Изображения страниц

“ been figurative, we might expect that his apostle, in comment“ing on them, would drop some word calculated to betray their “ real meaning." This we conceive him to have done; for after having commented on the idolatry and sins of the ancestors of the Jews, summing up his words with an exhortation to the Corinthians to flee from idolatry, he immediately introduces the subject of the Eucharist, and in introducing it addresses them as opóvipoi, able to judge what he says. Previously he had been treating of spiritual food* and of spiritual drink, which he identified with Christ; and subsequently citing Israel, as participants of the legal sacrifices, emphatically and distinctively names them Israel after the flesh; which, collectively considered, should reasonably induce our conclusion (more especially as at the beginning of the chapter he had quoted baptism under a figure) that here also his words must be figuratively understood. Thus then, having perceived the bread and the cupt elsewhere

* Here likewise, by the terms differing from those of the following chapter (““ tòy äprov Öv klājev," the bread which we break), we are enabled to set at rest the idle dispute about albuevov, which we have noticed in the preceding pages.

+ The words of Zwingli are deserving of notice (Op. p. iv.) “Visus (Apostolus) nimirum sibi propter troporum densitatem locutus esse paulo obscurius; claris ergo verbis rem proponit, ac si diceret, quum tali epiphonemate vos adorior, si poculo gratiarum actionis nos invitamus, nonne ille cætus noster est communio, hoc est, populus, ecclesia, concio sanguinis Christi? Vos enim estis communio sanguinis Christi. .... Et panis quem frangimus, nonne corpus, populus, cætus corporis Christi est ? Nos enim omnes, auctore Apostolo ipso, unus panis sumus et unum corpus, non carneum Christi corpus, sed Christi ecclesia," Augustin also (S. 272.) speaking of the church, as Christ's mystical body, connects the term with the Eucharist, and says, “ Recolite, quod panis non fit de uno grano, sed de multis . . . . Sic de vino, fratres, recolite, unde fit vinum ! Grana multa pendent ad Bórpuv, sed liquor granorum in unitate (scil. calicis) confunditur. Ita et Dominus Christus nos significavit, nos ad se pertinere voluit, mysterium pacis et unitatis nostræ in suâ mensâ consecravit.” Although to various things the cup was metaphorically applied, from the remotest ages, (e. g. the divining cup of Joseph and the lo ha divī or of the Persians,) it has been before shown that it was continually applied also to death; and Motanebbi, in nervous language, described it handed round to the combatants upon the tops of spears. So, at Gethsemane, our Saviour expressed his crucifixion by it, which the Syrian calls the cup of this hour. This sense must therefore have been familiar at the time of the institution. Both among the Jews and Pagans, bread was equally connected with the services of religion ; and the veneration of it was so far carried


that some (في الجاهلية) among theArabs in the days of Paganism

to have become the subjects of metaphor,—and mention to have been made of Christ's glorified body in contradistinction to his material body, and the figure to have been extended to the completion of the legal types, as shadows finding their body in him, (Col. ii. 17,) and to the church itself, as his body-we cannot well err in applying the same rule of interpretation to our present point. For if in places plainly alluding to the Eucharist the language be tropical, we have every reason to suppose that it must be equally so in those, which describe the institution itself. Few persons reviewing dispassionately the common Jewish phraseology, would hesitate to admit that eating flesh conjoined with drinking blood must have implied death ; therefore, that the words in John vi. 54, might easily have been understood to denote, that by his death those, who believed in him should obtain everlasting life;—if so, when the bread was afterwards exhibited as his flesh or his body, and the cup as his blood or the New Covenant in his blood, and the object of the institution wa declared to be commemorative, (eig trìv dvápnoir uov,) assuredly no one versed in the figures of the language could for a minute have believed that the bread was really his body, or the cup really his blood. For, if we descend to particulars, will any one deny that the cup itself contains a figure? Was it the cup, or was it the wine which it contained, that denoted the blood of Christ? Here then we find a figure in the very term of the New Testament, and yet are forbidden to apply a figure to the institution. Besides, as abstinence from blood was one of the things which the Apostolic council enacted, we might as reasonably argue, that some exception respecting the Eucharist would have been made in their decree, if real blood had existed in it, exactly as Dr. Wiseman argues, that if the corporeal presence were not designed to be expressed, St. Paul or one of the Evangelists would have given a hint to that effect.

