Abbildungen der Seite

* Christ, the subjeet of our adoration, clare the death of our Saviour, as often as not being visible in the eucharist, our at- we make use of that sacrament; so that tention may very easily be diverted from we are so far from having reason to say, him, by objects affecting our senses, or that this solemn commemoration excludes imagination, &c. at the very time that we the real presence of Christ's body in this celebrate these mysteries. In order to mystery, that on the contrary, we see by guard us against this misfortune, we are this remembrance, that there his very particularly commanded to direct our at- flesh ought to be taken, seeing it is not tention to our Divine Saviour-10 his possible for us to forget, that it was for death upon the cross : we are not to re- us he gave his body in sacrifice, when ceive his flesh and blood mechanically; we see that he gives us daily the same bot whilst we receive them, to remember body to eat; whence it follows, that we the infinite love of Jesus Christ, in im- ought not to consider, that Christ does molating that sacred flesh and blood for not command us only to remember him; our salvation, and in feeding our souls but to remember him as he died for us, with the same.

when we eat his flesh, and drink his " The command then to remember the blood, even as the Jews in eating the death of Christ, when we celebrate or peace-offerings, remember that they had receive the Lord's Supper, so far from been immolated for their sins." excluding the real presence of Christ, is Here is a volume in a sentence; and if rather founded upon it.”

the explanation is not clear, it is not that Now what is the substance of this ex- the author has been niggardly of his planation? It is that the word remember words. If there is any definite meaning here signifies, not the calling to mind of in this chaos of words, it seems to be, what is past, but attention to what is pre- that the injunction is to remember, not sent; but no two faculties of the human Jesus, but his death. Now it is readily mind can be more distinct than memory admitted, from the nature of the ordinance, and attention, and remembrance is always as well as from Paul's explanation of it, an operation of memory. This little irea- that it is a commemoration of his death. ise, tben, about attention, is just as little 'This, however, by no means invalidates to the purpose, as a dissertation on the the objection against his real presence, properties of light and colours. 'The founded on the form of the expression. words do not respect the manner of at- We are commanded to remember Jesus tending to the institution, but declare its himself. That the point in his history nature and end. The thing itself is a re- on account of which chiefly we are to membrance of Chrisi" Do this, as oft remember him, is his death, is known as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” from the nature of the emblem, and the

In a work entitled, “ A Treatise which declaration of the apostle—Do this, as clearly showeth the only Religion that often as ye drink ii, in remembrance of is truly conformable to the express Jesus." Labour as you will, gentlemen, Word of God, by J. S."' we read thus, you will never make remembrance apply " As for these words which you produce to one who is present. The illustration in your own desence, viz. . Do this in alleged at the end of the quotation cannot remembrance of me,' i Cor. xi. 24, they be admitted. The Jews in eating the were spoken by Christ after he had con- peace-offerings, could not be called on 10 secrated the bread, and after he told the remember them. I demand an example disciples that it was his body which he of such a form of expression, in a case

gave them, as is evident by the 24th where the person to be remembered is verse of that chapter.

Wherefore it is alive and present. If you cannot do this, manifest, that Christ's intention, by these strike your colours. words, was in oblige us to remember that That the bread still continues bread, is death which he suffered for our salvation, seen also from its being three times called when we eat his flesh, and drink his bread by Paul, in his account of this inblood; and hence St. Paul concludes stitution, and once on another occasion : (verse 26) from these words, that we de- *“ For as oft as ye 'eat this bread;" 1




Cor. xi. 26.-—Wherefore whosoever really drink, that is, they will support the shall eat this bread;” verse 27.-" But body, and satisfy hunger and thirstlet a man examine himself, and so let him “My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood eat of that bread;" verse 28.-" The is drink indeed.” Now Roman Cathobread which we break, is it not the com- lics deny that his body and blood are litemunion of the body of Christ ?"' i Cor. rally meat and drink. 5. If then Christ's x. 16. What madness then to deny that flesh is meal, and his blood drink, notliteit is really bread! It is bread even in the rally, but figuratively, that is, the spiritual eating of it.

food of the soul by faith, włıy may not The phraseology in the sixth chapter of the bread and wine in the eucharist be John's Gospel, is alleged as importing figuratively flesh and blood, and thus spithat Christ is really eaten in the eucha- ritually meat and drink to the soul ? If rist: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, ex- Christ's flesh is not literally meal—is his cept ye eat the flesh,” &c.-upon this I blood is not literally drink-if these are remark-1. If this passage is taken even the spiritual food of the soul, and not the literally, it does not import Transubstan- carnal food of the body, why is it necestiation. It would confine salvation to sary that they be literally eaten and drank, those at that time who should eat him. in order to be spiritually meat and drink? For some to eat him at that time was pos- I presume Christ's flesh and blood can sible, for any to eat him now is impossi- become spiritual nourishment to the soul, ble. If this passage is to be taken lite- as well without literal eating, as with it. rally, no man will ever be saved, for no Why is literal eating necessary when the man ever ate the Lord Jesus Christ. Lite- nourishment is spiritual ! Cannot the ral then the words cannot be. 2. Admit- soul eat without literal leeth? To eat ting for argument sake that this refers to spiritually is to understand, to believe, to the eucharist, the laity cannoi be saved; digest; and this is the very sense for for it is as necessary to drink his blood as which Protestants contend. 6. That to to eat his flesh. The assertion that there eat and drink here means to believe, is is blood in the flesh, cannot be admitted clear from verse 35, in which to come to as an answer to this objection. Not to Christ is represented as satisfying huninsist on the fact that in the eucharist, ger, so as never to hunger again ; and to whether the words are literal or figurative, believe on him is represented as satisfythere is a separation of the blood from the ing thirst, so as never again to thirst. 7. body; the eating of the flesh and the From verse 56, we see that the effect of drinking of the blood are here considered this eating of Christ, is that Christ dwells as two distinct actions. They are marked in us. Now we are told (Eph. iii. 17.) as distinct no less than five times in this that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith. passage. You might say of a wild beast 8. In John vii. 37, Christ invites all who devouring its prey, that it eat the flesh thirst to come to him and drink. This and drank the blood ; for although the he explains to be believing in him :-"In animal is not bled, its blood may be lite- the last day, that great day of the feast, rally drank. But when a shark swallows Jesus stood and cried, saying, if any man a man alive, which is the way that Ro- thirst, let him come unto me and drink. man Catholics eat Christ, you cannot say He that believeth on me, as the Scripture that it drank his blood. There is no hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers drinking here; the laily then do not drink of living water. (But this spake he of the blood of Christ, and consequently, the Spirit, which they that believe on him according to this doctrine, cannot be shall receive,” &c.) Here the drinking saved. 3. If this passage is literal, and is believing on him. Besides, what other refers to the eucharist, ihen every man way could they drink of him at that time? who has eaten the eucharist shall be He was not yet sacrificed, either in the saved: every such man has elernal life, Mass, or on the Cross. There is the and Christ shall raise him up 10 glory in same absurdity in supposing literal eating the last day. 4. If this passage is literal, and drinking, in John vi. 53, as there is Christ's flesh is really meat, and his blood in John vii. 37. What suppose some



fanatic were to assert, on the authority of Thus it appears from an impartial exthis passage, that rivers of water are al- amination of the scriptural accounts of ways literally flowing out of the belly of this institution, that there is not the slightevery one who believes in Christ? Upon est grounds for 'Transubstantiation-ihat his own principles, a Roman Catholic instead of compelling us to receive this could neither turn away from him as a doctrine, in opposition to reason and the madman, nor refute him as a false reason- senses, the Scriptures afford ample maer. It might be said, that it is an absurd- terials for its refutation. Leaving out of ity to suppose that rivers of water should view altogether, the evidence of neces. be always literally flowing out of the sary truth, revelation clears itself of this belly of a man. Not more absurd than absurdity. So far from being the unthe literal eating of Christ in the Mass. avoidable result of fair interpretation, to But do we not see, it might be said, first candid and enlightened criticism it would such a river does not actually so flow. never occur. The phraseology in which And does not the same thing hold with it is pretended to be found, so far from respect to Transubstantiation? The next necessarily containing it, does not in its verse, it might be said, declares that he analysis in another view, even present a meant the expression figuratively. These, difficulty. This is more than can be said however, are not Christ's words, but the in the vindication of almost all divine words of the historian. No such expla- truths, and in the refutation of very many nation was given by Christ at the time. important errors. It is the manner of Besides, if the words are so interpreted, revealed truth to afford a handle to those they must be capable of the interpreta- who are disposed to pervert it. In this tion. Here, then, we have an inspired way an opportunity is afforded to the huexplanation of such figurative phraseolo- man mind to discover its enmity to divine gy, to guide us in the explanation of all truth, or manifest its allegiance to Jesus. similar expressions. If such a figure is There are difficulties on the very subject not proper in itself, no explanation could of the Godhead of Jesus difficulties in make it proper. Besides, the connection the evidence of the inspiration of the of the words, " 'This is my body," and of Scriptures difficulties in the very works the expression, “Except ye eat my of Creation and Providence. On all these flesh,” &c. as clearly demand a figurative subjects perverseness may pick up someexplanation, as if there had been a direct thing plausible against truth, even from assertion of figure.

