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. It could not be sooner, because the passover must be first celebrated, and, by the institution of this, abrogated ; not later, for soon after he was apprehended.
Q. 5. AVhat doth the time of its institution teach us ?
A. It teaches us, how great Christ's care and love to his people is, that he makes in his ordinance such provision for our comfort, though he knew his own bitter agony was just at hand. Q. 6. What is the general use and end of this sacrament ?
S86 AN EXPOSITION OF THE ASSEMBLY'S CATECHJSM.
A. It is to confirm, seal, and ratify the new covenant to believers ; 1 Cor. xi. 35. This cup is the New Testament in my blood : This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Q. 7. What are the particular ends and uses of it ?
J. The first particular end and use of it, is, to bring Christ and his sufferings afresh to our remembrance ; 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. This do in remembrance of me.
Q. 8. What kind of remembrance of Christ is here intended ?
A. Not a mere speculative, but an affectionate heart-melting re- membrance of him like that of Peter, Matth. xxvi. 75. And Peter re- membered the words of Jesus, which said unto him. Before the cock shall crow thou shall deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. Or of Joseph, Gen. xliii. 29, 30. And Joseph made haste, for his bowels did yern upon his brother : And he sought where to weep, and he entered into his chamber and wept there.
Q. 9. What doth this end of the sacrament imply ?
A. It implies this ; that the best of God's people are too apt io forget Chi-ist, and what he hath endured and suffered for them.
Q. 10. What else doth it imply ?
A. It implies this ; that none but those that have the saving know- ledge of Christ, and have had former acquaintance with Christ, are fit for this ordinance ; for no man can remember what he never knew ; 1 Cor. xi. 28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
Q. 11. Wliat is the second particular use and end of this sacra- ment ?
A. It is to represent Christ to believers, as an apt sign of him, and of his death ; and that both memorative, significative, and in- structive.
Q. 1 2. How is it a memorative sign of Christ ?
A. It brings Christ to our remembrance, as his death and bitter sufferings are therein represented to us, by the breaking of bread, and pouring forth of wine ; 1 Cor. xi. 26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lord's death till he come.
Q. 13. How is it a significative ordinance ?
A.li is a significative ordinance, not only as it represents Christ's sufferings, but the believers union with him as the Head, and with each other as members of his body ; 1 Cor. x. 16, 17. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not thecommunion of the blood of Christ; The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? For we being many, are one bread, and one body, &c.
Q. 14. In what respect is it an instructive sign?
A. It is an instructive sign in divers respects ; namely, first, as it teaches us, that Christ is the only nutritive bread, by which our souls live; John vi. 51. I am the living bread, which came down from heaven : If any man eat of this bread, he ghall live for ever, and the
AN EXPOSITION OF THE ASSEMBLY'S CATECHISM. 287
"bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. And, secondly^ as it instructs us, that the New Testament is now in its full force, by the death of Christ the Testator ; Heb. ix. 16, 17. For where a Testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the Testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead ; otherwise it is of no force at all, whilst the Testator livcth. Thus much of the Author, nature, and ends of the Lord's supper.
Of the Elements, Action, arid Subjects of it.
Quest. 1. ill RE not bread and wine too small and common things, to represent the body and blood of Christ ?
A. Though a bit of bread, and a draught of wine, be things of small value in themselves ; yet they are great in respect of their use and end. A pennyworth of wax is a small thing in itself, but being applied to the label of a deed, may be advanced to the worth of thou- sands of pounds, as it receives the seal to a great inheritance.
Q. 2. Is not the bread in the sacrament turned into the very body of Christ itself, by transubstantiation ?
A. No, it is not ; but the elements retain still their own proper nature of bread and wine, after the words of consecration ; and are so called ; 1 Cor. xi. 26. For as often as ye eat this bread, &c. Mat. xxvi. 29. But I say unto you, I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father''s kingdom.
Q. 3. What is the first argument, by which Protestants confute the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation ?
A. The first argument against it, is taken from the end of the sacrament ; whicli is, to bring Christ's body and blood to our remem- brance ; 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. This do in remembrance of me. Now signs for remembrance, are of things absent, not present.
Q. 4. What is the second argument ?
A. Because the language in which our Saviour spake, had no other property of expression ; there being no other word for signify, but is instead thereof, as is manifest in both Testaments ; Gen. xli. 27. And the seven ill-favoured kine, that came up after them, are seven years of famine. Rev. i. 20. Tlie seven stars, are the angels of the seven churches ; and the seven 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 necessarily follow on this doctrine, shew the falseness of it, and that it is justly rejected and abhorred by all sound Christians.
Q. 6. What is the first absurdity that follows it ?
A. This doctrine allows that to a silly priest, which is not to be al- lowed to all the angels in heaven. It allows him power to make his Maker, and eat his God ; and in justifying this by the omnipotency
-S88 AN EXPOSITION OF THE ASSEMBLY'S CATECHISit.
of God, they say no more, than what a Turk may say to justify the most ridiculous fooleries of the Alcoran.
Q. 7. What is the second absurdity of transubstantiation ?