Question 96

What is the other Sacrament of the New Testament called?

The Lords Supper.

Why so?

Because it was instituted at that time after the Paschal Supper was ended.

Are we therefore bound to celebrate it alwaies at the same time?

No, because there is no command for it, nor is there the same reason for it now as then; this circumstance of time not obliging us to do it after Supper any more than the fashion of lying along binds us to the using of the same posture; both of them being upon occasion of the Paschal Supper then.

Why do you super add the circumstance and limitation of that present time?

Because the first Paschal Supper in Egypt was eaten standing; but afterwards sitting and lying along, leaning one on anothers breasts, in sign of their rest and security, otherwise than they had in Egypt.

What are the sacramental Elements in the Lords Supper?

Bread and Wine.

What are the sacramental actions?

Breaking the Bread, giving and receiving the Bread and Wine.

What is signified by the Bread and Wine?

The Body and Blood of Christ.

What are the Ministers actions?

Breaking the Bread, and giving the Bread and Wine, not withholding the Cup from the people, as the Papists sacrilegiously do.

What is signified by the Ministers breaking the Bread?

Christs Body being broken for us.

Why must the people partake of the Elements of both kinds?

Because all that were present at the first Sacrament, given by the Lord Jesus himself, did so.

How doth that appear?

By the plain express words of Scripture. Mat. 26. 26, 27. Mark 14. 22. 23.

But all present at the first Sacrament were the twelve, whom Christ sent forth as Apostles to Preach the Word and administer the Sacraments, and therefore they and their Successors only had the priviledge to drink of the Cup?

1. By this argument the Bread may be taken away from the people too, and so they would have no right to any part of this Sacrament: And what is this but egregious sacriledge in robbing the people of their highest Church-priviledge? 2. The practice and writings of the ancient Church in this matter, which is the best way to explicate any such difficulty in Scripture, is a clear Testimony that both the Bread and the Wine belong to all the people, in the Name of the twelve Disciples at that time.

What is signified by the giving of the Bread and Wine?

Gods giving all Christ to us.

What is the peoples action?

Receiving (eating and drinking) the Bread and Wine.

What is signified by the peoples receiving?

Their taking a whole Christ.

Why are the Bread and Wine given apart, and not together?

To shew forth Christs Blood, in the parting of his Blood from his Body.

What is the rule of Administration and Participation?

All must be done according to Christs appointment.

For what end is this Supper celebrated?

Hereby Christs death is shewed forth.

How many sorts of Receivers are there?

Two; worthy, and unworthy.

What do the unworthy Receivers partake of?

They pertake of the outward Elements only.

What do the worthy Receivers partake of?

They partake of Christs Body and Blood.^a

After what manner do not these worthy Receivers partake of Christs Body and Blood?

Not after a corporal and carnal manner; they partake not of the substance of his flesh and blood.

Why so?

For that is in Heaven.^b

But do not you affirm with the Papists, that in this Sacrament the Body and Blood, together with the Divinity of Iesus Christ, are truly, really and substantially present; and that the whole substance of the Bread is converted into his Body, and the whole substance of the Wine into his Blood?

No, should we do it, our Senses, our Reason, and the Word of God would give us the Lye: We perceive by our Senses that the Bread and Wine are the same they were before Consecration: And we are not more certain that there is a God who created us, and a Sun that gives us light; than we are fully perswaded that the Divinity of Jesus Christ is every where, and his humane nature at the right hand of God, from whence he shall come to Judge the quick and the dead.

And why are you afraid to affirm, that the Elements of Bread and Wine art transubstantiate and changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, when the Scripture is plain and express that Christ took the Bread, and said, [This is my Body.] And after the same manner took the Cup, which Protestants, as well as Papists, interpret figuratively for the Wine in the Cup, and said, [This is my blood of the New Testament, &c.] as you may read in the following Texts, Mat. 26. 26, &c. Mark 14 22, &c. 1 Cor. 11. 23, &c.

Indeed if the forecited Texts ought to be understood in the literal sense, we need not dread this Popish Doctrine; But if they ought of necessity to have a mystical and figurative sense and interpretation put upon them, we may well enough be afraid of that Doctrine, which the Papists themselves in the supposed case confess to be gross damnable Idolatry.

