that he expressly commanded those, to whom he administered it, that they fhould all drink of that Cup. What therefore he commands all to do, why do they forbid all but the Priest to do? Why; the Apoftles, they fay, were commanded to take the Cup as well as the Bread, because they were Clergy. But the Church of Rome forbids even the Clergy, excepting those who officiate, to take it. Befides, if the Command of receiving the Cup relates only to the Clergy, that of receiving the Bread too, must relate only to the Clergy: for there is no Manner of Distinction made in the Gospel. Yet they own the Laity are obliged by our Saviour's Command to receive the Bread, and therefore they are obliged by the fame Command, to receive the Cup: which that they did accordingly, the eleventh Chapter of the firft Epiftle to the Corinthians, makes as plain as Words can make any Thing. Not to fay further, that if the fixth of St. John relate immediately to the Sacrament, as they are fometimes very pofitive it doth, the fifty-third Verfe of that Chapter expressly declares, that, unless we drink the Blood of the Son of Man, as well as eat his Flesh, we have no Life in us.

But

But they tell us, our Saviour himself, after. his Resurrection, administered the Sacrament in one Kind only. For St. Luke fays, that fitting. down to eat with the two Difciples at Emmaus, He took Bread and blessed it, and brake, and gave, to them and, upon their knowing him, vanished out of their Sight. Now it happens, that this was not administering the Sacrament at all, but doing just the fame Thing, which the Evangelifts, in just the fame Words tell us he did, when he fed the Multitudes with the Loaves and Fishes; and indeed at every Meal he eat. For the Jews in the Beginning of every Meal of theirs, ufe the very fame Custom to this Day. But they further plead, that however that be, at least when in the Acts of the Apostles it is faid, the Difciples met together to break Bread on the first Day of the Week: this must be the Sacrament; and the Cup is not once mentioned there as given. We answer, "tis not certain that even this was the Sacrament and fuppofing it was, as, in Scripturelanguage, common Feafts are expreffed by the fingle Phrase of eating Bread, which yet surely does not prove, that the Guests drank nothing,

a Luke xxiv. 30, 31. • A&ts xx, 7.

b Buxtorf. Synag, Jud. c. 12. fo

fo neither is it proved, by a religious Feaft being expreffed in the fame Manner. And befides, if there is no Mention there of the Laity's receiving the Cup, there is none of the Prieft's receiving it neither: yet this they think abfolutely neceffary: and if one may be taken for granted, without being mentioned, the other may. Nor fhould it be forgotten on this Occafion, that as the Phrase of eating fometimes comprehends the whole of this Action, fo doth that of drinking: we have all been made to drink into one Spirit, says the Apostle; who hence proves the Unity of all Chriftians, and therefore certainly thought it was the Right of all Christians. But they plead farther, that the Laity, by receiving the Body of Chrift, receive his Blood alfo: for the Blood is contained in the Body. But here they quite forget, that our Saviour hath appointed this Sacrament to be received for a Memorial of his Blood's being shed out of his Body, of which, they who receive not the Cup, do not make the Memorial which he commanded, when he faid, Drink ye all of this. Still they infift, that there being no peculiar Virtue or Benefit annexed to this Part of the Sacrament that they with-hold, Claget, Vol, i. Serm. x. p. 265.

d 1 Cor. xii, 13.

which does not belong to the other, 'tis no Manner of Lofs to the Laity to omit it. Now does not the fame Reason prove equally, that the Clergy may omit it too? But befides, what Treatment of our bleffed Lord is this, when he hath appointed all Chriftians to perform a folemn Act of Religion, confifting of two Parts, both with equal Strictness enjoined; for the Church of Rome to say that one of them, the far greatest Part of Chriftians fhall not perform, for 'tis full as well let alone : nay better indeed, if we believe them: for the Cup they tell us, may be drank of immoderately, may be spilled, many dreadful Inconveniences may happen from trusting it with the Laity? Now 'tis ftrange our Saviour should not be wife enough to foresee these Inconveniences: 'tis ftrange we fhould not experience them neither: and it adds to the Wonder not a little, that the whole Church of Chrift, for 1200 Years, fhould not be able to find them out any more than we. For in all that Time, the Cup was conftantly given to the Laity in their public Communions, though there are some Instances, yet neither many, not early ones, in which the Bread alone was carried to private Houses. And when fome of the Laity, for abfurd Reasons, refused to take the

Cup,

Cup, no less than three Popes condemned them. But fuperftitious Imaginations gradually increasing amongst Chriftians, a Custom arose firft of giving the Bread dipt in Wine instead of both feparate, and at laft in the 15th Century the Council of Conftance, the fame which decreed fo honestly, that Promises made to the Prejudice of the Catholic Faith ought not to be kept', decreed alfo very modeftly, that notwithstanding (for fo they exprefs it) our Saviour administered both Kinds, one only shall be administered for the future to the Laity. And now it is made an Article of their Creed, that the whole Sacrament is given by giving this Part: so that whoever shall fay both are neceffary, (which, if it be not a Truth, one should think could not be a Herefy) is by the Council of Trent pronounced accursed.

Another Difference between the Church of Rome and ours with Refpect to the Sacrament is this. They hold that, as often as it is celebrated, Chrift is truly and properly offered up a Sacrifice for our Sins. Now we acknowledge, that every Act of Obedience and of Worship more especially, may, agreeably to the Language of Scripture, be fpoken of as a Sacrifice

f See Courayer's Council of Trent, Vol. i. p. 595

to