A. The words of his institution plainly shew it; that those who celebrate this sacrament might eat of the one, and drink of the other, at his table.

4. Q. May not a person who only looks on, and sees the priest officiate, commemorate Christ's death, and meditate upon the benefits of it, as well as if he received the elements of bread and wine?

A. I will answer your question with another: may not a person who is not baptized, when he sees that holy sacrament administered, be truly penitent for his sins, and believe in Christ? and desire to be regenerated and adopted into the communion of his church, as well as if he were himself washed with the water of baptism? But yet the bare looking on in this case, would not entitle such a one to the grace of regeneration: nor will it any more entitle the other to the communion of Christ's body and blood. In all these cases the question is not what we think we might do, but what Christ has commanded us to do: and we must observe what he requires, if ever we mean to be made partakers of what he promises. Now that, in the present instance, is not idly to look on, as those of the church of Rome, in the celebration of their masses generally; but to do this, i. e. to eat this bread, and drink of this cup in remembrance of him.

5. Q. Do you think it necessary that every communicant should receive this sacrament in both kinds?

A. I do think it necessary; for so our Saviour has appointed it. Thus he gave it to his disciples, and thus they received it at his hands. 1 Cor. xi. 27, 28, 29. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man

examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

6. Q. But his disciples were priests, and therefore their receiving this sacrament in both kinds, does not argue that it is necessary for the people to do likewise?

A. Whether all who were then present at the table with our Saviour were priests, is very uncertain. The blessed Virgin we are sure was at that time at Jerusalem, and probably did eat the passover, according to the law, with him. Exod. xii. 3, &c. In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house.

Yet she was certainly but a lay-communicant: and many others, for ought we know, there might be in the same circumstances. But not to insist upon this; our Saviour made no distinction between priests and lay-communicants, as to the business of receiving of this sacrament in one or both kinds. He gave both the bread and wine himself, to all that were at the table; and he has left a general commandment to us to do likewise. And his words and his actions together, evidently require this of all of us: that those who administer this sacrament, should administer it as Christ did; and those who receive it, should receive it as the disciples did of him.

7. Q. Do you then make no distinction between the priests and the people, in what concerns this holy sacrament?

A. As to the manner of receiving it, none at all. When those who are priests receive this sacrament

of another priest, it is as when they hear the word preached: they receive it not as priests, but as Christians. And therefore at the institution of this sacrament, our Saviour Christ alone acted as a priest. He resembled the ministers of the church; the disciples represented the faithful, who were afterwards to receive this sacrament from the ministers of the church, after the very same manner that they received it at Christ's hand.

8. Q. But is not this sacrament as perfect in one kind as in both?

A. Can a thing be perfect which wants one half of what is required to make it perfect?

9. Q. Yet it cannot be denied, but that he who receives the body of Christ, does therewith receive the blood too?

A. Though that be not the question, yet it not only may be, but in this case is, absolutely denied by us; nor indeed can it without a manifest absurdity be affirmed. It was the design of our Saviour Christ in this sacrament to represent his crucified body; his body as it was given for us. Now, we know, that when he suffered his blood was shed, and let out of his body; and that to represent his blood thus separated from his body, the cup was consecrated apart by him. And how then can it be tended that he who communicates in such a body, must partake of the blood together with it?

pre

But this is not our business: the points which we insist upon are these: first, whether Christ having confessedly instituted this sacrament in both kinds, and commanded us to do likewise, those do not evidently depart from his institution, who give and re'ceive it only in one? And if they do, then, secondly,

whether they have any reason to expect to be made partakers of the benefits of this holy communion, who do not receive it in such a manner as Christ has commanded us to do.

PROOF SUBJOINED. 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25, 26. As above.

10. Q. Did the apostles give the cup to the laycommunicants in their churches?

A. Yes, certainly; or else St. Paul would never have argued with the Corinthians against communicating with idolaters, as he does, 1 Cor. x. 15, &c. I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say, the cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils. Nor have spoken of this sacrament as he does in the next chapter: verses 26, 27, 28, 29. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. In every one of which he takes notice of their drinking of the sacramental cup, as well as of their eating of the sacramental bread.

come.

11. Q. What then do you think of those of the church of Rome, who deny the cup to the laity?

A. As of a most presumptuous sort of men, who sacrilegiously deprive the people of what Christ has given them a right to.

12. Q. Do you think this change so considerable

as to warrant one to break off communion with that church which has made it?

A. No one can with a good conscience receive this holy sacrament after any other manner than Christ has ordained it to be received. If, therefore, the church of Rome shall obstinately refuse to give it to the laycommunicant in both kinds, he is bound in conscience not to receive it of her priests at all: but to go to those who are ready to distribute it to him in the same integrity in which it was first instituted by our blessed Lord.

SECT. XLVIII.

Of the real Presence, as acknowledged by us; of Christ's Body and Blood in this Sacrament; and the Benefits which from thence accrue to us.

1. Q. What is the inward part, or thing signified in this holy sacrament?

A. The body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.

2. Q. Are the body and blood of Christ really distributed to every communicant in this sacrament?

A. No, they are not; for then every communicant, whether prepared or not for it, would alike receive Christ's body and blood there. That which is given by the priest to the communicant, is, as to its nature, the same after consecration that it was before, viz. bread and wine: only altered as to its use and signification.

3. Q. If the body and blood of Christ be not really given and distributed by the priest, how can they be verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful communicant?