Page images
PDF
EPUB

is said to drink the blood from the chalice. According, then, to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, there must be blood in what they call the unbloody sacrifice.”

We might go on to shew further, from the novelty of private masses, that there was no such doctrine believed in former times, as the Sacrifice of the Mass; because all the antient liturgies require both the priest and the people to be present, and both parties to receive the cup; but such a thing as a private mass," we never hear or read of; and Bellarmin says, that the only way he can possibly collect that there were private masses, is "ex conjecturâ," by conjecture."

66

66

"For, although we no where expressly read that Sacrifice was offered by the ancients, without the communion of any person or persons besides the priest, nevertheless, we can easily gather it from conjecture."-Bellarm. de

Mis. lib. 2. c. 9.

There is another argument that lies against this Sacrifice of the Mass. It is impossible for an individual to know whether there be any real Transubstantiation; and unless there be real Transubstantiation, there cannot be any sacrifice in the Mass. It appears, that there are very many essential requisites in order to constitute Transubstantiation; there are certain defects, which, if they occur, then there is no real or true conversion. In the Roman Missal we find, that

"There may be defects in the matter, the form, and the officiating priest."

The defects of the matter may result from many things:

"If the bread be not made of wheat, or if a quantity of any other grain be mixed with it; or, if it be any otherwise corrupted, then there is no Sacrament. If it be made with rose, or any distilled water, the consecration is doubtful.-If the wine be turned sour, or be made from sour or unsound grapes, there is no consecration."

How can a communicant know that there has not been some other grain mixed with the wheaten flour, of which the wafer is made? If there be, then there is no true conversion. How can any man tell, whether the grapes of which the wine is made, were ripe or not?

Another defect may arise from a diminution, or change in the words of consecration, part of which are muttered too low to be heard by those present. The third deficiency may be the result of want of INTENTION" on the part of the priest:

"If he do not INTEND to consecrate, but acts in a delusory manner; like

wise if any Hosts remain, through forgetfulness, on the altar, or any part of the wine, or any Host lies concealed, when he INTENDS to consecrate only those which are visible; likewise, if he have before him eleven Hosts and INTENDS to consecrate only ten, not determining which ten HE INTENIS, in these cases there is no consecration, because THE INTENTION IS REQUIRED."-Rom. Miss. de defect. cir. Mis. occur.

How can any member of the Church of Rome, possibly enter into the mind and feelings of the officiating priest?how can he know, whether he has AN INTENTION of doing that which the Church commanded him to do-that is, to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? He must have a glass placed over the priest's heart, in order that he should read all the intentions that are passing through his mind; for the INTENTION of the priest is absolutely necessary to constitute a true change in the elements of bread and wine. Therefore, when any, or all of these things are wanting,-defect in the matter-defect in form, and defect in intentionthere is no Transubstantiation. From the defects that may occur in the elements, and in the intention of the priest, it is manifestly impossible for a Roman Catholic to know, whether the substance before him is merely bread and wine, or that it is what assertion would make it-the body and blood of his risen Lord.

The Sacrifice of the Mass sets aside the doctrine of faith in the Lord Jesus. According to the sophistries brought from the 6th of John by our opponents, it is asserted, that, by the simple act of eating the body and drinking the blood of the Lord, persons become partakers of eternal life. If, then, we can get eternal life by such a process, where is the use of faith? for the " opus operatum," or "the thing done," is sufficient to ensure salvation. But, what saith the Scriptures? In the Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle writes most fully on the doctrine of Justification, and tells us, in the 3rd chapter, 24th and following verses :—

"Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice for the remission of former sins, through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time: that he him self may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ."

In these verses we learn, that it is " through FAITH in the blood" of the Lord Jesus that we obtain eternal life. God hath been just in proposing his Son to be a propitiation for sin, and then freely justifying those who BELIEVE

in his name.

In the opening of the 5th chapter, are also these words::

"Being JUSTIFIED THEREFORE BY FAITH, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom also we have access THROUGH FAITH into this grace wherein we stand."

Again, in the 2nd chapter and 8th verse of the Epistle to the Ephesians, are these words

"For by grace you are saved THROUGH FAITH; and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS, that no man may glory."

In opposition to these verses, the Church of Rome would make it appear (by her interpretation of the passages in the 6th of John), that the act of receiving the wafer ensures eternal life; for a period at least, (for it is asserted, that the individual can finally fall from that state of grace) but still, as long as the wafer shall remain uncorrupt, that having Christ in him, it is impossible for him to die eternally. But, the Apostle tells us, that it is " through faith, not by works, that we are saved." In the Epistle to the Hebrews, 8th chapter and 4th verse, it is written—

"If then he were on earth, he would not be a priest: seeing that there would be others to offer gifts according to the law."

