Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

t

1

[ocr errors]

B

[ocr errors]

Half a sacramentWho ever heard of such a thing? A sacrament divided! Yes, even so. The authorities of the Roman Catholic church, Pope, Council, &c., have divided the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which our Saviour instituted the same night in which He was betrayed and, ever since the Council of Constance, they have allowed the people only one half of it. They have told them that they must put up with the bread, for that they want the cup for themselves. But did not Christ give the cup, in the original institution of the sacrament, to as many as He gave the bread? Yes, Christ did So say Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, He took the cup, they tell us, and gave it to them; and Matthew adds that He said in giving it, "Drink ye all of it let not this be omitted by any disciple. It would seem as if Christ foresaw what the Constance Council was going to do, and therefore said, "Drink ye all of it." Rome might with more plausibility have denied her laity the other half of the sacrament the bread. After the command to take the cup, there follows the reason observe it. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins." Now, the Roman Catholics say, that only priests were present on that occasion, and that the giving of the cup to them can be no precedent for giving it to the laity. But, though we should admit that they were at that time priests, I want to know whether the reason for partaking of the cup does not apply to others besides the clergy. Was not the blood shed for the laity as well as for the clergy? And, if this be the reason why any should partake, it is equally a reason why all should for whom the blood was shed. The precept and privilege to drink is coextensive with the reason annexed to it. Now I have not been in the habit of regarding" the propitiatory death of Christ as a part of the benefit of clergy-as one of the peculiar privileges of the priesthood. I object, therefore, to the restriction of the cup

[ocr errors]

of blessing to the emission of sins, I claim to be my

clergy. The symbol of the blood shed

for many, for the

privilege as truly as that of any priest. Christ did not shed his blood for the sons of Levi alone.rosa A

C

Yes, Christ gave it in both kinds :-and what is more, he Roman Catholics themselves acknowledge that He did, and that the primitive church administered it in both kinds; yet (hoc tamen non obstante are their very words), they appoint, that the people shall receive it but! in one kind that is, notwithstanding Christ and the primitive church. And they declare them accursed who teach or practise otherwise. What is this but anathe matizing Christ? But surely they must have something to say in justification of their conduct in this respect. To be sure they have. Do you not know, that the Popel is the head of the church, and that he is infallible; for if he is not, yet the firm Pope & Co. are. Yes, but there was Pope Gelasius, who lived a good while before. He, having heard of some Manicheans who received the bread without the wine, decided that such a dividing of one and the same sacrament might not be done without a heinous sacrilege. Was not he head of the church too, and was not he infallible? If he was not, I wonder how he could transmit infallibility?

[ocr errors]

This, withholding of the cup is one of the boldest strokes of that church. I cannot help admiring the courage it manifests. Who would have thought it could have succeeded so well? I wonder they even undertook to carry this point. However, they have done it. There was some murmuring against it, to be sure. Huss, andJerome of Prague, made a noise about it but they burnt them; and then, of course, they made no more

noise, about it.

B

But are not Christians followers that is, imitators of Christ? Oh, yes. Oh, yes. But this withholding of the cup is not doing like Christ. The Roman Catholics say, that

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

zzano je kunsb_77otsitiqorg adt winger sɗft to ano en→

Yet this, notwithstanding.

[ocr errors]

Christ is with their church to the end of time. It strikes me, however, that He could not have been with them at that point in the progress of time when the Council of Constance sat.

I do not know what others think; but, for my own part, I don't believe, that any power on earth has a right to limit a grant of Jesus Christ; or, in other words, to take away what He has given. He said of the cup, "Drink ye all of it'-and I, for one, will do it; and I think all ought: and, if the Roman Catholics will come over to us, they too shall have the cup of salvation. O, if I had the ear of the Roman Catholics now, I would not ask them to confess their sins to me; but there is a thing I would tell them: I would say, My dear Roman Catholic brethren, you never remember Christ in his sacrament. You only half remember him. He said,

"Eat and drink in remembrance of me." You only do one. You do not show the Lord's death; for Paul says, "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death." It is only they who do both that make this exhibition. Christ's death is not shown by the bread merely, but by both the elements. I know your church says, that the blood is in the body, and that, in taking one, both are taken, for that, "Christ is whole and entire under each kind," as the Council decrees. But how came Christ himself to know nothing of this? Did he do a superfluous thing in giving the cup? What if the blood is in the body, and, the bread being changed into the body, we take the one in taking the other?-we want the blood separated from the body, the blood shed. The blood of Christ is not an atonement for sin, except as it is shed. Roman Catholics, you never celebrate the Lord's Supper. In the Lord's Supper there was a cup. In your mass there

is none. You hold that the discourse in John vi. relates to an atonement; and there it is written, "Excep. eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Now, according to his own principles, you have no life in you, for you do not drink his

blood. The most you can be said to do is, that you eat it in connection with his body! One thing more, Roman Catholic brethren. There can be no such thing in reality as half a sacrament. To divide a sacrament is to destroy it. What follows, then, but that the whole sacrament is taken from you? Look at this: just fix your mind five minutes on this subject, and you are, I do not say what, but you are no longer a Roman Catholic. Five minutes. That is all. But you say, I must not doubt; yet you may think; and God the judge will never condemn you for exercising your mind.*

29. Extreme Unction.

When it looks as if one was going to die, then by all means let the priest be sent for: and, when he has come, let him receive the dying man's confession, (but, if the priest should be long in coming, I would advise him to confess to God. I think it would answer as well. Indeed I prefer that near way to pardon, to the other circuitous route)-and let him then, in that extremity, anoint him with oil! This is extreme unction— a sacrament-one of the seven! I think they must have been at a loss to make up the seven, when they pressed this into the service.

There does not seem to be a great deal of religion in it, nor any excess of common sense. But to speak of it. as constituting a preparation for death is really shocking. What! a preparation for dying, and for meeting and answering to God, procured by the intervention and unction of a human priest-done by oil! Truly this is

*For, as we have seen before, God commands us in His Word to exercise our judgment, saying, by the mouth of Paul, "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say" (1 Cor. x. 15). "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. v, 21). A. S. T.

an easy way of getting to heaven, particularly where priests are plentiful. I do not wonder that the Roman Catholic religion is popular. This is, indeed, prophesying smooth things."

We Protestants have

no such doctrine to preach. When we are called to see a sick person, we candidly acknowledge, that there is nothing we can do for him which shall infallibly secure his salvation. We tell him what he must do that he must repent and believe in Christ: and then we ask God to undertake and to do for him. It is only on certain conditions that we can assure him of his salvation. The priests say, that they can insure the person's salvation: but to any such power as that, we do not pretend.

But have not the Roman Catholics plain Scripture for their doctrine of extreme unction? If they have-if it is written, and not merely handed down, then I shall be at once a believer in it. Let us see: they adduce two passages in support of their dogma, Mark vi. 13, and James v. 14. The first is historical. It affirms that the apostles "anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." The other is hortatory. "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil the Name of the Lord"-that is, doing what the Apostles are represented by Mark as having done; and doing it, as appears from the next verse, with the same end in view, viz. healing. Now, what authority for the sacrament of extreme unction is there here? Here is, indeed, an anointing with oil by an ecclesiastic. But who does not see, in how many particulars, and how widely, this anointing differs from the extreme unction of the Roman Catholics? Their anointing proceeds on the supposition that the person is going to die; and, could his recovery be foreseen, it would be omitted. But the anointing practised by the. Apostles and elders of the church was in order to the recovery of the person, and was in every case connected with his recovery. Their anointing was the attendant and token of a miraculous cure. It held

« PreviousContinue »