Gambar halaman

if we look well into it, we may find it a very improbable presumption; and I am clearly of Opinion, that it is a vulgar Errour, and my Reasons are these.

1. We cannot gather so much from any part of Scripture. Indeed we read, that Christ did eat of the Pallover with his Disciples, and that when he had Sapped upon the Passover, he instituted this Solemnity; but we find not the least intimation that he communicated of the Sacred Elements, at or after the Institution. St. Mati hew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul do all agree, that be took Bread (into his hands) that he blessed it, that he brake it, and then gave it to his" Difciples, commanding them to take and eat; moreover that he took the Cup (into his hands likewise) that he gave thanks over it, and that then he gave it to his Disciples, that they should drink of it. But in all the relation of the Story, there is not ope word of his own eating of the Bread, or drinking of the Wine. Nor, 2dly, is it probable, that he would do so, because there was no reason for his own doing of it. He was bound indeed to Communicate of the Pallover, because he was a few, made under the Law, and consequently obliged to observe the Mo. saical Ordinances; but this was a Mystery



bank bemfelves bound to Celebrate the
Lor's Supper at Night too, and after

Mai and in a private Home, and in an
me loom, and with such : Select
liester, and with Unleavened Bread, 303
wike for the Command ertel VE

n. , as vellas to ore Circunfm 1 Men argue char way; bue the true fa i extendea o no Circumstances ou

coniequently not to any one Patare, and therefore it mad be completi entre out zeither Koeling, cotany Pulture is it félf Undertal, o C

[ocr errors]

tory on any politire Command

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

we may find it a mption; and I am that it is a vulgar ns are these. her so much from

Indeed we read, the Pallover with when he had Sæphe instituted this

not the least in unicated of the Sater the Institution. St. Luke, and St. at be took Bread he blessed it, that zave it to his Dibem to take and

took the Cup le) that he gave

then he gave it y Thould drink of on of the Story, of his own eating ing of the Wine. e, that he would no reason for his s bound indeed to Jover, because he er the Law, and observe the Moo his was a Mystery 4


of his own appointing, and the Ends and Effects of it did concern his Church only; that his Church might Celebrate a publick Memorial of him, that his Church might seal her Duty to God, and might have the pledge of God's Mercy and Loving kindness to Her; that his Church might partake of Him, and of his Spirit, and receive all the blessings of the New Covenant. These were weighty Reasons in respect of Christ's Church ; but they did not at all concern Christ himself

. It was not reasonable that he should do this in memory of himself; it was not needful that this. Thould be a Covenant-Rite be. tween him, and his Father; it is not conceiveable that he should Communicate of his own Body and Blood; it was not possible, that he who was without. Sin, should Eat and Drink for the Remission of Sins; and therefore it is not probable at all, that he did Communicate of the Sacramental Bread and Wine with his Disciples. And hence it necessarily followeth, chat 'tis most irrational and absurd to argue for or against any pofture, from our Saviour's bodily deportment at the Institution of this Sacrament, because he himself was no Communicant at that time. For as touching the Posture that was used at the Paschal Supper (whate

ever that posture was) it is a thing of Foreign Consideration, and impertinent to the Question, and concerns not Us, because the Customs of the Jews at their Passover (being grounded upon Peculiar and Special Reasons lay not the least tie upon

Christians at this Sacrament. . The Enquiry among vs is, touching Christ's Example at this new Solemnity; and ’tis Ridiculous to conclude, that to kneel in the act of Receiving, is against the Example of our Lord, when it appears more than probable that he himself received not; what he did at that time with his Disciples, he did purely as their Master, and Priest, but not as a Guest with them then ; so that if any Directions be to be taken from the Example of Christ, they serve to guide those who in Christ's stead Minister at the Holy Table, rather than to Govern any that are partakers of the Altar.

2. SEEING then there is no Argument against Kneeling from our Saviour's Example, let us proceed to the second branch of the Objection, and see whether this posture be against the Example of our Saviour's Disciples ? And for the voiding of this pretence also, I think we may lay down this as a very safe Proposition, that 'tis utterly uncertain in what posture


« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »