Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

before the mind. The imagination, under the influence of superstitious dread, overpowers the dictates of reason, and, indeed, all nice scrutiny into the subject is discouraged and forbidden; and even the priests are cautioned against attempts at explanation. The language of the Catechism under review is, "to explain this mystery in a proper manner is extremely difficult. On the manner of this admirable conversion, the pastor, however, will endeavour to instruct those who are more advanced in the knowledge and contemplation of divine things: those who are yet weak may, it were to be apprehended, be overwhelmed by its greatness. This conversion is so effectuated, that the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed by the power of God, into the whole substance of the body of Christ, and this without any change in our Lord himself." No wonder that apprehensions should be entertained that such a doctrine might overwhelm the mind of the noviciate. Bread and wine are changed into the real body of Christ, and yet his body undergoes no change whatever! Again: "But according to the admonition so frequently repeated by the Holy Fathers, the faithful are to be admonished against the danger of gratifying a prurient curiosity, by searching into the manner in which this change is effected. It mocks the power of conception, nor can we find any example of it in natural transmutations, nor even in the wide range of creation. The change itself is the object, not of our comprehension, but of our humble faith; and the manner of the change forbids the temerity of a too curious inquiry. The same salutary caution should be observed by the pastor, with regard to the mysterious manner in which the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under every particle of the bread. Such inscrutable mysteries should scarcely ever become matter of disquisition." (Pp. 215, 216.) No wonder that they discourage all disquisition on such a subject. The last sentence quoted sets all reason and common sense at defiance. Suppose a loaf of bread to be consecrated; and we know that such a loaf is capable of a continued division until the parts become too small for the cognizance of our senses, and too numerous for arithmetical notation, then what is it that the Romanist believes? That every one of these particles is the whole body of Jesus Christ! On the absurdity of thus multiplying the body of Christ, we have remarked before; we now bring up the subject to show the folly of insisting on a literal interpretation of the words of Christ, when every difficulty is avoided by interpreting them figuratively; for which we have hundreds of analogous cases in the holy scriptures, which abound in bold and striking figures, which, if they should all be taken literally, would turn the Bible into a jargon of nonsense; and we have shown that, in this very passage, we are forced to adopt this mode of interpretation.

And after all, what is the benefit expected from this doctrine? Material flesh and blood cannot affect the soul; but truly, according to the hypothesis of the Romanists, it is only the essence or

hidden substance of Christ's body which is present; the gross sensible qualities of flesh and blood are not there; now in what respect does such a presence of the body differ from a spiritual presence; and such an eating of the body from a spiritual eating? And as to the daily mass or oblation, it can do no good-the sacrifice of Christ once offered on the cross, is ever before the throne, and needs no new oblation. All we need is, that the exalted Saviour and Prince of life should, on the ground of it, intercede for us; and that we should exercise a lively faith in the efficacy of his atonement, to aid us in which the eucharist is an appointed and powerful means.

Almost the only reply to which Romanists resort in their attempt to obviate the objections which Protestants make to the doctrine of transubstantiation, is to adduce the doctrines of the Trinity and incarnation, as equally contrary to our reason, and equally incomprehensible. But truly there is scarcely any analogy between the cases. There are, in these doctrines of scripture, we acknowledge, high mysteries, which greatly transcend our powers of comprehension; but there is nothing which contradicts our senses, or is repugnant to the plain dictates of reason, If this could be proved, which we are aware has often been attempted by rationalists, we should feel constrained to give up these doctrines as untenable; or rather to give up the scriptures in which they are so plainly revealed. But as Archbishop Tillotson has handled this subject very perspicuously, we beg leave here to conclude this review, by citing a few passages from his discourse “concerning the unity of the divine nature."

"Before I leave this argument, I cannot but take notice of one thing which they of the church of Rome are perpetually objecting to us upon this occasion. And it is this, that by the same reason that we believe the doctrine of the trinity, we may and must receive that of transubstantiation. God forbid: because of all the doctrines that ever were in any religion, this of transubstantiation is certainly the most abominably absurd.

