Page images

L. Pray, Sr, what Catholick Divine in the World ever said, that when the Flesh or Body of Christ is mention'd alone in holy Scripture , his Blood is excluded? Or that it is not neceffary to receive his Blood as well as Body? On the contrary we maintain cxpressly, that Christ's Body and Blood are wholly inseparable; whence we conclude, that his Body can not possibly be received without his Blood, nor his Blood without his Bodys and that, by Consequence, whole Christ is always received whether by a Com. munion in one or both Kinds: so far are we from ex. cluding the Necessity or Obligation of Receiving his Blood. So pray, Se, leave off Beating thc Air, and Fighting against your own Shadow.

As to your pleasant Parity of inviting me to eat with you, and giving me no Drink to my Dinner, if you do not expressly name it ; I affure you, Sr, I shall cake. it very ill to be so used : unless you can contrive Matters so , that Eating alone shall be equivalent both to Eating and Drinking ; which is the Case in the Lord's Supper ; where our Spiritual Meat and Drink, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ are in. separable, as I have fully proved. So that whoever cats his Body, by the same Action receives his facred Blood into his Stomach. And so I hope that when I come to eat with you, you will not refuse me Drink by way of Argumentation.

» G. But, My Lord, if by Eating we commonly » mean the whole Meal, and Drinking is likewise in» cluded, the Criticism upon the Lord's Supper will » appear what it is, and not be thought safficient to » exclude the Cup in the Sacrament, and you

have » no other Foundation in Scripture. pag. 174.

L. Sr, I grant that by Earing is commonly meant the whole Meal, and that Drinking is likewise included. if we speak of ordinary Meals, because in these

che Adion of Earing or Drinking alone cannot con. vey both Meat and Drink into our Stomachs. But the Case is quite ocherwise in the Lord's Suppers where, as I told you just now, our spiritual Meat and Drink, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ being in, feparable are convey'd into our Stomachs either by the Action of Earing or Drinking alone. And this is no Criticism, buç a solid Truth ; unless


will maintain this impious. Absurdicy, that we receive ene Half of Christ by Eating, and the other Half by Drinking.

This therefore fuffices to justify Communion in one Kind. Because whoever receives the whole Body and Blood of Christ cannot surely be said to be defrauded of

any Part of the fpiritual Meal, he has ordain'd

for us.

tell me,

Bur since

we have no other Foun. dation in Scripture, but what I have infifted upon from the 6th Chapter of St John (tho that might suffice) I think St Paul has laid a very solid Foun. dation both of our Doctrine and Discipline in the two following Texts. First, that Christ being raised from the Dead dieth no more. Rom. 6. v.9. And zdly, that whofaever shall cat shis Bread, or drink this Cup un, worthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord. 1. Cor. C. 11, *.27. Whence (besides a clear innuendo that the primitive Christians did some, times either only ear the Bread, or only drink the Cup) it follows plainly, that as either Eating or Drinking unworthily suffices to render us guilty both of the Body and Blood of our Lord , so either Eating or Drinking worthily suffices to render us Partakers both of his Body ani Blood.

I know your Translators have boldly falkfied this Text of St Paul by changing Or into And, to avoid the force of this Argument : and there is not a lear,

ned Man amongst you but knows it. Yet it stands to this Day uncorrected in your Bibles. So tender is your Church of the Purity of God's Words.

» G. But, My Lord, if I once call it Earing the by Lord's Supper, and feveral Times call it both Es. do ring and Drinking, will not the latter explain the » Former? Or will Eating exclude Drinking , tho » Drinking be expressly named > To eat the Lord's Supper is the only Phrase we use , I never heard » any Body callic Drinking the Lord's Supper. And w you may thence prove that we have not the Cup b in our Sacrament as well as that the Apostles had p it not ; because it is said, they eat Bread, and » broke Bread. But I have overlabour'd this Point, » because you lay so much Scress upon it. pag # 174

L. You have indeed overlabour'd it, and shew'd yourself a moft skilful Puzzle-Cause in darkning and perplexing the clearest Truth. You ask, if it be once callid Eating the Lord's Supper, and several Times both Earing and Drinking , whether the latter do's not explain the former? I answer the latter do's so far explain the former as to render it manifeft , that no' Man eats the Lord's Supper, unless he receives both his Body and Blood into his Stomach. But fince I have demonstrated thar this is done either by Es. ring or Drinking only, a man must renounce common Sense to pretend, that the external Form both of Earing and Drinking is necessary.

