Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

according to the direction of the wind, forming a very striking and majestic appearance. The Eagles are here seen sailing about, sometimes losing themselves in this thick column, and again re-appearing in another place with such ease and elegance of motion as renders the whole truly sublime.

"High o'er the watery uproar silent seen,

Sailing sedate in majesty serene,

Now midst the pillar'd spray sublimely lost,
And now, emerging, down the rapid's tost,
Glides the Bald Eagle, gazing, calm and slow,
O'er all the horrors of the scene below;
Intent alone to sate himself with blood,
From the torn victims of the raging flood."

Reviews.

Christ's Discourse at Capernaum fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. By Rev. George Stanley Faber, B. D., &c. London: Seeley, 8vo, (pp. 251.) 1840.

THE object of this elaborate work, as it is announced on the title page, is to prove that the very principle of exposition adopted by the Divines of the Roman Church, and which is suicidally maintained by Dr. Wiseman, is fatal to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. With these are associated remarks on Dr. Wiseman's lectures on the principal doctrines and practices of the (Roman) Catholic Church. Mr. Faber has dedicated his work to the very Rev. Dr. Turton, dean of Peterborough, and Regius professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, who had also attacked Dr. Wiseman's Lectures in his admirable work on the Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist. There is an introduction of most important matter, extending to an hundred and thirty-five pages; and the notes throughout the book are most copious and valuable. Mr. Faber's object, both in the Introduction and in the Book itself, is to refute Dr. Wiseman's arguments in favour of the peculiar dogmas of popery, but more particularly of the distinguishing tenet of Transubstantiation. This he has done most successfully, and, strange as it may seem, he has enlisted Dr. Wiseman himself amongst the number of his anti-transubstantial authorities. Or, in other words, he has shown that Dr. Wiseman has, in his Lectures for the support of that unnatural dogma, completely exposed its absurdity, and established an opposite doctrine. But it would be somewhat refreshing if the Council of Trent itself were pressed into the same position of disproving the doctrine which is the peculiar badge of Romanism, and which cuts that church off from the communion of the whole church Catholic. The Tridentine evidence, which has been providentially given and preserved, against Transubstantiation, is given by Mr. Hales, in his analysis, where he says:—

"The Greek participles ****, though in the present time are to be undertood in the future, according to the frequent usage of the Evangelists and the best classic authors. The propriety of this reasoning is confirmed by the Romish Antwerp Mis

sal of 1626 published according to the decree of the Council of Trent, by command of Pius V., and revised by Authority of Clement VIII., which thus renders the words of consecration of the elements into Latin.

"Hoc est enim corpus meum et hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi [et æterni] testamenti [mysterium fidei] qui pro vobis et pro multis, effundetur, in remissionem peccatorum.

"Here the expression qui effundetur, which shall be shed, critically renders the Greek of St. Paul, To εкxvvoμεvov, incorrectly in our English Bible 'which is

shed.'

"This authority, the very highest in the church of Rome, is decisive against the monstrous tenet of Transubstantiation, or change of the elements into the substance' of the body and blood of Christ, by the priest in the sacrifice of the mass, by virtue of the words of consecration. For surely these words, uttered by the priest, can signify no more than when uttered by Christ: and He evidently alluded to the approaching sacrifice of himself on the cross: on which his body was to be broken or pierced, and his blood shed by the nails and by the spear.

"Her sacrament of the mass is also contrary to Scripture and to primitive usage, in withholding the cup from the laity, which she inconsistently grants to the priest. This innovation, introduced by the Council of Constance and sanctioned by the Council of TRENT, was early censured by Pope Leo, in 440, as a deviation from primitive usage, borrowed from the Manichæan heretics!' And by Pope Gelasius, in 492, who prohibited it as a 'sacrilegious communion,' violating our Lord's positive command, drink ye all of it;' and he thus well explained the true nature and design of the institution. The sacraments of the body and blood of Christ are a divine thing, because by them we become partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet., i., 4), and yet the substance of bread and wine does not cease to exist: and the image and resemblance of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in holy mysteries.' De duabus naturis Christi.

"N.B. The Antwerp Missal, by the explanatory clause mysterium fidei, like Pope Gelasius, evidently considered the mysterious words of consecration to be meant figuratively; as they were also understood by the primitive fathers of the church, especially Origen and Augustine, the latter the oracle of the Romish Church ?”. Vol. III. Note, pp. 184, 185.

