had spoke falfely; for his blood was not shed till afterwards, and could not be drank then. Neither is it in a condition of being fhed at prefent, and therefore cannot be drank now. But too much hath been faid of this monstrous doctrine, to which the indifcretion of well-meaning writers gave the first occafion pretty early, whilft they affected to heighten the figurative expreffions of fcripture, by ftill more figurative ones of their own; little thinking, at the fame time, that such an abfurd meaning, as the Papifts now plead for, could ever be afcribed to them; and plainly fhewing, by innumerable proofs, that it is unjustly afcribed to them. But as ignorance and fuperftition increased, about 800 years after Chrift this amazing notion began to be diftinctly and explicitly entertained and afferted, which fome had the good fenfe to oppofe; fome the weakness to receive, as a mystery that promoted the reverence of the facrament; 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 blafphemously exprefs 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 confecrated bread and wine to be literally the body and blood of Chrift obtained, the practical one of worshipping them as fuch quickly followed. For though a decent respect was always paid to the facrament, yet a direct adoration to the elements was never paid, till the dark and superstitious ages above-mentioned introduced fo fenfeless an idolatry, to the infinite scandal of religion. May God, who mercifully wink. ed at the times of Heathen ignorance, overlook this lefs excufable folly of Christianity, 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 fo clearly fhone upon us, we return to darkness again: if, as the apoftle expreffes it, we change the truth of God into a lie, and worship the creature inftead of the Creator, who is blessed for evermore*, Amen. Rom. i, 25. SER SERMON C. THE SACRED SCRIPTURES THE ONLY INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 1 PET. V. 12. -Exhorting and teftifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye fland. HAVING from faith AVING proposed from these words, firft, to fhew what is the rule of Christian faith and practice; and, fecondly, to examine by this rule the chief differences between the church of Rome and ours: the former head I have finished, and made fome progress in the latter. The honour paid by them to faints and images, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the worship built upon it of the facramental bread and wine, have been confidered: and now I proceed to another peculiarity of theirs, with respect to the facrament, withholding the cup from the laity. That our Saviour administered the holy eucharift, in both kinds, they acknowledge; nay, that he exprefsly commanded those, to whom he administered it, that they should ail 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 muft relate only to the clergy; for there is no manner of diftinction made in the gofpel. Yet they own the laity are obliged, by our Saviour's command, to receive the bread, and therefore they are obliged, by the fame command, to receive the cup; which that they did accordingly, the eleventh chap ter ter of the first epiftle to the Corinthiaus makes as plain as words can make any thing. Not to say further, that if the fixth of St. John relate immediately to the facrament, as they are fometimes very positive it doth, the fifty-third verse of that chapter exprefsly declares, that, unless we drink the blood of the Son of Man, as well as eat his flesh, we have no life in 265. But they tell us, our Saviour himself, after his refurrec tion, administered the facrament in one kind only. For St. Luke fays, that fitting down to eat with the two difciples at Emmaus, He took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them; and, upon their knowing him, vanished out of their fight. Now it happens, that this was not administering the facrament at all, but doing just the fame thing, which the evangelists, in just the fame 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 fame cuftom to this day +. But they further plead, that however that be, at least when in the Acts of the Apoftles it is faid, the difciples met together to break bread on the first day of the week ‡, this must be the facrament, and the cup is not once mentioned there as given. We answer, it is not certain that even this was the facrament; and fuppofing it was, as, in scripture-language, common feasts are expreffed by the fingle phrase of eating bread, which yet furely does not prove that the guests drank nothing, fo neither is it proved by a religious feaft being expressed in the fame manner. And befides, 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 abfolutely neceffary: and if one may be taken for granted, without being mentioned, the other may. Nor fhould it be forgotten on this occafion, that as the phrase of eating fometimes comprehends the whole of this action, so doth that of drinking: we have all been made to drink into one Spirit, fays the apostle §; who hence proves the unity of all Chriftians, and therefore certainly thought it was the right of all Chriftians . But they plead Luke xxiv. 30, 31. Buxtorf. Synag. Jud. c. 12. + Acts xx. 7. Claget, Vol. i. Serm, x. p. 265. plead farther, that the laity, by receiving the body of Christ, receive his blood alfo, for the blood is contained in the body. But here they quite forget, that our Saviour hath appointed this facrament 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 infift, that there being no peculiar virtue or benefit annexed to this part of the facrament that they with-hold, which does not belong to the other, it is no manner of lofs to the laity to omit it. Now does not the fame reafon prove equally that the clergy may omit it too? But befides, what treatment of our blessed Lord is this, when he hath appointed all Chriftians to perform a folemn act of religion, consisting of two parts, both with equal ftrictness enjoined, for the church of Rome to say that one of them the far greatest part of Chriftians fhall not perform, for it is 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 fpilled, many dreadful inconveniences may happen from trusting it with the laity? Now, it is ftrange our Saviour should not be wife enough to foresee these inconveniences; it is strange we should not experience them neither; and it adds to the wonder not a little, that the whole church of Chrift, for 1200 years, should not be able to find them out any more than we. For in all that time, the cup was conftantly given to the laity in their public communions, though there are fome inftançes, yet neither many, nor early ones, in which the bread alone was carried to private houses. And when fome of the laity, for abfurd reafons, refufed to take the cup, no less than three Popes condemned them. But fuperftitious imaginations gradually.increafing amongst Christians, a custom arofe first of giving the bread, dipt in wine, inftead of both feparate; and at last in the 15th century, and council of Conftance, the fame which decreed fo honestly, that promifes made to the prejudice of the catholic faith ought not to be kept, decreed also very modeftly, that notwithstanding (for fo they exprefs it) our Saviour administered both kinds, one only fhall be administered for the future to the laity. And See Courayer's Council of Trent, Vol. i. p. 595, And now it is made an article of their creed, that the whole facrament is given by giving this part: fo that whoever shall fay both are neceffary (which, if it be not a truth, one should think could not be a herefy), is by the council of Trent pronounced accurfed. Another difference between the church of Rome and ours, with respect to the facrament, is this. They hold that as often as it is celebrated, Christ is truly and properly offered up a facrifice for our fins. Now we acknowledge, that every act of obedience, and of worship more especially, may, agreeably to the language of scripture, be spoken of as a facrifice to our Maker: that his creatures of bread and wine, when appropri ated to this folemn act of religion, are fo far offerings to God; and that this whole act, being a memorial and representation of the facrifice of Chrift, may fitly enough be called by the fame name with what it commemorates and represents: fo that in this fenfe Chriftians have an altar and an offering upon it. But that, instead of a representative facrifice of praise, it should be a real facrifice of atonement, in which Chrift's body, literally speaking, is every day offered up anew, of this we can see neither proof nor poffibility. For not only it supposes transubstantiation to be true, which hath been proved to be falfe, but it is abfolutely inconfiftent with the whole chapters of the epiftle to the Hebrews; the ninth and tenth, which throughout inculcate that Chrifl was not to be offered up often, for then must be often have fuffered; but that he appeared once to put away fin by the facrifice of himself; was once offered to bear the fins of many; and by this one offering bath for ever perfected them that are fanctified. If therefore our doctrine be heretical in this point, St. Paul's is fo too; not to speak of the primitive Chriftians, who, though they often called this ordinance a facrifice, yet, by calling it an unbloody one, fhew they did not think the blood of Christ was literally offered up in it; and by frequently faying they had indeed no facrifices, prove themselves to look on this only as a figurative one. But now, from this notion of a daily atonement thus made, I fhall proceed to their other doctrines concerning the forgivenefs of fins. And here they hold, that a particular abfolution from a priest is neceffary, if it can be had, for the pardon of every I |