the Bread and Wine St. Paul who wrote to the Laiety would no doubt have taken notice of it and told them their respective duties but he delivers the Institution to them just as Christ did to his Apostles says not a tittle of their not being to receive the Cup but on the contrary adds that command to it which is in none of the Evangolists Do this in remembrance of me Gives not the least intimation that this was given to the Apostles as Priests or that they were made Priests then but what is observable does not so much as mention the Apostles or take any notice of the persons that were present at the Institution and to whom the words Do this were spoken So that so far as appears from him they might be spoken to other Disciples to ordinary Laics nay to the women who might be present at this first Sacrament as well as the Apostles and so must have been made Priests by those words Hoc facite as well as they After the recital of the Institution in which he observes no difference between the Priests and Laics he tells the Faithful of the Church of Corinth that as often as they did eat this Bread and drink this Cup they shewed forth the Lord's death till he come So that they who were to shew forth Christ's death as well as the Priests were to do it both by eating the Bread and drinking the Cup and indeed one of them does not shew forth his death so well as both for it does not shew his Blood separated from his Body He goes on to shew 'um the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking for he all along joyns both those Acts as a phrase signifying the Communion and he expresly uses it no less than four times in that Chapter But in some Copies say they instead of and he uses the particle or in the 27 v. Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup unworthily and here Monsieur Boileau would gladly find something for either Eating or Drinking without doing both which is such a shift and cavil as nothing would make a man catch at but such a desperate cause as has nothing else to be said for it If the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or were used in that place instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet he has but little skil either in Greek or Latine Authors who knows not that it is the commonest thing in both to use that disjunctive for a copulative as to Abraham or his seed for to Abraham and his seed ‖ Ro. 4.13 Of which it were easie to give innumerable instances both in the Bible and profane History The Apostle having used the copulative in all other Verses and all along in this Chapter and having joyned eating and drinking cannot be supposed here to use a disjunctive and to separate them but after all there are Copies of as great Credit and Authority for the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though I think no such weight bears upon the difference of these particles as to make it worth our while to examine them for if the Apostles did disjoyn them it was onely to lay a greater Emphasis upon the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking which though they both go together yet are both very great Sins and I see no manner of consequence that because a man may both eat and drink unworthily that therefore he should onely eat and not drink at all or that the Apostles supposed it lawful to eat without drinking or drink without eating But the Apostolical practice and the Institution of our Saviour for Communion in both kinds though it be very plain and clear in Scripture and being founded upon so full a Command and a Divine Institution I know no Power in the Church to alter it or vary from it yet it will be further confirmed and strengthened by the Universal Practice of the whole Christian Church and of the purest Ages after the Apostles and by the general consent of Antiquity for a thousand years and more after Christ in which I shall prove the Eucharist was always given to all the Faithful who came to the public Worship and to the Communion in both kinds without any difference made between the Priests and the Laiety as to this matter which was a thing never heard of in Antiquity nor ever so much as mentioned in any Author till after the Twelfth Century in which wretched times of Ignorance and Superstition the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being newly brought in struck men with such horror and Superstitious Reverence of the sacred Symbols which they believed to be turned into the very substance of Christ's Body and Blood that they begun to be afraid of taking that part which was fluid and might be spilt each drop of which they thought to be the same blood that flowed out of the side of Christ and the very substantial Blood that was running in his Veins and now by a miraculous way was conveyed into the Chalice Hence at first they used Pipes and Quils to suck it out of the Cup and some used intinction or dipping of the Bread in the Wine and afterwards the same superstition increasing they came to leave off and abstaine wholly from drinking the Cup which was reserved onely to the more sacred lips of the Priests who were willing to be hereby distinguisht from the more unworthy and prophane Laiety The Council of Constance first made this a Law in the Year 1415 which was before a new and superstitious custom used only in some few places and got by degrees into some particular Churches of the Latine Communion for it never was in any other nor is to this day of which we have the first mention in Thomas Aquinas who lived in the Thirteenth Age and who speaks of it thus faintly in his time * In aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur ut solus sacerdos communicetsanguine reliqui vero Corpore Comment in Johan c. 6. v. 53. In some Churches it is observed that onely the Priest Communicates of the blood and others of the Body †In quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur sum p. 3. q. 80. In quibusdam in Aliquibus Ecclesiis shows that it was then but creeping into a few particular Churches and very far from being generally observed in the Western Parts And that it was quite otherwise in the whole Primitive Church for above a thousand years who in all their assemblies kept to our Saviour's Institution of both kinds and never varied from what Christ and his Apostles had commanded and delivered to them as the Church of Rome now does I shall fully prove that so according to Vincentius Lirinensis his rule against all manner of Heresies the truth may be establisht First ‖ Primo scilicet divinae legis auctoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione by the authority of a divine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church which
is certainly as easie to know what Christ instituted and what he commanded as to know this and consequently what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament without which it would not be such a Sacrament as Christ celebrated and appointed as to know what it is to eat and to drink and yet Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to make this the great difficulty P. 239 257 349. To know what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament and what does not and to distinguish what is essential in it from what is not And by this means he endeavour to darken what is as clear as the light and so to avoid the plainest Institution and the clearest Command The Institution says he does not suffice since the question always returns to know what appertains to the essence of the Institution Jesus Christ not having distinguisht them Jesus Christ instituted this Sacrament in the evening at the beginning of the night in which he was to be delivered it was at this time he would leave us his Body given for us Does the time or the hour then belong to the Institution does this appertain to the essence of it and is it not as plainly and evidently a circumstance as night or noon is a circumstance to eating and drinking Does the command of Christ Do this belong