« AnteriorContinuar »
but to commemorate the Sacrifice of Christ; which though we are required to do, and do accordingly, more or less explicitly, in all our Acts of Devotion, yet we are not required to do it by any visible Reprefentation, but that of the Lord's Supper; of which therefore our Catechism teaches, in the second Answer, that the outward Part, or Sign, is Bread and Wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received. And indeed he hath so clearly commanded both to be received, that no reasonable Defence in the least can be made, either for the Sect usually called Quakers, who omit this Sacra. ment entirely; or for the Church of Rome, who deprive the Laity of one half of it, the Cup; and forbid all but the Priest to do, what Christ hath appointed all without Exception to do. They plead indeed, that all, whom Christ appointed to receive the Cup, that is, the Apostles, were Priests. But their Church forbids the Priests themselves to receive it, excepting those who perform the Service: which the Apostles did not perform, but their Mafter. And besides, if the Appointment of receiving the Cup belongs only to Priests, that of receiving the Bread too must relate only to Priefts: for our Saviour hath more expressly directed all to drink of the one, than to eat of the other. But they own, that his Appointment obliges the Laity to receive the Bread : and therefore it obliges them to receive the Cup also: which that they did accordingly, 1 Cor. xi. makes as plain as Words can make any Thing : nor was it refused them for 1200 Years after.
They plead farther, that administring the holy Sacrament is called in Scripture breaking of Bread, without mentioning the Cup at all. And we allow it. But when common Feasts are expressed in Scripture by the single Phrase of eating Bread, surely this doth not prove that the Guests drank Nothing: and if, in this religious Feast, the like Phrase could prove, that the Laity did not partake of the Cup, it will prove equally, that the Priests did not partake of it, either. They plead in the last Place, that by receiving the Bread,
which is the Body of Christ, we receive in Effect the Cup, which is the Blood, at the same Time: for the Blood is contained in the Body. But here, besides that our Saviour, who was surely the best Judge, appointed both, they quite forget, that this Sacrament is a Memorial of his Blood being thed out of his Body: of which, without the Cup, there can be no Commemoration: or, if there could, the Cup would be as needless for the Clergy as for the Laity.
The outward Signs therefore, which Christ hath commanded to be received, equally received, by all Christians, are Bread and Wine. Of these the Jews had been accustomed to partake, in a serious and devout Manner, at all their Feasts, after a folemn Blessing, or Thanksgiving to God, made over them, for his Goodness to Men. But especially at the Feast of the Partover, which our Saviour was celebrating with his Dira ciples, when he instituted this holy Sacrament; at that Feast, in the abovementioned Thanksgiving, they commemorated more at large the Mercies of their God, dwelling chiefly however on their Deliverance from the Bondage of Egypt. Now this having many Particulars resembling that infinitely more important Redemption of all Mankind from Sin and Ruin, which our Saviour was then about to accomplish ; He very naturally directed his Disciples, that their ancient Custom should for the future be applied to this greatest of divine Bleflings, and become the Memorial of Christ. their Palover, sacrificed for them° ;; as indeed the Bread broken aptly enough represented his Body; and the Wine poured forth expressively figured out his Blood, shed for our Salvation. These therefore, as the third Answer of our Catechison very juftly teaches, are the inward Part of this Sacrament, or the Thing signified.
But the Church of Rome, instead of being content with saying, that the Bread and Wine are Signs of the Body and Blood of Christ, insist on it, that they are turned into the very Substance of his Body and Blood :
which imagined Change they therefore call Transubftantiation. Now were this true, there would be no outward Sign left: for they say, it is converted into the Thing signified: and by Consequence there would be no Sacrament left: for a Sacrament is an outward Sign of an inward Grace.
Befides, if our Senses can in any Care inform us what any Thing is, they inform us, that the Bread and Wine continue Bread and Wine. And if we cannot trust our Senses, when we have full Opportunity of using them all; how did the Apostles know that our Saviour taught them, and performed Miracles; or how do we know any one Thing around us ? But this Doctrine is equally contrary to all Reason too. To believe that our Saviour took his own Body, literally speaking, in his own Hands, and
the Whole of that one Body to every one of his Apostles, and that each of them swallowed Him down their Throats, though all the while He continued fitting at the Table before their Eyes : to believe, that the very fame one individual Body, which is now in Heaven, is also in many thousands of different Places on Earth; in fome, standing still upon the Altar; in others, carrying along the Streets; and so in Motion, and not in Motion, at the fanie Time: to believe, that the same Body can come from a great Distance, and meet itself, as the sacramental Bread often doth in their Procesiions, and then pass by itself, and go away from itself to the same Distance again; is to believe the most absolute Impoflibilities and Contradi&ions. If such Things can be true, Nothing can be false: and if such Things cannot be true, the Church that teaches them cannot be infallible, whatever Arts of puzzling Sophiftry they may use to prove either that or any of their Doctrines. For no Reasonings are ever to be minded against plain Common-Senle.
