Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

LETTER II.

Rev. Sir,

H

AVING in the preceding letter established the rule by which we are to form our notions of the Lord's Supper, I now proceed, by that rule, to examine the account which you have given of that inftitution..

In order to preserve my own ideas and those of iny readers clear and diftinct, as well as to avoid repetitions, I will confider the principal things which you have 'advanced, under the following heads, and in the fame order, tho' fomewhat different from yours. What is the design of the Inftitution itself, or what is reprefented to us in it?

What is fuppofed to be profeffed by thofe who attend upon it ?

By whom this Rite is to be celebrated?

Who are to judge of a person's qualifications for it? What advantages refult from the celebration of it? And finally

What preparation is neceffary to a proper attendance upon it?

Under fome or other of these heads I fhall have occafion to confider thofe notions of the Lord's Supper which you except against (in your catalogue of Abuses) as fuperftitious, or as having no foundation in fcripture; and shall attempt the vindication of them, as far as they appear to me to be vindicable, upon the principle which I have already laid down. I begin with

The

The FIRST enquiry, which is, in your own words, What is the Lord's Supper? By which I mean to enquire, What is the nature and defign of the inftitution itself? or, What is intended to be represented to us by the exhibition of bread and wine?

You define the Lord's Supper, "A folemn, but "chearful rite, in remembrance of Chrift, of what "he did and fuffered for the benefit of mankind." This general account of the matter I acknowledge to be juft; but muft obferve, that your explication of it seems not to me fufficiently particular. "Like o"ther customs, (fay you, p. 28.) it stands as a record "of paft events; it preferves the memory of the "most important of all transactions to the end of the "world.It may be confidered as a proof of the "most important facts relating to Christianity *." This is doubtless the truth; but, I apprehend, not the whole truth. You will readily allow, that the remembrance of Chrift, which he himself mentions as one great end of this rite, must be a remembrance of him according to what he is, of the various characters which he fuftains, of the leading actions of his life, and the principal fcenes of his fufferings: fo that if it be true that he was the Son of God, God

manifeft in the flesh; if he was the great Prophet of the church, whom it becomes us to hear in all things; the Lord and Sovereign of the world, who claims our humble obedience; the great High-prieft of our profeffion, and the only and all-fufficient Mediator between God and man; this ordinance is de

* You add here, "It is the only record which Christ has ex"prefsly appointed of his death and fufferings." But tho' it be true, as you further affert, that we no where find that he gave his difciples any orders to write his life, it does not therefore follow that they had none. And we are expressly affured, that he gave them ftrict and folemn orders to preach Chriftianity, and of course his fufferings and death. Of which therefore Christian preaching deferves to be called a record, of Chrift's exprefs appointment, as fitly as the Lord's Supper..

figned

figned as a memorial of him in all these views, tho' they be not particularly mentioned in the paffages which you have quoted. But if this ordinance be defigned as a memorial of Chrift in these several views, why may it not alfo be confidered as a memorial of the particular ends of his offices, his undertakings, and his fufferings, particularly of his death on the cross? These, however, you have not fo much as hinted at thro' your whole performance; which I cannot but confider as a capital defect in a treatise on the Lord's Supper: and this omiffion naturally leads one to fuppofe, that you confider any particu-lar efficacy in the obedience and death of Christ, with regard to our redemption, as having nothing to do with this ordinance; and that thofe who confider this as a principal thing reprefented in it, are chargeable with fuperftition, and annex other ideas to it than the scripture has annexed. But furely, Sir, the death of Chrift is more evidently, or in a more ftriking and fenfible manner, represented to us in this ordinance, than any thing else; the broken bread being a lively emblem of his broken body, and the wine poured forth of the shedding of his blood. Now if it be true, that he was wounded for our tranfgreffions, and bruised for our iniquities; and that we have redemption thro' his blood, even the • remiffion of fins; this important defign of the Saviour's death may as rationally be fuppofed to be represented to our minds by this rite, as any particular in the character of Chrift, or any fact relating to Christianity. Were an anniversary feast appointed in memory of fome hero that bravely died in defence of his country, would it be supposed that the defign of it was merely to perpetuate the memory the man, and not of the hero? Would not his general character, and particularly the circumftances of his death, be naturally recollected? And if he had voluntarily made a facrifice of himself for the good

