John Ley on Rome’s dry communion

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
That though there be most dispute betwixt us and the Papists, upon the with-holding of the Cup of the holy Communion, in the thing it self, there is no more necessity held (by either side) of the use of the one element, then of the other: nor is Christ less present to the faithful, in the one, then in the other, though methinks (besides other advantages on our part) this is of no small moment, that they have made choice of the bread rather then the wine in their half Communion: whereas (with more probability of reason) they might have pleaded for an half communion in wine, then in bread, both because, Our Saviour said expressly, Drink ye all of this, and said not so of the bread, Eat ye all of this, (though he meant no less.) Because that the Blood of Christ (not so much as it is in the body, as let out of the Veins, and made potable liquor) is the proper means of the remission of our sins, without which there is no remission.

Because in the blood, is the life of the creature, yea, it is called life it self, and is diffused all over the body, being the purer part of the nourishment (which we receive) whereof are produced the Spirits, which quicken the whole man in the motion and operation of all his parts, and faculties: so that (in this respect) her case is in my conceit more comfortable (who can take no bread, if she can drink the wine) then theirs, who (contrariwise) are disposed to a dry Communion, and not to a moist, who can eat the bread, but cannot drink the wine of the Sacrament.

For the reference, see John Ley on Rome’s dry communion.