Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

political principles on which the late revolution turned. But if you will believe our author, it is only necessary to remember the death of Christ. Repentance, faith, and charity are, according to him, by no means necessarily connected with the duty of eating and drinking in remembrance of our blessed Saviour. To profess our faith in Christ's promises, to rekindle our zeal for those principles by which he wrought the great revolution from a state of sin to a state of salvation, or to renew our religious engagements to him, may be, in the opinion of our author, no useless work, but he thinks they are not necessary when we meet to commemorate the death of our Divine and Glorious Redeemer. If this does not sink the memory of our Saviour lower in a religious, than the common practice does that of King William in a political sense, I am under a very gross mistake.

I have dwelt the longer on this head, because the following errors of our author are so artfully interwoven with this, that it would be difficult to get clear of them if this one were admitted. But his art will now be turned against himself, inasmuch as the demolition of his foundation must be attended with the ruin of the whole erroneous fabric which he has erected on it. Besides, to expose his fundamental absurdities and falsehoods under this proposition, was the most effectual way of demonstrating that this book could never have been the work of so learned, so ingenious, and, in short, so great a man as the bishop of Winchester.

If the reader will be pleased to consult the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th propositions of our author, he will find that the following proposition is rightly and fairly drawn from thence.

Thirdly, There is no other preparation necessary to the worthy reception of the Lord's supper, than a serious remembrance of our Saviour's death, so that persons who lead lives unworthy of Christians both before and after it, may nevertheless be worthy communicants.

This would be very true, if the sacrament of the Lord's supper were merely commemorative, for then we might without the smallest trouble or preparation examine ourselves, whether we remembered that Christ died for us. But I hope it appears pretty plain from what was said un

der the foregoing proposition, that there must be some hing more intended by this institution than a bare commemoration.

But let us be determined by Scripture, and the nature of the institution itself. We find in the eleventh chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul telling that church, that whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink this cup unworthily, should be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and should eat and drink damnation to himself.' From these words so alarming, notwithstanding the softenings of our author, it appears very plainly, that we ought to be exceedingly careful to know in what a worthy reception consists. This we may find by the other admonitions there given. St. Paul reproves the Corinthians for three vices, viz. drunkenness, despising the church of God, and uncharitably shaming their poor brethren; which vices rendered their celebration of the Lord's supper unworthy. Now it appears that they were not guilty of these vices at the very time of receiving, but at their love feasts which they celebrated, according to our author, before, but according to others, after the sacrament; which may serve to shew us that our behaviour either before or after communicating ought to be virtuous, devout, and decent, or else we must be unworthy communicants. It is not at the time of receiving only that we are obliged to live and act like Christians, but at all other times, under the penalties of an unworthy reception. Perhaps our author will say, not at all other times, but only immediately before or after, only while we are in the usual place of communion. This is as if it was not the heinousness of vice that made the action unworthy, but the nearness of time. But vice is vice, and as such offensive in the sight of God, to whom a thousand years are as one day, at all times. Nor is it these vices only that are here mentioned, but all others, for the same reason, that make an unworthy reception of the Lord's supper. If this were so, our author will say, why did not St. Paul tell us so? How can we conclude all this from the passage now under consideration? I answer, that St. Paul, in the words already cited, reproves the abuses of the Corinthians, for no other reason but because they were offensive in the sight of God, which is a reason as good against

all manner of vices and abuses whatsoever, whether committed before, at, or after the sacrament, though ever so geographically or chronologically distinguished.

But it happens unluckily for our author, that St. Paul, after reproving the Corinthians by applying directly to them and their particular abuses, in the twentieth, twentyfirst, and twenty-second verses, at the twenty-seventh verse says in general, that whosoever shall eat and drink unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and then immediately subjoins, 'Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat and drink.' This is applied to all mankind, and ought to be understood as a bar laid against all kinds of sin and unworthiness. To what end is a man to examine himself? Is it only to try whether he remembers the death of Christ or not? Surely that can require no examination. Or is it in order only to consider the difference between our Lord's body and the common meal? Surely that is not to examine himself, but to examine the institution.

