by Rev. John Willison, Dundee
(Continued from page 189)
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed, or be under an anathema.” (Gal. 1: 8)
Tenth Argument. That religion which adds five new sacraments to the two of Christ’s institution, and so corrupt and disguise these two that it is hard to know our Lord’s institution in them, is another gospel than Christ’s, and falls under the anathema in the text: but Popery is such a religion; therefore, &c.
The Lord Jesus Christ, the only King and Head of his church, who hath authority to institute sacraments in it, to be visible signs and seals of the covenant of grace, hath only ordained two sacraments in the gospel, baptism and the Lord’s supper. And the Spirit of God forbids men to add to them, saying, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar;” see Mat. 28: 19; 1 Cor. 11: 23; Rom. 4: 11; Prov. 30: 6. Yet notwithstanding of our Lord’s sole legislative power in his church, and his fore-said authoritative prohibition, the Papists have added five sacraments to Christ’s two, namely, confirmation, extreme unction, matrimony, holy orders, and penance: but none of these five did our Lord appoint for sacraments, neither hath any of them the constituent parts, the matter and the form, the elements, or words of consecration, which are necessary to make a sacrament. As our Lord instituted only two sacraments, and recorded the same in his word; so the church in the primitive ages received only these two. The Popish number of sacraments was not known in the Christian church for eleven hundred years after Christ, nor was it made a matter of faith until about 1500, by the council of Trent.
The Priest’s Intention
2. The Papists make the uprightness of the priest’s intention in consecrating sacraments, to be necessary unto their validity; so that, if this intention be wanting, the sacraments are null. Upon this account, they can have no certainty whether the administrators be either Christians or priests, because they know not certainly the intention of those who baptized and ordained them; nor do the people know if they themselves be baptized, nor whether in the eucharist that which they worship for Christ’s body, be any other than bread.
And for the sacrament of baptism, the Papists have so disguised it with their corrupt additions, that it hath quite another face. Why? They have brought in anointing with oil; signing many times with the cross; the using of salt; spittle; the priest’s blowing on the child’s face; exorcism, which is composed of certain conjuring words, actions, and signs, for driving out the devil; and a great many childish fantastical ceremonies, not appointed by Christ, but wholly devised and authorised by antichrist. Again, they hold, that men, women, or infidels, may baptize in case of necessity, though Christ appointed his ministers only to do it, in Mat. 28: 19, 20, where we see the power of teaching and baptizing go together. Also, they maintain, that those who die without baptism cannot be saved, though it may be altogether without their own fault that they want it. This they hold, without having either scripture or reason for it.
I proceed to speak of the Lord’s supper, into which they have introduced so many gross corruptions, that it is nothing like our Lord’s institution; which further demonstrates the Romish religion to be another gospel.
Language of the Lord’s Supper
I. Though Christ at the first institution of the holy supper, and in the consecration and distribution, used the vulgar tongue in which he spoke to his disciples at other times; yet Popish priests use a language which the people do not understand, and utter the words of consecration so low that the people cannot hear them: and they denounce anathemas against all those who blame them for so doing.
Priest-only Communion
II. At the first institution, our blessed Lord not only communicated himself, but enjoined his disciples to communicate with him; and he accordingly distributed the bread and wine to them at the same time: the Papists celebrate the sacrament frequently, without any person communicating besides the priest.
Deprivation of the Cup
III. When the people are allowed to communicate, they give them the bread only, but sacrilegiously deprive them of the cup; contrary to Christ’s institution and command; Mat. 26: 27; 1. Cor. 11: 28; and contrary to the practice of the ancient church for above a thousand years after Christ. Though the Papists acknowledge Christ’s plain command, and the church’s long practice in this matter; yet the council of Constance, in the year 1414, did, with non obstante, that is, notwithstanding therefore, decree that the people should not receive the cup: and the council of Trent pronounce them accursed who say the people should receive in both kinds. This impious and impudent sacrilege, in plain contempt of Christ’s authority, must be grating to every Christian ear. And had not the world at that time been dreadfully blinded and enslaved by antichrist, the people would not so easily have put up with such a wicked mutilation of Christ’s blessed institution, which takes from them one help of their faith and comfort, which their Saviour in his love appointed for them. With what hearts can the church of Rome read or hear that word of him who will one day be their judge? Mat. 5: 19. “Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.”
Change of Name and Nature
IV. They change both the name and the nature of this ordinance. The bible calls it the Lord’s supper, the Papists call it the mass. Also they have changed it from a sacrament into a sacrifice; from a sacrament for commemoration, into a sacrifice for propitiation, in which, they say, the mass-priest offers to God a true and proper sacrifice for the sins of the people; which is no less than a blasphemous usurpation of the office of the Lord Jesus Christ, our great high priest, who once offered up himself a true and proper sacrifice upon the cross for his people’s sins, by which one sacrifice God’s justice is perfectly satisfied, and the believing soul fully secured, according to Heb. 10: 12, “This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.” Observe, he sat down for ever, because he judged his own sacrifice, then once offered by himself, was perfectly sufficient to atone for the sins of his people, and was never to be offered again. Nay, say the Papists, it was not so perfect, but that it must be offered over and over again; and all this contrary to the declaration of the Spirit of God, that his sacrifice on the cross was perfect, and never needed to be repeated, Heb. 7: 27.
