« ForrigeFortsæt »
sentation of a high mass is calculated to appeal to the external senses of Papists, who are on such occasions permitted to use them until the consecration of the host:-but then the person who serves at the mass is ordered to ring a bell as loudly as he can: this is the signal for ultra devotion,-the "faithful" then yield up their sober faculties to fanaticism -then is Reason completely dethroned, and, instead of a fervent heart offered up to God with " a zeal according to knowledge," (Rom. x. ii.), the very essence of Christianity is lost in the blandishments of Popish superstition !—Is not this TRUE to the very letter?-Nay, as the bell is rung more loudly, so to the more ardent partaker in these " mysteries," even respiration appears to become difficult and painful those who have ever witnessed these ceremonies can confirm our testimony *. The last paragraph of this chapter tells us, that in her extravagant exhibitions, Popery follows "the example of Christ, who FREQUENTLY used THE LIKE CEREMONIES "! We are referred to Mark and John to find these proofs; let our readers contrast them :
Mark vii. 33, 34. "And he took him [one who was deaf and dumb] aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit and touched his tongue : and, looking up to heaven, he sighed and saith unto him, ' Ephphatha,' that is, Be opened."
John ix. 6,7. "When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay; and said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which is, by interpretation, Sent). He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing." John xx. 22. "And when he had said this he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost."
"The Greeks and Latins seem to have agreed, in the darker ages, that the essence and life of RELIGION consisted in image worship: in honouring dead saints, in collecting relics, in enriching the Church,' and other such exertions of piety." Mosheim, v. ii. p. 417.-Popery may truly boast that she has not changed in these respects.
Such were the "ceremonies" of Christ those of Popery are to be seen every day. Our Saviour showed that his spittle the very dust that HE mingled with it-possessed a mìraculous power: let us see similar effects proceed from the ceremonies of Popery, and we will believe in her (at present) arrogant and impious assertions.
Such are Popish proofs and Protestant refutation of there having been seven sacraments ordained by our Lord. They were never received by our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, nor was that number decided upon until so agreed by the council of Trent, only between two and three hundred years ago. Bishop Hall tells us that such a number had never been even heard of until Hugo de Victoire contended for it in the twelfth century.*
CHAP. IV.-OF THE REAL PRESENCE AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
What is the doctrine of the Catholic Church in relation to this article?
We believe and profess, that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. And that there is a conversion (or change) of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood; which conversion (or change) the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.
What proofs have you for this?
1st. Matt. xxvi. 26. "As they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; THIS IS MY BODY. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS."-Mark xiv. 22, 24. "Take, eat; This is my body-This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed f for many." Luke xxii, 19. "This is my body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me-This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you." 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. “Take, eat; This is my body which is broken for you-This cup is the New Testament in my blood." Which words of Christ, repeated in so many places, cannot be verified, without offering violence to the text, any
See also Stillingfleet, v. vi.
other way than by a real change of the bread and wine into his body and blood.
2dly, 1 Cor. x. 16. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" Which interrogation of the Apostle is certainly equivalent to an affirmation; and evidently declares, that in the blessed Sacrament we really receive the body and blood of Christ.
3dly, 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29. "Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be GUILTY OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD-He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, NOT DISCERNING THE BODY OF OUR LORD." Now, how should a person be "guilty of the body and blood of our Lord," by receiving unworthily; if what he received were only bread and wine, and not "the body and blood of our Lord ?" Or where should be the crime of "not discerning the body of our Lord," if the "body of our Lord" were not there? 4thly, John vi. 51, &c. "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews, therefore, strove amongst themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. FOR MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, AND MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven, not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."
Hence the Protestants, in their catechism in the Common PrayerBook, are forced to acknowledge, "that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." Now, how that can be verily and indeed taken and received, which is not verily and indeed there, is a greater mystery than transubstantiation.
The literal sense is hard to flesh and blood;
DRYDEN'S Hind and Panther.
Are we not commanded, Luke xxii. 19, to receive the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ?
Yes, we are: and St. Paul. 1 Cor. xi. 26, lets us know what it is that is to be the object of our remembrance when we receive, when he tells us "Yedo show (or show forth) the Lord's death till he come.” But this remembrance is no ways opposite to the real presence of Christ's body and blood: on the contrary, what better remembrance
can there be of Christ's death and passion, than to receive under the sacramental veils the same body and blood in which he suffered for us. Why, then, do you blame Protestants for taking this Sacrament in remembrance of Christ?
We do not blame them for taking it in remembrance of him; but we blame them for taking it as a bare remembrance, so as to exclude the reality of his body and blood. That is, we blame them for taking the remembrance and leaving out the substance; whereas the words of Christ require that they should acknowledge both.
But how is it possible that the Sacrament should contain the real body and blood of Christ?
Because nothing is impossible to the ALMIGHTY; and it is the highest rashness, not to say blasphemy, for poor worms of the earth to dispute the power of God.
We have already observed that there is nothing contained in the doctrines of Christianity which is opposed to human reason ; and reason must ever be our surest guide in elucidating fact. By reason alone we are assured of the most important of all truths, since it is this "lamp of God" which lights us to our Maker; and which it is the chief business of Popery to extinguish, to save herself from the scorn of those whom she has ever led in darkness. The millions who have reasoned and believed, have done so because TRUTH led them to conviction; but how few of those who do not believe-how very few of these have troubled themselves upon scriptural matters at all; and what the generality of such call reasoning is either a repetition of what they have heard others say, as little acquainted with the subject as themselves: or, perhaps, an opinion formed from the perusal of some few pages of a deistical writer, without the slightest reference to the Scriptures! An attentive perusal of the sacred writings is neither calculated to make people Papists nor Deists: in these the former meet with nothing of Popery; and the most learned of the latter dare not deny the truth of our Saviour's prophecies even when effected by a miracle*.
Gibbon, in speaking of the vain attempt of the apostate Julian to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem, says, "the enterprise was defeated, perhaps, by a preternatural event."-Gib. Hist. vol. ii. p. 388-9. The humiliation and dispersion of the Jews is a fact which the most inveterate unbeliever is compelled to admit.
Reason-even human reason-with all its failings, is our only true guide, let popish schoolmen dispute it as they may. As our reason tells us there is a SUPREME POWER, so does it assure us that there must be many things in the very nature of that power which we do not-cannot-comprehend, because He is INFINITE and INCOMPREHENSIBLE: these we take upon the Revelation of them as given in the holy Scriptures; which reason tells us it would be as foolish to deny as the previous existence of men whose works we have not read, or of kingdoms now no more, which we have not seen, Reason tells us, that in speaking of the TRINITY, the INCARNATION, &c. the Scriptures must speak in a language adapted to our capacities: thus, when we read of three persons, we are not to measure the nature of the SUPREME by our own; and to think that, because Matthew, Mark, and Luke were three men, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost must be three Gods? When God is said to have repented, grieved, &c., the prophets could not have more expressively shown how great was the sin of a wicked people than by the application of such terms as were most familiar to the understanding of those whom they addressed. Sin must be ever offensive to God; and although by his breath he could scatter worlds, in what terms could we comprehend the consequences of our own evil actions more clearly than by a denunciation of His wrath, His anger, &c.? In short, it is'as impossible for us to believe in TRUTH without our understanding, as to distinguish colour without our sight. The blind man may believe a thing to be blue or green, because he has been always told it was so; and so he would believe were it black or white. He who possesses the means of distinguishing the one from the other relies upon the evidence of his own senses. Popish infallibility alone denies the right of an examination of the most essential truths; yet, according to her own doctrine of this self-assumed attribute, the Turk, Gentoo, or Esquimaux, must be equally correct in his religious profes¬