:

gacy both which are Impieties, which the primitive Church would have abhor'd. Whence I conclude again, that receiving in one or both kinds is a Matter of Difcipline only, which therefore the Church has full Authority to regulate as fhe Judges moft fitting. Nay confidering that the Inftances I have produced of Communions in onekind were practifed by the Church in the very first and fecond Age after the Apoftles, we may reafonably fuppofe, fhe follow'd in this the Example of the Apoftles themselves.

But did not Christ inftitute both kinds? And is it not then Acting contrary to the Inftitution to receive the Sacrament in one kind only ?

I answer 1. the primative Church did not think it to be contrary to Chrift's Inftitution and I fee no Reafon why we fhould think ourselves wifer than the primitive Church was.

I answer 2. that there is a large Difference between inftituting both kinds, and obliging all to receive both kinds. God inftituted Marriage, but all are not bound to marry. Chrift likewife inftituted Priesthood and Epifcopacy; but all are not bound to be Priests or Bihops. Therefore unless there be a pofitive Precept produced, which obliges all without Exception to receive the Sacrament in both kinds, the Inftitution alone cannot import any fuch general Obligation. Now 'tis very ftrange, that if there were any fuch pofitive Precept, the primitive Church fhould either know nothing of it, or act contrary to it if fhe knew it.

But why then did Christ institute both kinds? I anfwer, because the Eucharift is not only a Sacrament, that is, a Sign of invifible Grace inftituted for the Nourifhment of our Souls, but alfo a Sacrifice, which is one of the most effential Parts of Religion. And for this Reafon Chrift inftituted the bleed Eucharift under both kinds, that by the Mystical feparation of his Body and Blood upon the Altar fignified by the separate Forms of Confecration, their real feparation on the Crofs might be more perfectly reprefented, and fo be both a ftanding lively Memorial of the Death he once fuffer'd, and a perpetual Oblation of infinite Value for us.

I add, that there are feveral Circumftances relating to the Inftitution, which never were thought to be obligatory in After-times. I fhall only mention two. ist, The Apoftles received the Sacrament fitting, as is exprefly obferved by three of the Evangelifts. Whereas thofe of the Church of England as well as Roman Catholicks receive it always Kneeling, unless hinder'd by Sickness. And 2dly, Chrift confecrated and gave the B. Sacrament to his Apoftles in Supper-time, or after Supper. Matth. 26. v. 26. As they were Eating Mark. 14. V. 22. As they did eat. Luke 22. v. 19. 20. He took Bread,

c. Likewife alfo the Cup after fupper faying, &c. Nay we do not find in Scripture that the B. Sacrament was ever confecrated or given at any other Time of the Day, and it is ftill call'd the Lord's Supper. Yet becaufe Chrift never enjoin'd this Practice by any pofitive Precept, the Church has made a Law against it; and if any one fhould prefume either to confecrate or give the B. Sacrament in Supper-time or after Supper in Oppofition to this Decree of the Church, he would moft certainly become guilty of Schifm, tho' he had an undeniable Example in Scripture to colour his Difobedience; Nay an Example fet him by all the Apostles and Chrift himfelf; and that without any Scriptural Evidence for the contrary Practice.. Let but this be applied to the Decree of the Council of Constance forbidding the Sacrament to be given to Laicks in both kinds, tho' Chrift adminifter'd it in both kinds, to his Apoftles, and the Weakness of the Argument drawn from it againft us will be apparent to the meaneft Capacity. But let us now confider the Texts ufualy objected against us..

§. 3.

Objections from Scripture answer'd.

THE Catechift has mufter'd up fix Texts against us. But he might have faved himself that Trouble. For four of the fix are nothing at all to the Purpose.

As

As for Example, the following: As often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye do fhew the Lord's Death till he come. 1. Cor. II. v. 26. which only proves, as I faid before, that the Sacrament (whether taken in one or both kinds) is a Memorial of Chrift's Death. Which is an undoubted Truth.

The three following Texts quoted by the Catechift are full as wide from the Purpofe. viz. This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the Remiffion of Sins. Math. 26. v. 28. This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, which is fhed for you. Luke 22. v. 20. The Cup of Blessing which we blejs is it not the Communion of the Blood of Chrift? 1. Cor. 10. V. 16. 16. Thefe three. Texts, I fay, are wholly wide from the Purpofe, and only prove (and indeed they prove it effectually) that Chrift confecrated the Cup into his Blood as well as the Bread into his Body, which I wish the Catechist believed as heartily as I do. But then I muft defire him to remember, that Chrift neither confecrated the Cup into dead and inanimate Blood, nor the Bread into a dead Carcafs. Whence I have concluded, that whoever receives his Body, receives likewife his facred Blood: for a living Body cannot be without Blood: nor can we receive one Half of Chrift without the other.

