sence as far as their separate state and condition would permit;" and for fear of any ill consequences, from dying under the imputation of heresy, when he "lay upon his death-bed, he submitted his opinion to the judgment of the church." His successor, Benedict XII., after much controversy, established the present doctrine, viz. "that the souls of the blessed, during their intermediate state, do fully and perfectly contemplate the divine nature." It may just deserve to be mentioned, at the close of this period, that the doctrine of the resurrection of the same body, was questioned by Conon, bishop of Tarsus, in the sixth century; who, in opposition to Philoponus, a philosopher of Alexandria, (who had asserted that both the form and the matter of the body would be restored at the resurrection,) maintained that the form would remain, but that the matter would be changed.2 SECTION III. OF THE REVIVAL OF THE GENUINE DOCTRINE OF REVELATION CONCERNING THE STATE OF THE DEAD. So general was the belief of a purgatory in this Western part of the world, that Wickliffe could not entirely shake it off. But though he believed in a purgatory, he saw the absurdity of supposing that God intrusted any man with a power to release sinners from such a state: but whether the souls of the dead might be profited by the Mosheim, III. pp. 157, 158. (P.) Cent. xiv. Pt. ii. Ch. ii. Sect. ix. See [Rutt's Priestley] Vol. III. p. 376. Dr. Maclaine, the translator of Mosheim, remarks, that "all this Pope's heretical fancies, about the beatific vision, were nothing, in comparison with a vile and most enormous practical heresy that was found in his coffers after his death, viz. twenty-five millions of florins, of which there were eighteen in specie, and the rest in plate, &c., squeezed out of the people and the inferior clergy during his pontificate." Ibid. Note, p. 158. 2 Ibid. I. p. 473. (P.) Cent. vi. Pt. ii. Ch. v. Sect. x. prayers of the living, he seems to have been in doubt."3 The ancient Waldenses, however, who separated from the Church of Rome before the doctrine of purgatory had got established, never admitted it; and presently after the Reformation by Luther, we find it abandoned by all who left the Church of Rome, without exception, so that this doctrine is now peculiar to that church. 4 The doctrine of a soul, however, and of its existence in a separate conscious state, from the time of death to that of the resurrection, which was the foundation of the doctrine of purgatory, and of many other abuses of Popery, was still retained by most. But Mosheim mentions some Anabaptists who held that the soul sleeps till the resurrection; and the Helvetic confession condemns all those who believed the sleep of the soul, which shows that a considerable number must have maintained it. Luther himself was of this opinion; though whether he died in it has been doubted. It was, however, the firm belief of so many of the reformers of that age, that had it not been for the authority of Calvin, who Wrote expressly against it, the doctrine of an intermediate conscious state would, in all probability, have been as effectually exploded as the doctrine of purgatory itself. Several persons in this country have, in every period since the Reformation, appeared in favour of the sleep of the soul, and it always had a considerable number of followers. Of late this opinion has gained ground very much, especially since the writings of the present excellent bishop of Carlisle, and of archdeacon Blackburne on the subject. But I think the doctrine of an intermediate state can never be effectually extirpated, so long as the 3 Gilpin's Life of him, p. 70. (P.) See also Brit. Biog. I. p. 48. 4 Vol. IV. p. 163. (P.) Cent. xvi. Sect. iii. Pt. ii. C. iii. Sect. xxiii. 5 Syntagma, p. 10. (P.) See Blackburne's Hist. View, Appendix, Ed. 2, p. 344. belief of a separate soul is retained. For while that is supposed to exist independently of the body, it will not be easily imagined to sleep along with it, but will be thought to enjoy more or less of a consciousness of its existence.1 But when, agreeably to the dictates of reason, as well as the testimony of Scripture rightly understood, we shall acquiesce in the opinion that man is an homogeneous being, and that the powers of sensation and thought belong to the brain, as much as gravity and magnetism belong to other arrangements of matter, the whole fabric of superstition, which had been built upon the doctrine of a soul and of its separate conscious state, must fall at once. And this persuasion will give a value to the gospel, which it could not have before, as it will be found to supply the only satisfactory evidence of a future life. For though a future state of retribution might appear sufficiently consonant to some appearances in nature, yet when the means of it, or the only method by which it could be 1 See The State of the Dead, in [Rutt's Priestley] Vol. III. pp. 374-379. brought about, (viz. that of the resurrection of the very body that had putrefied in the grave, or had been reduced to ashes,) were so little visible, (since, to all appearance, men die exactly like plants and brute animals, and no analogy drawn from them can lead us to expect a revival,) we must eagerly embrace that gospel, in which alone this important truth is clearly brought to light. It is in the gospel alone that we have an express assurance of a future life, by a person fully authorized to give it, exemplified also in his own person; he having been actually put to death, and raised to life again, for the purpose of giving us that assurance. To give this value to revelation, by proving the proper and complete mortality of man, on the principles of reason and scripture, is the object of my Disquisitions relating to Matter and Spirit, to which, and also to what I have added in support of it, in my discussion of the subject with Dr. Price, I beg leave to refer my readers. 