At the Lords table: sacrament or sacraments?

I have one fairly simple question that has been raised by Burroughs' writing. This isn't a great propositional truth, nor is it a deep philosophical thought. It is merely my statement that have been challenged to think about the prospect that the elements of the Lord's table may be distinct of themselves, separate, and still the essence of what the ordinance as a whole stands for. Now perhaps the fault lies with my own misunderstanding.
Burroughs speaks much of partaking of all of the sacraments. On page 233 he posits the idea that one could be allowed the bread and disallowed the wine. (Or, perhaps vice verse?) Is it possible to separate the two? For the wine, being the blood of Christ, by which there is remission of sins, cleanses me, and the bread, the body of Christ, becomes my righteousness. What is one without the other. At this point my thoughts become scattered and jumbled. I will think upon this more and perhaps set down another formal thought, but for now, am I on to something, or guilty of misunderstanding or perhaps over criticizing?