that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper which I am sure is the very same with the Doctrine of the Council of Trent her verily and indeed being the self same thing with that Council's verè realiter Yet if you shou'd ask any of her Divines whether the Body and Blood of Christ be verily and indeed in the Sacrament They will answer you no If you ask them further how can you then verily and indeed take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament if it be not there Some will answer you that tho' his Body and Blood be not there yet when you take the Bread and Wine you take at the same Time the Body and Blood of Christ to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament but this is such a Riddle as passes my Skill to unfold Others say that by an Act of Faith you do verily and indeed take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ when you receive the Elements But if you urge the Difficulty farther and tell them that to receive the Body and Blood of Christ by Faith is no more to receive it verily and indeed than to receive an Idea or Representation of a Thing to which you give assent is to receive the thing it self Or suppose it were you still admit of Christ's Body his being in several places at once which is the Inconvenience you wou'd fain avoid by rejecting the Real Presence in the Sacrament for if one in London and another in York shou'd at the same Time which is very possible verily and indeed take the Body and Blood of Christ then surely the Body of Christ must needs be in two different places at once if you urge I say the Difficulty thus far you are like to get no Answer which either you or any Body else can understand So that tho' the Church of England has in other things many signal Advantages of the Lutherans and Calvinists yet in this she is neither so Reasonable as they nor so consistent with her self nor yet with common Sense Now to establish the Roman Catholic's Belief on this Subject and to shew the Unreasonableness of the said Opinions tho' of this last there is little need their own Author's having in a great measure by their manifest Contradictions and Absurdities already done it to my Hand I shall endeavour to prove as clear and as brief as I can 1. That the Words of Scripture on which Transubstantiation is grounded are to be understood in a litteral Sense 2. That such a Sense does necessarily infer Transubstantiation And 3. That from the Begining all the Orthodox Christians in the World were of that Belief I begin with the first The Words on which Transubstantiation is grounded are these This is my Body which a given for you Luke 22.19 Now that these Words are to be taken in a litteral Sense nothing can be more plain both from Christ's Promise of giving his Body as we read St. John Chap. 6. from St. Paul's Sense of these Words in his Epistle to the Corinthians and from the very Sense which the Words themselves must necessarily bear From Christ's Promise I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever And the Bread that I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the life of the World Joa 6.51 Christ promises to give his Disciples a certain kind of Bread which they were not as yet acquainted with And to let them understand what sort of Bread it was he tells them that it is his Flesh The Bread that I will give you is my Flesh This so unusual a thing as eating human Flesh cou'd not but startle them however they cou'd not doubt but he meant to do as he spoke since he affirm'd that the Bâ—ead he wou'd give them was his Flesh And therefore they strove among themselves saying how can this Man give us his Flesh to eat But how dâ—es Christ here disabuse them Does he say his Words are not to be taken lirerally Does he tell them they must understand him in a Figurative Sense No He is so far from it that with a repeated Oath He confirms them in the Sense they understood his Words Verily verily says He I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye shall have no Life in you When Christ said I am the Door I am the true Vine c. His Disciples were nothing offended at these Expressions because they knew them to be Metaphors and figurative Sayings commonly us'd but here you see they are amaz'd and confounded Had Christ only said I will give you heavenly Bread or I will give you my Body perhaps they might have taken this in a figurative Sense too But when He assures them that the Bread He wou'd give them is his Fâ—esh and protests with a repeated Oath that except they eat his Flesh and drink his Blood they shall have no Life in them he must surely renounce his Reason who does not see that he spoke and meant literally In a word if those Words be not understood in a literal Sense it is utterly impossible to know how any Phrase may be literally meant the Words is my Flesh being by Christ affirm'd of the Bread for no other End and his confirming with an Oath that it was so for no other Reason than to perswade them that he meant as he spoke This is no less manifest from St. Paul's Sense of the said Words The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 Here the Apostle agreeably to what Christ said puts the Question as if the Corinthians doubted it is not the Cup of Blessing which we bless the Communion of the Blood of Christ c. Now what is it to communicate or partake of the Body and Blood of Christ Surely it is to eat and drink of his Body and Blood as to communicate or partake of Bread and Wine is to eat of the Bread and drink of the Wine Again Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread or drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a Man examin himself and so let him eat of that Bread and Drink of that Cup for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself not discerning the Lord's Body Cap. 11.27 28 29. This surely is too severe a Sentence if St. Paul understood Christ's Words in a figurative Sense If that Bread and that Cup be only a Type and Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ whosoever abuses or takes them unworthily ought in Reason to be somewhâ—t less guilty than if he had in reality abus'd his Body and
confounded by the Instinct 〈◊〉 doubt of the Holy-Ghost for Reason she was not capable of because she was to partake of the Cup of our Lord And wou'd she not think you be in the same Trouble and Confusion were she to receive the Lord's Body At the presence of the sacred Cup she turns her face aside and shuts her mouth and that by divine instinct for Reason she had not her sullied Entrals are not able to bear the Majesty of our Lord in his Blood but are forc'd to give it up And wou'd She have done less at the Presence and Participation of the same Lord's Body Is the Majesty or Power of the Lord's Body less than that of His Blood that it shou'd not cause the like Disorder At the receiving of the Lord's Blood here are a great many surprising Accidents and why not the like at the Receipt of His Body Truly the Reason is plain because in very deed She neither did nor was to receive the Lord's Body otherwise than in the sacred Cup. This Practice of giving the Commmunion to Children under the Species of Wine was not confin'd to the three first Ages but is still in force in the Greek and continu'd in the Latin Church to the 12th Century Touching the Greek Church Allatius †Trat de Cons utr Eccles Annotat. ad Com. orient a R. Catholic and Mr. Smith * Epist de Eccles graec hod statu p. 104. ed. 1. a Church of England Divine tells us Children are still communicated in that Church under the Species of Wine As to the General Practice of the whole Church Jobius a Learned Author of the sixth Century gives us this Account of it â—ib Pho. Cod. 222. lib. 3. de Verb. Incaâ—n cap. 18. where he speaks of the Three Sacraments confer'd upon little Children all at once We are says he first Baptiz'd then we are Anointed that is Confirm'd afterward the precious Blood is given to us * Erud Theo. l. 3. c. 20. Hugo de Sancto Victore a Learned Writer of the 11th Century and much commended by St. Bernard says expresly that the Practice of the Church was to give the Children after Baptism the Sacrament under the Form of Wine only and teaches afterward that the Body and Blood of Christ are wholely and intirely receiv'd in either kind Thus much concerning the Communion of Infants As to the Domestic or Private Communion For the three first Centuries whilst the Fervour of the Primitive Devotion lasted and the Blood of Jesus Christ as the Fathers speak was reeking Hot The Christians who being led like Sheep to the Slaughter considering the Sacred Eucharist as the best and most efficacious Armour and Support to enable them to bear up against the Fiery Tryals they must undergo were very careful when they met on great Festivals at their pious Assemblies to carry home every Man and Woman as much of Sacred Food as wou'd suffice to take some part of it every day that being thereby united to Jesus Christ they might be the better prepar'd for the Assaults of their Violent Persecutors And because these Holy Assemblies cou'd not be very frequent in the Rage of Persecutions nor the dispers'd Christians who liv'd far off come easily to them and that the Species of the Sacred Wine was apt to be soon alter'd especially in so small a quantity as they must have taken it and besides subject to other Accidents which in those troublesome Times they cou'd not well prevent they were content to carry along with them the Sacred Body of our Lord under the Form of Bread only being perswaded that when they eat of this Bread they were Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and of the Grace and Sanctification thereunto annex'd And here I shou'd tire the Readers Patience shou'd I bring all that can be said in Confirmation of this Truth but I shall instance only in some few of the best and most approv'd Authors for I perceive I have been longer upon this Subject than I design'd Tertullian a Learned Author of the second Century speaks thus of the Private Communion in the Book which he wrote to his Wife to diswade her from marrying after his Death Thy Husband says he will not know that which thou takest before all other meat and if he shou'd he will think it is Bread and not what it is call'd that is the Body of Christ Here Tertullian tells us that his Wife after the manner of other Christian Women us'd to take a certain Thing before she tasted any other Food and that her future Husband whom he supposes a Pagan if he shou'd know it wou'd think it to be Bread because it was so in Appearance tho' in Reality it was the Body of Christ but under the Form of Bread and no other The great St. Basil a Greek Father of the fourth Century Epist 289. delivers this Practice more at large in his Letter to Cesaria who it seems wou'd know whether it was lawful to receive the Communion otherwise than by the Hands of a Priest or Deacon To which He answers thus As to this that it is not grievous to take the Communion with one's own Hands when there is no Priest nor Deacon present being forc'd thereunto in Time of Persecution 't is needless to tell you because it has been confirm'd by long Vse and Custom For all those who lead solitary Lives in Desarts where no Priests are keep the Communion in their Houses and communicate themselves Besides in Alexandria and in Egypt all the People do commonly keep the Communion at home for when the Priest consecrates the Host and distributes it we may reasonably believe they partake of it and carry it with them I need not go about to prove that this Communion was nothing else but the Sacred Bread for 't is plain St. Basil speaks only of that which is touch'd with the hand Besides 't is certain he cou'd not mean the Sacred Cup when he speaks of the Communion in the Desarts it being evident that the Species of Wine cou'd not be preserv'd for any time in so small a Quantity as they must have taken it St. Ambrose gives us much such an other Account of this Communion He tells us how his Brother Satyrus was miraculously say'd from drowning de Obit Satyr by the Faith he had in the Sacred Host For being in a Storm where all were given for lost he begg'd of one of the Christians who were aboard to give him a piece of the Sacred Bread which he had and having by the Earnestness of his Prayers obtain'd that Favour he wrapt this Divine Sacrament saith St. Ambrose in a Cloath and ty'd it about his Neck for being a Cathecumen only he wou'd not eat it cast himself into the Sea and God to recompense the Greatness of his Faith brought him safe from that boisterous Element Here you see the Christians agreeably to what St. Basil saith us'd to carry
Blood But the Apostle declares that such a one shou'd be guilty of no less than the Body and Blood of Christ which surely is to be guilty of the greatest Crime that can be imagin'd When a Man murders or spills the Blood of an other he is but guilty of his Blood This is the common Language of Mankind and no Man in his Wâ—its did ever so much as imagin that a Man who shou'd abuse the Figure or Picture of another shou'd be therefore guilty of his Body or Blood Seeing then St. Paul affirms that those who abuse or take unworthily that Sacred Bread and Cup are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ it is a perfect Demonstration that he did not believe them to be a Type or Figure but his Real Flesh and Blood The Jews crucified Christ spilt his Blood and abus'd his Body yet the Scripture says no where that they were in that particular guilty of more than of the Blood of Christ and of more I cannot tell how they cou'd For neither human nor Angelical Wit can invent a heavier Charge With what propriety of Speech then nay with what Reason can it be affirm'd that Men shou'd be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ as were the Jews for doing no more than taking unworthily the Type or Figure of his Body and Blood In a word no Man can be guilty of the Blood of another unless he spills his Blood or takes away his Life but St. Paul here affirms that whosoever shall eat this Bread or drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord and shall besides eat and drink Damnation to himself Consequently he believ'd and was perswaded that this Sacred Bread and Cup were the True and Real Flesh and Blood of Christ And this is so plain from his last Words that I wonder any Man in his Senses can entertain the least doubt concerning it For he concludes that the Reason why they do eat and drink Damnation to themselves is because they do not discern that that spiritual Food which they abuse is the Lord's Body non dijudicans Corpus Domini This is yet more plain from the Sense which the Words of the Institution must necessarily bear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my Body which is given for you Luke 22.19 The Evangelist tells us a little before these words that Christ took Bread and gave Thanks and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and to let them understand what sort of Bread it was or rather what he intended to make it he says that it is his Body and to take away all occasion of doubt whether he had meant his true and Real Body or else the Figure of it he adds which is given for you so that they who believ'd the Omnipotent Power of Christ cou'd no more doubt but that that which he tender'd them was the Body which was to be given for them Now if that Body which was given for them be the True and Real Body of Jesus Christ we are sure that the Body which Christ gave his Disciples was his true and Real Body For he says it is that Body which is