Page images
PDF
EPUB

pertaining to the kingdom of God. The taking of mere words, without reference to the design of them, is a fruitful source of errour. The design of the apostle in the above, was to disparage arbitrary and useless distinctions concerning meats and drinks. Putting this, and also putting the present question out of view; he could never have said, that the use of meats and of drinks had nothing to do with the kingdom of God: for in that case, what becomes of the demands of temperance? As to the meat and drink of the Eucharist, none say, that they are the kingdom of God-or the Church; although Christians generally say, that the use of those elements in an act of religious worship, is a tie of their association.

The earnest desire of resolving the subject commemorated in the Eucharist, into a spiritual exercise unconnected with the use of the elements of bread and wine, has induced the looking to the sixth chapter of St. John, as giving an account of that feeding on the body and the blood of Christ, which others connect with the use of the elements referred to. It will be here conceded to the opposite opinion, that the said chapter is unconnected with the transaction, recorded at the conclusion of the Paschal Supper; any further, than as they both refer to the profiting by the doctrinal instructions of Christ; and to the spiritual nourishment, which we derive from them: these subjects being essentially important, independently on the Eucharist, yet especially represented in that ordinance. But there being attached to Christianity certain benefits, which would have remained such, had there been no typical representation of them subsequently ordained; the position of the appointment of the latter, can never be disproved by the independent importance of the subjects typified.

This discussion shall conclude with a comment on the position sometimes made, that the attainable perfection of Christianity dispenses with the use of

elements. Such was not the decision of the blessed person, who knew no sin, when he submitted to be baptized, on the principle-that "thus it became him to fulfil all righteousness."* The plea now noticed, can never be sustained on gospel grounds. How far it is connected with freedom from sin in conduct, or the contrary, is not a part of the present design to ascertain; any further than to appeal to the notorious fact, that the position has been made in print by many, who, in the very act of supporting it, have discovered in a wrathful spirit, unequivocal evidences of a falling very far short of the perfection, which had been affirmed by them to exalt every Christian above the need of ordinances.

SECTION II.

OF THE ERROUR OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

This term, confessedly not known in theology, until a comparatively late period of the Church, is used to express a change, supposed to be made during the prayer of consecration, of the substance of the sacramental bread and wine, into the substance of the body and the blood of Christ: the accidents of the elements remaining, that is, their figure, their colour, and their taste; and whatever else is the subject of sense.

The passages of scripture, cited in evidence of this doctrine, are our Lord's discourse already referred to, in the sixth chapter of the gospel of St. John; and the words uttered by him in the instituting of the Eucharist, as recorded by St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke; and by St. Paul, in the eleventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians.

As to the discourse in the sixth chapter of the

*Matt. iii. 15.

Gospel of St. John; it is not natural to suppose, that Christ had therein any reference to an ordinance, of which nothing is said in the place; or elsewhere, until the time of its being instituted. But be this as it may; the discourse was reduced to figure, by the express interpretation of the Divine Deliverer of it; when he subjoined, in consequence of offence taken by the disciples at the letter of the discourse

"It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."* The interpretation here given, is precisely the sense in which the passage was understood by the early writers of the Church; of which only a few instances shall be given. Tertullian says-"Because the word was made flesh, therefore he was desired for life; to be de voured by hearing, to be chewed by the understanding, to be digested by faith."+ Origen says— "If we understand these words of Christ **** literally, this letter kills. For there is in the New Testament á letter that kills him, who does not spiritually understand those things which are spoken." St. Chrysostom says "These things are such as have in them nothing carnal, nor any carnal consequence." And St. Austin says "To be. lieve in him, is to eat the living bread: he who believes in him, eats."

The words in the four places cited are..." This is my body," and..." This is my blood:" except that St. Luke and St. Paul have it, in reference to the wine

"This cup is the New Testament" (or covenant) in my blood." Here is a varied phraseology, worthy of notice. According to the literal interpretation pleaded for, the wine is not the seal of the 'covenant, but this itself---a sense not advocated by any. Accordingly, as "This is my blood"...the words used in two of the places---and "This cup

* Verse 63. † De Resurrectione Carnis, cap. 37. Lecio, x. Hom. 7. § Hom. 47. || Tract 26. in St. John.

is the New Testament in my blood"-used in the two other places, must be supposed to signify the same thing; it follows, that a sense ascribed to one of the forms, and not adapted to the other, cannot be the sense of either.

But this diversity of language being put out of view; let the inquiry be now confined to the sense of the terms-"This is my body" and "this is my blood.".

It is a maxim, that where words will bear two senses, one opposed to some of the clearest dictates of reason and the other consistent with them, the latter should be preferred.

To the interpretation on which the doctrine of transubstantiation is founded, there arises a host of rational objections. It is contrary to the testimony of our senses, and thus destroys the ground of our certainty of our Saviour's miracles; in the performance of which he appealed to what was seen and heard by the people around him. It represents him as telling his disciples, while his sacred body was before their eyes, that he was even then bearing it in his hands. Since his ascension, we learn from many places in Scripture, that it is in heaven; while the doctrine in question describes it as extended to every place, wherein a Christian minister may be commemorating his passion. Even the nature of a sacrament is hereby overthrown, as is remarked in the Twenty-eighth Article of this Church. For a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace: but according to the hypothesis, the substance of the sign vanishes under the act of consecration. And then, that the properties of the substance should remain, after this itself has vanished, is a contradiction in terms; and therefore, unlike to any thing proposed to our belief in scripture.

Still it is contended, that the letter of the words conducts directly to transubstantiation. Were this so, it would not follow that the letter should govern, in opposition to a more reasonable sense, discoverable in the place. But it is conceived, that the matter is not correctly stated. In the New Testament, we find fre

quent use of the auxiliary verb "is," for the verb signifies," or "represents," and the like of their respective plurals. Thus we read-" The good seed are the children of the kingdom"-" The tares are the children of the wicked one"-" The harvest is the end of the world," and "The reapers are the angels.”* The same phraseology may be found in other places. Thus-"These" [Sarah and Hagar]" are the two covenants" "The seven stars are the angels of the seven Churches;" and-" The seven candlesticks are the seven Churches."

The way in which this form of expression became frequent in the New Testament, may be traced to the idiom of the language of the old. The Hebrew has no word answering to "signify" or "represents." Hence we find "This is my covenant"-" The three branches are three days"-" The seven good kine are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years"¶"It is the Lord's passover."** In the original, there is wanting even an auxiliary verb: which is notified by its being in italics, in the translation. When the Seventy made their Greek version of the Old Testament, they inserted in the above and in the like places, the auxiliary verb: which accordingly became an idiom, naturally transferred into the writings of the New Testament. Therefore the sense of the place is-" This bread signifies" [or represents] "my body:" and"This cup signifies" [or represents]" my blood."

But here comes in a point, on which much stress has been laid. It is the agreement in gender of the Greek adjective translated "this," with the substantive "body," and not with the substantive "bread." But in every language, it is common to use the said pronoun, in the neuter gender, indeterminately: as if it were said this matter of which I speak. So we read "This is the fruit of my labour: "++ the pronoun being in the neuter gender; and the subject with which

Matt. xiii. 38, 39.
|| xl. 12.

§ Gen. xvii 10.
tt Philipp. i. 22.

+ Gal. iv. 24.

¶ xli. 26.

Rev. i. 20. ** Ex. xii. 11.

« PreviousContinue »