Images de page


God. The sixth chapter of St. John records the promise which our Saviour made, that he would give to his followers something more precious than the manna which the forefathers of the Jews had eaten in the desert;-that he would give them bread that came from heaven;-that he is that bread;-that he will give them his flesh' to eat, and his blood' to drink. Many around him refused to believe in his power to redeem this promise,-precisely as, it seems to us, our friends on the opposite side, and all that are attached to their religious system, do at this day. Our Saviour then reminded the incredulous Jews of the consequence of unbelief:-" he that believeth in me hath everlasting life," the converse of which is, that they who refuse to believe in him, have no solid hope, and have not everlasting life. In this chapter of St. John, is declared, six different times, the doctrine that there is provided for us, as food for our souls, the real flesh and the real blood of Jesus Christ, received, not indeed in the carnal manner in which the Jews understood him; yet received in reality, and not in figure only, as our friends on the opposite side declare. Go from this promise in the 6th of St. John, to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and you find our divine Redeemer, at the Last Supper, fulfilling the promise which he had previously made. He took bread and declared that it was his body: he took the cup and declared it to contain his blood: he gave a command to his Apostles to do that which he had just done.

[ocr errors]

I must, for the last time, call your attention to the 1st Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, chap. xi. St. Paul here affirms, that he had learned, by revelation, this same doctrine; and he charges with a great crime those who receive this spiritual food unworthily, telling them, that they receive damnation, not discerning the Lord's body.' If the body of Christ was not there, where was the ground of St. Paul's charge that they did not discern it? But, it being really there, as the Apostle had learned by revelation, he most properly and consistently reproved them for eating it like common food.

We next proceeded to prove to you, the divine institution of the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Prophet Malachi foretold, distinctly, that the Jewish sacrifices, as they no longer pleased the Almighty, should, at the appointed time, cease; and they have ceased :-that they should be succeeded by "a pure oblation offered from the rising of the

sun to the going down of the same :”—accordingly "among the Gentiles," and in every place, there is offered this pure oblation, in the Sacrifice of the Mass, which takes place on the altars of the Catholic Church. Christ commanded his Apostles to do that which he had done; he gave them his body and blood to eat and drink, assuring them, that through his body and blood there was remission of sins. This we have proved to have been the uninterrupted practice of the early Christians, and of the greater number of Christian Believers, from the time of the Apostles and their immediate successors, until this day.


I RISE now, Sir, to conclude this very important discussion. Mr. Edgeworth commenced his closing speech by saying that he would follow my arguments but briefly, and not pretend to touch on any except those which I seemed to consider of most importance. This, I acknowledge, was something better than the way in which he acted yesterday, when, as I then told you, he did not follow my arguments at all. In my reply I shall notice first the remarks which the Rev. Gentleman made previous to his summing up, and then endeavour in conclusion, as he has set the example, to give an outline of the arguments that have been used on this side of the question.

Mr. Edgeworth referred to one of the heavy charges which I brought against the Church of Rome, namely, that of taking the cup from the people, and he seemed unwilling to waste the precious moments which were allotted to him, in entering upon this subject, but contented himself with a reference to a pamphlet published by Mr. Brown, in which the Roman Catholic arguments on this point may be found. Now, my impression is, that though Mr. Edgeworth may think this subject "not exactly a part of the matter chosen for our present discussion," there is yet so close an alliance as to warrant our introduction of

it. Looking upon the depriving the laity of the cup as a consequence made to flow from the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Rev. Gentleman must excuse my maintaining that his remark was quite unfounded, when he said that this subject was "irregularly introduced" by me. However, as this is the last speech I have to make, and as our opponents have no opportunity of reply, I shall not enter more largely on this topic, but leave it to the consideration of those whom I address. They can examine the matter for themselves, and judge whether the reasons I was quoting from the Catechism of the Council of Trent when my time expired on the last occasion, or any other reasons, can out-weigh the strict and positive command of Christ that we should receive the wine as well as the bread. This will appear particularly striking, when they bear in mind that to which I also adverted in my previous address today, namely, that the Church of Rome has confessed in the Council of Constance that the administration was originally in both kinds, and that Dr. Delahogue in his Theology, which is one of the Class-books at Maynooth, acknowledges the practice of communion in both kinds to have existed till the period of the twelfth century.

