Their repentance is deepened； their faith increased； their hope
brightened； their knowledge enlarged； their habits of holy living
strengthened。
12。 Who ought not to e to the Lord's Supper？ Those who are living in
open sin； those who are manifestly ignorant of true religion；
thoughtless； careless； unconverted； and without the Spirit of Christ。
To tell such persons that it will do them good to e to the Lord's
Table is to do them positive harm。 Justification is not by the
sacraments。 To eat the bread and drink the wine is not the way to
obtain forgiveness of sins or converting grace。 On the contrary； St。
Paul says that a man may eat and drink to his own condemnation （1 Cor。
11：29）。 The Twenty…ninth Article says that〃 the wicked； and such as be
void of a lively faith； although they do carnally and visibly press
with their teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ； yet in
no wise are they partakers of Christ： but rather to their own
condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a
thing。〃
13。 But ought not all persons without exception to be pressed to e
to the Lord's Table； in order that their souls may be saved？ Is not
reception of the Lord's Supper the truest； shortest； and best way to
obtain forgiveness of sins and have eternal life？ Does not our Lord
Jesus Christ say in the 6th chapter of St。 John's Gospel； 〃Except ye
eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood； ye have no life in
you；〃 and again； 〃 Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath
eternal life 〃？ （John 6：53…54）。 Do not these texts refer to the Lord's
Supper？
Those two texts have nothing to do with the Lord's Supper。 This is the
opinion of all the best Protestant mentators； and also of some
Romish ones。 The 〃 eating and drinking〃 here spoken of mean the
spiritual eating and drinking of the heart by faith； and the 〃flesh and
blood〃 mean Christ's vicarious sacrifice of His body upon the
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