Page images
PDF
EPUB

In Luke, chap. xxii, we find our Lord taking the cup, v. 17, and again v. 20. By the former of which was probably meant the cup of blessing which the master of a family took, and after blessing God, gave to each of his guests, by way of welcome, but his second taking of the cup, after the paschal solemnity, is to be understood as belonging peculiarly to the very important rite, which he was now instituting, and on which he lays a very remarkable stress.

With respect to the bread, Christ had before said, take, eat, this is my body: but concerning the cup, he says, drink ye all of this, for as this pointed out the very essence of the institution, the blood poured out, that is the life, by which alone the great sacrificial act was performed, and remission of sins procured, it was absolutely necessary, that each should have a particular application of it, therefore he says, drink ye all of this. By this we are taught, that the cup is essential to the sacrament of the Lord's supper, so that they who deny the cup to the people, sin against God's institution, and they who receive not the cup are

not partakers of the body and blood of Christ.*

It was the ancient custom, of the Roman church, for the communicants to make an oblation of the bread and wine, at the altar, of which they were afterwards to partake. This appears from the sacramentary of St. Gregory, published by Pamelius, where it is said, while the offertory is singing, that is, the anthem, the oblations are made by the people, and laid upon the altar, that they might be consecrated. And the Ordo Romanus declares these oblations to be the bread and wine : of which it adds, that the archdeacon took as much and laid upon the altar, as would be sufficient for the people who were to communicate. These oblations continued in the church for a long period, and were enforced by canons and constitutions, till the people began to be remiss in their devotions; upon which the church of Rome introduced the use of wafers. Vid. Lit. Lat. Tom ii. P. 178. Cassand. Liturg. Ch. xxvii. Concil. Matif, Ch. 1.

The council of Constance, which prohibited the sacramental cup to the laity, indeed, confesses that the institution of Christ was under both kinds, "Licet Christus, although Christ, after his supper, instituted and administered this venerable sacrament, under both kinds—although in the primitive church this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds,"--non obstante, &c. Yet, notwithstanding all this, this custom for the avoiding of scandals, was upon just reasons brought in, that Laics should receive only under one kind. Brought in therefore it was, and is one of those doctrines which

..

In Luke, chap. xxii, we taking the cup, v. 17, a By the former of which wa the cup of blessing whic! family took, and after ble each of his guests, by w his second taking of t chal solemnity, is to 1 longing peculiarly t rite, which he was which he lays a ver

With respect before said, tak concerning the this, for as th

of the institu

is the life. ficial ac

of sins

sary, plica

all

[graphic]
[ocr errors][merged small]

who denies the cup to the people, (and they all do this) that can be said to celebrate the Lord's supper at all, nor is there one of their votaries that ever received the holy sacrament! All pretension to this is an absolute farce, so long as the cup, the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied. How strange it is, that the very men who plead so much for the bare literal meaning of, this is my body, in the preceding verse, should deny all meaning to drink ye all of this cup, in this verse. And though Christ has in the most positive manner enjoined it, they will not permit one of the laity to taste it, the conclusion, therefore, is unavoidable,—the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not celebrated in the church of Rome.

Having endeavoured to explain the nature of the Lord's Supper, and the scriptural manner of celebrating it, it may be necessary for me to state the duty of frequenting the sacramental table, the qualifications requisite for profiting by this ordinance, and the benefits resulting from it.

1. We have already seen that the eucharist

C C

On this ground it is demonstrable that there is not a popish priest under heaven,

Lerinensis calls "inducta non tradita, inventa, non aceepta." When the council of Consatnce had determined that the cup should be taken from the laity, the Bohemians were so much dissatisfied, that the council of Basle restored it to them,-which council is infallible? which decree to be undoubtedly received?

Gregory affirms it to be the constant practice for the people to receive the communion in both kinds. Sacram, in quadrag. Tr. 3.

6 Cal Julii ad complend, Heb. 3, in quad. Sabato, &c. &c. and Gelasius, his predecessor, in his Sacramentary, declares it sacrilege, to withhold the cup from the laity.

Indeed, in father Paul's history of the council of Trent, it is said, that the communion of the chalice was observed by the whole church, till within 200 years of that time (1546) page 154.

A learned antiquary, of the diocese of Durham, has lately discovered the original rolls of the parish of Norham, which fully prove, that the wine for the sacrament was ordered for the people as well as for the priest, in the remoter parts of the kingdom, before the reformation. Some remarks on his pamphlet have been published, in which the primitive practice has been traced to a still higher period, by authentic documents, and the gradual innovations of the church of Rome, upon the scriptural mode of receiving the eucharist, are pointed out. See Mr. Raine's Pamphlet on this subject, and the remarks by a protestant,

« PreviousContinue »