to that or to the other circumstances of doing it when the same thing the same Sacramental action may be done without them is not this a plain rule to make a distinction between the act it self and the circumstances of performing it Because there were a great many things done by Jesus Christ in this Mystery which we do not believe our selves obliged to do such as being in an upper Room lying upon a Bed and the like which are not properly things done by Christ so much as circumstances of doing it for the thing done was taking Bread and Wine and blessing and distributing them does therefore Christ's command Do this belong no more to eating and drinking than it does to those other things or rather circumstances with which he performed those is drinking as much a circumstance as doing it after supper if it be eating may be so too Monsieur de Meaux is ashamed to say this but yet 't is what he aims at for else the Cup will necessarily appear to belong to the Sacrament as an essential and consequently an indispensible part of it and this may be plainly known to be so from the words of Christ and from Scripture without the help of Tradition though that also as I have shewn does fully agree with those but they are so plain as not to need it in this case Eating and drinking are so plainly the essential part of the Sacrament and so clearly distinguisht from the other circumstances in Scripture that St. Paul always speaks of those without any regard to the other The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ the Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ * 1 Cor. 10.16 For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come †11.26 27 28 29. Whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup for he that eateth and drinketh So that he must be wilfully blind who cannot see from Scripture what is essential to this Sacrament from what is not But Monsieur de Meaux thinks to find more advantage in the other Sacrament of Baptism and therefore he chiefly insists upon that under this head and his design is to make out that immersion or plunging under Water is meant and signified by the word Baptize in which he tells us the whole World agree ‖ P. 168. and that this is the onely manner of Baptizing we read of the Scriptures and that he can shew by the Acts of Councils and by ancient Rituals that for thirteen hundred years the whole Church Baptized after this manner as much as it was possible * P. 171. If it be so than it seems there is not only Scripture but Tradition for it which is the great principle he takes so much pains to establish And what then shall we have to say to the Anabaptists to whom de Meaux seems to have given up that cause that he may defend the other of Communion in one kind for his aim in all this is to make immersion as essential to Baptism as eating and drinking to the Lord's Supper and if Scripture and Tradition be both so fully for it I know not what can be against it P. 299. but de Meaux knows some Gentlemen who answer things as best pleases them the present difficulty transports them and being pressed by the objection they say at that moment what seems most to disentangle them from it without much reflecting whether it agree I do not say with truth but with their own thoughts The Institution of the Eucharist in Bread and Wine and the command to do this which belonged to both eating and drinking lay very heavy upon him and to ease himself of those which he could not do if it were always necessary to observe what Christ instituted and commanded he was willing to make Baptism by dipping to be as much commanded and instituted as this though it be not now observed as necessary either by those of the Church of Rome or the Reformed and besides his arguments to prove that from Scripture he makes an universal Tradition of the Church which he pretends all along in his Book is against Communion in both kinds and which is the great thing he goes upon yet to be for this sort of Baptism no less than 1300 years So that neither the law in Scripture nor Tradition as it explains that law is always it seems to be observed which is the thing ought openly to be said for Communion in one kind The Cause it self demands this and we must not expect that an errour can be defended after a consequent manner ‖ Ib. But is Scripture and Tradition both for Baptism by immersion Surely not the word Baptize in which the command is given signifies only to wash in general and not to plung all over as I have already shewn in this Treatise †P. 21. and as all Writers against the Anabaptists do sufficiently make out to whom I shall refer the Reader for further satisfaction in that Controversie which it is not my business to consider at present and so much is de Meaux out about Tradition being so wholly and universally for Baptism by immersion that Tertullian plainly speaks of it by intinction ‖ Omne praeterea cunctationis tergiversationis erga paenitentiam vitium praesumtio intinctionis importat Tertul. de paenir Cap. 6. and by sprinkling * Quis enim tibi tam infidae paenitentiae
199. without any difference and all along mentions both the Symbols by the words Sacramenta Mysteria Dona in the plural number and concludes with this Prayer That as many as have taken the Body and Blood of Christ may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace * Vt quotquot ex hâc altaris partici patione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti gratiâ repleamur p. 198. The three other are lately published by Mabillon and were used very anciently in the Gallican Church before that Nation had received the Roman Office in all which also there are plain evidences for the Communion in both kinds in the old Gothic one after the Lord's Prayer follows this †Libera nos à malo Domine Christe Jesu Corpus tuum pro nobis crucisixum edimus sanguinem sanctum tuum bibimus fiat nobis corpus sanctum tuum ad salutem sanguis sanctas tuus in remissionem peccatorum hìc in aeternùm Missale Gothico-Gallicanum apud Mabillon de Lyturg. Gallic p. 300. Deliver us from evil O Lord Jesus Christ we have eaten thy Body crucified for us we have drunk thy holy Blood which was shed for us Let thy sacred Body be unto us for Salvation and thy sacred Blood for the remission of Sins here and for ever And in the Missa Dominicalis after the Communion there is this Prayer Thy body O Lord which we have taken and thy Cup which we have drunk let it stick in our entrails ‖ Corpus tuum Domine quod accepimus calicem tuum quem potavimus haereat visceribus nostris Ib. p. 297. An expression used now in the Canon Missae In the Missale Francorum which is but short the Sacramenta and Mysteria and Sacrosancta Mysteria are used in the plural which may denote the two parts of the Sacrament but in the old Gallican Missal it is as plain as can be in the Collect after the Eucharist We have taken from the holy Altars the body and blood of Christ our Lord and our God Let us pray that we being always filled with Faith may hunger and thirst after Righteousness * Sumsimus ex sacris altaribus Christi Domini Dei nostri corpus sanguinem oremus ut semper nobis fide plenis esurire detur ac sitire justitiam Ib. p. 331. And in another Collect after the Communion upon Easter day We beseech thee O Lord that this wholsome food and sacred drink may bring up thy Servants †Quaesumus Domine famulos tuos salutaris cibus sacer potus instituat Ib. p. 366. There are several old Missals produced by Menardus at the end of his Notes on Gregory's Sacramentary which are supposed to be written about the Tenth and the Eleventh Century and though the Doctrine of Transubstantiation creeping in in those dark and ignorant times made them begin to have a superstitious fear of spilling the Wine and so brought them in order to prevent that to mix the two Elements together yet they never gave the one without the other as appears in all those Masses The Sacramentary of St. Gregory is alone a sufficient Authority for Communion in both kinds in which the Priest who Celebrates prays that as many as shall take the sacred Body and Blood of thy Son may be filled with all heavenly blessings ‖ Quotquot ex hâc altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti repleamur Gregor Sacram. and we who take the Communion of this holy Bread and Cup are made one body of Christ * Ipsi qui sumimus Communionem hujus sancti panis calicis unum Christi corpus efficimur Ib. So that the Body and Blood of Christ were plainly to be taken by more than himself and were so by all the Faithful who were thereby to be made the Body of Christ so we are fed with his flesh we are strengthned by his bloud †Cajus cane pascimur reboramur sanguine Ib. Thou hast refreshed us with the body and bloud of thy Son ‖ Corpore sanguine filii tui nos resecisti Ib. and we beseech thee that we may be numbred amongst his members whose body and bloud we do Communicate * Quaesumus ut inter ejus membra numeremur cujus corpori communicamus sanguini Ib. I have before considered the Ordo Romanus as an ancient Ritual of the Latine Church and both that and the Sacramentary of St. Gregory which are the most ancient Writings at least next to Gelasius that give us an account of these things in the Roman Church do bear witness to the custom of giving the Cup in the Communion as well as the Bread which Cassander also observes †Quem morem sanguinis Domiai porrigendi antiqua Sacramentaria B. Gregorii libellus Ordinis Romani apertè testantur Cassand Consult de commun sub utrâ que who had as great skill as any man in these matters but yet had not seen the Gelasian Sacramentary since published out of the Queen of Sweden's Library which is a further confirmation of this 3. As to the Testimony of the Fathers or ancient Writers some of those have been already given upon the two former heads I shall add several others to them who bear witness to the Communion in both kinds Ignatius in one of his Epistles says One Bread is broken to all one Cup is distributed to all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph And here I cannot but admire the Confidence and Folly of Monsieur Boileau * De solitario pane mentionem facit Ignatius Boileau de praecept Divin Commun sub utráque p. 216. who brings this very passage One Bread is broken for them all as a proof that it was onely the Bread that was given and leaves out what is immediately added One Cup is distributed to all which not onely confutes but shames him †Quomodo dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire non percipere vitam quae à corpore Domini sanguine alitur Iren. l. 4. c. 34. Irenaeus says The flesh is fed by the body and bloud of Christ and that of the Cup and the Bread the substance of our flesh is increased and consists ‖ Quando ergo mixtus calix fraclus panis percipit verbum Det fit Eucht istia sangutnis corporis Christi x quibus augetur consistit carnti nostrae substantia quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donatio is Dei. qui est vitae aeterna quae sanguine corpere Christi nutritur membrum ejus Id. l. 5. c. 2. And from hence he there proves the Resurrection of the Body against those Hereticks that denied it because the body is nourished by the bloud and body of Christ and is made a member of him He must mean this of
The Three Grand CORRVPTIONS of the Eucharist THE THREE GRAND CORRVPTIONS OF The Eucharist IN THE CHURCH of ROME VIZ. The Adoration of the Host The Communion in one kind The Sacrifice of the Mass In Three Discourses LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil MDCLXXXVIII A DISCOURSE Concerning the ADORATION OF THE HOST As it is Taught and Practiced in the CHURCH of ROME Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject And to Monsieur Boileau's late book De Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1685. right Charge of the Church of England of which no honest man can be a Member and a Minister who does not make and believe it I might give several Instances to shew this but shall only mention one wherein I have undertaken to defend our Church in its charge of Idolatry upon the Papists in their Adoration of the Host which is in its Declaration about Kneeling at the Sacrament after the Office of the Communion in which are these remarkable words It is hereby declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the sacramental Bread and Ware there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood for the sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians Here it most plainly declares its mind against that which is the Ground and Foundation of their Worshipping the Host That the Elements do not remain in their natural Substances after Consecration if they do remain as we and all Protestants hold even the Lutherans then in Worshipping the consecrated Elements they worship meer Creatures and are by their own Confession guilty of Idolatry as I shall show by and by and if Christ's natural Flesh and Blood be not corporally present there neither with the Substance nor Signs of the Elements then the Adoring what is there must be the Adoring some things else than Christs body and if Bread only be there and they adore that which is there they must surely adore the Bread it self in the opinion of our Church but I shall afterwards state the Controversie more exactly between us Our Church has here taken notice of the true Issue of it and declared that to be false and that it is both Unfit and Idolatrous too to Worship the Elements upon any account after Consecration and it continued of the same mind and exprest it as particularly and directly in the Canons of 1640 where it says a Canon 7. 1640. about placing the Communion Table under this head A Declaration about some Rites and Ceremonies That for the cause of the Idolatry committed in the Mass all Popish Altars were demolisht so that none can more fully charge them with Idolatry in this point than our Church has done It recommends at the same time but with great Temper and Moderation the religious Gesture of bowing towards the Altar both before and out of the time of Celebration of the Holy Eucharist and in it and in neither a Ib. Cans 7. 1640. Vpon any opinion of a corporal presence of Christ on the Holy Table or in the mystical Elements but only to give outward and bodily as well as inward Worship to the Divine Majesty and it commands all Persons to receive the Sacrament Kneeling b Rubric at Communion in a posture of Adoration as the Primitive Church used to do with the greatest Expression of Reverence and Humility 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Cyrill of Hierusalem speaks c Cyril Hierosolym Catech. Mystag 5. and as I shall shew is the meaning of the greatest Authorities they produce out of the Ancients for Adoration not to but at the Sacrament so far are we from any unbecoming or irreverent usage of that Mystery as Bellarmine d Controv. de Eucharist when he is angry with those who will not Worship it tells them out of Optatus that the Donatists gave it to Dogs and out of Victor Vticensis that the Arrians trod it under their Feet that we should abhor any such disrespect shown to the sacred Symbols of our Saviours Body as is used by them in throwing it into the Flames to quench a Fire or into the Air or Water to stop a Tempest or Inundation or keep themselves from drowning or any the like mischeif to prevent which they will throw away even the God they Worship or the putting it to any the like undecent Superstitions 'T is out of the great Honour and Respect that we bear to the Sacrament that we are against the carrying it up and down as a show and the Exposing and Prostituting it to so shameful and Abuse and so gross an Idolatry We give very great Respect and Reverence to all things that relate to God and are set apart to his Worship and Service to the Temple where God is said himself to dwell and to be more immediately present to the Altar whereon the Mysteries of Christs Body and Blood are