The other two Texts have fome Shadow of Difficulty; but it will foon vanifh. St. Matthew 26. v. 27% fays, he took the Cup and gave Thanks, and gave it to them Saying, drink ye all of it. And St. Mark 14 v. 23. fays, and they all drank of it. Whence I prefume the Catechift would have us conclude, that All are here commanded to drink of the Cup. But the ALL mention'd by St. Mark explains the ALL, that were commanded to drink according to St. Matthew. And who were thofe ALL? They could be no other than the Apoftles, who were the only Perfons with our Saviour at his laft Supper. For furely if the Apostles were the ALL that drank, they were likewife the fame ALL, that were bid to drink. A ftrange Argument to prove that the Laity are all bound to drink off the Cup.

But

i

But if any one afks, whether it be not remarkable that Chrift fhould in Diftributing the Bread fay no more than take and eat; yet in giving the Cup fhould fay expressly drink ye all of it, to prevent as it were the taking away of the Cup? This is Mr. Lefly's Obfervation. But I anfwer, that St. Luke has given a Reafon for it, which utterly fpoils the Force of this Obfervation. For he tells us that Chrift himself divided the Bread, and gave to each Apoftle the Morfel he was to eat. Luke 22. v. 19. So that all were not to eat of the fame Piece of confecrated Bread : but all were to drink of the fame confecrated Cup: which therefore (according to St. Luke's Relation) he gave them, and bid them divide it among themselves, v. 17. And this explains our Saviour's faying drink ye all of it: which was only faid to caution them, that they were all to have their Share of the Cup he gave them whereas this Caution was unneceffary as to the confecrated Bread, which he diftributed with his own Hands.

The laft Text, on which Proteftants lay the greatest Strefs is as follows. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you fhall have no Life in you. Joh. 6. v. 53. This, fay they, implies a pofitive Precept of Communion in both kinds, as a means neceffary to attain to Life everlafting. I grant it implies a pofitive Precept of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, but not of Communion in both kinds: which I prove firft from the Practice of the primitive Church, who were furely as clearfighted as the pretended Reformers, yet never could difcover a pofitive Precept of Communion in both kinds in that Text: For had they feen it, they would not have acted contrary to it by Adminiftring the Communion in one kind only, as they did in many Occafions.

But I prove it 2dly from no less than four Texts in the fame Chapter of St. John, where Chrift promifes eternal Life to Eating alone. As first, This is the Bread which came down from Heaven, that a Man may eat thereof and not die. v. 50. 2dly. If a Man eateth of this Bread he ball live for ever; and the Bread that I will

give is my Flefb. v. 51. 3dly. He that eateth me fall live by me. v. 57. And 4thly. He that eateth this Bread fball live for ever. v. 58. Since therefore Life everlasting is here promifed no lefs than four Times to Eating the Bread without any Mention of the Cup, the true Meaning of the above-mention'd Text, wherein both Eating and Drinking are mention'd, can be no other than this, viz. except we become Partakers both of the Body and Blood of Chrift for the Nourifhment of our Souls, we fball have no Life in us: which no Roman Catholick ever denied. But fince it is impoffible to receive the living Body of Chrift without receiving his Blood by the very Action of Eating his Body, 'tis an undeniable Confequence, that Communion in one kind is an entire Fulfilling of the Precept implied in the above-mention'd Text, as it fully answers the End, for which the Sacrament was inftituted; to wit, the Obtaining: Life everlasting according to Chrift's Promise so often repeated in the fame Chapter.

Nay nothing can be more rational than this Inter> pretation of the fore-mention'd Text: because the only Drift of our Saviour's Difcourfe was to convince the disbelieving Capharnaits, that unless their Souls were nourifh'd with the real Flesh and Blood.of the Son of Man, they fhould not have Life everlasting and that they, who were made Partakers of his Body and Blood, fhould have Life everlafting. So that provided the real Body and Blood of Chrift be but received, whether it be by the Aion of Eating, or of Drinking only, or by both together, it is manifeft that all worthy Communicants, as they receive whole Christ, who is the Fountain of Grace and eternal Life, fo they fully fatisfying the End of Chrifts Infiitution, and perform all that is obligatory in the Precept of Communion.

;

This I think fuffices to fatisfy any Man, who will be content with a reasonable Satisfaction and to convince him at the fame Time that the loud Clamours of Protestants against us on Account of Communion in one kind are wholly unjustifiable, and ap

pear