Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ment. In opening for the Catholics, he thus replied to the expressions of good will with which Mr. Boyd had opened on the other side. He said:

"Mr. Chairman:-My reverend friend, Mr. Boyd, opened this day's proceedings by stating that he had nought but good will towards Christians of every denomination; I heartily concur with him in this charitable sentiment to which he has given utterance, and am glad to find that, though we widely differ in many other respects, our opinions on this head do perfectly harmonize. As far as I am concerned, I confidently assert that I would be a traitor to those principles whose truth I advocate, were I to bear any feelings of personal hatred towards any of my dissenting brethren. Compelled by circumstances to come forward and to defend, and give reason for that faith which is in me, I brought no animosity with me to this discussion, and I trust in my God that I shall bring none away with me from it. Weak as my understanding may be, I have sufficient discernment between the man and his errors-sufficient acquaintance with the doctrines of my own Church to perceive that while, as a minister of the God of truth, I am called on to impugn falsehood, I am in duty bound to revere, respect and love the victims of delusion. In the Protestant communion I recognize many of my warmest friends; the opposition of our respective tenets has not hitherto, nor shall it, I hope, in future, tend to sever the ties of mutual benevolence and love."

After a few summary remarks, he then returned to the queries he had advanced on the second day, and the replies they had elicited:

"The queries which I proposed at the commencement of this discussion, if I except a few to which Mr. Henderson has endeavored to reply, remain unanswered. I shall, therefore, propose them again, and having glanced at the evasive answers given to ten of the difficulties proposed, I shall leave them before the public.

66

'Quer. First: Was it a figure of Christ's body which was delivered for us? Was it a figure of Christ's blood which was shed for us? Mr. Henderson answers and says, that it was a figure of Christ's body that

was given to us in the Sacrament; but he denies that it was the figure of Christ's body that was delivered for us. In this, his reply, he appears to me to contradict the express saying of the Redeemer, who informs us that that body which was given for us, was given to us.

"Quer. Second: How, on Protestant principles, can this clear text, 'this is my body,' announced by Christ in peculiar circumstances, written in different Gospels, at different periods, and in the same words, by three Evangelists, and by the apostle of nations, how, I say, can its literal meaning be invalidated, except by a clearer text, bearing on the same subject, viz. by such a one as the following:- This, which I give unto you, is by no means my body;' and where in sacred writ do we find this more clear and explicit text? My reverend friend, Mr. Henderson, replies that that more clear and explicit text is to be found in Matt. 16 chap. 29 v., where it is called after the consecration, the fruit of the vine; and by St. Paul to the Corinthians, chap. 11, 26 v., where the Sacrament is also called bread after the Benediction. His answer, however, does not appear to me sufficient, for first, according to St. Luke, 22 chap. 18 v., the fruit of the vine there spoken of, was the wine drank with the paschal lamb. Moreover, even were I to admit that Christ Jesus called it the fruit of the vine and bread, after consecration, it would by no means make against the Catholic doctrine, nor serve my reverend friend; for in many passages of sacred writ do we find the thing transubstantiated, called after the name of the thing from which it had been transubstantiated; as for example, in the 2 chap. of Genesis, 23 v., Eve is called Adam's bone, because she was formed out of his bone. Again, chap. 3, v. 19, where Adam is called dust, because he was taken out of dust; 'for dust thou art, and unto dust thou wilt return.' Again, in the Book of Exodus, 7 chap. 12 v., where Aaron's rod is called a rod even after it became a serpent; 'for they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents; but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods;' finally, we find in the Gospel of St. John, 2 chap. 9 v., that the water, after it was changed into wine, is called, by the Evangelist, water; when the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was; but the servants which drew the water knew, the governor of the feast called the bridegroom.'

[ocr errors]

"Thirdly: Why did not St. Paul, when writing to the Corinthians in Greek, and that too, for their immediate instruction, aware, as he must have been, that there were many words in that language to ex

press the sign, why did he use the same language as our Savlour did, who, as my reverend opponents assert, had no word in the Hebrew to express the sign, and say Τουτο σημαινει μου το σωμα, and not as he expressed it, Tovro eori μov to owua, this signifies my body, and not this is my body. My friend, Mr. Henderson, replied to this query, after the Irish way, by proposing a question; why, said he, in the 25th verse of the same chapter did he not use the word signify when speaking of the cup, instead of is, to this Irish answer I reply, that the Apostle was not so ridicuously absurd as to say, that the cup signified, or was the sign of his blood. The evident meaning of St. Paul's words is, 'In this cup is my blood of the New Testament,' &c.

"Fourthly: Has Christ a different body from that which was born of the Virgin Mary? if not, how reconcile these words of the Book of Common Prayer, 'The body and blood of Christ is verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Sacrament,' with the absence of a corporeal presence? My friend, Mr. Henderson, to reconcile this irreconcilable difficulty, has introduced Cranmer and many others of the same tribe; but I am sure that all his efforts have proved unsuccessful, for there are none here of so acute an understanding as to be able to perceive how one and the same individual can receive the body and blood of Christ, verily and indeed, and not receive it at the same time. 'Fifthly: How can a man be said to be guilty of Christ's body and blood, who by no means receives his body and blood? Mr. Henderson says, that we become guilty of Christ's body and blood, though we by no means receive either the one or the other, in the same manner as the sinner crucifies Christ in his flesh; now, as my reverend friend admits all sins to be equal, it would evidently follow from his solution, and the difficulty proposed by me that the unworthy receiver of the holy Eucharist, is no more guilty of Christ's body and blood, than he who takes a pin from his neighbor.