2 See ibid., Vol. IV. pp. 18-121; also Vol. II. pp. 554-364; and Vol. III. pp. 181, 182, 242 258. SECTION I. HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST TILL about to be shed for them; and we are informed by the apostle Paul, that this rite is to continue in the Christian THE church till our Lord's second coming. Farther than this we are not informed in the New Testament. We only find THE first new idea which was superthat the custom was certainly kept up, added to the original notion of the and that the Christians of the primi- Lord's supper, was that of its being a tive times probably concluded the sacrament, or an oath to be true to a public worship of every Lord's day leader. For the word sacrament is not with the celebration of it. As the to be found in the Scriptures, but was rite was peculiar to Christians, the afterwards borrowed from the Latin celebration of it was, of course, in tongue, in which it signified the oath common with joining habitually in the which a Roman soldier took to his public worship of Christians, an open general. Thus, in the first century, declaration of a man's being a Chris- Pliny reports, that the Christians were tian, and more so, indeed, than any wont to meet together before it was other visible circumstance; because light, and to bind themselves by a other persons might occasionally attend sacrament. This, I would observe, is the public worship of Christians, with- but a small deviation from the original out bearing any proper part in it them- idea of the Lord's and though supper; it be not the same with the true idea of it, as before explained, yet it cannot be said to be contrary to it. Afterwards the word sacrament came to be used by Christian writers in avery loose manner, for everything that was looked to be solemn or mysterious, and, indeed, as Bishop Hoadly observes, for almost everything relating to religion.2 selves. upon The next idea which was added to Let us now see what additions have been made to this simple institution, in several periods, from the primitive times to our own. And for this purpose it will be most convenient to divide the whole history into four parts; the first from the age of the apostles to that of Austin, including his time, and that of the great men who were his contemporaries; the the primitive notion of the Lord's supsecond extending from that period to per was of a much more alarming the time of Paschasius; the third, nature, and had a long train of the This was the from him to the Reformation; and the worst consequences. fourth, from that time to the present. considering of this institution as a In writing the history of this sub- mystery. And, indeed, the Christians ject, in each of the periods, I shall affected very early to call this rite first note the changes of opinion with one of the mysteries of our holy rerespect to the Lord's supper itself, ligion. By the term mystery was together with the change of language meant, originally, the more secret parts which took place in consequence of of the heathen worship, to which select it. I shall then give an account of persons only were admitted, and those the superstitious practices that were under an oath of secrecy. Those mysgrounded on those opinions; and lastly, teries were also called initiations: I shall relate what particulars I have those who were initiated were supmet with relating to the manner of posed to be pure and holy, while those celebration. who were not initiated were considered as impure and profane; and by these 1 "Essent soliti ante lucem convenire; seque sacramento abstringere." L. x. Ep. xcvii. 2 "Cyprian speaks of the many and great sacraments of the Lord's Prayer." Plain Account, App. Ed. 6, p. 178. mysteries the Heathens were more Another new idea annexed to the attached to their religion than by any eucharist was that of its being a sacriother circumstance whatever. This fice; and this too was in compliance made the first Christians (many of with the prejudices of the Jews and whom were first converted from Hea- Heathens, who, in the early ages, used thenism, and who could not all at to reproach the Christians with havonce divest themselves of their fond- ing no sacrifices or oblations in their ness for pomp and mystery) wish to religion. We soon find, however, that have something of this nature, which this language was adopted by them, was so striking and captivating, in the and applied to the Lord's supper. Christian religion; and the rite of the This language is particularly used by Lord's supper soon struck them as what Cyprian, and in general the Lord's might easily answer this purpose. supper was called an eucharistical sacrifice, though, in fact, they only considered it as a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ, or of his death upon the cross. When this new idea was introduced, they, in consequence of it, began to exclude all who did not partake of the ordinance from being present at the celebration of it. Those who did not It is evident, from the nature of the communicate were not even allowed thing, that neither baptism nor the to know the method and manner in Lord's supper operates as a charm, or which it was administered. Tertullian, produces any immediate effect upon who wrote at the end of the second the mind, besides impressing it with century, seems to allude to this prac- proper sentiments and affections, such tice. "Pious initiations," he says, as become Christians, and such as are "drive away the