given for us this is my Body which is given for you But all the World as well Protestants as Catholics agree that it was the true and real Body of Christ which was given and suffer'd upon the Cross for us It is then a Demonstration that what Christ tender'd to his Apostles was his true and real Body consequently his Words must necessarily be taken in a literal Sense Had Christ only said to what he held in his Hand this is my Body perhaps such a proposition to one who never heard any thing of the matter before might seem Figurative but when he adds these other Words which is given for you he takes away all occasion of doubt and determins the Understanding to a literal Sense The first part of the Phrase this is my Body is indifferent of it self and may be capable of either Sense but add the rest to it which is given for you and the Sense is plainly determin'd So that Christ's Words can no more allow of a figurative Sense than if a Man had said this is my Arm which sticks to my Shoulder he can be understood to mean any thing else but his true and real Arm. In a Word these Gentlemen who are resolv'd to deny things so evident wou'd in my opinion be less obnoxious to Censure and more excusable in human Appearance if they had either question'd the Truth of these Texts or like the Socinians denied the Omnipotence of Jesus Christ to effect this Miracle than thus to subvert the very Foundation of human Reason 2. Christ's Words understood in a literal Sense must necessarily imply Transubstaâ—tiation that is a Change of one substance into an other For Christ having said of the Bread this is my Body which is given for you And it being visible to our Senses that there is no Alteration or Change in the Accidents or outward Forms It is impossible to understand those words in a literal Sense but we must at the same Time necessarily conclude that there must be a Change in the Substance For the Bread consisting of Substance and Accidents only we cannot believe the veracity of Jesus Christ when he affirms of the Bread that it is his Body nor his Omnipotent Power to effect by his Word what he says unless we likewise believe that the Bread is chang'd into the Body of Christ but it is evident to our Senses that there is no change as to the Accidents Consequently the change must be in the Substance Besides it is impossible to verifie those Words of Christ in a literal Sense without a substantial Change For the Greek Demonstrative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latin Hoc or the English This cannot with any propriety of Speech be refer'd to the Accidents of the thing whereof it is affirm'd but must necessarily be refer'd to the thing it self which surely is the Substance and not the Accidents So that the Sense of these Words This is my Body must necessarily be this substance Cloathed with these Accidents is my Body and then if we believe those Words we must consequently believe that that Substance is his Body and then this necessarily implies Transubstantiation Hence it is evident that those Words cannot with any colour of Reason be understood in a Sense of Consubstantiation as the Lutherans wou'd have it For the demonstrative Hoc This as aforesaid denoting the Substance affirm'd by Christ to be his Body common Sense shews it wou'd be absurd to interpret these Words this is my Body so as to mean that Christ's Body is there together with the Substance of the Bread as the Lutherans grosly maintain whereas if Christ had so meant he wou'd most certainly have said here is my Body and not this is my Body But this is so publickly exploded by all the Rest
the Blood as Anatomists and Experience teach us being by the last motion of the Heart convey'd from the Arteries into the Veins where it stands still when there is no more Circulation it is impossible to conceive how all the Blood in his Body shou'd come out of his Side especially in the Posture he then lay in So that that which the Doctor wou'd have us take for granted has no Degree of Truth in it Well but suppose we shou'd grant that Christ's Body was exhausted and drain'd of his Blood will this destroy the Doctrine of Concomitancy by no means For since we believe that under the Species of Bread is really or as his own Cathechism says verily and indeed contain'd the Body of Christ which being now a human living Body must necessarily have Blood in it though we shou'd suppose it had none when it was â—ead we have all the Reason in the World to believe that when we take the Lord's Body we do at the same time by Concomitancy that is together with it take the Blood which it contains So that tho' it were true that the Body of Christ was exhausted and drain'd of his Blood in his Passion yet it wou'd not at all prejudice our Doctrine of Concomitancy nor make any thing for the Doctor 's Purpose But you will say If the Communion in One Kind be sufficient If it contains the Body and Blood of Christ why did the Christians heretofore sometimes receive it in both kinds I answer because the Representation of the Death of our Lord is more fully express'd in both kinds than in One But then we must consider that this Representation is not of that Importance as to ballance all the weighty Considerations that mov'd the Church to command the use only of One kind We have the Death of our Lord sufficiently represented to us when we take the Communion in One kind because we believe and are put in mind that it is the Flesh and Blood of our Lord which we receive in Remembrance of his Death and Passion and we have this Representation fully express'd in the Sacrifice of the Mass where his Body and Blood are shewn Mystically separated under different Forms and that almost as often as we receive the Communion So that there is nothing wanting in our Communion to give us a lively Representation of the Death and Passion of our Blessed Lord and if there were 't is not of that moment as to make amends for the Horrid Prophanations and Abuses which must inevitably attend the Communion in both kinds in a degenerate Age in which all Piety and Godliness are almost extinguisht and whereof we have sad Instances in our Adversaries Practice it being frequently boasted by many of their Libertins that after hard drinking over Night they come in the Morning to receive the Communion and drink off whole Communion-Cups of consecrated Wine to quench their brutish Thirst Besides the Manner of administring the Sacrament of Baptism at present which our Adversaries do also follow and practice tho' very different from that of the primitive Church doth sufficiently justifie our Conduct in this Particular 'T is certain that the Regeneration of the Faithful is more lively express'd and represented by Immersion or plunging into the Water as the Primitive Church did always Baptize than by Infusion or Aspersion as we now do For the Faithful being plung'd into the Water of Baptism Rom. 6. â— is as St. Paul saith buried with Christ and in rising out of it he seems to rise out of the Tomb with his Saviour and therefore fully represents that Mystery by which he was regenerated whereas a simple Infusion or Aspersion such as we use doth scarce shadow it Moreover when the Faithful is immers'd or dip'd into the Water or Four where all the Parts of the Body are wash'd this Lotion does more fully express the cleansing of the Soul from all its sins than if one part only had been wash'd Yet no body doubts but that the Baptism conferr'd by Infusion or sprinkling of Water upon one Part only of the Body is sufficient to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament because the main thing is there represented namely the washing of the Soul So that it is enough to express the Mystery as to the Substance and the Effect and the Grace that is annex'd to it and not scrupulously to inquire after every minute-Circumstance of it especially when there are weighty Reasons and Motives to diswade us from it In like manner tho' we do not so fully represent the Death of our Lord when we take the Communion in One kind as we shou'd by taking it in Both yet we are perswaded that there is nothing Essential to the Sacrament wanting to it because we do both express and receive the Substance the Effect and the Grace of the Sacrament that is the Body and Blood of Christ the spiritual Food of our Souls and that strict Union with Christ which as he himself saith maketh us dwell in Him and Him in us And if the Church did forbid the Laity the Use of the Sacred Cup 't was not with an Intent to rob them of any thing that might tend to increase their Devotion as our Adversaries do most injustly suggest but in Respect to the Precious Blood of Christ for which surely we cannot have too much Veneration She saw that as the Piety and Devotion of the people diminish'd so their Negligence to receive the sacred Cup in such a manner as may secure it from spilling abounded She found by Experience that many Infirm and Old and even Folks in perfect Health what with coughing or other Convulsions as they receiv'd the Sacred Cup gave up their Stomacks into the Chalice or shed the Precious Blood to the great Horror of the Spectators and their own greater Confusion that others what with trembling and quaking did very often notwithstanding all their care spill some Drops of the Sacred Blood in fine that in Cities where some thousands use to communicate at a time Crouds of People pressing upon the Priest have sometimes spilt the Sacred Chalice in his Hands and which I cannot mention without Horror Trod upon that Precious Blood by which they were Redeem'd These and the like Considerations mov'd the Church or rather the People for the Church did only confirm the Custom which was introduc'd for many Years before to abstain from the Sacred Cup and to content themselves with the Body and Blood of Christ under the Form of Bread which is easily receiv'd with due Respect and without Danger and to which nothing is wanting only a more full Representation of the Mystery which yet is supply'd by other means and which in the Opinion of any Reasonable Man is not sufficient to attone for the aforesaid Prophanations CHAP. VI. Of Prayers in an Vnknown Tongue I May Reasonably presume it will not be expected I shou'd speak much to this Head for the Scandal which our Adversaries wou'd
challenge the Attention of the most obstinate especially when deliver'd by a Man in a High Station This with some other Considerations moved me to examine the Sermons of Doctor Tillotson late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to see if the intrinsick Value of his Coin be answerable to the Lustre and outward Appearance of it This ingenâ—ous Man has taken a great deal of Pains to convince the World of his Skill in Controversie and has delivered his Thoughts in such fine smooth Language that in my Opinion very few of his Brethren can equal him in the Elegancy of his Stile We have eight Volumns in 8vo of his Sermons in which he seems to have exhausted the Treasure of his Eloquence in combating the most essential Points controverted betwixt Catholics and Protestants viz. The Infallibility of the Church the Pope's Supremacy Transubstantiation Communion in one kind Prayers in an unknown Tongue as he is pleased to call it Invocation of Saints Worship of Images his own words Purgatory and Indulgences Tho' this be not the Order I find he observes in handling these Points but treats of 'em a little confusedly as suited best with his Texts yet for method Sake I chose to lay 'em down in this order being as I suppose the more natural to treat of the most material Points before I come to those that seem to be of less Importance In the handling then of this important Piece of Controversie I shall with God's Assistance observe this Method First I will lay down what the Roman Catholics believe as of Faith concerning these Points Secondly I will prove their Tenets with Reason Scripture and Authority of Fathers tho' of this there should seem little need considering that it has been so often already done were it not that my Business is with the simple and ignorant whom I would willingly instruct in the Grounds of their own Faith as well as to caution them against the Subtilities of their Adversaries Thirdly I will answer all the material Objections which Dr. Tillotson brings against the said Tenets and do faithfully promise that where I do not quote his own words for that I cannot always do by reason they are in many places very long I shall not extenuate nor diminish to the best of my Knowledge the Force of his Arguments nor wrest his Words to any other Sense than what they naturally bear in any other Man's Mouth or Writings But before I begin it will not be amiss to lay down the Foundation on which this Ingenuous Man builds his Controversie a Foundation indeed whose Superstructure had it been so true and solid as it is artificially contrived would in a great measure justifie the Church of England and all other Protestant's Separation from their ancient Brethren and silence the R. Catholics from fastning the Imputation of Schism and Heresie upon them But how far this is from what it seems to be let the Reader judge when the Mask is taken off Dr. Tillotson's Fundamental Principle then is this Whatever is plain and evident to our Senses and Reason is to be believed tho' all the Churches and Men in the World should perswade us to the contrary Thus far I own he is in the right but what he infers from thence namely that this is the Protestants Case in regard of the Papists as he is pleased to call the R. Catholicks requires something more than Herculean Labours to prove He owns indeed and that for Reasons well known to the World that in things doubtful and obscure every private Man ought to hear the Church and receive her Interpretation but in things that are plain and evident nay as evident as that twice two make four I wou'd stand alone says he against all the World His own Words are thus as I find them in the fifth Volume of his Sermons pag. 16. In all matters of Faith and Practise which are plain and evident either from Natural Reason or from Divine Revelation this Resolution seems to be very reasonable But in things doubtful a modest Man and every Man hath Reason to be so would be apt to be staggered by the Judgement of a very Wise Man and much more of many such and especially by the unanimous Judgement of the Generality of Men. But in things plainly contrary to the evidence of Sense or Reason or the Word of God a Man would complement no Man or Number of Men nor would he pin his Faith upon any Church in the World much less upon any single Man no not the Pope no tho' there were never so many probable Arguments brought for the Proof of his Infallibility In this Case a Man wou'd be singular and stand alone against the whole World against the Wrath and Rage of a King and all the Terrours of his fiery Furnace as in other matters a Man wou'd not believe all the Learned Men in the World against the clear Evidence of Sense and Reason If all the great Mathematicians of all Ages Archimedes and Euclid and Apollonius and Diophantus c. could be supposed to meet together in a General Council and should there declare in the most solemn manner and give it under their Hands and Seals that twice two did not make four but five this would not move me in the least to be of their mind nay I who am no Mathematician wou'd maintain the contrary and wou'd persist in it without being in the least startled by the positive Opinion of these Learned Men and wou'd most certainly conclude that they were either all of them out of their Wits or that they were byassed by some Interest or other and swayed against the clear Evidence of Truth and the full Conviction of their own Reason to make such a Determination as this They might indeed over-rule the point by their Authority but in my inward Judgement I should still be where I was before Just so in Matters of Religion if any Church tho' with never so glorious a pretence to Infallibility should declare for Transubstantiation that is that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament by virtue of the Consecration of the Priest are Substantially changed into the natural Body and Blood of Christ this is so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind that a Man would chuse to stand single in the opposition of it and laugh at or rather pity the rest of the World that could be so servilely blind as seeming to conspire in the Belief of so monstrous an Absurdity And in like manner if any Church should declare that Images are to be worshipped or that the Worship of God is to be performed in an unknown Tongue and that the Holy Scriptures which contain the Word and Will of God and teaches Men what they are to believe and do in order to their eternal Salvation are to be lock'd up and kept concealed from the People in a Language which they do not understand lest if they were permitted the free use of them in their Mother Tongue