66

“Sixthly: Will a man be damned for not discerning Christ's Body, if the Lord's Body be not beneath the sacramental veils? My friend answers, yes, if he does not discern it with the eye of faith. I would here ask my reverend opponent, should not faith have a real, and not a chimerical object? Does it follow, because I believe God is here present, that he is thereby absent; that he is not in heaven, because I believe him to be in it?

[ocr errors]

'Seventhly: On the night of the institution of the blessed Sacrament, the Jewish rite was abolished. On this night, it is not reasonable to

conclude that the substance succeeded to the shadow, and unreasonable to assert that a mere figure succeeded to a figure, My reverend friend states that the paschal lamb was a figure not of the Eucharist, but of Christ Jesus himself, who was immolated on Mount Calvary. Granting that the paschal lamb slain, was the figure of Christ really slain on Mount Calvary, I would ask Mr. Henderson, why should not the paschal lamb eaten, be the figure of Christ really eaten in the Sacrament? "Eighthly: Did Christ, who led captivity captive, give real or imaginary gifts to men? My friend answers he gave real gifts. If he has done so, the Eucharist, being his last gift or legacy, must even in Mr. Henderson's principles, contain something more than the mere figure.

66

'Ninthly: In what consists the superiority of the Eucharistic bread in the new law, over the Manna in the old, (which superiority Christ specified in the 6th chapter of St. John) if the Sacrament be barely figurative? Mr. Henderson in his answer to this asserts, that there is no comparison made in the 6th chap. of St. John, between the Manna and the Eucharistic bread. This reply I shall place in juxtaposition with the words of truth itself, and leave it to the public to determine. 'Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written he gave them bread from heaven to eat.' Again, 'your fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness, and are dead; this is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.' St. John, chap. vi., 31, 48, 49, 50, and 51 verses.

66

Tenthly: Christ came to fulfil, and not to make void the law; to perfect that which was written. Where in this hypothesis do we find the accomplishment of the various and bloody offerings made under the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, if the Eucharist be merely taken in remembrance? My friend, Mr. Henderson, replies, that there was no such thing as unbloody sacrifice before the coming of Christ my friend I am sure forgot the fruit of the earth offered by Cain-the bread and wine by Melchisadech-the wine, oil and flour, the incense, the scapegoat, &c. mentioned in the book of Leveticus. As to the eleventh query which I proposed, it appears to have awed my reverend opponents into a kind of solemn silenee; they did not even deign to notice it, though the twelfth day of the discussion has now almost elapsed. I shall now again propose it, and beg the attention of the most respectable assembly to its purport.

"Eleventh: Should not the learned and pious, who lived during the

seven centuries subsequent to the redemption, should they not know the meaning of the Apostolic words, 'This is my body,' much better than we of the present day? If common sense avow it, I challenge the reverend gentlemen here present to determine the question of a real, substantial presence, by placing in juxtaposition the quotations of the Holy Fathers of the seven first centuries of the Church of Christ, and by permitting them to go, uncommented, before the public. As I mentioned above, the reverend gentlemen on the other side did not deign to notice this challenge, and why? because they were fully persuaded that the voice of antiquity would be raised against them—that the Austins and the Cyrils, the Chrysostoms and the Ambroses, with trumpet tongue, would cry out against their innovations, and upbraid them with having made void the covenant of the Lord, and having changed the substantial gifts of the Redeemer into mere beggarly elements!

"12th. How can the fundamental principle of Protestantism-namely, that every man is capable of judging, and should judge for himself, be reconciled with the exaction of the tenths of the poor man's labor, by teachers, preachers, and ministers ?

"13th. If Protestants of all denominations be one, as my friends confidently state they are, why brand with the name of schismatic the dissenter true to his principles ?

"14th. If Protestants of all denominations be one, in faith, in hope, and in charity, why set up conventicles apart; why worship in different temples?

"15th. How, in the name of common sense, can my reverend opponents unblushingly state, that any man differing from them in opinion is wrong-they who admit that every man should judge for himself and that in judging for himself he is right?

"16th. On what principle, I here ask my reverend friends, would they refute the Arian, who, taking private judgment and Scripture for his sole guide, would interpret the following text of sacred writ :-'My Father is greater than I;' and again, there is one mediator, the man Christ Jesus,' of the nonconsubstantiality or inferiority of the Son?

"17th. How can the universal apostacy of Christendom, mentioned in the book of Homilies, be reconciled with this truth, the perpetual object of a Christian's faith, 'I believe in the holy Catholic Church?" or, as it is in the Nicene Creed, 'I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? A Church always holy, is at all times void of Idolatry, and of doctrines perniciously erroneous.

"18th. The articles which separate my reverend opponents from

« AnteriorContinuar »