?9? HLLr comlusms. [Boor If. they ought to consider that the wine was intended to be a memorial of the blood sAe? out of the body*; and therefore they who do not receive the cup, do not make this memorial which (?hrist commanded. Be- sides, why did Christ institute the cup ? If his disciples, in receiving the bread, had received both the body* and blood, what need was there afterward in giving them the cup, and calling it the new testament his blood ? Again: if partaking of the bread be the communion both of the body and blood of Christ, why did Paul make such a distinction between the breed and the cup, caring one the communion of the body of Christ, and the other the communion of his blood ? Lasdy, if both the body and blood are received in the breed, what does the priest who administers receive when he takes the cup ? They also urge, "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever," .fobs vi, 51. But they must first show that this verse, and in- deed the context at large, relates to the Lord's supper. And this they cannot do, according to the principles of their church, which require that they "receive and interpret Scripture not otherwise than accord- ing to the unanimous consent of the fathers." Now the Council of Trent (seas. 21, c. 1) acknowledge that the fathers and doctors gave var/m? interpretat/on.v (vatins interpretationes) of this .]?[on of the sixth of John. We also insist that bishops of Rome, cardinals, bishops, and other doctors of their church, upward of thirty in number, deny that their doctrine with respect to the eucharist is to be coRected from this chapter. From the phrase, a? oj?en as ye drini it, they argue that the cup in the eucharist may sometimes be omitted. But it should be remembered that the same phrase, as often as, is applied to the bread as well as to the cup. From the passage, "Whosoever 8haR eat this bread AND dl?nlr this cup unworthily," (1 Cor. xi, 27,) Roman Catholics complain that the Protestants have coFrupted the text, as both the Greek and Vulgate. instead of ;?a? and el, AND, haVO J7 and tve?, OR: "Whosoever shall eat this bread oR drink this cup unworthily." To this we reply, 1. This criticism g?ves no countenance to communion in one kind, because their own Greek, Latin, and English Testaments (1 Cor. xi, 26, ?8, 29; x, 16, 17) no len than five times use Kay, A?,'D, in joining the bread and cup together, to be both received in remembrance of' Christ. There- fore, to say the cup is not necessary, is to make the apestie contradict himself*, as well as our Lord'8 in?tution. 2. That ?a,, ?, is the true reading, and not ?, ?', both MSS. and versions sufliciendy prove; and that ,t, not ear, is the proper reading of' the �ulgate, original editions formed by Roman Catholics themselves prove. See these points esta- blished by' Dr. A. (?!arke on I Cot. xi, 27, at the end of* the chapter. 3. Besides, whatever may be the true reading, the doctrine of' half* communion gains nothing; became the ap(mde plainly teaches that EITHER ?O eat OR drink unworthfiy was wrong. And that the CoriMh- inns d? d?,? of the cup, and that some of them did drink or in an irreverent manner, is plainly declared in the context. 4. The very intention and nature o? the sacrament require that both kinds should be employed in order properly to celebrate it. Two res- sous are obvious for the distribution o� the cup to the whole bed ot the church. 1. Because it is rb f?eq,d ?,f ? se? ?, w?ch 1
�
