attached to some sect, yet in reality belong to the soul of the true church. Many belong merely to the body of the Catholic Church, and are counted, as its members, but do not belong to its soul. So says Archbishop Lynch, of Toronto and Pius IX extended the doctrine of Invincible Ignorance so as to cover the case of every dissentient from the church whose life shows faith working by love.

Adoration of the Host (Latin hostia, victim) is a regular part of the service of the Mass. If the Romanist view were correct that the bread and wine were actually changed into the body and blood of Christ, we could not call this worship idolatry. Christ?s body in the sepulchre could not have been a proper object of worship, but it was so after his resurrection, when it became animated with a new and divine life. The Romanist error is that of holding that the priest has power to transform the elements; the worship of them follows as a natural consequence, and is none the less idolatrous for being based upon the false assumption that the bread and wine are really Christ?s body and blood.

The Roman Catholic system involves many absurdities but the central absurdity is that of making religion a matter of machinery and outward manipulation. Dr. R. S. MacArthur calls sacramentalism ?the pipe line conception of grace.? There is no patent Romanist plumbing. Dean Stanley said that John Henry Newman ?made immortality the consequence of frequent participation of the Holy Communion.? Even Faber made game of the notion and declared that it ?degraded celebrations to be so many breadfruit trees.? It is this transformation of the Lord?s Supper into the Mass that turns the church into ?the Church of the Intonement.? ?Cardinal Gibbons,? it was once said, ?makes his own God ? the wafer.? His error is at the root of the super-sanctity and celibacy of the Romanist clergy and President Garrett forgot this when he made out the pass on his railway for ?Cardinal Gibbons and wife.? Dr. C. H. Parkhurst: ?There is no more place for an altar in a Christian church than there is for a golden calf.? On the word ?priest? in the N. T., see Gardiner, in O. T. Student, Nov. 1889:285-291; also Bowen, in Theol. Monthly, Nov. 1889:316-329. For the Romanist view, see Council of Trent, session XIII. Canon III: per contra, see Calvin, Institutes, 2:585- 602; C. Hebert, The Lord?s Supper: History of Uninspired Teaching.

B. The Lutheran and High Church view, that the communicant, in partaking of the consecrated elements, eats the veritable body and drinks the veritable blood of Christ in and with the bread and wine, although the elements themselves do not cease to be material. To this doctrine of ?con- substantiation? we object:

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment