Jacobi as it is in the Church of England and I hope Boileau will not pretend that this is to the Holy Table it self If whatever we worship before is the very Object of our Worship then the Priest is so as well as the Table but it is neither he nor the Table nor the Sacrament but only Christ himself to whom this Worship is or ought to be given at the Celebration of the Eucharist and therefore this Adoration was as well before as after the Consecration of the Sacramental Elements and so could not be supposed to be given to them 3. There were several very ancient Customs relating to the Sacrament which are no ways consistent with the Opinion the Papists have of it now and with the worship of it as a God. It was very old and very usual for Christians to reserve and keep by them some of the Elements the Bread especially which they had received at the Sacrament as is evident from Tertullian n De Orat. c. 14. Accepto â—orpore Domini reservato and from St. Cyprian o De Lapsis who reports a very stronge think that happened to a Woman and also to a Man who had unduly gone to the Sacrament and brought some part of it home with them I shall not enquire whither this Custom had not something of Superstition in it whither in those times of Danger and Persecution it were not of use but had the Church then thought of it as the Papists do now they would not have suffered private Christians to have done this nay they would not have suffered them hardly to have toucht and handled that which they had believed to be a God no more than the Church of Rome will now which is so far from allowing this private Reservation of the Elements that out of profound Veneration as they pretend to them they wholly deny one part of them the Cup to the Laity and the other part the Bread they will not as the primitive Church put into their hands but the Priest must inject it into their Mouths The sending the Eucharist not only to the Sick and Infirm and to the Penitents who were this way to be admitted to the Communion of the Church in articulo mortis as is plain from the known Story of Serapion p Euseb Eccles Hist l. 6. c. 34. but the Bishops of several Churches sending it to one another as a token and pledg of their Communion with each other and q Iren. apud Euseb l. 5. c. 24. it being sent also to private Christians who lived remote in the Country and private Places which custom was abolisht by the Council of Laodicea these all show that tho the Christians always thought the Sacrament a Symbol of Love and Friendship and Communion with the Church so that by partaking of this one Bread they were all made as St. Paul says One Bread and one Body yet they could not think this to be a God or the very natural Body of their Saviour which they sent thus commonly up and down without that Pomp and Solemnity that is now used in the Church of Rome and without which I own it is not fit a Deity should be treated But above all what can they think of those who anciently used to burn the Elements that remained after the Communion as Hesychius r In Levit. 8.32 testifies was the custom of the Church of Hierusalem according to the Law of Moses in Leviticus of burning what remain'd of the Flesh of the Sacrifice that was not eaten but however this was done out of some respect that what was thus sacred might not otherwise be profaned yet they could not sure account that to be a God or to be the very natural and substantial Body of Christ which they thus burnt and threw into the Fire So great an honour and regard had the Primitive Church for the Sacrament that as they accounted it the highest Mystery and Solemnest part of their Worship so they would not admit any of the Penitents who had been guilty of any great and notorious Sin nor the Catechumens nor the Possest and Energumeni so much as to the sight of it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Participation of this Mystery used always in those times to go together as Cassander Å¿ Consult de Circumgest Sacram. owns and Albaspinaeus t L'ancienne Police de l'Eglise sur l'administration de l'Eucharistie liure prem Chap. 15 16 17. proves in his Book of the Eucharist And therefore as it is plainly contrary to the Primitive practice to carry the Sacrament up and down and expose it to the Eyes of all Persons so the reason of doing it that it may be worshipt by all and that those who do not partake of it may yet adore it was it is plain never thought of in the primitive Church for then they would have seen and worshipped it tho they had not thought fit that they should have partaken of it But he that will see how widely the Church of Rome differs from the ancient Church in this and other matters relating to the Eucharist let him read the learned Dallee his two Books of the Object of religious Worship I shall now give an Answer to the Authorities which they produce out of the Fathers and which Monsieur Boileau has he tells us been a whole year a gleaning out of them v Annuae vellicationis litirariae ratiocinium reddo Praef. ad Lect. Boileau de Adorat Euchar. if he has not rather pickt from the Sheaves of Bellarmine and Perrone But all their Evidences out of Antiquity as they are produced by him and bound up together in one Bundle in his Book I shall Examine and Answer too I doubt not in a much less time They are the only Argument he pretends to for this Adoration and when Scripture and all other Reasons fail them as they generally do then they fly to the Fathers as those who are sensible