« הקודםהמשך »
being figurative; as, “This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you.”—These are the words of institution.-She dare not say they are not figurative, since the cup did not represent the blood of our LORD, which had not then been shed ?-Again, if the elements were to lose their nature; how was it they were called bread and wine after consecration? The next passage is from 1 Cor. xi. v. 24, 25,-but before we pay it further attention, why, we ask, is the paragraph from the 10th chapter put between the verses of the Ilth? Is it to divide the sense of the whole chapter into particles—to make a show by many relations of the same narrative, or both of these? We will notice the whole chapter (11th,) which treats on “Profaning the Lord's Supper ;' and in which St. Paul condemns the Corinthians for their irregularity of conduct, when they went to partake of it; where one would be hungry and another drunken, (v. 21.) He then tells them expressly how they were to take the bread (v. 24.) in remembrance of Christ; and that the wine (v. 25.) was to be taken in remembrance of our Saviour, also. The Pope has partially quoted the parts which he thought would best suit him, and asks, “How could he be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if these were not substantially in the cup?” We might answer, just in the same manner as those were guilty of it for upwards of twelve hundred years, until Pope Innocent first commanded that the real presence should be in the cup. But this is not our way of reasoning"He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the body of our Lord,” says the Apostle : and that the texts quoted upon this subject should be the more effective with those not permitted to look into the Gospel, they are distinguished by the Pope by CAPITAL LETTERS: He who “eateth and drinketh unworthily," we believe, most certainly, does so to his own condemnation ;* (our 28th Church Article clearly expresses it) not discerning the spiritual gift in the cup—the body and blood of Christ, which are received and eaten through the medium of faith. But, says the Pope, “where should be the crime of not discerning the body of our Lord, if the body of our Lord were not there?” As Popery will have discerning (which we should have understood as not acknowledging the spiritual efficacy) in the vulgar sense, seeing, we must beg some Romish priest who has seen anything more than a wafer and some wine in the chalice at the time of consecration, just to be so kind as to inform us what other appearance it was to which it changed? We have read of the Popish priest who first made the discovery of transubstantiation, seeing the elements he had consecrated change into the figure of a child, (we choose so to express it-he spoke more impiously,) -if the miracle still continues, we must confess our ignorance we really were not conscious of it.
* Protestants do not understand the ill consequences of even partaking in the any man
We now come to the long extract from John, when relating a different circumstance to that which the three other Evangelists had previously told. However, it is evident that there are many portions of this chapter that the Pope and Doctor have also overlooked, although it will not be denied that they are applicable to the subject in hand. It has been seen by the Pope's extract that Christ frequently calls the bread his flesh-it commences at the 51st verse of the sixth chapter. It was scarcely worth while, we should think, to leave out the first two lines of this verse, because they clearly express what kind of bread our Saviour declared himself to be bread which infidelity must admit could not be made by human hands. The verse commences thus:"I am the LivING BREAD which came DOWN FROM HEAVEN ; if
holy sacrament without a proper examination of conscience, as meriting ETERNAL condemnation; but as St. Paul has explained them in the verses immediately following those selected by the Pope :-“ For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep, (i. e. are dead.) For if we would judge ourselves, we should not he judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world-(1 Cor. ch, xi. v. 30, 31, 32.)
eat of this bread he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give," &c. Is Popery prepared to say that Christ, being in himself the “living bread,” intended his Apostles to tear his human flesh with their teeth ?
But at once, to place the point beyond dispute, as far as the Scriptures are concerned, we will take up the subject at the exact verse where the Pope and the Doctor dropt it :
Ver. 58. This is that bread which came down from heaven; not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Ver. 59. These things said he in the synagogue as he taught in Capernaum.
Ver. 60. Many, therefore, of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, this is an hard saying, who can hear it?
Ver. 61. When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, doth this offend you?
Ver. 63. It is the SPIRIT that QUICKENETH, the FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING; the words that I speak unto you they are SPIRIT and THEY ARE LIFE.
