Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

their sinful acts: therefore the unworthy do not receive the Spirit, but the elements only: therefore again, they receive not the body; because without the Spirit, the elements, ex hypothesi, are not the body and blood, but bare elements, having a relative holiness, because before consecrated, and that is all. 5. If the bread and wine once consecrated were absolutely the body and blood, by means of the Spirit, there is no reason why the baptismal waters should not be thought Christ's blood absolutely, by means of the same Spirit. It is certain, from the nature of the thing, and it is confirmed by the concurring verdict of antiquity 9, that we are as properly dipped in the blood of Christ in Baptism, as we eat the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Therefore the baptismal water is as valuable as the eucharistical wine, and as fit to make a sacrifice of; and it is also commemorative of the death and passion: consequently the elements in either Sacrament, being blessed with like privileges, and having the like dignity, have all of them, in that view, the same title, and ought all of them to be sacrifices, as much as any.

IV. It is further pretended, that the consecrated bread and wine are changed, if not in their substance, yet in their inward qualities: which appears to be sound only, without meaning; or words without ideas. When water is said to have been miraculously changed into wine, the words carry some idea of an internal change of qualities: but when wine remains wine still, not changed as to colour, or taste, or smell, or any other perceivable quality, it is hard to say what that inward change means, or what idea it carries with it. Outward relations, adventitious uses or offices, are easily understood; and relative holiness carries some sense in its but the inward change, the inhering, intrinsic holiness, supposed in this case, will not comport either with true philosophy or sound theology. Whatever it means, or whatever it is conceived to be, certain it is, that it belongs as much to the consecrated waters of Baptism', as to the consecrated elements of the Eucharist: and so let it pass.

V. The most important paradox of all, relating to this head, is, that the consecrated elements are the substitutes of the body

See my Review, vol. iv. p. 694. and to the references in the margin add, Salmasius contr. Grot. p. 186, 191, 394. and Patrick's Full View of the Eucharist, p. 82.

20, 85, 91. Johnson, Unbl. Sacrif.
part i. p. 254, 255. alias p. 258, 259,
163, 181, 183, 244. first edit.

s See my Review, vol. iv. p. 528.
t See my Review, vol. iv. p. 693,

r Grabe, Defens. Eccl. p. 75, 87, 694.

66

66

66

66

and blood; are sacrificed first, and afterwards taken by the communicants in lieu of the natural body and blood, or of the sacrifice of the cross". "The eucharistical bread and wine are made "the most perfect and consummate representatives of the body " and blood. They are not only substituted, but they are, by the "power of the Spirit which is communicated to them,-made the lively, efficacious Sacrament of his body and blood.—The visible "material substitutes—are the bread and wine: and when the Holy Spirit, which is his invisible representative, communicates "its power and presence to the symbols, which are his visible "representatives, they do thereby become as full and authentic "substitutes, as it is possible for them to be. The sacramental body and blood of Christ are substituted instead of the natural, "and are therefore first to be presented to the most worthy party in the covenant, the infinite grantor of all mercies, and then, in the next place, to the least worthy persons, or the grantees, the whole body of Christian peopley." How to make any clear sense or consistency of these or the like positions, I know not; but they seem to be embarrassed with insuperable perplexities. 1. The notion of substitute, as here applied, appears unaccountable. The sacramental body is supposed to be substituted for the natural, so as to be exclusively an equivalent for it, made such consummate proxy, substitute, representative, by the power and presence of the Holy Spirit with it and in it. This is the notion, if I can understand it. And if this be the notion, it is very different from the old notion of instruments of investiture, or deeds of conveyance, supposed to convey instrumentally some other thing, but not to be so given in lieu of it, as to exclude it, or supersede it, or to supply the want of it. The rights, privileges, honours, offices, so conveyed, are supposed to go with the

[ocr errors]

66

u Johnson, Propit. Oblat. p. 29, 30, 44, 76.

x Johnson, Unbl. Sacrif. part i. p. 183. alias p. 186. Compare p. 344. alias 349. and p. 176. alias 179.

y Johnson, Unbl. Sacrif. part i.

Pref. to second edit.

z See my Review, vol. iv. p. 571, 572,573.

a For were it so, then the inward part, or thing signified, would not be our Lord's body, but a fictitious body given in its room: and if made such body absolutely, by an union with the

Spirit, it would be more properly the body of the Spirit, than our Lord's body, from which it is supposed distinct: and in this way, the very idea of our mystical union with Christ's glorified body would be obscured or lost, and we should be but as aliens from his proper body; unless two bodies of Christ (not sign and thing, but absolutely two bodies, for the sacramental is said to be absolutely the body) were given at once in the Eucharist.

pledges, and not to be made up to the grantee by an equivalent. The pledges (a ring, suppose, or book, or parchment, or staff) are worthless things in themselves, and are valuable only for what accompanies them, not for what they really inclose or contain. In a word, such pledges are not exclusively given in lieu of the things which they are pledges of, (for then the party would be no richer for them than the bare pledges amount to,) but such a manner of delivery is made in lieu of another manner; and the pledge and thing go together. In the Eucharist, for example, Christ's crucified body and blood shed (that is, his atonement and sacrifice) are spiritually eaten and drank, under the pledges of corporal refreshment: and even the glorified body is received into real, but mystical union, under the same symbols. Those symbols, with what they contain, are not substitutes, in the sense of equivalents for the things, to supersede them; but they are instruments to convey them, and to bring them in effect to us. 2. It is not easy to explain how the supposed substitutes can be any sacrifice at all to God. The elements are not conceived substitutes of the body and blood, any otherwise than by the power and presence of the Spirit. The elements, with the Spirit, (not separate from the Spirit, which alone renders them so valuable,) are supposed the substitutes. Is the Spirit then sacrificed along with the elements? That is absurd. But if the Spirit makes no part of the thing sacrificed, the value departs from it, yea, and the essence of the substitutes; for the body and blood, that is, the substitutes, are not sacrificed, but the elements only. If it be said, that grace or virtue accompanies the elements, in the presenting them to God, like as in the presenting the same elements to man; this again is perfectly unintelligible. We can understand that pardon and sanctification are presented to the communicants

