66 of the Church of Rome, the Nes- this sacred doctrine of all ages; but he should recollect that his own Church is equally vehement in its expressions against us, when it declares that we have been "perniciously taught and have damnably believed." The learned gentleman endeavoured to soften down and explain away the harsh word damnably," but he could not do it. I believe that the Church of England, and the Church of which my rev. friend is a member, both lay down in their Articles, that out of their Church no man can be saved. We soften not only the words, but the drift of them, much more than Calvin does; because we say that no man that leads a pure life, and has had no opportunity of enlightenment, can be lost: we say, it is only obstinate heretics who are condemned; we do not exclude from the pale of salvation those REV. J. CUMMING.-I must con who have no opportunity of en- fess I had formed a very high esti lightening themselves, but only mate of the talents of my learned those who have an opportunity; friend, and was really prepared to those who are thoroughly convinced hear something like a lucid and that, from age to age, and without conclusive exposition, not only of interruption, the doctrine of Tran- Transubstantiation, but also argusubstantiation has been taught by ments in favour of it which it would the Church of God, and yet believe take time to refute, and ingenuity it not to be true, and will not come to repel. This audience is by this into our Church. Of such we time no mean judge both of the entertain no very sanguine hopes number and the weight of the arguas to their salvation. Gentlemen, ments of my learned friend. Let before I sit down, I will merely put me, in the outset, just touch upon a one more question for my learned few of the remarks which he made, friend to answer, viz.-How it and then come more closely to the happens that, while he announces subject under discussion. Let me, Transubstantiation to be the pro- before doing so, correct one misduct of one of the dark ages, how understanding. My learned friend it happens that the Eutychians and said, that the Church of Rome does Nestorians, who separated from the not assert that none can be saved Catholic Church about fourteen who are without her communion. hundred years since, and who now I hold in my hand the creed of flourish numerously in the east-Pope Pius the Fourth, to which how happens it, that they still adhere to the doctrine of Transubstantiation to the present day; and, whilst Protestants call it an error every Roman Catholic subscribes. The last clause of this document is, "This true Catholic faith, out of which none can be saved. Hanc Rev. J. Cumming.] TRANSUBSTANTIATION. veram Catholicam fidem extra quam | infallible expressions to the Christian faith; and, in the next place, nemo salvus esse potest.' My opponent commenced his dis- Delahogue, professor of theology at course by stating, that whilst our Maynooth, and a laborious advocate Lord was preparing for the cele- of the Church of Rome, distinctly bration of the supper, in the 6th states, "In order that any one may chapter of John, he said, "Unless be called by the name of father, it ye eat the best and drink the blood is not required, indeed, that he shall of the Son of God, ye have no life have committed no errors, since St. in you." I shall reply to this when Justin holds an honourable place I come to this chapter by-and-by. among them, who thought that the In the mean time, let me ask, by happiness of the pious dead was to what authority it is that he makes be postponed till the day of final this chapter refer to the Eucharist? judgment. St. Irenæus, who paI call on him to explain his reasons tronized the error of the Millenafor believing that the 6th chapter of rians; St. Cyprian, who believed that John refers to the Lord's supper at the baptism conferred by heretics all. For my part, I am ready to bring was to be repeated; moreover, Oriforward proofs and extracts from gen and Tertullian, who have erred the most distinguished doctors of in so many points, have been con the Church of Rome, declaring that stantly reckoned among the fa it has been a question whether the thers."-Delahogue's Treatise on the 54th verse of the 6th chapter of John refers to the Lord's supper at all. Church of Christ, 3d edit. 1829. Delahogue has taught hundreds In his next remark, he quoted of the Irish priests, that "the the Gospel of Luke, 22d chapter, fathers have erred in many points." "This is my blood.' Now I beg My opponent made another curious to correct the quotation, if it be remark, viz. that they were fathers By what taken from Luke. Our Lord's lan- and grandfathers too. guage in that Gospel is not, "This logic does he make this out? How is my blood," but," This cup is the can a man be father and grandfather new testament in my blood." My at one and the same time of the same opponent's next remark was, that child? If I have a child, I cannot he would not give up the fathers. be the father of that child and the Now my solemn Now I maintain that the fathers grandfather too. give up him, again and again; and and well-weighed conviction respectif he do not give up the fathers, ing the fathers is this,-that they he will have to contend with the are at best but second-rate authomost heterogeneous elements, and rities; that they do not convey to cling to sentiments the most unadulterated the pure and the contradictory. Nay, I will show living waters