But is the practice of his Church, in withholding the cup from the laity, sanctioned by the Greek text or by primitive

Were not the elements, as Clemens Alexandrinus says, designed to be partaken by all the members of Christ's mystical body? Was not the cup equally given with the 780 in the ordinance of the Jews ?-was not even the meanest Hebrew servant allowed to sit at table; because all having been in bondage, all having been delivered from it, all should partake of the bread, and all should drink the wine, as commemoratives of the event, and symbols of their thankfulness to God? And can we imagine that in this respect the antitype should have been more circumscribed than the type ? even had idols of dough ; and it is recorded of the tribe of Hanifa, that during a long famine they ate their idol, whence arose the proverb,


usage ?

.Hanifa has eaten its Lord اكلت حنيفه ربها

Lastly ; his remarks on čvoxos and vpīļa require no particular notice; but when he would allege, from per dakpivwv, (1 Cor. xi. 29,) that the body of our Lord must have been present to have been distinguished, we must once more assert that his allegation exceeds the force of the word ; that the expression is far more applicable to the Protestant belief; and that if the conversion of the elements had taken place, it would not require to be distinguished, because it would be self-evident. The apostle's words, on the contrary, relate to him who does not discern the spiritual nature of the sacrament, the emblematical and commemorative object of this πνευματική θυσία.

Thus have we examined the leading particulars in Dr. Wiseman's volume, nor can we admit that he has placed the question in a more advantageous light than he found it. The chief points in his subject he has frequently repeated, and submitted to a course of criticism : how far we conceive his criticisms to be correct, the reader will have seen. We object to him, that he is too much in the habit of assuming facts, and drawing inferences from them as if they were verities; that he wanders too much into extraneous matter, and indulges in illustrations which are not suited to his subject. Nor do we conceive his attacks on Dr. Clarke, the Rev. H. Horne, and Professor Lee, to have been suited to the occasion, or the language in which they are clothed to have been worthy of the liberal scholar ; more especially as arguments deduced from the Syriac can at best have but a secondary weight. His zeal occasionally involves him in contradictions; and by admitting the existence of figurative language where it suits him, and denying it where it does not, he has unfortunately carried his prejudices into his criticisms. We however feel, that we have honestly discharged our duty, and have not been unduly biassed; nor have our observations exceeded the boundary which necessity prescribed

Allowing him to apply the vith chapter of St. John's Gospel to the Eucharist, which we well knew to be his strongest defence, we have shewn that its correct interpretation is inimical to the opinions of his Church, consequently that the authority of the Council of Trent is invalid ; proving thereby, on the other hand, that the Church of England is warranted in its doctrine by the Word of God, and is free from all contradictions on the subject. Our observations have necessarily been philological, because on philology he grounds his evidence.

But, after the most impartial consideration, we cannot perceive that he has argumentatively advanced his cause, or introduced novel materials. There is however so much which is irrelevant, and so much which is recapitulatory of the preceding, that although the book divested of these excrescences would be reduced to a very small compass, it is on these accounts almost

to us.

impossible to pass it under review without reverting to subjects already noticed.

Since, then, it is clear that the Catholic doctrine cannot be established by scriptural proofs, let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; knowing that this can be so substantiated ; that it can be retraced through types and figures to the remotest antiquity; that it can be verified by primitive ecclesiastical documents, and that it is conformable to every exalted notion of the Deity.

