Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

cessary, that it should be unleavened bread, inasmuch as that kind of bread was used by our Lord, when he first instituted it, which was at the time of the passover, when no leaven was to be found in their houses. And they make it also a signifi cant sign of the sincerity and truth with which the Lord's supper ought to be eaten; for which, they refer to what the apostle says, in 1 Cor. v. 8. Let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. But this seems only to be an allusion to the use of unleavened bread in the passover; which, it may be, might have a typical reference to that sincerity and truth with which all the ordinances of God are to be engaged in; but it does not sufficiently appear that he intends hereby that the bread used in the Lord's supper should be of this kind, or, that it was designed to signify the frame of spirit with which this ordinance is to be celebrated.

On the other hand, the Greek church thought that the bread ought to be leavened, according to our common practice at this day, it being the same that was used at other times. And this seems most eligible, as it puts a just difference between the bread used in the passover, which was a part of the ceremonial law, and a gospel-institution, that is distinct from it. But, I think, there is no need to debate either side of the question with too much warmth, it being a matter of no great importance. As for the wine that is to be used in this ordinance, it is a necessary part thereof; and therefore the Papists are guilty of sacrilege in withholding the cup from the common people *.

IV. We are now to consider what the minister is to do, antecedent to the church's partaking of the Lord's supper: He is to set apart the outward elements of bread and wine from a common, to this particular holy use. Upon which account it may be said to be sanctified by the word of God and prayer, 1 Tim. iv. 5. The words of institution contain an intimation that these elements are to be used in this ordinance, by Christ's appointment; without which, no significant sign could be used in any religious matters. And, as for prayer, this is agreeable to Christ's practice; for, he took bread and blessed it, or prayed for a blessing on it; and as the apostle expresses it; this was accompanied with thanksgiving, as he says; When he had given thanks he brake it, Matt. xxvi. 26. 1 Cor. xi. 24. which is agreeable to the nature and design of the ordinance, as herein we pray for the best of blessings, and express our thankfulaess to him for the benefits of Christ's redemption.

Here I cannot but observe how the Papists pervert this or

This was done by the council at Constance, A. D, 1415. before which time there were, indeed, several disputes about the matter or form of the cup, in which the wine was contained; but it was never taken away from the common people till then.

dinance in the manner of consecrating the bread, which the priest does only by repeating these words in Latin; This is my body; and from thence they take occasion to advance the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation; and suppose, that, by these words pronounced, the bread is changed into the body and blood of Christ; which they assert, contrary to all sense and reason, as well as the end and design of the ordinance; and from hence it will follow, that man has a power to make the body and blood of Christ; and another consequence thereof, will be, that the human nature of Christ is omnipresent, which is inconsistent with a finite nature, and those properties that belong to it as such; from whence it is to be concluded, that it is no where else but in heaven; and it involves in it the greatest contradiction to suppose that it is bread, and having all the qualities thereof; and yet our senses must be so far imposed on, as that we must believe that it is not so, but Christ's body. It also supposes, that Christ has as many bodies as there are wafers in the world; which is a monstrous absurdity. It likewise confounds the sign with the thing signified, and is very opposite to the sense of those words of scripture, This is my body; which implies no more, than that the bread, which is the same in itself, after the words of consecration, as it was before, is an external symbol of Christ's body, that is, of the sufferings which he endured therein for his people.

V. We are now to consider the actions both of the minister and the church, when engaged in this ordinance, viz. breaking, distributing, eating the bread, pouring forth, and drinking the wine, for the ends appointed by Christ, in instituting this ordinance. Whether our Saviour gave the bread and wine to every one of the disciples in particular, is not sufficiently determined by the words of institution: For, though Matthew and Mark say, He gave the bread and the cup to the disciples, Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. and Mark xiv. 22, 23. Yet Luke speaking either concerning the cup used in the passover, or that in the Lord's supper, represents our Saviour as saying to his disciples, Take this and divide it among yourselves, Luke xxii. 17. which seems to intimate that he distributed it to one or more of them, to be conveyed to the rest, that they might divide it among themselves; which is agrecable to the practice of se veral of the reformed churches in our day, and seems most expedient in case the number of the communicants is very great, and the elements cannot be so conveniently given by the pastor into the hand of every one.

Here I may observe how the Papists pervert this part of the Lord's supper; inasmuch as they will not permit the common people to touch the bread with their hands, lest they should defile it; but the priest puts it into their mouths; for which

purpose it is made up into small, round wafers; and the people are ordered to take great care that they do not use their teeth in chewing it; for that would be, as it were, a crucifying Christ afresh, as offering a kind of violence to what they call his body. But these things are so very absurd and unscriptural, that they confute themselves. And their consecrating a wafer to be reserved in a case prepared for that purpose, and set upon the altar in the church, to be worshipped by all that come near it, savours of gross superstition and idolatry,

We may farther observe, that they deny the people the cup in this ordinance, but not the priests; for what reason, it is hard to determine. And, they mix the wine with water; which, though it does not seem to be agreeable to Christ's institution, yet it was often practised by the ancient church, from whence they took it; and their making this a sacramental sign of Christ's divine and human nature, united together in one person, is much more unwarrantable; nor can I approve of what others suppose, viz. that it signifies the blood and water that came out of his side when he was pierced on the cross. And, I can hardly think some Protestants altogether free from the charge of superstition, when they so tenaciously adhere to the use of red wine, as bearing some small resemblance to the colour of Christ's blood; for which reason others chuse to bear their testimony against this ungrounded opinion, by the using of white wine, without supposing that any thing is signified by it more than by red; and others chuse to use one sort at one time, and another at another, to signify that this is an indifferent matter; and these, I think, are most in the right.

