The  same  reason  holds  good  also  as  to  the  sacrament
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  administered  by  the  Romish
Church.  For  the  whole  office  belonging-  to  it  is  wrapped
up  in  a  language  the  people  do  not  understand,  and
therefore  know  not  what  the  priest  saith,  nor  whether
he  consecrates  the  host  or  no ;  only  they  see  him  per
form  a  great  many  ceremonies  as  unintelligible  as  the
language  he  speaks,  and  at  length  he  puts  a  wafer  into
their  mouths.  Now  what  is  there  in  all  this  that  the
Spirit  of  God  can  make  use  of  to  the  comfort  and  edi
fication  of  the  people ;  especially  considering  that  the
priest  intends  not  to  minister  the  Spirit  of  Christ  unto
them,  but  only  his  real  body,  as  they  are  bound  to  be
lieve  the  wafer  to  be?  But  if  it  was  possible, — as  it
neither  is,  nor  can  be, — to  convert  the  bread  into  the
body  of  Christ,  and  give  it  to  the  people,  what  good
could  that  do  them,  if  abstracted  from  the  Spirit  ?  For,
as  our  Lord  himself  saith,  "  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quick-
eneth ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing 3."  But  after  all
this,  I  do  not  see  how  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  can
belong  to  the  sacrament,  as  they  manage  it.  For  the
promise  is  made  not  to  any  one  part  of  it  as  distinct
from  the  other,  but  to  the  whole,  as  it  was  instituted
by  Christ.  And  where  the  institution  is  not  rightly
observed,  neither  can  the  promise  annexed  to  it  be
performed.  But  it  is  plain  that  our  Saviour  instituted
the  cup  as  well  as  the  bread :  and  it  is  as  plain  that
the  Church  of  Rome  administers  the  bread  only,  and
not  the  cup.  And,  therefore,  they,  by  depriving  the
people  of  one  half  of  the  Communion,  do  thereby  de
prive  them  of  the  comfort  and  benefit  of  the  whole.
