Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER V.

Of the Consecration of the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Holy Communion.

[ocr errors]

THE first thing we have to take notice of in the Sacramental service is the consecration of the elements: Jesus took bread and blessed it. The cup of blessing which we bless t,' &c. Here the points to be inquired into are:

[ocr errors]

1. Whether the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist are really blessed, consecrated, sanctified, and in what sense. 2. Supposing they are blessed, &c., by whom or how they are so. 3. What the blessing or consecration amounts to.

1. The first inquiry is, whether the elements may be justly said to be blessed or consecrated: for this is a point which I find disputed by some; not many, nor very considerable. Smalcius, a warm man, and who seldom knew any bounds, seems to have been of opinion, that no proper, no sacerdotal benediction at all belonged to the bread and cup before receiving, nor indeed after; but that the communicants, upon receiving the elements, gave praise to God, and that was all the benediction which St. Paul speaks of ". So he denies that any benediction at all passed to the elements. And he asserts besides, that whatever benediction there was, it was not so much from the administrator, or officiating minister, as from the communicants themselves: for which he has a weak pretence from St. Paul's words, 'we bless,' that is, says he, we communicants do it. Thus far Smalcius. But the cooler and wiser Socinians go not these lengths. Crellius expressly allows, that a benediction is conferred upon the cup, as it is sanctified by thanksgiving,

Matt. xxvi. 26. t I Cor. x. 16. Notandum insuper est, verba Pauli, "calix benedictionis," non significare calicem benedictum (ut Frantzius, una cum Pontificiis, aliquid divinum sibi et suis hac

re arrogantibus, interpretatur) sed calicem quo sumpto benedicimus: mox enim additur, "quem benedicimus," nempe omnes qui ad mensam Domini accedimus.' Valent. Smal. contr. Frantz. p. 331.

and made a kind of libation unto God. He goes further, and distinguishes sacramental consecration from that of common meals, as amounting to a sanctification of the elements

for high and sacred purposes y. The Racovian Catechism

allows also of a sanctification of the elements, made by prayer and thanksgiving 2. Wolzogenius, afterwards, seems to waver and fluctuate between inclination and reason, and scarce knows where to fix; sometimes admitting a consecration of the elements, and soon after resolving all into bare giving of thanks to Goda. I suppose all his hesitancy was owing to his not understanding the notion of relative holiness, (which he might have admitted, as Crellius did, consistently with his other principles,) or to some apprehension he was under, lest the admitting of a real sanctification should infer some secret operation of the Holy Ghost. However, to make Scripture bend to any preconceived opinions is not treating sacred Writ with the reverence which belongs to it. St. Paul is express, that the cup, meaning the wine, is blessed, or sanctified, in the Eucharist: and if the wine be really sanctified in that solemn service, no man of tolerable capacity can make any question as to the bread, whether that be not sanctified also.

Benedictio autem ista refertur primum ad Deum et Christum, et in gratiarum actione (unde etiam hic ritus antiquitus Eucharistiae nomen obtinuit) consistit: sed simul etiam transit ad calicem, quatenus divini nominis benedictione et gratiarum actione sanctificatur calix iste, et sic Domino quodammodo libatur.' Crellius in 1 Cor. x. 16. Opp. tom. ii. 306.

Non tantum eam gratiarum actionem, quae etiam in vulgari ciborum et potus usu adhibetur, intelligi arbitramur, qua scilicet gratiae aguntur pro poculo isto; sed maxime eam qua gratiae aguntur pro Christi fuso pro nobis

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

It is of small moment to plead that εὐχαριστεῖν and εὐλογεῖν are often used promiscuously, and that the former properly signifies giving thanks, and that bread and wine (for thus do some trifle) cannot be thanked: for since the words are often used promiscuously, and since evλoyev is taken transitively in this very case by the Apostle b, it is next to self-evident that evɣapioreiv, so far as concerns this matter, cannot be taken in a sense exclusive of that transitive signification of evλoyer: for to do that is flatly to contradict the Apostle. No doubt but either of the words may (as circumstances happen) signify no more than thanking or praising God; but here it is manifest, that, in this rite, both God is praised and the elements blessed: yea both are done at the same time, and in the self-same act; and the Apostle's authority, without anything more, abundantly proves it. If the reader desires anything further, in so plain a case, he may please to consult three very able judges of Biblical language, or of Greek phrases; Buxtorf I mean, and Vorstius, and Casaubon, who have clearly and fully settled the true meaning of exaριστεῖν and εὐλογεῖν, both in the general, and with respect to this particular case: I shall refer to the two first of them, and shall cite a few words from the third d. But to cut off all pretence drawn from the strict sense of exapioтeîv, as importing barely thanksgiving unto God, it may be observed, that that word also is often used transitively, as well as

b 1 Cor. x. 16. Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὁ εὐλογοῦμεν.

