that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper which I am sure is the very same with the Doctrine of the Council of Trent her verily and indeed being the self same thing with that Council's verè realiter Yet if you shou'd ask any of her Divines whether the Body and Blood of Christ be verily and indeed in the Sacrament They will answer you no If you ask them further how can you then verily and indeed take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament if it be not there Some will answer you that tho' his Body and Blood be not there yet when you take the Bread and Wine you take at the same Time the Body and Blood of Christ to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament but this is such a Riddle as passes my Skill to unfold Others say that by an Act of Faith you do verily and indeed take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ when you receive the Elements But if you urge the Difficulty farther and tell them that to receive the Body and Blood of Christ by Faith is no more to receive it verily and indeed than to receive an Idea or Representation of a Thing to which you give assent is to receive the thing it self Or suppose it were you still admit of Christ's Body his being in several places at once which is the Inconvenience you wou'd fain avoid by rejecting the Real Presence in the Sacrament for if one in London and another in York shou'd at the same Time which is very possible verily and indeed take the Body and Blood of Christ then surely the Body of Christ must needs be in two different places at once if you urge I say the Difficulty thus far you are like to get no Answer which either you or any Body else can understand So that tho' the Church of England has in other things many signal Advantages of the Lutherans and Calvinists yet in this she is neither so Reasonable as they nor so consistent with her self nor yet with common Sense Now to establish the Roman Catholic's Belief on this Subject and to shew the Unreasonableness of the said Opinions tho' of this last there is little need their own Author's having in a great measure by their manifest Contradictions and Absurdities already done it to my Hand I shall endeavour to prove as clear and as brief as I can 1. That the Words of Scripture on which Transubstantiation is grounded are to be understood in a litteral Sense 2. That such a Sense does necessarily infer Transubstantiation And 3. That from the Begining all the Orthodox Christians in the World were of that Belief I begin with the first The Words on which Transubstantiation is grounded are these This is my Body which a given for you Luke 22.19 Now that these Words are to be taken in a litteral Sense nothing can be more plain both from Christ's Promise of giving his Body as we read St. John Chap. 6. from St. Paul's Sense of these Words in his Epistle to the Corinthians and from the very Sense which the Words themselves must necessarily bear From Christ's Promise I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever And the Bread that I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the life of the World Joa 6.51 Christ promises to give his Disciples a certain kind of Bread which they were not as yet acquainted with And to let them understand what sort of Bread it was he tells them that it is his Flesh The Bread that I will give you is my Flesh This so unusual a thing as eating human Flesh cou'd not but startle them however they cou'd not doubt but he meant to do as he spoke since he affirm'd that the Bâ—ead he wou'd give them was his Flesh And therefore they strove among themselves saying how can this Man give us his Flesh to eat But how dâ—es Christ here disabuse them Does he say his Words are not to be taken lirerally Does he tell them they must understand him in a Figurative Sense No He is so far from it that with a repeated Oath He confirms them in the Sense they understood his Words Verily verily says He I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye shall have no Life in you When Christ said I am the Door I am the true Vine c. His Disciples were nothing offended at these Expressions because they knew them to be Metaphors and figurative Sayings commonly us'd but here you see they are amaz'd and confounded Had Christ only said I will give you heavenly Bread or I will give you my Body perhaps they might have taken this in a figurative Sense too But when He assures them that the Bread He wou'd give them is his Fâ—esh and protests with a repeated Oath that except they eat his Flesh and drink his Blood they shall have no Life in them he must surely renounce his Reason who does not see that he spoke and meant literally In a word if those Words be not understood in a literal Sense it is utterly impossible to know how any Phrase may be literally meant the Words is my Flesh being by Christ affirm'd of the Bread for no other End and his confirming with an Oath that it was so for no other Reason than to perswade them that he meant as he spoke This is no less manifest from St. Paul's Sense of the said Words The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 Here the Apostle agreeably to what Christ said puts the Question as if the Corinthians doubted it is not the Cup of Blessing which we bless the Communion of the Blood of Christ c. Now what is it to communicate or partake of the Body and Blood of Christ Surely it is to eat and drink of his Body and Blood as to communicate or partake of Bread and Wine is to eat of the Bread and drink of the Wine Again Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread or drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a Man examin himself and so let him eat of that Bread and Drink of that Cup for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself not discerning the Lord's Body Cap. 11.27 28 29. This surely is too severe a Sentence if St. Paul understood Christ's Words in a figurative Sense If that Bread and that Cup be only a Type and Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ whosoever abuses or takes them unworthily ought in Reason to be somewhâ—t less guilty than if he had in reality abus'd his Body and
Blood But the Apostle declares that such a one shou'd be guilty of no less than the Body and Blood of Christ which surely is to be guilty of the greatest Crime that can be imagin'd When a Man murders or spills the Blood of an other he is but guilty of his Blood This is the common Language of Mankind and no Man in his Wâ—its did ever so much as imagin that a Man who shou'd abuse the Figure or Picture of another shou'd be therefore guilty of his Body or Blood Seeing then St. Paul affirms that those who abuse or take unworthily that Sacred Bread and Cup are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ it is a perfect Demonstration that he did not believe them to be a Type or Figure but his Real Flesh and Blood The Jews crucified Christ spilt his Blood and abus'd his Body yet the Scripture says no where that they were in that particular guilty of more than of the Blood of Christ and of more I cannot tell how they cou'd For neither human nor Angelical Wit can invent a heavier Charge With what propriety of Speech then nay with what Reason can it be affirm'd that Men shou'd be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ as were the Jews for doing no more than taking unworthily the Type or Figure of his Body and Blood In a word no Man can be guilty of the Blood of another unless he spills his Blood or takes away his Life but St. Paul here affirms that whosoever shall eat this Bread or drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord and shall besides eat and drink Damnation to himself Consequently he believ'd and was perswaded that this Sacred Bread and Cup were the True and Real Flesh and Blood of Christ And this is so plain from his last Words that I wonder any Man in his Senses can entertain the least doubt concerning it For he concludes that the Reason why they do eat and drink Damnation to themselves is because they do not discern that that spiritual Food which they abuse is the Lord's Body non dijudicans Corpus Domini This is yet more plain from the Sense which the Words of the Institution must necessarily bear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my Body which is given for you Luke 22.19 The Evangelist tells us a little before these words that Christ took Bread and gave Thanks and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and to let them understand what sort of Bread it was or rather what he intended to make it he says that it is his Body and to take away all occasion of doubt whether he had meant his true and Real Body or else the Figure of it he adds which is given for you so that they who believ'd the Omnipotent Power of Christ cou'd no more doubt but that that which he tender'd them was the Body which was to be given for them Now if that Body which was given for them be the True and Real Body of Jesus Christ we are sure that the Body which Christ gave his Disciples was his true and Real Body For he says it is that Body which is given for us this is my Body which is given for you But all the World as well Protestants as Catholics agree that it was the true and real Body of Christ which was given and suffer'd upon the Cross for us It is then a Demonstration that what Christ tender'd to his Apostles was his true and real Body consequently his Words must necessarily be taken in a literal Sense Had Christ only said to what he held in his Hand this is my Body perhaps such a proposition to one who never heard any thing of the matter before might seem Figurative but when he adds these other Words which is given for you he takes away all occasion of doubt and determins the Understanding to a literal Sense The first part of the Phrase this is my Body is indifferent of it self and may be capable of either Sense but add the rest to it which is given for you and the Sense is plainly determin'd So that Christ's Words can no more allow of a figurative Sense than if a Man had said this is my Arm which sticks to my Shoulder he can be understood to mean any thing else but his true and real Arm. In a Word these Gentlemen who are resolv'd to deny things so evident wou'd in my opinion be less obnoxious to Censure and more excusable in human Appearance if they had either question'd the Truth of these Texts or like the Socinians denied the Omnipotence of Jesus Christ to effect this Miracle than thus to subvert the very Foundation of human Reason 2. Christ's Words understood in a literal Sense must necessarily imply Transubstaâ—tiation that is a Change of one substance into an other For Christ having said of the Bread this is my Body which is given for you And it being visible to our Senses that there is no Alteration or Change in the Accidents or outward Forms It is impossible to understand those words in a literal Sense but we must at the same Time necessarily conclude that there must be a Change in the Substance For the Bread consisting of Substance and Accidents only we cannot believe the veracity of Jesus Christ when he affirms of the Bread that it is his Body nor his Omnipotent Power to effect by his Word what he says unless we likewise believe that the Bread is chang'd into the Body of Christ but it is evident to our Senses that there is no change as to the Accidents Consequently the change must be in the Substance Besides it is impossible to verifie those Words of Christ in a literal Sense without a substantial Change For the Greek Demonstrative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latin Hoc or the English This cannot with any propriety of Speech be refer'd to the Accidents of the thing whereof it is affirm'd but must necessarily be refer'd to the thing it self which surely is the Substance and not the Accidents So that the Sense of these Words This is my Body must necessarily be this substance Cloathed with these Accidents is my Body and then if we believe those Words we must consequently believe that that Substance is his Body and then this necessarily implies Transubstantiation Hence it is evident that those Words cannot with any colour of Reason be understood in a Sense of Consubstantiation as the Lutherans wou'd have it For the demonstrative Hoc This as aforesaid denoting the Substance affirm'd by Christ to be his Body common Sense shews it wou'd be absurd to interpret these Words this is my Body so as to mean that Christ's Body is there together with the Substance of the Bread as the Lutherans grosly maintain whereas if Christ had so meant he wou'd most certainly have said here is my Body and not this is my Body But this is so publickly exploded by all the Rest
to Paper St. Gregory Nissen speaks thus to the same purpose Rectè Dei Verbo sanctificatum Panem in Dei Verbi corpus credo transmutari I do believe that the Bread sanctified by the Word of God is chang'd into the Body of God the Word Orat. Cate. Cap. 37. St. Ambrose takes a great deal of pains to inculcate this Truth to the Ignorant people instancing in several real Changes as that of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of the Creation of the World out of nothing c. I will instance in one only of his Passages to this purpose 'T is indeed somewhat tedious to be brought here at length however since it cannot be well understood unless it be intirely read I hope the Reader will pardon me so necessary a Fault Panis iste says he ante Verba Sacramentorum Panis est c. That Bread before the Sacramental Words is Bread but when the Consecration comes to it of the Bread is made the Flesh of Christ Let us prove this How can that which is Bread be the Body of Christ By Consecration By what and by whose Words is the Consecration perform'd By the Words of the Lord Jesus For all other things which are said do give Praise to God there is a Prayer premis'd for the People for Kings and for others but when the Priest comes to make the venerable Sacrament he does no more use his own but Christ's Words Therefore the Word of Christ maketh this Sacrament What Word of Christ Even that Word by which all things were made The Lord commanded and the Earth was made The Lord commanded and every Creature was ingender'd You see then how efficacious the Word of Christ is Seeing then there is so much Efficacy in the Word of the Lord Jesus as to cause things that were not to have a Being How much more efficacious is it to make the things that are extant to be chang'd into an other thing Heaven was not the Sea was not the Earth was not but hear him that says He said and they were made He commanded and they were created That I may answer you then It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration but after Consecration Note That some Critics have Doubted whether the Books whence this Passage is taken belong to St. Ambrose by Reason that the Stile of them is somewhat different from the Rest of the Works of this Father but the best and ablest Critics agree that they are either St. Ambrose's Works or some other Bishop's neer his Time who dilates upon what St. Ambrose wrote concerning the Eucharist I say unto you that it is then the Body of Christ He said and it was made He commanded and it was created Lib. 4. de Sacra Cap. 4. I shall not trouble the Reader with any Reflections upon this Passage being in my Opinion so plain and so much to the purpose that it cannot possibly need any thing to strengthen it Nor will I tire his Patience with any more from Fathers it being evident to any Man of Sense that these great Pillars of the Church Men so Eminent both for Learning and Piety wou'd never have believ'd Transubstantiation nor have taken so much pains to inculcate it to the People had it not been the universal belief of the Catholic Church I shall only add some Words of the Decree of the Council of Lateran on this Subject and so conclude The Words which relate to our purpose are these Concil Later 4. sub Inno. 3. Transubstantiates Pane Vino in Corpus Sanguinem Christi The Bread and Wine being transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ This all the Protestants confess is very plain in favour of Transubstantiation and therefore they do most outragiously declaim against it and even force their Lungs and Pipes both to decry the Decree and to expose the Authors of it For my part I am in no passion nor heat I shall therefore soberly and calmly examin what this Council was what Authority it may justly claim and how far it ought to influence our Faith If it be found to be only a Conventicle of Heretics or a confus'd assembly of some Bishops met together without any authority from the Chief Pastor and other Patriarchs of the Church in order to broach new Doctrines in opposition to the Faith which was once deliver'd unto the Saints then it will be but reasonable we reject their Authority But if on the contrary it appears to have been an Oecumenical or General Council representing the whole Catholic Church and that all the individual Members of the Catholic Church at that Time receiv'd and acquiesc'd to its Decrees especially to that part of it which relates to our present purpose it is but just and reasonable we pay the same respect and deference to it Now after having examin'd the Authentic Acts of this Council and consulted all the at least famous Historians and Ecclesiastical Writers of those Times and even the Writings of some of our Learned Adversaries I find that it has all the Marks and Characters which even the most Oecumenical Council ever yet had I find that this Council was call'd by common consent of both Emperors and of all the Kings and free States in Europe that it was held in Rome in the Year of our Lord 1215. Pope Innocent the 3d. Presiding in it The best Historians of those Times tell us that there were near 1200 Prelats in this Council that the Patriachs of Constantinople and Jerusalem were there in Person that