[ocr errors]

of

of

of the public, and chofe to die rather than the whole nation fhould perifh*, would it reasonably be thought foreign to the defign of the inftitution, gratefully to remember this uncommon inftance of valour and benevolence? Would not this be judged. moft effectually answering the intention of that law, which had enjoined this memorial of the friend of his country, even tho' this particular view of his death were not expressly mentioned. It is not to be conceived, that the remembrance of the man and that of his death, together with the benevolent defign of it, could be feparated. Why then should it not be confidered as one great end, if not the chief end, of the Lord's Supper, to remember Jefus as having died for the ungodly, as having given his life a ranfom for many. You cannot object to the remembrance of him as a Martyr to the caufe of truth, affording by his death the most noble testimony to the doctrines which he taught; or as an example to us of patience, of fortitude in fuffering in a good caufe, and of fubmiffion to the divine will; I am perfuaded you have often infifted upon thefe yourself. Why then is the other view of Christ's death to be omitted, viz. as a facrifice for fin +? I

[ocr errors]

will

* John xi. 50. In your letter to Mr. VENN you make this conceffion: "If "Chrift was, as you fay, a propitiatory facrifice, then, according to my definition, the Lord's Supper is a memorial of ą propitiatory facrifice." (p. 42.) And you tell us, in order to vindicate yourself for having taken no notice of this, that “

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

you

thought you had omitted nothing that any Christian could "poffibly think of on the occafion. But (fay you) according to you, no just account can be given of the Lord's Supper, except we include in it all the articles of your creed." "But furely, Sir, you could not be fo ignorant of the doctrines commonly received among Chriftians, as not to know, that the belief of Chrift's death as a propitiatory facrifice is not an article peculiar to Mr. VENN's creed; how, therefore, you could really

66

think

you had omitted nothing that any Chriftian could poffibly "think of on the occafion," is what I cannot conceive. You must know, that in all focieties of Chriftians where the diftin

guishing

[ocr errors]

will not here infift how clearly this doctrine is taught in fcripture, (and to me it appears as clearly taught as that he lived, or that he died); but, Sir, I must obferve, that something like this appears to be taught in the very words of the inftitution; fo that a plain and fimple Chriftian might be led (even upon your own principle, of being determined in judging of the Lord's Supper by the exprefs words of fcripture relating to it) to confider the death of Chrift as an atonement for fin, and to commemorate it at his table in this view. For obferve, our Lord himself expressly fays of the facramental bread, "This is my "body, which IS GIVEN FOR YOU;" and of the wine, "This is my blood of the New Testament " WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY FOR THE "REMISSION OF SINS." I am at a lofs, and fo are many of your readers, what idea we are to affix to these words, if not that which I have mentioned; and it would have been charity in you to have told us what is the true one. Nay, I will add, juftice to your fubject required it; fince, tho' it could not be expected from you to confider any doctrine as taught in the Lord's Supper which you do not believe to be a doctrine of fcripture, your profeffed defign, in writing upon the fubject, was to give a fcriptural view of it, and particularly to explain thofe paffages of fcripture which immediately relate to it, with this exprefs view, of pointing out the feveral abuses of

guishing tenets of Socinus have not yet been admitted,' (which are By far the most numerous), the death of Chrift is confidered as a propitiatory facrifice, and that the remembrance of it in this view is looked upon as one principal defign of the Lord's Supper. In further vindication of your omillion, you fay, "If I

have not, in my fhort treatife on the Lord's Supper, entered "into fo particular a difcuffion of what Chrift did and fuffered "for the good of men, it was because it was not my profeffed fubject. I took it for granted my readers knew what Chrift "had done and fuffered." To this apology I think the following part of my letter a fufficient reply.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
« ПредишнаНапред »