« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
who is the Bridegroom of the Church. These two persous therefore confirm the observation of Munster, that the creation of the woman from the rib of the man, was made by the Jews to signify the marriage of the Celestial man who is blessed, or of the Messiah, with the Church ; whence the Apostle applies the very words which Adam said concerning Eve his spouse, to the Church, who is the spouse of Christ ; saying “ for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” For the explanation of these words take what follows. 6. The profoundest of the Jewish Divines whom they now call Cabbalists, having such a notion as this among them, that sensible things are but an imitation of things abové, conceived from thence, that there was an original pattern of Love, and Union, which is between a man, and his wife, in this world. This being expressed by the kindness of Tiphiret and, Malcuth, which are the names they give to the invisible Bridegroom and - Bride in the upper world. And this Tiphiret or the celestiut Adam, is so called in opposition to the terrestial Adam; as Malcuth also, (i. e. the kingilom) they call by the name of Chinnereth Israel the Congrega. tion of Israel, who is, they say, united to the Celestial Adam, ąs Eve was to the terrestial. So that in sum, they seem to say the same that Paul doth, when he tells us, that 6 marriage is a great mystery, but he speaks concerning Christ and his Church.” For the marriage of Tiphiret, and Malcuth, is the marriage of Christ " the Lord from Heaven," ["the first man was of the Earth earthly, the second man is the Lord from Heaven” says Paul 1 Cor. 15,] with his spouse the Church, which is the conjunction of Adam, and Eve, aud of all other men and women descended from them. Origen also seems to have had some notion of the relation of this passage to Adam and Eve, when he speaks thus, " If any man deride us for using the example of Adam, and Eve, in these words, 6 and Adam knew his wife;"** when we treat of the knowledge of God, let him consider these words,--- This is a great mystery.” Tertul. lian frequently alludes to the same thing, saying - this is a great sacrament carnally in Adam, spiritually in Christ; because of the spiritual marriage between Christ, and the Church."
Thus far Dr. Whitby ; and the intelligent reader, who is acquainted with the Doginas, and Philosophy of Indostan, will not fail to see through this cloud of words the origin of this analogy of Paul's. The fact is, that in India, and in Egypt, the Divine creative power which produced all things, and energizes in every thing, was symbolized by the Phallus ; and to this day, in Hindostan, the operation of Deity upon matter is symbolized by Images of the male, and female generative organs : and in the darkest recesses of their Temples, which none but the initiated were permitted' to enter, tlie Phallus of stone is the solitary idol, before which the illuminated bowed. This symbol, though shameful, and abominable, is yet looked upon in India with the profoundest veneration, and is not with them the occasion of shame, or reproach. It is however a blasphemous abo:nination, and the marriage between Christ and the Church ought not to have been thus illustrated by Paul, who reproached the Heathen in ysteries as " works of darkviess," which mysteries, in fact, consisted principaliy in exbibiting these symbols, and similar abominations.
But it may be asked, what is the meaning of the other clause of the verse, what could Paul mean by the strong language ós We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones 2" Why my reader, he meant that Christians were really part of the body of Christ; and if you desire to know how he imagined this union to be effected, I request you to turn to tlre 10th ch. of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, where at the 16th verse he thus writes to them, “ The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation of the blood of Christ ? The loaf [ac. to the Greek original,] which we break, is it not a participation of the body of Christ for, Because the loaf is one we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of that one loaf.” Again, ch. xi. 29, “ For he that eateth, and drinketh unworthily, eateth, and drinketh judgınent to himself, not distinguishing (or discovering) the Lord's body," and in ch. xii. 27, be says to them, “ Ye are the body of Christ, and his members severally.” (See the original of these passages, in Griesbach's Greek Testament.) Thus you see
I reader, that Paul considered Christians “ as niem
bers of his (Christ's) body, of his flesh, and of his bones," because they partook of one loaf, which was the body
of Christ. The Papists are in the right ! and have i been much slandered by the Protestants : For the doc
trine of Transubstantiation, or at least the Real Pres. ence, is as plainly taught in the New Testament, as the doctrine of the Atonement. You have seen what Paul believed upon this subject, and I shall corroborate the sense I put upon his words, by the words of Jesus his master, and by quotations from the earliest Fathers.
