Billeder på siden

sions. "I will hear of no examination of any scriptural truths, since mine is an infallible belief," says the Papist→→→→ "Neither will I," says each of the others, "for so have I been taught to consider mine, nor will I inquire, but believe." The lamp of God (Prov. xx. v. 27) must be extinguished by them all, or they (supposing all to have the opportunity) would examine for themselves; and did they so, Reason is the surest, and consequently the safest, guide that could direct them. Nor is it unfair to suppose that the Papist, Turk, or Esquimaux, after an attentive perusal of the Scriptures, would place infallibility in the Godhead where it is only due, and that the former would reject the impiety of creating his CREATOR, and of afterwards (by what he is taught to call an

unbloody sacrifice") quaffing his real blood and grinding with his teeth that which is declared to be his real flesh! Reason, at least, is opposed to such impious rites. Those who adhere to them (however learned they be) merely because they have been so taught, appeal not to Reason, but solely rely upon the prejudices of their education. Truth would be Truth still, although the whole world departed from her; but her celestial light can never illuminate the fanatic who is ready to swear he is "infallible." Throughout the whole Bible there is no one thing said or done by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which contradicts the evidence even of any of our external senses-to these the miracles of Christ and the Apostles appeal. Reason tells us that, had they been forgeries, the enemies of Christianity would have gladly disproved them. To believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, we must yield up sight, smell, taste, &c. &c. However, we profess to draw all our proofs from the Scriptures; and if these do not disprove Transubstantiation, we will readily admit it.

It must be confessed that the Pope has, on the present occasion, quoted more extensively than usual from the sacred volume; it has hitherto been our complaint that he has

adduced so small a portion of Scripture in proof of his assertions; and now that he has found so many lines, as his Church thinks, in favour of her own favourite tenet-Transubstantiation, still, we are disposed to be displeased with his misapplication of them. In the first paragraph we are given to understand that a little flour, water, and wine, "is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our LORD JESUS CHRIST !!!If Popery can prove this by the Scriptures, we will be the first to admit that the performance of the most absolute impossibility is, with her, a mere matter-of-course accomplishment. Although in the extracts from Scripture a reference to the Epistles is (we know not wherefore) scattered among the Gospels, we will apply ourselves first (to save unnecessary discussion) to the latter the first three of which we take altogether, since the Pope-as it were, to make a show of proof-has, with a most Jesuitical craft, extracted the passages alluded to from the three Evangelists as stated by each when speaking of the same subject, viz., the Last Supper. The sum of these expressions is, that, as our Saviour gave the Apostles the bread and wine, he said, "this is my body-this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many." It is the belief of all Christians that the prefigurations of the old law were the types which were to be fulfilled in Christ; and thus was the Passover of the Jews a typical representation which our Saviour fulfilled, using the same form of words which had been pronounced by the Jews, instead of "This is the Paschal Lamb which was slain for us in Egypt;" he said, "This is my body which is given for you." When Moses sprinkled the blood, he used this form as repeated by St. Paul, (Heb. ix. 20) "This is the blood of the Testament which God hath enjoined you,"-instead of the Old Testament. Christ said, "This is my blood of the New Testament,”—and which was thus rendered easy and familiar to

his Apostles; who, although they had declared some things they had heard from their Divine Master, "hard sayings," yet they expressed no astonishment at these words of Christ; but which, if they had understood them to mean Transubstantiation—is it unfair to ask-would they not have expressed? If they were not to believe that the bread and wine which they saw and tasted was bread and wine, but to have given up all their senses at once, they could not have been sure that it was Christ himself who addressed them! But, contrary to the evidence of fact, let us suppose for a moment, that they had believed that Christ spoke in a positive rather than a spiritual sense; they could not have remained in the error two minutes, since, in the verses following those referred to in the "Grounds of Faith," our Saviour most clearly explains to them the meaning of the figure he had used. As neither the Pope nor the Doctor appear to have read the chapters throughout, from which they have quoted so liberally, we will also extract a verse or two from these same chapters, which it is obvious they have overlooked! The Pope's extract is from Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, and 28—we beg to add the 29th, "But I say unto you I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom." Does Popery wish it to be understood by this text that CHRIST had drunk his own blood? It will not, we suppose, be denied that Christ and the Apostles partook of the same beverage? St. Mark is next quoted; but as our Saviour's expressions, as they relate to the "fruit of the vine," are stated in the very words of St. Matthew, we need not repeat them: this is the case also with St. Luke, who not only, as the Pope tells us, gives the words that the bread and wine were to be taken in remembrance of Christ; but that (v. 15.) Christ said, "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer." Popery, we presume, will not object to a part of the extracts given above