they should know more of the Mind and Will of God than is convenient for the common people to know whose Devotion and Obedience to the Church does chiefly depend upon their Ignorance Or should declare that the Sacrifice of Christ was not offer'd once for all but is and ought to be repeated ten millions of times every day and that the people ought to receive the Communion in one kind only and the Cup by no means to be trusted with them for fear the prophane Beards of the Laity should drink of it and that the saving Efficacy of the Sacraments doth depend upon the Intention of the Priest without which the Receiver can have no Benefit by them These are all of them so plainly contrary to Scripture and most of them in reason so absurd that the Authority of no Church whatsoever can oblige a Man to the Belief of them Thus far the Dr. Here you see Christian Reader a Great Orator and Divine teaching from the Pulpit and Press that Sense Reason and Scripture are all on the Protestant's side in the aforesaid controverted Points as clear and evident as that twice two make four Here you see him arraign all the Patriacks Primats Arch-Bishops Bishops Doctors Vniversities and even all Kings Princes Peers Magistrates together with the common people of all Countries and Provinces of the West as also the Greek Church and all the Countries and Provinces in Communion with it all these Learned and Pious Christians I say that flourisht in and Governed this part of the World when Martin Luther appeared upon the Theatre this worthy Man arraigns for Fools and Madmen I say for Fools and Madmen for all these Patriarchs Primats Kings Princes c. professed in those days to be guided by their Senses by natural Reason and by the Word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures and yet all of them believed the very same concerning the said Points the R. Catholics do now Surely then they must have been all Fools and Madmen if Sense Reason and Scripture be as clear and evident on the Protestant's side as that twice two make four For who ever in his wits denied that twice two do make four Or in his right Senses ever affirmed that white was black or black white Or that any of our Senses when they are perfect do not give irrefragable Testimony of their proper Objects Or that plain and evident Texts of Scripture were not to be believed These monstrous Absurdities the Dr. fastens upon all the Eminent and learned Men of the Eastern and Western Churches which flourisht not only when Martin Luther rose up but also by his own Acknowledgement for at least several Ages before him which is in effect to Brand them all with the Ignominious Character of Fools and Madmen If all the great Mathematicians of all Ages saith the Dr. could be supposed to meet together in a General Council and there declare in the most solemn manner that twice two did not make four but five I should most certainly conclude that they were either all of them out of their Wits or byassed by some Interest or other But good God! What should byass any Man in his Wits much less any Society of learned Men to declare against a thing so clear and evident Nothing surely less than Phrensy or Madness But let us hear the Application Just so in matters of Religion continues the Dr. if any Church shou'd declare for Transubstantiation that is that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament by virtue of the Consecration of the Priest are Substantially changed into the Body and Blood of Christ this is so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind that a Man would chuse to stand single in the opposition and laugh at or rather pity the rest of the World c. The Dr. knew very well and so do all the learned Protestants in the World that the Latin and Greek Churches and all in Communion with them have not only declared for but have always believed at least for several Ages Transubstantiation as aforesaid If it be then so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind as the Dr. would suggest all those Men whereof a great number had at least the Reputation of being both Learned and Virtuous must necessarily have been all of them out of their wits or byassed by some prejudice which most certainly cou'd be nothing else but the extremity of Madness and Folly their eternal Damnation being necessarily consequent upon such a Belief He pursues the same comparison instancing in the rest of the Controverted Points aforesaid But what Man in his right Senses would believe that any one Nation much less all Europe should conspire to renounce all those means which God has given them to acquire the Knowledge of things viz. Sense Reason and the Word of God without which it is impossible to know any thing especially in a matter which so highly concerns them Or who wou'd not rather believe that Dr. Tillotson was mightily mistaken than that the best part of Mankind should make Shipwrack of that which alone distinguishes them from Beasts nay who would not rather believe that either he himself had been out of his Wits Or that he designed to impose upon Mankind so strange a paradox as that hundreds of millions of Learned and Ingenious Men should conspire to declare against that which is both their everlasting Interest and constitutes them Men since neither he nor any Man else cou'd ever instance in one single Man in his wits that ever was guilty of such a Folly This I must confess is one of the most surprizing nay the most intollerable Charges that ever was laid to Mankind and yet how monstrous and absurd soever it appears 't is no less than what was absolutely necessary to support the Cause the Dr. had undertaken He was it seems well read in that famous Dispute betwixt Dr. Hammond and Mr. Serjeant concerning Schism The former wrote a Book in Vindication of the Church of England from the Imputation of Schism which the R. Catholics charge her with The latter answers his Book in an other entituled Schism disarmed Dr. Hammond writes a Reply to this and Mr. Serjeant adds a Rejoinder to that which he calls Schism dispatcht Now to know what relates to our purpose in this Dispute you must understand that Dr. Hammond in the first Chapter of his Defence of the Church of England in his Description of Schism paints it in its own horrid and dreadful Shape as the Scripture and Holy Fathers of the Primitive Church had done before him viz. That it is Carnality Self-condemning contrary to Charity bereaving one of the benefit both of Prayers and Sacraments as bad as and the Foundation of all Heresies that there is scarce any Crime so great as Schism not Sacriledge Idolatry Parricide that it is obnoxious to peculiar Marks of God's Indignation Antichristianism worshipping or serving the Devil not expiable by Martyrdom
Inconvenience I confess it is but if we shou'd conclude the Existence or non-Existence the Truth or Falshood of things from their conveniency or inconveniency the World wou'd be brought to a sine pass 'T is very inconvenient that God shou'd condemn all Mankind to death to all the other miseries and infirmities to which human Nature is now obnoxious for the eating of one single Fruit yet it is never the less True 'T is very inconvenient that a Man shou'd be condemn'd to eternal Flames for one only Sin wherein he dies unrepented yet no Man ever question'd this Truth We must not then conclude from the inconvenience that attends a Thing that is therefore false but we ought to weigh the Reasons and Motives whereby we are induc'd to believe it is so Now the Roman Catholics believe that those among the Greeks and Eastern Churches which are not in communion with the Church of Rome together with the Protestants are no true Members of the Catholic Church because they have the most Authentic Records and the most invincible Proof that any matter of Fact is capable of that the said Greeks Eastern Churches and Protestants fell into Heresie and Schism in which they do as yet actually persist What allowance God-almighty may make for the invincible Ignorance and want of Capacity in a great many of these People and how far he will be merciful and pardon the other defects of those who endeavour to live up to what they know and want necessary means to come to the knowledg of the Truth He alone knows None I am sure is more willing to judge favourably of their Salvation than Roman Catholics But to flatter them with hopes of Salvation whilst they persist in their Errors and have necessary means to come to the knowledg of the Truth and to tell them they may be saved with such Errors when we are convinc'd in our Consciences they cannot is surely no Christian Charity but the greatest of Heathenish Cruelty 5. In consequence of the Truth of this Proposition and of the importance of it to the Salvation of Souls they ought to produce express mention of the Roman Catholic Church in the ancient Creeds of the Christian Churches But this says the Dr. they are not able to do on the contrary Aeneas Sylvius who was afterwards Pope Pius the second says that before the Council of Nice little Respect was had to the Roman Church Answ Just so the Arians used to object to the Catholics that if the word Consubstantial were of that importance as it was pretended they ought to produce express mention of it in the ancient Creed of the then present Church but as the Catholics then answer'd that it was enough the thing meant by that Word was in the Creed tho' not the Word it self so say we to the Protestants that in these Words of the Creed I believe the holy Catholic Church is implied what we mean by the Words Roman Catholic Church tho' the Word Roman be not there What Aeneas Sylvius might in passion or upon some private quarrel with the Pope have Written against the Roman Church consider'd with respect only to the Diocess of Rome I am not much concern'd For I am sure he never said nor writ that the Roman Church as it includes all the Christian Churches in communion with the See of Rome in which sense the Dr. cou'd not be ignorant we always take it was not the true Catholic Church Besides if it be true that Aeneas Sylvius said what the Dr. makes him here speak let the Holy and Learn'd Martyr St. Irenaeus who liv'd very neer two hundred years before the Council of Nice teach him the contrary Every Church says he that is the Faithful on every side must have recourse to this Church the Roman by Reason of her more powerful Principallity Loco sup cit CHAP. IV. Of Transubstantiation WHat we hold to be of Faith concerning this Point is this That the whole Substance of the Bread and Wine is after Consecration chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ without any Alteration in the Accidents or outward Forms This is to all our modern Sectaries a Stone of Stumbling and Rock of Offence Against this they have whetted their Pens and Tongues and pointed all the Shafts of their Art and Eloquence in order to pull down an Edifice whose Builder and Maker is God himself But however they agree to destroy this mysterious Fabrick yet what to substitute in its Room or how to expound those Texts of Scripture on which it is founded none can with greater Heat and Passion even to the most injurious and provoking Language be divided nor fall into more manifest Absurdities and Contradictions than these Pretenders to Reformation And indeed if the Disagreement of Witnesses be an Argument of their Falshood as the Evangelists assure us it is we have all the Reason in the World to conclude that these are false Witnesses For I am sure none ever disagreed more not only in the Circumstances but even in the very Nature and Substance of their Evidence Martin Luther and his Adherents expound these Words This is my Body litterally and therefore believe the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament but being however resolv'd to Incommode the Pope Epist ad Calvin as Luther says they add that the Substance of the Bread and Wine is likewise there And to extricate themselves from a difficulty which attends the Real Presence they affirm moreover that the Body of Christ is every where And thus they have brought forth two New Points of Faith never before heard of namely Consubstantiation and Vbiquitie And this the Church of England Writers call an absurd and monstrous Doctrine Calvin and his Sectators in Contradiction to this expound the same Words Figuratively and therefore believe a Real Absence or which is all one that the Eucharist is but a Type or Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ Zuinglius tells us himself was the first that found out this Exposition by the help of a certain Angel which appear'd to him but whether he was black or white he says he cannot tell So that for ought he knew it may be the Doctrine of a Devil I am sure Luther at least did think it so for he calls Calvin a Devil Epist ad Calvin and worse than a Devil for offering to obtrude this Doctrine upon the World and for wresting the plain Words of our Saviour to such a Sense The Church of England neither expounds those Words litterally nor yet figuratively for She neither believes Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation neither Real Presence nor yet Real Absence And to deal ingenuously I do not well know what she believes in this particular And what is worse to the best of my Understanding nor she herself For in the Catechism which is put into the Children and common people's Hands where surely the Articles of Faith must if any where be clearly and plainly expounded she teaches