"However, this objection plainly shows how fondly and obstinately they are addicted to their own errors, how misshapen and monstrous soever; insomuch, that rather than the dictates of their church, how absurd soever, should be called in question, they will question the truth even of Christianity itself; and if we will not take in transubstantiation, and admit it to be a necessary article of the Christian faith, they grow so sullen and desperate that they matter not what becomes of all the rest. And rather than not have their will of us in that which is controverted, they will give us that which by their own confession is an undoubted article of the Christian faith, and not controverted on either side; except only by the Socinians, who yet are hearty enemies to transubstantiation, and have exposed the absurdity of it with great advantage.

"But I shall endeavour to return a more particular answer to this objection, and such a one as I hope will satisfy every considerate and unprejudiced mind, that after all this confidence and swaggering of theirs, there is by no means equal reason either for the receiving or for the rejecting of these two doctrines of the trinity and transubstantiation.

1st. There is not equal reason for the belief of these two doctrines. This objection, if it be of any force, must suppose that there is equal evidence and proof from scripture for these two doctrines. But this we utterly deny, and with

[ocr errors]

great reason; because it is no more evident from the words of scripture, that the sacramental bread is substantially changed into Christ's natural body by virtue of those words, This is my body,' than it is, that Christ is substantially changed into a natural vine by virtue of those words, I am the true vine, John xv. 1; or than the rock in the wilderness, of which the Israelites drank, was substantially changed into the person of Christ, because it is expressly said, 'that rock was Christ; or than that the Christian church is substantially changed into the natural body of Christ, because it is in express terms said of the church that it is his body.-Eph. i. 23.

"But besides this, several of their most learned writers have freely acknowledged that transubstantiation can neither be directly proved, nor necessarily concluded from scripture. But this the writers of the Christian church did never acknowledge concerning the trinity, and the divinity of Christ; but have always appealed to the clear and undeniable testimonies of scripture for the proof of these doctrines. And then the whole force of the objection amounts to this, that if I am bound to believe what I am sure God says, though I cannot comprehend it; then I am bound by the same reason to believe the greatest absurdity in the world, though I have no manner of assurance of any divine revelation concerning it. And if this be their meaning, though we understand not transubstantiation, yet we very well understand what they would have, but cannot grant it; because there is not equal reason to believe two things, for one of which there is good proof, and for the other no proof at all.

"2d. Neither is there equal reason for the rejecting of these two doctrines. This the objection supposes, which yet cannot be supposed but upon one or both of these two grounds: Either because these two doctrines are equally incomprehensible, or because they are equally loaded with absurdities and contradictions.

"The first is no good ground of rejecting any doctrine, merely because it is incomprehensible, as I have abundantly showed already. But besides this, there is a wide difference between plain matters of sense, and mysteries concerning God; and it does by no means follow, that, if a man do once deny anything concerning God which he cannot comprehend, he hath no reason afterwards to believe what he himself sees. This is a most unreasonable and destructive way of arguing, because it strikes at the foundation of all certainty, and sets every man at liberty to deny the most plain and evident truths of Christianity, if he may not be humoured in having the absurdest things in the world admitted for true. The next step will be to persuade us, that we may as well deny the being of God because his nature is incomprehensible by our reason, as deny transubstantiation because it evidently contradicts our senses.

"2d. Nor are these two doctrines loaded with the like absurdities and contradictions so far from this, that the doctrine of the trinity, as it is delivered in the scriptures, and hath already been explained, hath no absurdity or contradiction either involved in it, or necessarily consequent upon it. But the doctrine of transubstantiation is big with all imaginable absurdity and contradiction. And their own schoolmen have sufficiently exposed it; especially Scotus, and he designed to do so, as any man that attentively reads him may plainly discover: for in his disputation about it, he treats this doctrine with the greatest contempt, as a new invention of the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent III. To the decree of which council concerning it, he seems to pay a formal submission, but really derides it as contrary to the common sense and reason of mankind, and not at all supported by scripture; as any one may easily discern that will carefully consider his manner of handling it, and the result of his whole disputation about it.

