Page images
PDF
EPUB

be thought striking-as a conclusion to the preceding remarks upon the contempt of an ordinance instituted by our Lord, in so striking a manner—at a time when every word and action of his irresistibly commanded the most devout attention:-"He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. x. 28, 29.)

In estimating the sanctity of a rite-the reverence due to it and the crime of desecrating it— are we to be guided solely by our own estimate of its objects and character? Is the divine authority by which it is enjoined of little or no account? Why is he who offends against one commandment guilty of all but because he has contemned the authority of the Law-giver himself? Dr Wiseman's own illustration might have taught him to entertain other sentiments and adopt other language. In fine, supposing our Lord, in the manner with which we are all acquainted, to have presented the Eucharistical elements as the symbols of his body and blood, and to have appointed them for the communion of his body and blood-my reason and my feelings combine to tell me that the man who treats them with disrespect is guilty of the body and blood of Christ.

The inconsistencies which I have discovered, in Dr Wiseman's lectures, are so numerous, that I ought not, I confess, to be much shocked by any thing of that kind, which may occur towards the close of the volume. But there are cases in which one's moral nature instantly revolts against inconsistency when, for instance, the subjects under consideration relate to things held peculiarly sacred. When Dr Wiseman represented St Paul's words

66

guilty of the body and blood of Christ”—as much too strong to be applied to any offence against the symbols of the body and blood-my disposition was, to attribute his proceeding to a defect in his religious impressions. In the subsequent paragraphone of those perplexed paragraphs with which the work abounds-he maintains the directly opposite opinion; and affirms that, on the symbolical interpretation, such an expression "would be rather a diminution than an aggravation of the transgression...and that it is but a poor characterisation of an offence against the Son of God, when his body is not there." Supposing the author to be conscious of what he is doing, there really appears to me in all this something so reprehensible, that I will not venture to express my sentiments on the subject. I would rather leave the matter to the reader's indignation.

The next paragraph which I shall notice-and which, I really think, may, in magnitude of misrepresentation, compete with anything to be found

in any volume, save that of Dr Wiseman-is to the following effect:

"St Paul goes on to inculcate the necessity of proving or trying one's self before partaking of this sacred banquet, because he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment or damnation to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. The crime before described is now represented as, not discerning or distinguishing the body of Christ, from other or profane food. A natural question presents itself: what ground is there for this distinction, if the body of the Lord be not present to be distinguished? It may be a holier food, or a spiritual food, but not so immeasurably distinct from all others, as the body of Christ must necessarily be." (p. 263.)

Before I offer any observations on this account, I wish to remark that Dr Wiseman-alluding, in a subsequent page (266), to this subject-describes St Paul as "characterising the transgression just as he would transgressions against the real body and blood of Christ, if present, but in words totally inapplicable to the Eucharist, if these be absent from it."

Dr Wiseman's readers have, too frequently, sufficient reason to be dubious respecting his real meaning; but in the present instance, there can be no mistake in that matter. The assertion manifestly is, that St Paul's reprehension of the proceedings of the Corinthians, in relation to the Eucharist, was conveyed in terms totally inapplicable to the subject, unless the actual body and blood of Christ had been present. In order to settle this point, the best plan will be to ascertain the

nature of the charges against them, from the Apostle's own words:

"When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry and another is drunken. What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have not?" 1 Cor. xi. 20-22.

66

Such was the thoughtless, disorderly, irreverent manner, in which the Corinthians presumed to celebrate the Lord's Supper; and such were the selfish feelings, and almost incredible excesses, with which the rite-if the word rite be not under such circumstances inapplicable-was attended. Instead of assembling for the purpose of a communion of one bread and one cup-" one was hungry and another was drunken." Now, when the facts of the case are thus fairly brought forward, I do not believe that even Dr Wiseman would venture to repeat his assertion, that St Paul's charges against the Corinthians are totally inapplicable to the Eucharist, unless the Corporal Presence be supposed. The truth is, that the Apostle—in endeavouring to convince them of the necessity of examining themselves, before they ventured "to eat of that bread and drink of that cup"-and in impressing them with the thought that "he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body"-did not argue with them as serious participants, who had mistaken the nature of The Presence, but remonstrated with

them on the flagrant impropriety of their practices— so unbecoming a solemn institution of their Lord, för the communion of the faithful in his body and blood. In whatever point of view the Eucharist be considered, there was in such a case too much ground for the language of the Apostle.

to ensue.

We know that there is nothing, however sacred and momentous, which is not liable to be perverted from its original design; and we may generally perceive in what way a perversion is the most likely Let us, in this point of view, consider the Eucharist—assuming that, from the period of its institution, a transubstantiation of its elements was understood to take place; so that our Lord became corporeally present-present in his entire human and divine nature. The consciousness of a Deity leads men to adoration—to acts of worship; and, in a case like this, may easily lead to superstitious rites and gross idolatry. Such is the danger to be apprehended on this assumption....Let us now, in the same point of view, consider the Eucharist, according to the Protestant interpretation-as exhibiting the symbols of our Lord's body and blood. If, along with this doctrine, the notion of the Lord's Table—the Lord's Supper-be taken into accountwe can imagine that the rite may insensibly acquire too much of an appearance of a social repast; and thus at length the religious character of the meeting be nearly lost in the convivial. On this side, the danger lies in the profanation of sacred things...

« PreviousContinue »