the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch being under the Yoke of the Sarazen and Turkish Tyrany because they cou'd not come in Person sent their Deputies instructed with Power to represent their Persons and Churches As to Europe the great number of Prelates there assembled shew even to a Demonstration that there were more than sufficient Representatives of the Western Churches And what more can be desir'd to compleat a General Council Now can any Man imagin that so August an Assembly as this so man Grave and Learn'd Men of different Humors Interests and Manners shou'd all conspire together to impose upon themselves and all Mankind besides a New Doctrine in one of the most essential points of Christian Faith contrary to what they had receiv'd from their Ancestors and that not one Honest Man shou'd be found among them all to discover the Imposture Or that all Mankind shou'd acquiesce to such a Doctrine and none say this is contrary to what we have been hitherto taught Can it be imagin'd that the Bishops who met here on purpose to hear every Individual Prelate tell his own Story and to declare what Faith he had receiv'd from his Ancestors on this Subject who aim'd at nothing else but to find out the Truth but to see wherein they did all agree and to reckon That only as an Article of their Faith which shou'd be found to be the same in every Man's Mouth and yet that contrary to
be ador'd For he took Earth of Earth because flesh is of Earth and he took Flesh of Mary's Flesh and because he here walk'd in that Flesh and gave us that flesh to eat for our Salvation But no Man eats it except he first adores it It is found how such a Footstool of the Lord may be ador'd and we do not only not sin in adoring it but we shou'd sin if we do not adore it Enar. in Psal 98. Here St. Austin says that Christ gave us that Flesh to eat in which He walk'd here on Earth and that we are so far from sin in adoring that Flesh that we sin if we do not adore it Christ walk'd here in the flesh and he gave us that flesh to eat and we shall sin if we do not adore that flesh says this Father What flesh did Christ here walk in Was it in the Sign or Figure of His Flesh No sure 't was in his real Flesh 'T is evident then that Christ gave us his Real Flesh in this Father's sense Here St. Austin speaks plainly and familiarly to the common People here is no Dispute in the Case no Advantage to be taken of a Sophistical Heretic no fear of expounding the Mystery to the full Consequently he spoke his mind plainly In a word he must have lost his Reason who does not see that it is from such Passages as this where the Fathers speak to their Flock and expound the Scriptures and the Mysteries of our Religion that we are to Learn what they hold concerning any Point of Faith and not from some Abstruse and dark Expressions cull'd out of their Disputes with Hereties where the Fathers purposely design to conceal the depth of this Mystery when ever they must mention it But the truth of the matter is the Doctor 's Cause wou'd afford him no better Arguments and rather than fail he was resolv'd to catch at any thing 3. Theodoret and Gelasius their Words are likewise to be understood of the Accidents or outward Forms of the Sacrament That these Fathers gave the Name of substance and nature to the Accidents will appear if we consider the Equivocation of the Word Symbol here mention'd by Theodoret This Word is somtimes taken for the Bread and Wine it self before Consecration and somtimes but most properly for the External Form and Appearance of Bread and Wine which remain after Consecration Eranistes or the Eutychian Heretic took it in the first sense and therefore affirm'd that as the Symbols after Consecration are chang'd into an other thing so the Body of our Lord after his Ascension is chang'd into the Divine Substance This he said of the Sacrament because he was so taught and because he knew there was no difference between him and the Orthodoxus on that Subject But what does the Orthodoxus to take advantage by that similitude Why he takes the Word Symbol in its more proper meaning namely for the Accidents or outward Forms and tells the Heretic he is caught in his own Net because says he the Mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance Figure and Appearance and may be seen and handled as before Now that by the Mystical Symbols he meant the Accidents methinks 't is plain for the Reason he gives why these Symbols are not chang'd is because they may be seen and handled as before But this proves plainly that he must have meant the Accidents since only Accidents can be seen and felt Nor does it move me that he seems to give partly for his Reason that the Substance of the Symbols remain for that is said gratis and cou'd never be prov'd if he had meant the real Substance of the Bread Besides there is nothing more common in human Language than to give the Denomination of Substance to meer Accidents as we usually say the Substance of his Discourse was this the Substance of what he said c. tho' all Discourses and Sayings are pure Accidents And however this Solution at first sight may seem strange yet whoever will take the pains to examin well the Sayings of both these Disputants and believes they were in their Wits he cannot possibly deny what I say to be True The one positively affirms of the Symbols that they are chang'd into an other thing the other as stifly maintains that they do not change at all I ask now whether these Symbols are Objects of Sense or not If you say they are I ask again whether two Men in their Wits and Senses can be so mistaken in a plain Object of Sense as to affirm contradictory things of it at once For instance Can two Men be so mistaken about a white Wall which they plainly see as that one shou'd affirm it is white and the other that it is not 'T is plain they cannot 'T is then manifest that if the Symbols be Objects of Sense Eranistes and Orthodoxus did not both consider them as such otherwise they must have lost their Reason to affirm such contradictory things of them at once 'T is then evident that Eranistes who affirm'd the Symbols were chang'd did not consider them as they are Objects of Sense otherwise he must have spoken contrary to the Evidence of his own Senses Consequently his meaning was that the Change happen'd in the Substance of the Bread and not in the Accidents 'T is no less evident on the other hand that Orthodoxus consider'd the Symbols as Objects of Sense else he cou'd with no Colour of Reason affirm that they did not pass out of their Nature Substance c. For let us suppose with the Doctor that he meant the real Substance of the Symbols or Bread and Wine How does he prove that there is no real Change in them Because the Mystical Symbols says he do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance c. this is only said but wants to be be prov'd Well! How does he prove it Because continues he they may be seen and handled as before Why this the Heretic Eranistes acknowledges and yet he affirms that the Symbols are chang'd And which is more he therefore believes that it is the real Substance of the Symbols and not the Accidents that are chang'd because the Accidents may be seen and handled as before And now wou'd it not be a very pleasant way to perswade him that the Substance of the Bread and Wine was not chang'd for that very Reason for which he believ'd it was Or let us suppose that they both consider'd the Symbols as the true and real Substance of the Bread and Wine and not as Accidents or Objects of our Senses Well! What follows The Heretic Eraâ—istes affirms that the Symbols in this Sense were chang'd â—ho ' he saw with his Eyes the Accidents were noâ— and then how cou'd the Orthodoxus convince him by his own Words or tell him he was caught in his own Net unless he cou'd
of the Protestants that it needs no farther Confutation 3. All the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood those Words of Christ both in a literal Sense and in a Sense of Transubstantiation I shou'd fill up a Volum were I to bring all the Passages of Councils and Fathers which make for this Truth no Mistery of our Religion being ever with more Care inculcated and expounded by the Fathers in their Homilies Catechisms and familiar Discourses to the common People and that no doubt for the difficulty Men naturally have to believe it But it not being my design to write all that may be said for it but what may suffice to evince the truth of it I shall content my self with the Testimony of a few Councils and Fathers whose Authority and Weight however I hope shall make sufficient amends for the smalness of their number And 1. That the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood Christ's Words in a literal Sense or which is the same thing believ'd the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament let St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria bear witness This great Patriarch in his Epistle to Nestorius speaks thus of the Eucharist Neque enim illam ut â—arnem communem suscipimus absit hoc neque rursum tanquam viri cujuspiam Sanctificati dignitatis unitate verbo consociati sed tanquam verè vivificam ipsiusque verbi propriam God forbid we shou'd receive it as common flesh nor yet as the flesh of a Man sanctified and united to the Word by a conjunction of dignity but we receive it as it truely is the quickening and proper flesh of the Word Himself This Letter was read and approv'd in the third General Council * Concil Ephes puncto 7. which no doubt wou'd never have been had it contain'd any thing contrary to Orthodox Faith so that having receiv'd Authority and Approbation from those Fathers we shall no more consider it as the Doctrine of a private Man but as the Faith of the whole General Council Now can it be imagin'd that this Council which represented the whole Catholic Church shou'd approve and put upon Record a Letter which declares the Real Presence as clear and plain as is possible for words to express it unless it had been at that Time the Faith of the whole Catholic Church And can it be imagin'd that the Catholic Church in those fair Days of her Youth as the Calvinists speak shou'd believe that Christ's proper Flesh as the said Letter words it was in the Sacrament unless they had understood Christ's Words in a literal Sense and receiv'd the same Doctrine from their immediate Ancestors Or can it be imagin'd that these Ancestors shou'd be of this Belief unless they had likewise receiv'd it from their Ancestors and so up to the very Apostles This is surely to any Man of Sense but more especially ought to be to the Church of England who professes to receive the Acts and Decrees of this Council instead of a Demonstration that from the begining of Christianity to the Time of this Council all the Orthodox Christians did both believe the Real Presence and understand Christ's Words in a literal Sense 2. That the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood those Words of Christ this is my Body in a sense of Transubstantiation we have the unanimous consent of the ancient Fathers of the Church many whereof in their familiar Discourses to the common People Illustrate this Conversion by the change of the Water into Wine of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of the River Nilus into Blood and the like And 't is very observable that in all their Discourses upon this Subject and whenever they speak of this Change they have Recourse to the Omnipotent Power of God to which alone they ascribe it which surely wou'd be very needless had there been no real Change in the Case St. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem speaks thus Concerning this Change Therefore since Christ hath said of the Bread this is my Body who durst any more doubt it And since He himself so positively affirm'd saying this is my Blood who ever doubted so as to say that it was not his Blood In Time past at the Wedding of Cana in Galilee he chang'd Water into Wine which has a certain likeness to blood and shall not we think him worthy to be believ'd that he cou'd change Wine into his Blood Again for under the appearance of Bread he gives us his Body and under the appearance of Wine he gives us his Blood And a little after tho' your Senses seem in this to oppose you yet Faith must confirm you do not judge the thing by the Taste but let Faith assure you beyond all doubt that you partake of the Body and Blood of Christ Cate. Mystag 3. Here is a great Bishop an Eminent Witness of Antiquity one who flourish'd 1300 Years since and who no doubt knew very well the Faith of the Catholic Church of his Time touching this Point Here is a careful Pastor expounding Christ's Words and Catechizing his Flock in the very Language of the present Roman Catholics He tells them that since Christ said that the Bread and Wine were his Body and Blood they must believe that the Bread and Wine were chang'd into his Body and Blood He illustrates this change by a familiar Comparison of the Water which Christ chang'd into Wine and enforces the belief of the possibility of the other by the actual Existence of this change which they both read and believ'd He tells them that under the Appearance of Bread they receive the Body and under the Appearance of Wine they receive the Blood of Christ and that tho' their senses may tell them that it is still Bread yet their Faith must correct that Mistake that they must not judge what it is by the Taste but must believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ whatever their senses may suggest to them to the contrary Did ever any Roman Catholic speak plainer concerning Transubstantiation Can any Roman Bishop or Pastor at present enforce the belief of this Mystery with more cogent Arguments than to tell his Auditors that since Christ said this is my Body we must believe it is so since he chang'd Water into Wine we have no Reason to doubt but his Omnipotence is sufficient to change Wine into his â—lood that tho' it appears to our Eyes to our Taste to our Smell that the thing is otherwise yet we must not in this bus'ness rely upon the Relation of these senses but upon the sense of Hearing because Faith is by hearing and hearing by the Word of God which Word we are here only requir'd to believe All which are the very Reasonings of St. Cyril Now what the Protestants may think of this great Maâ— I shall not determin but this I am sure of that had he written this since the Reformation they wou'd have all reckon'd him to be as rank a Papist as ever put Pen
the ancient Fathers believ'd touching the Eucharist was this that the Substance of the Bread and Wine was chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ as appears by the passages produc'd from their Works where the Fathers in their Catechisms and Homilies make it their Bus'ness to explain this Mystery to the Faithful And because their Senses gave them to understand that the outward Forms or Accidents remain'd these they call'd the Sign or Figure of Christ's Body because they represent unto us the Body of Christ which is as it were cloath'd with these Accidents So that the ancient Fathers believ'd this Sacrament to be both the Figure and Reality of the Body of Christ according to the two different things they discover'd in it viz. the outward Signs or Simbols and the Body and Blood of Christ which are vail'd and cover'd by them Hence St. Cyril of Jerusalem says under the Type and Figure of Bread he gives you his Body and under the Figure of Wine he gives you his Blood And Gratian Distinct 2. C. Hoc est de Consecrat says Hoc est quod dicimus c. This is what we say and what by all means we endeavour to prove that the Sacrifice of the Church is made of two Things consists of two Things of the visible Appearance of the Elements and of the invisible Flesh and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ of the Sacrament that is of the External and Sacred Sign and of the thing of the Sacrament Re Sacramenti that is of the Flesh and Blood of Christ Again Caro ejus est c. 'T is his Flesh which we receive in the Sacrament vail'd with the Form of Bread and his Blood which we drink under the Appearance and taste of Wine But for all the Fathers do very often especially in their Disputes with Heretics and when they apprehend their Writings shou'd fall into the Hands of the Pagans call the Eucharist the Sign or Figure of Christ's Body and Blood because in effect it is so in regard of the Accidents or outward Forms yet we do not find that they ever call'd it a Sign or Figure only with exclusion to the Reality of Christ's Flesh and Blood 3. 