them, partook of the character of a social repast rather than of a religious ordinance :—a mistake altogether incredible, upon the supposition that they had been taught that, in that ordinance, they literally and corporeally manducated and swallowed the very body and blood of Christ. Here, then, at any rate, we have no doubtful or recondite meanings to search out; for the light of revelation that shines upon this question is steady, and clear, and bright as the noon-day sun. No fact is more perfectly apparent than that the grosser notions regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist are altogether destitute of sanction or authority from the Word of God. But, as we have already stated, one of them, transubstantiation, lays claim to a very high antiquity. We will once more turn our attention to the early Christian authors, if, perchance, we may discover there the germ of this error also. In the epistle of Clement of Rome, I find the following passage:- "For the love that he bore towards us, our Lord Jesus Christ gave his blood for our blood, his flesh for our flesh, his soul for our souls." To this mode of stating the doctrine of the atonement I object, that it is altogether unsanctioned by the inspired writings.- find it every where proclaimed that Christ gave himself for us; but no where do I discover that his all-sufficient sacrifice was in this grossly literal sense vicarious. Should the question be urged upon me, where is the great harm, nevertheless, of such an expression? I answer that I hold all revealed truths to be above the comprehension of the human intellect; and therefore, that all additions to them, whether originating in its reasoning or imaginative faculties, are necessarily false, and on that account evil, both in themselves and in their con 8 C. 49, sequences. Nor is there any thing in the instance before us which otherwise than confirms this position. The doctrine of the atonement was presented to the early church, upon an authority to which she paid the utmost deference, under a debased and materialised aspect. Christ died, not only to save the souls of men, but also that from his body the principle of immortality might be imparted to the corporeal substance of their bodies. Here is a strong case made out in favour of transubstantiation; for what more probable, or consistent with analogy, than that an atonement like this should have also, by a standing miracle, a material application ?9 The consequences that followed upon this error, we soon discover in the view of the sacrament of the Eucharist taken by this author's immediate successor, Ignatius of Antioch. He writes thus to the Philadelphians :10 "there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup in the unity of his blood, one altar." The association of the altar with the bread and cup in this passage, is, as well as the use of the word itself, to denote the table upon which the ordinance was celebrated, introduces an entirely new notion of the Eucharist, that of a sacrifice; to which we object that it is devoid of scriptural authority. We take the same objection to the following ;—" Breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote that we should not die but live for ever in Christ Jesus."12 This figure also innovates considerably upon our 9 This opinion certainly obtained with the early church; see Ign. ad Trall., c. 8. 10 C. 4. 11 Jurias pov, that is, place whereon a sacrifice is offered; he certainly uses it in this literal and offensive sense. See below, Note 30. 12 Ign. ad Ephes., c. 20. ἕνα ἄρτον κλῶντες, ὅς ἐςὶ φάρμακον ἀθανασίας ἀντίδοτος τῷ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν ἀλλὰ ζῆν ἐν Ἰηςῦ Χριστῷ διὰ παντός. previous views of the nature and efficacy of the sacrament; even applied to the inward and spiritual grace only, it has no sanction from the inspired writings; Christ styles himself, "the bread" that sustains life, not the drug that cures disease, nor the antidote that counteracts poison; and the two metaphors convey notions so widely different, that we see not how, without direct revelation, the latter can be safely employed: but by a still further departure from the apostolical doctrine, Ignatius applies it to the outward sign. The act of celebrating the Eucharist, therefore, has become sacrificial, and the external elements are a medicine, an antidote to corruption : notions, all traceable, in my judgment, to St. Clement's error of a materially vicarious atonement; though considerably in advance of it towards the grosser doctrine, which Ignatius explicitly avows in his letter to the Smyrnæans. The passage rebukes the error of those who, by neglecting the public ordinances of religion, "confessed not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father of his goodness raised from the dead.” 13 He proceeds to exhort them "not to delay receiving it, that they might one day rise through it." It is impossible for words to be more explicit; beyond all question the writer of this passage inculcated the doctrine of the real presence in some form or other; and we regret much for the cause of truth, that this was not long ago conceded by all parties; inasmuch as, to those who look for their religion to the Bible, and the Bible only, the earlier or later origin of an error is a matter of little real importance. 