Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

conclude, that the divine Instituter of the feaft would give all poffible evidence of fo important a Truth.

But if (as was in fact the cafe) this evidence must arise from, and out of, the occafion, and through the words of the Inftitution, then the figurative terms of BODY and BLOOD became neceffary, thefe only being fully declarative of the nature of the Rite. And as this made the use of thefe terms to be neceffary, fo the neceffity of them produced their cafe and elegance. This is observed, because it has been ufual amongst Proteftants, even while they were oppofing the portentous doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION *, to acknowledge, either through ignorance of, or inattention to, the specific nature of the Rite, that the figure of body and blood was extremely violent and forced.

It likewife removes another difficulty, which the advocates for a real prefence throw in the way of common fenfe. They pretend that, if the words of the inftitution

*See note [H], at the end of this Book,

were

were only FIGURATIVE, the Evangelist and St. Paul might, and probably would, have changed the figure, in their narratives, five times repeated on different occasions; for that no reason can be given of the unvaried use of the fame words, but because they are to be understood LITERALLY; and then as they were declarative of one of the greatest Mysteries in Religion, there was a neceffity to record the very terms employed, whenever the history of the Inftitution was related. To this, it is fufficient to reply, that, indeed, were the words used figuratively, and the figure only expreffive of a death commemorated, and no more, as the Socinians fuppofe it to be, it would be but reasonable to think, the terms would have been varied by, one or other of the facred Writers; because it is natural to believe, that Writers of fo different genius and acquirements in language would not all have the same opinion concerning the use of these precise terms, so as to esteem them preferable to any other; as, in fact, on this idea of the Rite, they would not be. But we can by no means allow their confequence,

fequence, that, therefore, they are to be understood LITERALLY; fince, if we admit the Inftitution to be of the nature of a feaft upon Sacrifice, there will be the fame neceffity for the unvaried use of the terms, although they be figurative, as there would have been although they were literal. For these precife terms are as neceffary to denote a feaft upon Sacrifice (the Rite we contend for) as to denote the Sacrifice itfelf; the enormous idea of the church of Rome.

All this reasoning on the nature of the İnftitution, from the words of the Inftitutor, receives additional strength even from what hath been supposed to invalidate it, namely, the conclufion of them-DO THIS ÎN REMEMBRANCE OF ME-For although thefe words, when delivered alone, might enjoin no more than a remembrance of a dead benefactor (which is the fenfe the Socinians put upon them), yet, when preceded by—

THIS IS MY BODY-THIS IS MY BLOOD

they are certainly an injunction to keep in remembrance his death and paffion for our REDEMPTION. And could there be a feaft

[blocks in formation]

upon a Sacrifice in which that Sacrifice was not to be kept in mind?

It is true, that the Disciples of Chrift being commanded to do this in remembrance of him, the Command fhews that the celebration of this Feaft was continually to be repeated, which was not the practice in the Pagan and Jewish feafts after the Sacrifice. But, in this particular, the reason of the difference is apparent-The GREAT SACRIFICE itfelf (of which the Jewish were Types) put an end to that mode of Religious Worship amongst the Followers of Jefus.

Jewish and Pagan oblations had, or were fuppofed to have, a paffing and temporary Virtue. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with thofe facrifices, which they offered year by year continually, make the Comers thereunto perfect: FOR THEN

WOULD THEY NOT HAVE CEASED TO BE OFFERED

*Heb. x. I, 2.

But

But the Sacrifice on the CROSS is the very image or the thing itself; and therefore has more than a paffing and temporary effect, it continues operating till the confummation of all things; because it makes the comers thereunto perfect: we being fanctified through the offering of the body and blood of Chrift, ONCE FOR ALL*: for where remiffion of fins is, there is NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN †. It feemed expedient, therefore, that the operating virtue of this Sacrifice, offered once for all, fhould be continually fet before our minds, in repeated celebrations of the Feast upon it.

What hath been here reafoned, on the Inftitution of the last Supper, appeared fo ftrong to a late eminent Perfon, famous for his Socinian notions on this Subject, that (as I have been told) he used to confefs, that if the death of Chrift could be proved to be a real Sacrifice, the last Supper was undoubtedly of the nature of the Feast after the Sacrifice. This was faid with his ufual addrefs, to make his Reader overlook,

* Heb. x. 10.

↑ Ver. 18.

N 2

and

« AnteriorContinuar »