صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

devoured by the roaring lion, nor deal extremely with them for the sins of human frailty. 4. Another like reason for these prayers, is that which we have heard before out of Epiphanius, that it was to put a distinction between the perfection of Christ, and the imperfection of all other men, saints, martyrs, apostles, prophets, confessors, &c. he being the only person, for whom prayer was not then made in the Church. 5. They prayed for all Christians, as a testimony both of their respect and love to the dead, and of their own belief of the soul's immortality; to shew, as Epiphanius words it in the same place, that they believed that they who were deceased were yet alive, and not extinguished, but still in being, and living with the Lord. 6. Whereas the soul is but in an imperfect state of happiness till the resurrection, when the whole man shall obtain a complete victory over death, and by the last judgment be established in an endless state of consummate happiness and glory; the Church hath a particular respect to this in her prayers for the righteous, that both the living and the dead might finally attain this blessed estate of a glorious resurrection. It is observed by some, that there are some prayers yet extant in the Roman Mass, which are conformable to this opinion, as that which prays, that God would absolve the souls of his servants from every bond of sin, and bring them to the glory of the resurrection, &c. All these were general reasons for praying for the dead, without the least intimation of their being tormented in the temporary pains of a purgatory fire.-P. 325.

After having shown from several passages of Holy Scripture, and from St. Clement, "whose Epistle is older than some books of the New Testament," that there is a real oblation to God in the Eucharist, he proceeds to quote from Johnson's "Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar Unveiled and Supported : "

We have the express words of Christ Jesus himself, recorded by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul, fully attesting this great truth; namely, that he did in the institution of this sacrament, actually offer bread and wine to God, as his mysterious body and blood; and that he commanded his Apostles to do the same. First, I will shew that these words, This is my body given for you, This is my blood shed for you, do prove that Christ gave or offered the bread and wine to God as his mysterious body and blood: and, secondly, that he commanded his Apostles to do the same. Now, in order to prove the first point, I take it for granted, that when our Saviour says, This is my body given, by given, he means offered or sacrificed to God: this is a thing very plain in itself, and is, nay must be acknowledged by all, when he said, Take, eat, he gave his sacramental body to his disciples: when he adds, given for you, he must mean given, or offered in sacrifice to God for them. The giving his body to the Apostles, and giving it for them, are two things perfectly distinct his putting it into their hands or mouths, was not giving his body for them: this was an action performed to the Apostles: his giving, or offering, for them, was an action directed to God; which, as it is very plain in itself, so is expressly taught us by St. Paul; for Christ, says he, has given himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God. Eph. v. 2. And if we duly consider this particular, which can be denied by none, that do not want common sense and judgment, the rest inevitably follows. I take it for certain, and indisputable, that the body here spoken of, was now actually given, yielded, offered to God by our Saviour, as a priest according to the order of Melchisedech. The three Evangelists before mentioned, and St. Paul, do every one of them speak in the present tense, διδόμενον, Luke xxii. 19. κλώμενον, 1 Cor. xi. 24. ἐκχυνόμενον, Matt. xxvi. 28. Mark xiv. 24. Luke xxii. 20. The Spirit by which they wrote, directed them all, with an unanimous harmony, to represent our Saviour as now performing the most solemn act of his Melchisedechian priesthood, and

therefore as offering his body and blood to God, under the symbols of bread and wine. It is well known to all that are not perfect strangers to the Hebrew or Hellenistic diction, that the strongest and most strict way they have of expressing the time present, is by a participle of the present tense: this way of expressing himself our Saviour uses, and all the four holy writers, that give us the history of the institution, do agree in using this present participle; and do therefore most gloriously conspire to teach us this truth, that our Saviour did now actually offer himself to God under the representatives of bread broken, and wine poured out.-Pp. 213, 214.

Let the Papists then go on with their dabitur and effundetur, shall be given, shall be shed; and it fits their notion well enough, who believe that the same body and blood was substantially offered in the Eucharist, and on the cross; but let Protestants stick close to the Primitive Church, and to the Evangelists, and to Christ Jesus himself; who undoubtedly declared, that in that very instant of time in which he celebrated the original Eucharist, he did at once offer, or give to God bread and wine, and gave them as a pledge of the natural body and blood, which was soon after yielded to God on the cross. But to make this matter more clear if possible, I will propose two questions: first, What is it which Christ here calls his body and blood? And here all antiquity and the greatest part of Protestants, but especially the Church of England,`give in their unanimous answer, that it is consecrated bread and wine. The other question is, What is that, of which Christ here says, that it is given or offered to God? and yet it seems strange to me that this should be a question with those, who believe that Christ here calls bread his body, wine his blood; for certainly if this bread, of which our Saviour speaks, is his body, then this bread is also given to God, if our Saviour speak according to the common rules of construction; for the bread and the body of Christ are here the same thing: for no other body of Christ could be eaten, no other body of Christ had yet been substantially offered to God. The argument used by Protestants, that what Christ gave to his Apostles, and what they received was bread, runs thus: What he took, that he blessed; what he blessed, that he brake; what he brake, that he gave; what he gave, that they received; therefore what they received was bread, for that was what he took. But there are some words omitted in this induction, viz. My body given for you; and therefore I must take leave to add, what he gave, was his body; what was his body, was given for them; what was given for them, was given to them; what was given to them, they received; therefore what they received was bread, actually offered to God as his sacramental body: and this is to be applied to the wine, mutatis mutandis. And indeed St. Luke so expresses our Saviour's words at the delivery of the cup, that poured out cannot be understood to belong to the natural blood of Christ, but to the representative blood, or the wine: this cannot be perceived by reading our translation; but the words grammatically rendered are these: This cup poured out for you, (or offered as a libation to God for you) is the New Testament, or covenant in my blood; for exxvvóμevov being a nominative, cannot agree with alpar, which is in the dative; but our adversaries will rather make St. Luke guilty of a solecism, than allow that he could speak so decisively against their notions: for this is their way of dealing with the holy writers on this occasion. Thus the reader may see, that the main stress of the dispute lies in effect in this single question, Whether our Saviour did offer his body and blood in the Eucharist? To which our Saviour's express answer is, This bread is my body now given for you: this wine is my blood now shed for you. adversaries, to shift off this, tell us, our Saviour used one tense, but meant another; he said is given, he meant shall be given; and further, they will not allow the word given to be applied to his sacramental body, though every word in the sentence, excepting that, is by them acknowledged to belong to that body.—Pp. 216, 217.

Our

With regard to the Consecration of the Elements, he contends against the opinion of all the Papists, and of most Protestants, that it is not

effected by the pronouncing the words of Institution, but by the invocation, and consequent blessing, of the Holy Spirit. He shows that the words "Do this," are strictly sacrificial, and mean "offer this."

[ocr errors]

"I expect our adversaries should demand upon what authority of scripture this doctrine of the ancients was grounded; to which I answer, That it seems evident that they thought, when our Saviour blessed or eucharistized the bread and wine, the meaning of those words is, that he caused a divine benediction to rest upon them. It is allowed, I think, by learned men, that exapore has the same signification in the history of the institution, with evλoyew; and it is very evident that exapore, as well as evxoyew, is used transitively; and that therefore as we render the Greek words, Matt. xxvi. 26. Jesus took bread and blessed it;' so in strictness the following words (verse 27,) should be rendered, He took the cup and blessed or eucharistized it;' and the same may be said in relation to Mark xiv. 22, 23. St. Luke xxii. 19, 20, and St. Paul 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25, use the word eixapiotew only in relation both to the bread and cup; and therefore to render these texts so as that they may fully come up to the sense of the Greek, there ought to be the accusative case expressed after the participle evxapornoas, viz. He took bread, after he had blessed or eucharistized it, he brake it and said: for it is certain the blessing or eucharistizing terminates on the bread: it indeed imports, that Jesus addressed himself in prayer to God for a divine benediction; but it is clear beyond dispute, that this benediction was to rest on the elements. It was rational to suppose, that the most divine institution was to be attended with the most eminent benediction; and it was justly believed, that this consisted in the immediate presence of the Holy Spirit. In St. James's Liturgy, the words of institution, in relation to the cup, run thus: Taking the cup-eucharistizing it, consecrating it, filling it with the Holy Ghost, &c. For they or he who drew the Liturgy did take for granted what I now argue for, viz. that euxapiaтew does impart a consecration wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit; and not only the ancient fathers, but even the heretics of the first ages allowed this; and the eucharistized bread, in the language of Irenæus and Justin Martyr, is the bread that has by this means been sanctified; and indeed the Apostle St. Paul does give great countenance to this doctrine, in saying: By one Spirit we have been all baptized into one body, and we have all been made to drink into one Spirit.' 1 Cor. xii. 13. For as in the first clause he speaks expressly of baptism; so in the other he does not obscurely speak of our drinking the cup blessed with the Holy Ghost in the Eucharist. But I conceive the ancients chiefly built their judg ment in this particular on the 63d verse of John vi. viz. It it the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words which I speak unto you they are Spirit, and they are life.' I think it is universally agreed that these words are an explication of that mystery, which he had spoke so much of in the foregoing part of the chapter, viz. eating his flesh, and drinking his blood. I hope to give my reader satisfactory proof, before I conclude this book, that this eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, was by him meant of the Eucharist only; and that this was the sentiment of the generality of the ancients: so taking this at present for granted, I will only consider how they interpreted this verse in conformity to that opinion, and applied it to the eucharistical body and blood; and particularly that by Spirit in this text, they understood the sacramental body consecrated by the Spirit. Mr. Calvin, upon this verse, takes notice, that St. Austin so takes these words, as that when our Saviour says, 'the flesh profiteth nothing;' the sense is, the flesh alone profiteth nothing without the quickening Spirit ;' and that by the flesh, he understood the sacramental flesh, will in due time be sufficiently proved. St. Cyril of Alexandria expressly says, 'Christ calls his flesh Spirit; and he has given the reason for it in the foregoing words, viz. He fills his body with the energy of the Spirit;' and that he means this of his body in the Eucharist, will hereafter be proved. And again, Common flesh cannot give life; of this our

