Page images
PDF
EPUB

receiver. But as for any other sense, if we did, or could do so monstrous a thing, as literally to eat the flesh, and drink the blood of our dear Lord, it is not that which could do our souls any good, but only his grace accompanying this Sacrament: which may as well accompany it without any change of the bread and wine, as it accompanies that of Baptism, without any change of the water.

We see then that Scripture by no means favours transubstantiation. It is indeed express against it. For St. Paul more than once tells us, that what we eat in the Sacrament is bread, and as for what we drink, when our Saviour says, this is my blood which is shed for you, if he had meant literally, he had spoke falsely: for his blood was not shed till afterwards, and could not be drank then. Neither is it in a condition of being shed at present, and therefore cannot be drank now. But too much hath been said of this monstrous doctrine, to which the indiscretion of wellmeaning writers gave the first occasion pretty early, whilst they affected to heighten the figurative expressions of Scripture, by still more figurative ones of their own; little thinking at the same time, that such an absurd meaning, as the Papists now plead for, could ever be ascribed to them; and plainly shewing, by innumerable proofs, that it is unjustly ascribed to them. But as ignorance and superstition increased, about 800 years after Christ this amazing notion began to be distinctly, and explicitly entertained and asserted, which some had the good sense to oppose; some the weakness to receive, as a mystery that promoted the reverence of the Sacrament; others the wickedness to support with zeal, as an artifice that increased the authority of the Priest: for what could he not do, who, as they blasphemously

express it, could make God? By degrees then this doctrine prevailed; till, in the 13th century, it was established as an article of faith. And when once the speculative error, of believing the consecrated bread and wine to be literally the body and blood of Christ, obtained, the practical one of worshipping them as such, quickly followed. For though a decent respect was always paid to the Sacrament, yet a direct adoration to the elements was never paid, till the dark and superstitious ages above-mentioned introduced so senseless an idolatry, to the infinite scandal of religion. May God, who mercifully winked at the times of Heathen ignorance, overlook this less excusable folly of Christians, and forgive them, for they know not what they do. But let us all remember, that our case will be much worse than theirs, if, after the light hath so clearly shone upon us, we return to darkness again: if, as the Apostle expresses it, we change the truth of God into a lie, and worship the creature instead of the Creator, who is blessed for evermore. Amen.

* Rom. i. 25.

SERMON XXXII.

1 PET. V. 12.

-Exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.

HAVING proposed from these words, first, to show what is the rule of Christian faith and practice; and, secondly, to examine by this rule the chief differences between the Church of Rome and ours: the former head I have finished, and made some progress in the latter. The honour paid by them to Saints and Images, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the worship built upon it of the Sacramental bread and wine, have been considered: and now I proceed to another peculiarity of theirs, with respect to the Sacrament, withholding the cup from the laity. That our Saviour administered the Holy Eucharist in both kinds, they acknowledge: nay, that he expressly commanded those, to whom he administered it, that they should all drink of that cup. What therefore he commands all to do, why do they forbid all but the priest to do? Why; the Apostles, they say, were commanded to take the cup as well as the bread, because they were clergy. But the Church of Rome forbids even the clergy, excepting those who officiate, to take it. Besides, if the command of receiving the cup relates only to the clergy, that of receiving the bread too, must relate only to the clergy: for there is no manner of distinction made in the Gospel. Yet they own the laity are obliged by our Saviour's

command to receive the bread, and therefore they are obliged by the same command, to receive the cup 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. 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 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. Synag. 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 Priest's 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 made to drink into one Spirit, says the Apostle*; who hence proves the unity of all Christians, and therefore certainly thought it was the right of all Christians t. 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.

« PreviousContinue »