This sacrament was instituted for our commemorating Christ’s death on the cross, and the wonderful benefits of it; but not for our offering any sacrifice propitiatory to God, seeing Christ did this all at once, and none else can do it again, nor is there any need for it. But, in direct opposition to the Spirit of God, the Papists will have their mass to be offered, not only for thanksgiving to God for Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, or in remembrance of it; but they will have it to be a proper propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and dead, and of the same virtue with that which Christ offered up on the cross: nay, they say, the same very Christ that was offered on the cross is offered in the mass. But O how vast is the difference between the two! Why? The sacrifice on the cross was the very body born of the virgin, but that offered in the mass is a piece of bread: on the cross the sacrifice had the due proportion of a man, but in the mass it is a thin wafer: on the cross there was shedding of blood, but the mass is an unbloody sacrifice. Upon all which accounts, the Popish sacrifice of the mass is justly detested by all Protestants, as being both against scripture and reason, and highly derogatory to the perfection of Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice. It is absurd to have a daily repetition of a sacrifice which is perfect, or to have a sacrifice without any suffering, and a propitiation or remission without shedding of blood; for these are all contrary to the apostle’s reasoning; Heb. 9: 22, 25, 26, 28; 10: 12, 14. We see then the scripture directly opposite to the Papists, though this indeed is of no weight with them, who place the church or bishop of Rome above the scriptures; so that they can dispense with them, contradict them, or put senses on them at their pleasure; and, let them do what they will, they are still infallible, inerrable: and this fatal foundation-error must be obstinately maintained, they cannot err. Indeed, if this were once shaken, the whole fabric forthwith tumbles down, even that which they have been rearing up and propping these thousand years past.
Worship of Consecrated Bread
V. They fall down before the consecrated bread, and worship it; which is gross idolatry. But I shall not again insist on this corruption, having spoken of it before.
Transubstantiation
VI. They teach, that the bread and wine, in the eucharist, are by the priest’s consecration transubstantiated, or changed into the true and real body and blood of Christ; the ground they plead for it is Christ’s word; 1 Cor. 11: 24, “This is my body, which is broken for you.” But seeing, to take these words in a strict literal sense, would be contrary to other plain scripture-texts, as well as to our reason and senses; they must certainly be taken figuratively, as we still use to take such expressions in other places, “I am the door, the vine, that rock was Christ,” &c. Besides the apostle Paul, who recites Christ’s words, and best knew their meaning, did not take them in the Popish sense; for, after the consecration of the bread, he calls it still bread, yea, three times over; 1 Cor. 11: 26-28. And Christ called the cup, after consecration, the fruit of the vine; Mat. 26: 29, which had not been true, if these elements had been transubstantiated. Nay, the Popish literal sense is not agreeable to the very words they build on. “This is my body which is broken;” for the Papists must own that in the strict literal sense this was not true, seeing his body was not yet broken: and consequently the words must be taken figuratively, namely, that the bread signified his body that was soon to be broken. Our Lord frequently used this figurative way of speaking to his disciples, when he called himself a door, a way, a vine, bread, &c. And they very well understood that he meant he was represented by these things, and therefore asked him no questions, as they did about other sayings of his which puzzled them. They knew such figurative expressions were most common especially about sacraments, circumcision being called the covenant, and the lamb the passover.
Likewise, its doctrine of transubstantiation is confuted by those texts which assert that Christ went bodily to heaven, and is to continue there until his second coming; and that he is to be no more bodily in the world till that time; see Acts 3: 21; John 17: 11. Moreover, this doctrine is against the plain dictates of reason, by which we are assured, that a human body cannot be in heaven, and on earth, and in many thousand places of the earth at the same time: and also it is inconsistent with the glorified state of Christ’s body to be still liable to suffering, as to be pierced, torn, burnt, corrupted, and thrown out to the dunghill. Will any man in his right senses assert, that our glorified Redeemer is yet exposed to such misery and contempt? How absurd is it to say, that Christ’s body was lying on the table broken and crumbled down, while his real body was sitting by it, whole and entire, talking to his disciples! that he ate his own body, and drank his own blood! How ridiculous is it to oblige all the world to renounce their senses about these things which are the proper objects of senses! and to make them believe that those things which have the smell, taste, feeling, colour, quantity, and weight of bread and wine, are not bread and wine, but the real flesh and blood of a man! This would be to destroy the testimony of the senses altogether, and the witness of miracles to our Saviour’s mission! This would be to accuse him of a weak thing, in appealing to men’s senses for the truth of his miracles, and of his Messiahship, as he did when John’s disciples came to him; Luke 7: 22, “Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard, that the blind see, the lame walk,” &c. Also, it would have been a weak proof of his resurrection, when he appealed to the senses of his doubting disciples for their conviction, Luke 24: 39, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see.” Neither had there been any strength in the apostle John’s reasoning for the truth of Christianity, from those things which they had heard with their ears, seen with their eyes, and handled with their hands, as he doth, 1 John 1: 1.
