cross。The penitent thief most certainly did not receive the bread and
wine of the Lord's Supper； yet it is certain that he 〃had eternal
life；〃 and went to paradise when he died。 Judas Iscariot did eat the
bread and wine； but he did not 〃have eternal life；〃 and died in his
sins。 The Prayer…book Service for the munion of the Sick contains
the following statement in one of its concluding rubrics： 〃 If the sick
man do truly repent him of his sins； and stedfastly believe that Jesus
Christ hath suffered death on the cross for him； and shed His blood for
his redemption； earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby； and
giving Him thanks therefore； he doth eat and drink the body and blood
of Christ profitably to his soul's health； although he do not receive
the sacrament with his mouth。〃 In fact； to maintain that no one 〃has
eternal life〃 who does not receive the Lord's Supper； is a most narrow；
cruel； and illiberal doctrine。 It condemns to eternal death myriads of
our fellow…Christians who； from one cause or another； have never bee
municants。 It condemns the whole body of the Quakers； who allow no
sacraments。 He that can hold such doctrine must be in a strange state
of mind。
14。 Does not St。 Paul tell the Corinthians； that 〃the cup of blessing
is a munion of the blood of Christ； and the bread a munion of the
body of Christ 〃？ （1 Cor。 10：16）。 Is not this a proof that there is a
real corporal presence of Christ's natural body and blood in the Lord's
Supper？
It is no proof at all。 St。 Paul does not say that the bread and wine
are the body and blood of Christ； but only a MMUNION of them。 By
that he means that every municant who rightly； worthily； and with
faith receives the bread and wine； does in so receiving have spiritual
and heart munion with the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood which
was offered for his sins on the cross。 For this is precisely one of the
objects for which the Lord's Supper was appointed。 It was intended to
deepen and strengthen the heart union of believers with their crucified
Saviour。 More than this cannot be fairly got out of the text。
15。 Does not the Church Catechism say that the 〃body and blood of
Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the
Lord's Supper〃？ Do not the words 〃verily and indeed〃 mean that； in the
judgment of those who drew up the Catechism； there is a real corporal
presence of Christ's natural body and blood in the consecrated bread
and wine？
The simplest answer to this question is to be found in the
Twenty…eighth Article： 〃The body of Christ is given； taken； and eaten
in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner。 And the mean
whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is
faith。〃 The following quotation from the work of a very learned divine；
Archdeacon Waterland； deserves close attention： …〃The words of the
Church Catechism； Verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful；
are rightly interpreted of a real participation in the benefits
purchased by Christ's death。 The body and blood of Christ are taken and
received by the faithful； not corporally； not internally； but verily
and indeed； that is； effectually。〃Waterland's Works； vol。 iv。 p。 42。
16。 Does any change take place in the bread and wine when the minister
consecrates them in the Lord's Supper？
Most certainly not。 The bread continues bread just as it was before；
and the wine continues wine； the same in colour； taste； and
position。 The Twenty…eighth Article of the Church of England
declares； 〃Transubstantiation； or the change of the substance of bread
and wine in the Supper of the Lord； cannot be proved by holy writ； but
it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture； over…throweth the
nature of a sacrament； and hath given occasion to many superstitions。
17。 Is there any real presence of Christ's natural body and blood in
the bread and wine after consecration？
Most certainly not； if by 〃real〃 is meant a corporal and material
presence。 The rubric at the end of the Prayer…book munion Service
distinctly says； 〃The natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are
in heaven and not here； it being against the truth of Christ's natural
body to be at one time in more places than one。〃 If the body of Him who
was born of the Virgin Mary can be present in the bread and wine on the
Lord's Table； it cannot be a true human body； and the fortable truth
that our Saviour is perfect man would be overthrown。 Those who tell us
that as soon as the words of consecration are pronounced； at once the
body and blood of Christ e down into the bread and wine； are in
great error； and assert what they cannot prove。
18。 Ought the consecrated bread and wine in the Lord's Sapper to be
elevated； adored； and worshipped？
Most certainly not。 The bread is still really and truly bread； and the
