Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

command to receive the bread, and therefore they are obliged by the same command, to receive the eup: which that they did accordingly, the eleventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, makes as plain as words can make any thing. Not to say further, that if the sixth of St. John relate immediately to the Sacrament, as they are sometimes very positive it doth, the fifty-third verse of that chapter expressly declares, that, unless we drink the blood of the Son of man, as well as eat his flesh, we have no life in us.

But they tell us, our Saviour himself, after his resurrection, administered the Sacrament in one kind only. For St. Luke says, that sitting down to eat with the two Disciples at Emmaus, He took bread and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them: and, upon their knowing him, vanished out of their sight*. Now it happens, that this was not administering the Sacrament at all, but doing just the same thing, which the Evangelists, in just the same words tell us he did, when he fed the multitudes with the loaves and fishes; and indeed at every meal he eat. For the Jews in the beginning of every meal of theirs, use the very same custom to this day t. But they further plead, that however that be, at least when in the Acts of the Apostles it is said, the Disciples met together to break bread on the first day of the week f: this must be the Sacrament; and the cup is not once mentioned there as given. We answer, it is not certain that even this was the Sacrament : and supposing it was, as, in Scripture-language, common feasts are expressed by the single phrase of eating bread, which yet surely does not prove, that * Luke xxiv, 30, 31.

+ Buxtorf. Synay. Jud. c. 12. Acts xx. 7.

.

the guests drank nothing, so neither is it proved, by a religious feast being expressed in the same manner. And besides, if there is no mention there of the laity's receiving the cup, there is none of the Priests receiving it neither : yet this they think absolutely necessary; and if one may be taken for granted, without being mentioned, the other may. Nor should it be forgotten on this occasion, that as the phrase of eating sometimes comprehends the whole of this action, so doth that of drinking: we have all been mode to drink into one Spirit, says the Apostle*; who hence proves the unity of all Christians, and therefore certainly thouglit it was the right of all Christianst. But they plead farther, that the laity by receiving the body of Christ, receive his blood also: for the blood is contained in the body. But here they quite forget, that our Saviour hath appointed this Sacrament to be received for a memorial of his blood's being shed out of his body, of which, they who receive not the cup, do not make the memorial which he commanded, when he said, Drink ye all of this. Still they insist, that there being no peculiar virtue or benefit annexed to this part of the Sacrament that they withhold, which does not belong to the other, it is no manner of loss to the laity to omit it. Now does not the same reason prove equally, that the clergy may omit it too? But besides, what treatment of our blessed Lord is this, when he hath appointed all Christians to perform a solemn act of religion, consisting of two parts, both with equal strictness enjoined; for the Church of Rome to say that one of them, the far greatest part of Christians shall not perform, for it is full as well let alone: nay better indeed, if we believe them : for * 1 Cor. xii. 13.

+ Claget, Vol. i. Serm. x. p. 265.

the Cup they tell us, may be drank of immoderately, may be spilled, many dreadful inconveniencies may happen from trusting it with the laity. Now it is strange our Saviour should not be wise enough to foresee these inconveniencies: it is strange we should not experience them neither: and it adds to the wonder not a little, that the whole Church of Christ, for 1200 years, should not be able to find them out any more than we. For in all that time, the cup was constantly given to the laity in their public communions, though there are some instances, yet neither many, nor early ones, in which the bread alone was carried to private houses. And when some of the laity, for absurd reasons, refused to take the cup, no less than three Popes condemned them. But superstitious imaginations gradually increasing amongst Christians, a custom arose first of giving the bread dipt in wine instead of both separate, and at last in the 15th century the council of Constance, the same which decreed so honestly, that promises made to the prejudice of the Catholic faith ought not to be kept *, decreed also very modestly, that notwithstanding (for so they express it) our Saviour administered both kinds, one only shall be administered for the future to the laity. And now it is made an article of their Creed, that the whole Sacrament is given by giving this part: so that whoever shall say both are necessary, (which, if it be not a truth, one should think could not be a heresy,) is by the council of Trent pronounced accursed.

Another difference between the Church of Rome and ours with respect to the Sacrament is this. They hold that, as often as it is celebrated, Christ is truly and properly offered up a sacrifice for our sins.

* See Courayer's Council of Trent, Vol. i. p. 595.

.

Now we acknowledge, that every act of obedience and of worship more especially, may, agreeably to the language of Scripture, be spoken of as a sacrifice to our Maker: that his creatures of bread and wine, when appropriated to this solemn act of religion, are so far offerings to God: that this whole act, being a memorial and representation of the sacrifice of Christ, may fitly enough be called by the same name with what it commemorates and represents : so that in this sense Christians have an altar and an offering upon it. But that, instead of a representative sacrifice of praise, it should be a real sacrifice of atonement, in which Christ's body, literally speaking, is every day offered up anew, of this we can see neither proof nor possibility. For not only it supposes transubstantiation to be true, which hath been proved to be false; but it is absolutely inconsistent with two whole chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews; the ninth and tenth; which throughout inculcate that Christ was not to be offered up often, for then must he often have suffered; but that he appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself; was once offered to bear the sins of many; and by this one offering hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified. If therefore our doctrine be heretical in this point, St. Paul's is so too: not to speak of the primitive Christians; who, though they often called this ordinance a sacrifice, yet, by calling it an unbloody one, shew they did not think the blood of Christ was literally offered up in it; and by frequently saying they had indeed no sacrifices, prove themselves to look on this only as a figurative one.

But now from this notion of a daily atonement thus made, I shall proceed to their other doctrines concerning the forgiveness of sins. And here they hold,

!

that a particular absolution from a Priest is necessary, if it can be had, for the pardon of every mortal sin, i. e. every sin by which any person without repentance forfeits his title to Heaven: and that a particular confession of every material circumstance of every such sin, is necessary for absolution. And the practice of these things they apprehend to give their Church an unspeakable advantage over ours.

The necessity of such absolution they plead for from our Saviour's words to his Apostles : Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsocver ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven *. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained f. Now certainly these words did not put it

t in the power of the Apostles themselves, to pardon or refuse to pardon whom they pleased, right or wrong. They could use the keys of the kingdom of Heaven no further than he saw fit, who openeth, and no man shutteth: who shutteth, and no man openeth I. Yet the Apostles had great powers by virtue of these words, which we have not: the power of discerning by the spirit, in many cases at least, and therefore of declaring, who were penitent and pardoned, who otherwise: the power of inflicting and continuing miraculous punishments, on wicked persons, which is binding and retaining their sins; and of removing such punishments, which is losing and remitting them. But these things the Romish Clergy can no more claim than we. What then besides can there be conveyed by these words of our Lord ? A

of preaching that Gospel, according to the terms of which alone, the sins of men shall be forgiven or punished; a power of admitting persons into a state

power

* Matth. xviii. 18. + John xx. 23. # Rev. iii. 7.

« AnteriorContinuar »