[ocr errors]

Saviour is a witness, saying, my flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth; so since it is the Word's own body, on this account it is considered as giving life, and is so;' and that he means it of the Eucharist, the learned reader may convince himself by turning his eyes to the original. St. Ambrose, as already cited, has sufficiently shewed that he was of this mind; for he proves the Eucharist to be the body of Christ, because it is the body of the Divine Spirit. St. Athanasius has been already cited, applying this text to the Eucharist, and telling us, that by spirit and life, is meant the body given for the world, and distributed to, or in every one, &c. And yet he speaks more expressly, if possible, to the same purpose, when discoursing of the Eucharist; he says, The flesh of the Lord is a quickening Spirit. And Ammonius took it so above an hundred years before him, in these words, What he here calls the spirit, is the flesh, replenished with the energy of the life-giving Spirit. Now considering that these passages in the ancients are so directly for our present purpose, to prove that by the Spirit here is meant the sacramental flesh of Christ, and that all that goes before, concerning eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, relates to the Eucharist, as I am hereafter to shew; we are not to wonder that the priest and people of these ages did expect, that at their prayers the Holy Ghost should communicate his influences to the holy symbols."-Pp. 225-227.

As members of the Church of England, we cannot but regret that so learned a man as the author should have formed such strong and unaccountable prejudices as to the extreme defects of the English Ritual of the Holy Communion; but as usual in cases of this kind, the very violence of his opinions in these points is the surest antidote against any mischief they might occasion. With these cautions, however, we trust this book will have a very extensive circulation among the Clergy; we would willingly have transcribed still larger portions into our pages; but as space forbids us, we trust the selections here made will induce every one to possess himself of the volume.

ART. III. Philosophy and Religion, with their Mutual Bearings comprehensively considered, and satisfactorily determined, on clear and scientific Principles. By WILLIAM BROWN GALLOWAY, A.M. London: Smith, Elder, & Co.

To a lover of metaphysics may be traced more than half of the most essential errors of mankind. If we will make a science of that which is inscrutable, and will have a system for that region of knowledge which the word of God itself declares to be only partially conceded to us in the present life, we cannot but fall into mistakes. Here comes an author who professes to account for the origin of evil, and to show us the very grounds of the divine government, not in so far as they are revealed, but beyond and correctively of revelation.

We affirm that to all great purposes, metaphysics are unpractical, or comparatively so, where they track their own way, apart from the word of God.

Thus with respect to the Divine attributes, it has pleased the Almighty

to manifest them in the Scriptures to a degree to which unassisted reason could not have attained by any mere intellectual exercise, by any observation of analogies, in short, by any process whatever. To reason upon the attributes, so far as they are revealed, is but to exercise the mind upon revelation itself. To reason on the moral attributes of God, as the Governor of the world, to any point not revealed, is both to go beyond our depth, and to expose ourselves to error without end.

Had it been fitting for us, or requisite for us, as moral agents, to have had the whole of the Divine dispensation revealed to us, to have had all the apparent contradictions in the Divine government cleared up, to have seen, instead of to have believed, the Scriptures would doubtless have revealed and cleared up those mysteries which lie at the root of all the rest. But when the Almighty has not done so, it carries with it some degree of impiety, even to venture upon the task, much more to cry out that we have discovered all.

It is true here, as in other controversies, that the extremes are both to be deprecated. This age appears to have produced not only its systematizers, but a class of individuals who have such a dread of system, as to teach that there is nothing approaching to system discoverable in theology. This is to betray a blind aversion to everything metaphysical, and may pave the way for errors as important as those which result from the opposite extreme of taking up metaphysics as a perfect and independent science, capable of clearing up moral mysteries undefined and unsolved in Scripture.

He, for instance, who denies that the Almighty has himself revealed the harmony of his attributes and perfections in the satisfaction made by his dear Son upon the cross, is in error equally with him who, from his own metaphysical conjectures, argues against the necessity of our atonement altogether. The former error is heretical, the latter is a form of infidelity. The former dismembers truth, through a faulty aversion to the metaphysics of Scripture; the latter sacrifices it entire to the uncertain speculations of an imperfect science.

Our author will prove how sin came into the universe. He affirms, "It was not possible for God to create a system in which there should be no inlet for sin." He then assumes, that finite intelligences must be liable to sin, and therefore that they, or some of them, would certainly sin sooner or later. We read of the angels that have not transgressed, of legions of holy, happy spirits that have not known sin. It appears a bold impiety indeed to assert, that the Almighty could not have prevented the entrance of sin, and we, moreover, believe that all his faithful and penitent children, when translated from earth to himself, arrive at the blessed freedom of no longer being able to sin. Yet they will be finite intelligences. There is no necessary connexion between sin and a finite intelligence, as far as we have any means of determining such a question.

« السابقةمتابعة »