their forces are too weak to keep the open Field fly to the Woods or the Mountains where they know but very few can follow them I take it to be sufficient that in any necessary Article of Faith or Essential part of Christian Worship which this of the Sacrament must be if it be any part at all it is sufficient that we have the Scripture for us or that the Scripture is silent and speaks of no more than what we own and admit In other external and indifferent Matters relating meerly to the Circumstances of Worship the Church may for outward Order and Decency appoint what the Scripture does not But as to what we are to believe and what we are to Worship the most positive Argument from any humane Authority is of no weight where there is but a Negative from Scripture But we have such a due regard to Antiquity and are so well assured of our cause were it to be tryed only by that and not by Scripture 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
God himself Thus the Jewish Church might settle the time of Vespers on which their Sabbaths and Feasts were to begin the evening being to them the beginning of the next day so they might appoint also the manner of observing the new Moons thus they might also settle the times of the Three Sacrifices the Daily the Sabbatical and the Paschal when they were all to be offered the same day upon one Altar and determine which of them should be offered first though God himself had not determined it But could they take away any one of these Sacrifices which God had commanded upon a pretence that the other were sufficient without it could they have neglected either the New Moons or the Evening-Oblations which God had appointed because they might appoint what God had not done namely the manner of observing them because they could regulate several things relating to the Law and necessary to the observance of it which God had not determined could they therefore void the Law it self or transgress and violate it in any of those things which God had particularly appointed Thus the Christian Church may order many things relating to Divine Worship and even to the Sacraments themselves which no Law of Christ has ordered or determined as the time the place the outward form and manner of administring them and yet these as de Meaux says Are absolutely necessary for the observation of the Divine Law which cannot be observed without some of those circumstances thus as to Baptism it may appoint it to be performed by sprinkling or dipping because neither of those are commanded by the word Baptize but onely washing with Water as I have shewn before against de Meaux but to do this in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is absolutely necessary because this is commanded though whether with that form I baptize thee or Be thou baptised which is used in the Greek Church is indifferent Thus as to the Eucharist the Church may command it to be taken kneeling or standing which was an ancient posture of receiving it it may use such a form of words in the consecrating the Elements and in blessing the Bread and Wine or another for it is plain one was not always used and St. Gregory tells us That the Apostles consecrated onely with Lord's Prayer †Epist 63. ad Syr. It may use such a sort of Bread and Wine or another for no particular sort is commanded but it is necessary to bless and to give both because both are instituted and both are commanded and the Ministers who are the Stewards of the Mysteries of God ‖ 1 Cor. 4.1 these alone have the ordinary power of blessing and distributing them to the people but they may do this by the hands of the Deacons or by suffering the people to take them and divide them among themselves Such things as these which de Meaux offers to us as great difficulties are onely indifferent things left undetermined by the Divine Law in which the Church has a power to appoint what it thinks most proper for decency and order and edification and thus the greatest knots with which he designed to entangle us are easily resolved and untied and yet not any one of the Divine Laws are in the least loosened or dissolved One of the greatest things he urges for the necessity of Tradition and the Practice of the Church is the Baptism of Infants for which he says we can produce nothing from Scripture but must be forced to resolve it wholly into Tradition as to that I am not willing to begin another Controvesie with him here and therefore shall onely send him to Bellarmine for his satisfaction who proves Infant Baptism from Scripture * Bellarmin de Sacram. Baptismi c. 8 9. as well as from Tradition and says It may be clearly gathered from Scripture it self †Tamen id colligitur satis apertè ex Scripturis But if it were not does it follow because the Church may make a Law which is not contained in Scripture that therefore it may break a Law which is and because it may appoint some things which God has left indifferent that therefore it may forbid what he has absolutely commanded 2. Other instances produced by de Meaux relate not onely to matters Ecclesiastical but to those that were Civil or at least mixt and so belonging to the Power of the Magistrate as the Lex Talionis and the prohibition of Marriage with the Moabites and Ammonites The Civil Magistrate was to see all possible Justice done by the one according to God's own command and it was a commendable act in him to prevent all mischief that might have come by the other though this was done without a Divine Precept by a general Power vested in the Magistrate or a particular and immediate direction perhaps given by God to Esdras and Nehemiah But how these can any way serve de Meaux I cannot imagine in the present Controversie unless he would prove the Magistrate not bound to execute the Lex Talionis at all or that the Jews might have dispensed with the Law in Deuteronomy which forbad Marriages with the Canaanites because upon the same ground and reason they forbad those also with the Ammonites and Moabites afterwards 3. Some cases he mentions were excused upon the account of necessity which when it is notorious and unavoidable dispences with a positive Law. Thus David's eating the Shewbread which it was not lawful but for the Priests ordinarily to eat is approved by our Saviour Matth. 