of truth; that they "earthen vessels," the that the very fathers, to whom he are but has referred with such an air of waters of which have become more triumph, as favourable to Tran- or less tainted after their leaving substantiation, contain other pas- the fountains of primeval inspisages distinctly and deliberately the reverse of Transubstantiation. Now I stated, at the outset of my remarks, first, that the fathers were not infallible; secondly, that the fathers were never deputed to give ration. I expected my learned friend would have departed from these "earthen vessels," tainted and polluted with all the imperfections of humanity, and have made a manly and deliberate appeal As to my opponent's remark, that Peter was the rock, or cornerstone," my reply is simply from the word of God: "To whom coming" to those living streams, to which | face, and that the apostles and evanChrist has invited us in language gelists stare Ignatius in the face, if the most earnest and impressive :- the latter can be saddled with Tran "Ho every one that thirsteth, come substantiation. ye to the waters !" and again, "The Spirit and the Bride say, Come;" and again, "Search the Scriptures, for these are they which testify of me." Since, however, he is deter--speaking of Christ-" as unto a mined to exhume the fathers, I will living stone, disallowed indeed of for a little follow him. men, but chosen of God and precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ;" and St. Paul says, "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (plural nuraber)-" Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." Yea, the Council of Trent declares that "FAITH" in the truths of the Gospel is the foundation "against which the gates of hell shall not prevail." The first father my learned opponent quoted is St. Ignatius, from whom he extracted a passage in proof of Transubstantiation. He certainly read to you figurative language, which he considers favourable to Transubstantiation. Let me also show how easy it is to neutralize the testimony of Ignatius. Ignatius, in the Epistle to the Trilesians, distinctly disclaims all recognition of Transubstantiation: "Do you, therefore, resuming long-suffering, reestablish yourselves IN FAITH, WHICH IS THE FLESH of the Lord, and in LOVE, WHICH IS THE BLOOD of Jesus Christ;" εν πιστει ἡ εστι ἡ σαρξ, και εν αγαπῃ ἡ εστι το αίμα του Χριστου. These are the ipsissima verha of St. Ignatius. Now I grant that, in the passage quoted by my learned friend, this father holds language expressive of Transubstantiation; but here I quote another passage from the same father, in which he holds distinctly the reverse, or gives such an explanation of his language as proves his employment of it to have been figurative, and that he calls the sign by the thing signified. But if there be downright contradiction, as my opponent may hold, what must be the inference? That we are to leave the fathers, and go to the grandfathers, the apostles and evangelists, whose writings are contained in the Word of God. My learned friend tells me that St. Ignatius "stares me in the face." I show that he stares us both in the My opponent next quoted from Augustine a passage which seems to favour Transubstantiation. Now I treat Augustine as impartially as Ignatius, and I therefore quote a passage from Augustine's 3d book upon Christian Doctrine," vol. iii. p. 630. Ed. Bened. Paris, 1685: 66 If a passage is preceptive, and either forbids a crime or wickedness, or enjoins usefulness or charity, it is not figurative. But if it seems to command a crime or wickedness, or to forbid usefulness or kindness, it is figurative. Unless ye shall eat, he says, the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. He appears to enjoin wickedness, or a crime. IT IS A FIGURE, therefore, teaching us that we partake of the benefits of the Lord's passion, and that we must sweetly and profitably treasure up in our memories that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us." I next quote from Augustine's 25th Treatise upon the 6th chap. of John, vol. iii. p. 490, (Ed. Ben. Paris, 1685,)" Jesus answered and said to him, 'This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he has sent. To do this is to eat the flesh which perishes not, but endures to eternal life. Why do you prepare your teeth and your stomach? Believe only, and you will have eaten.'" as if lamenting their death, because, being offended at his word, they had departed. But he taught them, and said to them, 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, they are spirit, and they are life. Understand SPIRITUALLY what I have spoken. You ARE NOT ABOUT TO EAT THIS BODY WHICH YOU SEE, and to drink that One would almost imagine that blood which they shall shed who Augustine anticipates the monstrous shall crucify me. I have recoindogma of Roman Catholicism. No mended to you a certain sacrament, language can be more contrary to which, if spiritually understood, the doctrine of Transubstantiation. shall quicken you.'" (Ps. xcviii.) My opponent must either admit You see how the passages my that his favourite father contradicts opponent reads make the other way, himself, or that, by my literal ex-if he will allow the father to explain tract, he explains the meaning of the figurative. I quote another to this effect from the same author part only of which my opponent has thought proper to quote: "It seemed a hard saying to them when he said, Except any man