13 Ign. ad Smyrn., c. 7. It is proper, however, to observe, that some doubt is thrown upon the authenticity of this last passage by the circumstance, that neither it, nor any reference to it, is to be found in the interpolated copy of Ignatius, which bears evident marks of having been corrupted during the Arian controversy.-See Ittig, Bib. Pat. Apos., p. 150. Justin Martyr seems not only to have been himself infected with the errors we have pointed out in his predecessors, but speaks of them as being universally prevalent among Christians at the time he wrote. In the well-known passage of his first Apology,1 we find that the cup in the Eucharist contained a mixture of wine and water; 15 an unauthorised and unhallowed addition to the ceremony, originating in the inspired account of the transactions at the crucifixion,1 and obviously intended to improve upon our Saviour's ordinance, by giving to the symbol a still more exact conformity to the thing signified: affording, in my opinion, an important evidence to the general leaning of the divinity of the times to the grosser doctrine. He goes on to inform us, that "the elements were not only distributed by the deacons to those who were present, but portions were also sent to the absent, because, after the offertory, we hold them to be no longer common meat and drink :"17 or, in other words, because we believe that the offertory confers a spiritual efficacy upon the elements. Then follows an obscure and much controverted passage, describing the mode in which this efficacy was communicated; "for as Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh by the word of God, and became flesh and blood for our salvation, so we have been taught that the food which has been blessed with the word of blessing from him, and which nourishes our flesh and blood by being changed into 14 Opera., 97. B. e. s. 15 ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ κράματος.—Id, 97. C. κράμα signifies the mixture of wine and water, which was in ordinary use among the ancients; to this water was added as a part of the ceremonial. So Irenæus: ró nenpaμévov Torńgiov.—Lib. 5. c. 2., p. 327. So also Clement of Alexandria: nigvặtai oivos Tập üdari.-Pæd., lib. 2. c. 2. 16 John xix. 34. 17 Idem, 98 A. them, is (likewise) the flesh and blood of the same incarnate Jesus." Upon the very high authority of the Bishop of Lincoln,18 we are informed that the grosser doctrine is not favoured by this citation. This opinion he supports by comparing it with two parallel places in the dialogue with Trypho, in one of which19 he terms the Eucharist "the commemoration of our Lord's passion;" and in the other, "wet and dry food."20 And nothing can be more certain than that this comparison entirely explodes the idea that Justin entertained the wild absurdity of the Romanists, transubstantiation. But, nevertheless, after the most careful perusal I have been able to give both to these passages, and to the tractates whence they are extracted, I am compelled to express my conviction that our author, who agrees with Ignatius in terming the Eucharist a sacrifice,21 is also in accordance with him, as well as with his successors, in the notion that the spiritual efficacy of the elements arose from the real presence. The mode in which the presence took place does not seem to be accurately determinable from his writings; though the use of the word "change," in the passage just quoted, favours the suspicion that the doctrine of transmutation was not altogether unknown in the second century. e. S. 18 Account of the writings and opinions of Justin Martyr, c. 4., p. 98, 19 Opera, 260. A.: see also 296. D. 20 Idem, 345. A. 66 21 Idem, 344; though page 346. D., he terms it a spiritual sacrifice. 22 μeraßoλń.-It certainly occurs to me that Justin meant to say in this passage: as bread and wine are transmuted into human flesh and blood by the digestive process, so the sacramental bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ by the eucharistical blessing." Though the opinion would be peculiar to himself; the other fathers of the second century taught the real presence by supervention, not by transmutation. |