Art. III. - The Treatment of the Sacred Scriptures by the

Modern Church of Rome.

IT is very possible, and may be freely admitted, that opponents of the Church of Rome of whatever class, and therefore Protestants, may have overstated their charges against her, either generally or as respects her conduct towards the holy Scriptures. But it is much more frequently the case, that this has been done by the accused herself, with the effect certainly, if not with the design, of thereby obtaining vantage positions, which enable her to make both assertions and denials otherwise impossible or hopeless. This is an additional reason why every impugner of Romanism should be careful to keep within the bounds of accuracy in his allegations, against an adversary who knows so well how to improve every indiscretion of the assailant. The Church of Rome has been accused of teaching, that no faith is to be kept with heretics. The charge in this unqualified form is certainly not correct. In common transactions it is the practice, as it is the interest, of even the most devoted servants of the Roman see, instead of uselessly throwing away their credit, to increase its stock, in order that it may be used where it is wanted, and will tell—by enabling them more profitably to break their faith to the heretic, when a competent interest of their church not only permits it as a license, but enjoins it as a duty, to perform the act. The inaccuracy would be similar, to charge the Church of Rome with universal and absolute hostility to the Scriptures. Such a charge, whether made or assumed, would only put it into the power of that church's friends—and they have shown that they know how to use it—to establish exceptions, which may be made to pass for a complete refutation of the then presumed calumny. These persons for the most part know sufficiently well, that after the most liberal deduction which can be allowed, the main gravity of the charge still remains; and they cannot hold up their heads against it. We do not deny that the Italian Church never shows herself an enemy to Scripture, as long as Scripture does not show itself an enemy to her.

We do not deny that she may tolerate, and even encourage the diffusion of the Divine word, as long as such diffusion does not interfere with, or may be made to subserve, her credit, her power, or her purse. We acknowledge as freely as need be, that in all cases in which she can trace and trust the progress

of the Scriptures, in all cases where her control is certain and effectual, no obstruction is given. We admit too, that there are emergencies, not simply imaginary, which may produce in the rulers of the Roman Church considerable zeal and activity, both in providing and diffusing the sacred volume among their subjects. But we know, at the same time, where the temptation and test lie; and shall probably convince the reader that the hostility of Rome to the Scriptures of God is, under particular, definable, attested circumstances, determined, unrelenting, ferocious. Facts and particulars of a decisive character, on such a subject, are a far more just and satisfactory criterion than any general descriptions; and to palliate such as will be adduced by adducing others of an opposite character, would scarcely be more rational than to excuse a man for sending a bullet through the head of his neighbour, because he had formerly paid him some or many civilities.

The modern Church of Rome, and her conduct, is our subject. But as all historical subjects are best and most fairly considered by proceeding chronologically from the beginning, we will commence with the nativity of that church. To those who are read in the Romish controversy, it is not news; but it is proper in this place to bring into notice a work of the incomparable Usher on the very subjectHistoria Dogmatica de Scripturis et Sacris Vernaculis, Lond. 1690. It is a posthumous work, and intended to be the first of a series of similar works, in which the testimonies on the subject are chronologically and amply given, in the

very words of the author, increased and carried on by the very learned editor, Henry Wharton. Discussions highly useful, if not necessary, are interspersed.* The remark in the preface of the edition, recommendatory of the method adopted, as the most secure against evasions, is worth repeating :-"Quas enim admittit dialectica tricas et argutias, excludit historia. Illi litem movere potest subtile atque acre ingenium: huic sola frontis impudentia.' The last is not always wanted. It would be impracticable and superfluous to go through the ecclesiastic history of Rome, in each successive century. But for the first existence of the church in that metropolis, and while she maintained her average purity, she is entitled to all the praise her

* There is one plainly deducing from heathen and heretical practice the Disciplina Arcana—of which the modern controvertists of Rome dexterously avail themselves, to convert a real argument against a proposition into an apparent argument for it.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »