Page images
PDF
EPUB

Drought to the test of what was held by the many eminent men, who flourished in the fourth century. Further he knows, that they spoke commonly of a change made in the elements by the act of consecration; conceiving of this change as superinducing a heavenly virtue on the elements, but not destroying their substantial properties. That they expressed the former sentiment in language which led to transubstantiation, shall not be here denied; but is considered as fruitful of caution, as to whatever may lead to the same result. Among the arguments which should clear them from the charge of that extremity of errour, is the fact of their occasionally speaking of the bread and the wine, as remaining after the consecration. Of their sense in this respect, evidence may be seen in the consecration prayer in the twelfth chapter of the eighth book of the apostolical constitutions. There exists no doubt, that it was used in the Churches, in the fourth century. In it, after the repetition of the words of the institution, at which the Roman Church believes the change of the elements to take place, the bread and the wine are called by their proper names; and the Holy Ghost is besought "to make* this bread and this wine the body and the blood of Christ," to the receivers: which is very exceptionable language, on the supposition of an essential change of properties already made.

The pressure of this difficulty was felt by cardinal Bona, in writing his celebrated treatise on liturgical subjects. He takes noticet of the above recited order in the prayer of consecration; acknowledging it to be in ancient liturgies; especially the Mozarabick: the same which so long stood its ground in France and Spain, until born down by the all-controlling weight of "The Roman Order." The learned cardinal says, that some suppose the order of the words in the prayer to have been originally different; which he disallows, as disproved by the ancient manuscripts. But he gives

*The Greek word is "apan." The proper Latin word as given by Cotelerius, is " exhibeat."

Lib. ii. cap. 13.

two ways, in which the fact had been accounted for. Some thought, that the officiating priest is represented as carried beyond himself, in the contemplation of the mystery; and the opinion of the cardinal is, that there is nothing absurd in the priest's praying for that which had been already granted. Is not this solution rather suited to the extravagance of an extempore petition, in a single act of devotion, than to well weighed and edifying forms, made use of throughout extensive countries, and for several ages? He says, that others distinguish between the true body of Christ, which is made by the words of the institution, and his mystical body -the Church: in behalf of which the priest prays, that the members of it may be one body with Christ. The cardinal adds, that there are other solutions, which he omits. It is here supposed, that there can be no solution consistent with transubstantiation; in the way of which, there will always remain the stubborn fact of the consecration prayer above referred to.

According to Dr. Covel, in his "Account of the Greek Church" in 1772, and speaking as lately an eye witness, the practice continued to that time, as in the fourth century, to pray for the sanctifying of the ele ments, after the reciting of the words of the institution: by which, according to the Church of Rome, the transubstantiation is effected.

Ecclesiastical history furnishes testimony sufficiently decisive on the present subject. The lateness of the introduction of the custom of elevating and adoring the Host-there being no mention of the doctrine, in the controversy with those who held the humanity of the Saviour to have been in appearance only-and the circumstance, that the heathen never reproached Christians as to this point, although it might so pertinently have been made an offset against them, under the provocations of argument and of sarcasm, because of the worship paid to senseless matter; are unanswerable evidence of the late origin of a doctrine, which could not have begun but in ages of ignorance and superstition; however it may be continued by prejudice, and

by the link binding it to a body of theological opinions, which must stand or fall with their associate.

To contract the present view of the subject, to the single circumstance of the elevation and the worship of the Host: there needs no better evidence of the lateness of it, than what cardinal Bona has written in his work above referred to. In regard to the Latin Church* he abandons the subject; acknowledging, that he knew not when it was introduced into the Churches of Italy; and not discovering any traces of it in the other Latin Churches, until he lights on the mention of it by two authors, found in Gaul in the beginning of the fourth century: from whence he says, it was carried in the next century into Germany; wherein, of course, it was before unknown. He is displeased with some unnamed writer, whom he pronounces heterodox, for dating the origin under Innocent the Third, in the beginning of the thirteenth century: urging against him the two authorities, which he affirms to apply to the twelfth.