12.4 not upon the account of Tradition or the judgement of the High-Priest but the extream hunger which he and his Companions were then pressed with and which made it lawful for them them to eat of the hallowed Bread when there was no other to be procured But did this make it lawful afterwards for the High-Priest or the Sanhedrim to have made the holy Bread always common to others when there was no such necessity Thus if some Christians lived in a Country where it was impossible to have any Wine this might excuse them from taking the Cup but does this justifie the making a general Law to take away the Cup when there is no such necessity for it and the same may be said of many other like instances 4. In other cases when a Law was founded upon a particular reason the ceasing of that made the Law to cease which was wholly grounded upon it as in the prohibition of eating Bloud and things strangled and Meats offered to Idols this being to avoid giving any scandal to the Jews at that time when the reason of it ceased so did the Law and it is not so much Tradition which makes it void as those general sayings of Christ and the Apostle that nothing which enters in at the mouth defiles the man and that whatever is sold in the shambles may be eat without asking any question for conscience sake As to the Jews defending
Sence of Scripture III. Whether the Church of England can make out such a visible Succession 5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in matters of Faith with Respect especially to the Romish pretence of the Necessity of such a one as is Infallible 6. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be Received and what Tradition is to be Rejected 7. A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church maintained in the Church of England 8. A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with Respect to the Errours and Corruptions of the Church of Rome In two Parts 9. A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship or a Scripture-Proof of the Unlawfulness of giving any Religious Worship to any other Being besides the one Supream God. 10. A Discourse against Transubstantiation 11. A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host as it is Taught and Practised in the Church of Rome Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject and to Monsieur Bocleau's late Book de Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. 12. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints 13. A Discourse concerning the Devotions of the Church of Rome 14. A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue 15. A Discourse concerning Auricular Confession as it is Prescribed by the Council of Trent and Practised in the Church of Rome With a Postscript on occasion of a Book lately printed in France called Historia Confessionis Auricularis 16. A Discourse concerning the Worship of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints with an Account of the Beginnings and Rise of it amongst Christians In Answer to Monsieur de Meaux's Appeal to the Fourth Age in his Exposition and his Pastoral Letter 17. A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux's Treatise of Communion under both Species Lately Translated into English A DISCOURSE OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS Imprimatur Guil. Needham October 24. 1687. LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil M DC LXXXVIII The CONTENTS THE charge of the Church of England against the sacrifice of the Mass page 2 3. Sect. 1. The sacrifice of the Mass founded upon two great Errors the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Opinion that Christ offered up himself to God at his last Supper p. 5 to 11. Sect. 2. No Scripture ground for the sacrifice of the Mass p. 11 to 41 Melchisedec's offering Bread and Wine Gen. 14.18 considered p. 13 Of the Melchisedecian Priesthood p. 16 The figure of the Paschal Lamb Examined p. 19 The prophesie of Malachy Examined p. 22 Other places out of the Old Testament Answered p. 25 An Answer to the places out of the New Testament p. 28 Plain places of Scripture against the Mass-sacrifice out of the Epistle to the Hebrews p. 33 Their Evasions to them Refuted p. 35 Sect. 3. The sacrifice of the Mass has no just claim to Antiquity p. 41 to 70 The Eucharist called a sacrifice by the Ancients upon account 1. Of the Oblations there made p. 44 2. Of the Religious Acts there performed p. 47 3. As it is Commemorative and Representative of the Crosssacrifice p. 49 Christ is offered mentally by every Communicant p. 52 How the Minister may be said to offer Christ to God in the Eucharist p. 53 General Remarks out of Antiquity to prove the Eucharist no proper sacrifice p. 54 to 70 1. From the Christian Apologists p. 54 2. From the Epithets they give to it when they call it a sacrifice p. 58 3. From the Novelty of private Masses which are a consequence of this Doctrine p. 60 4. From the Canon of the Mass it self p. 63 5. From the new form of Ordination in the R. C. p. 67 Sect. 4. The Mass-sacrifice in it self Vnreasonable and Absurd and has a great many Errors involved in it p. 70 to 95 1. It makes an external visible sacrifice of what is perfectly invisible p. 70 2. It makes a proper sacrifice without a proper sacrificing Act. p. 71 Their differences about the Essence of the sacrifice p. 73 3. It makes a living Body a sacrifice p. 76 4. The making it truly propitiatory is a great Error and inconsistent with it self p. 77 5. How it is Impetratory p. 80 6. The making it a sacrifice truly Propitiatory and yet only Applicatory of another is a great Absurdity p. 82 7. The making it the same sacrifice with That of the Cross and yet not to have the same vertue and efficacy is strange and unaccountable p. 84 8. Making Christ as they do the true offerer of this sacrifice hath great Absurdities p. 87 9. The Offering this sacrifice to Redeem Souls out of Purgatory one of the greatest Errors and Abuses that belong to it p. 88 Of the Ancient Oblations for the Dead p. 90 to 95 10. The sacrifice of the Mass must be either unnecessary or else must reflect on the sacrifice of the Cross p. 95 The Conclusion and the Reason why no more of the Errors belonging to it are added ERRATA PAge 12. line â antepenult for desire read derive PAge 39. Line 8. for the read that PAge 68. To Concil Carthag in margin add 4. PAge 72. Line 8. for Maunday-Thursday read Good-Fryday A DISCOURSE OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS THE Sacrifice of the Mass is the most considerable part of Worship in the Roman Church It is their Juge sacrificium their dayly and continual Offering and the principal Thing in which their Religion does consist It is they tell us of the greatest profit and advantage to all persons and I am sure their Priests make it so to themselves for by this alone a great number of them get their Livings by making merchandise of the Holy Sacrament and by selling the Blood of Christ at a dearer rate then Judas once did The saying of Masses keeps the Church of Rome more Priests in pay then any Prince in Christendom can maintain Souldiers and it has raised more Money by them then the richest Bank or Exchequer in the World was ever owner of 't is indeed the truest Patrimony of their Church and has enricht it more then any thing else it was that which founded their greatest Monasteries and their Richest Abbies and it had well nigh brought all the Estates of this Kingdom into the Church had not the Statutes of Mortmain put a check to it The Donation of Constantine were it never so true and the Grants of Charles and Pepin were they never so large and the Gifts of all their Benefactors put together are infinitely outdone by it the Gain of it has been so manifestly great that one cannot but upon that account a little suspect its Godliness but yet if it could fairly be made out to be a true part of Religion it were by no means to be rejected for that accidental though shameful abuse of it It is accounted by them the greatest
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
well as Christ that which the Priest holds in his hands or lies upon the Altar before us that this is to be the Object of our Worship and to have all manner of Latria both of Body and Soul directed to that as to God himself that the consecrated Elements or the sacred Symbols of Christs Body and Blood are to be worshipt by us when we receive them or when without receiving them we see them set upon the Altar or carried about in Procession this which is the Controversie between us not one Father says but above three hundred of them together in a Council say g Concil Sept. Constant Act. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That to prevent Idolatry Christ appointed an excellent Image and Representation of himself in the Sacrament without any manner of humane shape even the plain and simple substance of Bread. But they resolve that Idolatry shall not be prevented but they will be so sottish as to commit it with that which was designed to prevent it and which one would think should not in the least tempt any man to it with a bit of Bread. The Absurdities of which upon a general view of the whole I shall now for a Conclusion represent and offer as the last Argument against it and tho that alone might be sufficient since God never imposes any thing that is really foolish and ridiculous to be believed or practiced by his Creatures yet I thought it the fittest to be produced after we are well assured that neither Scripture nor Antiquity have required any such thing And however unwilling Bellarmine h Bell. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 3. c. 10. is to admit of Arguments of this nature from the Absurdity of the thing as knowing how very liable the Church of Rome was to them and tho 't is the most unjust Reflection upon Christianity to say that any thing that is a part of that is so which they are too ready to insinuate and so bring a reproach upon the common Christianity rather than part with their own ridiculous Opinions yet after we have thoroughly imformed our selves that there is nothing of a Divine Authority as one can hardly think there should be for what is so absurd in it self then an Argument from the folly and unreasonableness of the thing must be allowed to be very proper and till men have lost all their Reason it will always be very cogent and here it is so very strong and presses so hard upon their Adoration of the Host that 't is no wonder that they love to set by and except against reason whenever this matter is to be tryed but it is most sad to consider that they should have so little regard and concern for the Credit and Reputation of the Christian Religion as by this means so shamefully and notoriously to expose it to the Reproach and Contempt of the wisest Men. How must a Jew or a Turk who are great enemies to all Idolatry be prejudiced against Christianity when he sees those who profess it fall down and worship a Wafer and make an Idol of a bit of Bread When he lives in those places where he sees it carried about with Candles and Torches before it in most Solemn and Pompous Processions and all Persons as it goes by falling upon their Knees and saying their prayers and using all acts of Devotion to it would he not wonder what strange and new God that no History ever mention'd the Christians adored Mankind indeed when very ignorant used to worship a great many Creatures that were very useful to them and when they were very hungry if they lighted upon Bread it was no great wonder but sure it can be no more sit to be worshipt by those who better know God than any of his other Creatures or any of the most dumb and senseless and pitiful Images for which the Christians so often and so justly laught at the Idolatrous Heathens especially those of them who were so foolish and such true belly-Gods as to eat and feed upon what they worshipt and deified This the first and most learned Christians charged as the highest degree of folly in the Egyptians to eat the same Animals whom they worshipt i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. contra Celsum l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tatian Orat. contra Graec. Apim bovem adoratis pascitis Minut. Octav. p. 94. And a wise Heathen could not think any would be so mad as to think that to be a God with which he was fed k Ecquem tam amentem esse putas ut illud quo vescatur Deum esse credat Tully de natura Deorum It was the ingenious Opinion of a very learned Father that God made the difference between the clean and unclean Beast to prevent this Egyptian and Brutish folly in the Israelites who lived among them Because saies he by their abominating the unclean they would not deifie them and by eating the clean they would be secured from ever worshipping them for it must be the extreamest madness to worship what they eat l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret in Quaest in Genes How did the Ancient Apologists for Christianity with great wit and smartness ridicule the other Idols of the Heathens as being the works at first of the Carver or the Painter and particularly for being such Gods as were baked at first in the Furnace m Incoctos fornacibus figulinis Arnob contra Gent. l. 6. of the Potter and it had been much the same had it been in the Oven of the Baker for being Gods of Brass or of Silver n Deus aereus vel argenteus Minut. Octav. p. 74. And yet they counted the Silver or the Brass no more a God o Nos neque aeris neque auri argentique materias Arnob. ut supra than others do the Bread as I have shown above How at other times did they think fit to expose their impotent and senseless Deities because they could not preserve themselves from Thieves p Deos vestros plerumque in praedam furibus cedere Lactant. Institut l. 2. c. 4. nor yet from rotteness but the Worms would still gnaw and the Vermine deface them and the Birds would defile them with their excrements even in their own Temples q Quanto verius de diis vestris animalia muta naturaliter judicant mures hirundines milvi non sentire eos sciunt rodunt insultant insident ac nisi abigatis in ipso Dei vestri ore nidificant Araneae vero faciem ejus intexunt Minut. Octav. p. 75. And could not this be said of a breaden Deity is not that as subject to all these mischances and therefore as liable to all those Reproaches will not a Mouse or Rat run away with it tho if it do so they have taken care if they can catch the sacrilegious Thief to have the Sacrament drawn out of its entrails and religiously disposed of r Antonin de defect Miss
separated from them and it makes us not to partake of Christ's Body as crucified upon the Cross but as glorified in Heaven as it is so indeed Christ's body cannot be divided from his bloud and his whole humanity soul and body are always united with his Divinity but we do not take it as such in the Sacrament but as his body was sacrificed and slain and wounded and his bloud as shed and separated from it They who can think of a crucified Saviour may think of receiving him thus in the Sacrament without horrour de Meaux owns That this mystical separation of Christ's body and bloud ought to be in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice †P. 180 181. And why not then as it is a Sacrament is there any more horror to have Christ's body thus consecrated then thus eaten and received The words of consecration he says do renew mystically as by a spiritual Sword together with all the wounds he received in his body the total effusion of his blood ‖ Ib. Why may we not then receive Christ's body as thus wounded and his bloud as thus poured out in this mystical Table and why must Concomitancy joyn those together which Consecration has thus separated and divided Christ's body and bloud we say ought to be thus mystically separated in the Sacramental reception of them and so ought to be taken separately and distinctly they own they ought to be thus mystically separated in the consecration though how that consists with Concomitancy is hard to understand but whatever they have to say against the separating them in the Reception may be as well said against their separating them in the Consecration Is Christ then divided P. 310. is his body then despoiled of bloud and blood actually separated from the body ought Christ to die often and often to shed his blood A thing unworthy the glorious state of his Resurrection where he ought to conserve eternally humane nature as entire as he had at first assumed it Why do they then make this separation of his body and bloud when they consecrate it if that be onely mystical and representative so is it in our reception much better for we do not pretend to receive Christ's natural body and bloud as they do to consecrate them but onely his mystical body and bloud which is always to conserve this figure of Death and the character of a Victim not onely when it is consecrated but when it is eaten and drunk which it cannot otherwise be 'T is this errour of receiving Christ's natural body in the Sacrament which has led men into all those dark Mazes and Labyrinths wherein they have bewildred and entangled themselves in this matter and so by applying all the properties of Christ's natural body to his mystical body in the Sacrament they have run themselves into endless difficulties and destroyed the very notion as well as the nature of the Sacrament The third Principle of Monsieur de Meaux is this That the Law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual practice But cannot then a Law of God be so plain and clear as to be very well known and understood by all those to whom it is given without being thus explained Surely so wise a Law-Giver as our blessed Saviour would not give a Law to all Christians that was not easie to be understood by them it cannot be said without great reflection upon his infinite Wisdom that his Laws are so obscure and dark as they are delivered by himself and as they are necessary to be observed by us that we cannot know the meaning of them without a further explication If constant and perpetual practice be necessary to explain the Law how could they know it or understand it to whom it was first given and who were first to observe it before there was any such practice to explain it by This practice must begin some where and the Law of Christ must be known to those who begun it antecedent to their own practice There may be great danger if we make Practice to be the Rule of the Law and not the Law the Rule of Practice and God's Laws may be very fairly explained away if they are left wholly to the mercy of men to explain them For thus it was the Pharisees who were the great men of old for Tradition did thereby reject and lay aside the Commandment of God by making Tradition explain it contrary to its true sense and meaning This Principle therefore of Monsieur de Meaux's must not be admitted without some caution and though we are well assured of constant and perpetual practice for Communion in one kind yet the Law of Christ is so clear as not to need that to explain it and we may know what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of the Sacraments from the Law it self and from the divine Institution of them as I have all along shewn in this Treatise It would have been a great reflection upon the Church if its Practice had not agreed with the Law of Christ though so plain and express a Law ought neither to loose its force nor its meaning by any subsequent practice I have so great a regard and honour for the Catholic Church that I do not believe it can be guilty of any Practice so contrary to the Law of Christ as Communion in one kind and I have therefore fully shewn that its Practice has always agreed with this Law in opposition to de Meaux who falsely reproaches the Church with a practice contrary to it his design was to destroy the Law of Christ by the Practice of the Church mine is to defend the Practice of the Church as agreeable to and founded upon the Law of Christ but the Law of Christ ought to take place and is antecedent both to the Churches Practice and the Churches Authority As to Tradition which was the main thing which de Meaux appealed to I have joyned issue with him in that point and must leave it to those who are able to judge which of us have given in the better evidence and I do not doubt but we may venture the Cause upon the strength of that but there is another more considerable plea which is prior to Tradition and which as de Meaux owns †P. 201. Is the necessary ground work of it and that is Scripture or the Command and Institution of Christ contained in Scripture which is so plain and manifest that it may be very well understood by all without the help of Tradition I do not therefore make any manner of exceptions to Tradition in this case onely I would set it in its right place and not found the Law of Christ upon Tradition but Tradition upon the Law of Christ and I am willing to admit it as far as de Meaux pleases with this reasonable Proviso That it does not interprete us out of a plain Law nor make void any Command of God that may be known