Of the Lord's Supper,
An Exposition of the Assembly's Catechism.
A.And so do many baptized at age too. Duties are not to be measured by events.
Of the Lord's Supper.
Quest.96.W :
Hat is the Lord's supper ?
A. The Lord'sfupper isa isafacrament,wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according toChriff's appointment, his death is shewedforth ; and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.
Q.1 . By B whose authority is the Lord'ssupper instituted and appointed?
A. By the sovereign authority of Christ, the king of the church, and not by the pleasure of man ; 1 Cor. xi. 23. For I have received of the Lord, that which also I delivered unto you; that the Lord Jesus,the fame night in which he was be trayed, took bread.
Q. 2. Of what parts doth this sacrament consist ?
A. It consists of two parts ; one earthly and visible, to wit, breadandwine; the other spiritual and invisible,the body and blood of Christ ; 1 Cor. x. 16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion ofthebodyof
Christ ?
Q. 3. Howdoththese earthly andheavenlythings become a sacrament ?
A. By the word of institution, and blessing coming from Christ upon them ; 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25. For I have received of the Lord, that which also I delivered unto you ; that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said,
Take, eat, this is mybody which is broken for you : This do in remembrance of me .
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had fupped, saying, This cup is the New
Testament in my blood: This do ye, as oft as yedrink it, in remembrance of me.
Q. 4. When didChristordain and institute this sacrament ?
A. He instituted it in the same night he was betrayed ; 1 Cor. xi . 23. The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
Itcouldnotbe sooner, because the pafsover must be first celebrated,and,by the institution of this, abrogated ; nor later, for soon after he was apprehended.
Q. 5. What doth the time of its institution teach us ?
An Exposition of the Assembly's Catechism.
A. It teaches us, how great Christ's care and love to his people is, that he makes in his ordinance such provision for our comfort, though he knew his own bitter agonywas just at hand.
Q. 6. What is the general use and end of this sacrament?
A. It is to confirm, feal, and ratify the new covenant to believers ; 1 Cor. xi. 35. This cup is the New Testament in my blood: This do ye, as oft as yedrink it, in remembrance of me.
Q. 7. What are the particular ends, and uses of it ?
A. The first particular end and use of it, is, to bring Christ and his sufferings afresh to our remembrance ; 1 Cor. xi. 24,
25. This do in remembrance of me.
Q.8. Whatkindofremembrance of Christ is here intended?
A. Not a mere speculative, but an affectionate heart-melting remembrance of him; like that of Peter, Matth. xxvi. 75.
And Peter remembered the words of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock shall crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
And hewentout, and wept bitterly.
Or ofJofeph, Gen. xliii.
29, 30. And Joseph made haste,for hisbowelsdid yernupon his brother : And he foughtwhere to weep,and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.
Q. 9. What doth this end of the sacrament imply?
A. It implies this; that thebestofGod's people are too apt to forget Christ, and what he hath endured and suffered for them.
Q. 10. What else doth it imply?
A. It implies this ; that none but those that have the saving knowledge of Christ, and have had former acquaintance with Christ, are fit for this ordinance ; for no mancanremember what he never knew ; 1 Cor. xi. 28. But let am an examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, anddrinkofthat cup.
Q. 11. What is the second particular use and end of this sacrament A. It is to represent Christ to believers, as an apt sign of him, and of his death ; and that both memorative, significative, and instructive.
Q. 12. How is ita memorative sign of Christ ?
A. It brings Christ to our remembrance, as his death and bitter sufferings are therein represented to us, by the breaking of bread, and pouring forth of wine ; 1 Cor. xi. 26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do fhew forth the Lord'sdeath tillhecome.
VOL. VIII.
An Exposition of the Assembly's Catechism.
Q. 13. How is it a significative ordinance ?
A. It is a fignificative ordinance, not only as it represents Christ's sufferings, but the believer's union with him as the Head, and with each other as members of his body ;
1 Cor. x. 16, 17. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? For we being many, are one bread, and one body, &c.
Q. 14. In what respect is it an instructive sign ?
A. It is an instructive sign in divers respects ; namely, first, as it teaches us, that Christ is the only nutritive bread, by which our souls live ; John vi. 51. I am the living bread, which came down from heaven : If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. And, secondly, as it instructs us, that the New Testament is now in its full force, by the death of Christ the Teftator ; Heb. ix. 16, 17. For where ateftament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the Teftator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no force at all, whilst the Teftator liveth .
Thus much of the Author, nature, and ends of the Lord's supper.
Of the Elements, Actions, and Subjects of it.
Quest. 1 .A of Christ?
RE not bread and wine too small and common things, to represent the body and blood
A. Though a bit of bread, and adraught of wine, be things of small value in themselves ; yet they are great in respect of their use and end. A pennyworth of wax is a small thing in itself,but being applied to the label of a deed, maybe advan- - ced to theworthofthousands of pounds, as it receives the seal
دو to a great inheritance.
Q. 2. Is not the bread in the sacrament turned into the very body of Christ itself, by transubstantiation ?
A. No, it is not; but the elements retain still their own proper nature of bread and wine, after the words ofconfecration ; and are so called ; 1 Cor. xi. 26. For as often as ye eat this bread, &c.
Matth. xxvi. 29. But I say unto you, I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom .
Q. 3. What is the first argument,by which Protestants confute the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation ?
A. The first argument against it, is taken from the end of the sacrament ; which is, to bring Christ's body and blood
An Exposition of the Assembly's Catechism.
to our remembrance ; 1 Cor. xi . 24, 25. This do in remembrance of me.
Now signs for remembrance, are of things absent, not present.
Q. 4. What is the second argument ?
A. Because the language in which our Saviour spake, had no other property of expression ; there being no other word for signify,but is instead thereof, as is manifest in bothTestaments ;
Gen. xli. 27. And the seven ill-favoured kine, that came up after them, are seven years of famine.
Rev. i. 20. The seven stars, are the angels of the seven churches ; and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest, are the seven churches .
Q. 5. What is the third argument against transubstantiation?
A. The manifold gross absurdities, that naturally and necessarily follow on this doctrine, shew the falseness of it, and that it is justly rejected and abhorred by all found Christians .
Q. 6. What is the first absurdity that follows it ?
A. This doctrine allows that to a filly priest, which is not to be allowed to all the angels in heaven.
It allows him powertomake his Maker, and eat his God; and in justifying this by the omnipotency of God, they say no more, than what a Turk may say to justify the most ridiculous fooleries of the Alcoran.
7. What is the second absurdity of transubstantiation ?.
A. The second absurdity is this, that it denies the truth of the testimony given by the senses of all men, that it is real bread, and real wine, after confecration, and not flesh and blood. And if the testimony of sense be not certain, then the being of God cannot be proved by the things that are made ; contrary to Rom. i. 20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power andGodhead, &c.
Nor the truth of Christ's resurrection, by seeing and feeling ; contrary to Lukexxiv. 39. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see, &c.
Q. 8. What is the third absurdity of transubstantiation ?
A. The third absurdity is this, that in affirming the accidents of bread and wine to remain, and their substance to vanish ; they affirm, that there is length,breadth, thickness, moisture, and sweetness; andyetnothing long,broad, thick,moist, or sweet ; which is a perfect contradiction .
९. 9. What is the fourth absurdity of transubstantiation ?
A. It implies, that the entire livingbodyof Christ fat i Q2