Moreover, the practice of the Papists, and some others, in receiving the Lord's supper fasting, to the end that the consecrated bread may not be mixed with undigested food, is not only unwarrantable, but superstitious, as well as contrary to what we read concerning our Saviour and his apostles partaking of the Lord's supper in the first institution thereof, immediately after having eaten the passover, and to what the a postle suggests, when he reproves the church at Corinth, for eating and drinking to excess immediately before they partook of the Lord's supper; upon which occasion he advises them to eat and drink (though with moderation) in their own houses, 1 Cor. xi. 21, 22.

Again, the administring the Lord's supper privately, as the Papists and others do, to sick people, seems to be contrary to the design of its being a church-ordinance; and when, to give countenance to this practice, it is styled, as by the former of these, a viaticum, or means to convey the soul, if it should soon after depart out of the body, to heaven, they are much more remote from our Saviour's design in instituting this or

dinance; neither do they rightly understand the sense of the scripture, from whence they infer the necessity thereof, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, John vi. 53. when they apply it to this purpose. There is another thing that must not be wholly passed over, viz. the various gestures used in receiving the Lord's supper. The Papists not only receive it kneeling; but, they allege, that they ought to do so, as being obliged to adore the body and blood of Christ, which, as they absurdly suppose, is really present, inasmuch as the bread is transubstantiated, or turned into it. And the Lutherans, with equal absurdity assert, that the body of Christ, is really, though invisibly, present in the bread; which is what they call consubstantiation. Some other Protestants, indeed, plead for the receiving it kneeling, as supposing Christ to be spiritually, though not corporally, present therein; and therefore they do not worship the bread and wine, but our Saviour; which, they suppose, they ought to do with this becoming reverence.

What I would take leave to say, in answer to this, is, that we humbly hope and trust, that Christ, according to his promise, is present with his people in all his ordinances; yet, it is not supposed that we are obliged to engage in every one of them kneeling. But that which determines the faith and practice of all other reformed churches, who do not use this gesture in the Lord's supper, is, because it is contrary to the example of our Saviour and his apostles, when it was first celebrated; which ought to be a rule to the churches in all succeeding ages.

If it be said, that this is a gesture most agreeable to prayer, or, at least, that sitting is not so. To this it may be replied, that it is not an ordinance principally or only designed for prayer; for, whatever prayers we put up to God therein, are short, ejaculatory, and mixed with other meditations, which may be performed with an awful reverence of the divine majesty, such as we ought to have in other acts of religious worship, though we do not use that gesture of kneeling. And besides, we think ourselves obliged to receive the Lord's supper sitting, that being a table gesture in use among us, in like manner as that which our Saviour and his apostles used, was among the eastern nations.

As for the reformed Gallican churches, they receive it for the most part, standing; which, being a medium between both extremes, they suppose to be most eligible. But this not being a table-gesture, nor, in that respect, conformed to that which was used by our Saviour and his apostles, I cannot think it warrantable. Nevertheless, when the gesture of standing or sitting is made a significant sign as some do the former, of our VOL. IV. H h

being servants, ready to obey the will of Christ our great Lord and Master; or, as others explain it, as signifying our being travellers to the heavenly country; and the latter, viz. sitting, of our familiarity, or communion with Christ. These are rather the result of human invention, than founded on a divine institution, since we have not the least account in scripture, of these things being signified thereby. This leads us to consi✓ der,

VI. The thing signified in this ordinance, and in what respect Christ is said to be present therein, together with the benefits expected from him, as we are said to feed upon him by faith for our spiritual nourishment and growth in grace. I cannot but think that the general design hereof, is not much unlike to that which was ordained under the ceremonial law, in which, after the sacrifice was offered, part of it was reserved to be eaten in the holy place, Lev. vi. 16. which was a significant feast upon a sacrifice. In like manner, the Lord's supper, which comes in the room of the passover, is ordained to be a feast on Christ's sacrifice; so the apostle styles it, when he says, Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us: "Therefore let us keep the feast, &c. 1 Cor. v. 7, 8. The fiducial application of Christ, and the benefits of his death, is the principal thing to be considered in this gospel-festival. However, there are some cautions necessary to be observed with respect to the things signified therein, as what may be useful to us that our faith may be exercised in a right manner. Therefore let it be considered,

1. That though the Lord's supper was instituted in commemoration of Christ's love, expressed in his death, which was the last and most bitter part of his sufferings for our redemption. Yet he did not design hereby to exclude his other sufferings in life; nor, indeed, his whole course of obedience from his incarnation to his death; since it is very evident that the death of Christ is often considered in scripture, by a synecdoche, as denoting the whole course of obedience, both active and passive, which is the matter of our justification; and therefore is to be the object on which our faith is to be conversant in the Lord's supper, as well as his sufferings in, or immediately before his death.

2. When Christ's sufferings upon the cross are said to be signified by the bread and wine; we are not to conclude that these sufferings are to be so distinctly or separately considered, as that the bread broken, is designed to signify the pains that he endured upon the cross, when his body was as it were broken, its tendons, nerves, and fibres snapped asunder, and his joints dislocated, by being stretched thereon; and the wine poured forth, to signify the shedding his blood when his hands

« ElőzőTovább »