Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

sult, that The entire substance of the cup is converted into the substance of the new testament1.

(3.) As the argumentative adduction of our Lord's institutive words is thus plainly nothing better than a mere begging of the question: so the citation of St. Paul's phraseology, as addressed to the Corinthians, is but another glaring specimen of this very frequent, though very unjustifiable, latin practice. Doubtless the cup of blessing is the communion of Christ's blood; and the broken bread is the communion of Christ's body: but to adduce such language, as any proof of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, is to assume, that St. Paul designed to employ it transubstantiatively; the very point, if I mistake not, which ought to have been itself anteriorly demonstrated2.

(4.) Two passages, the one from the Old, the other from the New, Testament, have been adduced for the purpose of shewing, that the Eucharist is a sacrifice 3.

Respecting these passages, it must be observed, that, so far as the decision of the Council of Trent is concerned, the Romanists stand pledged to demonstrate from Scripture, not that the Eucharist is a sacrifice simply, but that the Eucharist is a PIACULAR sacrifice specially.

' In tridentine latin, mutatis mutandis, the result will run as follows: Conversionem fieri totius substantiæ calicis in substantiam novi fœderis.

1 Corinth. x. 16.

Malach. i. 10, 11. Heb. xiii. 10-12.

Now such demonstration has been afforded by neither of the passages which have been adduced.

When St. Paul tells us, that we have an altar whereof the unconverted Jews have no right to eat, he refers not to the Eucharist, except so far as the Eucharist is commemorative, but to the sacrifice of Christ himself without the gate upon the altar of the cross, and to our spiritual participation of the benefits of that sacrifice. The text, therefore, shews indeed, that the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is a propitiatory sacrifice; because it manifestly alludes to the typical propitiatory sacrifices under the Law, as being sacrifices of the same specific nature or quality: but it affords not the slightest proof, that the professedly commemorative ordinance of the Eucharist is a sacrifice of that description or indeed a sacrifice of any description. In the abstract, the eucharist may or may not be a sacrifice: but this text proves nothing whatsoever as to its precise nature.

With regard to the other passage adduced from Malachi, it possibly may, or it possibly may not, refer to the celebration of the Eucharist. Ireneus and Justin Martyr understand it, as bearing this reference: Tertullian, on the contrary, as Mr. Berington himself allows, interprets it as relating, to the pure sacrifices of the heart, not to the establishment of any literal or material sacrificial oblation 2.

2

See above, book i. chap. 4. § I. 2. (3.) (4.)

Spiritalia vero sacrificia, de quibus prædictum est: et,

These two opinions are perfectly reconcilable: and, in truth, they mutually explain each other. The sacrifices, predicted by Malachi, are clearly the spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. Among these, the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist, as the very name Eucharist implies, stands preeminent and I am not aware, that even the most zealous antitransubstantialist would ever dream of denying to the devout celebration of the Eucharist the character of a spiritual sacrifice of thanksgiving; though, neither from the name nor from the scriptural account of it, can he derive any evidence, in proof of the material eucharistic elements themselves becoming, after their consecration, either a literal sacrifice of thanksgiving or a propitiatory sacrifice both for the quick and for the dead.

Under the aspect, then, of a due celebration of the Eucharist being the preeminent Christian spi

sicut supra dicit, Non est mihi voluntas in vobis, dicit Dominus. Sacrificia non accipiam de manibus vestris: quoniam, ab oriente sole usque in occidentem, nomen meum clarificatum est in omnibus gentibus, dicit Dominus. De spiritalibus vero sacrificiis addit, dicens: Et in omni loco sacrificia munda offerentur nomini meo, dicit Dominus. Tertull. adv. Jud. Oper. p. 125.

In omni loco sacrificium nomini meo offertur, et sacrificium mundum: gloriæ scilicet relatio, et benedictio, et laus, et hymni. Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. iii. § 15. Oper. p. 212.

In omni loco sacrificium nomine meo offeretur, et sacrificium mundum: scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura. Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. iv. § 2. Oper. p. 223.

For Mr. Berington's very creditable acknowledgment, sce Faith of Cathol. p. 257.

ritual sacrifice of thanksgiving, and most clearly under no other aspect, Justin and Ireneus, as their own language most abundantly testifies, understand the passage in Malachi to relate to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper: and, accordingly, by a mere extension of the same principle of exposition, Tertullian views it as referring to every spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. That such is the mode, in which Justin and Irenèus apply the passage to the commemorative celebration of the Eucharist, is, indeed, palpably evident from their own express words. Justin tells us, that prayers and thanksgivings, offered up by the worthy, are the only sacrifices acceptable to God: and he very remarkably adds, that Christians have been taught to offer these ALONE in the commemorative celebration of the Eucharist'. Irenèus supposes, that the outward sign or expression of this spiritual sacrifice of thanksgiving was the oblation of the bread and wine upon the table, antecedently to their consecration, under the aspect of a material eucharistic oblation to God of the first fruits of his creatures 2.

Thus, most evidently, neither of the two passages, adduced by Mr. Berington, tend in the slightest degree to shew: that the sacrament of the Eucharist is represented in Scripture, as a piacular sacrifice perpetually devoted by the priest

1 Taura yàp MONA. See above, book i. chap. 4. § I. 2. (3.) * See above, book i. chap. 4. § I. 2. (4.)

for the purpose of making an atonement both for the quick and for the dead.

2. Having now considered the texts alleged by Mr. Berington and the Bishop of Strasbourg, I may be permitted yet additionally to make an observation; though, in the making of it, I shall probably have been anticipated by the intelligent reader of Holy Scripture.

According to the tacit confession of those two divines themselves, as sufficiently exemplified in their total omission of even any attempt at proof from the Bible, the word of God is wholly silent respecting all the following very important particulars both respecting a conversion of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ; respecting the elements being physically, by consecration, transmuted into the entire Christ, as consisting of flesh and blood and human soul and essential divinity; respecting each separate particle and drop of each element being severally and completely the entire Christ; respecting the payment of divine adoration to the elements when consecrated, under the aspect of such elements being, jointly and severally and dividedly, nothing less than the present Deity; and respecting the Eucharist being a real propitiatory sacrifice both for the quick and for the dead.

On ALL these points, dogmatically laid down by the Council of Trent, and dutifully received by every honest Romanist as undoubted articles of faith, we

« VorigeDoorgaan »