blowing the Trumpet refpects only the manner of our behavior in that action. Thus alfo 'tis faid, Keep thy foot, when thou goeft to the house of God, Ecclef. 5.1. Now this Precept fuppofes it to be our Duty to go to the House of God; and fhews us after what manner, and with what, preparation we muft go. Again, when our Savior faies, When ye pray, ufe not vain repetitions, 'tis fuppos'd that we are to perform the Duty of Prayer, and the condition or caution annex'd directs us in the performance of it. And thus in the cafe before us, we are fuppos'd to drink of the Cup, and injoin'd to do it in remembrance of Chrift. Nay, twas needlefs for our Savior to prefcribe a Rule concerning that thing, which we are not obliged to perform.

6. Well, but the Apoftle faies, Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink this Cup unworthily, &c. 1 Cor. 11. 27. Now tis plain, fay they, from the particle or, that the Apoftle puts a difference between eating and drinking, and supposes that one may be done without the other. To this I reply,

First, That the Alexandrian MS. reads and inftead of or; and the Syriac, Ethiopic and Arabic Tranflations do the fame; and how then will our Adverfaries be able to fhew, that and is not the right reading? Now if we read and instead of or, then the words run thus, Whofoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, &c. and confequently, this Text do's evidently prove the neceffity of drinking the Wine, as well as of eating the Bread.

Secondly, 'Tis plain from the 25th verfe, that we are commanded to receive the Cup in remembrance of Chrift; and therefore we have great rea

L 4

fon

fon to read and instead of or. Becaufe then the Apostle is perfectly confonant to himself, and fupposes that command of Chrift, which he had already related: whereas if we fuppofe that he us'd the particle or to infinuate to us, that drinking of the Cup is not neceffary, 'tis plain that he contradicts the pofitive injunction of our Lord, which he had before recited. But,

Thirdly, Suppofe it certain (tho' it cannot be prov'd) that we ought to read it or, yet this particle do's not neceffarily disjoin the Bread and the Cup, and confequently prove that we may lawfully abftain from either kind. For the particle or is put for and in feveral places of Scripture. Thus for inftance, the Hebrew Bible reads thus, When a Ruler bath finned, and done somewhat thro ignorance against any of the Commandments of the Lord bis God, concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; (18, or) if his fin wherein be hath finned, come to his knowledge; be shall bring, &c. Lev. 4. 22. 23. But the Senfe of the Text, and the Authority of the vulgar Latin, and Septuagint Translations, require us to render it, and if his fin, &c. Thus alfo Solomon faies, There be three things which go well; yea, four are comely in going. A Lion which is strongest among Beafts; and turneth not away for any; A Grey-bound; (Nor) an He-goat; and a King, against whom there is no rifing up, Prov. 30. 29, 30, 31. But the Vulgar Latin and the Chaldee Ttanflate it, and an He-goat; and the Senfe requires, and therefore juftifies, that Tranflation. Thus alfo in the New Teftament, the Jews ask'd our Savior, By what authority dost thou these things; or who is he that gave thee this authority? Luke 20. 2. But the other Evangelifts, relating the very fame queftion,

do

1

Ch. XI. 169 do use the very fame words, only putting and for or; faying, By what authority do'st thou these things; and who gave thee this authority? Matth. 21. 23. Mark 11. 28. Again, when our Savior faies, Think not that I am come to deftroy the Law or the Prophets, &c. Matth 5. 17. 'tis plain, that he means the Law and the Prophets; because they are alwaies join'd together after that manner in other places of Scripture, as for example, This is the Law and the Prophets, Matth. 7. 12. For all the Prophets and the Law prophecied until John, Matth. 11. 13. On thefe two commandments bang all the Law and the Prophets, Matth. 22. 40. All things must be ful filled which were written in the Law of Mofes, and in the Prophets, &c. Luke 24. 44. Now fince or is fo often put for and, I defire our Adversaries to fhew, that it is not fo to be understood in this place. But farther yet, I defire it may be confider'd.

Fourthly, that the Apoftle's own expreffions do plainly teach us, that or is put for and in this verfe. Because he conftantly ufes the particle and, when he speaks of the bread and wine in the context. Thus we find him faying, For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, 1 Cor. 11. 26. But let a man examin himfelf, and fo let him eat of that bread, and drink of that tup, verle 28. For be that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, verfe 29. Nay, that very verfe, upon which our Adverfaries argument is founded, teaches the fame; because tho' it were granted that we are to read or in the former, yet tis certain that we must read and in the latter part of it. For the words of the Apoftle run thus; Whofoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, fhall be guilty of the

body

body and bloud of the Lord, verfe 27. and therefore 'tis plain, that he is fuppos'd to receive both, because he is faid to be guilty of profaning both.

Well then, if we read it and, as we have fuf ficient reason to do; 'tis plain, that our Adverfaries objection is taken away but if we read it or, the criticism will not damage our caufe; becaufe or is fo often us'd for and, and the context requires this acceptation of it. But I have yet another confideration to offer. Wherefore,

Fifthly, Suppofe this Text were much more doubtful than it is, yet it is in any wife to be explain'd in fuch a manner, as may render it confiftent with other places which refer to the fame thing, and are confeffedly plainer. Now I have fhewn, that those plainer places do injoin communion in both kinds; and therefore our Adver faries ought not to fhelter themfelves under a (feemingly) difficult paffage; and think by that means to obtain a liberty to break God's pofitive Law. Let them fhew in the first place, that our arguments for Communion in both kinds are not convincing: and when this is done, 'twill be time enough for us to difpute about this nicety of Phrafe. But,

Sixthly and Laftly, That I may put an end to this tedious and needlefs piece of Criticifm, tho' it were granted against all reafon, that one Species may be omitted; yet it do's not follow that the Cup must be taken away. Because we are as plainly commanded to drink the Wine, as to cat the Bread and the particle or may excufe us from the one, as well as the other.

7.Tis pretended, that the Cup is not effential to the Holy Eucharift; because the Sacra

ment

ment is intire without it. For the fame Virtue and Grace is given by one Species, which is given by the other and therefore, fince the Cup gives no new Bleffing, the Layety need not drink of it. But our Adverfaries ought to confider (what I have already faid) that we are not to ftart fubtile notions, but to keep close to our Savior's inftitution, from whence alone the Sacraments derive their Virtue. If Christ inftituted both kinds, we are to receive both kinds; for otherwife we are not to expect the benefit of either kind. Chrift indeed do's not feparate the benefit of his body from that of his bloud; nor do's one kind give us a bleffing, which the other do's not impart: but the whole Sacrament must be receiv'd, or we must be depriv'd of the whole bleffing. Since the Cup was as certainly inftituted as the Bread; 'tis plain that the Cup is as effential as the Bread: and each of them is abfolutely requir'd to make up a Sacrament. Those therefore, who do not receive them, both, do not receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

8. Our Adverfaries wou'd fain perfuade us, that they do truly receive the Cup by receiving the Bread. Becaufe, the Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation being fuppos'd true, the Bloud of Christ muft accompany,or be contain❜d in his body, into which they fay the bread is turn'd; and this is what they call the Doctrin of Concomitancy. But to this I anfwer, First, that fuppofing Tranfubftantiation to be true, yet 'tis our duty to follow our Savior's inftitution: and therefore 'tis in vain for us to hope for the bleffings of the Lord's Supper, unlefs we receive what he has commanded to be receiv'd. If Tranfubftantiation be true, without doubt our Savior was not ignorant of it: and yet

he