But if we once take this liberty to impose our mystical or figurative Interpretation on the Scripture without express warrant of the Scripture it self, we shall have no setled belief, but be liable continually to be turned aside by any one that can invent a new mystical meaning of the Scripture, there being no certain rule to judge of such meanings, as there is of the literal ones: Nor is there any error, how absurd and impious soever, but may on such terms be accorded with the Scripture: Why therefore must we of necessity suppose the forecited Texts to be understood in the figurative, and not in the literal sense?

1. Because the letter is contrary and repugnant to our senses; which the Scripture it self intimates to be of infallible certainty.^c 2. It is absurd and contradictive of right reason. 3. There appears much in the contexts to cross it, nothing at all to countenance it. 4. Because other places collated, expresly thwart and contradict it.^d

What sense then may or must be put upon the forecited Texts?

It will be an Introduction and a very good help to us for the right understanding of the said Texts, to consider those observations taken from the Jewish phrases and customs used in this matter, viz. 1. That the Lamb that was drest in the Paschal Supper and set upon the Table, was wont to be called the Body of the Passover, or the Body of the Paschal Lamb; and probably Christ alludes to this phrase, when he saith, This is my Body; as if he should say, the Paschal Lamb and the Body of it, (i. e. the representation of that on the Table in the Jewish Feast) that was the memorial of deliverance out of Egypt, and type of your deliverance out of the state of sin and death, I will now have abrogated; and do now institute Bread and Wine instead of that Paschal Lamb, that you may hereafter retain and continue to posterity a Memorial and Symbol of me, who am the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world, and am now about to be sacrificed for you. This for the words [My Body and my Blood:) But then 2. For the whole phrase, and form of speech, [This is my Body, this is my Blood.] It seems to be answerable to (and substituted instead of) the Paschal form (This is the Bread of affliction, which our Fathers eat in Egypt: or, This is the unleavened Bread, &c. or, This is the Passover.] And therefore the Bread and the Wine in the Eucharist are no more the very Body and Blood of Christ, than that Bread which the Children of Israel eat in the Land of Canaan was that Identical, that very Bread of affliction which their Fathers eat in the Land of Egypt.

Is not this Popish Doctrine▪ that the Bread of the Eucharist is transubstantiated into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood of Christ, a very ancient Doctrine?

It is but four hundred fifty nine years, since it was declared by Pope Innocent the third, in the Council of Lateran.^*

Is not this impossible and incomprehensible error of Transubstantiation to be rejected with our utmost Detestation?

Yes.

Doth not this Doctrine suppose a silly Priest to do that which all the Angels cannot do, and that is to make his Maker, as the Papists call the Host, and the people to devour their God?

Yes.

Can they justifie this by Gods omnipotency, that God is able to effect it?

No, this is no better argument than the Turks may justifie most of the sopperies of their Alcoran by.

What reasons and grounds have you for the rejection of this abomination?

There are two grounds especially for the rejection of it. 1. The Idolatry and Sacriledge which doth ensue upon it, and that is the Adoration and worship of the Host, a piece of Bread, and the mutilation or maiming of the Sacrament by Bread only, and the propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ himself in the Mass, who was once only offered up to God upon the Cross, all which are the issue of this error. 2. The Monsters of contradiction and absurdity to sense and reason, which follow thereupon. It was begotten by feigned Miracles and fabulous Legends, and is the Mother of Blasphemies and inextricable absurdities, and hath set Faith it self on the Rock, and surpasseth all the Harlotry that the Adulterate Church of Rome, that Mother of Fornications, ever brought forth.

If you can but make good this high charge you have drawn up against that most degenerate and corrupted Church of Rome, in this one error of Transubstantiation being comprehensive of all errors; (Papal Rome being nothing else but the worst corruption of the once most famous Church of Rome, whose Faith was spoken of throughout the world) you may easily perswade all the friends of the Bride, the Lambs Wife, to abominate all the other Fornications of that Whorish Church: And because the Protestants Arguments against Transubstantiation may convince us how fully they have made good this charge, pray produce a few of the many Arguments they have against this Mother Error?