of the Protestants that it needs no farther Confutation 3. All the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood those Words of Christ both in a literal Sense and in a Sense of Transubstantiation I shou'd fill up a Volum were I to bring all the Passages of Councils and Fathers which make for this Truth no Mistery of our Religion being ever with more Care inculcated and expounded by the Fathers in their Homilies Catechisms and familiar Discourses to the common People and that no doubt for the difficulty Men naturally have to believe it But it not being my design to write all that may be said for it but what may suffice to evince the truth of it I shall content my self with the Testimony of a few Councils and Fathers whose Authority and Weight however I hope shall make sufficient amends for the smalness of their number And 1. That the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood Christ's Words in a literal Sense or which is the same thing believ'd the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament let St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria bear witness This great Patriarch in his Epistle to Nestorius speaks thus of the Eucharist Neque enim illam ut â—arnem communem suscipimus absit hoc neque rursum tanquam viri cujuspiam Sanctificati dignitatis unitate verbo consociati sed tanquam verè vivificam ipsiusque verbi propriam God forbid we shou'd receive it as common flesh nor yet as the flesh of a Man sanctified and united to the Word by a conjunction of dignity but we receive it as it truely is the quickening and proper flesh of the Word Himself This Letter was read and approv'd in the third General Council * Concil Ephes puncto 7. which no doubt wou'd never have been had it contain'd any thing contrary to Orthodox Faith so that having receiv'd Authority and Approbation from those Fathers we shall no more consider it as the Doctrine of a private Man but as the Faith of the whole General Council Now can it be imagin'd that this Council which represented the whole Catholic Church shou'd approve and put upon Record a Letter which declares the Real Presence as clear and plain as is possible for words to express it unless it had been at that Time the Faith of the whole Catholic Church And can it be imagin'd that the Catholic Church in those fair Days of her Youth as the Calvinists speak shou'd believe that Christ's proper Flesh as the said Letter words it was in the Sacrament unless they had understood Christ's Words in a literal Sense and receiv'd the same Doctrine from their immediate Ancestors Or can it be imagin'd that these Ancestors shou'd be of this Belief unless they had likewise receiv'd it from their Ancestors and so up to the very Apostles This is surely to any Man of Sense but more especially ought to be to the Church of England who professes to receive the Acts and Decrees of this Council instead of a Demonstration that from the begining of Christianity to the Time of this Council all the Orthodox Christians did both believe the Real Presence and understand Christ's Words in a literal Sense 2. That the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood those Words of Christ this is my Body in a sense of Transubstantiation we have the unanimous consent of the ancient Fathers of the Church many whereof in their familiar Discourses to the common People Illustrate this Conversion by the change of the Water into Wine of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of the River Nilus into Blood and the like And 't is very observable that in all their Discourses upon this Subject and whenever they speak of this Change they have Recourse to the Omnipotent Power of God to which alone they ascribe it which surely wou'd be very needless had there been no real Change in the Case St. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem speaks thus Concerning this Change Therefore since Christ hath said of the Bread this is my Body who durst any more doubt it And since He himself so positively affirm'd saying this is my Blood who ever doubted so as to say that it was not his Blood In Time past at the Wedding of Cana in Galilee he chang'd Water into Wine which has a certain likeness to blood and shall not we think him worthy to be believ'd that he cou'd change Wine into his Blood Again for under the appearance of Bread he gives us his Body and under the appearance of Wine he gives us his Blood And a little after tho' your Senses seem in this to oppose you yet Faith must confirm you do not judge the thing by the Taste but let Faith assure you beyond all doubt that you partake of the Body and Blood of Christ Cate. Mystag 3. Here is a great Bishop an Eminent Witness of Antiquity one who flourish'd 1300 Years since and who no doubt knew very well the Faith of the Catholic Church of his Time touching this Point Here is a careful Pastor expounding Christ's Words and Catechizing his Flock in the very Language of the present Roman Catholics He tells them that since Christ said that the Bread and Wine were his Body and Blood they must believe that the Bread and Wine were chang'd into his Body and Blood He illustrates this change by a familiar Comparison of the Water which Christ chang'd into Wine and enforces the belief of the possibility of the other by the actual Existence of this change which they both read and believ'd He tells them that under the Appearance of Bread they receive the Body and under the Appearance of Wine they receive the Blood of Christ and that tho' their senses may tell them that it is still Bread yet their Faith must correct that Mistake that they must not judge what it is by the Taste but must believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ whatever their senses may suggest to them to the contrary Did ever any Roman Catholic speak plainer concerning Transubstantiation Can any Roman Bishop or Pastor at present enforce the belief of this Mystery with more cogent Arguments than to tell his Auditors that since Christ said this is my Body we must believe it is so since he chang'd Water into Wine we have no Reason to doubt but his Omnipotence is sufficient to change Wine into his â—lood that tho' it appears to our Eyes to our Taste to our Smell that the thing is otherwise yet we must not in this bus'ness rely upon the Relation of these senses but upon the sense of Hearing because Faith is by hearing and hearing by the Word of God which Word we are here only requir'd to believe All which are the very Reasonings of St. Cyril Now what the Protestants may think of this great Maâ— I shall not determin but this I am sure of that had he written this since the Reformation they wou'd have all reckon'd him to be as rank a Papist as ever put Pen
to Paper St. Gregory Nissen speaks thus to the same purpose Rectè Dei Verbo sanctificatum Panem in Dei Verbi corpus credo transmutari I do believe that the Bread sanctified by the Word of God is chang'd into the Body of God the Word Orat. Cate. Cap. 37. St. Ambrose takes a great deal of pains to inculcate this Truth to the Ignorant people instancing in several real Changes as that of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of the Creation of the World out of nothing c. I will instance in one only of his Passages to this purpose 'T is indeed somewhat tedious to be brought here at length however since it cannot be well understood unless it be intirely read I hope the Reader will pardon me so necessary a Fault Panis iste says he ante Verba Sacramentorum Panis est c. That Bread before the Sacramental Words is Bread but when the Consecration comes to it of the Bread is made the Flesh of Christ Let us prove this How can that which is Bread be the Body of Christ By Consecration By what and by whose Words is the Consecration perform'd By the Words of the Lord Jesus For all other things which are said do give Praise to God there is a Prayer premis'd for the People for Kings and for others but when the Priest comes to make the venerable Sacrament he does no more use his own but Christ's Words Therefore the Word of Christ maketh this Sacrament What Word of Christ Even that Word by which all things were made The Lord commanded and the Earth was made The Lord commanded and every Creature was ingender'd You see then how efficacious the Word of Christ is Seeing then there is so much Efficacy in the Word of the Lord Jesus as to cause things that were not to have a Being How much more efficacious is it to make the things that are extant to be chang'd into an other thing Heaven was not the Sea was not the Earth was not but hear him that says He said and they were made He commanded and they were created That I may answer you then It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration but after Consecration Note That some Critics have Doubted whether the Books whence this Passage is taken belong to St. Ambrose by Reason that the Stile of them is somewhat different from the Rest of the Works of this Father but the best and ablest Critics agree that they are either St. Ambrose's Works or some other Bishop's neer his Time who dilates upon what St. Ambrose wrote concerning the Eucharist I say unto you that it is then the Body of Christ He said and it was made He commanded and it was created Lib. 4. de Sacra Cap. 4. I shall not trouble the Reader with any Reflections upon this Passage being in my Opinion so plain and so much to the purpose that it cannot possibly need any thing to strengthen it Nor will I tire his Patience with any more from Fathers it being evident to any Man of Sense that these great Pillars of the Church Men so Eminent both for Learning and Piety wou'd never have believ'd Transubstantiation nor have taken so much pains to inculcate it to the People had it not been the universal belief of the Catholic Church I shall only add some Words of the Decree of the Council of Lateran on this Subject and so conclude The Words which relate to our purpose are these Concil Later 4. sub Inno. 3. Transubstantiates Pane Vino in Corpus Sanguinem Christi The Bread and Wine being transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ This all the Protestants confess is very plain in favour of Transubstantiation and therefore they do most outragiously declaim against it and even force their Lungs and Pipes both to decry the Decree and to expose the Authors of it For my part I am in no passion nor heat I shall therefore soberly and calmly examin what this Council was what Authority it may justly claim and how far it ought to influence our Faith If it be found to be only a Conventicle of Heretics or a confus'd assembly of some Bishops met together without any authority from the Chief Pastor and other Patriarchs of the Church in order to broach new Doctrines in opposition to the Faith which was once deliver'd unto the Saints then it will be but reasonable we reject their Authority But if on the contrary it appears to have been an Oecumenical or General Council representing the whole Catholic Church and that all the individual Members of the Catholic Church at that Time receiv'd and acquiesc'd to its Decrees especially to that part of it which relates to our present purpose it is but just and reasonable we pay the same respect and deference to it Now after having examin'd the Authentic Acts of this Council and consulted all the at least famous Historians and Ecclesiastical Writers of those Times and even the Writings of some of our Learned Adversaries I find that it has all the Marks and Characters which even the most Oecumenical Council ever yet had I find that this Council was call'd by common consent of both Emperors and of all the Kings and free States in Europe that it was held in Rome in the Year of our Lord 1215. Pope Innocent the 3d. Presiding in it The best Historians of those Times tell us that there were near 1200 Prelats in this Council that the Patriachs of Constantinople and Jerusalem were there in Person that the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch being under the Yoke of the Sarazen and Turkish Tyrany because they cou'd not come in Person sent their Deputies instructed with Power to represent their Persons and Churches As to Europe the great number of Prelates there assembled shew even to a Demonstration that there were more than sufficient Representatives of the Western Churches And what more can be desir'd to compleat a General Council Now can any Man imagin that so August an Assembly as this so man Grave and Learn'd Men of different Humors Interests and Manners shou'd all conspire together to impose upon themselves and all Mankind besides a New Doctrine in one of the most essential points of Christian Faith contrary to what they had receiv'd from their Ancestors and that not one Honest Man shou'd be found among them all to discover the Imposture Or that all Mankind shou'd acquiesce to such a Doctrine and none say this is contrary to what we have been hitherto taught Can it be imagin'd that the Bishops who met here on purpose to hear every Individual Prelate tell his own Story and to declare what Faith he had receiv'd from his Ancestors on this Subject who aim'd at nothing else but to find out the Truth but to see wherein they did all agree and to reckon That only as an Article of their Faith which shou'd be found to be the same in every Man's Mouth and yet that contrary to
tell us that Colours contradict the Sense of Hearing or Sound the Sense of Seeing Had we said that there is a Trans-Accidentation in that Mystery the Dr. wou'd then indeed have been in the right to press his Argument Accidents being the proper Objects of our Senses but surely we never said any such thing consequently we never contradicted our Senses upon that Subject We see with our Eyes that the Accidents remain the same as before we therefore conclude that the Change must be in the Substance which we cannot see because Christ told us it was his Body and because we are sure he was able by his Omnipotent Power to make it his Body But says the Doctor there are all the Accidents of the Bread and where ever the proper Accidents of any Substance is there the Substance must necessarily be Answ 1. Suppose this were true there is still no contradicting of Senses in the Case since we own the Accidents are there which alone are the Object of our Senses 2. Will the Dr. himself say that this is and always was necessarily True No for he tells us Vol. 2. Pag. 67. That God may impose upon our Senses and if he tells us the thing is otherwise than it appears we must believe him All that this Argument proves then is that ordinarily and for the most part the matter is so but why may not God notwithstanding this do otherwise upon extraordinary Occasions especially in Mysteries of Faith which are not subject to the ordinary Rules of Nature And why may not we believe that the Accidents of Bread may exhibit an other Substance to us especially since we have the Word of the Son of God for it as well as the Accidents of a Dove and the Appearance of Men cou'd represent the Holy Ghost and the Angels to St. John the Baptist and to Lot John the Baptist saw in appearance a Dove descend and remain upon Christ yet He believ'd it was not a Real Dove because he was told by him that sent him God that it was the Holy Ghost that was to descend and remain upon him And why may not we likewise believe the same God when he tells us that that which appears to us to be Bread is his Body John the Baptist says I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a Dove and it abode upon him and I knew him not But he that sent me to baptize with Water the same said unto me upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost John 1.31 32. Now John the Baptist might have waited till now and expected to see the Holy Ghost descend upon Christ and yet be never the wiser had he been of the Doctor 's Opinion For if he must in that respect believe his Senses he is never like to see the Holy Ghost who surely has neither Colour Shape nor Figure to affect our Senses And whatever Shape or Figure the Holy Ghost appear'd in St. John was still in Right of maintaining his Ground and of affirming if we believe the Doctor that what he saw was not the Holy Ghost but a Dove or something else For he might have said with the Doctor the Evidence of Sense is Infallible Whatever my Eyes