviary, and nothing but the Breviary; he is not allowed to cast out a single syllable; and if he had read the Roman Ritual, he might have found that

"First the Breviary, and then the Roman Missal were to be published with much carefulness and pastoral diligence." (Quamobrem fel. record. Pius Papa V. Breviarium primum, et deinde Missale Romanum, multo studio et diligentia elaborata Pastorali providentia edenda censuit.—Rituale Rom. p. 4. ed. Venet. 1786.)

In this same book, the use of the Breviary miracles is declared to us. In pages 99 and 100, we read that when the priest goes to visit the sick, he is to tell them "particularly the examples of the saints, which are of great use”"Ac præsertim Sanctorum exempla, quæ plurimum valent.”

Again, we are told

"He will likewise propose to the sick person the martyrdoms and examples of the saints."-Proponet etiam ægrotanti... Sanctorum martyria et exempla.

But then it is added

"These, however, are to be suggested opportunely and discreetly, lest trouble, and not comfort may affect the sick."-Hæc tamen opportune et discrete suggerantur, ne ægroto molestia, sed levamen offeratur.

But Mr. Brown tells us that the legends of this book are not essential to be believed; and then adds that it is

broken up into certain portions for each day, and read within the walls of this Sanctuary. It is rather extraordinary to read in the hearing of young men "legendary tales," which certainly ought to form no part of the worship of God. The Rev. gentleman has old us that there are only a few miracles in this bool-hich can be rejected or received, according to his own judgment. While Mr. Brown was speaking, I took up one of the volumes, in which I reckoned fifteen; if we multiply fifteen by four, (the number of volumes of which the Breviary consists) we should have sixty miracles; and if time permitted me to reckon them all, there would be found a number nearer to one hundred and sixty than sixty, which Mr. Brown feels himself at liberty to reject, without the slightest shadow of authority; so that here we see the benefit of this discussion, that the Rev. gentleman has been induced to think and speak for himself.


Yesterday, Mr. Brown said that he would answer my arguments, drawn from reason and common sense, by some references to the work of Abbadie on the Christian religion; and then he asserted that Transubstantiation was as undoubted a truth as the Trinity. This is a principii petitio," begging the question. We deny that Transubstantiation is revealed in the Holy Scriptures. The Rev. gentleman has not yet proved it from Holy Scripture, and we cannot receive it upon any other authority. Mr. Brown reminds us that we ought not to use any argument from the understanding on this point. I will read one passage from the word of God, in addition to those which you have already heard from my friend, Mr. Tottenham. It is contained in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 10th chapter, 15th verse, where the Spirit of God by the Apostle thus writes

"I speak as to wise men, JUDGE YE YOURSELVES WHAT I SAY." And of what was he about to write? Even respecting the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; the Apostle therefore gives us full liberty to judge concerning these matters, and surely if Paul called upon the Corinthians to use their judgment on the Lord's Supper, Mr. Brown should not deny us the same liberty of judging respecting the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Apostle proceeds to


"The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord ?"

Mr. Brown referred to various passages in the Acts of the Apostles yesterday, in support of the opinion that he holds of Christ's coming down upon the earth in his bodily form at different times after his ascension; and from thence he argued that he might come down in a bodily form into the wafer on the altar. There is no force in the argument, because it is impossible to prove from those passages that Christ came down to the earth; and had the Rev. gentleman read a little further in the book of the Acts, he would have found in the 26th chapter, (he quoted from the 9th) and the 19th verse, that he did not come down upon earth at all; because there we read"Wherefore, O king Agrippa, I was not incredulous to the heavenly vision.”

Here Paul speaks of it as a "heavenly vision"-not as an event that took place on earth, but as a vision that he saw in heaven. Mr. Brown also turned your attention to the 7th chapter of Acts as another proof that Christ came down to earth. This is rather an unhappy quotation to make, for in the 55th verse we read

"But he, (Stephen) being fu!l of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and JESUS STANDING ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD."

He did not see Jesus on earth, he saw him "standing at the right hand of God."

"And he said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the SON OF MAN STANDING ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD."

Mr. Brown has again brought us back to the 6th of John. I shall once for all meet his remarks on this chapter with this simple proposition; there is but one way of salvation from the fall of our first parents down to the latest period of time. There is only "one Lord," and then, as the Apostle argues, there can be but one faith." In the 11th chapter of Hebrews, it is clearly declared that from the earliest period of the world's fall, faith alone was the grand means for the salvation of the children of God; but according to the assertion made by the Rev. gentleman from the 6th of John, it is absolutely necessary, literally to "eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ." I ask, how was it possible for Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or any of the Patriarchs to be saved; for it is said in that chapterExcept you eat his flesh, you have no life in you."

[ocr errors]

Now then, if these words are to be taken in their literal construction, it must follow that Abel, and all the Patriarchs of old, were shut out of the pale of salvation. But

when we take these words in the sense of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, all appears plain and intelligible to us.

Mr Brown alluded to the miracle narrated in the 2nd of John. He said that the miracle at Cana in Galilee, and what he pleases to call the miracle of Transubstantiation, are similar to each other. If you recollect the parallel I drew yesterday between the loaves and fishes in the desert, and apply the same parallelism to the water converted into wine in Cana, and the asserted miracle of Transubstantiation, you will quickly perceive what dissimilarity there is between them.

I shall now turn to some remarks that Mr. Edgeworth has made, and I do say, that he has not attempted to answer a single argument brought forward by Mr. Tottenham. The Rev. gentleman has brought against us the charge of having used ridicule and scorn" against the doctrine of Transubstantiation; and he appears to think this a very unscriptural, if not anti-scriptural, mode of handling the doctrine. I think it, however, a very scriptural method, perfectly scriptural, as I can prove from reading two or three verses of the word of God. If the Rev. gentleman will turn with me to the 3rd book of Kings, the 18th chapter, and 26th and following verses, he will there read-

"And they took the bullock which he gave them and dressed it: and they called upon the name of Baal from morning even till ncon, saying, O Baal, But there was no voice, nor any that answered: and they leaped over the altar that they had made."

hear us.

We might apply the same language to the wafer on the altars of Roman Catholic Chapels; we may cry to it very long before it will hear us

"And when it was now noon, Elias JESTED AT THEM, saying: Cry with a louder voice, for he is a god, and perhaps he is talking, or is in an inn, or on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awaked."

Here is strong irony, deeply-cutting sarcasm, against the prophets of Baal. In the book of the Prophet Isaiah, 44th chapter, 12th verse, it is written

"The smith bath wrought with his file, with coals, and with hammers he hath formed it, and hath wrought with the strength of his arm: he shall hunger and faint, he shall drink no water, and shall be weary. The carpenter hath stretched out his rule, he hath formed it with a plane he hath made it with corners, and hath fashioned it round with the compass, &c. And it hath served men for fuel he took thereof, and warmed himself: and he kindled it, and BAKED BREAD: BUT OF THE REST HE MADE A GOD, AND ADORED IT; he made a graven thing, and bowed down before it. Part of it he burnt with fire, and with part of it he dressed his meat: he boiled pottage, and was filled and was warmed, and said: Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire. But the residue thereof he made a god, and a graven thing for himself: he boweth down before it, and adoreth it, and prayeth unto it, saying: Deliver me for thou art my God.

« PrécédentContinuer »