takers. They had r nade no distinction between the Commuy repast, had lost all perception of the e of their meeting, had not discriminated ord's body:" and so they had eaten and properly rendered " damnation" in the themselves; and many were weak and and many even slept. Well would it be, On this as a chastening of the Lord: in which case they might take warning, and escape being cast out of the church, and driven to take their chance with the unbelieving and heathen world. "When we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world." In order to remedy all this corruption, St. Paul reminds them, that to eat and drink under the same roof, in the church, does not constitute proper Communion: that, to this end, they must not break up into sections, and retain their property in the food, but all participate seriously together. He directs that an absolute separation shall be made between the occasions for Satisfying hunger and thirst, and those for observing this commemorative rite, discriminating carefully the memorial of the Lord's body from every thing else. He refers them all to the original model of the institution, the parting meal of Christ, before his betrayal; and by this example, as a criterion, he would have every man examine himself, and after that pattern eat of the bread and drink of the Hence it appears, cup. That the unworthy partaker was the riotous Corinthian, who made no distinction between the sacred Communion and a vulgar meal: That the judgment or damnation which such brought on themselves, was sickliness, weakness, and premature but natural death: That the self-examination which the apostle recommends 38 CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT PRIEST, to the communicant is, a comparison of his mode of keeping the rite, with the original model of the Last Supper: That in the Corinthian Church there was no Priest, or officiating dispenser of the elements: and that St. Paul did not contemplate or recommend the appointment of any such person. The Lord's Supper, then, I conclude, was and is a simple commemoration. Am I asked, of what? Why, according to Unitarian views, the death on the cross merits the memorial, more than the remaining features of our Lord's history, more even than the death of many a noble martyr, who has sealed his testimony to truth by like self-sacrifice?" The answer will be found at length in the Lecture on the Atonement, where the Scriptural conceptions of Christ's death are expounded in detail. Meanwhile, it is sufficient to recal an idea, which has more than once been thrown out during this course: that if Jesus had taken up his Messianic power without death, he would have remained a Hebrew, and been limited to the people amid whom he was born. He quitted his mortal personality, he left this fleshly tabernacle of existence, and became immortal, that his nationality might be destroyed, and all men drawn in as subjects of his reign. It was the cross that opened to the nations the blessed ways of life, and put us all in relations not of law, but of love, to him and God. Hence the memorial of his death celebrates the universality and spirituality of the gospel; declares the brotherhood of men, the fatherhood of providence, the personal affinity of every soul with God. That is no empty rite, which overflows with these concep tions. Christianity, then, I maintain, is without Priest, and without Ritual. It altogether coalesces with the prophetic idea of religion, and repudiates the sacerdotal. Christ himself was transcendently THE PROPHet. He brought down God d left his spirit amid its scenes. The to this our life, ar ets; they carried that spirit abroad, reApostles were prop! to men the sanctity of their nature, and vealing everywhere ir heaven. Nor am I even unwilling to the proximity of th Succession, never yet extinct, and never admit an Apostolic more to be extinguished. But then it is by no means a rectilinear regiment of incessant priests; but a broken, scattered, yet glorious race f prophets; the genealogy of great and Christian souls, though whom the primitive conceptions of Jesus have propagated themselves from age to age; mind producing mind, courage giving birth to courage, truth developing truth, and love ever nurturing love, so long as one good and noble spirit shall act upon another. Luther surely was the child of Paul: and what a noble offspring has risen to manhood from Luther's soul; whom to enumerate, were to tell the best triumphs of the modern world. These are Christ's true ambassadors; and never did he mean any follower of his to be called a priest. He has his genuine messenger, wherever, in the Church or in the world, there toils any one of the real prophets of our race; any one who can create the good a nd great in other souls, whether by truth of word or deed, by the inspiration of genuine speech, or the better power of a life merciful and holy. And here, my friends, with my subject might my Lecture close; were it not that we are assembled now to terminate this controversy: and that a few remarks in reference to its whole course and spirit seem to be required. That the recent aggression upon the principles of Unitarian Christianity, was prompted by no unworthy motive, individual or political, but by a zeal, Christian so far as its spirit is disinterested, and unchristian only so far as it is exclusive, has never been doubted or denied by my brother ministers or myself. That much personal consideration and courtesy have been evinced towards us during the controversy, 40 CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT PRIEST, it is so grateful to us to acknowledge, that we must only regret the theological obstructions in the way of that mutual knowledge, which softens the prejudices, and corrects the errors of the closet. From such errors, the lot of our fallible nature, we are deeply aware that we cannot be exempt, and profoundly wish that, by others' aid or by our own, we could discover them. Meanwhile, we do not feel that our opponents have been successful in the offer which they have made, of help towards this end. They are too little acquainted with our history and character, and have far too great a horror of us, to succeed in a design, demanding rather the benevolence of sympathy and trust, than that of antipathy and fear. Hence have arisen certain complaints and charges against our system and its tendencies, which, having been reiterated again and again in the Christ Church Lectures, and scarcely noticed in our own, claim a concluding observation or two now. 1. We are said to be infidels in disguise, and our system to be drifting fast towards utter unbelief. At all events, it is said we make great advances that way. It is by no means unusual to dismiss this charge on a whirlwind of declamation, designed to send it and the infidel to the greatest possible distance. My friend who delivered the first Lecture, noticed it in a far different spirit; and in a discussion where truth and wisdom had any chance, his reply would have prevented any recurrence to the statement. Let me try to imitate him in the testimony which I desire to add this point. upon Every one, I presume, who disbelieves any thing, is, with respect to that thing, an infidel. Departure from any prevalent and established ideas, is inevitably an approach to in or fidelity; the extent of the departure, not the reasonableness propriety of it, is the sole measure of the nearness of that approach; which, however wise and sober, when estimated a true and independent criterion, will appear, to persons by 1 strongly possessed than alarming, amazi lar creed of the day, stadia are measured y the ascendant notions, nothing less ng, awful. In short, the average popuis the mental standard, from which the Off towards that invisible, remote, nay, even imaginary place, lodged somewhere within chaos, called utter unbelief. Christianity at first was blank infidelity: and Course the atheists of their day, were disciples, being of thought a fit prey for the wild beasts of the amphitheatre. Every rejection ofradition, again, is unbelief with respect to it; and to those who hold its authority, it is the denial of an essential. It is too evident to need proof, that the average popular belief cannot be assumed, by any considerate pera standard of truth. To make it an objection against any class of men, that they depart from it, is to prove no error against them; and no one, who is not willing to call in the passions of the multitude in suffrage on the controversies of the few, will condescend to enforce the charge. son, as : But only observe how, in the present instance, the matter stands. In the popular religion we discern, mixed up together, two constituent portions; certain peculiar doctrines which characterize the common orthodoxy; and certain universal Christian truths remaining, when these are subtracted. The infidel throws away both of these; we throw away the former only and thus far, no doubt, we partially agree with him. But on what grounds do we severally justify this rejection? In answer to this question, compare the views, with respect both to the authority and to the interpretation of Scripture, held by the three parties, the Trinitarian, the Unbeliever, the Unitarian. The Unbeliever does not usually find fault with the orthodox interpretation of the Bible, but allows it to pass, as probably the real meaning of the book, only he altogether denies the divine character and authority of the whole religion; he therefore agrees with the Trinitarian respecting interpretation, disagrees with him respecting authority. The Unitarian, again, admits the divine character |