Here the Apostle informs us, that Christ is not on earth, for if he were on earth, he would not be a priest. Now, if Christ be not on earth, bodily present in the wafer, it is utterly impossible that it can be a true sacrifice, because there can be no true propitiatory sacrifice, where the body and blood of Christ are not. And, again, in the 9th chapter the 7th and following verses, he leads our minds to the day of atonement.—

"But, into the second, the high-priest alone, once a year; not without blood which he offereth for his own, and the people's ignorance," &c. &c.

THE REV. T. J. BROWN.

Of the arguments adduced by Mr. Lyons I shall take OF only a passing notice; indeed, I believe I shall have to notice more of misrepresentations than of arguments. He contended that as Christ was in heaven when he was seen by St. Stephen, therefore Christ cannot be in the Eucharist. It is indifferent to the principal argument that I adduced, whether Christ was seen by St. Stephen in the heaven of

heavens, or only in that heaven which, as Mr. Tottenham has explained the Greek term, encompasses our earth; for it is plain that he appeared to St. Paul on earth; whence this conclusion is evident, that, whilst Christ's natural body is at the right hand of the Father, it may be after another manner elsewhere. Mr. Lyons asks how Abraham and the other Patriarchs could be saved, according to our interpretation of John vi., without eating of the flesh of Christ?—and I ask Mr. Lyons to tell me, how could Abraham be saved without being baptized?-for it is no less expressly said in John iii. 5, "Unless a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Mr. L. said that I had introduced a parallel between Transubstantiation and the miracle of Cana in Galilee. I introduced no such parallel; I only alluded to the miracle of Cana to shew that as in 1 Cor. xi. 23, and subsequent verses, the Eucharist is called bread after consecration; in like manner, after the miracle of Cana in Galilee, the wine was called by the appellation of its former substance, water. Mr. L. accuses Mr. Edgeworth of saying that the body of Christ in the sacrament was a carnal body

Mr. Lyons.-No, no.

Mr. Brown.-Was not a carnal body. Mr. Edgeworth said only that the body of Christ was not eaten after the carnal manner in which the Jews understood the doctrines of Christ. Mr. L. censures Mr. Edgeworth's quotation, as if Justin Martyr did not use the words "body and blood" of Christ in the passage which Mr. E. adduced. Now, if the Rev. gentleman had paid any attention to the language of that quotation, which he actually had lying before him, he would have read these very precise and clear words:

"Nor do we take these gifts as common bread and common drink, but as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, made man by the word of God, took flesh and blood for our salvation; in the same manner we have been taught that the food which has been blessed by the prayer of the words which he spoke, and by which our blood and flesh, in the change, are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus incarnate."

I will now examine the objections of Mr. Tottenham. He has told you that I was serving the cause of infidels by the objections which I urged against the Protestant rule of faith. But be it remembered, that when I argued against the inconsistency with which it appeared to me to be disfigured, Mr. T. did not deprecate such objections upon the plea that in his rule there was any mystery, or I

should not have attempted to argue from reason against it. We, on the contrary, have always contended that such doctrines concerning the Eucharist and the Mass are profound mysteries; our opponents, therefore, are they who, as I have repeatedly shewn, by relying on the difficulties suggested by reason, furnish with weapons the enemies of the Christian name.

The Rev. gentleman says that I have not answered the objection, that "hair was Jerusalem," and that this expression is an example of a figure parallel with that used in the words of the institution, "This is my body,” Ezek.

v. 5.

“And thou, son of man, take thee a sharp knife, take thee a barber's razor, and cause it to pass upon thine head and upon thy beard: then take the balances to weigh, and divide the hair, &c. This is Jerusalem."

Now I put it to the common sense of any one,-whether in this instance, the language of the inspired text is throughout so evidently allegorical, there is any similarity to the language which Christ used at the last supper, under circumstances in which every thing should be clear and explicit ?

I am called upon by Mr. T. to explain the celebrated passage from Exodus xii. 11, "It is the Lord's passover;" and I think it is no difficult matter so to explain it as would satisfy even Zuinglius himself, if his judgment were not too prejudiced, that this cannot be placed on a parallel with the words of the institution. First, I call your attention to the evidently mysterious circumstances preceding the passage in question :

"Thus shall ye eat it ;-with your loins girded-your shoes-on your feet-and your staff in your hand,-and ye shall eat it in haste; it is the Lord's passover."

These prepare the mind against a literal interpretation; they are a sort of previous warning that a typical meaning is intended. There was consequently no danger of mistake-no danger of any one's imagining that the paschal lamb was literally the passover of the Lord. But, on the contrary, if the words of Christ at his last supper, whereby he instituted the Sacrament, were in like manner intended to be understood figuratively, the danger of mistake was imminent; nay, if Protestants be right, such mistake was universally made from the earliest times, as the authorities we have adduced prove. But, 2ndly, there is another exposition of the objected passage even more satisfactory. Recollect what I said when we dis cussed the Rule of Faith, that (as is well known

› the

« PreviousContinue »