Page images
PDF
EPUB

In one place of his writings, Dr. Wiseman states that the division of the Discourse at the end of the forty-seventh verse, rather than its division at the end of the fiftieth verse, will materially advance the strength of his arguments

[ocr errors]

SUBSTANCE in the one case, while he sophistically introduced the explanatory word FIGURE in the other case, he would fain make it appear, that the Romanist is all evangelical humility, and that the Reformed is all unbelieving arrogance,

:

In equity, let the explanatory words, in each case alike, be either equally introduced or equally suppressed and then, what Dr. Wiseman is very unwilling to allow, the parties will meet upon fair terms.

If the Romanist be ready to put in his reply, to Christ's declaration; I believe it to be thy body; the Reformed is just as ready to put in his reply; I believe it to be thy blood.

It is only when the Romanist, as in the Quarto-Lateran and Tridentine Councils, thinks fit to state, in the way of explanation; I believe it to be SUBSTANCE of thy body that the Reformed, with the witnessing sanction of the Early Catholic Church, deems it right to propound the explanatory counterstatement; I believe it to be the FIGURE of thy blood.

III. I have been the more copious on this matter, not from any doubt that the ingenious Lecturer was perfectly aware of his own sophistry as well as of the use of the word FIGURE by the Early Church Catholic, but because the mixture of suppression of the truth with apparent candour of statement is very cleverly calculated to mislead the theologically ignorant and the dialectically unpractised. Of course, persons differently circumstanced would be in no danger from any part of the preceding argument of Dr. Wiseman.

* I subjoin the Lecturer's own words, that there may be no charge of unfairness.

Yet, in another place he tells us that, although satisfied as to the propriety of his own arrangement of the division, such arrangement is itself immaterial, inasmuch as it makes no difference whether we place the point of division a verse earlier or later *.

How these two conflicting statements, as to the quality of material and the opposite quality of immaterial, are to be reconciled, I pretend not to determine. The position taken up in the latter of them, whatever becomes of that taken up in the former of them, is most abundantly true: for, sure enough, let him place the point of an imaginary division where he pleases, it will make no difference as to the tenability of his interpretation.

It will appear from what I have said, that I am not satisfied with the transition being placed, as it usually is, at the fiftyfirst verse. Before closing this lecture, therefore, it is proper that I clear up this point: the more so, as the determination of such a transition MUST MATERIALLY ADVANCE the strength of the arguments which I shall bring forward at our next meeting, Lect. on the Euchar. lect. i. p. 40, 41.

* I again subjoin Dr. Wiseman's own words.

I have no hesitation whatever in supposing, that the transition takes place in the forty-eighth, instead of the fifty-first verse where it is commonly placed. I need not enter upon my reasons, because IT IS IMMATERIAL: it makes no difference, whether we place it one verse earlier or later. Lect. on the principal doctrines of the Cathol. Church. lect. xiv. vol. ii. p. 142.

Perhaps I need scarcely say, that this singular discrepance in Dr. Wiseman's estimate of importance was not left unnoticed by his ever-watchful dissecter Dr. Turton.

In either case, the probate of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, from the alleged second section of the Discourse, will equally be destroyed by his own exposition (and a very good exposition it is) of the alleged first section. But, that the mode, in which the former of the two conflicting statements was made, was intended materially to advance the strength of his argument, is quite evident. The fixing of the point of division at the end of the forty-seventh verse would exclude, from the alleged first section, all express mention of EATING the bread from heaven: and would thus (as he perhaps, even then, somewhat too hastily imagined) enable him to note the remarkable reserve of our Lord's phraseology, in the circumstance, that, not once, through this section of the Discourse, does he use the expression to EAT even the bread of life or the spiritual food which came down from heaven *. It may seem indeed, as I have already hinted, rather strange and incomprehensible, that Christ, with remarkable reserve, should designedly inculcate the great benefit of an EATABLE which was not to be EATEN : but the supposed verbal possibility of asserting, that, in the first section, our Lord remarkably abstained from all mention of the EATING of the bread; a possibility, thought to be procured by placing the point of division at the end of the

* Lect. on the Euchar. lect. ii. p. 54.

forty-seventh verse, rather than at the end of the fiftieth verse in which the EATING of the bread with its beneficial result is distinctly even in so many words expressed; was plainly enough the matter, by which Dr. Wiseman had hoped most materially to advance the strength of his meditated argument.

Р

CHAPTER VIII.

A SUMMARY OF THE DOCTRINAL UTILITY OF
CHRIST'S DISCOURSE AT CAPERNAUM.

As, then, Christ's Discourse at Capernaum illustrates and establishes the true Doctrine of the Eucharist so likewise, through a train of reasoning similar to that which has been employed for such illustration and establishment, does it thence operate to subvert the false Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

I. It may be useful to point out the several steps by which we are conducted to this conclusion.

1. Our Lord insisted upon the absolute and essential necessity of Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood in order to eternal salvation, before, and not merely after, the Institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Clearly, therefore, this Eating and this Drinking constitute an action, which may be performed, because anterior to the Institution of that Sacrament it must have been performed, independently of the offering of the

« PreviousContinue »