And now, we ask, is not this explanation of Christ himself explicit and satisfactory to all Christians permitted to use their reason? It is by applying figurative expressions in a positive sense, and insisting upon realities being no more than figures, which has reduced Popery herself to the contemptible figure she appears, where mankind, bursting her spells, look her in the face, and behold her as she really is one livid mass of corruption. All doctrines under the guise of Christianity, when opposed to the Scriptures, are corrupt, as those very Scriptures teach us to believe ; and whilst we peruse and believe in these it is impossible that we can believe in Popery.
“ The Protestants," says the Pope, “ are forced to acknowledge that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken,” &c. By what power were they forced to this
acknowledgement, which we must beg to observe they never denied? It was the power of Reason which forced them. Reason still convinces them of the genuineness and of the authenticity of the Scriptures : from these they learn what their Saviour taught, and that it is their bounden duty to obey His institutions as He himself ordained them to be believed, unmixed with the superstitions introduced by the zealot, the designing, and the wicked. It is the Doctor, we presume, who has so wittily said, “ how that can be verily and indeed caken and received which is not verily and indeed there, is a greater mystery than transubstantiation.” We readily yield him all the benefit to which the witticism is entitled; merely observing, by the way, that Christ having said, as above, that " it is the SPIRIT that quickeneth—the FLESH profiteth nothing,” by his word we believe that his SPIRITUAL BODY and BLOOD are verily and indeed in the cup, and which we verily and indeed take and receive. Perhaps we may meet with an applicable distich by the time we arrive at the next chapter, this being a long one.
The two succeeding paragraphs are written in proof that the best remembrance of our Lord's death is by the mastication of his real body, and that Protestants are in error for protesting against so unscriptural, so horrible a rite. But it is to the last sentence of the fulsome chapter to which we call the particular attention of our readers. The question is asked, “But how is it possible that the Sacrament should contain the real body and blood of Christ?” To this it is replied, “ Because nothing is impossible to the AĻMIGHTY; and it is the highest rashness, not to say blasphemy, for poor worms of the earth to dispute the power of God!" If this application be not blasphemy, we really know not what is ! Is it meet for 66
poor worms of the earth” thus to affect the possession of God's power? God expressly says he speaks of the SPIRIT ; by what power then, save the power of Evil, does Popery dare to oppose his word, and insist upon her followers believing that they eat HIMSELF!!! Because nothing but sin is impossible to God, are the sinful “ worms of the earth.” to insist upon the adoption of their own guilty theorems, and declare it blasphemy to doubt them? Is the sacred name of our MAKER to be thus profaned upon every occasion that guilt seeks to hide her own acts because nothing is impossible to Him? Thus it is that the crimes of Popery are ever sought to be vindicated. The sanguinary deeds of the midnight murderer are sanctioned by Popery, (where she has the power of doing so)--and the bloodstained assassin is protected by her Church, who, with maternal affection, remits his atrocities, “because nothing is impossible to God * !” : We have already said, and again repeat it, that since heaven and earth were first created, the Almighty never did, nor said, any thing contrary to our own senses; since any such words or acts would have destroyed our certainty of anything and everything else whatsoever.
Having noticed the extracts adduced by the Pope, we will here submit a few observations of our own. If Papists were told of a people, calling themselves Christians, who believed that the REAL PRESENCE was contained in a door, which they first worshipped, and afterwards cut up and ate-if they were to hear of others who declared the body and blood of Christ were in a stick, which was adored and eaten—if Papists heard of a third race, who insisted that the Apostles and Disciples
*" Every Roman Pontiff,” says Mosheim, (vol. i. p. 455, Eng. Transl.) " added something new to the ancient rites and institutions, [of his Church,] as if it was an essential mark of their zeal for religion, and of their pious discharge of the ministerial function, to divert the multitude with new shows and new spectacles of devout mummery." But Bouiface V. determined to render his name notorious by a more atrocious reality :--He it was who passed the law which afforded sanctuary to every criminal who sought refuge within the walls of his “ Church”; a law which
gave a loose 'rein to the licentiousness of the most abandoned profligates.” When these sanctuaries were abolished in Malta by the English, a few years since, the good people of that island murmured that their “ rights” were abrogated ! Papists, how'ever, ought not to have complained of this hardship. The late Pius VII. did all he could to keep them as enthralled and ignorant as even paganism could desire. In 1814 he restored the Jesuits : in 1817, he published a Bull against the Bible Societies.