« PredošláPokračovať »
be condemned for not discerning the Lord's body, if it be not there? But does the believer discern it otherwise than by faith 2 Paul'éonstantly makes use of the strongest expressions. Thus (Hebue vi. v. 5,6), those who fall away, are said to crucify again to them. selves the Son of God, and to make him an open mockery. (Heb. c. x.) He who sing wilfully after a knowledge of the truth, is said to tread under foot the Son of God. (Gal. c.
ii. v. 19.) Paul says, “ With Christ I am nailed to the cross.". May we not ask with equal reason, how the Son of God could be crucified, trodden under foot, or nailed to the cross, in company with Paul, if he was not bodily present? No one who in an bumble and docile frame of mind, and with an earnest prayer for the teaching of the Holy Spiritz approaches the sacred volume, can discover any-thing therein to necessitate the belief of this doctrine, indeed - several of the most celebrated of the Romish doctors, Scotus, Durandus, Biel, Occham, Cardinal Cameracensis, &c. have confessed, that, but for the authority of the church, there was nothing in the Bible to compet the belief of transubstantiation. Even Cardinal Bellarmine admits that this is not impossible. Now this is of great importance to the Protestant advocate. For when we affirm that it is most contradictory to the evidence of the senses, and to the nature of things, the Romanist accuses us of borrowing arms from the infidel, wbo for somewhat similar reasons rejects some of the miracles recorded in holy writ. But he forgets that for the latter we have the authority of God's word, whilst for the former we have the authority only of the church of Rome.
Sensible that there is no real groundwork for transubstantiation in the Bible, the Romish priests usually betake themselves to the seventy folios of the fathers, where few can follow them, and by a dexterous assortment of passages in which the fathers have expressed them selves figuratively, keeping carefully out of sight those passages in which they have spoken literally, they advance with great confidence, and unhesitatingly assert that all the fathers held transubstantiation, and that it was first questioned by one Berengarius in the eleventh century. The writings of Cyril and Ambrose are doubtless tinged with this heresy, and with them the notion appears to have originated in the fourth century. Chrysostom also seems to have held consubstantiation, but as he expressly states in the treatise discovered by Peter Martyr, that the nature of the bread remains, he is opposed to the council of Trent. . For the adverse opinions of Augustine, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, &c. consult part 2nd of this work. The learned Dupin acknowledges that in the ninth century, when the notion was first seriously taken up, there were violent contests. One of its chief opponents in those days was Scotus Erigena, the great luminary of the Irish church, which affords presunsptive evidence that transubstantiation was unknown to the ancient British church; and we have a Saxony homily written in the tenth century, which is decidedly hostile to it; a clear proof that it was not a tenet of the ancient Saxon church. In the eleventh century Berengarius
exerted all his powers to check the rising error, and dispersed his scholars far and wide to arrest its progress. The authority of the church of Rome was then for the first time exerted in its favour. Berengarius was compelled to make three recantations at Rome, (one of which, by the way, was not orthodox,) and was condemned by four Roman councils. But was the church of Rome in those days of corruption and schism entitled to respect, and was Gregory 7th, her head, a man who was engrossed with worldly schemes, entitled to credit as a sound divine? (For the state of the Roman church at that period, see Part I.) In the thirteenth century, when the popes had succeeded in compelling kings and emperors to hold their stirrups and bridles, and to put the first dish upon their table, a general council, the fourth of Lateran, the same which recommended the extermination of heretics, and auricular confession at least once a year, confirmed a doctrine which so highly exalts the homish priesthood in the eyes of the people, by impressing the latter with the notion that their priests can at any time work a stupendous miracle (and here is one of the uses of the doctrine of intention), and that they offer up conjointly with Christ the incarnate Jehovah. The catechism of the council of Trent does not hesitate to call them Gods upon account of this exalted privilege, as well as upon account of their power of forgiving sins. But whilst this doctrine raises to such an unchristian height the priestly dignity, what degrading ideas does it involve of the person of the glorified Redeemer! We must believe that his glorified body, blood, soul and divinity, are contained in a fiule box and carried about in the priest's pocket, or set up for forty hours in a church iu Rome; that he bodily enters the mouths and stomachs of the wicked; that any wicked priest has it in his power to insult him at the present day, when his humiliation is past and he is for ever enshrined in glory; that if a crumb of the wafer falls to the ground he may be trampled upon; that he is in fact in the sanie helpless state which was so keenly ridiculed by the prophets who derided the Jewish and heathen idols, who were moved because they could not move themselves, and who, if they fell, could not raise themselves; that an animal, as it is expressed in the Roman Missal, or a mouse as was defined by Greg. 11, (Direct. Inquisit. part 1, No. 15,) may run away with him in his mouth. And lastly, that a priest may vomit up
as is expressly set forth in the Roman Missal !!!
Documents relating to Transubstantiation. The Canons and Decrees of the Sacrosancti et Ecumenici con
most holy and Ecumenical cilii Tridentini * • Canones Council of Trent. (Printed at et Decreta. (A Paris, 1823.) Paris, 1823.)
Session 19, on the Eucharist.
Sessio 12, de Eucharistia.
Canon 1. If any one shall deny that the Si quis negaverit in sanctisbody and blood, together with simæ eucharistiæ sacramento conthe soul and divinity of our Lord, tineri verè, realiter et substantiaJesus Christ, and therefore, en liter corpus et sanguinem una tire Christ, are truly, really and cum anima et divinitate Domini substantially contained in the nostri Jesu Christi, ac proinde sacrament of the most holy Eu totum Christum ; sed dixerit tancharist; and shall say that he is tummodd esse in eo, ut in signo, only in it as in a sign, or in a vel figura, aut virtute; anathema figure or virtually; let him be sit. accursed.
Canon 9. If any one shall say that the Si quis dixerit, in sacrosancto substance of the bread and wine eucharistiæ sacramento remanere remains in the sacrament of the substantiam panis et vini unà cum most holy Eucharist together with corpore et sanguine Domini nosthe body and blood of our Lord tri Jesu Christi; negaveritque Jesus Christ; and shall deny that mirabilem illam et singularem wonderful and singular conver
conversionem totius substantiæ sion of the whole substance of panis in corpus, et totius subthe bread into the body, and of stantiæ vini in sanguinem, manenthe whole substance of the wine tibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et into the blood, the outward forms vini : quam quidem conversionem of the bread and wine still remain catholica ecclesia aptissime traning, which conversion the catho- substantionem appellat; anathelic church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be accursed.
Canon 3. If any one shall deny that in Si quis negaverit in venerabili the venerated sacrament of the sacramento Eucharistiæ sub unaEucharist entire Christ is con quaque specie, et sub singulis tained in each kind, and in each cujusque speciei partibus, sepaseveral particle of either kind when ratione facta, totum Christum separated, let him be accursed. contineri, anathema sit.
Canon 4. If any one shall say that, after Si quis dixerit, peracta conseconsecration, the body and blood cratione, in admirabili Eucharistiæ
of our Lord Jesus Christ is ouly sacramento non esse corpus et in the wonderful sacrament of the sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Eucharist in use whilst it is taken, Christi, sed tantùm in usu, dum and vot either before or after ; sumitur, non autem ante vel post; and that the true body of the et in hostiis seu particulis conseLord does not remain in the hosts cratis, quæ post communionem or particles which have been con reservantur vel supersunt, non resecrated and which are reserved manere verum corpus Domini, or remain after the communion; anathema sit. let him be accursed.
Canon 6. If any one shall say, that Christ Si quis dixerit, in sancto Euthe only begotten Son of God is charistiæ sacramento Christum not to be adored in the holy sacra unigenitum Dei Filium non esse ment of the Eucharist even with cultu latriæ, etiam externo, adothe open worship of latria, and sandum, atque ideò nec festiva therefore not to be venerated with peculiari celebritate venerandum, any peculiar festal celebrity, nor to neque in processionibus, secunbe solemnly carried about in pro
dùm laudabilem et universalem cessions according to the praise ecclesiæ sanctæ ritum et consueworthy and universal rites and tudinem, solemniter circumgescustoms of the holy church, and tandum, vel non publicè, ut adothat he is not to be publicly set retur, populo proponendum, et before the people to be adored, ejus adoratores esse idololatras, and that his adorers are idolaters, anathema sit. let him him be accursed.
Canon 7. If any one shall say, that it is Si quis dixerit, non licere sanot allowable to keep the holy cram Eucharistiam in sacrario reEucharist in the sacristy, but that servari, sed statim post consecrait must be necessarily distributed tionem adstantibus necessarid disto those who are present imme- tribuendam; aut non licere, ut diately after consecration, or that illa ad infirmos honorificè defeit is not lawful to carry it with ratur, anathema sit. due honour to the sick, let him be accursed.
Canon 8. If any one shall say, that Christ Si quis dixerit, Christum in Euwhen shown in the Eucharist, is charistia exhibitum, spiritualiter only spiritually, and not also sa tantum manducari, et non etiam cramentally and really eaten, let sacramentaliter ac realiter ; anabe accursed.
For the interpretations by the fathers of the 54th verse of the 6th chapter of John, which are adverse to transubstantiation, see Part II. of this work. The differences of the fathers and doctors respecting ils meaning, are incidentally admitted in the following decree of the council of Trent. Session 21.
Doctrine on the Communion in Doctrina de Communione sub
each kind, and on the Commu utraque Specie et Parvulorum. nion of Infants. (Edit. as before.)
Neither is it truly to be gathered from that ex sermone illo, apud Joannem saying in the 6th chap. of John, sexto, rectè colligitur, utriusque that communion in both kinds speciei communionem a Domino was taught by our Lord, how- præceptam esse, utcumque juxta ever it be understood by us ac varias sanctorum patrum et doccording to the various interpreta. torum interpretationes intelligations of the holy fathers and tur. Namque qui dixit, “ Nisi ductors. For he who said, “Ex- manducaveritis carnem filii homi , cept ye eat the flesh of the Son of nis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem, man and drink his blood, ye non habebitis vitam in vobis; dixit shall have no life in you ;” said quoque, Si quis manducaverit ex also, “ If any man eat of this hoc pane, vivet in æternum. bread, he shall live for ever."
Cardinal Bellarmine enumerates the following Roman Catholic doctors, who give the Protestant interpretation of the 54th verse of the 6th chap. of John's Gospel.
De Sacr. Euch. lib. 3, c. 23.
Bellarmine on the Sacrament of
the Eucharist, book 3, c. 23.
In this nuinberare Gabriel,lect. In hoc numero sunt Gabriel, 84, on the Canon of the Mass, lect. 84, super canon Missæ; NiNicolas Cusan, Epist. 7. to the colaus Cusanus, Epist. 7, ad BoBohemians.
hemos ; Thomas Cajetanus, in Thomas Cajetan in his 3rd S. part. quæst. 80, art. ult.;; Ripart, quest. 80, last article; Ri cardus Tapper iu explic. art. chard Tapper in his Explanation 15. Loranensium; Joannes Hes. of the Fifteen Articles of Lo selius in libro de Communione raine ; John Hessel in his book sub una specie, et Cornelius Janon the Communion in one kind, senius, c. 59. Concordiæ. and Cornelius Jansen, c. 59, on Concord.