Jesus says, Jo. vi. “ I am the living bread which
came down from Heaven ; if any man eat of this bread, i he shall live forever, and the bread which I will give It is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world." * The Jews therefore contended : mong themselves, say.
ing 6 How can this man give us his flesh to eat po Je. I sus therefore said unto them, “ Verily, Verily, I say di unto you, Unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and 256 drink his blood, ye have not life in you. He that eateth
my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life, by and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh
is verily food, and my blood is verily drink. He that
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, o and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and
I live by the Father! [here is an oath !] so he likewise
that eateth me shall live by me." be This strange Doctrine was the faith of the Primitive.
Christians; as is well known to the learned Protestants, : though they do not like to say so to their 6 weaker brethren.''
Ignatius says, " There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the unity of his blood," and of certain Hereticks he says, 6 they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ."
Justin Martyr, in his apology, asserts, that the consecrated bread “ is some how or other, the flesh of Christ.”
In the dispute with Latimer about Transubstantia. tion, it is acknowledged by the most candid writers, that the Roman Catholicks had much the advantage, It must have been so, where quotations from the Fath
ers were allowed as arguments. For what answer can be made to the following extracts ? 66 What a miracle is this! He who sits above with the Father, at the same instant, is handled by the hands of men." (Chrysostom. Again, from the same, " That which is in the cup is the same which flowed from the side of Christ,” again, 66 Because we abhor the eating of raw fiesh, therefore it appeareth bread though it be flesh.” [Theophylact.] Or to this 66 Christ was carried in his own hands, when he said “ this is my body.” [Austin.] Or to this ? “ We are taught, that when this nourishing food is consecrated, it becomes the body and blood of our Saviour," [Justin Martyr.] Or lastly, to this ? [from Ambrose. * It is bread before consecration, but after that ceremony, it becomes the flesh of Christ."
Another Doctrine which Paul-derived from the Ori. ental Philosophy, and which makes a great figure in his writings, is the notion, that moral corruption originates in the influence of the body upon the mind.
It was one of the principal tenets of the Oriental Philosophy, that all evil resulted from matter, and its first founder appears to have argued in the following manner. " There are many evils in the world, and men seem impelled by a natural instinct to the practice of those things which reason condemns. But that EterDal mind, from which all spirits derive their existence, must be inaccessible to all kinds of evil, and also of a most perfect, and benificent nature; therefore the origin of these evils with which the world abounds, must be sought somewhere else, than in the Deity. It eapnot reside in him who is all perfection, and therefore it must be without him. Now there is nothing without, or beyond the Deity but matter, therefore matter is the center, and source of all evil, of all vice.”
One of the consequences they drew from this Hypothesis was, that since all evil resulted from matter, the depravity of mankind arose from the pollution derived to the human soul, from its connexion with tbe material body which it inhabits; and therefore the ovly means by which the mind could purify itself from the defilement, and liberate itself from the bondage imposed upon it by the body, was to emaciate and humble the body by
frequent fasting, and to invigorate the mind to overcome, and subdue it by retirement, and contemplation.
The New Testament though it does not recognise this principle of the Oriental Philosophy, “ that Evil originates from matter,” yet coincides with it in strea nously asserting that the corruption of the human mind is derived from its connexion with the human body.
To prove this proposition, I shall show that Paul calls all crimes the works of the flesh.” 6 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, (says he Gal. v. 19,) which are these : adultery, fornication, uncleanness, laciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, rivalries, wrath, disputes, divisions, heresies, envyings, murthers, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Ile also describes the conflict between the flesh, and the spirit, or mind, in these terms. 6 For I know that in ine, that is in my flesh dwelleth no good, for to will is present with me, but to perform that which is good, I find not, but the evil which I would not that I do. For I delight in the Law of God according to the inner man, but I see another Law in my members warring against
the Law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to · The Law of my sin in my members. O wretched man
that I am ! who will deliver me from the body of this death ?” (or this body of Death :] And he goes on to observe, ó that I, the same inan, with my mind serve the Law of God, but with any flesh the Law of sin, [Rom. vii.] “For the flesh desireth, against [nr in opposisition to,] the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.”—“Those that are Christ's, says Paul Gal. v. 24, have crucified the flesh, with its passions, and desires. And they are commanded (Rom. vi. 12. and viii. 13.] “ to mortify," or according to the original," put to death” or kill their members,” and Paul himself uses language upon this subject exceeding strong. He represents (1 Cor. ix. 27,] his mind and body as engaged in combat, and says " I buffet my body, and subject it.” The word here translated, 5 subject," in the original, means 6 to carry into servitude," and is a term taken from the language of the Olympic games, where the Boxers dragged off