1. Suppose Christ sitting at the Table with his Disciples, and eating this Bread, and drinking this Cup first, as the custom at the Paschal Supper was, and as the Papists generally, and the Fathers hold, and we deny not, because the Scripture seems plain for it, Mat. 26. 29. Hence forth I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine; supposing therefore this, How is it possible or imaginable that he should eat himself? or how can he sit at Table, and yet be in the mouths of the Apostles? Was he at the same time in the Apostles mouths or stomachs, while he sate and rose from Table, and discoursed those three Chapters of Iohn 15, 16, 17. Or while he sweat that bloody sweat in his Agony in the Garden, &c. A monstrous impossibility! 2. It’s impossible to make that which was before existent and in being: Can a Father beget a Son that is already begotten? Can an Architect build an House that is already built? Can the Body of Christ, which is before the Conversion of the Bread, be made or produced by the turning of Bread into it? Can he that was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary, be made by pronouncing of four or five words? If ever delusions were strong, these are; For, to make that which is made, and to unmake that which is made, are equally impossible. 3. They say that the substance of Bread and Wine is avoided, and that only the accidents remain; so that there is length and nothing long, breadth and nothing broad, thickness and nothing thick, whiteness and nothing white, moisture and nothing moist, sweetness and nothing sweet, that is, a long, broad, thick, white, moist, sweet nothing. The Priest pours out nothing but Lines and Colours, when he pours out the Wine, for these accidents of Bread and Wine are not in the Bread, because that is avoided and vanisht, and they are not in the Body of Christ, as themselves say, and yet it is plain this Bread and Wine do nourish the Body, and is the Body nourished by meer accidents? Can there be plainer contradictions? 4. Can the same Body at the same time have his just Dimensions, distance of parts, symmetry, proportion, as the Body of Christ hath, and yet not have these, because all parts? Yea, the whole Body of Christ, say they, is in one and the self same point or crumb of Bread. 5. Can the Body of Christ, which is much greater, be wholly contained in a Wafer or piece of Bread, in his full Dimensions, and that as many times as there are points, crumbs, drops in the Bread or Wine? 6. Can the Bread be turned into the very Body of Christ, and yet not any thing of that Bread become any thing of Christ, nor the matter, nor form, nor accidents of Bread be made either the matter, or form, or accidents of Christ? 7. Can the same thing, as Christs true Body, at the same time be wholly above it self, and wholly below it self, within and without it self? Can it be moved, and yet be still? be carried from one place to another, and yet not move? be brought from Heaven to Earth, and yet not come out of Heaven? Who then can assure us that when Christ hung upon the Cross, he was not walking somewhere else, Crucified and not Crucified, eaten and not eaten, alive in one and dead in another place? 8. What dishonour do these men render the Body of Christ obnoxious unto, to be eaten by wicked men, by brute Creatures, by Mice, by other vermine, to be cast into some unclean place? For so long as the form of Bread remains, so long the Body of Christ is there, though it be in the Mouth or Belly of a Mouse, saith Hales, and the rest of the Schoolmen, who do one where or another acknowledge the most of these monstrous Absurdities, and go about to heal, and solve them.

We shall surcease from raking further into the ingrateful sink, whose Name Transubstantiation is but of yesterday in comparison, and which dishonours the Body of Christ, into a Monster, destroyes the nature of a Sacrament, and fills the world with dreadful Contentions and broils: And shall now consider with our selves what may profitably be observed from all this: What therefore may be observed upon the whole matter?

We may observe, 1. What grievous impositions the Romanists lay upon the Faith of them that are devoted to her Communion. 2. What contradictions and absurdities the common people do ignorantly and implicitly believe. 3. What strong delusions even to believe lies God gives up learned men unto, that refuse the simplicity of the truth for interests and politick ends! 4. What a Mercy of God it is to deliver us from that Tyranny, which leaves us no other choice, but to swallow and digest such impossible things, or to be sacrificed in flames, and the Lord forbid the Re-entrance of that Religion among us, which in all likelihood will cost us our Souls, or our Lives.^†

Since the worthy Receivers are not after a corporal and carnal manner partakers of Christs Body and Blood; After what manner are they partakers of them?

By Faith.

How understand you that?

As truly as the Minister gives them the Bread and Wine, so truly doth God give them the Body and Blood of Christ, that is, the Crucified Saviour, not by local motion, but by real communication, not to their teeth, but to their Souls; and consequently exhibits to them all the benefits thereof to their spiritual nourishment and growth in Grace, and all the advantages that flow to them from the death of Christ.