'T is very material to our present Dispute to know whence those Passages objected by the Doctor are taken And this he himself is careful to tell us namely that they are taken out of those Father's Disputes with Heretics In which sort of Writing it is natural for any Man to take all kind of just advantage of his Adversary in order to confute him even to the silencing of some part of the Truth when it is not to his purpose nor absolutely neccessary to be declar'd So that it is very hard to gather those Father's Opinions from such Passages much more to establish an Article of Faith upon their Ambiguous Expressions Whereas the Passages which we alledge for Transubstantiation are taken from Catechisms Homilies Sermons and familiar Discourses where the Fathers on purpose and as Pastors and Doctors of the Church expound this Mystery to the people and tell them what they are to believe concerning it This suppos'd 1. I answer 1. That Tertullian here disputed with an Heretic and that at such a Time as was neither convenient nor agreeable to his Prudence to publish the whole Truth concerning this Mystery Consequently that it is not to be admir'd he spoke somewhat obscurely 2. That by these Words this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body he meant the outward Forms or Accidents of the Sacrament For he knew very well that the Sacrament consisted of two things viz. of the outward Accidents or Forms of Bread and Wine and of the Body and Blood of Christ contain'd under these Accidents The first Tertullian calls the Figure of Christ's Body and so do all the R. Catholics at present because these outward forms exhibit and represent unto us the Body and Blood of Christ which they cover Now this gave Tertullian a signal Advantage over his Antagonist who deny'd that Christ had a Real Body because it prov'd that the Sacrament cou'd not be call'd the Figure of Christ's Body unless he had a True and Real Body and therefore he insisted upon it without declaring what was contain'd under that Figure Which tho' it may be blameable in a Sermon or Discourse design'd for the Instruction of the People yet may very well be allow'd in a Dispute considering the advantage it gave to his Cause on the one side but without prejudice to Truth and the Scorn and Contempt it wou'd expose the Christian Religion to on the other had he at that time of day fully expounded that Mystery Now that Tertullian did not believe that the Sacrament was a Figure only with exclusion to the Reality of the Body and blood of Christ is evident from that Passage before cited non sciet Maritus c. 2. St. Austin's Words are to be understood in the same sense For he here disputed with Adimantus the Manichean who affirm'd that the Soul or Life of Animals consisted in their Blood Now St. Austin to refute this Error tells him that the Blood of Animals in Scripture is taken for their Life because it represents and contains Life And so says he God calls Blood Soul or Life for our Lord did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body Which words surely if the comparison be just must signifie that that Sign of Christ's Body contain'd his true Body as the blood which is the Sign of the Soul or Life in Animals contains their Life or Soul But that the Doctor may see how far St. Austin was from believing that the Sacrament was only a Sign or Figure of Christ's Body I will transcribe a passage taken out of his Comments upon the Psalms where he speaks plainly and familiarly for the People's Instruction 'T is upon these Words of the Psalmist adorate Scabellum pedum ejus quoniam Sanetum est adore ye his Footstool because it is holy Behold Brethren says he what he commands us to adore The Scripture saith elswhere Heaven is my Seat but the Earth is my Footstool He commands us then to adore the Earth because he said in another place that the Earth was God's Footstool and how shall we adore the Earth since the Scripture expresly says thou shalt adore thy Lord thy God And this Psalmist says adore ye his Footstool But explaining to me what his Footstool is he saith The Earth is my Footstool I am at a stand I fear to adore the Earth lest he shou'd damn me who made Heaven and Earth Again I fear if I do not adore the Footstool of my Lord because the Psalm says to me adore ye his Footstool I ask what his Footstool is and the Scripture tells me The Earth is my Footstool Being in doubt I turn me to Christ for 't is He whom I here seek and I find how without impiety the Earth may
plunge the Children into the Water when they baptize them as the Apostles and primitive Church have done They answer as before that it is not Essential to the spiritual Lotion of the Soul that the Body shou'd be wash'd by Plunging rather than any other way but that whether it be perform'd by Immersion or Aspersion or in any other manner 't is the same thing to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament So that it is plain and even confess'd by our Adversaries that the Church has Power to alter and change all the Circumstances which are not of the Essence and Nature of the Sacraments All the Difficulty then consists in this whether it be Essential to the Communion to receive it in both kinds Or whether One kind be not sufficient And if it be made out that it is not Essential to the Communion to receive both but that it is enough to receive it in One kind then the Protestants must confess that the Church may lawfully command the Forbearance of the other Now that the receiving of the Eucharist in Both Kinds is not Essential to the True and Real Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament but that One Kind alone is sufficient I shall endeavour to shew 1. From several Texts of Scripture which affords us sufficient Grounds to conclude that for the due Participation of the Sacrament it is not necessary to receive it in Both kinds 2. From the General Practice of the Church in all Ages even in those days in which the Protestants do own the pure Word of God as they speak was preach'd and the Sacraments duely administred 3. From the Consent of our Adversaries if consistent with themselves I begin with the first And that our Adversaries may not think I design to impose upon them I will quote those places of Scripture that seem to make against as well as for me Christ says John c. 6. ver 50. This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven that a Man may eat thereof and not die Ver. 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread that I will give is my Flesh Ver. 53. Verily I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood ye have no Life in you Ver. 54. Who so eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life Ver. 56. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in Me and I in Him Ver. 58. This is that Bread which came down from Heaven he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Here are six Passages whereof three seem to be expresly for the Communion in one kind and the other three seem to be against it What shall we say to this Must we believe all Or shall we believe but three of them For they seem to contradict one another One says Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you An other If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever If it be True that the Man who eateth of this Bread shall live for ever how can it be at the same time true that he cannot live except he eat the Bread and drink the Cup Must we then hold to three of these Passages and reject the rest As to the Protestants I do not see how it shou'd stand with their Principles to do otherwise For they are so far from believing that the Man who eats of this Bread shall live for ever that they constantly assert that except he drinks also of the Cup he is guilty of a Horrid Sacriledge Vol. 2. pag. 70. 't is what Dr. Tillotson expresly affirms This is no Addition to Christianity says he speaking of the Communion in One Kind but a sacrilegious taking away of an Essential Part of the Sacrament they must then necessarily deny three of these Passages if they be True to their own Principles But for R. Catholics they are not in the least perplext at this seeming Contradiction they believe them all to be both true in themselves and agreeable to their Principles For they belive that whosoever eateth of this Bread the same eateth and drinketh the Flesh and Blood of the Son of Man in the Sense he meant they shou'd eat and drink his Flesh and Blood which is not to be understood as Protestants as well as Catholics must confess tho' upon different Grounds in the strict and proper meaning of the Words as if eating and drinking his Flesh and Blood were to be perform'd by two different Acts whereof one is conversant about a sollid and the other about a liquid Thing as the Words usually and properly import but that to eat and drink his Flesh and Blood signifies no more than to participate of or to take by the Mouth his Flesh and Blood whether with one or different Acts it matters not R. Catholics then find no Difficulty in reconciling these places they believe the Flesh of Jesus Christ is the Flesh of a Living Man which cannot be so without Blood and therefore when they take it they are sure they eat and drink his Body and Blood that is they are Partakers of his Body and Blood And hence it is they do most certainly conclude that it is not Essential to the Communion to receive it in both Kinds because they receive in one all that Christ requires of the Faithful to receive that is his Body and Blood I say Protestants as well as Catholics must confess that in this Passage Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood the Words eat and drink are not to be taken in the strict and usual Sense they commonly bear For seeing they believe that in the Eucharist there is neither Flesh nor Blood nothing but Bread and Wine and that in eating and drinking these Elements to the Letter they do eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ by Faith as it is said in the 39 Articles it cannot be said that they eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the literal and usual Sense of the Words it being impossible to eat and drink in the Elements in a literal Sense that which in a literal Sense they do not really contain as Protestants hold They must then necessarily conclude that to eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ is not to be understood in a literal but in a figurative Sense and then the meaning of these Words must be To 〈◊〉 and drink the Body and Blood of Christ that is to be Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and if so then 't is certain that in eating only the Body of Christ which being a living Human Body must needs contain his Blood we eat and drink his Flesh and Blood that is we are made Partakers of his Flesh
not rather be surpris'd at the Rashness of the Priest than admire the Mercy of God in this Affair if the Practice and Discipline of the Church had not authoriz'd such a Communion Nay that Eusebius who was so Nice and Severe in his Remarks and Censures upon the least Slips and Mistakes of other Clergymen shou'd be silent in a bus'ness of this Weight is sure what no Man can Reasonably suppose This the Protestants cou'd not but see and therefore the most Ingenuous among them as Bishop Jewel * Answ to Hard. Mr. Smith †Epist de Eccles grac. hod stat pag. 107. and others have freely confess'd that the Communion here mention'd was given only in one kind But others who resolve to say any thing rather than acknowledge the Truth wou'd maintain that that Liquor wherein the Boy was order'd to moisten the Piece of the sacred Bread was the consecrated Wine whereas it is plain from the Words of the Letter the Priest gave him no Liquor at all but order'd him to steep the sacred Bread in any Liquor he cou'd find at Home Besides suppose he had dipt the Bread in the sacred Wine and gave it so to the sick Man no Protestant who understands the Principles of his Religion will say that this is to eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of Christ For Protestants hold that it is therefore necessary to eat and drink the Elements apart because in so doing they shew the Death of our Lord whose Body was Broken and separated from his Blood But this Evasion is so Vain and Groundless that it merits no farther Confutation An other Instance of this Communion is that of St. Ambrose We have this Great Bishop's Life written by Paulinus his own Deacon who was present at his Death and dedicated his Life to St. Austin at whose Request he wrote it so that his Authority is beyond all Exception This Deacon tells us that St. Honoratus Bishop of Verceil who came to visit St. Ambrose as he lay on his Death Bed Heard in the dead of the Night a Voice say to him thrice Arise delay not for he is going to depart He came down adds Paulinus gave him the Body of our Lord and the Saint no sooner receiv'd it * Eoque reverentissimé accepto when he gave up the Ghost Here the Body of our Lord is given to St. Ambrose but no mention of his Blood Here 't is said he no sooner receiv'd it when he gave up the Ghost The word It is remarkable for being of the Singular Number and denoting only one thing it cannot be understood but of the Body to which it refers whereas if Paulinus had meant that he had receiv'd the Body and Blood under both Species he shou'd have spoken in the Plural Number and said he no sooner receiv'd them when he gave up the Ghost Well what say our Adversaries to a Decision so plain For something must be said Some say St. Ambrose receiv'd the Communion as well as he cou'd being prevented by a sudden Death before he cou'd receive the Sacred Cup. Vain fancy As if the Divine Power which sent a Voice from Heaven to order the Communion to be given to him cou'd not keep him alive 'till he had receiv'd the Sacrament Intirely Others not satisfied with this Answer say St. Ambrose receiv'd both kinds tho' one only is express'd by the Grammatical Figure Synecdoche where a part is taken for the whole But this is as groundless as the former For besides that the precise and express Terms in which that Phrase is conceiv'd will admit of no figurative Sense such Grammatical Figures are not us'd by any Ecclesiastical Writers when they speak of the Communion nor did any Protestant ever yet instance in one single Passage wherein it is so taken which is an Evident Argument that they had none to Instance in I might farther instance in the Council of Carthage in the Communion of St. Basil but let this suffice for the Communion of the sick for I wou'd not be tedious The same Practice we find observ'd in the Communion of Infants and little Children only with this difference that whereas the Communion was given to the Sick under the Species of Bread here it is given under the Species Wine And the Reason of this Difference I conceive was this In the Begining whilst the Church groan'd under the Tyranny and Persecution of the Pagan Emperors and their Magistrats the Bishops and Priests being forc'd to wander from place to place when they light upon any Christians with little Children or new-born Infants being uncertain whether they shou'd ever return that way again they us'd to administer the Sacraments to them the Bishops the Sacraments of Baptism Confirmation and the Eucharist and the Priests the First and the Last And because the new-born Babes were not capable of receiving any thing that was sollid they gave them always the Eucharist under the Form of Wine And this Custome thus settled in the first Persecutions continu'd in the Church until the latter end of the Tenth Century yet all this while it never enter'd into any Man's Head to say that this was an Imperfect much less a Sacrilegious Communion The first Instance we find of this Communion is in St. Cyprian's Time about the Year of our Lord 240. This holy Martyr tells us what happen'd in his own Presence to a little Girl Trat de Lapsis who had eaten a little of the Bread that was offer'd to the Idols Her Mother knowing nothing of what She had taken carry'd her as the custom was to the place where the Christians were assembl'd During the the time of Prayer adds this Father this Child was troubled and disorder'd as if for want of Words which her tender Age was not capable of she wou'd by this means declare the Misfortune which befell her After the usual solemnity the Deacon who presented the sacred Cup to the Faithful continues St. Cyprian coming to the rank where this Child was she turn'd her face aside not being able to bear the presence of such a Majesty She shut her Mouth she refus'd the Cup. But being compell'd to swallow some drops of the Pretious Blood she was not able pursues this Father to hold it in her sullied Entrals but violently gave it up so great is the Power and Majesty of our Lord. Here is a fact so plain that nothing can be adedd to it all the Circumstances of it are attended with such Marks of a Communion in one kind that nothing but meer Prejudice or rather Blindness can make any Man doubt it I know some Protestants have been so vain as to pretend that this Child did receive the Body of Christ before the Deacon came with the sacred Cup but this is so contrary to St. Cyprian's Design in relating this surprising Story that I wonder any Man in his Senses shou'd imagin it What a Child that eat of the Sacrifice of Devils is troubled and
the Sacred Bread about them that they may eat of it in Case of any Hazard or Danger But of this enough Touching the Public and solemn Communion of the Church I own we have no instances from Fathers or Ecclesiastical Writers for the first four Centuries to prove that the Communion was publickly given in one kind to any except Infants and little Children nor can our Adversaries instance in any who says it was not so given And so far we are upon the Level But methinks the Scales being thus even the Practice and Custom of the Church expresly Recorded and Deliver'd by the Writers and Liturgies of the Fifth Sixth and all other succeeding Ages in Favour of the public Communion in one as well as in both kinds ought to weigh down the Ballance and determin any reasonable Man to conclude that this same Practice was deriv'd from the foregoing Ages We find indeed in the latter End of the fifth Age a Decree of Pope Gelasius which forbids certain People to receive the Communion in one kind but if we attend to the Motives and Circumstances of this Decree and to the Persons there meant we shall find it is so far from destroying our Hypothesis that it plainly confirms it What gave Occasion to it was this In the Time of St. Leo Pope Gelasius his Predecessor there were a great many Manichees in Rome who the better to spread their wicked Errors feign'd themselves Catholics and frequented the Churches and Sacraments like others but it being part of their Belief that Wine was created by the Devil and that Jesus Christ did not spill his Blood for us but that his Passion was Fantastick not Real they abhorr'd Wine above all things and therefore abstain'd from the Sacred Cup in the Communion St. Leo complains of the Disorders which they caus'd in the Church He declaims against their wicked and hellish Devices He tells us they were so bold as