solemnly celebrated to the Holy Vessels that are always used in those Administrations to the Holy Bible which is the Word of God and the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the Sacrament is his Body and the New Testament in his Blood to the Font which is the Laver of Regeneration wherein we put on Christ as well as we eat him in the Eucharist and if we would strain things and pick out of the Ancient and Devout Christians what is said of all these it would go as far and look as like to adoring them as what with all their care they collect and produce for adoring the Sacrament as I shall afterwards make appear in Answer to what the a Jacob. Boileau Paris De Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. latest Defender of the Adoration of the Eucharist has culled or rather raked together out of the Fathers It seems from that Declaration of our Church that some were either so silly or so spiteful as to suppose that by our Kneeling at the Sacrament we gave Worship to the Elements and that learned man is willing to have it believed that we do thereby externè Eucharistiam colere b Boil p. 145. outwardly Worship the Sacrament and he blames us for not doing it inwardly in our minds as well as outwardly with our Bodies so willing are these men to joyn with our wildest Dissenters in their unreasonable Charges against our Church and use any crutches that may help their own weak Cause or be made use of to strike at us but it may as well be said that the Dissenters Worship their Cushions or their Seats when they kneel before them the roof of the Church or the crowns of their Hats when they fix their Eyes upon them at the same time they are
of Communion So that though Christ be really present by his Spirit and the real Vertue and Efficacy of his Body and Bloud be given in the Sacrament yet his natutural Body is by no means present there either by Transubstantiation or by any other way unintelligible to us as the Translatour would insinuate so that all those consequences which he or others would willingly draw from the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament as believed by us do fall to the ground and I doubt he or I shall never be so happy as to make up this great breach between the two Churches however willing we may be to do it but instead of making a Reconciliation between them which is impossible as long as the Doctrines of each of them stand as they do I shall endeavour to defend that Article of the Church of England which not onely Modern Novellists as the Translatour calls those who are not for his Real Presence and his Reconciling way but the most learned and ancient Protestants who have been either Bishops Priests or Deacons in our Church have owned and subscribed namely That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men †Article 30 th ADVERTISEMENT The Reader is desired to Correct the small Errata of the Press without a particular Account of them A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind THE Controversie about the Communion in One Kind is accounted by a late French Writer upon that Subject one of the chiefest and most capital Controversies in Christian Religion * Cum haec quaestio ac Controversia visa sit semper in Religione Christianâ praecipua ac capitalis Boileau de praecepto divino Commun sub utrâque specie p. 217. I suppose he means that is in difference between the Reformed and the Church of Rome it is indeed such a Case as brings almost all other matters between us to an issue namely to this Point Whether the Church may give a Non obstante to the Laws of Christ and make other Laws contrary to his by vertue of its own Power and Prerogative If it may in this case it may in all others and therefore it is the more considerable Question because a great many others depend upon the Resolution of it When it had been thus determined in the Council of Constance yet a great many were so dis-satisfied namely the Bohemians to have the Cup taken from them that the Council of Basil was forced upon their importunity to grant it them again and at the Council of Trent it was most earnestly prest by the Germans and the French by the Embassadors of those Nations and by the Bishops that the People might have the Cup restored to them The truth in this cause and the advantage seems to be so plain on the side of the Reformation that as it required great Authority to bear it down so it calls for the greatest Art and Sophistry plausibly to oppose it One would think the case were so evident that it were needless to say much for it and impossible to say any thing considerable against it but it is some mens excellency to shew their skill in a bad cause and Monsieur de Meaux has chosen that Province to make an experiment of his extraordinary Wit and Learning and to let us see how far those will go to perplex and intangle the clearest Truth He has mixt a great deal of boldness with those as it was necessary for him when he would pretend that Communion in one kind was the Practice of the Primitive Church and that it was as effectual as in both and that the Cup did not belong to the substance of the Institution but was wholly indifferent to the Sacrament and might be used or not used as the Church thought fit How horribly false and erronious those Pleas of his are the following Discourse will sufficiently make out and though he has said as much and with as much artifice and subtilty as is possible in this cause yet there being another Writer later then him †Boileau de praecepto divino commun Sub utrâque specie Paris 1685. who denys that there is any Divine Precept for Communion in both kinds and who hath designedly undertaken the Scripture part of this Controversie which Monsieur de Meaux has onely here and there cunningly interwoven in his Discourse I resolve to consider and examine it as it lies in both those Authors and though I have chosen my own method to handle it which is First from Scripture then from Antiquity and lastly from the Reasonings and Principles made use of by our Adversaries yet I shall all along have a particular regard to those two great men and keep my eye upon them in this Treatise so as to pass by nothing that is said by either of them that has any strength or show in it for my design is to defend the Doctrine of our own Church in this matter which our Adversaries have thought fit to attaque and to fall upon not with their own but the borrowed forces of the Bishop of Meaux whose great name and exploits are every-where famous and renowned but since we have all Christian Churches in the World except the Roman to be our seconds in this Cause we shall not fear to defend them and our selves and so plain a Truth against all the cunning and Sophistry of our Adversaries though it be never so artificially and drest after the French Mode We will begin with Scripture which ought to be our onely Rule not onely in matters of Faith which should be founded upon nothing less than a Divine Revelation but in matters of pure positive and arbitrary Institution as the Sacraments are for they depend merely upon the will and pleasure the mind and intention of him that appointed them and the best and indeed the onely way to know that is by recurring to his own Institution as we know the mind of a Testator by going to his last Will and Testament and by consulting that do best find how he has ordered those things that were of his own free and arbitrary disposal And by this way we shall find that the Church of Rome by taking away the Cup has plainly violated the Institution of our blessed Saviour and deprived the People of a considerable part of that Legacy which he bequeathed to them Let us lay therefore before us the Institution of our Saviour as we find it in the three Evangelists and in St. Paul as he received it of the Lord. Matthew 26.26 27 28. Mark 14.22 23 24. Luke 22.19 20. 1 Corinthians 11.23 24 25. JESUS took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all