You ask again, whether Eating do's exclude Drinking, tho Drinking be expressly named? I answer it do's noe ; if by Drinking be meant , receiving the Blood of Chrift. Because his Body and Blood being infeparable, we cannot eat his Body without receiving his Blood, But if you mean no more than the external Form of Drinking, it is neither excluded by the Texts which mention Eating alone , nor commanded by the Texts, which mention them both. But our Saviour's Attributing the whole Virtue and Efficacy of the Sacra. ment sometimes to Eæring alone , other Times to Em ting and Drinking join'd rogerher shews very plainly that it is not the external Form, or Manner of Rcceiving under One or both Kinds, but the Thing roceived, which bestows Grace and Life everlasting on the worthy Receiver.

Finally, you tell me, you never call it otherwise chan Eating the Lord's Supper, and that I may prove thence that you have not the Cup in the Sacrament as well as that the Apostles had it noi , because it is said, shey cat Bread, and broke Bread. But pray Sr , when did I prove from those words, that the Apostles had not the Cup? I never said any such Thing, and so you ought not to charge we with it. I have indeed drawn an Argument from the 6th Chapter of Sc John, where our Saviour attributes the whole Virtue of the Sacrament to Eating alone , as well as to Eating and Drinking. But can I therefore pretend to prove, that you have not the Cup in the Sacrament, because you call it Eating the Lord's Supper? No, Sr, I am not disposed to trifle thus with' Words, be cause I know your Meaning both from your Prin- . ciples, and constant Practice: Whereas I find the very Reverse of those Principles in the Word of God. I find St Paul telling the Romans , that Christ being raised from the Dead dieth no more. 6. 8.9. the Con. sequence whereof is that his Body and Blood are now inseparable ; and this is the very Foundation of the Doctrine of Concomitancy. Whence it follows, char Communion in one Kind cannot be a mangled Sa.

as you pretend. I find the same Apostle telling the Corinthians , that whosoever shall eat the Bread, or drink the Cup unworshily, shall be guilty


the Body And Blood of our Lord. 1. Cor. 11, *. 27. Now, if either Eating Or Drinking unworthily fuffices to render us guiliy both of the Body and Blood of our Lord , 'ris manifest that either cacing or Drinking worthily suffices to render us Partakers both of his Body and Blood. From these two Principles clear. ly deliver’d in holy Writ we may legally infer, that our Saviour's often Attributing the whole Visa cue and Efficacy of the Sacrament to Easing alone is a solid Proof; that when he mentions both Eating and Drinking it is not meant as a Precept to oblige all to receive the Sacrament in both Kinds, but only to receive his Body and Blood, which is done by a Communion in one Kind as well as both ; as I have fully demonstrated to any Man who believes the Body and Blood of Christ to be really and truly prefene in the Sacrament,

But who are che Persons appointed by Chrift to be ghe Interpreters of his facred Word He that beareth you ( says Chrift) beareth me, and be that defpisath you, despiseth me. Lukę 19. 7.16. Again, who are che Persons commission'd by him to feed and govern his Flock, and prescribe the proper Methods of Administring the Sacramenış? Șt Paul resolves the Question in these few Words. Let 4 Man fo account of 18 as of the Ministers of Christ, and the Stewards of the Mysteries of God. 1. Cor. 4, v.1. From which two Texts it is plain, that the Bishops and Paftors of the Church, who are the Succeffors of the Apostles, and to whom Christ has promised his perpetual Aliftanse , are the only Persons authoriz'd by him to interpret the Word of God, and regulate the manner of Difpenfing the Sacred Mysteries to the People. And was ir not then a most insolent Madness (for St Austin {pcaking of a parallel Case gives it no sofrer Name) in a few private Persons to pretend to understand

« PreviousContinue »