The cardinal has better hopes from the testimony of the Greek Church. He says, that its writers testify to the elevation of the Host from ancient times-he does not say from the beginning. He states the object of the elevation to be-that it may be adored by the people. Here are two points to be kept separate: the fact of the elevation, and the purpose-that of adoration. To the latter, there does not apply a single authority presented. The question, then, is reduced to the elevation.

In relation to this point, there is produced the Pseudo Dionysius; whose writings are now acknowledged by Roman Catholick criticks to have been a shameless forgery. The liturgies of St. James, St. Chrysostome and St. Basil, are also mentioned: but

Ibid. Section 2.

↑ When cardinal Bona wrote, the fact referred to was not so generally admitted as at present. This is mentioned in justice to an author, who seems to have possessed too much integrity, to produce in evidence a document known by him to be a forgery.

in late times, it is conceded by the same criticks, that the remaining copies are so diverse, as renders it impossible to determine, what parts of them are original works. The only genuine authority, within the limits of the first four centuries, is that of Basil, who flourished in the latter end of the fourth. But his words amount to no more, than the gesture practised by Protestant ministers, when they take in their hands the bread and the wine, in the administration of the Eucharist, and during the repetition of the words of the institution. Neither are the later authors mentioned, much more to the purpose. It is here believed, that there has been given a faithful, although brief account of the statements of the cardinal: and it is thought, that there needs not to be wished for a more decisive test, for the determining on the present point. He very candidly censures an author of his communion, for pretending to trace the elevation of the Host to the infancy of the Church. In regard to the Latin Church in particular, he declares that the Greek authors prove nothing.

The rise and the progress of the doctrine of transubstantiation seems to have been as follows. It was advanced about the middle of the ninth century, a plausible foundation having been laid for it in times preceding. When the doctrine, in its present shape, came forth to view from the hands of Paschasius Radbert, his principal opponents, such as Bertram and Scotus, were men in high esteem, and were not brought by their opposition under the charge of heresy. It required the ripening of above a century, to bestow on the opinion such a weight of authority, as fell heavily on the head of Beringer: against whom so much odium was raised, as to defeat the good will of the reigning pope. For that Gregory the Seventh, notwithstanding his evil deeds in another line, wished to screen Beringer, there is sufficient proof: and Mosheim gives good reason to show, that the Pope inclined to the opinion of the supposed heretick. After all this, it took to the beginning of the thirteenth century, to admit of the establishing of the doctrine: and it was then declared

by an imperious Pope, to what was called a general council; of whom was exacted and obtained the sanctioning of that and of other matters, without debate or consultation.

Considering the series of events, it is probable that cardinal Bona is correct in his position, that the first evidence found in the Latin Church of the elevation of the Host, is in the beginning of the twelfth century-the elevation of it, and not the adoration: for of this it would be extraordinary to find clear evidence, sanctioned by authority, before the council of Lateran in 1215. But here a distinction is taken, between the considering of the elevation of the Host as a signal for solemn adoration, and the adoring of the Host: which distinction should be kept in mind, in reading what cardinal Bona has written on the subject.

It is not here unknown, that there are used endeavours to resolve the above-mentioned controversy into a question of words. This is not correct: and if there can be any specious doubt of the truth of the position, the doubt ought to be removed by the issue; which was the introduction of a species of worship, until then unknown.

SECTION III.

OF ANOTHER ERROUR, HELD BY SOME PROTESTANTS.

The errour referred to, is that the doctrine of the Eucharist involves the being therein a real or material sacrifice; an altar; and a priest, in the sense of an offerer of sacrifice.

The subject is considered as important by the author: and his belief, that the sense of his Church is sometimes misapprehended, as well within as without her communion, induces the present discussion of it. It is proposed to show, that those terms, in their

« PreviousContinue »