of this for this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins JESUS took bread and blessed and brake it and gave to them and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them and they all drank of it And he said unto them This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me Likewise also the cup after supper saying This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you The LORD JESUS the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take eat this is my body which is broken for you this do in remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the new testament in my blood this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me From all these it evidently appears that our Saviour appoints the Cup as well as the Bread and commands that to be drunk as much as the other to be eat And two of the Evangelists remark that particularly of the Cup which they do not of the Bread that they all drank of it and that Christ said expresly to them Drink ye all of it As if the infinite Wisdom of God which foresaw all future events and all the after-errours that should arise about this Sacrament had had some especial regard to this very thing and designed to prevent the abuse and mistake of those who would not have all Christians drink of this Cup as well as eat of the Bread. What other reason there should be of those particular and remarkable words in St. Mathew and St. Mark relating to the Cup more than to the Bread I believe it will be hard to find out for Christ gave them the Bread just as he did the Cup and there was no more danger that any of them at that time should omit drinking the one any more than eating the other nor did there need any greater caution that we know of or more particular command in reference to themselves for the one more than the other and yet no doubt there was some great and peculiar reason for St. Matthew and St. Mark 's adding of those words of which there can be no such probable account given as their having a respect and relation to after Ages as many other things in the Scripture have which was written for the use not onely of the present but all times of the Church and if these were spoken to the Apostles onely as Priests as the Roman Sophisters pretend though without any ground as we shall shew by and by there cannot then be given any reason for them as yet for there is no such corruption yet got into any part of the Christian Church as to forbid the Priests to drink of the Cup and therefore it cannot be said that this remark or precaution was upon their account unless the Romanists will think fit to take it to themselves upon the account of their not allowing their very Priests to Communicate of the Cup unless when they Minister and Consecrate and so will have it regard onely that other abuse of theirs which is unjustifiable even upon their own grounds to wit That the assistent Priests are not to receive it though Christ by their own confession said to the Priests who were present Drink ye all of it Which is the best way that I know for them to come off of those words by their own Principles For to avoid the force of those words and to elude the plain Command and Institution of our Saviour about the Cup 's being given to all Christians they say The Apostles received it onely in the capacity of Priests and that our Saviour's Command Drink ye all of it belongs onely to Priests and was given to the Apostles meerly as such nay Monsieur Boileau says ‖ Igitur haec verba S. Matthei bibete ex hoc omnes haec S. Marci biberant ex illio omnes neminem hominem praeter duodecim Apostolos spectant aut attinent Boileau de pracepto divino Commun Sub utrâque specie p. 188. that those words in St. Matthew Drink ye all of it and in St. Mark they all drank of it Respect no man whatsoever nor belong to no other man but to the twelve Apostles and Monsieur de Meaux tells us P. 237. that these words were addressed to the Apostles onely who were present and had their entire accomplishment when in effect they all drunk of it Then it seems none but the Apostles themselves no other Priests have a right or a command to drink of the Cup but onely the Apostles And this they might say if they pleased upon as good grounds and defend with as much reason as that the Apostles onely drank of it as Priests but I suppose they do not intend to improve this notion so far but mean onely the same with their Brethren who say that those words concern the Apostles not onely in their own persons but as Priests and as bearing the persons of all Christian Priests in which capacity alone they received the Cup and were commanded by our Saviour to drink of it whereas they received the Bread as Lay-men and as representing the whole body of private and ordinary Christians What a sudden change is here in the Apostles they who sat down as Lay-men and as Lay-men took the Bread just before have their capacity altered in a trice and are made Priests in a moment Yes say they so they were at that very time they were made Priests whilst they were sitting at Table with Christ and Celebrating this his last Supper the first and only ordination that ever was either in the Jewish or Christian Church in the time of eating and siting at Table And they may set up I dare say for the first Authors among all the Christian Writers that ever were of this Opinion that is now held by them That Christ at his last Supper appointed not onely one but two Sacraments that of Orders as well as that of the Eucharist and the first without any proper Solemnity for such a purpose without any outward Action or any Words one would think importing any such thing But they were made Priests say they by vertue of those words Hoc facite Do this which Christ spake to them after he had given them the Bread. This is a very short and a quick form of Ordination and had it been known to be one sooner for 't is a very late discovery I suppose the Roman Church would have kept to that in the Ordaining Priests as they do to Hoc est Corpus in Consecrating the Sacramental Bread But this
of his extremity and nearness to death for he had lain three days speechless and senseless before he came to himself and had desired this the Priest rather than he should want this comfort sent him by the young man who came to him a small parcel of the Eucharist bidding him moisten it and so put it into the mouth of the old man which he did and so he immediately gave up the Ghost Now here says de Meaux †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. although it appears from this relation that the Priest sent onely to his Penitent that part of the Sacrament which was solid in that he ordained onely the young man whom he sent to moisten it in some liquor before he gave it to the sick person yet the good old man never complained that any thing was wanting But how does it appear from this relation that he sent onely the Bread or what was solid does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little of the Sacrament which is the thing he is said to send signifie onely Bread or the solid part or does it not rather signifie a little of both the Species which make the Sacrament as it plainly does in Justin Martyr who speaking of that Sacramental Food under both kinds says this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called by us the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‖ Apolog. 