Of the Lord's Supper,
An Expofition of the Affembly's Catechism.
A.And ſo do many baptizedat age too. Duties are notto be meaſured by events.
Of the Lord's Supper.
Queſt.96.W :
Hat is the Lord's fupper ?
A. The Lord'sfupper isa isafacrament,wherein, bygiving and receiving bread and wine, according toChriff's appointment, his death is shewedforth ; and theworthy 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, andgrowth in grace.
Q.1 . By B whoſe authority is theLord'sſupper inſtitutedand appointed?
A. Bythe fovereign authority of Chriſt, the king of the church, and notby the pleaſure ofman ; 1 Cor. xi. 23. For I have received ofthe Lord, that which alſo I delivered unto you; that the Lord Jeſus,the fame nightinwhich he was be trayed, took bread.
Q. 2. Ofwhat parts doth this facrament confift ?
A. Itconfifts oftwo 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 notthe communion of the blood of Chrift ? The breadwhich webreak, is it not the communion ofthebodyof
Chrift ?
Q. 3. Howdoththeſe earthly andheavenlythings become a facrament ?
A. By the wordof inſtitution, and bleſſing coming from Chriſt upon them ; 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25. For I have received of the Lord, that which alſo Idelivered unto you ; that the Lord Jeſus, the ſame night in which he was betrayed, took bread. Andwhenhe had given thanks, he brake it, and faid,
Take, eat, this is mybody which is broken for you : Thisdo in remembrance ofme .
After the ſame manner alfo he took the cup, when he had fupped, faying, This cup is the New
Teftament in myblood: This do ye, as oft as yedrink it, in remembrance ofme.
Q. 4. When didChriſtordain andinſtitute this facrament ?
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 fooner, becauſe the pafſover must be firſtcelebrated,and,by the inſtitution ofthis, abrogated ; nor later, for foon afterhe was apprehended.
Q. 5. What doththe time of its inftitution teachus ?
An Exposition of the Affembly's Catechism.
A. It teaches us, how great Chriſt's care and love to his people is, thathe makes inhisordinance fuch provifion for our comfort, though he knew his own bitter agonywas juſt at hand.
Q. 6. What is the general uſeand end ofthis facrament?
A. It is to confirm, feal, and ratifythe new covenant to believers ; 1 Cor. xi. 35. This cup is theNew Testament in myblood: Thisdo ye, as oft as yedrink it, inremembrance ofme.
Q. 7. What are theparticular ends, anduſes ofit ?
A. The firſt particular end and uſe of it, is, to bring Chrift andhis fufferings afreſh to our remembrance ; 1 Cor. xi. 24,
25. Thisdo in remembranceof me.
Q.8. Whatkindofremembrance ofChriſt is here intended?
A. Not a mere ſpeculative, butan affectionate heart-melting remembrance of him; like that of Peter, Matth. xxvi. 75.
And Peter remembered the words of Jeſus, which faid unto him, Before the cock ſhall crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
And hewentout, andwept bitterly.
Or ofJofeph, Gen. xliii.
29, 30. And Jofeph made haste,for hisbowelsdid yernupon his brother : Andhe foughtwhere toweep,andheentered intohis chamber, and wept there.
Q. 9. What doththis endof the facrament imply?
A. It implies this; that thebestofGod's people are too apt to forget Chrift, and what he hath endured and fuffered for them.
Q. 10. What elſedoth it imply?
A. Itimpliesthis ; that none but thoſe thathave theſaving knowledge of Chrift, and have had former acquaintance with Chrift, are fit for this ordinance ; for no mancanremember what he never knew ; 1 Cor. xi. 28. But let aman examine himſelf, and ſo lethim eat ofthatbread, anddrinkofthat cup.
Q. 11. What isthe ſecondparticular uſe and end ofthis facrament A. It is to repreſent Chriſt to believers, as an apt ſign of him, and of his death ; andthatboth memorative, ſignificative, and inſtructive.