represent to me I must believe it Take away the Evidence of Sense and you destroy all Knowledge What appears to my Eyes is a Dove therefore I cannot nor must not believe it is the Holy Ghost or any thing else but a Dove When you told me I shou'd see the Holy Ghost descending c. I gave Credit to my Hearing by which I perceiv'd your Words and now I must contradict my Sight which tells me this is a Dove Or if I believe it is the Holy Ghost why may not I as well question my Hearing and doubt whether you said any such thing to me as I must now disclaim the Evidence of my Sight which surely is a Sense every whit as Infallible as my Hearing May not all these Questions and Reasonings be urg'd by St. John as well as by the Doctor But alas St. John never dreamt of any such thing For he knew very well and so might the Doctor too if he cou'd devest himself of his Prejudices that tho' we must ordinarily Rely upon the Evidence of our Senses yet when God tells us the thing is otherwise than our Senses represent it we ought to give Credit to his Word because we are sure on the one side his Word cannot be false and we know on the other he may impose upon our Senses And sure this does not destroy any human Knowledge or Science since it does not hinder but that in all other things we may rely and that must assuredly upon the Evidence of our Senses only where the Word and Omnipotent Power of God it pleas'd to interpose Nor does it in the least shake the External Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity as the Doctor wou'd bear the World in Hand it does For when our Saviour bad the Apostles have recourse to their Senses to convince them of the Truth of his Resurrection he did not tell them that they must not believe their Senses in that particular Since we are then in all things which are not repugnant to God's Word not only allow'd to follow the Evidence of our Senses for that we always uncontroulably do but also may safely believe that the Substance which such Accidents or Objects of our Senses usually represent is infallibly there how can that Doctrine which is warranted by the same Divine Word in that wherein it seems to be repugnant to Sense destroy the external Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity it being evident that wherever Christ appeal'd to the Evidence of Sense for the Proof of any of his Miracles he never disclaim'd that Evidence nor said nor acted any thing that might seem to invalidate it But surely this cannot be said of the Eucharist nor of St. John's Dove nor yet of Lot's young Men For it is said of the first that it is the Body of Christ tho' it has the Appearance of Bread of the second that it was the Holy Ghost tho' under the Appearance of a Dove and of the third that they were Angels tho' under the Appearance of Men. Now how can the Belief of Transubstantiation destroy the external Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity any more than the Belief of the Holy Ghost under the Form of a Dove or of the Angels under the Form of Men Here is a Dove and two Men in Appearance and as far as Corporeal Senses can discover yet they are beliv'd to be the Holy Ghost and two Angels There is Bread in appearance yet it is beliv'd to be the Body of Christ Is not the Evidence of our Senses equally disclaim'd in both Do not we believe contrary to what we see in the one as well as in the other Notwithstanding no Man ever yet
affirm'd that the Belief of the Holy Ghost under the Form of a Dove or of the Angels under the Form of Men did destroy the external Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity How can the Belief of Transubstantiation destroy 'em then Thus you see how grosly the Common People are abus'd on the one hand when they are made to believe that Transubstantiation is so monstrously absurd as the Dr. wou'd fain here paint it And how hardy He himself must needs have been on the other when he had the Courage to deliver out of the very Pulpit the Chair of Truth that it was as evidently contrary to the common Sense of Mankind as it is evident that twice two make four vol. 5. pag. 18 19. But I have an other Challenge to him yet He tells us in the foregoing Page that in things doubtful a modest Man wou'd be very apt to be stagger'd by the judgment of a very Wise Man and much more of many such and especially by the unanimous Judgment of the Generality of Men the General Voice and Opinion of Mankind being next to the Voice of God himself And a little after He gives this Reason for it because in things lawful and indifferent we are bound by the Rules of Decency and Civility not to thwart the General Practice and by the Commands of God we are certainly oblig'd to obey the lawful Commands of lawful Authority Since then the falshood of Transubstantiation is not only doubtful but the Truth of it is establish'd upon the firmest Foundation either in Heaven or on Earth even upon that Word which shall never pass away tho' Heaven and Earth shall and since the belief of it when the Reformation began was grounded upon the General Voice and Opinion of the Generality of Mankind as the Doctor and all those of his Perswasion do acknowledg and upon the lawful Commands of lawful Authority if any such thing were on Earth I appeal to his own Judgment if every Man be not bound both in Decency and Civility and by the Commands of God not to thwart or contradict a Point of Faith so firmly establish'd And now if after all this any Man will undertake to justifie the Doctor 's Conduct and Vindicate what he writ against Transubstantiation I here make him this fair offer for his encouragement that tho' this good Doctor is pleas'd to say Vol. 3. pag. 299. that in the bus'ness of Transubstantiation it is not a Controversie of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of down right Impudence civily spoken against the plain meaning of Scripture and the Sense and Reason of Mankind If He I say or any body else will bring but one single Argument in Mood and Figure to prove that Transubstantiation does either contradict Sense or Reason I do sincerely promise him I will be of his Opinion the very next Moment And this I do the more confidently affirm because I am sure Transubstantiation cannot possibly contradict or be against Sense or Reason Sense it cannot for it is not the Object of any of our Senses and surely it is not against Reason that one Substance shou'd be chang'd into an other since all Generations and Corruptions are thus perform'd and even daily Experience teaches us that the Meat on which wee feed does not nourish us but in as much as it is chang'd into the substance of our Flesh And to let the World know it is not the Roman Catholics alone who see the absurdity of this Pretence I will Transcribe the Words of an Ingenious Sociâ—tan upon this Subject who surely is no more a Friend to the Roman Catholics than to the Protestants They are taken out of a Book Intitul'd Considerations on the Explication of the Trinity c. Pag. 21. He cites the Words of the Bishop of Sarum taken out of his Discourse concerning the Divinity and Death of Christ pag. 94. which are these Transubstantiation must not be a Mystery because there is against it the Evidence of Sense in an Object of Sense For Sense plainly represents to us the Bread and Wine to be still the same that they were before the Consecration And thus he speaks his own Thoughts of them This is says he every way faulty for it is not pretended by the Papists that the Bread and Wine have received any the least Change in what is an Object of Sense The Papists following the Philosophy of Aristotle distinguish in Bodys these two things the Accidents such as the quantity figure colour smell taste and such like which are Objects of our Senses And the Substance which bears and is cloathed as it were with these visible and sensible Accidents but is it self invisible and the Object of our Vnderstanding not of our Senses They say hereupon our Saviour having call'd the Sacrament his Body and Blood because our Senses assure us there is no change of the sensible Accidents therefore the change that is made must be in the invisible Substance Which change they therefore call Transubstantiation Nor do they say that Christ is corporally or bodily present in the Sacrament but that His Body is present in a spiritual manner As Cardinal Bellarmin largely discourses De Eucharist l. 1. c. 2. His Lordship therefore is greatly out in pretending that the Transubstantiation as held by the Papists is contradicted by Sense in an Object of Sense Thus far this Ingenious Man Whence 't is evident how miserably weak the Doctor 's pretence to Evidence of Sense against this Mystery is and how grosly he abuses Mankind when alluding to Transubstantiation he tells them they do not come to learn from their Guids or Pastors the difference between Sea and dry Land Vol. 3. pag. 100. or between North and South as if they had the same Evidence that there is no Transubstantiation in the Eucharist as they have of the difference of Sea from dry Land or of North from South 2. The four Objections taken out of the Dr's Discourse against Transubstantiation are these Vol. 3. pag. 315. 1. Tertullian speaks thus of the Eucharist The Bread which our Saviour took and distributed to his Disciples he made his own Body saying this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body but it cou'd not have been the Figure of his Body if there had not been a True and Real Body Advers Marcion l. 4. Here Tertullian seems to insinuate that the Eucharist is the Figure of Christ's Body Vol. 3. pag. 318. 2. St. Austin seems to be of the same Opinion Our Lord says he did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body lib. contra Adimant 3. Theodoret speaks to the same purpose in his second Dialogue between a Catholic Vol. 3. pag. 324. under the Name of Orthodoxus and an Heretic under the Name of Eranistes where he makes Eranistes speak these Words As the Symbols of the Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before the
Invocation of the Priest but after the Invocation are chang'd and become an other thing so the Body of our Lord after his Ascension is chang'd into the Divine Substance To which the Catholic Orthodoxus answers thus thou art caught in thine own Net because the Mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance Figure and Appearance and may be seen and handled as before pag. 325. 4. Pope Gelasius seems to be of the same mind Surely says he the Sacraments which we receive of the Body and Blood of our Lord are a Divine Thing so that by them we are made partakers of a Divine Nature and yet it ceaseth not to be the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine and certainly the Image and resemblance of Christ's Body and Blood are celebrated in the Action of the Mysteries Bib Patr. tom 4. These and some more of less moment are by the Dr. very much magnified and cry'd up and to do him justice he spares no Art nor Industry to improve them to the best Advantage peremptorily concluding at the Foot of each Passage that Transubstantiation was unknown to Antiquity But before I answer them it will be requisite for the better Understanding of these Fathers to observe 1. What Conduct the ancient Fathers generally held when they treated of the Mystery of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Sacrament 2. What was the ancient Father's Belief concerning this Mystery and 3. Whence these Passages objected are taken Which if well consider'd I doubt not to make it appear that these Objections notwithstanding their plausible appearance do not in the least prejudice the Truth of Transubstantiation nor clash with the Father's Opinions who Favour this Doctrine 1. The Fathers here objected and most of the Ancients were very cautious how they spoke any thing on this Subject which might increase the Suspicion the Gentils had conceiv'd of them as if they us'd to eat Human Flesh in the Celebration of their Mysteries which no doubt was occasion'd by the Information of some Apostat Christians who upon renouncing of their Faith declar'd that the Christians us'd to eat the Flesh and Blood of Christ They were therefore to avoid the Reproach and Odium which they must hereupon necessarily incur the Gentils thinking they eat this Flesh as Men do that which is fold in the Shambles very careful to conceal this Mystery and to write nothing that was to be expos'd to the Infidels which might seem to insinuate any such Doctrine being content to glance at it and when they must to deliver their Thoughts obscurely knowing very well that by this prudent Conduct the Pagans wou'd have no just Reason to reproach them and the Christians who were carefully instructed in this Point wou'd easily understand what they hinted at So that in their Treatises against Heretics in the Books they must have expos'd to public view for the comfort and instruction of the Christians and the conversion of the Gentils but more especially in their public Sermons and Homilies where they apprehended any Pagans were present they were very careful to speak nothing out touching this Point but by hints and glances to insinuate their meaning to the Christians so as the Pagans cou'd not understand what they meant Thus Tertulian in the Book which he wrote to diswade his Wife from Marrying after his Decease Non sciet Maritus quid ante omnem cibum gustes si sciverit Panem esse credet non quod dicitur Your Husband will not know that which you taste before all other Meat and if he does he will think it is Bread and not what it is call'd Here a Pagan knows not what he means but his Wife and all other Christians might easily understand that he means the Body of Christ Thus St. Austin in several places insinuates this Mystery in obscure words and then adds these fam'd Words Nôrunt fideles Nôrunt fideles quod dico The Faithful know the Faithful know what I say Thus Theodoret in that very Dialogue objected by the Doctor puts these Words in Orthodoxus his Mouth Oro te ut obscurius respondeas adsunt enim fortasse aliqui Mysteriis non initiati I beseech you answer more obscurely for there are some perhaps here present who are not initiated in the Mysteries This he said because they were about to talk of the Eucharist as appears by the Words of the Dialogue Eranistes answers him sic audiam sic respondebo So I will hear and so I will answer It were needless to bring any more Authorities from Fathers to prove this Truth it being evident from the Conduct observ'd in respect of the Catechumens that this was the universal Practise of the primitive Church These Catechumens were Candidates for Christianity they were taught and instructed in all the other Mysteries of the Christian Faith but not one Word did they hear of or relating to the Eucharist till they had by long Tryal and Experience given sufficient Proof of their Good Resolutions and solemnly promis'd to believe whatever the Catholic Church taught and profess'd Tho' they were taught the Mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation tho' they were allow'd to hear the Gospel read and expounded and to assist at the Rest of the Divine Service yet when the Consecration and Communion of the Eucharist was to be perform'd they were by no means admitted to be present nor as much as know any thing of it but were dismiss'd and excluded from that part of the Service till by long and careful Instructions they were deem'd competent * hence the name of Competentes missa Catechume norum so often mention'd by the Canons to assist at it as they then phras'd it So careful were the Primitive Fathers that none shou'd come to the Knowledge of this Mystery but such as were very well dispos'd to believe and embrace it And now can any Man of Sense imagin that these Holy and Learned Fathers shou'd keep such a stir about the Eucharist or be so careful to conceal it were it but a Type or Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ What is more easie to be believ'd than that Bread represents the Body of Christ and Wine his Blood and that both are taken in remembrance of his Death and Passion Surely there is nothing in the world so easie to be perswaded since all Mankind knows that such arbitrary Signs or Representations depend meerly of the Will of him that institutes them and that there is nothing to be done to perswade their Belief but to tell that they are so Certainly no Pagan or Gentil cou'd ever be offended at a thing so plain or offer the least Reproach to the Christian Religion upon the account of it Consequently there wou'd be no need to conceal or speak obscurely of it nor to hinder not only Catechumens but even Pagans or Infidels to hear it taught and deliver'd But to proceed 2. What
the ancient Fathers believ'd touching the Eucharist was this that the Substance of the Bread and Wine was chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ as appears by the passages produc'd from their Works where the Fathers in their Catechisms and Homilies make it their Bus'ness to explain this Mystery to the Faithful And because their Senses gave them to understand that the outward Forms or Accidents remain'd these they call'd the Sign or Figure of Christ's Body because they represent unto us the Body of Christ which is as it were cloath'd with these Accidents So that the ancient Fathers believ'd this Sacrament to be both the Figure and Reality of the Body of Christ according to the two different things they discover'd in it viz. the outward Signs or Simbols and the Body and Blood of Christ which are vail'd and cover'd by them Hence St. Cyril of Jerusalem says under the Type and Figure of Bread he gives you his Body and under the Figure of Wine he gives you his Blood And Gratian Distinct 2. C. Hoc est de Consecrat says Hoc est quod dicimus c. This is what we say and what by all means we endeavour to prove that the Sacrifice of the Church is made of two Things consists of two Things of the visible Appearance of the Elements and of the invisible Flesh and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ of the Sacrament that is of the External and Sacred Sign and of the thing of the Sacrament Re Sacramenti that is of the Flesh and Blood of Christ Again Caro ejus est c. 'T is his Flesh which we receive in the Sacrament vail'd with the Form of Bread and his Blood which we drink under the Appearance and taste of Wine But for all the Fathers do very often especially in their Disputes with Heretics and when they apprehend their Writings shou'd fall into the Hands of the Pagans call the Eucharist the Sign or Figure of Christ's Body and Blood because in effect it is so in regard of the Accidents or outward Forms yet we do not find that they ever call'd it a Sign or Figure only with exclusion to the Reality of Christ's Flesh and Blood 3. 'T is very material to our present Dispute to know whence those Passages objected by the Doctor are taken And this he himself is careful to tell us namely that they are taken out of those Father's Disputes with Heretics In which sort of Writing it is natural for any Man to take all kind of just advantage of his Adversary in order to confute him even to the silencing of some part of the Truth when it is not to his purpose nor absolutely neccessary to be declar'd So that it is very hard to gather those Father's Opinions from such Passages much more to establish an Article of Faith upon their Ambiguous Expressions Whereas the Passages which we alledge for Transubstantiation are taken from Catechisms Homilies Sermons and familiar Discourses where the Fathers on purpose and as Pastors and Doctors of the Church expound this Mystery to the people and tell them what they are to believe concerning it This suppos'd 1. I answer 1. That Tertullian here disputed with an Heretic and that at such a Time as was neither convenient nor agreeable to his Prudence to publish the whole Truth concerning this Mystery Consequently that it is not to be admir'd he spoke somewhat obscurely 2. That by these Words this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body he meant the outward Forms or Accidents of the Sacrament For he knew very well that the Sacrament consisted of two things viz. of the outward Accidents or Forms of Bread and Wine and of the Body and Blood of Christ contain'd under these Accidents The first Tertullian calls the Figure of Christ's Body and so do all the R. Catholics at present because these outward forms exhibit and represent unto us the Body and Blood of Christ which they cover Now this gave Tertullian a signal Advantage over his Antagonist who deny'd that Christ had a Real Body because it prov'd that the Sacrament cou'd not be call'd the Figure of Christ's Body unless he had a True and Real Body and therefore he insisted upon it without declaring what was contain'd under that Figure Which tho' it may be blameable in a Sermon or Discourse design'd for the Instruction of the People yet may very well be allow'd in a Dispute considering the advantage it gave to his Cause on the one side but without prejudice to Truth and the Scorn and Contempt it wou'd expose the Christian Religion to on the other had he at that time of day fully expounded that Mystery Now that Tertullian did not believe that the Sacrament was a Figure only with exclusion to the Reality of the Body and blood of Christ is evident from that Passage before cited non sciet Maritus c. 2. St. Austin's Words are to be understood in the same sense For he here disputed with Adimantus the Manichean who affirm'd that the Soul or Life of Animals consisted in their Blood Now St. Austin to refute this Error tells him that the Blood of Animals in Scripture is taken for their Life because it represents and contains Life And so says he God calls Blood Soul or Life for our Lord did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body Which words surely if the comparison be just must signifie that that Sign of Christ's Body contain'd his true Body as the blood which is the Sign of the Soul or Life in Animals contains their Life or Soul But that the Doctor may see how far St. Austin was from believing that the Sacrament was only a Sign or Figure of Christ's Body I will transcribe a passage taken out of his Comments upon the Psalms where he speaks plainly and familiarly for the People's Instruction 'T is upon these Words of the Psalmist adorate Scabellum pedum ejus quoniam Sanetum est adore ye his Footstool because it is holy Behold Brethren says he what he commands us to adore The Scripture saith elswhere Heaven is my Seat but the Earth is my Footstool He commands us then to adore the Earth because he said in another place that the Earth was God's Footstool and how shall we adore the Earth since the Scripture expresly says thou shalt adore thy Lord thy God And this Psalmist says adore ye his Footstool But explaining to me what his Footstool is he saith The Earth is my Footstool I am at a stand I fear to adore the Earth lest he shou'd damn me who made Heaven and Earth Again I fear if I do not adore the Footstool of my Lord because the Psalm says to me adore ye his Footstool I ask what his Footstool is and the Scripture tells me The Earth is my Footstool Being in doubt I turn me to Christ for 't is He whom I here seek and I find how without impiety the Earth may
be ador'd For he took Earth of Earth because flesh is of Earth and he took Flesh of Mary's Flesh and because he here walk'd in that Flesh and gave us that flesh to eat for our Salvation But no Man eats it except he first adores it It is found how such a Footstool of the Lord may be ador'd and we do not only not sin in adoring it but we shou'd sin if we do not adore it Enar. in Psal 98. Here St. Austin says that Christ gave us that Flesh to eat in which He walk'd here on Earth and that we are so far from sin in adoring that Flesh that we sin if we do not adore it Christ walk'd here in the flesh and he gave us that flesh to eat and we shall sin if we do not adore that flesh says this Father What flesh did Christ here walk in Was it in the Sign or Figure of His Flesh No sure 't was in his real Flesh 'T is evident then that Christ gave us his Real Flesh in this Father's sense Here St. Austin speaks plainly and familiarly to the common People here is no Dispute in the Case no Advantage to be taken of a Sophistical Heretic no fear of expounding the Mystery to the full Consequently he spoke his mind plainly In a word he must have lost his Reason who does not see that it is from such Passages as this where the Fathers speak to their Flock and expound the Scriptures and the Mysteries of our Religion that we are to Learn what they hold concerning any Point of Faith and not from some Abstruse and dark Expressions cull'd out of their Disputes with Hereties where the Fathers purposely design to conceal the depth of this Mystery when ever they must mention it But the truth of the matter is the Doctor 's Cause wou'd afford him no better Arguments and rather than fail he was resolv'd to catch at any thing 3. Theodoret and Gelasius their Words are likewise to be understood of the Accidents or outward Forms of the Sacrament That these Fathers gave the Name of substance and nature to the Accidents will appear if we consider the Equivocation of the Word Symbol here mention'd by Theodoret This Word is somtimes taken for the Bread and Wine it self before Consecration and somtimes but most properly for the External Form and Appearance of Bread and Wine which remain after Consecration Eranistes or the Eutychian Heretic took it in the first sense and therefore affirm'd that as the Symbols after Consecration are chang'd into an other thing so the Body of our Lord after his Ascension is chang'd into the Divine Substance This he said of the Sacrament because he was so taught and because he knew there was no difference between him and the Orthodoxus on that Subject But what does the Orthodoxus to take advantage by that similitude Why he takes the Word Symbol in its more proper meaning namely for the Accidents or outward Forms and tells the Heretic he is caught in his own Net because says he the Mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance Figure and Appearance and may be seen and handled as before Now that by the Mystical Symbols he meant the Accidents methinks 't is plain for the Reason he gives why these Symbols are not chang'd is because they may be seen and handled as before But this proves plainly that he must have meant the Accidents since only Accidents can be seen and felt Nor does it move me that he seems to give partly for his Reason that the Substance of the Symbols remain for that is said gratis and cou'd never be prov'd if he had meant the real Substance of the Bread Besides there is nothing more common in human Language than to give the Denomination of Substance to meer Accidents as we usually say the Substance of his Discourse was this the Substance of what he said c. tho' all Discourses and Sayings are pure Accidents And however this Solution at first sight may seem strange yet whoever will take the pains to examin well the Sayings of both these Disputants and believes they were in their Wits he cannot possibly deny what I say to be True The one positively affirms of the Symbols that they are chang'd into an other thing the other as stifly maintains that they do not change at all I ask now whether these Symbols are Objects of Sense or not If you say they are I ask again whether two Men in their Wits and Senses can be so mistaken in a plain Object of Sense as to affirm contradictory things of it at once For instance Can two Men be so mistaken about a white Wall which they plainly see as that one shou'd affirm it is white and the other that it is not 'T is plain they cannot 'T is then manifest that if the Symbols be Objects of Sense Eranistes and Orthodoxus did not both consider them as such otherwise they must have lost their Reason to affirm such contradictory things of them at once 'T is then evident that Eranistes who affirm'd the Symbols were chang'd did not consider them as they are Objects of Sense otherwise he must have spoken contrary to the Evidence of his own Senses Consequently his meaning was that the Change happen'd in the Substance of the Bread and not in the Accidents 'T is no less evident on the other hand that Orthodoxus consider'd the Symbols as Objects of Sense else he cou'd with no Colour of Reason affirm that they did not pass out of their Nature Substance c. For let us suppose with the Doctor that he meant the real Substance of the Symbols or Bread and Wine How does he prove that there is no real Change in them Because the Mystical Symbols says he do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance c. this is only said but wants to be be prov'd Well! How does he prove it Because continues he they may be seen and handled as before Why this the Heretic Eranistes acknowledges and yet he affirms that the Symbols are chang'd And which is more he therefore believes that it is the real Substance of the Symbols and not the Accidents that are chang'd because the Accidents may be seen and handled as before And now wou'd it not be a very pleasant way to perswade him that the Substance of the Bread and Wine was not chang'd for that very Reason for which he believ'd it was Or let us suppose that they both consider'd the Symbols as the true and real Substance of the Bread and Wine and not as Accidents or Objects of our Senses Well! What follows The Heretic Eraâ—istes affirms that the Symbols in this Sense were chang'd â—ho ' he saw with his Eyes the Accidents were noâ— and then how cou'd the Orthodoxus convince him by his own Words or tell him he was caught in his own Net unless he cou'd
prove to him that the Symbols taken in that Sense were not chang'd But this he is so far from doing that the Reason he offers to evince that he was so caught proves no more than that the Accidents or Objects of Sense still remain namely that which may be seen and handled which the Hetetic Eranistes never denied 'T is then evident that he understood the Word Symbol in a different Sense from that of Eranistes Consequently his meaning must have been that the Accidents which he calls Symbols did not pass out of their Nature c. And all his Advantage consisted in the Equivocation of the Word Symbol which his Adversary took in a vulgar Sense and by that gave him an Opportunity to perplex him and tell him he was caught in his own Net And God knows he must be hard put to it who would fain squeez Proof for his Faith from such intricate Disputes I have nothing to add in answer to Gelasius his Passage to what is here said For 't is plain from the Scope and Design of this Father who likewise disputed with an Entychian Heretic that he meant by substance or nature of Bread the Qualities of it which we confess remain still in the Sacrament nothing being more usual in common Discourse than to give the name of Nature to the Quality as we commonly say a Man of ill nature that is of ill Qualities One Word more with the Doctor and I take leave of this Subject He tells us Discourse against Transubstantiation pag. 328 329. That Transubstantiation was first introduc'd into the Catholic Religion about the latter End of the Eight Century in the Second Council of Nice And pag. 333. that it was almost 300 Years before this Mishapen Monster as he Religiously terms it cou'd be Lick'd into that Form in which it is now settl'd and establish'd in the Church of Rome What I shall say to the matter of Fact here mention'd leaving the Doctor to his own Master to account for his civil Language is that I cou'd wish he were alive that he might now at least consult his own Protestant Authors to correct his Error since he was then in two much haste to do it Doctor Humfrey a Famous Divine of his own Country and perswasion wou'd better inform him that Austin the great Monk as he calls him Jesuitiâ—mi part â— sent by Gregory the Great Pope taught the English a Burthen of Ceremonies Purgatory Mass Prayer for the Dead Transubstantiation Reliques c. Now all the World knows that Austin the Monk taught the English about the latter end of the sixth Century and the Begining of the seventh almost two hundred Years before the Second Council of Nice Cent. 6. de Oper. Sti. Greg. The Centuriators of Magdeburg the Doctor 's own good Friends wou'd tell Him that the same Gregory the Great wrought a Miracle in the presence of an uncredulous Woman to confirm her in the Belief of the substantial Change of the Bread into the Body of Christ as the Centurists Phrase it And surely it was no less these Gentlemens Interest than his cou'd they but dâ—vest themselves of all honesty and sincerity to make it of a Fresher Date than even the Council of Nice But the Doctor was so intent upon baffling Monsieur Arnauld's Demonstration of the Impossibility of obtruding this Doctrine upon the Faithful without Great and Violent Commotions both in Church and State which he saw he cou'd not well effect unless he had fix'd a certain Epocha whence this Doctrine shou'd take its rise that rather than fail he wou'd hit at a venture upon the Second Council of Nice and there fix his Foot Being perswaded as he says that this was the fittest Time for such a Change And is not this a miserable Shift to which this Ingenious Man is reduc'd when he is forc'd to make good his undertaking to have recourse to such known and manifest I am asham'd to say it falshoods Which surely do better become Impostors than Grave Divines whose very Names and Character shou'd prompt them to candor and sincerity it being evident that disingenuity and false dealing whatever they may do for a time serve to no other end at last than to discredit the Cause and confound its Patrons CHAP. V. Of the Communion in one kind TO give the Communion in one or in both kinds is no matter of Faith but respects the Discipline of the Church which according to the different Circumstances and Exigencies of Affairs for the increase of Piety and Devotion and in Condescension to the Infirmity of her Children is often necessitated to alter some things in her Discipline it being Evident that what in one Age was good and profitable an other Age will in no wise bear And since it is agreed upon that the care of feeding the Flock was committed to the Church that she alone is Commission'd to dispence the Divine Mysteries and hath a peculiar promise of the Assistance of the Holy Spirit to guide her into all Truth none can reasonably doubt but She is the most Competent Judge what in her Discipline to change what to retain Now the main stress lyes upon this whether or no it be in the Power of the Church to alter her Discipline in a matter of this Importance so as to restrain the Faithful to the receiving of the Sacrament in one kind only It being acknowledg'd by our selves that in the Primitive Times this Sacrament was indifferently administred sometimes in Both sometimes in one kind Tho 't is hard to conceive why Men shou'd rather conclude that it is not in the Power of the Church to restrain the Faithful to one kind because the Communion was somtimes given in Both than the contrary that it is in the Power of the Church so to do because it was likewise sometimes given in one kind To justifie then the conduct of the Church in this particular I shall only examin whether the Receiving of the Eucharist in both kinds be Essential to a True and Real Participation of the Sacrament For if both kinds be Essential then 't is certain the Church cannot take away any Essential part of the Sacrament without destroying the whole and consequently in giving but part wou'd give nothing at all Therefore cou'd not restrain the Faithful to one kind it being evident that the Church is only impower'd to dispense and not to destroy the Mysterys of God But if I can make out that the Participation of the Euchurist in Both Kinds is not Essential to the worthy receiving of the Sacrament then it will evidently follow that the Church may lawfully command the forbearance of one kind For if you shou'd ask any of our Learned Protestants why they do not give the Communion at night or after Supper or sitting down or lying on Couches as 't is confess'd Christ gave it They will tell you because 't is not Essential to the Sacrament to give it so Or why they do not
plunge the Children into the Water when they baptize them as the Apostles and primitive Church have done They answer as before that it is not Essential to the spiritual Lotion of the Soul that the Body shou'd be wash'd by Plunging rather than any other way but that whether it be perform'd by Immersion or Aspersion or in any other manner 't is the same thing to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament So that it is plain and even confess'd by our Adversaries that the Church has Power to alter and change all the Circumstances which are not of the Essence and Nature of the Sacraments All the Difficulty then consists in this whether it be Essential to the Communion to receive it in both kinds Or whether One kind be not sufficient And if it be made out that it is not Essential to the Communion to receive both but that it is enough to receive it in One kind then the Protestants must confess that the Church may lawfully command the Forbearance of the other Now that the receiving of the Eucharist in Both Kinds is not Essential to the True and Real Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament but that One Kind alone is sufficient I shall endeavour to shew 1. From several Texts of Scripture which affords us sufficient Grounds to conclude that for the due Participation of the Sacrament it is not necessary to receive it in Both kinds 2. From the General Practice of the Church in all Ages even in those days in which the Protestants do own the pure Word of God as they speak was preach'd and the Sacraments duely administred 3. From the Consent of our Adversaries if consistent with themselves I begin with the first And that our Adversaries may not think I design to impose upon them I will quote those places of Scripture that seem to make against as well as for me Christ says John c. 6. ver 50. This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven that a Man may eat thereof and not die Ver. 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread that I will give is my Flesh Ver. 53. Verily I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood ye have no Life in you Ver. 54. Who so eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life Ver. 56. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in Me and I in Him Ver. 58. This is that Bread which came down from Heaven he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Here are six Passages whereof three seem to be expresly for the Communion in one kind and the other three seem to be against it What shall we say to this Must we believe all Or shall we believe but three of them For they seem to contradict one another One says Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you An other If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever If it be True that the Man who eateth of this Bread shall live for ever how can it be at the same time true that he cannot live except he eat the Bread and drink the Cup Must we then hold to three of these Passages and reject the rest As to the Protestants I do not see how it shou'd stand with their Principles to do otherwise For they are so far from believing that the Man who eats of this Bread shall live for ever that they constantly assert that except he drinks also of the Cup he is guilty of a Horrid Sacriledge Vol. 2. pag. 70. 't is what Dr. Tillotson expresly affirms This is no Addition to Christianity says he speaking of the Communion in One Kind but a sacrilegious taking away of an Essential Part of the Sacrament they must then necessarily deny three of these Passages if they be True to their own Principles But for R. Catholics they are not in the least perplext at this seeming Contradiction they believe them all to be both true in themselves and agreeable to their Principles For they belive that whosoever eateth of this Bread the same eateth and drinketh the Flesh and Blood of the Son of Man in the Sense he meant they shou'd eat and drink his Flesh and Blood which is not to be understood as Protestants as well as Catholics must confess tho' upon different Grounds in the strict and proper meaning of the Words as if eating and drinking his Flesh and Blood were to be perform'd by two different Acts whereof one is conversant about a sollid and the other about a liquid Thing as the Words usually and properly import but that to eat and drink his Flesh and Blood signifies no more than to participate of or to take by the Mouth his Flesh and Blood whether with one or different Acts it matters not R. Catholics then find no Difficulty in reconciling these places they believe the Flesh of Jesus Christ is the Flesh of a Living Man which cannot be so without Blood and therefore when they take it they are sure they eat and drink his Body and Blood that is they are Partakers of his Body and Blood And hence it is they do most certainly conclude that it is not Essential to the Communion to receive it in both Kinds because they receive in one all that Christ requires of the Faithful to receive that is his Body and Blood I say Protestants as well as Catholics must confess that in this Passage Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood the Words eat and drink are not to be taken in the strict and usual Sense they commonly bear For seeing they believe that in the Eucharist there is neither Flesh nor Blood nothing but Bread and Wine and that in eating and drinking these Elements to the Letter they do eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ by Faith as it is said in the 39 Articles it cannot be said that they eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the literal and usual Sense of the Words it being impossible to eat and drink in the Elements in a literal Sense that which in a literal Sense they do not really contain as Protestants hold They must then necessarily conclude that to eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ is not to be understood in a literal but in a figurative Sense and then the meaning of these Words must be To 〈◊〉 and drink the Body and Blood of Christ that is to be Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and if so then 't is certain that in eating only the Body of Christ which being a living Human Body must needs contain his Blood we eat and drink his Flesh and Blood that is we are made Partakers of his Flesh
not rather be surpris'd at the Rashness of the Priest than admire the Mercy of God in this Affair if the Practice and Discipline of the Church had not authoriz'd such a Communion Nay that Eusebius who was so Nice and Severe in his Remarks and Censures upon the least Slips and Mistakes of other Clergymen shou'd be silent in a bus'ness of this Weight is sure what no Man can Reasonably suppose This the Protestants cou'd not but see and therefore the most Ingenuous among them as Bishop Jewel * Answ to Hard. Mr. Smith †Epist de Eccles grac. hod stat pag. 107. and others have freely confess'd that the Communion here mention'd was given only in one kind But others who resolve to say any thing rather than acknowledge the Truth wou'd maintain that that Liquor wherein the Boy was order'd to moisten the Piece of the sacred Bread was the consecrated Wine whereas it is plain from the Words of the Letter the Priest gave him no Liquor at all but order'd him to steep the sacred Bread in any Liquor he cou'd find at Home Besides suppose he had dipt the Bread in the sacred Wine and gave it so to the sick Man no Protestant who understands the Principles of his Religion will say that this is to eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of Christ For Protestants hold that it is therefore necessary to eat and drink the Elements apart because in so doing they shew the Death of our Lord whose Body was Broken and separated from his Blood But this Evasion is so Vain and Groundless that it merits no farther Confutation An other Instance of this Communion is that of St. Ambrose We have this Great Bishop's Life written by Paulinus his own Deacon who was present at his Death and dedicated his Life to St. Austin at whose Request he wrote it so that his Authority is beyond all Exception This Deacon tells us that St. Honoratus Bishop of Verceil who came to visit St. Ambrose as he lay on his Death Bed Heard in the dead of the Night a Voice say to him thrice Arise delay not for he is going to depart He came down adds Paulinus gave him the Body of our Lord and the Saint no sooner receiv'd it * Eoque reverentissimé accepto when he gave up the Ghost Here the Body of our Lord is given to St. Ambrose but no mention of his Blood Here 't is said he no sooner receiv'd it when he gave up the Ghost The word It is remarkable for being of the Singular Number and denoting only one thing it cannot be understood but of the Body to which it refers whereas if Paulinus had meant that he had receiv'd the Body and Blood under both Species he shou'd have spoken in the Plural Number and said he no sooner receiv'd them when he gave up the Ghost Well what say our Adversaries to a Decision so plain For something must be said Some say St. Ambrose receiv'd the Communion as well as he cou'd being prevented by a sudden Death before he cou'd receive the Sacred Cup. Vain fancy As if the Divine Power which sent a Voice from Heaven to order the Communion to be given to him cou'd not keep him alive 'till he had receiv'd the Sacrament Intirely Others not satisfied with this Answer say St. Ambrose receiv'd both kinds tho' one only is express'd by the Grammatical Figure Synecdoche where a part is taken for the whole But this is as groundless as the former For besides that the precise and express Terms in which that Phrase is conceiv'd will admit of no figurative Sense such Grammatical Figures are not us'd by any Ecclesiastical Writers when they speak of the Communion nor did any Protestant ever yet instance in one single Passage wherein it is so taken which is an Evident Argument that they had none to Instance in I might farther instance in the Council of Carthage in the Communion of St. Basil but let this suffice for the Communion of the sick for I wou'd not be tedious The same Practice we find observ'd in the Communion of Infants and little Children only with this difference that whereas the Communion was given to the Sick under the Species of Bread here it is given under the Species Wine And the Reason of this Difference I conceive was this In the Begining whilst the Church groan'd under the Tyranny and Persecution of the Pagan