Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

it agrees being masculine. The distinction may be illustrated by reference to words quoted above..."The seven stars are the angels of the seven Churches." Had the speaker, pointing to so many persons, and without reference to the metaphor of stars, said--- these are the angels of the seven Churches; the using of any other than the masculine gender, could never have been brought under the laws of grammar. But it would have been strictly grammatical to have said in Greek, with a pointed allusion to the stars, and using the neuter gender..." These are" [that is signify or represent] "the seven Churches."

The interpretation is considerably sustained, by what we may read in those writers on the subject, who are versed in the Jewish Talmuds; and who quote from them authorities to show, that in the Paschal celebration, there was usually applied to the victim, the name of..." The body of the passover." The Jews are unquestionably impartial witnesses in this matter: and the fact being thus, it was very natural for the divine ordainer of the rite which was to succeed the passover, at the near approach of the awful event which was the ground of the two appointments, to intimate, that as "the body of the passover had" so long represented his blessed body, now to be given for man's redemption, it should in future be represented in the new way, which he was enjoining on his disciples. Analogy pointed to the other idea of the wine, as being representative of his blood; which had been before prefigur. ed by the blood of the Paschal Lamb in Egypt; when it was sprinkled on the lintels and the door posts of the houses of the Israelites, as the signal that they were to be passed over by the destroying angel.

But it is thought on the other side, that there hangs a considerable difficulty over the spiritual interpretation on such a subject; and of words uttered at a time, when there might be expected the utmost explicitness, in preference to figure. To this it may be replied, in the first place, that if the expression be indeed figurative, the like is used, where also it was of

the highest importance to guard against mistake: as where Christ said-" I am the vine," or-" I am the door," or..." I am the good shepherd." Further; figurative speech sometimes renders the sense of the speaker even more clear, than it would have been in abstract terms, otherwise rendered necessary. Perhaps the case in question may be considered as an instance of this. But after all, the words used on the occasion, according to the sense of them here adopted, and with the explanatory circumstances, may be perceived to be not figurative, although a figurative representation is the subject of the proposition. This may be illustrated as follows. Suppose...what often happens---that a statue is erected to represent some character of former times; without any dependence on likeness of face or person. Let the supposed statue be dedicated to the memory of Socrates. If pointing to the statue, we were to say...This is Socrates, the celebrated philosopher of Athens; it would evidently be a figure of speech. But not so would be the saying...This stands for---or signifies---or represents the celebrated philosopher of Athens, whose name was Socrates. The latter would be the most in analogy with the form of delivery in the Eucharist.

The harsh meaning put by the opposite theory on the words of the institution, might have been prevented by the relation which it bears to the Paschal Supper; concerning which, the Jews were divinely instructed to say in all ages-.." It is the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt."* However solemn the juncture of the institution of the Eucharist; there must have been derived from it, in anticipation, a very great measure of solemnity, to the institution of its type: and yet it is spoken of by its great ordainer, with the latitude here affirmed of the language of the other. Dr. Covel, a learned clergyman of the Church of England, who resided for a considerable time at Constantinople,

• Exod. xii. 27.

[ocr errors]

and travelled much in the countries of the East, mentions in his "Account of the Greek Church,' that the Jews in those countries kept up what their ancestors had done in the Paschal Supper; repeating during the season of it, and after their evening meal, the form established at the Exodus-" This is the sacrifice of the passover." It is evident, that the literal meaning of the words applied to no other passover, than that eaten in Egypt. But the meaning is obvious; and so is that of the words of the institution; when, in either case any other meaning would be in contrariety to reason and to common

sense.

The following passage has sometimes been thought to the purpose of the doctrine here denied -"He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."* But the apostle does not say"He that eateth the body and drinketh the blood;" but-" he that eateth." The not discerning of the Lord's body, is the not distinguishing of what he has made representative of it, from ordinary food. Irreverence to the representative elements, is a ground of the judgments of God; as an indignity offered to a picture would, under some circumstances, be construed to extend to its original.

When the fathers are appealed to on the present subject, no stress ought to be laid on their speaking of the Eucharist, in the terms in which it had been instituted. And further, every reader ought to be cautioned against the forged books, from which even some able writers on the other side have armed themselves with authorities. Such is the production called-"The Acts of St. Andrew." Dupin says of it..." This history ought at least to be esteemed a dubious writing, that cannot be applied to prove any doctrine of faith." He notices its having been quoted by Baronius, Bellarmine and

* 1 Cor. xi. 29.

others; although "by none but authors that lived since the seventh or eighth century." A book entitled "De Cœna," and ascribed to St. Cyprian, comes under the same description. Dupin calls it "a ridiculous impertinent book." And yet it has been cited without scruple, by modern authors.

From the apostolick fathers---so called because of their having seen and conversed with the apostles--it is not here known, that there has been alleged any thing bearing on the controversy; except a passage in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans; in which he speaks of certain hereticks, who abstained from the Eucharist, because they did not believe it to be the flesh of our Saviour, which suffered for our sins. This will be perceived to be nothing to the present purpose; when it is considered, that there was a branch of the Gnosticks, who held that Christ had no body except in appearance. Whether the Eucharist be literally, or only symbolically the body of Christ, the observance of the ordinance was alike inconsistent with the errour of that sect.

The account which Justin gives, in his Apology, of the administration of the Eucharist,* can never be made consistent with transubstantiation. He speaks of the distribution of the bread and of the wine by the deacons, after the consecration of them by the president of the assembly. He calls them the body and the blood of Christ. But that he means this in a spiritual sense, appears from his referring to their being turned into the nourishment of our flesh and blood; which could not be, unless the properties of bread and wine remained.

Tertullian says..." Christ made the bread and the wine distributed to his disciples, his body, by saying... This is my body: that is, the figure of my body." The obvious sense has been evaded, by disposing the sentence thus..." This figure of my body, is my body." It is a strain on the words;

*Thirlby, p. 96. † Contra Marcion, lib. iv. cap. 40.

and besides, will not do away the distribution of real bread and real wine to the disciples: for the opposite theory supposes them to have given place to that of which they were representative.

Tertullian explains his own meaning in the next book, where he sums up his argument thus--"Wherefore, in the sacrament of the bread and the cup, we have proved the verity of Christ's body and blood, against the Phantasie of Marcion."* Here is a distinction between the body and the blood of Christ, and the sacrament of the bread and the cup. The one was evident of the reality of the other: and this analogy was the point, against the theory of the hereticks.

Clement of Alexandria† distinguishes between the blood of Christ which is carnal, whereby we are redeemed from death; and that which is spiritual, whereby we are anointed. Of the latter he says "This is to drink the blood of Jesus, to be partakers of the incorruption of our Lord."

Other authorities from the third century, might be produced. The authors of the fourth century, are not barren of passages to the same effect; although it will not be here denied, and has been intimated in the lecture, that in this age, there began to prevail a habit of discoursing, which helped to the gradual growth of the doctrine here alluded to.

The evil can be hardly said to have begun, when Eusebius wrote; although the century was then considerably advanced. In his book "Of the Evangelical Demonstration," he has sundry matters to the purpose. The following are from the tenth chapter of the first book. He speaks of "making remembrance of the body and of the blood of Christ:" which remembrance he contrasts with "the first and weak elementary symbols and images" (meaning of the law) not comprehending the truth itself." Again, after applying to the sacrifice of Christ,

* Cap. 8. † Pæd. Syllab. ed. lib. ii. cap. ii. p. 151.

« IndietroContinua »