Page images
PDF
EPUB

that is to fay, of things, as the matter; of words, as the form; and of the perfon of the minifter who confers the facrament, with the intention of doing that which the church does: of which parts if any one be wanting, the facrament is not perfected. Nay, fuch a stress do they lay upon the right intention of the minifter; as rather to allow the validity of miniftrations, which themselves will by no means own to be regular, than to drop this grand point. Thus, within a few fentences after that just now quoted: tho' they infift, that a priest is the proper minifter of the facrament of baptism, and that to him it belongs by his office to baptize; yet, in what they call cafes of neceffity, they allow a layman, or a woman, or even a pagan, and a heretic, to baptize: but ftill they make it neceffary, that the form of the church be obferved, and that the perfon miniftring intend to do that which the church does.

*

Now the chief thing I wou'd obferve here is the wicked arrogance, of prefuming to fufpend, upon the meer will and pleasure of the minister, all the good effects defigned by Christ in his ordinances; for the papifts infift upon it, that all their feven facraments are ordinances of Chrift. Let them fhew, as well as they can, the confiftency of this doctrine with the article now under confideration; which affirms, that all the feven facraments confer grace. It must be only on condition that the priest thinks fit to let them. But

I

* Minister hujus facramenti eft facerdos ; cui ex officio competit baptizare. In caufa autem neceffitatis, non folùm facerdos. vel diaconus, fed etiam laicus vel mulier, imo etiam paganus & hæreticus baptizare poteft; dummodo formam fervet ecclefiæ, & facere intendat quod facit ecclefia. Ibid.

But it is farther obfervable; that, according to this doctrine, it is impoffible for a Romanist to prove, that there is now any fuch thing as a prieft, or indeed a christian in the world; becaufe no man can certainly tell, whether the perfon, from whom he received orders or baptifm, perform'd the fervice with the intention which the church requires.

[ocr errors]

From the account which has been given of the Romish facraments it is easy to see that they are attended with much fuperftition; and with fuch grofs corruptions, as are utterly inconfiftent with the purity of Chrift's doctrine: that they tend to draw off mens regards to inward and real religion that the authority, by which they are bound upon the people, is inconfiftent with the obedience which we owe to our great legislator; and the cruel bitterness, with which they are enforced, quite oppofite to the meek spirit of christianity.

The fourth article of Pius's creed is as follows.

IV. I embrace and receive all and every thing, which hath been defined and declared in the holy fynod of Trent concerning original fin and juftification.

Now the leaft that a man can do, to qualify himself to be a believer in this article, is to get himself well acquainted with all thofe things,

which

which the fynod of Trent has defined and declared concerning these two points. And how the common people in all chriftian countries fhall be able to do this, it will be fome difficulty to conceive. But in cafe all of them did come at the historical knowledge of all that the council of Trent has declared and defined; the difficulty would be to bring them to a thorough fatisfaction, that all thofe declarations and decrees are right and good. Indeed, if the former articles are allowed, which require us to interpret fcripture only in that fenfe which the church holds, and to obferve all ecclefiaftical traditions; then there can be no difpute about this, or any other point. And therefore, one would think, pope Pius might have faved himself the trouble of adding any more articles at all; unless it were the XIth, wherein the good catholic promises unlimited obedience; or the XIIth, which curfes and condemns all those who do not embrace whatever the church in its councils has decreed. But if the fcripture is indeed the word of God; and if, inftead of popes and councils, this is the rule of our faith: then how fhall a private chriftian, of common understanding, be able to pronounce, with the council of Trent, that all of human kind have loft their holiness and righteousness by the fin of Adam; (fefs. V. § 2. decr. de peccato origin.) and yet make an exception, which the fcripture no where makes, for the virgin Mary, the mother of our Lord? (See the conclufion of the fame decree.) And with regard to justification: how fhall he reconcile the words of this council, fefs. VL can. 32. which affirm, that a juftified

[blocks in formation]

Now

that immediately after faying, this is my body, Christ added, which is broken for you. the Romanifts themselves acknowledge, that at the time of inftituting the holy fupper Chrift's body was not yet broken upon the crofs; and that therefore in these words he spoke figuratively, concerning what was to be done. Why not therefore in thofe juft before, which our Lord delivered in the fame breath? So likewife, in St. Luke's recital of the institution, chap. XXII. 20. we find our Lord faid, this cup is the new teftament, [or new + covenant] in my blood, which is fhed for you. Now befides that here, as before, the blood was not yet shed, and therefore the expreffion was manifeftly figurative, referring to what would fhortly be done; why do not the Romanifts allow, that the cup, the very cup, which Chrift held in his hand, and which contained the wine reprefenting his blood, was literally and really a teftament, or covenant, as well as contend, from a like expreffion, that the bread was Chrift's body?

[ocr errors]

These obfervations, taken from the inftitution itself, plainly fhew; that the apostle's words, 1 Cor. X. 16. where the cup of bleffing is faid to be the communion of the blood of Chrift, and the bread broken, the communion of the body of Chrift, cannot fignify a real receiving of the body and blood of Christ, as the author of the Grounds pretends. For the real body and blood never were received, nor intended to be received, even by the apostles themselves, who were prefent at the inftitution. They, and in them all difciples of Chrift, were commanded to keep up, by the actions

[ocr errors]

*

pag. 26.

actions of eating bread and drinking wine, the remembrance of Chrift, when he should be abfent from them, and not prefent with them: and indeed, the very reason why they were herein to remember Chrift, was because in his bodily prefence he should not be with them. The cup of blessing therefore is the communion of Chrift's blood; and the bread broken, the communion of his body; as, by partaking of both, chriftians commemorate their Lord and Saviour, in obedience to his inftitution, and thereby acknowledge themselves his difciples. And this is the manifest view, with which the apostle uses this argument; as may be seen by its connexion with the preceding and following verfes.

So when the fame apoftle fays, 1 Cor. XI. 27, 29. Whofoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord; and he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh * judgment to himself, not difcerning the Lord's body; he can mean no more, than that such a perfon is guilty of a very unbecoming neglect of the great defign of that ordinance, wherein it is his duty to remember with thankfulness, that Chrift's body was broken, and Christ's blood fhed for him; and that he brings just judgment upon himself, by having no due regard to that, which by the command of his Lord and Saviour he is obliged thankfully to remember. Not difcerning the Lord's body is, not confidering the bread in the holy fupper as the appointed memorial of that body; not making a fufficient difference between the bread eaten at the Lord's

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »