Page images
PDF
EPUB

the changing of the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ, is next denounced as unscriptural, and as overthrowing the nature of a Sacrament.

From what has been already said, it is evident that the Apostles must have understood Christ's words in a figurative sense, when He instituted this Sacrament. It will not therefore be necessary to say much further on this point; except to shew, from the words of Christ himself, and also from those of the Apostle St. Paul, that it has no real foundation in Scripture. Our Saviour, even after the consecration, called the wine, the fruit of the vine; "For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom*;" where

superstitious age; and though some, who saw its repugnance to Scripture, opposed it, they were by degrees overborne; the anathemas of the Church, and the terrors of burning, were infallible things, to silence contradiction, at least, if not to gain assent; so that in the twelfth century, it was held by the Church of Rome as actual Gospel truth. In the next century, the word Transubstantiation was first used by Stephen, Bishop of Autun, and became generally adopted, to designate this doctrine of the conversion of the consecrated elements into the actual body and blood of Christ, which has ever been a favourite one of that Church.

* Matt. xxvi. 28, 29.

66

it is evidently implied, that no change had taken place in its real nature. St. Paul's words, in giving an account of the institution of the Sacrament, are as follow:-" For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lord's death, till He come*." Moreover he calls it "this bread,” five separate times in this account; and not once, the body of Christ." In another place he calls it, “the communion of Christ's body and blood † ;" and not strictly" the body and blood;" implying that there was a spiritual communication of blessings, along with the elements, and not an actual change of them. As also the words, " ye do shew forth the Lord's death," imply that the whole was a figurative memorial of Christ's sacrifice.

Transubstantiation " overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament." A Sacrament implies the sanctification of some outward matter as a visible sign of some inward spiritual benefit. Whereas, according to this doctrine, the sign becomes no longer a sign, but the actual thing signified. It also palpably contradicts the evidence of our senses; and thus goes to overthrow the only sure foundation which we have for faith in God's revelation. God convinces the world of the authority of those whom He sends to speak in His name, by giving them power to work

* 1 Cor. xi. 26.

+1 Cor. x. 16.

miracles; these miracles are an appeal to the senses of mankind, and the highest appeal that can be made, to confirm His presence and power. The miracle of Transubstantiation, (as it must be if the doctrine be admitted,) so far from being an appeal to our senses, contradicts the evidence of them all; the elements remaining to all our perceptions precisely the same, after consecration, as before. So that, if this doctrine is to be believed, we must disbelieve the voice of those faculties which God has endowed us with, as the only way to find out truth, and thus be thrown into a maze of doubt and uncertainty. Neither is any spiritual end attained by it; for it is acknowledged that in this Sacrament, even though unworthy receivers, (according to the Romish doctrine,) receive the true body of Christ, yet they do not receive grace with it; and that in worthy receivers the grace remains, after that, by the destruction of the species of bread and wine, the body of Christ is withdrawn. So that the spiritual effect of the Sacrament does not, after all, depend upon the corporal presence.

This doctrine is opposed to the belief of the primitive Church. Of this there are presumptive proofs. On all the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, as "the Incarnation of Christ," "the Resurrection of the Body," &c. the ancient Fathers

have written largely; whereas no disquisitions on this point, are to be found in their works; on the contrary, they appealed to the testimony of the senses, as infallible; and treating of the Sacrament, they say plainly, " it was bread and true wine that Christ did consecrate to be the memorial of His body and blood." Again, the enemies of Christians reproached them with believing what they termed, the absurdity of the incarnation, death, and burial of a God; but not a word of reproach is found, as to their belief of " the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of God." There are also direct proofs of it. The early Fathers in their writings constantly call the elements after consecration bread and wine*, and shew that they understood Christ's words figuratively, by calling them symbols, types, signs, figures, &c.

This doctrine also has given rise to many superstitions, which, indeed, seems a natural consequence of its reception. The Papists worshipped the conse

66

* Numerous passages from the writings of the ancient fathers are quoted by Burnet to establish this; e. g. Justin Martyr calls the consecrated elements "bread and wine;" though he adds that they were not common bread and wine;" and he goes on to shew by way of illustration, that as Christ's human nature did not lose its substance by its union with divinity, so the bread and wine did not lose their proper substance by consecration in the Sacrament.

crated wafer on their knees *, carried it about in solemn procession, applied it for the cure of diseases; and used various superstitious practices, inconsistent with the simplicity and spirituality of the Gospel.

The "mean whereby the body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament, is Faith." It has been already shewn, that Christ's body and blood are not actually present in the Eucharist; Hence, instead of the groundless doctrine of transubstantiation, which is contradicted by our senses, is irreconcileable to reason, repugnant to Scripture, and was unknown in the Christian Church for the first seven hundred years; we hold the spiritual presence of Christ, and the communion of His body and blood in a spiritual manner by Faith: so that all who rightly and worthily partake in this Sacrament, have the divine life, which is begun in their souls, strengthened, refreshed, and supported, in a spiritual manner; and that thus they become "one with Christ, and Christ with them."

Our kneeling at the Sacrament, is only because we consider it a proper posture in which to offer up prayer and praise to God; and is not in the slightest degree, a worshipping of the Sacramental em

blems.

« PreviousContinue »