being figurative; as, "This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you."-These are the words of institution.-She dare not say they are not figurative, since the cup did not represent the BLCOD of our LORD, which had not then been shed?-Again, if the elements were to lose their nature; how was it they were called bread and wine after consecration? The next passage is from 1 Cor. xi. v. 24, 25,—but before we pay it further attention, why, we ask, is the paragraph from the 10th chapter put between the verses of the 11th? Is it to divide the sense of the whole chapter into particles—to make a show by many relations of the same narrative, or both of these? We will notice the whole chapter (11th,) which treats on "Profaning the Lord's Supper ;" and in which St. Paul condemns the Corinthians for their irregularity of conduct, when they went to partake of it; where one would be hungry and another

drunken, (v. 21.) He then tells them expressly how they were to take the bread (v. 24.) in remembrance of Christ; and that the wine (v. 25.) was to be taken in remembrance of our Saviour, also. The Pope has partially quoted the parts which he thought would best suit him, and asks, "How could he be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if these were not substantially in the cup?" We might answer, just in the same manner as those were guilty of it for upwards of twelve hundred years, until Pope Innocent first commanded that the real presence should be in the cup. But this is not our way of reasoning-" He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the body of our Lord," says the Apostle : and that the texts quoted upon this subject should be the more effective with those not permitted to look into the Gospel, they are distinguished by the Pope by CAPITAL LETTERS: He who "eateth and drinketh unworthily," we believe, most certainly, does so to his own condemnation ;*

* Protestants do not understand the ill consequences of even partaking in the

(our 28th Church Article clearly expresses it)-not discerning the spiritual gift in the cup-the body and blood of Christ, which are received and eaten through the medium of faith. But, says the Pope, "where should be the crime of not discerning the body of our Lord, if the body of our Lord were not there?" As Popery will have discerning (which we should have understood as not acknowledging the spiritual efficacy) in the vulgar sense, seeing, we must beg some Romish priest who has seen anything more than a wafer and some wine in the chalice at the time of consecration, just to be so kind as to inform us what other appearance it was to which it changed? We have read of the Popish priest who first made the discovery of transubstantiation, seeing the elements he had consecrated change into the figure of a child, (we choose so to express it-he spoke more impiously,) -if the miracle still continues, we must confess our ignorance-we really were not conscious of it. We now come to the long extract from John, when relating a different circumstance to that which the three other Evangelists had previously told. However, it is evident that there are many portions of this chapter that the Pope and Doctor have also overlooked, although it will not be denied that they are applicable to the subject in hand. It has been seen by the Pope's extract that Christ frequently calls the bread his flesh-it commences at the 51st verse of the sixth chapter. It was scarcely worth while, we should think, to leave out the first two lines of this verse, because they clearly express what kind of bread our Saviour declared himself to bebread which infidelity must admit could not be made by human hands. The verse commences thus:-"I am the LIVING BREAD which came DOWN FROM HEAVEN ; if any man

holy sacrament without a proper examination of conscience, as meriting ETERNAL condemnation; but as St. Paul has explained them in the verses immediately following those selected by the Pope:-"For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep, (i. e. are dead.) For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world."-(1 Cor. ch, xi. v. 30, 31, 32.)

« ForrigeFortsæt »