wine really and truly wine。 They ought to be reverently and carefully
handled； as signs and emblems of very holy things after consecration。
But the change is in the use of them； not in the substance； and to
adore them is to break the second mandment。 The Prayer…book rubric
expressly says； 〃The sacramental bread and wine remain still in their
very natural substance； and may not be adored； for that were idolatry
to be abhorred of all faithful Christians。〃 The Twenty…eighth Article
says； 〃The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance
reserved； carried about； lifted up； or worshipped。〃
19。 Is there any sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's
Supper？
Most certainly not。 The ordinance is never once caned a sacrifice in
the New Testament。 There is not the slightest trace of any sacrifice in
the four accounts of its first institution。 There is not a word to show
that the Apostles thought they saw any sacrifice offered up。 Moreover；
we are repeatedly taught in the New Testament； that as soon as Christ
was sacrificed for our sins on the cross； there was no more sacrifice
needed； and that after His one offering of Himself there was no need of
other offering for sin （Heb。 10：14…18）。 To attempt to offer up Christ
again is an act of ignorance akin to blasphemy。 The Prayer Book never
once calls the Lord's Supper a sacrifice。 The 〃oblations〃 it speaks of
in one place are the offering of money in the offertory。 The only
〃sacrifice〃 it mentions is that of 〃praise and thanksgiving；〃 and the
only offering it mentions is that of 〃ourselves； souls and bodies；〃 to
be a 〃reasonable； holy； and lively sacrifice〃 unto God。 Those who call
the sacrament a sacrifice cannot possibly prove what they say。
20。 Is the minister who consecrates the bread and wine in the Lord's
Supper a priest？
He is a priest no doubt； if by the word 〃priest〃 we only mean a
presbyter； or one in the second order of the ministry； and in this
sense only he is called a priest in the Prayer Book。 But he is
certainly not a priest； if we mean by that word one who offers up a
sacrifice。 He cannot be； because he has no sacrifice to offer； and a
priest without a sacrifice is an unmeaning title。 He cannot be； because
Christian ministers are never once called 〃priests〃 in the New
Testament。 The Jewish priests in the Old Testament had to offer
sacrifices daily； and were types and figures of the great High Priest
who was to e。 But when Christ offered up Himself on the cross； a
sacerdotal ministry was at once done away for ever。 All believers are
now 〃kings and priests；〃 because they 〃present their bodies a living
sacrifice to God〃 （Rom。 12：1）。 But Christian ministers are not
sacrificing priests； and cannot be。 They are Christ's ambassadors；
messengers； witnesses； watchmen； shepherds； and stewards of the
mysteries of God； but nothing more； whatever dress they may wear； and
whatever title they may assume。 Christians have only one Priest； even
Him who is 〃passed into the heavens； Jesus； the Son of God〃 （Heb。
4：14）。
21。 Is the table in the Lord's Supper rightly called an altar？
Most certainly not。 It is never once called an altar in the New
Testament。 The text in （Hebrews 13：10）； 〃We have an altar；〃 has nothing
whatever to do with the Lord's Supper。 That learned divine； Dr。
Waterland； says； 〃That altar is Christ our Lord； who is Altar； Priest；
and Sacrifice all in one〃 （Waterland's Works； vol。 v。 p。 268； Oxford
ed。）。：Not once is the Lord's Table called an 〃altar〃 in the English
Prayer Book。 The Reformers of our Church ordered altars everywhere to
be pulled down and removed； and wooden tables to be set up。 Those
Churchmen who carelessly call the Lord's Table an 〃altar；〃 and talk of
〃altar services；〃 and brides being 〃led to the altar〃 at weddings； are
doing immense harm； ignorantly borrowing the language of the corrupt
Church of Rome； and countenancing a mischievous error。 If St。 Paul rose
from the grave； and was shown an 〃altar 〃 in a Christian Church； he
would not understand what it meant。
22。 Is there anything sinful or wrong 〃in having the Lord's Supper in
the evening？ Most certainly not。 It cannot possibly be sinful to follow
the example of Christ and His Apostles。 Every reader of the New
Testament must know that the institution of the Lord's Supper took
place in the evening。 It is certain that no special hour is remended
to us in the Acts or Epistles。 It is equally certain that the Prayer
Book leaves the matter to the discretion of every clergyman； and allows
him to do what is best for his congregation； and wisely lays down no
hard and fast rule about the time。 To forbid evening munions would
pletely shut out many persons in large town parishes from the Lord's
Table。 The mothers of many families among the working classes cannot
possibly leave home in the morning。 The very name 〃Supper〃 seems to
point to the evening of a day rather than the morning。 In t