« הקודםהמשך »
were all really and truly bread and of a fourth, who preached they were salt, &c.-would they not exclaim against the superstition and idolatry of the worshippers, as they do now when speaking of the Heathens ? Undoubtedly, we say, they would; and wherefore? Simply because it is not the kind of idolatry which Popery commands them to practise themselves; since, in the Scriptures, the above figures of speech are used, and are as plainly expressed, as that which she has insisted upon being a reality. Christ says, “I am the door,” &c. ; “ I am the vine,” &c.; and to the Apostles, 6 Ye are the salt of the earth,” &c. St. Paul says, (in the very next verse to that quoted by the Pope as above, but which escaped his notice, until he wanted otherwise to apply it,) 1 Cor. ch. x. ver. 17, “ We being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread.”
It is not unworthy of remark, that where the bread is called flesh, Popery herself admits it to be so very plain, that she insists upon it literally; but when, in the sacrament, bread is called bread, it appears só very obscure, that, in her infallibility, she declares it to be merely figurative. This is what may be termed the “ MYSTERY” of elucidating into confusion.
We have said nothing of substance and accident in the course of our observations; but as scent is the accident of a rose, remove the substance, and no accident remains : now we ask, when, in the sacrament, the bread and wine are changed, what becomes of their accidents? The colour, &e. seen can no longer be of bread and wine, nor does Popery admit that they can be the accidents of the body and blood of Christ. (Catechis, ad Paroch. de Eucharist, Sacram. Sect. 25, xliv.) We merely ask for information on this subject, not knowing to what the accidents belong; or if, by any accident, the accidents visible in the cup, after consecration, are to be supposed really and truly no accidents at all? We should also wish to know as the body of our Lord can
never decay. if the contents of the cup, after consecration, would turn sour if left in the sun ?
We could say much upon the subject of the Papal consecration of wafers, &c., as it stands in their own rubrics, and of the accidents “or mischances” by which they become non-effective; as,
other than wheaten flour being used for the bread--if sour grapes are in the wine--if there be a wafer more than the Priest had counted for consecration (because the intention only going with the lesser number, it could not be known which of these were or were not consecrated,if a mouse should nibble any of them—if the ingres dients of the cup should disagree with the Priest, who, in such a case if it be not nauseous (very well put in), must reverently -! But we will content ourselves with stating the origin of Transubstantiation.
The first of whom we hear that preached this " mystery" was Pascasius Radbert (afterwards Abbot of Corbey), and the most contemptible legends were produced in its support, whilst it was attacked and disproved* by Bertramm, Johannes Scotus, and many others. In the įlth century it was thoroughly exposed to contempt by Beren
As, however, from the first admission and defence of this doctrine by some of the members of the Church of Rome, who felt that such a doctrine would more firmly establish her power, it had caused continual disputes ; and in the year 1215, at the fourth Lateran Council, “ that imperious pontiff, Innocent III., without deigning to consult anybody (although a prodigious number of ecelesiastics were present), published no less than seventy laws or decrees, by which not only the authority of the Pope and the power of the Clergy were confirmed and extended, but also new doctrines or articles of faith were imposed upon Christians... It was reserved for Innocent to put an end to the liberty which every Christian had hitherto enjoyed, of interpreting this presence in the manner he thought most agreeable to the declarations of Scripture, and to decide in favour of the most monstrous doctrine that the phrenzy of Superstition was capable of inventing. This audacious Pontiff pronounced the opinion that is embraced at this day in the Church of Rome relating to that point, to be the only true and orthodox account of the matter; and he had the honour of introducing and establishing the use of the term Transubstantiation, which was hitherto absolutely unknown.*"
We will make no apology for the length of our extracts or remarks in the course of this chapter : it is a most important subject, and which we leave to the consideration of our readers.
CHAP. V.-OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.
What proof have you for this ?
Because, as we have seen in the foregoing chapter, the bread, by consecration, is truly and really changed into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood: now both faith and reason tell us, that the living body of the Son of God cannot be without his blood, nor his blood without his body; nor his body and blood without his soul and divinity. It is true he shed his blood for us in his passion, and his soul at his death was parted from his body; but now he has risen from the dead immortal and impassible, and can shed his blood no more, nor die any more. “ Christ being raised from the dead," says the apostle, Rom. vi. 9, “dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him." Therefore whosoever receives the body of Christ, receives Christ himself whole and entire; there is no receiving him by parts.
But does not Christ say, John vi. 53, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you?"
* Mosheim, ut supra. See also Cowell's Account of the present State of the Greek Church, referred to by Dr. Maclaine. This writer was at Constantinople towards the latter end of the 17th century, where the Jesuits used every means of bribing the indigent Bishops of the Greek Church to obtain their assent to their own false assertion, that “ Transubstantiation had been practised in the Eastern Churches.” These bribes had the desired effect of obtaining signatures, which, Mosheim says, were afterwards invalidated as having been obtained by the artifice of the Jesuits.
True. But according to the Catholic doctrine we do this, though we receive under one kind alone, because under either kind we receive both the body and blood of Christ; whereas our adversaries that make this objection receive neither e nor the other, but only a little bread and wine. Besides, this objection does not sound well in Protestant mouths, because they say those words of Christ were not spoken of the sacrament, but only of faith.
Are all Christians commanded to drink of the cup ? Matt. xxvi. 27, “Drink ye all of it."
No: that command was only addressed to the twelve apostles, who were the all that were then present, “and they all drank of it." Mark xiv. 23.
How do you prove that those words are not to be understood as a command directed to all ristians ?
Because the Church of Christ, which is the best interpreter of his word, never understood them so; and therefore from the very beginning, on many occasions, she gave the holy communion in one kind, for instance, to children, to the sick, to the faithful in time of persecution, to be carried home with them, &c., as appears from the most certain monuments of antiquity.
But are not the faithful thus deprived of a great part of the grace of this sacrament ?
No: because under one kind they receive the same as they would do under both, inasmuch as they receive Christ himself whole and entire, the author and fountain of all graces.
Why then should the Priest, in the Mass, receive in both kinds any more than the rest of the faithful ?
Because the mass being a sacrifice, in which, by the institution of our Lord, the shedding of his blood and his death was to be in a lively manner represented; it is requisite that the Priest, who, as the Minister of Christ, offers this sacrifice, should, for the more lively representing of the separation of Christ's blood from his body, consecrate and receive in both kinds as often as he says mass. Whereas, at other times, neither Priest, nor Bishop, nor the Pope himself, even upon their death-bed, receives any otherwise than the rest of the faithful, viz., in one kind only.
Have you any texts of Scripture that favour communion in one kind ?
Yes: Ist, All such texts as promise everlasting life to them that receive, though but in one kind; as John vi. 51. “ The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Ver. 57. “He that eateth me, even he shall live by me." Ver. 58, “He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."
2dly, All such texts as make mention of the faithful receiving the holy communion, under the name of breaking of bread, without any mention of the cup; as Acts ii. 42. “They continued stedfastly in the apostolic doctrine of fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in
prayers.” Ver. 46. “Continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house." Acts xx. 7.
Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.” Luke xxiv. 30, 31. “He took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to them, and their eyes were opened and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight.” 1 Cor. x. 17. “We being many, are one bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread.”
3dly, 1 Cor. xi. 27. Where the apostle declares, that whosoever receives under either kind unworthily, is guilty both of the body and blood of Christ.“ Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink (a winn) this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord.” Where the Protestant translators have evidently corrupted the text by putting in " and drink," instead of drink," as it is in the original.
What are the reasons why the Church does not give the communion to all her children in both kinds?
1st, Because the danger of spilling the blood of Christ, which could hardly be avoided if all were to receive the cup. 2dly, Because, considering how soon wine decays, the sacrament could not well be kept for the sick in both kinds. 3dly, Because some constitutions can neither endure the taste nor smell of wine. 4thly, Because true wine, in some countries, is very hard to be met with. 5thly, In fine, in opposition to those heretics who deny that Christ is received whole and entire under either kind.
The first and second paragraphs of this chapter are expended in vain efforts of quibbling and twisting to prove that the real blood of our Saviour is contained in a baked wafer, and which we admit is quite as easy as, by a Popish hocus pocus, to show that the wafer itself is substantial flesh*.
* The logic of Popery, according to a favourite phrase of her own, may be defined, the art of proving that that is which is not, and vice versa. Thus, under one kind only, two kinds are received ;—the priest changes bread and wine into flesh and blood-flesh contains blood, and, consequently, is flesh and blood-flesh and blood compose a human body—a human body must possess a soul; thus it is as clearly demonstrated that a soul, filesh, and blood, are to be made of a little flour and water, as that a horse-chesnut is a chesnut-horse ; or that a cat which has one tail must have three. Either of these, or such propositions, by a parity of Popish reasoning, could be as readily proved”-and would be, did she require them-as any of her other contradictions, in her own way, thus :-"Because, as we have seen," à cat has a tail, and No-cat has two tails; hoth faith and reason tell us,” that every cat that has a tail must have one tail more than No-cat; from whence it is evident that every cat with one tail must have three In fine, Saint Feline himself, who flourished seven thousand years before the flood, declared his conviction of this plain fact in opposition to the heretics of his day; and that which has been proved to be the general belief for so many thousand years, is much safer to rely upon than any new doctrine which the modern sects have rashly dared to oppose to it.