Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

sacrifice of the Mass; for if he had, how natural would it have been for him to have exhorted Mellitus to inform the Heathens that there was a belter sacrifice which ought to take place of the other. Happy would it have been had this been all; for by proceeding in a similar manner, before and after him, by yielding to the prejudices of the Heathens, it came to pass that image-worship, and the horrible omission of the second commandment, according to our division (or latter part of the first, according to another division of the ten commandments), in order to favour image-worship, and the greatest part of the Heathen ceremonial, were sanctioned, after the year of our Lord 300, by the Christian church.

When the Mass came to be termed a sacrifice, the Romans would, according to the Heathen idea, term him who brought the sacrifice to the altar, Popa; and the Popes, not well pleased with the name, though not able to sink it entirely, prefer that of Papa. The former was probably used by the Gentiles, and the latter by the Christians, in opposition to them.

As to transubstantiation, Tertullian and Arnobius prove, decidedly, that it was not the doctrine of the African or Latin church in their time.

Let us hear Tertullian. *"Christ," says he," when he took the bread and distributed it to his disciples,

* Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum fecit," (Christus) "Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei."-Tert. adv. Marcionem, lib. 4.

G

mnade it his body, by saying This is my body, that is, the REPRESENTATION of my body."

Let us also hear Arnobius. *"Do the gods dwell

* In simulachris Dii habitant: singuline in singulis? Toti an partiliter, atque in membra divisi? Nam neque unus Deus in compluribus potest, uno tempore, inesse simulachris, neque rursus in partes, sectione interveniente, divisus.—Arnobius adversus Gentes, lib. 5.

Were this a controversial work on the subject, it would not be difficult to adduce many authorities. But as those referred to concern only the Latin Fathers, it may not be improper to add one or two from the Greek Fathers, to shew that they also held the same doctrine in the primitive ages.

Justin Martyr, who cannot be accused of an aversion to a literal interpretation, speaks thus of the elements of the sacrament after they had been consecrated, Διδουσιν εκατω των παρόντων μεταλαβειν απο του ευχαριτηθενος αρίου, και οινου, καὶ ὑδαλος. They give to each present of the BREAD, and WINE, and WATER, that HAS BEEN CONSECRATED; and that he considers them as unchanged in their substance is evident from the observation that follows. Ου γαρ ως κοινον άξιον, ουδε κοινον πομα λαμβανομεν. We do not receive them as

COMMON BREAD or a COMMON DRINK.

Here they are still bread, and wine, and water. He then adds, "but when it has been blessed, we have been taught that this food, εξ ἧς αιμα και σάρκες δια μεταβολην τρεφονται ήμων, by THE DIGESTION WHEREOF our blood and flesh are nourished, are the body and blood of Jesus, who was made flesh."-Apol. 2d.

In this there is no more than what the Protestant acknowledges; the elements of bread and wine in themselves are spoken of as unchanged; and accordingly, Clement of Alexandria, speaking of the sacrament, says more expressly, Το δε αιμα οινος αλληγορείται, (Pædag. lib. 1.) The word wine is ALLEGORICALLY used for blood.

I will add but one instance more, as it will prove that this was the doctrine of the Greek church to the middle of the fifth century. Ουδε μελα τον αγιασμον τα μυσικα συμβολα της οικείας εξιταλαι φυσεως, μενει γαρ επι της προτερας ουσίας, και του σχηματος, και της Neither do the mystic symbols lose their proper nature,

ουσίας.

in images, one in each; or by piecemeal, and divided into portions? For ONE, though even a god, cannot be at one time in several images or representations, neither partially, by division." But the council of Trent declares an anathema, in direct opposition to the doctrine of both these Fathers.

*"If any one affirms that the body and blood, together with the human soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore Christ entire, is not truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy eucharist, but that he is in it only in sign, figure, or virtually so; let him be anathema."

To avoid mistakes upon the subject, it is necessary to subjoin the third Canon of the same session also.

+ "If any one shall deny that, in the venerable sacrament of the eucharist, Christ entire is contained under each species, and under the several parts of each species after they have been divided, let him be anathema."

Here then the church of Rome of the sixteenth is

for they remain in their former substance, and form of the substance. Theodoret, Dial. 2d.

* Si quis negaverit, in sanctissimæ eucharistiæ sacramento, contineri vere, realiter, et substantialiter, corpus et sanguinem, uná cum animâ et divinitaté Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ac proinde totum Christum; sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo in signo vel figurâ aut virtute, anathema sit.-Sessio 13. Can. 1.

Si quis negaverit, in venerabili sacramento eucharistiæ, sub unâquaque specie et sub singulis cujusque speciei partibus, separatione factâ TOTUM CHRISTUM contineri: anathema sit.Sessio 13. Can. 3,

fairly at issue with the church of Rome of the third century, and the council of Trent with Tertullian and Arnobius. Nor are they less so with the Scriptures, which declare the institution to be in remembrance; from whence it necessarily follows, that our blessed Saviour is NOT personally present in his bodily form.

For the present purpose it is sufficient to show that the church of Rome now holds doctrines that are absolutely inconsistent with those which the church of Rome held in the third century; that the same appellation has been made, to signify churches of a widely different description; and that the Latin Fathers themselves justify the departure from error, of whatever standing it be, or from whomsoever it may have been received.

The idea of transubstantiation clearly originated -in Heathenism. It runs through its mythology from Deucalion to Julius Cæsar; and, to say the truth, the strongest authority for it is in Ovid's *Books of Transubstantiations. Nor could it be otherwise supposed to have been derived from Scripture, than in consequence of the application of Heathen ideas to an Hebrew idiomatic expression, by those, who were not only ignorant of the Hebrew language, but careless of an idiom sufficiently evident, even in translations, as such, and determined to wrest a sense conformable to their prejudices. The doctrine, at first conceived obscurely, then debated openly, was at length confirmed decidedly as that of the Romish church by Innocent III. the Pope who declared Magna Charta null and void.

* Better known by the name of Metamorphoses.

The Protestants, with the Latin Fathers Arnobius, Lactantius, and others, and with the primitive Greek church, upon the authority of Scripture, deny that the consecrated elements of the eucharist are the real body and blood of Christ; and therefore, according to their denial of it, the worship of the elements is, to all intents and purposes, a worship truly idolatrous* The error of those who believe the elements to be transubstantiated, does not make the error less. This was precisely the error of the Israelites in the worshipping of the golden calf. Though they made use of a form which they had seen worshipped in Egypt, they did not worship the image as that of an Egyptian god, but as denoting the presence of the God that brought them out of Egypt, and as believing it to be so. Whether such a mode of denoting it be under the appearance of a calf, or of a piece of bread, does not in the least alter the nature of the error itself; and therefore to worship any visible representation, which is not God, as God, or to reverence, or bow down, to any representation, the work of men's hands, is the very essence of idolatry, or there never existed an idolatrous worship among the Heathens; for, even amongst them, none, except

*The second commandment, (or, as they divide the decalogue, the latter part of the first, which is not generally known to Roman Catholics,) decisively condemns the reverence paid to images or pictures; it may not therefore be amiss to subjoin its accurate interpretation here, which is, "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, or any likeness of any thing which is in the heavens above or the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth; thou shalt not bow thyself to them, nor do them reverence.—Exodus chap. xx. v. 4, 5.

« PreviousContinue »