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
humana prebet oâ—perimentum How was the Lord's Body after the Resurrection a true Body that cou'd enter the House when the Doors were shut But we must understand that if the Work of God be comprehended by Reason it is not wonderful nor hath that Belief any merit to which humane Reason gives Experience The Disciples saw Christ's Body and felt it with their Hands consequently had the Evidence of two of their Senses Yet according to St. Gregory they cou'd have Faith concerning the Truth of his Body only because they did not comprehend how it was possible for it to enter the House when the Doors were shut In like manner tho' we have Evidence of Reason that the things we believe were reveal'd by Jesus Christ yet the Reward of our Faith is nothing diminish'd because we believe such things as we neither comprehend nor understand And indeed whoever seriously considers the great Work of our Redemption he cannot but think that it was most agreeable to the infinite Wisdom and Goodness of our Divine Redeemer to leave us this Evidence Jesus Christ came to the World declar'd to a select Number of Men such high and mysterious things as seem to shock Humane Reason laid down his Life for the Salvation of Mankind sent his Apostles to publish these Mysteries over all the World and threatned with eternal Damnation all those who wou'd not believe them and that not only for a Time but also unto the End of the World Is it not then very reasonable that this mysterious Doctrine should always be attended with such Characters and Credentials of Truth as may convince the most obstinate Gainsayers of it which I am sure nothing less than either Evidence of Sense or Reason can effect For if the Evidence be less then the Doctrine is only probable and if it be only probable one may reasonably doubt of the Truth of it and if the Truth of it may be reasonably doubted the contrary for ought any one knows may be true and if the contrary may be true I am sure it does not stand with God's Goodness to condemn any Body to eternal Flames for not believing a Doctrine the contrary to which for any thing that he doth or can know may be true Here I wou'd not be understood so as to mean that none can have true Faith without clear Evidence for 't is plain that the most part of Mankind are taught the Articles of their Faith by their Parents or Pastors whose Testimony is confessedly fallible nor do I pretend that this is a Rigorous Demonstration such as Mathematicians make nor yet an Evidence of Sense but this I say that the universal Consent of so many Nations as compose the Catholic Church conspiring in the Belief of such Articles of Faith make it as evident to my Reason that the said Articles of Faith are true as any Evidence of Sense or Demonstration cou'd make them if they were capable of any In a word the Apostles and their Disciples deliver'd the Christian Faith to several Nations and convinc'd their Senses and Reason of the Truth of it by true and real Miracles and the Universal Consent of the same Nations which succeeded the Evidence of Miracles is equally convincing to us that that Faith is certainly true Consequently we have a certain and an undoubted Motive to rely upon in the Belief of the Articles of our Faith Now it is manifest and even acknowledg'd by our Adversaries that excepting those who separated themselves or were cut off from the Church by Excommunication for their obstinate Adherence to some Errors contrary to Faith and whose Opposition cannot prejudice the Truth of that Faith as I prov'd before that excepting those I say the Universal Consent of all the Christian World agrees in all the Articles of Faith that the Catholic Church holds and believes But among other Truths that are deriv'd to us by this Universal Tradition or common Consent of all Nations as afore explain'd this is one That the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of God doth assist the Church and doth guide her into all Truth necessary to Salvation Hence we conclude 1. That the Catholic Church is Infallible in all the Articles of Faith that she holds and professes For since the Holy Ghost is given to the Church to guide her into all Truth and that this Holy Spirit is Omniscient and Omnipotent it cannot be affirm'd without Impiety that it should permit her to fall into Error 2. That General Councils are Infallible in all their Definitions and Decisions of Faith For tho' a General Council be but a Representative of the whole Church yet because General Assemblies of the chief Pastors of the Church have been always look'd upon even by the Apostles themselves whose Steps in this particular the Church doth follow as the best and most effectual Means of determining any Controversie that may arise and that all Good Christians have always held themselves bound to acquiesce to their Determinations and to submit to them it is reasonable to believe that the Spirit of God doth assist