eat my flesh, he shall not have eternal life.' They received it foolishly, and they meditated upon it carnally, and thought that the Lord was about to cut off certain little pieces from his body and to give them to them; and they said, This is a hard saying. They were hard, and not the saying. For if they had not been hard, but meek, they would have said within themselves, He does not say this for nothing." These are the words of Augustine on the 98th Psalm, and though any thing but favourable to Transubstantiation, my opponent stopped short at the words, " for nothing," and forgot to quote the rest of the passage, and I will therefore refresh his memory, and do justice to Augustine, by quoting the remainder: There is some hidden sacrament in it. When his twelve disciples remained with him, the others having departed, they addressed him his own meaning. The next remark that my opponent made was to the effect, that Protestants differ from each other in fundamentals. If we exclude from the range of Protestants those who deny the deity of Christ,-and if my friend was present at the discussion at Downside, he may remember that, both on the Protestant and the Roman Catholic side, it was nem. con. admitted that Socinians are not Christians-they do not. Socinians are excluded because they deny a fundamental and essential truth; whereas, the Church of Scotland and the Church of England differ in circumstantials, but are agreed in essentials on the great doctrine of the Trinity, on the completeness of the sacrifice of Jesus, on the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit-in all essentials, in short, we are one;-in circumstantials, or non-essentials, I admit we agree to differ. But let me tell my opponent, if he feel at all anxious to alter his position, on hearing a clear confutation of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, let him go to any one of the churches or denominations he refers to (Socinianism 66 excepted), and he will have made a dow, or the wall being broken most happy and delightful exchange. through. My reply is, Show me, In his next remark he complained from Scripture, that he either passed most bitterly that I had used lan- through door, window, or wall, withguage and terms offensive and irre-out aperture of any kind. He was verent, when I spoke of the "bones seen outside the one minute, and and the nerves, the body and the inside the other. Is the wafer seen blood, the soul and divinity" of our to be bread one minute, and flesh Lord Jesus Christ, being assumed the next? There is no parallel. by him to be present on the Roman He appealed to the senses of his Catholic altars. Now, the question disciples, when he stood in the is, who invented the words? who midst of them and said, "Handle authorized the use of these words? me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh It was not I. Have I not quoted and bones as ye see me have," mak- verbatim from the canons of the ing the senses arbiters of corporeal Council of Trent, which says the presence and, therefore, the very bread and wine are changed into passage which my learned friend the body and blood, soul and divi- quotes, to vindicate the doctrine of nity, of the Son of God?" Have Transubstantiation, is one of those I not quoted the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which says that the priests are diligently to instruct the people that "the bones and the nerves," the "body and the blood," The next passage quoted by my and "all that belongs to a true opponent was, "This is my body," body," are really and actually pre-which, says he, denotes, “This is my sent on the altar? And, therefore, body." He holds that the moment if I have used these offensive and the priest pronounces these words, irreverent words, "the bones and Hoc enim est meum corpus, the wafer, the nerves, the flesh and the blood," lying on the altar, is transubstantiaI have neither invented them nor ted into "the body and blood, soul taken them from any Protestant and divinity, bones and nerves, of work. I have used the recognised the Lord Jesus Christ." With this and authorized documents of the extraordinary assertion before me, I Church of Rome; and I call on my may have the curiosity to look at the friend, if he pleases, to find fault Host, and I see that still it is a piece with the phrascology of his own of paste, or flour and water. I have Church, but not to find fault with seen a consecrated wafer in the hands me for using her ipsissima verba. of one of us heretics, and I have examined it minutely, and I could discover nothing but flour and water. very passages that triumphantly show that our Lord appeals to the senses for a verdict on his corporeal presence. 66 My opponent's next remark bore the resemblance of an argument for once, viz. that our Lord came into But no," says my opponent, "it is the midst of his disciples with the not, you are mistaken: it is actually doors shut; from which he seemed the flesh and blood, the soul and to infer that our Lord can corpo-divinity, bones and nerves, of the really and substantially be present Son of God."" Then, if my oppoin one and two places at one and nent be correct, what is the result? the same time. He may, says he, My senses have deceived me; and have come through the door, the if in one point, it may be in a dozen. walls, or the window, or some other May not my senses be deceived passage, without the door, the win-when I look at Mr. French ? Sup |