תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

SECTION III.

The Lord's Supper not a Feast upon a Sacrifice.

THERE is another erroneous, and as I conceive, dangerous view of the nature and design of the sacrament in question, which demands a passing notice: I mean that which represents it to be specifically a feast upon a sacrifice. There are some even among professed Protestants, who believe that the Lord's supper is the same among Christians in respect to the Christian sacrifice, that among the Jews, the feasts upon the legal sacrifices were, and among the Gentiles the feasts of the idol sacrifices. But the incorrectness of this opinion will appear evident, when we consider, that on this subject, the fundamental principles of the Christian religion, differ radically from the fundamental principles of the religion of Jews and Pagans. Among the Jews and Pagans, sacrifices were offered to expiate particular offences; and all who partook of the sacrificial feasts, were understood in both religions, to partake of all the benefits of the sacrifices themselves. Hence, partaking of those feasts, was, in each religion respectively, considered as an expiation of those offences for which the sacrifices were offered up, and the formal cause of their being forgiven. Hence, it follows, that if the Lord's supper is specifically a feast upon a sacrifice,

then every one who partakes of that sacrament becomes ipso facto personally interested in the merits of the sacrifice which the Lord Jesus Christ offered up for the sins of men. The very action itself is virtually an atonement for our sins-the appointed means and formal cause of their being forgiven. But this consequence is absolutely unauthorised by the form and circumstances of the institution, and utterly inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the religion of the New Testament. That testament speaks of the real and availing sacrifice for sin as having been offered "once for all"—and never to be repeated, because infinite in its merit and everlasting in its efficacy. "And every priest standeth daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this man, (Christ,) after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God: for by one offering, he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”*

We may challenge any one to produce a passage from the gospel of Christ, which appoints any external action to be the condition of our obtaining an interest in his merits: and we might produce many, if it were necessary, which prove that communicating is placed on the same footing with other commanded duties and has no special promise of forgiveness annexed to it; while at the same time we might shew that its uniform language is, "believe on the

*Heb. x. 11, 12, 14.

Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." "He that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned."*

*The famous argument of Dr. Cudworth, considered by himself and others as a demonstration of the doctrine, that the Lord's supper is a feast upon a sacrifice, is founded upon the passage in St Paul's 1 Epis. to the Cor. x. from 14 to 21 inclusive, omitting the 17th and 19th verses. "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

The Apostle was here warning the Corinthians against idolatry, or giving encouragement to it; and Cudworth supposes this to be the purport of his reasoning. "As to eat the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's supper, is to be made partaker of his sacrifice offered up to God for us: as to eat of the Jewish sacrifices under the law, was to partake in the legal sacrifices themselves; so to eat of things offered up in sacrifice to idols, was to be made partakers of the idol sacrifices; and therefore was unlawful." From this view of the Apostle's argument, he draws the conclusion, "that the Lord's supper is the same among Christians, in respect of the Christian sacrifice, that among the

This erroneous view of the sacrament is believed to be far from innocent: it is not one of those errors which may be winked at, because unattended with practical effects of a pernicious kind. Men of intelligence and piety may sustain no serious injury from

Jews the feasts upon the legal sacrifices were, and among the Gentiles, the feasts upon the idol sacrifices." But, Mr. Bell, from whom the argument in the text is partly taken, has, with much learning and ability, exposed the inconclusiveness of Cudworth's reasoning, in the following terms. "Here, first it is absolutely necessary to observe, that this stating of St. Paul's argument requires to have the meaning of each of its propositions precisely ascertained, to enable us to determine whether the argument it contains is conclusive or not: for unless the identical terms, in which it is drawn up, ('being made partakers of Christ's sacrifice,' and 'partaking in the legal sacrifices,' and 'being made partakers of the idol sacrifices') are used to express exactly the same meaning in each of the premises and the conclusion; the argument must necessarily prove inconclusive; or, in reality, no argument at all; though by means of having its premises and conclusion expressed in the same terms, it wears at first sight the appearance of complete demonstration.

"To discover, therefore, with certainty, whether St. Paul's argument, as it is here stated by Cudworth, is really, as well as apparently, conclusive, we must strike out the identical terms themselves, in which the premises and conclusion are expressed; and substitute in their stead, that precise meaning which Cudworth here designed to express by them. And when we have done this, his statement of St. Paul's argument, as appears from what

it, if they have unfortunately adopted it, but we believe that its general reception by the multitude, could hardly fail to be attended with consequences highly dangerous. It would not, perhaps, be difficult to point out many in different communions, who, under the blinding influence of this opinion, have

he says in his three preceding paragraphs, will stand thus:

""Therefore: As to eat the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's supper, is a real communication in his death and sacrifice;' that is, in the effects or benefits of it;

666

'As to eat of the Jewish sacrifices under the law, is to share in the effects or benefits of those sacrifices;' per illa sanctificari;

"So, to eat of things offered up in sacrifice to idols is,' (what? not 'to share in the effects of those idol sacrifices;" the only conclusion that can possibly be drawn from these premises; but,) 'to consent with those sacrifices and be guilty of them:' that is, nothing more than to be virtually guilty of an act of idolatry; and therefore, to be virtually a professed idolater.

"By thus substituting, in the room of the identical terms themselves, in each proposition, that meaning in which Cudworth uses them in the two premises, and that very different meaning in which he uses them in the conclusion, we see at once, that the conclusion by no means follows from the premises, as he understood them; and in fact, has no dependence upon them; and consequently that his interpretation of St. Paul's method of arguing, from what obtained among the Christians and the Jews, must be false; because it renders the Apostle's conclusion not pertinent, and his method of reasoning improper.

« הקודםהמשך »