Buxtorf. de Coena Domini, p. 311. Cp. Bucher. Antiq. Evangel. p. 369. Johan. Vorstius de Hebraisin. N. T. part. i. p. 166, &c.

d'Evangelistae et Apostolus Paulus... duobus verbis promiscue utuntur, ad declarandam Domini actionem, evλoyeiv, et εὐχαριστεῖν . utraque vox a parte una, totam Domini actionem designat: nam Christus in eodem actu, et Deum Patrem laudavit, et gratias ei egit, et hoc amplius

[blocks in formation]

evλoyev, and then it imports or includes benediction: so far from truth is it, that it must necessarily exclude it. I may further add, that the benedictions used in the paschal solemnity may be an useful comment upon the benediction in the Eucharist. There the laying hand upon the bread, and the taking up the cup, were significant intimations of a blessing transferred to the bread and wine, in virtue of the thanksgiving service at the same time performed. And by the way, from hence may be understood what St. Chrysostom observes upon 1 Cor. x. 16, 'The cup of blessing which we bless,' &c., on which he thus comments: 'He called it the cup of blessing, because while we hold it in our hands, we send up our hymns of praise to God, struck with admiration and astonishment at the ineffable gift,' &c. That circumstance of holding the thing in hand while the prayers or praises were offering, was supposed to signify the derivation of a benediction, or consecration upon it. It is not material to dispute, whether the consecration formerly was performed. by thanksgiving, or by prayer, or by both together the forms might differ in different churches, or at different times. But the point which we are now considering is, whether a benediction is really conveyed to the elements in this service, and whether they are really sanctified, or made holy. That they are so, is plain from the testimony of St. Paul before recited.

word, some have contrived, not improperly, the English word eucharistize, importing thanksgiving towards God, but so as at the same time to express the benediction imparted to the elements in the same act.

See above, chap. ii. p. 43.

• Ποτήριον δὲ εὐλογίας ἐκάλεσεν, ἐπειδὰν αὐτὸ μετὰ χεῖρας ἔχοντες, οὕτως αὐτὸν ἀνυμνοῦμεν, θαυμάζοντες, ἐκπληττόμενοι τῆς ἀφάτου δωρεᾶς. κ.τ.λ.

Note, though Chrysostom here makes mention of hymns only, in

:

accounting for the name of eulogy, or blessing, yet he did not mean that hymns only were used at that time in consecrating, for he elsewhere plainly speaks of prayer besides, prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost. "Οταν δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον κάλῃ, καὶ τὴν φρικωδεστάτην ἐπιτελῇ θυσίαν, καὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ πάντων συνεχῶς ἐφάπτηται δεσπότου, ποῦ τάξομεν αὐτόν, εἰπέ μοι ; De Sacerdot. lib. vi. c. 4. p. 424. ed. Bened. Compare Theophyl. on John vi., who speaks as fully to the same purpose.

2. As to Smalcius's pretence, before mentioned, concerning the benediction of the communicants, after their receiving the elements, it is a groundless fiction, and a violent perverting of the plain meaning of the text. In the paschal service, the benediction was performed by the master of the feast, (not by the whole company,) and before distribution : so was it likewise in the institution of this sacrament by our Lord. And all antiquity is consonant, that a sacerdotal blessing was previous to the delivering the sacred symbols h, made sacred by that benediction. And this is confirmed from hence, (as before hinted,) that an unworthy communicant is guilty of profane irreverence; viz. towards what is supposed holy, before he receives it. As to St. Paul's expression, we bless, it means no more than if he had said, we Christians bless, meaning, by the proper officers. To strain a common idiom of speech to the utmost rigour is not right: it might as well be pleaded, that St. Paul must be present in person at every consecration; for ordinarily, when a man says we, he includes himself in the number. It must be owned, that it depends upon the disposition of every communicant, to render the previous consecration either salutary or noxious to himself and if any man has a mind to call a worthy reception of the elements, a consecration of them to himself, a secondary consecration, he may i; for it would not be worth while to hold a dispute about words. But strictly speaking, it is not within the power or choice of a communicaut, either to consecrate or to desecrate the symbols, to make the sacrament a common meal, or otherwise: it is a religious

Η Εὐχαριστήσαντος δὲ τοῦ προεστῶτος, καὶ ἐπευφημήσαντος παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, οἱ καλούμενοι παρ' ἡμῖν διάκονοι διδόασιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν παρόντων μεταλαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐχαριστηθέντος ἄρτου, καὶ οἴνου, καὶ ὕδατος. Justin Mart. p. 96. See Archbishop Potter on Church Government, p. 262, &c.

'Igitur non sacrificia sanctifi

cant hominem, non enim indiget sacrificio Deus: sed conscientia ejus qui offert, sanctificat sacrificium, pura existens,' &c. Iren. lib. iv. c. 18, p. 250.

N.B. Here, sanctifying means rendering salutary: not that that alone does it, but it is a condition sine qua non.

« PreviousContinue »