Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

APPENDIX

ON

THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF

TRANSUBSTANTIATION

NOTE.

As the circumstances which produced the following pages were somewhat remarkable, a succinct account of them may not be unacceptable to the reader. In the summer of 1775, two worthy Edinburgh citizens, non-juring Episcopalians, having had religious doubts excited in their minds, turned their attention to examine the faith of their forefathers. Desiring to obtain reliable information, they addressed themselves to Dr Hay; while, at the same time, they communicated the result of their interviews with him to their own clergyman, the Rev. Mr (afterwards Bishop) Abernethy Drummond. This excited the zeal, and called forth all the controversial energies of that gentleman. He not only discussed various points verbally, but he drew up in writing a series of difficulties and objections to Catholic doctrine. In particular, he took great credit to himself for what he considered his unanswerable argument against transubstantiation, and, in the fulness of his confidence, he called upon Dr Hay, and challenged him to put in print all that he could say in defence of it, promising to prepare and publish a reply. Dr Hay, in consequence, wrote his Appendix, to explain the doctrine itself, and to expose the sophistry of the arguments used against it.

Mr Abernethy Drummond did indeed publish his promised reply; but, whatever weight it may have had with the public generally, it had evidently no effect upon the two members of his congregation with whom the controversy had originated, for they were both received into the Catholic Church by Dr Hay.

EDITOR.

ST MARY'S, EDINBURGH,

June 2, 1873.

APPENDIX,

BY WAY OF DIALOGUE:

IN WHICH THE AUTHORITY OF MIRACLES, IN PROOF OF DOCTRINE, IS FURTHER EXAMINED AND ILLUSTRATED BY A PARTICULAR EXAMPLE, THAT OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, WHICH, AS IT INVOLVES MANY DIFFICULTIES BOTH FROM SENSE AND REASON, SEEMS TO BE THE MOST PROPER FOR SUCH EXAMINATION.

Orth.

Orthodoxus. Philaretes.

OOD morning, Philaretes. Why so early a visit from you to-day? I hope all is well. Phil. All is well, thank God; but I have come to ask your opinion of a recent discussion between your friend Eusebius and Benevolus, concerning transubstantiation; have you heard of it?

Orth. I have; and think Benevolus must have been in great excitement when he expressed himself in such an unguarded manner, if what is reported of him be

correct.

Phil. You mean, I suppose, when he said that he would not believe transubstantiation though Eusebius should work a miracle, even though he should raise a man from the dead to prove it.

Orth. I do.

Phil. Well, sir, he not only said so in the heat of discussion, but he has since repeated the same after reflection; nay, he has affirmed it under his hand, in some letters that have passed between him and Eusebius. Indeed, so confident is he of being in the right, that he affirms he is able to defend that proposition before a general council, and that he feels as certain that Eusebius is in the wrong in objecting to it, as he is certain that the Word of God is true.

Orth. Boldly said, indeed; but, pray, does he pretend to bring any proof for that assertion? Does he allege anything from the Word of God in defence of it?

Phil. He does, I assure you. I have jotted down his arguments, and have come here this morning to have your opinion on the subject, as I wish thoroughly to understand it.

Orth. You are always welcome, and never more so than when you come on such business; for it affords me great pleasure to give you all the assistance in my power, especially on the important subject of religion.

Phil. I am much obliged by your kindness, which I have already experienced, and of which I shall always preserve a grateful remembrance. And now, let me know first what you think of the above proposition itself, and then I shall state the arguments brought by Benevolus in defence of it.

Orth. Very little knowledge of theology is required to see that the proposition is highly blamable and deserving of censure; and I am not surprised that several well meaning Christians are pained by it. The very sound of it is offensive to pious ears; and no wonder -for it involves a supposition nearly bordering upon blasphemy, if it be not really such.

Phil. That it sounds harshly, I admit, but to me it

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »