Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

ARTICLE XXVIII.

OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

THE SUPPER OF THE LORD IS NOT ONLY A SIGN OF THE OUGHT TO HAVE AMONG LOVE THAT CHRISTIANS

THEMSELVES ONE TO ANOTHER, BUT RATHER IT IS A SACRAMENT of our REDEMPTION BY CHRIST'S DEATH; INSOMUCH THAT TO SUCH AS RIGHTLY, WORTHILY, AND WITH FAITH RECEIVE THE SAME, THE BREAD WHICH WE BREAK IS A PARTAKING OF THE BODY OF CHRIST, AND LIKEWISE THE CUP OF BLESSING IS A PARTAKING TRANSUBOF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. STANTIATION (OR THE CHANGE OF THE SUBSTANCE OF BREAD AND WINE) IN THE SUPPER OF The lord, CANNOT BE PROVED BY HOLY WRIT, BUT IS REPUGNANT TO THE PLAIN WORDS OF SCRIPTURE, OVERTHROWETH THE NATURE OF A SACRAMENT, AND HATH GIVEN OCCASION TO MANY SUPERSTITIONS. THE BODY OF CHRIST IS GIVEN, TAKEN, AND EATEN IN THE SUPPER ONLY AFTER A HEAVENLY AND SPIRITUAL MANNER; AND THE MEAN WHEREBY THE BODY OF CHRIST IS RECEIVED AND EATEN IN THE SUPPER, IS FAITH. THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER WAS NOT BY CHRIST'S ORDINANCE RESERVED, CARRIED ABOUT, LIFTED UP AND WORSHIPPED.

IN the edition of these Articles in Edward VIth's reign, there was an additional paragraph

against transubstantiation: "Forasmuch as the "truth of man's nature requireth, that the body "of one and the self-same man cannot be at one "time in many and divers places, but must "needs be in one certain place; therefore the "body of Christ cannot be present at one time "in many and divers places. And because, as "Holy Scripture doth teach, Christ was taken

[ocr errors]

up into heaven, and there shall continue unto "the end of the world, a faithful man ought

not to believe, or openly to confess, the real "and bodily presence, as they term it, of "Christ's flesh and blood in the sacrament of "the Lord's Supper." This paragraph was also inserted in the Articles, as they were first prepared by the Convocation in Queen Elizabeth's reign, to which the clergy annexed their subscription. It was afterwards, however, omitted, from a desire to induce the people to submit to the Reformation, and an apprehension lest so particular a mention of this doctrine, to which they had been much attached, should offend them. The reason assigned also for its rejection might be considered too philosophical for an article of religion. Still it is evident, that there was no difference of opinion as to the truth of that reason, since the clergy of both convocations subscribed it.

The Article consists of three parts: I. It explains the nature of the sacrament of the Lord's

Supper; II. It declares the mean of receiving it ; and, III. The use of it.

I. It explains the nature of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

In order to this, we shall consider, 1°. The doctrine of the Church of England, and, 2°. The doctrine of the Roman Church.

1o. As to the doctrine of the Church of England, "The Supper of the Lord is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death."

This will be evident by considering, 1st. Its institution. On this subject, it may be observed: 1. On the night of the delivery of the Israelites out of Egypt, Moses had appointed that every family should kill a lamb, whose blood they should sprinkle on their door posts, and whose flesh they should eat. On seeing this blood, the destroying angel, that was to kill the first-born of every family in Egypt, would pass over the houses thus marked; from which circumstance the Lamb was called the Lord's Passover, as being then the sacrifice, and afterwards the memorial of the Passover. The people of Israel were desired to preserve the remembrance of that deliverance, by slaying a lamb before the place where God should set his name, and eating it on the same night, with bitter herbs and unleavened bread. They still called the lamb the Lord's Passover, though none but the first lamb that was killed in Egypt, truly deserved that

V.

name. It is evident therefore that the Jews, in the paschal supper, were accustomed to call the memorial of a thing by the name of that of which it was a memorial. 2. As the deliverance out of Egypt was a type of that greater deliverance that we were to have by the Messiah, so in the New Covenant, Christ himself was our Passover" that was sacrificed for us." (1 Cor. "the Lamb of God that was to 7.); he was take away the sins of the world," (John, i. 2, 9.) and was " to lead captivity captive." (Eph. iv. 8.) He therefore chose the time of the Passover,a that he might be then offered up for us, and instituted this memorial of it, while he was celebrating the Jewish paschal with his disciples, who being accustomed to the forms and phrases of that supper, in which every master of a family officiated among his household, would naturally understand all that our Saviour said and did, according to those forms with which they were acquainted. 3. After supper Christ took a portion of the bread that had been set upon the table, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, "This is my body which is broken

66

b

a One of the Jewish traditions was, that "the Messiah should come and obtain their deliverance on the very same night in "which God had brought them out of Egypt, the night of the paschal solemnity."-See Fagium in Annot. in Ex. xii. 13. in Critic. Sacr.

[ocr errors]

b Notwithstanding the confidence with which this text is arged by Roman Catholics in proof of transubstantiation, there is not perhaps one

for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Luke, xxii. 19.) Now this entire passage must be either literally or figuratively true, and since his body could not have been really before them in its broken state, the text must therefore be understood in the latter sense. It has been said, that as his body could only be present in the sacrament in its glorified state, therefore the words should be interpreted, "this is my body which is to be broken." But here again we

reply, that there can be no reason for interpreting the term "broken" figuratively, while "body" is understood literally, and therefore, since a mystical exposition must be applied to the former, it must also be applied to the latter. 4. It is evident that the disciples must have understood our Lord's words in this sense, not only from the similar use of the words, "this is the Lord's Passover," to which they had been accustomed, but also because we find they made no inquiries as to Christ's meaning. Now, on ordinary occasions, they were in the habit of ask

which, on their own grounds, yields so little support to it. For, in the words, "this is my body," what does "this" refer to ? If to the bread, then, by their own confession, the expression must be taken figuratively, since it is universally admitted, that the bread could not be said to be the body of Christ.-(See Gloss. in Grat. de Consec. Dist. 2. c. 55. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 19. and Salmeron, t. 9. Tract. 20.) If the word 66 this" does not refer to the bread, how can the text prove any change in that bread, of which it makes no mention ?See Usher's Ans. to the Jes. p. 56. and Bilson on Chris. Subj. p. 730.

« VorigeDoorgaan »