the Scriptures themselves. A handle is But our opponents argue that the Co- afforded also for 'Transubstantiation, but rinthians could not be blameable for not certainly the weakest one that ever moved discerning the Lord's body in the encha- so mighty a machine : it is one of the rist, if that body was not there. How slightest pretexts that ever gave birth to could they discern an object that was not error. present? I ask in reply, how can they The more I consider this subject, the discern that body, even supposing it pre- more I stand amazed at the strength of sent in their own sense ?" . They them- that delusion, that has led rational creaselves tell us that they do not discern the tures into the belief of a dogma so fanbody and blood of Christ, but the acci- tastic, so absurd, so monstrous. As it is denis of bread and wine. Well then, the the most extravagant fanaticism ever prodiscerning, both with Roman Catholics mulgated by either philosophers or reliand with Protestants, must be spiritual. gionists, it naturally excites surprise, that If there is a dispute about Christ's pre- the professors of it are not universally sence, there is none about his visibility considered as frantic. What can be the in the eucharist. Instead of refuting us reason that Mother Southcott was thought this word fights on our side. If the dis. crazy, for pretending to give birth to one cernment or seeing of Christ in the eu- little Messiah ; and that every priest of charist is not by the eye of the body, but the Church of Rome can, without exciting by the eye of faith, why may not the eat- ridicule, make a Messiah every time he ing of Christ be by faith also, and not by says Mass? The priests make themthe teeth?

selves merry with the follies of this ly, then, absurdity itself deserves attenwretched enthusiast; yet these very tion from Christians, when it stands in priests daily produce their Messiah, and the way of the spiritual good of so many create their Creator. When these gen- millions of very dear fellow creatures. Pretlemen are so prolific themselves, why judice hides absurdity, and to destroy it should they grudge one little Messiah to there is a necessity to exhibit it in all the a neighbour? They have no title, at least, contortions of its deformity. Truth needs to laugh at her extravagance. Compared diffuse and exact proof, not in proportion to them, she is nothing but the pirate to to the real difficulties that surround it, Alexander. At the head of a small sect but to its importance, and the strength of she is a fanatic: at the head of millions the opposition it has 10 encounter. Preshe would be the august founder of a judice has a great effect on all subjects, holy Church. She would have Cobbett —though strongest in religion, it is not to defend her nonsense, and statesmen to weak in philosophy. The system of Sir give her the fraternal hug in the senate. Isaac Newton iiself was long before it Her errors would be denied, or softened, could make its way over the prejudice of or vindicated. Privy counsellors would philosophers. Let us hear an observaview her religion as a very innocent form tion of Mr. M•Laurin on this subject: of Christianity, and entirely worthy of “It was, however, no new thing that this the patronage of a Christian State. This philosophy should meet with opposition. is the charm, my countrymen-this is All the useful discoveries that were made the charm that keeps ridicule asleep, in former times, and particularly in the while it has laughed the system of Jo- seventeenth century, had to struggle with anna Southcott out of the world.

the prejudices of those who had accusThis is the only reason that can justify tomed themselves, not so much as to me in refuting at such length so wild an think, but in a certain systematic way; opinion. To many persons I am con- who could not be prevailed upon to abanvinced, that it will appear a mere waste don their favourite schemes, while they of time, to refute a thing so absurdly were able to imagine the least pretext for false. The one-fiftieth of what I have continuing the dispute. Every art and written will be thought enough to give to talent was displayed to support their fallsuch a subject. If, as I pretend, the thing ing cause; no aid seemed foreign to them is self-evidently false, why do I think it that could in any manner annoy their necessary to labour the point at such adversary; and such often was their oblength? Would not a few sentences be stinacy, that truth was able to make but sufficient to refute what is contrary to little progress, till they were succeeded necessary truth? To state axioms is to by younger persons, who had not so establish them. In one point of view I strongly imbibed their prejudices." acknowledge this to be just; and I will If such are the prejudices in favour of venture before Turk, Jew, or Pagan, to an ancient philosophical theory; if such rest all upon one of my axioms, expressed was the opposition to philosophical truth, in a single short sentence. To leave the is it any wonder thai Roman Catholics matter in this way might be sufficient, if so obstinately cling to their ancient superthe condemnation of my opponents were stitions, and so perversely refuse to submy object; but as my great aim is to mit to the light of divine truth? These awake my countrymen out of their spi- absurdities ihen, however extravagant, ritual lethargy, and force their attention demand attention; and to expose them to the Gospel of God, I thought it neces- is not unworthy the most dignified talents sary to present the truth to them in every in the Protestant communion. We are point of view, and to drive evasion from apt to look on the laboured refutations of every subtersuge. Volumes have been the errors of Popery, in the writings of well employed by Reid in overturning the Reformers and their successors, as the most chimerical fancies of philoso- learned trifling, proceeding from a love of phers, because these fancies afforded a wrangling, or an idle display of controfoundation to universal scepticism. Sure- versial subtilty. To those who view the