Q. 12. How is ita memorative ſign ofChriſt ?
A. It brings Chriſt to our remembrance, as his death and bitterſufferings aretherein repreſented to us, by the breaking ofbread, and pouringforth ofwine ; 1 Cor. xi. 26. For as oftenas ye eat this bread, anddrinkthis cup, ye do fhew forth the Lord'sdeath tillhecome.
VOL. VIII.
An Exposition of the Affembly's Catechifm.
Q. 13. How is it a ſignificative ordinance ?
A. It is a fignificative ordinance, not only as it repreſents Chrift's fufferings, 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 bleffing which we bleſs, is it notthe communion of the blood of Chrift ? The bread which we break, is it not the communionofthe body of Chrift ? For we beingmany, are one bread, and one body, &c.
Q. 14. Inwhat reſpect is it an inſtructive fign ?
A. It is an inſtructive ſign in divers reſpects ; namely, firft, as it teaches us, that Chriſt is the only nutritive bread, by which our fouls live ; John vi. 51. I am the living bread, which came down from heaven : Ifany man eat ofthis bread, he ſhall live for ever, and the breadthat I willgive is my fleſh, which I will give for the life oftheworld. And, fecondly, as it inſtructs us, thatthe NewTestament is now in its fullforce, by the death of Chrift the Teftator ; Heb. ix. 16, 17. For where ateftament is, there must alfo ofneceffity be the death of the Teftator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no force at all, whilstthe Teftator liveth .
Thus much of the Author, nature, and ends of the Lord's fupper.
Of the Elements, Actions, and Subjects of it.
Quest. 1 .A ofChriſt?
RE not bread and wine too ſmall and common things, to repreſent thebody andblood
A. Though abit ofbread, and adraught ofwine, bethings of ſmall value in themselves ; yet they are great in reſpect of their uſe and end. A pennyworth of wax is a fmall thing in itſelf,but being applied to the label of adeed, maybe advan- - ced to theworthofthousands ofpounds, as it receives the ſeal
دو to a great inheritance.
Q. 2. Is not thebread in the ſacrament turned into thevery body ofChrift 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 ofthis fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it newwith youin myFather's kingdom .
Q. 3. What is the firſt argument,by which Proteftants confute the Popiſh doctrine of tranſubſtantiation ?
A. The firſt argument against it, is takenfrom the endof the facrament ; which is, to bring Chriſt's body and blood
An Expoſition of the Affembly's Catechifm.
to our remembrance ; 1 Cor. xi . 24, 25. This do in remembrance ofme.
Now figns for remembrance, are ofthings abſent, notpreſent.
Q. 4. What is the ſecond argument ?
A. Becauſe the language in which our Saviour ſpake, had noother property ofexpreffion ; 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 cameup after them, are ſeven years offamine.
Rev. i. 20. The ſeven ſtars, are the angels ofthe ſeven churches ; andtheſeven 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 neceffarily follow on this doctrine, ſhew the falſeneſs of it, and that it is juſtly rejected and abhorred by all found Chriftians .
Q. 6. What is the firſt abſurditythat follows it ?
A. This doctrine allows that to a filly priest, which is not tobe allowed to allthe angels in heaven.
It allows him powertomake his Maker, and eat his God; and injuſtifying this by the omnipotency ofGod, 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 givenby the ſenſes of all men, that it is real bread, and real wine, after confecration, and not flesh and blood. And ifthe teftimony of ſenſe be not certain, then the being ofGod 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 refurrection, by ſeeing and feeling ; contrary to Lukexxiv. 39. Behold myhands 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, thatthere islength,breadth, thickneſs, moiſture, andſweetneſs; andyetnothing long,broad, thick,moift, or ſweet ; which is a perfect contradiction .
९. 9. What is the fourth abſurdity of tranſubſtantiation ?
A. It implies, thatthe entire livingbodyof Chrift fat i Q2