I have here to correct a mis-statement, to which I am sorry to say Mr. Edgeworth has constantly given utterance, relative to our principles and professions. He declares himself perfectly satisfied with the testimony of Scripture that has been adduced, and he repeats a statement which he had already made more than once, namely, that we, by rejecting his exposition, deny the truth of the words of Christ. Sir, need I repeat that this charge is grossly unfounded. We admit the truth of the words of Christ, wherever they may be found, with at least as much readiness as our friends on the opposite side; but I beg them to remember what I have already stated, that, while we do not deny the truth of the words of Christ, we very strongly dispute the correctness of the interpretation they have put upon them. THIS, be it observed, is the point at issue, and not, whether the words of Christ, in themselves, are true or


The Rev. Gentleman has alluded to the Roman Catholic divines whom I quoted yesterday on the subject of Transubstantiation, and he imagines I was anxious that the conclusion should be drawn by my hearers, that they differed from the Roman Catholic Church as regards the doctrine in question. This "unjust inference" he defies

me to sustain. Now really, Sir, Mr. Edgeworth has talked about just nothing here, for, if he took the trouble of exercising his memory, he would have recollected that, so far from desiring such an inference to be drawn, I distinctly guarded against it, and stated the very contrary to that which he would attribute to me. So far from labouring to prove that those Roman Catholic Divines did not hold Transubstantiation, the sum of my statement was, that they could not find it clearly in Scripture, (which was enough for me,) and therefore took refuge for it in the authority of the church. This will appear evident if you remember my quotations, to which I refer you. Judge you whether our statements have been represented fairly on this point, or not.

We have had Theodoret introduced again, but as I think his testimony has been adverted to sufficiently often on both sides, I shall, without further observations, leave the public to decide upon this matter from the printed report.

My Rev. opponent next recalled our attention to the use of the words in the present tense in the Institution of the Eucharist, and how does he follow up what Mr. Brown had said on this point? He represents me as saying that "because the present tense is sometimes used for the future, you must allow me to interpret in the future tense in the instance before us." This was not, however, the force of my statement. What I wanted to prove by the statement was this, (as will appear by a reference to my argument,) that, inasmuch as the present tense is constantly used in Scripture when the future is intended, our opponents had no positive authority for taking advantage of the use of the present tense in the words of the Institution, as proving that a Sacrifice was actually offered at the time.

But, Sir, we have had a long lecture about the impiety of prescribing to Christ, and happy should I be if the substance of that lecture had been observed on the part of our opponents. I leave it to the meeting to judge, who, during the course of this discussion, has prescribed most as to the manner in which God should act. I appeal fearlessly to my speeches for a refutation of Mr. Edgeworth's charge. From the very commencement of the discussion I have been objecting to such a method of procedure; and have been pointing out how our antagonists have frequently adopted it. But the Rev. Gentleman specifies a particular instance, in which he says I have been guilty of a similar

error. I had stated, in a former speech, that if Christ instituted a Sacrifice at the last Supper, it must have been typical, not propitiatory, properly speaking. The connection in which this statement stood I need not repeat, but the statement itself has been made by Mr. E., the basis of his charge that I prescribed to Christ. Most persons, however, will, I think, be able to see that when I used the expression" it must have been typical, and not strictly propitiatory," there was no prescribing to Christ what ought to have been done, but the mere statement of a Scriptural fact, that every Sacrifice previous to that on the Cross was typical, and not, in a strict and proper sense, propitiatory.

Mr. Edgeworth dwelt a considerable time upon an expression which he said was used by Mr. Lyons and myself, viz., that Christ could not do so and so. Now, Sir, I protest at the close of this discussion against the imputation of certain principles to us which we disclaim. We do not question Christ's power; we glory in the fact that Christ is not merely man, but GOD; and therefore we question his power no more than we should question the power of the ever blessed and eternal GOD. It is needless

for me to waste time in refuting Mr. Edgeworth's charge, though twice or thrice repeated by him. Those who have given us their attention know that we argued all along simply on what Christ had done, and that we have been constantly endeavouring to bring our opponents to argue in a similar manner.

In reference to the term "Sacrificing Priest," (if I must come to this subject again), you will bear in mind that there has not been an attempt to prove the authority of such an officer under the New Testament dispensation. This is an important point in the controversy. Mr. Brown has told us that there were certain "prudential reasons" against the use of the title in the New Testament, and Mr. Edgeworth has said that it "has ever distinguished the ministers of Christ since the days of our Lord and his Apostles”—but THE FACT IS POSITIVE all the time, that there have not been any Scriptural texts adduced to prove the lawfulness of the office (except as belonging to Christ personally) under the New Testament economy. It strikes my mind as very remarkable that, if the title or office of Sacrificing Priest" has been received and acknowledged, as Mr. Edgeworth says, since the days of our Lord and his

« PrécédentContinuer »