subject in this light, I recommend the to the test of reason and Scripture. Let following observations of Mr. Dugald them not shut their eyes against light, Stewart: " It is probable, indeed, (now nor steel their hearts against conviction. that the ideal Theory has in a great mea. Let them beware of imitating the conduct sure disappeared from our late meta- of the Jews, who though they could not physical system) that those who have resist the evidence of the mission of Jesus, a pleasure in detracting from the merit of out of mistaken love to their nation and their predecessors, may be disposed to their religion, determined 10 persist in represent it as an idle waste of labour and their opposition. This obstinacy only ingenuity, to have entered into a serious hastened the destruction of their country, refutation of hypothesis, at once gra- and brought eternal ruin on themselves. tuitous and inconceivable. A different Many of you, my countrymen, seem to judgment, however, will be formed by make it a point of honour to abide in the such as are acquainted with the exten- religion of your fathers; you think it a sive influence, which from the earliest sort of treachery to your ancestors, your account of science, this single prejudice country, and your profession, to change has had in vitiating almost every branch your religious views. Look at this for of the philosophy of the mind; and who, à moment, and with your usual good at the same time, recollect the names of sense, you will perceive that this conduct the most illustrious men, by whom, in is irrational and dangerous.

Acting on more modern times, it has been adopted this principle, would ever your ancestors as an incontrovertible principle." have turned from paganism? To conti

As the system of Popery has so long nue in error against light, is treason enchanted wise and unwise, learned and against truth; and is eternal self-destrucilliterate, noble and mean: as it chains tion. Such romantic fidelity to party, is down so vast a proportion of those called a reproach to rational nature, and the Christians, and mars the happiness, both highest manifestation of contempt for the temporal and spiritual, of so great a pro

God of truth. If you see that your sysportion of the human race; no effort to tem cannot stand before reason and Scripundeceive our brethren ought to be spared, ture, do not vainly continue to fight till by the fall of Babylon, the kingdoms against God. Fly' from the wrath 10 of this world shall become the kingdoms come. Trust no longer in vain superof our Lord and his Christ. Were all stitious rites-put your trust in the blood Protestant teachers to go to the bottom of of the cross only! The reason you so the subjects of controversy between Pro- fondly cling to the doctrine of the Mass testants and the Church of Rome, and is, your blindness to the glory and efficacy fully to instruct their flocks, we should of ihe atonement. This infinitely valuahear nothing of the growth of Popery. ble sacrifice needs not to be continued or

Before I take leave of this subject, I repeated. It perfects for ever those who must again earnestly and affectionately are sanctified by it. To attempt 10 add entreat my Roman Catholic countrymen, to its efficacy, leaves men still in their dispassionately to examine what I have sins, and makes them debiors to do the written. It cannot be their true interest whole law. (Gal. v. 3.) I beseech you, 10 continue in error; and if they have then, my brethren, renounce the vain truth, it cannot ultimately suffer from the hope of adding to the perfection of the severest trial. Truth may be misrepre- atonement. Cease that blasphemy that sented, and sophistry may make error represents the work of Christ even yet plausible, but, accurate discussions will in unfinished, and keeps him continually on the end strengthen the foundations of the the altar. Come to Him, and he will former, and strip the latter of its imposing give you salvation without money and appearance. Let them sit down then to without price. the examination of this subject, not with Be assured, my countrymen, I indulge the irritated feelings of party spirit, but towards you feelings of unmingled love with a desire of knowing the truth, and a and compassion. I write not from party cool determination of bringing all things motives, nor the irritation of sectarian

[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »