Page images
PDF
EPUB

you make the Lord's Supper, as it was instituted by Christ, a mere commemoration, you make it a strange and unintelligible rite; for what can be more strange than eating the flesh and drinking the blood of one who is to be regarded only as an instructor and benefactor? if we had been ordered in the sacrament to kill an animal, and shed its blood, or only to break bread, and pour out wine, the rite would have been intelligible as a simple memorial; it would have represented Christ's death merely as a death; but it would have been a different rite from ours. Now conceive it is a feast on a sacrifice, and all is easy and simple. We indeed are not in the habit of sacrificing, but what is that? Who could not understand, that when sacrifices were in use, part of the victim was served up at a religious feast, and all who partook (o) of the material feast were understood to partake of the spiritual benefits of the sacrifice? Christ was our victim; on his body we do not feast literally, because it is in heaven; but he appointed bread to represent it; on that we can

feast,

(0) "See Potter's Ant. vol. 1. p. 145, which, though about Heathens, is worth our notice. Heathens, deliberating about Christianity, must have had their minds full of ideas of heathen sacrifices; and these ideas must have affected both their conversion and their religion after conversion, besides making it easier to them to conceive and celebrate the Christian sacrifice."-Hey.

upon

feast, and so partake of his body, that is, feast the victim. Such bread is "the bread of life," because by his own appointment it represents his flesh (p)."

It is manifest that the eucharist was not considered as a sacrifice, in the strict sense of the word, in the primitive ages of Christianity, since the Christians were reproached by the Heathen for belonging to a religion which had no sacrifice; and the early apologists never defended themselves by saying, that they had the sacrifice of the eucharist. This argument, although a negative one, is very conclusive, as far as the opinion of the early Christians is concerned. Justin Martyr indeed expressly says, that "the Christians have no other sacrifice but prayers and praises (q);" and passages to the same effect are found in the works of Athenagoras, Minutius Felix, Origen, Tertullian, Clement and Cyril, both of Alexandria, and Arnobius; and in none of the antient rituals is the eucharist considered as an offering of Christ to God.

The principle upon which the popish masses are founded, is not authorized by Scripture, namely, that the offering of the elements in the holy eucharist by priests may be effectual to the salvation

(p) Hey's Lectures, vol. 4. p. 348. (q) Apol. 2.

[blocks in formation]

[PART III. salvation of others; or, that God will remit pain or guilt to persons whether living or dead, and in particular, that he will release the souls of the dead out of purgatory, on account of masses offered in their name by priests. The whole doctrine of purgatory has been shewn to be unfounded; and the good effects of the eucharist are not only confined to the persons themselves who partake of it, but to those who partake of it worthily, that is, with proper dispositions. And in the institution of this sacrament, every one is commanded to eat and drink as for himself, without the least hint of any vicarious receiving, or that one person may eat and drink in the name, and for the sake, of another. We may indeed, at this solemn act of commemorating the death of our Saviour, offer up our prayers, that the whole body of the church, and all the world, may partake of the merits of Christ's passion; but these prayers are distinct from the receiving of the eucharist, and their efficacy does not depend upon it. The sacrifices of masses (r) may, therefore, justly be called FABLES, since they have no authority in Scripture; and they are BLASPHEMOUS, inasmuch as they derogate from the sufficiency of the death and passion of Christ, as an expiation for

(r) Masses was the name for the Lord's Supper in England till the middle of the reign of King Edward the sixth.

for the sins of mankind; and they are DANGEROUS DECEITS, because they encourage wickedness, by holding out an easy method of pardon, and lead men to place their hope of salvation upon a false foundation.

ARTICLE THE THIRTY-SECOND.

Of the Marriage of Priests.

BISHOPS, PRIESTS, AND DEACONS, ARE NOT COMMANDED BY GOD'S LAW EITHER TO VOW THE ESTATE OF A SINGLE LIFE, OR TO ABSTAIN FROM MARRIAGE: THEREFORE IT IS LAWFUL FOR THEM, AS FOR ALL OTHER CHRISTIAN MEN, TO MARRY AT THEIR OWN DISCRETION, AS THEY SHALL JUDGE THE SAME TO SERVE BETTER TO GODLINESS.

THERE was scarcely any point more canvassed at the time of the Reformation, than the right of the clergy to marry. The celibacy of the Romish clergy was with reason considered to be a principle cause of their irregular and dissolute lives; and the wisest of the Reformers were exceedingly anxious to abolish a practice which had been injurious to the interests of religion, by its tendency to corrupt the morals of those who ought to be examples of virtue to the rest of mankind.

The marriage of priests was so far from being forbidden by the Mosaic institution, that the priesthood was confined to the descendants of one family, and consequently there was not only a permission, but an obligation upon the Jewish priests,

« PreviousContinue »