2. And why might not he give him a little Wine as well as a little Bread and why may we not suppose that the liquour he was to moisten the Bread in was the Wine And not as Valesius without any grounds puts in his Translation Water I believe it is a thing strange and unheard of in Antiquity to mix the Eucharistic Bread with meer Water and so take it infused in Water without any Wine Monsieur de Meaux who says the Custom of mixing the two species together was not in use till after-Ages not in public I own but in private it might will be more hard put to it to shew the custom of mixing the Species of Bread with Water and this was so mixt with some liquor that it was rather fluid than solid and so was said to be infused or poured into his mouth * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. That the Wine was used to be carried to the sick as well as the Bread is plain from Justin Martyr if those who were absent from the Public Communion were as it is probable the sick for to them the Deacons carried the very same that they gave to those that were present without any manner of difference †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. as is plain from that fore-quoted place in his second Apology And St. Hierom relates of Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse that he carried the Body of our Lord in a Basket and the Bloud in a Vessel of Glass ‖ Qui corpus Domini canistrivimineo sanguinem portat in vitro Ep. ad Rustic Monach. after he had sold the rich Utensils and Plate of the Church to relieve the Poor and redeem Captives And the Council of Tours thought the Wine so necessary as well as the Bread that it commands that the Bread be always dipped in the Cup that so the Priest may truly say the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ avail unto thee for the remission of Sins and to eternal Life This Cassander * Ego sane demonstare possum etiam infirmis plenum corporis sanguinis Sacramentam dispensatum certè in promtu est Capitulum Turonensis Concilii quod ab Ivone Reginone Burchardo anducitur quo jubetur ut Eucharistia quae in viaticum è vitâ excedentium rese vatur intincta sit in Calicem D ni ut Presbyter veraciter possit dicere Corpus sanguis D ni nostri Jesu Christi prosit tibi in vitam aeternam Cassand Dialog apud Calixt p. 5. produces as a demonstration that the Communion of the Sick used to be in both kinds and the reason which is there given for this is so considerable that it plainly shews that both Species were necessary to make it a true Sacrament and that neither the Body and Bloud of Christ nor the vertue and benefit of them could be given without both and this forces de Meaux to confess †P. 52. after all his shifts and artifices that in effect it is true that in some sense to be able to call it the Body and the Bloud the two Species must be given And further from hence also the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation and Concomitancy grounded upon it whereby they suppose the Body and Bloud of Christ to be in either of the Species is wholly overthrown and destroyed but this by the by as to Serapion it is strange that the Priest should not rather have sent him the Wine alone if he had intended him but one Species that being more fit to be received and more proper to enter the parcht throat of an agonizing man as de Meaux speaks then the Bread however moistened and therefore it was provided both by the Cannons of some Councils ‖ Concil Carthag 4. Toled 11. and the Decrees of some Popes * Paschal 2. Vrban 2. that in cales of extraordinary necessity which dispence with positive Precepts the sick and dying who could not swallow the Bread might Communicate onely with the Wine but to give them onely Bread as de Meaux would have it in both his Instances of Serapion and St. Ambrose who were both a dying and not to give them the more proper Species of Wine was very strange if they had designed them but one onely Species without the other But I pass to consider St. Ambrose by it self Paulinus who wrote his Life relates this of his Death That Honoratus Bishop of Verceills being to visit him in the night whilst he was at his repose he heard this Voice three times Rise stay not he is a dying He went down and gave him the Body of our Lord and the Saint had no sooner received it but he gave up the Ghost So that it seems he died and received only one kind but who can help that if he did if he died before he could receive the other as it is probable from the History he did If the Roman Priests did like Honoratus give onely the Bread to those who when they have received it die before they can take the Cup this would be a very justifiable excuse and needs no great Authority to defend it but if they will undertake to prove that St. Ambrose had time enough to have received the Cup as well as the Bread before he died which they must meerly by supposing some thing more than is in the History then by the very same way I will prove that he did receive the Cup and that that by a Syneckdoche is to be understood as well as the Bread by the Body of Christ which he is there said to receive And I am sure I
so they may be offered to God and a more lively representation may be made of Christ's death But this is no answer to the question for I do not ask why they are necessary as the Eucharist is a Sacrifice which it is not in a proper sence though it be not my business to shew that here but as it is a Sacrament Why did Christ institute both Species in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament and why did he give both Species to his Apostles He did not give these to them as a Sacrifice for as such if it were so it was to be onely offered up to God but he gave both the Species to his Disciples and why did he do this if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament was given by one and why does the Priest receive both as well as offer both to God He does not receive them as a Sacrifice but as a Sacrament And why is the Sumption of both necessary to him as the Eucharist is a Sacrament which Bellarmine says it is upon that very account †Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti Bellarm. de Euch. c. 4. If the taking of one be sufficient to convey the whole grace and vertue of both and the other be not necessary for this end All these questions will return upon de Meaux though the Eucharist were a Sacrifice and as to that I shall onely ask him this question Whether Christ did as truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood as a Sacrifice to God when he instituted this Sacrament as he did upon the Cross If he did and therefore two Species were necessary though if his Body and Blood be both together in one that might be sufficient why needed he then to have afterwards offered up himself upon the Cross when he had as truly offered up his Body and Blood before in the Eucharist If two Species are necessary to make a full representation of Christ's death and to preserve a perfect image of his Sacrifice upon the Cross and by the mystical seperation of his Body and Blood in the Eucharist to represent how they were really separated at his death why are they not then necessary as de Meaux says They are not to the ground of the Mystery Is not the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament designed to do all this and to be such a Remembrance of Christ and a shewing forth the Lord's death till he come as the Scripture speaks And do not they in great measure destroy this by giving the Sacrament in one kind without this mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood and without preserving such a sacramental Representation of it as Christ has appointed But says de Meaux The ultimate exactness of representation is not requisite ‖ P. 175. This I confess for then the eating the Flesh and drinking the Bloud of a man as some Heretics did of an Infant might more exactly represent than Bread and Wine but such a representation as Christ himself has appointed and commanded this is requisite and when he can prove that Christ has commanded Immersion in Baptism to represent the cleansing of the Soul as he has done taking Bread broken and Wine poured out in the Eucharist to represent his Death I will own that to be requisite in answer to his § 11. There ought to be also an expression of the grace of the Sacrament which is not found in one Species alone for that is not a full expression of our perfect nourishment both by meat and drink and if the Sacraments onely exhibit what they represent which is an Axiom of the School-men then as one kind represents our spiritual nourishment imperfectly so it exhibits it imperfectly but however if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament be given by one Species the other must be wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the inward effect and so at most it must be but a meer significant sign void of all grace as de Meaux indeed makes it though the name of a sign as applied to the Sacrament is so hard to go down with them at other times when he says of the species of Wine That the whole fruit of the Sacrament is given without it and that this can adde nothing thereunto but onely a more full expression of the same Mystery * P. 185. II. The second question I proposed to consider was Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy do not contain and give whole Christ and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament This de Meaux and all of them pleade That each Species contains Jesus Christ whole and entire †P. 306. §. 9. so that we have in his Flesh his Blood and in his Blood his Flesh and in either of the two his Person whole and entire and in both the one and the other his blessed Soul with his Divinity whole and entire so that there is in either of the Species the whole substance of the Sacrament and together with that substance the whole essential vertue of the Eucharist ‖ P. 327. according to these Principles of the Roman Church I am not here to dispute against those nor to shew the falseness and unreasonableness of that which is the ground of them and which if it be false destroys all the rest I mean Transubstantiation whereby they suppose the Bread to be turn'd into the very natural Body of Christ with Flesh Bones Nerves and all other parts belonging to it and the Wine to be turned into the very natural substance of his Bloud and since this Flesh is not a dead Flesh it must have the Blood joyned with it and even the very Soul and Divinity of Christ which is always Hypostatically united to it and so does necessarily accompany it and the Body with Christ's Soul and Divinity must thus likewise ever accompany his Blood To which prodigious Doctrine of theirs as it relates to the Communion in one kind I have these things to say 1. It does so confound the two Species and make them to be one and the same thing that it renders the distinct consecration of them to be not onely impertinent but senceless For to what purpose or with what sense can the words of Consecration be said over the Bread This is my Body and those again over the Wine This is my Blood If upon the saying of them by the Priest the Bread does immediately become both the Body and Blood of Christ and the Wine both his Blood and his Body too this is to make the Bread become the same thing with the Wine and the Wine the same thing with the Bread and to make onely the same thing twice over and to do that again with one form of words which was done before with another for upon repeating the
bread and Wine they have no subject matter for a sacrifice for 't is not the bread and wine which they pretend to offer nor the bare species and accidents of those nor can they call them a proper propitiatory sacrifice but 't is the very natural body and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine or together with them for they with the species make one entire subject for sacrifice and one entire object for Adoration as they are forced to confess †Panis corpus Domini Vinum sanguis Domini non sunt duo sacrificia sed unum neque enim offerimus corpus Domini absolutè sed offerimus corpus Domini in specie panis Bellarm de Miss l. 1. c. 37. So that according to their own principles they must both sacrifice and adore something in the Eucharist besides the very body and blood of Christ which is a difficulty they will never get off but I design not to press them with that now but Transubstantiation upon which their sacrifice of the Mass is founded is so great a difficulty that it bears down before it all sense and reason and only makes way for Church Authority to tryumph over both Their wisest men have given up Scripture for it and frankly confest it were not necessary to believe it without the determination of the Church and if so then without the Churches determination there had been no foundation it seems for the sacrifice of the Mass for there can be none for that without Transubstantiation and 't is very strange that a sacrifice should be thus founded not upon Scripture or a Divine institution but only in effect upon the Churches declaration and should have no true bottom without that as according to those men it really has not But Transubstantiation is a Monster that startles and affrights the boldest Faith if the Church be not by to encourage and support it 't is too terrible to be looked upon in its self without having a thick mist of Church Authority and Infallibility first cast before a mans eyes and then if there were not a strange and almost fascinating power in such principles one would think it impossible that any man who has both eyes and brains in his head should believe a Wafer were the body of a man or that a crum of bread were a fleshly substance they do not indeed believe them to be both but they believe one to be the other which is the same thing there is nothing can expose such a doctrine for nothing can be more uncouth and extravagant then itsself it not only takes away all evidence of sense upon which all truth of miracles and so of all Revelation does depend but it destroys all manner of certainty and all the principles of truth and knowledge it makes one body be a thousand or at least be at the same time in a thousand places by which means the least atome may fill the whole World Again it makes the parts of a body to penetrate one another by which means all the matter of the whole World may be brought to a single point it makes the whole to be no greater then a part and one part to be as great as the whole thus it destroys the nature of things and makes a body to be a spirit and an accident to be a substance and renders every thing we see or taste to be only phantasm and appearance and though the World seems crouded with solids yet according to that it may be all but species and shadow and superficies So big is this opinion with absurdities and inconsistencies and contradictions and yet these must all go down and pass into an Article of Faith before there can be any foundation for the sacrifice of the Mass and let any one judge that has not lost his judgment by believing Transubstantiation what a strange production that must be which is to be the genuine of-spring of such a doctrine It is not my province nor must it be my present task to discourse at large of that or to confute the little sophistries with which it is thought necessary to make it outface the common reason of mankind There never was any paradox needed more straining to defend it nor any Sceptical principle but would bear as fair a wrangle on its behalf there is a known Treatise has so laid this cause on its back that it can never be able to rise again and though after a long time it endeavours a little to stir and heave and sruggle yet if it thereby provokes another blow from the same hand it must expect nothing less then its mortal wound I pass to the next Error and Mistake upon which the sacrifice of the Mass is founded and that is this that our blessed Saviour did at his last Supper when he celebrated the Communion with his Disciples offer up his body and blood to his Father as a true propitiatory sacrifice before he offered it as such upon the Cross This they pretend and are forced to do so to establish their sacrificing in the Mass for they are only to do that in the Sacrament they own which Christ himself did and which he commanded his Apostles to doe and if this sacrifice had not its institution and appointment at that time it never had any at all as they cannot but grant Let us then enquire whether Christ did thus sacrifice