b See Review, vol. iv. p. 572. N.B. A thing may be said to be given in lieu, or instead of another thing, two ways: 1. In a sense exclusive; as when a stone, suppose, is given instead of bread, or a serpent instead of fish where neither the fish nor the bread are supposed to be given, nor any thing equivalent. To the same exclusive sense belongs the giving value for kind; as money, suppose, instead of house or land: where again neither the house nor the land is supposed to be given, but an equivalent in money. 2. But one thing is also

said to be given in lieu of another thing, in an inclusive or accumulative sense; as when deeds are delivered instead of an estate, which is given with them and by them. Here, in strictness, the deeds are not substitutes or equivalents for the estate : but one form of delivery, which is practicable and easy, is substituted and accepted, instead of another form, which the principal thing given is not capable of. In this latter inclusive sense, the symbols of the Eucharist may be called substitutes, but not in the former.

:

along with the symbols: but how pardon and sanctification should be presented, in the way of sacrifice, to God, is not easy to explain. 3. I must here also observe, that whatever those substitutes mean, the baptismal waters have as clear a claim, in that case, as the eucharistical elements can have they are as certainly substituted in the sense of pledges, and in a sacramental way, as the other can be supposed to be. But it never was the intention of either Sacrament, that we should, in a sacrificial way, present to God as much or the same that God gives to us. I see not the sense or the modesty of pretending to it. Spirit, pardon, grace, we may be glad to receive; but we have no right, no pretence, no power to offer the same in sacrifice. It is neither practicable nor conceivable; it is mere confusion: which confusion arises, partly, from the want of distinguishing between what is in the elements, from what comes with them; and partly, from the not distinguishing between the sacramental view of the Eucharist and the sacrificial; or between the gifts of God to man, and the gifts of man to God. The elements are in effect the body to us, because God gives us the body by and with the elements: but they are not in effect the body to God; because we do not give to God the fruits of the body crucified, or the privileges of the body glorified. A man must have very confused sentiments, who can argue from what we receive, in this case, to what we give as a sacrifice.

CHAP. III.

Pointing out some EXCESSES in relation to our Lord's supposed Sacrifice in the Eucharist.

I. IT is pretended, that our blessed Lord offered up his sacramental body, that is, the consecrated elements, as a material sacrifice in the Eucharistd. Now, in the first place, I find no Scripture proof of this position. The Romanists, in support of the general point of a material or sensible sacrifice, have often taken their tour from Melchizedek in Genesis down to Hebrews the xiiith and 10th. And they have as often been pursued, in

c Some such confuse notion appears more than once in the Propitiatory Oblation, p. 27, 43. Comp. Preface to second edit. of Unbloody Sacrifice, and Advertisement, p. 498. Brevint takes notice of the like con

VOL. V.

fusion in the conception of some Romanists upon this article. Depth and Myst. p. 20.

d Johnson, Unbl. Sacrifice, part i. p. 85, 90, 92, edit. 2d. part ii. p. 1, 3, 6, 7, 178, 246, 242, et passim.

M

like order, by the best-learned Protestants, and forced out of all their entrenchments.

The plea from hoc facite, when first set up, was abundantly answered by a very learned Romanist: I mean the excellent Picherell, who wrote about 1562, and died in 1590. Protestants also have often confuted it; and the Papists themselves, several of them, have long ago given it up. The other boasted plea, drawn from the use of the present tense, in the words of the institution, has been so often refuted and exposed, that I cannot think it needful to call that matter over again, in an age of so much light and learning. The fairest pretences from antiquity have likewise been again and again fully answered, mostly by the same hands. Wherefore, let that be my apology for not taking distinct notice of every particular advanced by the late learned Mr. Johnson; who has but little of moment, which had not been completely obviated on one side (as it had been anticipated on the other side) long before he wrote in this cause. He was indeed a stranger to what had been done; because he had resolved and determined from the first so to be, and held to his resolution all along; as he frankly declared in 1714, and again in 1724. I commend not his rule nor his conduct in that particular. Wise men will be always glad to see what wise men have said before them, in any point of controversy, and will not think themselves so perfectly secure against mistaking the sense either of Scripture or Fathers, as to need no counsellors to assist them, nor any eyes but their ownk. It was not right to imagine, that in 200 years time, or nearly, (in a question very frequently

e Chemnitius, Rainoldes, Bilson, Hospinian, Duplessis, Mason, Spalatensis, Montague, Morton, Albertinus, Johan. Forbesius, Brevint, Towerson, Kidder, Payne.

f Picherellus, p. 63, 136. Johan. Forbesius, p. 616. Mornæus, p. 212. Salmasius contr. Grot. p. 444. Albertinus, p. 498, 509. Morton, b. vi. ch. 1. p. 390. Towerson, p. 276. Brevint, Depth and Myst. p. 128. Payne, p. 9, &c. Pfaffius, p. 186, 220, 259, 269.

h Picherellus, p. 62, 138. Spalatensis, p. 278. Mason, p. 614. Morton, b. vi. ch. 1. p. 394. Albertinus, p. 74, 76, 78, 119. Johan. Forbesius, p. 617. Brevint, p. 128. Kidder and Payne. Pfaffius, p. 232, 233.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« ÎnapoiContinuă »