To serve the cause of Rome, Dr. Wiseman divides our Saviour's discourse at Capernaum into two; the first part of which, according to his plan, ends at the end of the 47th verse. The first portion he admits inculcates the necessity of faith in Christ, whereas he maintains that the second part which succeeds that verse exclusively teaches and determinately enforces the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Mr. Faber on the contrary clearly proves" that neither in the form of its general structure, nor yet in any special exclusiveness in the management of its phraseology, can I discover the least warrant for a division." The discourse at Capernaum is more a dialogue or conversation than a sermon like that on the mount; for it was frequently broken by the remarks of his hearers. The whole of Christ's discourse at Capernaum treats of only one subject; and the language of the latter part of it, where the words flesh and blood are introduced, are explanatory of the first part, where bread is spoken of. Those who are so deluded as to believe, or at least to maintain the transubstantial doctrine, for it is difficult to suppose that educated men can believe it, are compelled to resort to many unnatural shifts in order to preserve their consistency. In the sermon at Capernaum, our Lord is not treating of the sacrament, nor of the sacramental eating and drinking of his body and blood; for it had not at that time, nor for at least one year afterwards, been instituted. Neither could his hearers understand that he alluded to an institution which was not only not then in existence, but to which he had never alluded in any of his discourses. The sin of the

Roman church is of the same nature as that of the Capernaites, to wit, wilful infidelity, and a wilful misunderstanding of our Saviour's words; in obstinately maintaining, against reason and revelation, that our Lord spoke of eating and drinking his material flesh and blood. How was it possible for Adam and all the faithful from his day to that day on which our Lord delivered this discourse, to eat his material flesh and drink his blood before he himself was incarnate; and yet we have his infallible assurance that they did eat and drink his body and blood, and are in consequence saved? Their eating, was entirely spiritual. They believed that Christ should come to be the propitiation for the sins of all men. In this faith they wrought righteousness, and obtained promises, of whom the world was not worthy; and, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us. And they without us should not be made perfect, which shows that it was the same faith that actuated them which now emboldens us, and, therefore, their eating and drinking, as well as ours, as here inculcated by Christ, were acts of faith. The old fathers did not look merely for transitory promises; for both in the old and the new Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only mediator between God and Man. The following is Mr. Faber's brief summary of the entire discourse.' "From the eating of the miraculously multiplied loaves, our Lord takes occasion to exhort the Capernaites to labour, not for the bread which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, and which he himself had the power of giving them and from their allegation that their fathers in the desert did eat bread from heaven, he remarks, that the true bread from heaven, or the real spiritually nutritious bread of God, is He who comes down from heaven, and gives life unto the world. When they beseech him ever-more to give them this bread, he then declares explicitly: I am the bread of life; he that COMETH to me shall never hunger, and he that BELIEVETH on me shall never thirst. This declaration, however, I am the bread which came down from heaven, causes forthwith a murmuring among the Jews; and, then, Jesus, while he checks their murmnring, and while he repeats that he is that bread of life which cometh down from heaven, and which confers immortality upon the eaters of it, adds, in explanation:The bread that I give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Such language produces still more dissatisfaction: how can this man give us his flesh to eat? Upon this, our Lord, advancing in his explanation, as he had before declared the bread to be his flesh, now states more largely: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you; subjoining, as if to prevent all mistake in the matter of application; this Person is the bread which came down from heaven.

"On the whole, it strikes upon my own apprehension, as most abundantly clear: that the alleged division in the discourse, wherever it may be made, is a groundless fiction; and that, instead of two distinct subjects being treated of in two distinct parts of the discourse, one and the same subject, that of feeding upon Christ the true bread from heaven, or that of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which jointly constitute himself, who is the true bread, and which, therefore, are identical with the true bread, is alone discussed and enforced.

66

Hence, the plain result is, that precisely as we interpret the true bread, so likewise must we interpret the flesh and blood; and, that, precisely as we interpret the eating of the true bread, so likewise must we interpret the ea ing of the flesh and the drinking of the blood. In other words, whatever interpretation we adopt, down to the first mention of the flesh and the blood, that same interpretation we are bound to carry on to the end of the discourse." - pp. 33-35.

Dr. Wiseman, in his Lectures on the "Doctrines and Practices of the (Roman) Catholic Church," shows a strong propensity to the commission of theological suicide, of which Mr. Faber has given several

instances. Dr. Wiseman admits the metaphor, that the Rock was Christ, and explains the expression to his hearers, that "The Rock symbolized a spiritual rock, even Christ, who is metaphorically a Rock to his Church;" and, to escape the dilemma into which such an admission in consequence brings him, he denies the application of the word this to the bread and the wine, when our Lord spoke the words of institution. Dr. Wiseman's words are, as cited by Mr. Faber,

"He (Christ) says 'THIS is my body, and THIS is my blood. The THIS is nothing but the body and blood. It represents nothing, it means nothing, till identified at the close of the sentence, with the substances named. This is even more marked in the original Greek than in our language, because the distinction of genders shows clearly that the bread is not indicated, but only a VAGUE SOMETHING to be determined by the remainder of the sentence."

Dr. Wiseman will surely not maintain that a neuter pronoun will agree with a masculine noun; but he does, upon which Mr. Faber justly remarks:

"The strictly proper grammatical translation of our Lord's two expressions according to the Greek idiom, will run this THING is my body, and this THING is my blood. Dr. Wiseman assures us that in each case the THIS, the TOUTо, the THIS THING represents nothing, means nothing, till identified at the close of the sentence with the substances named. We, on the contrary, say that the THIS, the rouro, the THIS THING refers severally to, and, therefore, severally means the already mentioned bread and wine, respecting which, according to our apprehension, Christ was plainly speaking."- pp. 51-54.

In this exercise of his private judgment Dr. Wiseman is directly at issue with the Council of Trent, which peremptorily affirms that the THIS does not indisputably refer to the bread and wine, and that the whole substance of the bread is converted into the body of Christ, &c.; whereas he asserts that the twice repeated this represents nothing, means nothing, and does not refer to the bread and the wine at all. We shall leave the learned doctor and the Inquisition to settle the difference in their own way; only we reckon it would be a dangerous experiment for a less eminent man to attempt. Here again we cite the words of Mr. Faber in a note:

"The learned lecturer pronounces that when Our Lord twice said THIS, or THIS THING, he did not mean the bread which, with the words, Take, eut, he had just broken, and the cup of wine which, with the words, Drink ye all of it, he had just given; but only a vague something, or rather, in absolute correctness, only two vague somethings, altogether distinct from the bread and wine, which, two vague somethings, lightly floating like down in Dr. Wiseman's rhetorical atmosphere, could not be ascertained as to what they were, until the close of each sentence, when we learn for the first time that they are the literal body and blood of the Saviour.

"Certainly, according to what Dr. Wiseman calls the philosophy of language, the whole of this, under whatever aspect it be viewed, seems, to the uninitiated at least, not a little paradoxical.

"So far as I can judge, the Council (of Trent) directly contradicts Dr. Wiseman: or, if we like better so to phrase it, Dr. Wiseman directly contradicts the council. For the council indisputably refers the twice repeated THIS to the bread and the wine; which, while Our Lord, or in all future times, his vicarious sacrificing priest is speaking, it declares to be transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. But Dr. Wiseman says, that it represents NOTHING and means NOTHING, until we reach the end of the sentence, when we learn, for the first time, that it means ONLY the body and the blood." pp. 54-55, Note.

VOL. III.

G

Mr. Faber has shown by a multitude of quotations from the Fathers, headed by St. Paul, that the THIS in our Saviour's words of institution refers solely to the bread and the wine which he held in his hand. He begins with those of St. Paul, who says, as often as ye eat THIS BREAD and drink THIS CUP, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore, whosever shall eat THIS BREAD, and drink THIS CUP of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself: and so let him eat of THE BREAD and drink of After citing the Fathers he sums up the whole :

THE CUP.

"With one voice the ancients declare: that Our Saviour's THIS refers severally to the bread and wine, and, therefore MEANS severally the bread and wine, which, immediately before the use of the relative THIS, had been introduced and mentioned.

"Dr. Wiseman, however, lays it down as a matter of universal knowledge; that two material objects cannot be identical: whence he rightly infers that such expressions, as the rock was Christ, must inevitably be interpreted either symbolically or quasi symbolically. But, then, at the same time, as if conscious how this concession would be turned against himself in the matter of our Lord's eucharistic language, he would warily parry the anticipated attack by a most extraordinary exercise of his own mere insulated private judgment: for, as it seems, purely on the strength of that private judgment, and without producing any evidence, as to its correctness, he roundly declares, that 'THIS represents nothing, and means nothing, being simply a vague something, until identified, at the end of the sentence, with the substances there

named.'

"Now, most unluckily this gloss of our learned lecturer's own insulated private judgment is flatly contradicted by the unvarying voice of the Catholic Church, instructed by St. Paul. For that voice, thus instructed, determines that the THIS relates severally to the bread and wine, and, therefore, MEANS severally the bread and wine, already mentioned.

"Thus, the final result is: that, in the question of Transubstantiation, Dr. Wiseman has committed a theological suicide. For, if the principle which he lays down as a matter of universal knowledge be true, namely, that 'two material objects cannot be identical:' then, his cherished doctrine of transubstantiation must, by his own showing, BE FALSE."-pp. 60, 61.

Dr. Wiseman admits that the first part of the discourse at Capernaum is figurative, and which, by a necessary consequence, requires the figurative interpretation of Christ's eucharistic words: "That is to say, the figurative interpretation of the earlier part of the discourse at Capernaum is absolutely fatal to the modern Romish doctrine of transubstantiation: and the blow has been inflicted by the suicidal hand of Dr. Wiseman himself!" Mr. Faber's book will take its place among the standard works of controversial divinity, and ought to be in the hands of every student who wishes to know the whole bearings of the subject which is the distinguishing tenet of the corrupted church of Rome. Those especially who have read Dr. Wiseman's lectures, ought to study this able dissection of them as an antidote against the false reasoning and sophistry of the greatest champion of the Roman schism in England, who has volunteered his assistance towards the demolition of the most cherished tenet of the papal system.

11 Cor., xi. 26-28.

« AnteriorContinuar »