Emperors and their Magistrats the Bishops and Priests being forc'd to wander from place to place when they light upon any Christians with little Children or new-born Infants being uncertain whether they shou'd ever return that way again they us'd to administer the Sacraments to them the Bishops the Sacraments of Baptism Confirmation and the Eucharist and the Priests the First and the Last And because the new-born Babes were not capable of receiving any thing that was sollid they gave them always the Eucharist under the Form of Wine And this Custome thus settled in the first Persecutions continu'd in the Church until the latter end of the Tenth Century yet all this while it never enter'd into any Man's Head to say that this was an Imperfect much less a Sacrilegious Communion The first Instance we find of this Communion is in St. Cyprian's Time about the Year of our Lord 240. This holy Martyr tells us what happen'd in his own Presence to a little Girl Trat de Lapsis who had eaten a little of the Bread that was offer'd to the Idols Her Mother knowing nothing of what She had taken carry'd her as the custom was to the place where the Christians were assembl'd During the the time of Prayer adds this Father this Child was troubled and disorder'd as if for want of Words which her tender Age was not capable of she wou'd by this means declare the Misfortune which befell her After the usual solemnity the Deacon who presented the sacred Cup to the Faithful continues St. Cyprian coming to the rank where this Child was she turn'd her face aside not being able to bear the presence of such a Majesty She shut her Mouth she refus'd the Cup. But being compell'd to swallow some drops of the Pretious Blood she was not able pursues this Father to hold it in her sullied Entrals but violently gave it up so great is the Power and Majesty of our Lord. Here is a fact so plain that nothing can be adedd to it all the Circumstances of it are attended with such Marks of a Communion in one kind that nothing but meer Prejudice or rather Blindness can make any Man doubt it I know some Protestants have been so vain as to pretend that this Child did receive the Body of Christ before the Deacon came with the sacred Cup but this is so contrary to St. Cyprian's Design in relating this surprising Story that I wonder any Man in his Senses shou'd imagin it What a Child that eat of the Sacrifice of Devils is troubled and
the Sacred Bread about them that they may eat of it in Case of any Hazard or Danger But of this enough Touching the Public and solemn Communion of the Church I own we have no instances from Fathers or Ecclesiastical Writers for the first four Centuries to prove that the Communion was publickly given in one kind to any except Infants and little Children nor can our Adversaries instance in any who says it was not so given And so far we are upon the Level But methinks the Scales being thus even the Practice and Custom of the Church expresly Recorded and Deliver'd by the Writers and Liturgies of the Fifth Sixth and all other succeeding Ages in Favour of the public Communion in one as well as in both kinds ought to weigh down the Ballance and determin any reasonable Man to conclude that this same Practice was deriv'd from the foregoing Ages We find indeed in the latter End of the fifth Age a Decree of Pope Gelasius which forbids certain People to receive the Communion in one kind but if we attend to the Motives and Circumstances of this Decree and to the Persons there meant we shall find it is so far from destroying our Hypothesis that it plainly confirms it What gave Occasion to it was this In the Time of St. Leo Pope Gelasius his Predecessor there were a great many Manichees in Rome who the better to spread their wicked Errors feign'd themselves Catholics and frequented the Churches and Sacraments like others but it being part of their Belief that Wine was created by the Devil and that Jesus Christ did not spill his Blood for us but that his Passion was Fantastick not Real they abhorr'd Wine above all things and therefore abstain'd from the Sacred Cup in the Communion St. Leo complains of the Disorders which they caus'd in the Church He declaims against their wicked and hellish Devices He tells us they were so bold as to presume to mix themselves with the Faithful and receive the Lord's Body but abstain'd from the Sacred Cup and gives that as a Mark to discern them by But because the Faithful were at Liberty to take One or both Kinds and that many devont Christians receiv'd the Body without the Sacred Cup it was hard to find out by that Mark who these Manichees were However St. Leo did not think fit to alter the Discipline of the Church nor take away their Liberty from the Faithful but was content to insinuate that whosoever shou'd refuse to take the Sacred Cup as abhorring Wine or in Detestation to the Blood of Christ shou'd be reputed of that Sect. But this Remedy proving ineffectual Pope Gelasius was forc'd to Decree that whosoever abstain'd from the Sacred Cup upon any such superstitious Pretence shou'd be altogether depriv'd of the Communion It may not be amiss to subjoin his very Words Gr. Dist 2 can comper de consecrat We have found out that some People do take only the Body and abstain from the Sacred Blood who seeing they are engag'd in I know not what Superstition must either take both parts or be depriâ—'d of both because the Division of one and the same Mystery cannot be done without great Sacriledge Now to give you my Thoughts upon this Decree I think it is plain First that there was no need of making such a Decree if all the Catholics in those days had receiv'd the Communion in both kinds For this being made on purpose to discover the Manichees who never drank Wine there was nothing so easie as to find out who they were upon their refusal of the Sacred Cup consequently there needed no Decree to discover them But since it is confess'd that these Heretics did mix themselves with the Catholics and receiv'd the Communion only in one kind and that notwithstanding all St. Leo's Care and Diligence to find them out they were still undiscover'd I think it is a Demonstration that some Catholics as well as the Manichecs did receive the Communion in One Kind only And this being all that I undertook to evince I might now take leave of this Decree But I shall observe Secondly that the prohibition here made affects only those who were engag'd in a certain Superstition who seeing they are engag'd in I know not what Superstition must either take both parts or be depriv'd of both For the Reason why they are to be depriv'd of both parts of the Sacrament unless they take both is because they were engag'd in a certain superstition which tended to destroy the Sacrifice of our Redmption by the Belief they had that Christ's Blood was only an Illusion and to divide that Mystery which Gelasius says cannot be done without great Sacriledge by the like wicked opinion that Wine being created by the Devil Christ wou'd never have instituted the Memorial of his passion in that Liquor Whence 't is evident that the Catholics who were in no manner engag'd in these superstitious Errors are nothing concern'd in this Decree nor barr'd of the liberty they always had of receiving the Sacrament in one or both kinds as suited best with their Devotion And this is so true that we find the practice of it recommended by a Canon of a very Famous if not General Council held in Constantinople in the sixth Century Can. 52. known to the Ancients by the Name of Concilium Trullanum This Council confirms the Ancient Custom of the Greek Church which was to celebrate Mass in Lent only on Saturdays and Sundays it being by the Ancients Judg'd improper to consecrate on any of those Days on which they fasted because they wou'd not as they commonly speak mix the solemnity of the Sacrifice with the sadness of the Fast. But on these two days in which they did not fast they us'd to consecrate and reserve as much of the sacred Oblation as wou'd suffice for the Clergy and Laity to take every day till the Saturday following and this they call'd the Mass of the Presanctified than which nothing is more frequently mention'd in the Greek Church Now to know what was offer'd and distributed to the People in this Mass All the Ancient Greek Liturgies tell us that there was nothing reserv'd but the sacred Bread that this Bread was carried in Procession from the Sacrifice into the Church Eucho Goar Bib. P. P. Paris T. 2. expos'd to be ador'd by the People and after some Ceremony distributed to all the Faithful So that here is a Public and Solemn Communion given in One Kind for five Days every Week Yearly while Lent holds But this Practice was not peculiar to the Greek for we find it as early and as solemnly us'd in the Latin Church The Roman Ordinal Bib. P. P Var. T. de Div. Off. whose Antiquity I suppose no body will question being that which St. Gregory the Great made use of in the sixth Century gives us the same Account of Good Friday-Service with that which is express'd in the Rubrics of our
whether in one or both kinds is quite an other thing from the Institution of it We say indeed that when Christ instituted the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood He consecrated not in One but in both Kinds because He design'd to leave these Symbols to his Church as a perpetual and everlasting Memorial of His Body broken and Blood shed upon the Cross which is express'd by the Separation of one Symbol from t'other and this I hope we are careful to do as often as we offer that Sacrifice But to eat or partake of the Sacrifice it self in one or both kinds is sure no part of the Institution but belongs to the Modus or manner of administring it Christ instituted the Sacraments of Baptism Confirmation and Matrimony yet we do not find that ever he gave or administred any of these Sacraments to any Body which surely he wou'd not have omitted were it any part of their Institution 'T is then plain that to give the Communion in One or both kinds is neither for nor against our Saviour's Institution but respects meerly Administration and Use But let us suppose with the Doctor that to administer the Communion in One kind is contrary I do not say to Christ's Institution for that it cannot be but to the manner in which our Saviour gave it yet still I do not see how this can help the matter For the Question is not whether Christ gave it in both kinds but whether we ought necessarily to give it in both kinds because he did so This the Doctor affirms and we deny But how does He prove it Why because Christ gave it in both kinds This is begging the Qustion Well because Christ gave it in both kinds we ought to do so too This is to say if it be to purpose that we are bound to do all those things that Christ did at the institution and administration of the Communion If so then we must fall to wash the Disciples Feet to eat Suppers before the Sacrament to administer the Communion at Night and which is more strange we must command all those to whom we give the Communion to do the same thing we do that is to consecrate and administer the Sacrament and consequently make them all Priests all these things I say we are bound to do For Christ did all and every particular here mention'd to all those to whom he gave the Communion in both kinds But since neither He nor any Man in his Wits will say that we are bound to do all these Things because the Discipline and Practice of the Church and the Living Members of it have determin'd that all those particulars are now neither Necessary nor Expedient I hope he will give us leave to conclude that we are not bound to give the Communion in both kinds neither Touching the second Proposition The Council of Constance was forc'd to decree it with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ The Doctor is not the only Man who affirms this for I find it in the Works of one or two more of his Brethren upon this Subject But Good God! What may not Men undertake who have the Confidence to give out such Calumnies for Truth 'T is a vulgar Observation but a True one that when Mountebanks pretend most to infallible Cures they are then furthest from them just so 't is with these Gentlemen for there are Mountebanks in Religion as well as in Physick when they pretend most to Evidence and Demonstration in matters of Religion then they have the least Colour or reasonable Pretence to it But the best way to refute this Calumny is to cite the very Words of the Council and then let the Reader judge what Faith is to be given to Men who vend such Impostures for Truth In the * In nomine sanctae individuae Trinitatis Patris Filii Spiritus sancti Amen Licet Christus post Caenam instituerit suis discipulis administraverit sub utraque Specie Panis Vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum tamen hoc non obstante Sacrorum Canorum Authoritas laudabilis aprobata Ecclesiae consuetudo servavit servat quod hujusmodi Sacramentum non debet confici post Caenam neque a fâ—lelibus recipi non jejunis nisi in casu Infirmitatis aut alterius necessitatis a jure vel ab Ecclesia concesso vel admisso Name of the Holy and undivided Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost Amen Tho' Christ hath instituted this venerable Sacrament after Supper and hath administred it to his Disciples under both Kinds of Bread and Wine tamen hoc non obstante yet this notwithstanding the Authority of the sacred Canons the Laudable and Approv'd Custom of the Church hath held and doth hold that this Sacrament ought not to be made after Supper nor receiv'd by the Faithful not fasting except in case of Infirmity or some other Necessity approv'd and allow'd by Law or by the Church This is all in this Decree that has any Relation to the Dr's Non obstante And now I appeal to the most partial of our Adversaries whether he had the least Colour or Pretence to what he here suggests There is indeed a Non obstante to the making of this Sacrament after Supper and giving it to those who were not fasting and no more And if this be a sin sure he is not qualified to throw the first Stone at us for it For he and his Brethren are confessedly involv'd in the same Crime seeing they do not make the Sacrament after Supper nor give it to the best of their knowledge to any but such as are fasting As to the third Proposition The Doctrine of Concomitancy will not help the matter because in the Sacrament Christ's Body is represented as broken and exhausted and drain'd of his Blood Hence the Doctor infers that the Sacred Bread which represents his Body under these circumstances cannot be said to contain or exhibit his Blood But methinks he shou'd have prov'd his Postulatum before he wou'd perswade us of the Truth of this Inference For I suppose he was too well acquainted with us to think we shou'd believe it upon his Word That our blessed Lord shed a great deal of His Precious Blood as much as was sufficient for the Redemption of Mankind we readily grant but that His Body was exhausted and drain'd of His Blood so as to have none at all left in it we can by no means assent to If Christ's Body had been drain'd of His Blood He wou'd have died of Weakness and Loss of Blood but the Centurion who it seems was a better Naturalist than the Doctor thought quite otherwise For he concluded from the Force and Vigour wherewith our Blessed Lord gave up the Ghost that he was the Son of God Vere Filius Dei erat iste Nor will it avail the Doctor that when the Souldier pierc'd his side with a Spear there came out Blood and Water For Christ being then dead and