Page images
PDF
EPUB

APPENDIX.

NUMBER I.

LITURGIES.

ONE of Dr. Trevern's most favourite arguments, by which he would demonstrate the reception of the doctrine of Transubstantiation on the part of the primitive Church Catholic from the very beginning, is the language of the ancient Liturgies. Discuss. Amic. Lettr. ix. Answ. to Diff. of Rom. p. 181-230.

An author, omnibus hoc vitium est cantoribus, is apt to regard with parental fondness a production of his own, which yet may not strike upon the apprehension of another person as possessing any very special measure of cogency. Such, apparently, were the different estimates of this present argument, as respectively formed by the Bishop of Strasbourg and myself: and the result of the variety, so far as I am concerned, was my well nigh total silence on the topic in the first edition of the Difficulties of Romanism.

Encouraged by my taciturnity, Dr. Trevern unhappily mistook systematic mercy for overwhelming terror. was unwilling to hurt the feelings of an individual, whom, on account of his high alleged amiability, I had been requested to treat with all gentleness and forbearance: my evidence seemed to be quite ample enough, without going into the very inferior question of the Liturgies: and there were certain matters intimately connected with

Dr. Trevern's argument from that quarter, which I could not enter upon without an unpleasant exposure of most reprehensible conduct. Now I had no wish to dissect the Bishop a single iota more than I found absolutely necessary: and his argument from the Liturgies I deemed, even in itself, quite beneath the gravity of serious criticism. Hence, in compliance with the warmly expressed wishes of Mr. Massingberd, I conceived, that a prudent silence on that argument, while I barely mentioned that such an argument had been used, was the best and kindest plan which I could adopt.

In his Answer, Dr. Trevern remarks, doubtless very truly, that, to the argument in question, I offer reply, none whatsoever, to his utter astonishment, none. But it may be doubted, whether, with equal truth, he tells me, that my weak eyes were dazzled by the brilliancy of the old Liturgies: and it may peradventure be also doubted, whether, with any very surpassing measure of discretion, he loudly and somewhat insultingly dares to the combat his supposed shrinking antagonist. Necessity, they say, has no law: and, since the Bishop and his friends have now sufficiently enjoyed his imaginary triumph in re liturgica, I must, when thus bearded, be even content to buckle. on my armour.

་ ་ ་

I. Not one of the old Liturgies, as it is well known, was committed to writing until the fifth century. Previous to that period, whatever of the old Liturgies was in existence, traditionally floated only in the memories of the Priesthood, or partially at least might be caught up by the imperfect recollection of the Laity.

Under such circumstances, it is obvious, that, if any change of doctrine gradually took place; a correspondent change of expression, or rather a correspondent heightening of expression (the easy possibility of which, as we shall presently see, Dr. Treyern himself, with in

terpolative ingenuity, has fully and practically demonstrated), would tacitly and almost imperceptibly take place also. Hence, when the Liturgies came to be committed to writing, they would indeed, most indisputably, exhibit the doctrine of the age when they were so committed: but, whether they would likewise faithfully exhibit the doctrine of a much earlier period, must plainly be learned, not from the Liturgies themselves (which, in the very nature of things, is impossible), but from other independent and ancient extrinsic testimony.

Thus, for instance, in the old Clementine Liturgy, which memoriter was doubtless used in the Eastern Churches anterior to the time of Constantine, the perpetual recurrence of a doxology to the three persons of one essential Godhead is an excellent proof of the early universal reception of the doctrine of the Trinity: BECAUSE we have direct extrinsic evidence, that that doxology is older than the days of Justin Martyr and Polycarp; the former of whom avowedly received it from a prior generation of Christians who had been contemporary with St. John, and the latter of whom used it under his well known character of an immediate pupil of the holy Apostle himself. But, if the same Liturgy inculcated the doctrine of Transubstantiation, we should only have a proof, that such doctrine was received in the fifth century, when that Liturgy, as we now have it, was committed to writing: UNLESS some ancient extrinsic and independent evidence shall, additionally, prove also its reception from the beginning.

Hence it is obvious, that the testimony, afforded by the Liturgies to any doctrine, cannot, in itself, be justly deemed older than the fifth century; for, would we make it available to an earlier period, we must produce independent evidence, as in the recently noticed case of the multiplied doxologies, that such doctrine could claim an

earlier existence: and hence it is also obvious, that the testimony afforded by the Liturgies, thus resolving itself into and thus depending upon yet older distinct testimony, can never be legitimately deemed to possess any higher value than that of an occasionally very useful supplement.

I am far from admitting, as we shall presently find, that, in point of fact, the Liturgies do teach the doctrine of Transubstantiation: I am merely, through the very intelligible medium of a case hypothetical, shewing what the value of their testimony would be, if they really did teach any such extraordinary doctrine.

II. It will now probably be seen, why, under a controversial aspect, I thought very cheaply of Dr. Trevern's favourite argument from the Liturgies: it will now probably be seen, why I judged, that I might well save myself the trouble of formally considering a matter, which, for its value, depended wholly upon extrinsic support.

But, as I have hinted, there was yet another reason for my silence: my extreme unwillingness, to wit, through a decent compliance with the wish expressed by Mr. Massingberd, to expose a Prelate, of so amiable a described character as Dr. Trevern, one jot more than I was absolutely compelled to do.

In his Answer to myself, the Bishop of Strasbourg sums up in a single sentence the several points of doctrine, which, in his Discussion Amicale, he had previously enumerated and insisted upon, as set forth, clearly and distinctly, in the ancient Liturgies. It will be convenient, therefore, to give his own proper summing up, as a sort of text on which to raise my ensuing observations.

Treating of the Liturgies, he says: They all speak uniformly, and in expressions the most energetic, of our

doctrines. All proclaim, with one voice, the altar, the oblation, the unbloody sacrifice of the new covenant, the real presence of the victim, the change of substance, and, in fine, the adoration. Answ. to Diff. of Roman. p.

182.

I shall consider these several points according to the order in which they stand.

1. The Liturgies, it seems, all proclaim the altar.

How this can be any proof, that those, who used them, held the doctrine of Transubstantiation, I am really at a loss to comprehend.

When, probably from the very beginning, the bread and wine were offered at the table, as a material oblation of the first-fruits of God's creatures, in order to their subsequent sacramental consecration; when, also, most probably from the beginning, the whole service at the same table was deemed a spiritual and unbloody sacrifice of thanksgiving, whence doubtless, it received the name of the eucharist; and when again, at a later period, the consecrated elements, still upon the same table, began to be esteemed a symbolical unbloody sacrifice commemorative of the one efficacious literal bloody sacrifice upon the cross the natural consequence was, that a table, thus circumstanced, would be called an altar. Without such an appellation, the phraseological allegory would have been incomplete: for an altar is implied in a sacrifice. But, before the use of the word altar can be construed to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation, we must have it distinctly shewn to us, that the literal body and blood of Christ are materially offered up at the Lord's table as an expiatory sacrifice both for the living and for the dead.

2. The Liturgies furthermore proclaim the oblation. Doubtless they do: but it does not therefore quite logically follow, that they use the word oblation in the

« PreviousContinue »