and guide them 3. That the Catholic Church is Infallible in determining what Books of Scripture are Canonical and what Books are not and in declaring the true Sense and Interpretation of them For since these sacred Books and the right Interpretation of them are very necessary for the Edification of our Faith and Manners the same Spirit which guides the Church into all Truth does no doubt guide Her in these great and important Truths We shall see hereafter what Society of Christians can justly pretend to be called the Catholic Church I now proceed to prove from Scripture that the Church is Infallible But whereas the Protestants are accustomed to carp at this kind of Proof pretending that this is to Dance in a Circle as They are pleas'd to term it it won't be amiss to examine what is meant by a Circle and when it is to be admitted in Reasoning When two things bear witness mutually the one of the other we call this a Circle and when they have nothing else to support the Truth of their Evidence but their mutual Affirmation then that sort of Proof is Faulty But when both or either have such Evidence on their side as is sufficient to establish their Credit before they bear witness one of another tho' it be still a Circle yet it is good and vallid in all sort of Proof Thus God the Father bore witness of Jesus Christ and He again of the Father Thus Jesus Christ bore witness of John the Baptist and John the Baptist likewise of Him And I hope no Body will be so impious as to say these were vicious or faulty Evidences because God the Father's Testimony was known to be true tho' Jesus Christ had not confirm'd it and Jesus Christ his Works prov'd likewise his own Testimony to be true tho' his Father had not born Him witness In like manner the Church bears witness that the Scripture
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
them for which they ought to be worship'd On the contrary we are expresly forbid to give these Pictures or Images any manner of Worship for their own Sake but that the respect which we shew them is to be referr'd to the Originals namely to Christ and his Saints And sure these things which represent Christ and his Saints to our Eyes and put us in mind of the Death and Passion of the One and of the Patience and Sufferings of the Others are worthy of some Respect and may very well be honour'd upon Account of what they represent without any Danger of Idolatry as the Pictures of Kings and Princes and other Men by whom we receive Benefits are in their own degree confessedly respected and had in Esteem without any such Suspition In one Word the Heathens call'd all their Heroes or Saints Gods sacrific'd to them as such worship'd them as such call'd upon them as such but we do not call the Christian Saints Gods we do by no means sacrifice to them nor worship them as Gods nor call upon them as Gods So that upon the whole matter the Doctor might as well resemble Sea to dry Land or Light to Darkness or the obscurest Night to the brightest Day as compare the Worship we give the Christian Saints to that which the Heathens paid to their Heroes or Saints as the Doctor is pleas'd to call them CHAP. VIII Of Images WHat the Council of Trent declares concerning Images is this That the Images of Christ of the Virgin Mother of God and of other Saints are to be had and kept especially in Churches and that due Honor and Respect is to be given them not that we believe any virtue or Divinity to be in them for which they ought to be worship'd or that we shou'd ask any thing of them or put any trust or confidence in them as was formerly done by the Gentils who put their trust in Idols but because the Honor done to them is refer'd to the Originals which they represent So that by those Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our Heads and bow down we adore Christ and reverence the Saints whose likeness they bear Ses 25. Dec. de invocat Sanct. Here you see this Council only requires that we give duâ— honor and respect to Images which signifies no more than that we ought to give them the honor which is due to them But this is not all for the Council adds that when we uncover our Heads or bow towards Images we adore Christ and reverence the Saints whose likeness these Images bear So that it is not so much the Images we honor as Christ and His Saints And since 't is confess'd that the Types and Figures of all sacred things are worthy of some Respect in propotion to what they represent how mnch more ought the Types and Figures of Jesus Christ who is the Source and Fountain of all Holiness and Sanctification and of the Saints to whose Charity and goodness we owe under God our Faith and Religion to be had in Honor and Esteem We honor and respect the Bible more than ordinary Books tho' it is but Paper and Ink like other Books because the Characters therein contain'd are sacred Signs which represent to us the Word and Will of God And even Nature teaches us to honor and respect the Pictures and Images of Kings and Princes and of our Friends for the Excellency of these Persons and the Benefits we receive by them And why may not we likewise honor and respect those Signs or Images which represent to us that which is most Excellent and most August in the Christian Religion namely Christ and His Saints The Chief End of Images and Pictures is to adorn our Churches to put us in mind of the Passion of Christ and of the Piety and Virtue of the Saints and to be Books to the Ignorant And what Ornament so proper for the Church of God as the Picture of Jesus Christ who planted it with His Blood What in the next Place as the Pictures of Saints who water'd it with their's and are now in their own Degree the great Ornaments of the Heavens What can be more powerful to excite us to a greatful Remembrance of the Passion of Jesus Christ then to behold a Crucifix which represents Him to us with Arms stretch'd out as it were to embrace us and Hands and Feet and Side pierc'd for our Sins What pious Christian can then abstain from expressing the Sense of his Heart by some exteriour Act of Honor and Respect to such a Representation if not for its own at least for the sake of that which it represents And as to the Ignorant it cannot be denied but that when they are taught that such a Picture represents Jesus Christ who in that posture Sacrific'd Himself for their Sins that such other Pictures represent the Apostles and Saints who preach'd and deliver'd that Faith and Religion to them by which they are to be eternally happy it cannot be denied I say but that such lessons are easily retain'd and create in their Minds a greatful acknowledement of the Mercies of their Redeemer and a desire to imitate the Virtue and Piety of the Saints And then the Respect which they shew to these Pictures is but the Natural Result of their Sense of the Benefits they receive by the Passion of Christ and by the Piety and Charity of the Saints These were the chief motives that induc'd the Church in all Ages to have and to keep the Pictures of Jesus Christ and His Saints I say in all Ages Eusebius the Great and Famous Ecclesiastical Historian â—ist Eccles lib. 7. cap. 18 edit vol. who flourish'd in the Begining of the fourth Age tells us that the Christians had from the Begining the Pictures of Christ and of St. Peter and St. Paul that he himself had seen the Statue which the Woman whom Christ had heal'd of the bloody flux erected for Him at Paneas that at the Foot of this Statue there grew an Herb which when it touch'd the Skirt of the Statue had a virtue of curing Diseases And Helena's seeking and finding the Cross on which our Lord suffer'd and the Miracle by which it was discover'd are too well known to be question'd But what need I insist upon proofs of the lawfulness of Pictures and Images in Churches or of the respect that is due to them since the Protestants themselves acknowledge both They say they only exclaim against the Abuses committed in the Church of Rome upon this account But for the Thing it self they say they willingly own it This is the Declaration The Ingenious Author of The Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in answer to the Bishop of Meaux makes in the Name of that Church page 18. It may not be amiss to subjoin his very Words We will honor says he the Relicks of the Saints as the primitive Church did We will respect the Images
present mass-Mass-book Alcuinus De Div. Off. a Famous Author of the eigth Century relates the same thing So doth Rupertus Lib. 2. c. 9. de Div. Off. Hugo de Sancto Victore and other Writers of the Eleventh Century They tell us that on Good-Friday there was no Consecration made but that the Body of our Lord which was consecrated the day before was reserv'd for that day's Communion that the Priest took the Lord's Body and some unconsecrated Wine and Water and then gave the Communion to the People under the Form of Bread alone So that there has been a perpetual Practice in the Latin Church of giving the Communion in one kind solemnly once every Year both to Clergy and Laity even to this very Time I might further bring the Authority of Sozomenus Evagrius Authors of the sixth Century and of several Great and Learned Men of the Gallican Church to confirm this Practice but I think it is sufficiently evident from what is said that the Communion was publicly givâ—ng in one kind ever since Christians had Churches for public and solemn Service I shall therefore proceed to shew in the last place That to take the Communion in both kinds is not Essential to the Sacrament from the Consent of our Adversaries if consistent with Themselves I suppose Martin Luther's Opinion in this Matter is of no small Authority for 't is but reasonable to suppose that those who have follow'd the Scheme which he drew shou'd pay their just tribute of Respect to his Opinion in this Point Let us then hear him speak If any Council says he shou'd chance to Decree the Communion in