himself and offer up his body and blood to God at his last Supper Is there any the least colour or shadow of any such thing in any of the accounts that is given of this in the three Evangelists or in St. Paul The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and gave thanks or blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying take eat this is my Body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me after the same manner also he took the Cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Is here any mention or any intimation of offering up any thing to God Was not the bread and the cup and what he called his body and his blood given to his Disciples to be eaten and drank by them and was any thing else done with them is there any thing like an offering or a sacrificing of them yes say they Christ there calls it his body which is broken and his blood which is shed in the present tense therefore the one must be then broken and the other shed So indeed it is in the Original Greek though in the Vulgar Latin it is in the future tense and so it is also put in their Missal sanguis qui effundetur this is my Blood which shall be shed and is it not usual to put the present tense instead of the future when that is so near
were which was the thing our Saviour here designed The greatest part of the publick Jewish Worship was fixt to the Temple and to Jerusalem their Tithes and First-fruits and Firstlings and Festivals as well as their sacrifices and there may be divine Worship without sacrifice as well as with it and whatever the Worship be which our Saviour here says was to be spiritual it was not like the Jewish to be fixt to one place which is the true scope of those words to the Samaritan Woman in answer to her question v. 20. whether mount Gerizim or Jerusalem was the true place of Worship which was the great dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans our Saviour determines for neither but puts an end to the question and says that now under the Gospel the Worship of God was not local and as to the manner of it that it was spiritual The second and principal Argument for the sacrifice of the Mass is from Christs institution and first celebration of the Eucharist with his Disciples and here indeed is the true place to find it if there be any such thing but I have already shown ‖ pag. 8 9 10. that Christ did neither then sacrifice himself nor command his Disciples to do so and have taken away that which is the very Foundation of the Mass-sacrifice and without which every thing else that can be said for it falls to the ground There are but two other and those very weak ones behind the one out of the 13th of the Acts where it is said of Saul and Barnabus and the prophets and Teachers of the Church at Antioch that they ministered unto the Lord but could not they minister and perform the divine office and service without sacrificing it must be first proved that that was part of the religious office before it can appear that it was mâ—â—nt here it is said they fasted and prayed in that probably their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ministry consisted or as St. Chrysostom ‖ Homil. 37. in Act. and after him Oecumenius explain it in preaching but that they sacrificed there is not the least evidence The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie to sacrifice but to perform any proper function and therefore it is attributed in the Scripture both to the Angels who are called ministring spirits †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1.14 and to the Magistrates who are called the Ministers of God ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 13.6 and yet sacrificing I suppose belongs to neither of them nor does their own vulgar Latin so Translate it here The last is out of the 1 Cor. 10. for Bellarmine gives up that out of the Hebrews 13. We have an altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the Tabernacle though 't is as much to his purpose in my mind as any of the rest but some Catholick Writers he says do by altar mean there either the Cross or Christ himself †Quia non desunt ex Catholicis qui eo loco per altare intelligunt crucem aut ipsum Christum non urgeo ipsum locum Bellarm. de Mis c. 14. but if it were meant of the Eucharist that is but an Altar in an improper sense as the sacrifice offered on it is but improper and metaphorical as we shall prove but in the place to the Corinthians the Apostle Commands them not to eat of things offered to Idols for to eat of them was to partake of things sacrificed to Devils and so to have communion with Devils which was very unfit for those who were partakers of the Lords Table and therein truly communicated of the Body and Blood of Christ as those who are of the Jewish sacrifices were partakers of the Jewish Altar Now what is here of the sacrifice of the Mass or any way serviceable to it Why yes the Apostle compares the Table of the Lord with the Table of Devils and eating of the Lords supper with eating the Jewish and the Heathen sacrifices therefore the Christians ought to have an Altar as well as the Jews and what they fed on ought to be sacrificed as well as the Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Apostle says nothing of this nor makes any such comparison between them but only shows the unfitness of Christians eating of the Heathen sacrifices who partook of the Lords Table he does not call the Lords Table an Altar nor the Eucharist a sacrifice nor was there any danger that the Christians should go to eat in the Idol Temples but he would not have them eat of their sacrifices brought home and the whole comparison lyes here the eating the Lords Supper did make them true partakers of the Lords body and blood sacrificed upon the Cross as eating of the Jewish sacrifices did make the Jews partakers of the Jewish Altar and as eating of things offered to Idols was having fellowship with Devils so that they who partook of such holy food as Christians did should not communicate of such execrable and diabolical food as the Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If indeed Christians could not partake of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist unless they first made a proper sacrifice and oblation of them then the Apostles discourse would necessarily suppose and imply them to be thus offered as the Jewish and Heathen sacrifices were before they were eaten but since Christs body and blood being once offered upon the Cross is a sufficient sacrifice and oblation of them and the Eucharist is a religious and Sacramental Feast upon the sacrifice of Christ once offered this is sufficient for the Apostles scope and design in that place where there is no other comparison made between the Table of the Lord and the Table of Devils but that one makes us to be partakers of the body and blood of Christ and the other to have Fellowship with Devils and as to the Jewish Altar the Antithesis does not lye here as Bellarmine would have it between that and the Table of the Lord that both have proper sacrifices offered upon them which are eaten after they are sacrificed but the Cross of Christ rather is the Antithesis to the Jewish Altar on which sacrifices were really and properly slain which are not on the Christian Altar and the feeding and partaking of those sacrifices so offered whereby they were made partakers of the Altar this answers to the sacramental feeding upon Christs body and blood in the Christian Altar whereby we are made partakers of the Cross of Christ and have the vertue and merit of his sacrifice communicated to us Thus I have considered and fully answered whatever our Adversaries can bring out of Scripture for their sacrifice of the Mass I shall now offer some places of Scripture that are directly contrary to it and do perfectly overthrow it and though their cause must necessarily sink if the Scripture be not for it because without a Scriptural Foundation there can be