It seems to me a little hard, that while all other affairs or undertakings necessarily require, according to their importance, certain degrees of preparation, this most sacred and solemn ordinance, in which not only the body and blood of our Redeemer are represented, but his spirit conveyed, should be approached in an abrupt and irreverent manner. Is there no decency of dress, or wedding garment required when we are to be entertained at the table of the Lord? Shall we set off our bodies in our best apparel, when we are to dine with a prince or a great man, and yet go covered with all the foul rags of our unrepented sins to sup with the Lord of hosts and the King of kings? This is not only not to discern the Lord's body from a common meal, but to treat it with infinitely more indignity. Surely a wretch polluted, corrupted, and altogether impenitent, is utterly unfit for the performance of any Christian duty, but most especially, of the most awful and important institutions. Surely to a soul void of faith in God's merciful promises through Christ, this sacrament must be impertinence, and his taking it profanation. Surely to a heart imbittered with malice, and at enmity with its fellow members in Christ, this feast of love must be extremely opposite and repugnant. Is it not then necessary that we

should consider well whether we possess our souls in a spirit of repentance, faith, and benevolence, before we approach the Lord's table? And can we form to ourselves thesc dispositions in an instant, without either exerting ourselves in meditation, or imploring the assistance of Almighty God by prayer?

If, as our author will have it, the whole nature and essence of the Lord's supper consist in the commemoration of Christ's death, we ought certainly to commemorate that inestimable mercy in such a manner as may redound to the honour and glory of our Divine Benefactor and Master. But this can never be done without a strict adherence to his precepts, or at least a deep and sorrowful repentance for having transgressed them. He that is obstinate in his wickedness, dishonours the Saviour of mankind, because he caresses and courts those sins for which he was put to open shame; he is at enmity with Christ, because he is in amity with those vices which Christ came into the world to combat and subdue; he crucifies Christ afresh, because he cherishes and encourages those impieties that nailed our dear Redeemer to the cross, and pushed the spear into his side. Now, is it possible for such a one to honour Christ by receiving bread and wine in his remembrance? If he remembers him at all, must it not be as an enemy, or as a person whose memory he would disgrace?

Let the reader now consider whether it is with sense or charity to be supposed that an ambassador of Christ, and a pastor of his flock, should, against the nature of the sacrament, against the interest of Christ's kingdom, and against the salvation of his subjects, whom he has bought with his blood, labour to make the hearts of those who come to the Lord's table, as impenitent, as faithless, as uncharitable, and as devotionless every way as he can.

When the reader has done this, if he will turn to the 18th proposition of the Plain Account, and peruse that with what is said under it, particularly in pages 143, 153, 156, 164, 173, and 174, he will find that the following proposition is truly and fairly extracted.

Fourthly, There are no privileges peculiarly annexed to the worthy receiving the Lord's supper, no concomitant grace, no spiritual benefits, no communion with God. It

is no renewal of our baptismal vow, nor seal of the Christian covenant.

'Our author owns indeed, at the 155th page, that the sacrament by its natural and reasonable tendency leads us to thankfulness, to the profession of our dependence on, and obligations due to God, and our duty towards our neighbours, and that it is therefore an effectual acknowledgment of our strict obligation to all instances of piety and virtue, &c.'

It is easy to see that this contains a flat denial of what the 4th proposition sets forth, which proposition is nevertheless faithfully collected from the pages referred to. But besides, the matter of this concession made by our author is manifestly impossible, if it be true that the Lord's supper is a rite purely commemorative, and that there is no preparation necessary to the worthy receiving of it. If it be merely a memorial, how can it be reasonably expected that it should lead the thoughts of those to the whole system of Christian duties, who are not necessarily required to make any preparations for it, farther than a bare and instantaneous recollection of our Saviour's death? The thoughts themselves may take what hints, and steer what course they please; but this, according to our author's doctrines, is no necessary effect of the Lord's 'supper, the duty of receiving which is, if we will believe him, 'contained within the limits of eating and drinking in remembrance of Christ's death;' so that if we should make any devout or pious reflections on what we are about, it seems, they must be more owing to our own goodness, than God's injunction. And yet I cannot see of what use such reflections, if they were made, could be towards the improvement of our lives, since without time and preparation they must be too transient to have any effect upon our manners.

[ocr errors]

This doctrine of his concerning the benefits of the sacrament, directly contradicts what he lays down in his four first propositions, where he tells us, that the duty of partaking of the Lord's supper is not a duty of itself, or apparent to us from the nature of things, but made such to Christians by the positive institution of Jesus Christ.' The performance of all natural duties is usefuland beneficial to us, and the omission hurtful. If this were a natu

« ZurückWeiter »