and in that manner you see me do it exercising before your eye my Priestly Function according to the order of Melchisedech with which power I do also invest you and appoint you to do the like even unto the Consummation of the world in commemoration of my Death and Passion exhibiting and shewing forth your Lords Death until he come This Protestants do not and we are mad-angry that the Papist does what his Redeemer injoyned him I fear his Readers which shall consider this odd medly will begin to think that they are not only Protestants who use to be mad-angry This kind of Writing argues I will not say both madness and anger but one of them it doth seem plainly to do For setting aside a far-fetched false notion or two about Melchisedech and the Doctrine of the Sacrament here expressed is that which the Pope with Fire and Sword hath laboured to exterminate out of the world burning hundreds I think in England for believing that our Lord instituting his blessed Supper commanded his Apostles to do the same that he then did and in the same manner even to the Consummation of the world in the commemoration of his Death and Passion exhibiting and shewing forth their Lord's death until he come a man would suppose that he had taken these words out of the Liturgie of the Church of England for therein are they expresly found and why then have not Protestants that which he speaks of Yea but Christ did this in the exercise of his Priestly Function and with the same power of Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech invested his Apostles Both these may be granted and the Protestants Doctrine and Faith concerning this Sacrament not at all impeached but the truth is they are both false The Lord Christ exercised indeed his Priestly Function when on the Cross he offered himself to God through the Eternal Spirit a Sacrifice for the sins of the world but it was by vertue of his Kingly and Prophetical power that he instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud and taught his Disciples the use of it commanding its Observation in all his Churches to the end of the world And as for any others being made Priests after the Order of Melchisedeck besides himself alone it 's a figment so expresly contrary to the words and reasoning of the Apostle that I wonder any man not mad or angry could once entertain any approving thoughts of it That our Author may no more mistake in this matter I desire he would give me leave to inform him that setting aside his proper Sacrificing of the Son of God and his hideous figment of Transubstanatition both utter strangers to the Scripture and Antiquity there is nothing can by him be named concerning this Sacrament as to its honour or efficacy but it is all admitted by Protestants He pretends after this loose Harangue to speak to the thing it self and tells us that the consecrated CHALICE is not ordinarily given to people by the Priest in private Communion as though in some cases it were given amongst them to the body of the people or that they had some publick communion wherein it was ordinarily so given both which he knows to be untrue So impossible it seems for him to speak plainly and directly to what he treats on But it is a thing which hath need of these artifices If one falsity be not covered with another it will quickly rain through all However he tells us that they should do so is neither expedient nor necessary as to any effects of the Sacrament I wish for his own sake some course might be found to take him off this confidence of setting himself against the Apostles and the whole primitive Church at once that he might apprehend the task too difficult for him to undertake and meddle with it no more All expediency in the administration of this great Ordinance and all the effects of it depend solely on the institution and blessing of Christ If he have appointed the use of both elements what are we poor worms that we should come now in the end of the world and say the use of one of them is not expedient nor necessary to any effects of Communion Are we wiser then he Have we more care of his Church then he had or Do we think that it becomes us thus arbitrarily to chuse and refuse in the institutions of our Lord and Master What is it to us what Cavils soever men can lay that it is not necessary in the way of Protestants nor in the way of Catholicks we know it is necessary in the way of Christ. And if either Protestants or Catholicks leave that way for me they shall walk in their own wayes by themselves But why is it not necessary in the way of Protestants Because they place the effect of the Communion in the operation of faith and therefore according to them one kind is enough nay if we have neither kind there is no loss but of a Ceremony which may be well enough supplyed at our ordinary Tables This is prety Logick which it seems our Author learned out of Smith and Seaton Protestants generally think that men see with their eyes and yet they think the light of the Sun necessary to the exercising of their sight and though they believe that all saving effects of the Sacrament depend on the operation of faith and Catholicks do so too at least I am sure they say so yet they believe also that the Sacrament which Christ appointed and the use of it as by him appointed is necessary in its own kind for the producing of those effects These things destroy not but mutually assist one another working effectually in their several kinds to the same end and purpose Nor can there be any operation of faith as to the special end of the Sacrament without the administration of it according to the mind and will of Christ. Besides Protestants know that the frequent distinct Proposals in the Scripture of the benefits of the death of Christ as arising sometimes from the suffering of the body sometimes from the effusion of the bloud of their Saviour leads them to such a distinct acting of faith upon him and receiving of him as must needs be hindred and disturbed in the administration of the Sacrament under one kind especially if that Symbol be taken from them which is peculiarly called his Testament and that bloud wherewith his Covenant with them was sealed So that according to the Principles of the Protestants the Participation of the Cup is of an indispensible necessity unto them that intend to use that Ordinance to their benefit and comfort and what he addes about drinking at our ordinary tables because we are now speaking plainly I must needs tell him is a prophane piece of scurrility which he may do well to abstain from for the future What is or is not necessary according to their Catholick Doctrine we shall not trouble our selves knowing that
which is so called by him to be very farr from being truly Catholick the Romanists Doctrine of Concomitancy being a late Figment to countenance their spoyling the people of the legacy of Christ unknown to Antiquity and contrary to Scripture and enervating the Doctrine of the death of Christ whose most pretious bloud was truly separated from his body the benefit of which separation is exhibited unto us in the Sacrament by himself appointed to represent it we neither believe nor value As the necessity of it is denyed so also that there is any precept for it what think you then of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drink you all of it that is this Cup They think this to be a Precept to be observed towards all those who come to this Supper What Christ did that he commanded his Apostles to do he gives the Cup to all that were present at his Supper and commands them all to driâ—â— of it Why I pray are they not to do so Why is not this part of his command as Obligatory to them as any others Alass They were the Priests that were present all Lay people were excluded not one was excluded from the Cup that was there at any part of the Ordinance What if they were all Priests that were there as no one of them was Was the Supper administred to them as Priests or as Disciples or is there any colour or pretence to say that one kind was given to them as Priests another as Disciples Dic aliquem dic Quintiliane colorem Was not the whole Church of Christ represented by them Is not the command equal to all Nay as if on purpose to obviate this Sacrilegious figment Is not this word Drink you all of this added emphatically above what is spoken of the other kind Many strange things there are which these Gentlemen would have us believe about this Sacrament but none of them of a more incredible nature then this that when Christ says to all his Communicants Drink you all of this and commands them to do the same that he did his meaning was that we should say Drink you none of this They had need not of a Spatula linguae to let such things as those down our Throats but a Bed-staffe to cram them down or they will choak us in the swallowing and I am sure will not well digest when received He must have an Iron-Stomach that can concoct such crude morsels But if this will not do he would fain have us grant That the whole manner of giving the Communion unto the Laity whether under one or both kinds is left to the disposition of the Church I tell you truly I should have thought so too had not Christ and his Apostles before-hand determined it but as the case stands it is left so much to the disposition of the Church whether the blessed Cup shall be administred to the people as it is whether we shall have any Sacraments or no and not one jot more And let not our Author flatter himself that it was a pre-conceived Opinion of the arbitrariness of this business that made men scruple it no more in former ages when the Cup was first taken from them They scrupled it until you had roasted some of them in the fire and shed the bloud of multitudes by the Sword which was the old way of satisfying scruples At length our Author ventures on St. Paul and hopes if he can satisfie him he shall do well enough and tells us This indifferent use of Communion amongst the antient Christians in either kind sometimes the one sometimes the other sometimes both is enough to verifie that of St. Paul We are all partakers of one Bread and of one Cup. But what is this indifferent use and who are these antient Christians he tells us of Neither is the use of one or of both indifferent among the Papists nor did the antient Christians know any thing at all of this business of depriving the People of the Cup which is but a by-blow of Transubstantiation He knows they knew nothing of it whatever he pretends Neither doth the Apostle Paul say nakedly and only that We are all partakers of one Bread and one Cup but instructing the whole Church of Corinth in the right use of the Lords Supper he calls to mind what he had formerly taught them as to the celebration of it and this he tells them was the imitation of the Lord himself according as he had received it in command from him to give the blessed Bread and Cup to all the Communicants This he lays down as the Institution of Christ this he calls them to the right use and practice of telling the whole Church that as often as they eat this Bread and drink this Cup not eat the Bread without the Cup they do shew forth the Lord's Death until he come And therefore doth he teach them how to perform their duty herein in a due manner Ver. 28. Let saith he a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. Adding the reason of his caution for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh c. intimating also that they might miscarry in the use of either Element For saith he whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily In the administration of the whole Supper you may offend unless you give heed in the participation of either Element What can possibly be spoken more fully distinctly plainly as to Institution Precept Practice Duty upon all I know not And if we must yet dispute about this matter whilest we acknowledge the Authority of the Apostle I think there is small hopes of being quit of Disputes whilest this world continues The pitiful Cavils of our Author against the Apostle's express and often repeated words deserve not our notice yet for the sake of those whom he intends to deceive I shall briefly shew their insufficiency to invalidate St. Paul's Authority and Reasonings 1. He says That we may easily see what was St. Paul 's opinion from those words whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup of our Lord unworthily and so say I too the meaning of them is before declared but saith he repeating the institution as our Lord delivered he makes him after the consecration of the bread say absolutely Do this in commemoration of me But after the chalice he speaks with a limitation Do this as oft as you shall drink it in commemoration of me What then Pray What are the next words Are they not For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup Is not the same term as often annexed to the one as well as to the other Is it a limitation of the use of either and not a limitation of that kind of Commemoration of the Lord's Death to the use of both From these doughty observations he concludes that the particle and in the other Text must needs be taken disjunctively we are all
Apostles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Administring Liturgying Sacrificing to our Lord. For what he adds of Ordination it belongs not unto this discourse Authority and Reason are pleaded to prove I know not what Sacrifice to be intended in these Words Erasmus is first pleaded to whose interpretation mentioned by our Author I shall only add his own Annotations in the explication of his meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he Quod proprium est operantium sacris nullum autem Sacrificium Deo gratius quà m impartiri doctrinam Evangelicam So that it seems the Preaching of the Gospel or taking care about it was the Sacrifice that Erasmus thought of in his Translation and Exposition Yea but the word is truly translated Sacrisicantilus But who I pray told our Author so The Original of the word is of a much larger signification It s common use is to minister in any kind it s so translated and expounded by all learned impartial men and is never used in the whole new Testament to denote Sacrâ—ficing Nor is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever rendred in the Old Testament by the 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Nor is that word used absolutely in any Author Profane or Ecclesiastical to signifie precisely Sacrificing And I know well enough what it is that makes our Author say It is properly translated Sacrificing and I know as well that he cannot prove what he sayes but he gives a Reason for what he sayes It 's said to be made to the Lord whereas other inferior Ministerial acts are made to the people I wish heartily he would once leave this scurvy trick of cogging in words to deceive his poor unwary Reader for what I pray makes his made here what is it that is said to be made to the Lord It is when they were Ministring to the Lord so the words are rendred not when they were making or making Sacrifice or when they made Sacrificing unto the Lord. This wild guord made puts death into his Pot. And we think here in England that in all Ministerial acts though performed towards the people and for their good yet men administer to the Lord in them because performing them by his appointment as a part of that worship which he requires at their hands In the close of our Authors discourse he complains of the persecutions of Catholicks which what ever they are or have been for my part I neither approve nor justifie and do heartily wish they had never shewed the world those wayes of dealing with them who dissented from them in things concerning Religion whereof themselves now complain how justly I know not But if it be for the Masse that any of them have felt or do fear Suffering which I pray God avert from them I hope they will at length come to understand how remote it is from having any affinity with the devotion of the Apostolical Churches and so free themselves if not from suffering yet at lest from suffering for that which being not accepted with God will yield them no solid Gospel-consolation in what they may endure or undergo CHAP. XVI Blessed Virgin SECT 23. Pag. 267. THe twenty second Paragraph concerning the blessed Virgin is absolutely the weakest and most disingenious in his whole discourse The work he hath in handâ— is to take off offence from the Roman Doctrine and Practice in reference unto her Finding that this could not be handsomely gilded over being so rotten and corrupt as not to bear a new varnish he turns his pen to the bespattering of Protestants for contempt of her without the least respect to truth or common honesty Of them it is that he says That they vilifie and blaspheme her and cast Gibes upon her which he sets off with a pretty tale of a Protestant Bishop and a Catholick boy and lest this should not suffice to render them odious he would have some of them thought to taunt at Christ himself one of them for ignorance passion and too much haste for his breakfast Boldly to calumniate that something may cleave is a Principle that too many have observed in their dealings with others in the world But as it containes a renuntiation of the Religion of Jesus Christ so it hath not alwayes well succeeded The horrid and incredible reproaches that were cast by the Pagans on the primitive Christians occasioned sundry ingenious persons to search more into their way then otherwise they would have done and thereby their conversion And I am perswaded this rude charge on Protestants as remote from truth as any thing that was cast on the first Christians by their adversaries would have the same effects on Roman-Catholicks might they meet with the same ingenuity and candor That any Protestant should be moved or shaken in his Principles by such Calumnies is impossible Every one that is so knows that as the Protestants believe every thing that is spoken of the blessed Virgin in the Scripture or Creed or whatever may be lawfully deduced from what is so spoken so they have all that honour and respect for her which God will allow to be given to any creature Surely a confident accusation of incivility and blasphemy for not doing that which they know they do and profess to all the world they do is more like to move men in their patience towards their accusers then to prevail with them to join in the same charge against others whom they know to be innocent as themselves Neither will it relieve our Author in point of ingenuity and truth that it may be he hath heard it reported of one or two brain-sick or frantick persons in England that they have cast out blasphemous reproaches against the blessed Mother of God It is credibly testified that Pope Leo should before witnesses profess his rejoycing at the advantages they had at Rome by the fable of Christ. Were it handsome now in a Protestant to charge this blasphemy upon all Papists though uttered by their head and guide and to dispute against them from the confession of the Jews who acknowledge the story of his death and suffering to be true and of the Turks who have a great honour and veneration for him unto this day Well may men be counted Catholicks who walk in such paths but I see no ground or reason why we should esteem them Christians Had our Author spoken to the purpose he should have proved the lawfulness or if he had spoken to his own purpose with any candor of mind or consistency of purpose in the pursuit of his design have gilded over the practise of giving Divine honour to the holy Virgin of worshipping her with Adoration as Protestants say due to God alone of ascribing all the Titles of Christ unto her turning Lord in the Psalms in most places into Lady praying to her not only to entreat yea to command her Son to help and save them but to save them her self as she