"And now suppose there were some appearance of absurdity and contradiction in the doctrine of the trinity as it is delivered in scripture, must we therefore believe a doctrine which is not at all revealed in scripture, and which hath certainly in it all the absurdities in the world, and all the contradictions to sense and reason; and which once admitted, doth at once destroy all certainty? Yes, say they, why not? since we of the church of Rome are satisfied that this doctrine is revealed in scripture; or if it be not, is defined by the church, which is every whit as good. But is this equal, to demand of us the belief of a thing which hath

always been controverted, not only between us and them, but even among themselves, at least till the Council of Trent? And this upon such unreasonable terms, that we must either yield this point to them or else renounce a doctrine agreed on both sides to be revealed in scripture.

"To show the unreasonableness of this proceeding, let us suppose a priest of the church of Rome pressing a Jew or Turk to the belief of transubstantiation, and because one kindness deserves another, the Jew or Turk should demand of him the belief of all the fables in the Talmud, or in the Alcoran; since none of these, nor indeed all of them together, are near so absurd as transubstantiation : Would not this be much more reasonable and equal than what they demand of us? Since no absurdity, how monstrous and big soever, can be thought of, which may not enter into an understanding in which a breach hath been already made, wide enough to admit transubstantiation. The priests of Baal did not half so much deserve to be exposed by the prophet for their superstition and folly, as the priests of the church of Rome do for this senseless and stupid doctrine of theirs with a hard name. I shall only add this one thing more, that if this doctrine were possible to be true, and clearly proved to be so, yet it would be evidently useless and to no purpose. For it pretends to change the substance of one thing into the substance of another thing that is already, and before this change is pretended to be made. But to what purpose? Not to make the body of Christ, for that was already in being, and the substance of the bread is lost, nothing of it remaineth but accidents, which are good for nothing, and indeed are nothing when the substance is destroyed."

ESSAY XIX.

SUNDAY MAILS.*

WE have frequently been struck, in reading the numbers of the National Gazette, with the justness and weight of its editorial remarks on the responsibility of the conductors of the periodical press. And we have often sympathized with its accomplished editor, on observing the severity with which he has been treated by party prints, for endeavouring to conduct a paper on national principles, abstaining equally from indiscriminate commendation and abuse. We readily yield the tribute which is due to him, for the elevated stand which he has proposed to himself, and think that, as far as politics are concerned, it has been successfully maintained. As it is universally understood that the editorial departments of the Gazette and of the American Quarterly Review are filled by the same individual, we had hoped that the moderation and fairness which mark the political character of the former, would also have been impressed on the pages of the latter. We entertained this hope with the greater confidence, from the conviction that the editor had too much discernment not to be aware that a responsibility peculiarly serious rests upon the individual who undertakes to conduct an AMERICAN REVIEW, which aspires, in its measure, at once to form and represent American sentiments and opinions. In despite of our sectional partialities, we are constrained to admit, that in respect to candour and fairness, whenever religion has been concerned, it has fallen far below its great eastern compeer. In the very first number of the work there was an article, which, from the levity and injustice with which the character of several of the most distinguished of the American clergy was treated, we considered of unpropitious omen. This, however, it seems, was but a premonition of the spirit afterwards to be exhibited. We question whether the pages of the respectable periodical literature of this country can furnish an instance of a more uncandid assault on the character and opinions of a large part of the Christian community, than the recent article on Sunday Mails in the American Quarterly Review. We cannot but regard the

* Published in 1831, in reference to an article on this subject in the American Quarterly Review.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »