« AnteriorContinuar »
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 eleverth Chapter of the first Epiftle 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 pofitive 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 fitting 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, venished 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 A postles 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, ''tis not certain that even this was the Sacrament; and supposing it was, as, in Scripturelanguage, common Feasts are expressed by the fingle Phrase of eating Bread, which yet surely does not prove, that the Guests drank nothing, fo 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 Oc. casion, 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 Apostled; who hence proves the Unity of all Christians, and therefore certainly thought it was the Right of all Christians. 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 Thed 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 infift, that there being no peculiar Virtue or Benefit annexed to this Part of the Sacrament that they with-hold, di Cor. xii, 13. • Claget, Vol, i. Serm. X. p. 265.
2 Luke xxiv. 30, 31, b Buxtorf. Synag. Jud. C. 12.
c Acts xx, 7.
which does not belong to the other, 'tis 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 folemn 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 ’tis full as well let alone : nay better indeed, if we believe them : for the Cup they tell us, may be drank of immoderately, may be spilled, many dreadful Inconveniences may happen from trusting it with the Laity? Now 'tis strange our Saviour should not be wise enough to forefee these Inconveniences : 'tis 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, not early ones, in which the Bread alone was cara ried to private Houses. And when some of the Laity, for absurd Reasons, refused to take the
Cup, Cup; no less than three Popes condemned then. But superstitious Imaginations gradually increasing amongst Christians, a justom 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 not. withstanding (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 Thall fay both are necessary, (which, if it be not a. Truth, one Thould 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. Now we acknowledge, that every Act of Obedience and of Worship more especially, may, agreeably to the Lane guage of Scripture, be spoken of as a Sacrifice
Şee Courayer's Council of Trent, Vol. i. p. 595.