From all which we see what real disservice they do to the doctrine of Christianity, who labour to establish the doctrine of transubstantiation.
They go about to destroy the great evidence of the first witnesses to the Christian religion, by overturning all their demonstrative arguments from it, from the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and from the great miracles which he and his apostles wrought for confirming their doctrine: for, if we cannot believe our eyes, ears, or feeling; nor be sure of what we see, hear, or handle; all these primitive arguments were good for nothing. Nay, more than that, it could be to no effect to read the bible, or cite any text to prove any one article of our faith: for how can we make it appear that the words we cite are really there, if we cannot trust our eyes? And how else are the Papists sure that the words are there which they build so much on, “This is my body?” Thus this monstrous doctrine of the Papists even destroys itself, as it would also destroy the whole bible, and foundations of Christianity.
It is nowise to the purpose for Papists to allege that this doctrine is a mystery like that of the Trinity, and not to be examined by our reason or senses: for that of transubstantiation is an object of our senses, which the glorious Trinity and nature of God is not; likewise, the doctrine of the Trinity is plainly and frequently declared in scripture, which the other is not. Nor can they say, it is a contradiction in itself, to assert three persons in one Godhead, more than three lines in one triangle; or an understanding, will, and memory in one soul. Though indeed the three divine persons in one Godhead, is a far more incomprehensible mystery. But, seeing the changing of one corporeal thing into another is a plain object of sense and reason, what cruel monsters must Papists be, who would put all to the most tormenting death who do not believe this absurd and monstrous doctrine of theirs, which hath no foundation in sense or reason, more than in scripture, but is directly contrary to all the three! Yet it is well known, that this of transubstantiation was the burning doctrine in Queen Mary’s reign, and the very test by which the valiant martyrs were tried and condemned to the fire. May God pity these lands, and preserve them from the return of this absurd, monstrous, and cruel religion, and all its abettors.
Eleventh Argument. That religion which is calculated to hinder the instruction, edification, and comfort of Christians in their journey to heaven, is another gospel than that of Jesus Christ, yea, the very reverse of Christianity: but Popery is such a religion; therefore, &c.
It is manifest from the word, and from universal experience in all places where true Christianity is taught and practised, that it is the plain scope and design of the gospel and religion of Jesus, to instruct, edify, and comfort his people in their way to eternal happiness; see Mat. 28: 20; 1 Cor. 14: 5, 26; 2 Cor. 12: 19; Eph. 4: 12; Rom. 15: 4.
But it is manifest that the Romish religion tends to obstruct their instruction, edification, and comfort, sundry ways, as by locking up the holy scriptures, these fountains of light and comfort, from the people in the Latin tongue, and forbidding them to read them. Also, by their having their prayers, hymns, and public service, in worshipping of God and administering the sacraments, in the Latin tongue, which few understand. All this is directly contrary to the scriptures, and to the practice of the apostolic and ancient churches for many ages. Pray, for what end was it that God gave the gift of tongues to the apostles and primitive pastors, but that they might instruct and edify the people wherever they travelled, by teaching, preaching, and performing divine worship and service in the vulgar language of every country to which they came? We see also the Spirit of God enjoins all his ministers to study and do all things for the people’s edification, 1 Cor. 14: 26. And, in order to this, he declares it necessary that they should speak to them in a language they understood: “For how,” saith he, “shall he that is unlearned say Amen at thy giving thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” 1 Cor. 14: 16. “For if I know not the meaning of the voice, he that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me,” &c. 1 Cor. 14: 11.
Likewise, the Romish religion obstructs the comfort of the people of God, by suspending the validity of sacraments upon the intention of the priest, and the efficacy of the priest’s absolution upon the fulness of the penitent’s confession. Also, their doctrine about purgatory is very comfortless to the poor, who want money to purchase their deliverance from it. Likewise, they obstruct the comfort of Christians, by denying that they can in this life attain the assurance of pardon, or of their being in a state of grace, though the scriptures afford us many instances of such as have attained it, and direct all Christians to give all diligence to make their calling and election sure; see 1 John 3: 14, 19, 24; 5: 13; Rom. 5: 2, 5; 2 Cor. 5: 1; 2 Pet. 1: 10. May the Lord bless his word. Amen.