They must not say, this Doctrine is a Mystery. For there is no Mystery, no Obfcurity in it: but it is as plainly seen to be an Error, as any Thing else is seen to be a Truth, · And the more fo, because it relates, not
to an infinite Nature, as God; but entirely to what is finite, a Bit of Bread and a human Body. They must not plead, that God can do all Things. For that means only that He can do all things that can be done: not that He can do what cannot be done; make a Thing be this and not be this, be here and elsewhere, at the same Time: which is doing and undoing at once, and so in Reality doing Nothing. They must not alledge Scripture for Absurdities, that would sooner prove Scripture false, than Scripture can prove them true. But it no where teaches them.
We own that our Saviour says, This is my Body, which is broken d; and, This is my Blood, which is the de. But He could not mean literally. For as yet his Body was not broken, nor his Blood shed: nor is either of them in that Condition now. And therefore the Bread and Wine neither could then, nor can now, be turned into them, as such. Besides, our Saviour faid at the fause Time, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood'. Was the Substance of the Cup then changed into the New Testament? And if not, why are we to think the Substance of the Bread and Wine changed into his Body and Blood ? The Apostle says, the Rock, that fup. plied the Israelites with Water in the Wilderness, was Chrif?: that is, represented Him. Every Body says, such a Picture is such a Person, meaning the Representation of him. Why then may not our Saviour's Words mean fo too?
The Romanists object, that though what represents a Thing naturally, or by Virtue of a preceding Institution, may be called by its Name, yet such a Figure as this, in the Words of a new Institution, would not be intelligible. But the Representation here is natural enough: and though the Institution was new, figurative Speech was old. And the Apostles would certainly rather interpret their Master's Words by a very usual Figure,
1 Cor. xi. 24• i Cor. x. 4.
e Matth, xxvi. 28. f Luke xxii. 20.
b Preuves de la Religion, vol. IV, p. 166.
1 Cor. xi. 25.
than put the absurdest Sense upon them that could be. They object further, that if He had not meant literally, He would have said, not, This, but This Bread, is my Body i. But we may better argue, that if He had meant literally, He would have said, in the strongest. Terms, that he did. For there was great Need, surely, of such a Declaration. But we acknowledge, that the Bread and Wine are more than a Representation of his Body and Blood: they are the Means, by which the Benefits, arising from them, are conveyed to us; and have thence a further Title to be called by their Name. For fo the Instrument, by which a Prince forgives an Offender, is called his Pardon, because it conveys his Pardon ; the Delivery of a Writing is called giving Possession of an Eftatek; and a Security for a Sum of Money, is called the Sum itself; and is to in Virtue and Effect, though it is not in Strictness of Speech, and Reality of Substance. Again: our Saviour, we own, fays in St. Juhn, that He is the Bread of Life; that his Fles is Meat indeed, and his Blood is Drink indeed: that whoso eateth the one and drink-. eth the other, bath eternal Life; and that, without doing it, we have no Life in us!. But this, if understood literally, would prove, not that the Bread in the Sacrament was turned into his Flem, but that his Flesh was turned into Bread. And therefore it is not to be understood literally, as indeed He himself gives Notice: The Flesh profiteth Nothing : the Words which I speak unto you, they are Spirit and they are Life m : It is not the grols and li. teral, but the figurative and spiritual, eating and drinking; the partaking by a lively Faith of an Union with me, and being inwardly nourished by the Fruits of my offering up my Flesh and Blood for you, that alone can be of Benefit to the Soul.
And as this is plainly the Sense, in which He says, that bis Fliph is Meat indeed, and his Blood is Drink indeed: so it is the Sense, in which the latter Part of tbe third
1 Preuves de la Religion, vol. IV. p. 168. * Sec Cod. 8. 54. 1. John vi. 48, 53, 54, 55.
in Ver. 63: