« PreviousContinue »
dition of the doctrine is founded; and the unfairness of the Romish advocates consists in bringing forward these figurative terms, seemingly favourable to their notion, without contrasting them with the literal expressions of the same fathers, which are irreconcileable with their hypothesis. For, it is evident, that they who believed the Sacrament to be a sign, and a representation, might, consistently with that belief, in order to magnify the benefits of communion, and to impress men's minds with a deeper sense of the sacred character of the rite, have oratorically called it the true body and blood of Christ :- -our own Church, for instance, in denying the Corporeal Presence, scruples not to affirm, "that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper:" meaning only that the benefits of his Sacri*fice are partaken of, and justifying her language by St. Paul's own expressions. But it is impossible to suppose, that they who held a material presence, should have ever styled the Sacrament only an exemplar, a type, and a representation. This single observation will serve as a key to the highly wrought descriptions of the fathers; and is sufficient to overthrow the conclusion, which the Romanists draw from such passages.
"The Fathers," says the same excellent Prelate whom we have just quotecl,"contented themselves to believe what Christ had said,This is my body,' without presuming on their own heads to determine the nanner,
how it is his body; neither weighing all their own words so exactly before any controversy was raised, nor expounding the sayings of other men, contrary to the analogy of faith." Ib. p. 16.
It was not until the ninth century, that the dispute about the mode of Christ's presence in the Eucharist properly began. Paschal
Radbert, Abbot of Corby, in the year 831, is acknowledged by Bellarmine, and by the Jesuit Sirmond, in his life of Radbert, to have been the first who endeavoured to explain
* "At present, however, it is the custom to say that Paschasius Radbert......invented Transubstantiation; or to use the words of the Vicar, (Dr. Grier); gave it a settled shape,' But first, he himself has told us in a preceding page. that the second Council of Nice....had introduced it,' full fifty years before Paschasius wrote; and you have seen, in the terms of their decision, that they taught this dogma as clearly as the Council of Lateran, or Trent, did afterwards." Dr. Milner's Vindic. Dr. Grier has sufficiently 171. p. cleared himself from the charge of contradiction. It is founded solely on Dr. Milner's accustomed hardihood of assertion. The second Council of Nice first asserted the doctrine of the Corporeal Presence; but did NOT define the mode of that presence,-Paschase first attempted to explain it, and was immediately opposed by the best scholars of Europe, who insisted on a spiritual, though real presence. Berengarius adopted their doctrine in times more unfavourable to free inquiry. The 4th Council of Lateran, in 1215, first authoritatively pronounced the transubstantiation of the bread into the body, and of the wine into the blood, of Christ: and the 4th Council of Florence, in 1249, first asserted the contradiction, that the whole body and blood, together with the soul and divinity. of Christ, were contained under the species of the bread; and yet that the whole body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, were contained under the species of the wine.
the doctrine of the Corporeal Presence.Radbert himself speaks not of his notion, as one universally received; on the contrary, he laments "the slowness of some in believing it, and pretends that he had been the means of moving many to assent to it." That he should have asserted, in a dedication to Charles the Bald, (a circumstance on which Dr. Milner lays great stress) that he was delivering the "sentiments and doctrine of the Catholic Fathers," and that he himself believed that he was doing so, is quite natural. Every one believes his own doctrine to be true and ancient. But, that many others did not believe the same, is evident from the opposition which his opinions met with, at the very moment of their publication. For how was this doctrine received, which it is now asserted by Dr. Milner, was the depositum of an universal Tradition ?---The notion, it is well known, was immediately combated by the most distinguished scholars and divines of Europe; who maintained, in opposition to the revolting tenet of Radbert, that the Sacrament contained only
It is difficult to conceive, how the same material substance which is contained wholly under one species, can be contained wholly under another; or that what is contained wholly under one species should be contained wholly under every particle of that species; since every body which is contained wholly in one thing, cannot exist, even in part, in another. This doctrine, however, it is, which the Council of Trent finally ackowledged and ratified. Wherein consists Dr. Grier's self-contradiction? See his reply to Milner. p. 115.
the symbols of Christ's body and blood:-a strange reception for a doctrine, which had been universally held for upwards of eight centuries! No stigma of heresy, or of novelty, it deserves to be mentioned, was affixed to the opinion of Bertram and others, who vehemently opposed Radbert, although we are now told, that their opinion was unheard of before those days,
The controversy slept for the greater part of the two following centuries, until it was re-, vived by Berengarius, about the year 1050. From the time of its first publication by Radbert, the tenet of Transubstantiation had, no doubt, been gradually gaining ground. The soil and temperature of the times were propitious to its growth.-Berengarius, though powerfully supported, was obliged to retract his opinion:-he soon, however, disavows his forced submission, but is again compelled to retract, in a form of confession, sanctioned by Pope Nicholas II. and a Council; the very words of which manifestly prove, that the doctrine had not, even at that time, acquired its present shape and consistency. The Romish writers are themselves ashamed of the retractation, dictated to this unhappy victim of persecution.* What Berengarius said or did on
* In this retractation, as Dr. Milner owns; Berenger was required to acknowledge, that "the body of Christ is touched. by the hands of the Priest, and broken by the teeth of the faithful;"-which words, says he after Bossuet, "are only to be understood of the exterior species, or accidents, of the
a death-bed, is nothing to the purpose. His compunction may have been occasioned by his weakness in yielding to the intimidations of the Roman See; and that it was so, is most probable. In fine, it was not until the year 1215, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was declared by the Council of Lateran to be an article of the Romish faith; and even after this Council, new subtilties, and yet more gross contradictions, were introduced into the doctrine by the Council of Florence in 1249.
It would, however, be satisfactory, although it is not necessary to the argument, to find a Church, which had, by a peculiarity of circumstances, been so entirely kept apart from all commerce with the See of Rome, as never to have felt the influence either of its power or example. Such, indeed, was our own Church before the conversion of the Saxons; and her usages and opinions, in her independent state, entirely destroy the pretence of universality, thus confidently set up for the Romish Tradi
Sacraments; just as a man says, I am wet, or, I am torn, when only his clothes are wet or torn." Vindic. p. 174.What more candid Romanists have, in the plainest terms, condemned, Dr. Milner defends. Who would ever say, that he had broken the body of another with his teeth, when he only meant, that he had broken something which formed no part of that body. Colloquial expressions explain themselves. The . exaggeration contained in them deceives no one.-Definitions, or formal confessions, must be interpreted literally.-The absurdities and monstrous contradiction of the senses, contained in this confession dictated by the Pope and his Council, are well exhibited and exposed by Bishop Bramhall.