to presume to mix themselves with the Faithful and receive the Lord's Body but abstain'd from the Sacred Cup and gives that as a Mark to discern them by But because the Faithful were at Liberty to take One or both Kinds and that many devont Christians receiv'd the Body without the Sacred Cup it was hard to find out by that Mark who these Manichees were However St. Leo did not think fit to alter the Discipline of the Church nor take away their Liberty from the Faithful but was content to insinuate that whosoever shou'd refuse to take the Sacred Cup as abhorring Wine or in Detestation to the Blood of Christ shou'd be reputed of that Sect. But this Remedy proving ineffectual Pope Gelasius was forc'd to Decree that whosoever abstain'd from the Sacred Cup upon any such superstitious Pretence shou'd be altogether depriv'd of the Communion It may not be amiss to subjoin his very Words Gr. Dist 2 can comper de consecrat We have found out that some People do take only the Body and abstain from the Sacred Blood who seeing they are engag'd in I know not what Superstition must either take both parts or be depriâ—'d of both because the Division of one and the same Mystery cannot be done without great Sacriledge Now to give you my Thoughts upon this Decree I think it is plain First that there was no need of making such a Decree if all the Catholics in those days had receiv'd the Communion in both kinds For this being made on purpose to discover the Manichees who never drank Wine there was nothing so easie as to find out who they were upon their refusal of the Sacred Cup consequently there needed no Decree to discover them But since it is confess'd that these Heretics did mix themselves with the Catholics and receiv'd the Communion only in one kind and that notwithstanding all St. Leo's Care and Diligence to find them out they were still undiscover'd I think it is a Demonstration that some Catholics as well as the Manichecs did receive the Communion in One Kind only And this being all that I undertook to evince I might now take leave of this Decree But I shall observe Secondly that the prohibition here made affects only those who were engag'd in a certain Superstition who seeing they are engag'd in I know not what Superstition must either take both parts or be depriv'd of both For the Reason why they are to be depriv'd of both parts of the Sacrament unless they take both is because they were engag'd in a certain superstition which tended to destroy the Sacrifice of our Redmption by the Belief they had that Christ's Blood was only an Illusion and to divide that Mystery which Gelasius says cannot be done without great Sacriledge by the like wicked opinion that Wine being created by the Devil Christ wou'd never have instituted the Memorial of his passion in that Liquor Whence 't is evident that the Catholics who were in no manner engag'd in these superstitious Errors are nothing concern'd in this Decree nor barr'd of the liberty they always had of receiving the Sacrament in one or both kinds as suited best with their Devotion And this is so true that we find the practice of it recommended by a Canon of a very Famous if not General Council held in Constantinople in the sixth Century Can. 52. known to the Ancients by the Name of Concilium Trullanum This Council confirms the Ancient Custom of the Greek Church which was to celebrate Mass in Lent only on Saturdays and Sundays it being by the Ancients Judg'd improper to consecrate on any of those Days on which they fasted because they wou'd not as they commonly speak mix the solemnity of the Sacrifice with the sadness of the Fast. But on these two days in which they did not fast they us'd to consecrate and reserve as much of the sacred Oblation as wou'd suffice for the Clergy and Laity to take every day till the Saturday following and this they call'd the Mass of the Presanctified than which nothing is more frequently mention'd in the Greek Church Now to know what was offer'd and distributed to the People in this Mass All the Ancient Greek Liturgies tell us that there was nothing reserv'd but the sacred Bread that this Bread was carried in Procession from the Sacrifice into the Church Eucho Goar Bib. P. P. Paris T. 2. expos'd to be ador'd by the People and after some Ceremony distributed to all the Faithful So that here is a Public and Solemn Communion given in One Kind for five Days every Week Yearly while Lent holds But this Practice was not peculiar to the Greek for we find it as early and as solemnly us'd in the Latin Church The Roman Ordinal Bib. P. P Var. T. de Div. Off. whose Antiquity I suppose no body will question being that which St. Gregory the Great made use of in the sixth Century gives us the same Account of Good Friday-Service with that which is express'd in the Rubrics of our
whether in one or both kinds is quite an other thing from the Institution of it We say indeed that when Christ instituted the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood He consecrated not in One but in both Kinds because He design'd to leave these Symbols to his Church as a perpetual and everlasting Memorial of His Body broken and Blood shed upon the Cross which is express'd by the Separation of one Symbol from t'other and this I hope we are careful to do as often as we offer that Sacrifice But to eat or partake of the Sacrifice it self in one or both kinds is sure no part of the Institution but belongs to the Modus or manner of administring it Christ instituted the Sacraments of Baptism Confirmation and Matrimony yet we do not find that ever he gave or administred any of these Sacraments to any Body which surely he wou'd not have omitted were it any part of their Institution 'T is then plain that to give the Communion in One or both kinds is neither for nor against our Saviour's Institution but respects meerly Administration and Use But let us suppose with the Doctor that to administer the Communion in One kind is contrary I do not say to Christ's Institution for that it cannot be but to the manner in which our Saviour gave it yet still I do not see how this can help the matter For the Question is not whether Christ gave it in both kinds but whether we ought necessarily to give it in both kinds because he did so This the Doctor affirms and we deny But how does He prove it Why because Christ gave it in both kinds This is begging the Qustion Well because Christ gave it in both kinds we ought to do so too This is to say if it be to purpose that we are bound to do all those things that Christ did at the institution and administration of the Communion If so then we must fall to wash the Disciples Feet to eat Suppers before the Sacrament to administer the Communion at Night and which is more strange we must command all those to whom we give the Communion to do the same thing we do that is to consecrate and administer the Sacrament and consequently make them all Priests all these things I say we are bound to do For Christ did all and every particular here mention'd to all those to whom he gave the Communion in both kinds But since neither He nor any Man in his Wits will say that we are bound to do all these Things because the Discipline and Practice of the Church and the Living Members of it have determin'd that all those particulars are now neither Necessary nor Expedient I hope he will give us leave to conclude that we are not bound to give the Communion in both kinds neither Touching the second Proposition The Council of Constance was forc'd to decree it with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ The Doctor is not the only Man who affirms this for I find it in the Works of one or two more of his Brethren upon this Subject But Good God! What may not Men undertake who have the Confidence to give out such Calumnies for Truth 'T is a vulgar Observation but a True one that when Mountebanks pretend most to infallible Cures they are then furthest from them just so 't is with these Gentlemen for there are Mountebanks in Religion as well as in Physick when they pretend most to Evidence and Demonstration in matters of Religion then they have the least Colour or reasonable Pretence to it But the best way to refute this Calumny is to cite the very Words of the Council and then let the Reader judge what Faith is to be given to Men who vend such Impostures for Truth In the * In nomine sanctae individuae Trinitatis Patris Filii Spiritus sancti Amen Licet Christus post Caenam instituerit suis discipulis administraverit sub utraque Specie Panis Vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum tamen hoc non obstante Sacrorum Canorum Authoritas laudabilis aprobata Ecclesiae consuetudo servavit servat quod hujusmodi Sacramentum non debet confici post Caenam neque a fâ—lelibus recipi non jejunis nisi in casu Infirmitatis aut alterius necessitatis a jure vel ab Ecclesia concesso vel admisso Name of the Holy and undivided Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost Amen Tho' Christ hath instituted this venerable Sacrament after Supper and hath administred it to his Disciples under both Kinds of Bread and Wine tamen hoc non obstante yet this notwithstanding the Authority of the sacred Canons the Laudable and Approv'd Custom of the Church hath held and doth hold that this Sacrament ought not to be made after Supper nor receiv'd by the Faithful not fasting except in case of Infirmity or some other Necessity approv'd and allow'd by Law or by the Church This is all in this Decree that has any Relation to the Dr's Non obstante And now I appeal to the most partial of our Adversaries whether he had the least Colour or Pretence to what he here suggests There is indeed a Non obstante to the making of this Sacrament after Supper and giving it to those who were not fasting and no more And if this be a sin sure he is not qualified to throw the first Stone at us for it For he and his Brethren are confessedly involv'd in the same Crime seeing they do not make the Sacrament after Supper nor give it to the best of their knowledge to any but such as are fasting As to the third Proposition The Doctrine of Concomitancy will not help the matter because in the Sacrament Christ's Body is represented as broken and exhausted and drain'd of his Blood Hence the Doctor infers that the Sacred Bread which represents his Body under these circumstances cannot be said to contain or exhibit his Blood But methinks he shou'd have prov'd his Postulatum before he wou'd perswade us of the Truth of this Inference For I suppose he was too well acquainted with us to think we shou'd believe it upon his Word That our blessed Lord shed a great deal of His Precious Blood as much as was sufficient for the Redemption of Mankind we readily grant but that His Body was exhausted and drain'd of His Blood so as to have none at all left in it we can by no means assent to If Christ's Body had been drain'd of His Blood He wou'd have died of Weakness and Loss of Blood but the Centurion who it seems was a better Naturalist than the Doctor thought quite otherwise For he concluded from the Force and Vigour wherewith our Blessed Lord gave up the Ghost that he was the Son of God Vere Filius Dei erat iste Nor will it avail the Doctor that when the Souldier pierc'd his side with a Spear there came out Blood and Water For Christ being then dead and
the Angel declar'd it grant us thy humble Petitioners who believe Her to be truly the Mother of God that by Her intercession we may with Thee be assisted thro' the same our Lord Jesus Christ c. Amen A Collect on the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul O God who hast consecrated this Day by the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul grant to thy Church to follow their Example in all things by whom the Religion began thro' our Lord Jesus c. Amen A Collect on the Nativity of St. John Baptist O God who hast Honor'd this Day with the Nativity of St. John give to thy People the Grace of Spiritual Joy and guide the Minds of all the Faithful in the way of eternal Salvation thro' Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen Here you see all these Prayers are address'd to God alone And thus indeed are all the Collects in the Mass-Book and Breviary which I willingly submit to any Man's Tryal ad Paenam libri As to the Office and Litanies of the B. V. Mary which are found in Manuals and read by some R. Catholics there is no Reason to charge them upon the Public Office and Service of the Church since they are not us'd by the Church nor publish'd by public Authority The Church does indeed allow such Prayers to be said as far as they hold within the Compass of meer Intercession because they are founded in the Practice of the Primitive Church and all succeeding Ages But if any of them contain any Terms or Expressions bordering upon the Prerogative of the Mediatorship of Jesus Christ she does as heartily and as earnestly desire they shou'd be abolish'd as any Protestant whatsoever Touching the Rosary or Beads in which the Dr. reproaches us for saying ten Ave Marias for one Pater Noster I believe every one knows the Church obliges no body to say it I am sure there are Millions of R. Catholics who never do Besides there is nothing in the Ave Maria but the very Words of Scripture except these last pray for us now and in the Hour of our Death and if it be a good thing to desire the Mother of God to pray for us sure the oftner we desire it the better it is As to the Disproportion between the Pater Nosters and the Ave Marias I must confess it were something if those who use the Rosary made all their Devotion to consist in it But it is well known that such as say it do to their Power discharge all other Christian Duties at least do pretend to no Exemption upon the Score of their Beads or Rosary from Praying to Almighty God from Adoring and Worshiping Him and giving Him their Humble and Hearty Thanks for his Benefits and Blessings from commemorating the Death and Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and having recourse to the Merits thereof for Mercy and Pardon of their Sins And now when they have endeavour'd to discharge all these Essential Duties where lies the harm if they spend some part of their spare Hours in saying over and above so many Ave Marias especially since they are founded in the Merits of the Death and Passion of our Lord and Saviour in Virtue whereof all Catholics do hope and trust that the Virgin Mary and all the Saints will pray for them Or how can it be counted a Fault to desire the Virgin Mary to do that for us which even the Dr. himself and all the Learned Protestants in the world do acknowledge She and all the Saints in Heaven constantly do tho' we shou'd not ask it of them Now this is plainly the Case All R. Catholics are taught and exhorted by the Church to discharge first their Duty to God to worship and adore him to put up their Prayers to Him to thank him for His Benefits to be sorry for their sins to beg Mercy and Forgiveness thro' the Merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and when this is done if they will take the Lady's Office or the Litanies of the Saints or the V. Mary or their Beads and beg those great Friends and Favourits of Jesus Christ who shed their Blood and lay down their Lives for the Truth of His Gospel to recommend them to Him and his Heavenly Father is it not better since the mind of Man must always be in Action than spend the Time in Idleness or perhaps in Evil Conversation In a Word these are Devotions which certain Fraternities and Regular Societies have taken upon them to discharge over and above the necessary and Essential Duties of Christianity and which other Catholics to be Partakers of the Prayers of the said Fraternities and Societies do also perform But in saying their Beads they do not always as the Dr. wou'd suggest say ten Ave Maria's for one Pater Noster For several Fraternities and Catholics say all Pater Nosters without ever an Ave Maria. But of this enough I proceed to shew 3. From the very Words of the Holy Fathers that this Practice of praying to Saints was us'd in the primitive Church St. Ambrose delivers his Thoughts in these Words We ought to pray to the Angels in our own Behalf who are given as a Guard to Vs We ought to pray to the Martyrs whose Bodies remaining with Vs seem to be as it were a Pledge of their Protection Lib de Viduis prope Fin. Gregory Nissen speaks thus to the Martyr St. Theodorus Intercede and Pray for your Country with our Common Lord and King Orat. in St. Theodor. St. Austin We do not Commemorate the Martyrs at the Lord's Table as We do those who die in the Peace of the Church but We do Commemorate them that they may pray for Vs that we may follow their Steps Tract 84. in Joa Again Holy Mary * Note that the Sermon whence this Passage is taken is ascrib'd by some Critics to St. Fulgentius but whether of the two it belongs to it matters not being both Fathers of Great Renown and of the same Age. succour the Distressed help the Pusillanimous cherish those that Mourn pray for the People mediate for the Clergy intercede for the Devout Female Sex let every one perceive thy Assistance who celebrate thy Commemoration Ser. 18. de Sanctis Theodoret We do not address our Selves unto the Martyrs as unto Gods but we pray unto them as Divine Men that they wou'd please to become Legats or Intercessors for us Ser. 8. de Martyr lib. Curat Grae◠Affect The Council of Calcedon Act. 11. has these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Flavianus Liveth after his Death the Martyr will pray for us or as the Translators render it Let the Martyr pray for us it being usual with the Orientals to put the Future Tense for the Imperative Here is a General Council of more than 600 Bishops desiring the Martyr Flavianus to pray for Them This Council was held in the Year 451 and is one of the four first General Councils whose Acts and Decrees the Church of