profane," and "it naturally excited by the use of these is of the very nature of mysteries to symbols. But we find, in very early be concealed," as those of Ceres in ages, that both baptism and the Lord's Samothrace; but as he is there de- supper were imagined to operate in a fending the Christians from the charge different and more direct method, so of practising abominable rites in secret, that the use of them was supposed to he may only mean that, on the sup- depend upon the mere act of adminposition of such practices, no person istration. Both Justin Martyr and could reveal them, their enemies not Irenæus thought that there was such being present, and they would hardly a sanctification of the elements, that do it themselves. Indeed, it is most there was a divine virtue in them. probable that this custom of conceal- This idea of there being a real virtue ing the mysteries did not take place in the elements of bread and wine, after till the middle of the third century.2 they were consecrated, or set apart After this time, the Council of Alex- for this particular purpose, opened a andria reproached the Arians with door to endless superstitions, and some displaying the holy mysteries before of a very dangerous kind; as Christhe Catechumens, and even the Pa- tians were led by it to put these merely gans; whereas "that which is holy," external rites in the place of moral they say, "should not be cast to the virtue, which alone has the power of dogs, nor pearls before swine." In sanctifying the heart, and making men the fourth century it was usual to acceptable in the sight of God. After call the eucharist a most tremendous this we are not surprised to find (and mystery, a dreadful solemnity, and it appears as early as the second centerrible to angels.* tury) that both baptism and the Lord's supper were thought to be necessary to salvation. 1 Apol. C. vii. Opera, p. 8. (P.) Larroche, p. 125. (P.) Sueur, A. D. 333. (P.) It is too early to look for the notion See Middleton, Introd. Dis. Works, I. p. xli. of the transmutation of the bread and must not judge of this by their senses, but by faith. wine into the real body and blood of Christ; but we find even in this early age language so highly figurative (call- This writer carried his idea of the ing the symbols by the name of the sanctity of the consecrated elements things represented by them) as very so far, as not to allow that they ever much contributed to produce this went into the excrements of the body; opinion in after ages. It was the maintaining that they entered wholly custom with the early fathers to say that the bread and wine passed into the body and blood of Christ, and even that they are transelemented into them. They also use other expressions to the same purpose; meaning, however, by them, nothing more than that a divine virtue was communicated to them.1 into the substance of the communicants; and Chrysostom supported this opinion by the comparison of wax, which is consumed in the fire, without leaving ashes or soot. This was going very far indeed for so early an age. About two hundred years after Christ, Christians applied their thoughts very "We do not consider," says Justin much to the giving of mystical signifiMartyr, "this bread and wine as com- cations to the sacraments, as they were mon bread and wine. For, as Jesus also fond of mystical interpretations Christ was made flesh, and had flesh of scripture. Among other allusions, and blood to procure our salvation, so a happy one enough was this, that the we learn that this aliment, over which sacramental bread, being composed of prayers have been made, is changed, many grains of wheat, and the wine and that by which our flesh and blood being made of many grapes, repreare nourished is the body and blood sented the body of the Christian of Jesus Christ. For the evangelists teach us that Jesus Christ took bread, and said this is my body: he also took the wine, and said this is my blood."2 Tertullian, however, says, that by the words this is my body, we are to understand the figure of my body. The language of Cyril of Jerusalem, on this subject, is peculiarly strong, and might very well mislead his hearers, whatever ideas he himself might annex to it. He says to the young communicants, "Since Christ has said, this is my body, who can deny it? Since he has said, this is my blood, who can say it is not so? He formerly changed water into wine, and is he not worthy to be believed, when he says that he has changed the wine into his blood? Wherefore let us, with full assurance of faith, take the body and blood of Christ. For under the form of bread, the body is given to them, and under the form of wine, his blood." He then tells his pupils they 1 Larroche, p. 221. (P.). church, which was composed of many believers, united into one society. Cyprian was the first who advanced that by the wine was meant the blood of Christ, and by the water (which they always at that time used to mix with the wine) the Christian people; and that by the mixture of them the union between Christ and his people was represented. This idea continued a long time in the church. But some supposed that this water and wine were a memorial of the water and blood which issued from the side of Christ, when he was pierced with the spear, as he hung on the cross. It was a natural consequence of this superstitious respect for the eucharistical elements, that many persons began to be afraid of communicating. Accordingly we find that, whereas originally, all Christians who were baptized, and not under sentence of excommunication, received the Lord's supper, yet in the time of Chrysostom, so many abstained from this part 4 Cat. 4ta. Op. p. 292. (P.) |