both kinds we shou'd by no means make use of Both De Miffa Ang. nay we wou'd sooner in contempt of the Council take one or neither than both and curse those who shou'd by the Authority of such a Council make use of both kinds Here I think it is very plain Luther was of opinion that both kinds was not essential to the Sacrament else surely he wou'd not have said that he wou'd sooner make use of neither than of both nor curse those who shou'd take both kinds But the Discipline of the French Protestants will afford us a more ample Testimony in this Matter In a Synod held in Potiers Anno. 1560. and in an other in Rochel 1571. It is provided that those who cannot drink Wine may receive the Communion under the Form of Bread It may not be amiss to subjoin their very Words as they are read in the 12th Chapter of their Discipline Tit. Of the Lord's Sup. Art 7. The Bread of the Lord's Supper ought to be administer'd to those who cannot drink Wine upon their making Protestation that it is not out of Contempt and upon their endeavouring what they can to obviate all Scandal even by approaching the Cup as neer their Mouths as they are able Now 't is not to be imagin'd that these Gentlemen shou'd think both kinds essential to the Communion and yet make such a Decision For there is no Body who is never so little Read in Philosophy but knows that the Essence of Things is indivisible that by separating one essential Part from the other you destroy the nature of the whole that in giving only an essential part of a thing you give nothing in regard of that whose essential part it was consequently he that gives but part of the Sacrament gives no Sacrament at all Therefore these Gentlemen who knew better Things in ordering the Bread alone to be given to those who cou'd not drink Wine cannot in Reason be suppos'd to believe that the Cup was Essential to the Communion else they wou'd have absolutely refus'd the Sacrament to those who cou'd not receive it in both kinds since to give it in one kind were to give nothing at all but rather to prophane and abuse that which is most Sacred and August in the Christian Religion whereas the natural disability of those who cannot drink Wine might reasonably excuse them from taking either kind And thus I have endeavour'd as briefly as I cou'd to prove from the practice and discipline of the Church in all Ages from public as well as private Communion from Liturgies Fathers and Historians and even from the consent of our Adversaries manifestly imply'd in their Discipline and Practice that neither the Primitive Christians nor the Catholic Church in any Age nor yet any Orthodox Believer did ever think that to take the Sacrament in both kinds was essential to the Communion And if so then it is plain and evident that the Church hath Power to and may lawfully restrain the Faithful from the Cup and confine them to One kind only Let us now see what Dr. Tillotson objects to all this And here I shall not abuse the Reader 's Patience by repeating the same thing over again for since all that can with any colour of Reason be objected is contain'd in one short Paragraph tho' the things there insisted on are often repeated in several of his Sermons but with no material Addition I will only transcribe it and offer my Exceptions to it And then says he the Communion in One kind is plainly contrary to our Saviours Institution in both kinds as they themselves acknowledge And therefore the Council of Constance being sensible of this was forc'd to decree it with an express non Obstante to the Institution of Christ and the Practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Church And their Doctrine of Concomitancy as if the Blood were in the Flesh and together with it will not help the matter because in the Sacrament Christ's Body is represented as broken and pierc'd and exhausted and drain'd of his Blood and his Blood is represented as shed and poured out so that one kind can by no means contain and exhibit both Three things the Doctor here insists upon 1. That We our selves acknowledg the the Communion in one kind to be contrary to our Saviour's Institution 2. That the Council of Constance was forc'd to decree it with a non obstante to the Institution of Christ 3. That 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 I may say of these three Propositions the first is neither True nor to the purpose The second is something to the Purpose but not True The third is like the first neither True nor to the Purpose I begin with the first We our selves acknowledge that the Communion in one Kind is contrary to our Saviour's Institution For my own part I have read at least some of the best R. Catholic Casuists and Divines upon this Subject and have convers'd with many more Yet I declare I neither read nor heard any of them say that to give the Communion in one kind was contrary to our Saviour's Institution nay I think all R. Catholics do believe that the Administration of the Communion