[...] right Charge of the Church of England, of which no honest man can be a Member, and a Minister, who does not make and believe it. I might give several Instances to shew this; but shall only mention one, wherein I have undertaken to defend our Church in its charge of Idolatry upon the Papists, in their Adoration of the Host, which is in its Declaration about Kneeling at the Sacrament after the Office of the Communion, in which are these remarkable words, It is hereby declared, that no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done either unto the sacramental Bread and Ware there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood; for the sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their na­tural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Chri­stians. Here it most plainly declares its mind against that, which is the Ground and Foundation of their Worshipping the Host, That the Elements do not re­main in their natural Substances after Consecration; if they do remain, as we and all Protestants hold, even the Lutherans, then in Worshipping the conse­crated Elements, they worship meer Creatures, and are by their own Confession guilty of Idolatry, as I shall show by and by; and if Christ's natural Flesh and Blood be not corporally present there, neither with the Substance, nor Signs of the Elements, then the Adoring what is there, must be the Adoring some things else than Christs body; and if Bread on­ly be there, and they adore that which is there, they must surely adore the Bread it self, in the opi­nion of our Church; but I shall afterwards state the Controversie more exactly between us. Our Church has here taken notice of the true Issue of it, and de­clared that to be false, and that it is both Unfit and [Page 3]Idolatrous too, to Worship the Elements upon any account after Consecration, and it continued of the same mind, and exprest it as particularly, and direct­ly in the Canons of 1640, where it saysCanon 7. 1640. about placing the Communion Table under this head, A Declaration about some Rites and Ce­remonies., That for the cause of the Idola­try committed in the Mass, all Popish Altars were demolisht; so that none can more fully charge them with Idolatry in this point, than our Church has done.

It recommends at the same time, but with great Temper and Moderation, the religious Gesture of bow­ing towards the Altar, both before and out of the time of Celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and in it, and in neitherIb. Cans 7. 1640., Ʋpon any opinion of a corporal presence of Christ on the Holy Table, or in the mystical Elements; but only to give outward and bodily, as well as inward Worship to the Divine Majesty; and it commands all Persons to receive the Sacrament KneelingRubric at Com­munion., in a posture of Adora­tion, as the Primitive Church used to do, with the greatest Expression of Reverence and Humility, [...], as St. Cyrill of Hierusalem speaksCyril. Hieroso­lym. Catech. Mystag. 5., and as I shall shew, is the meaning of the greatest Authorities they pro­duce out of the Ancients for Adora­tion not to, but at the Sacrament; so far are we from any unbecoming, or irreverent u­sage of that Mystery, as Bellarmine Controv. de Eu­charist., when he is angry with those, who will not Worship it, tells them out of Optatus, that the Donatists gave it to Dogs; and out of Victor Ʋticensis, that the Arrians trod it under their Feet; [Page 4]that we should abhor any such disrespect shown to the sacred Symbols of our Saviours Body, as is used by them, in throwing it into the Flames to quench a Fire, or into the Air, or Water to stop a Tempest, or Inundation, or keep themselves from drow­ning, or any the like mischeif (to prevent which they will throw away even the God they Worship) or the putting it to any the like undecent Superstitions. 'Tis out of the great Honour and Respect that we bear to the Sacrament, that we are against the car­rying it up and down as a show, and the Exposing and Prostituting it to so shameful and Abuse, and so gross an Idolatry. We give very great Respect and Reverence to all things that relate to God, and are set apart to his Worship and Service; to the Tem­ple where God is said himself to dwell, and to be more immediately present; to the Altar whereon the Mysteries of Christs Body and Blood are solemnly celebrated; to the Holy Vessels, that are always used in those Administrations; to the Holy Bible, which is the Word of God, and the New Te­stament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as the Sacrament is his Body, and the New Testament in his Blood; to the Font, which is the Laver of Rege­neration, wherein we put on Christ, as well as we eat him in the Eucharist; and if we would strain things, and pick out of the Ancient and Devout Christians what is said of all these, it would go as far, and look as like to adoring them, as what with all their care they collect and produce for adoring the Sa­crament, as I shall afterwards make appear, in Answer to what theJacob. Boileau Paris. De Adorati­one Eucharistiae. Pa­ris. 1685. la­test Defender of the Adoration of the Eucharist, has culled, or rather raked together out of the Fathers.

It seems from that Declaration of our Church, that some were either so silly, or so spiteful, as to sup­pose that by our Kneeling at the Sacrament, we gave Worship to the Elements; and that learned man is willing to have it believed, that we do thereby, ex­ternè Eucharistiam colere Boil. p. 145., out­wardly Worship the Sacrament, and he blames us for not doing it inwardly in our minds, as well as outwardly with our Bodies; so willing are these men to joyn with our wildest Dissenters in their unrea­sonable Charges against our Church, and use any crutches that may help their own weak Cause, or be made use of to strike at us; but it may as well be said, that the Dissenters Worship their Cushions, or their Seats, when they kneel before them; the roof of the Church, or the crowns of their Hats, when they fix their Eyes upon them, at the same time they are at Prayers upon their Knees; or that the Papists worship the Priest himself, before whom they Kneel in their Confessions; or that on Ashwednesday they adore the holy Ashes as they call them, and on Palm­sunday the holy Boughs, which they do not pretend to do, because they Kneel when they are given them; as well as that we Worship the Eucharist, or the Mystical Elements, when we receive them Knee­ling, and disavow any such thing, and declare it to be Idolatry to be abhorr'd of all faithful Christi­ans.

But is it Idolatry to Worship Christ? Or to Wor­ship the Body of Christ, tho not for it self, yet for the sake of the Divine Nature, to which it is al­ways hypostatically united? No, by no means; I know no Hereticks, tho they denied Christs Divinity, but yet were for Worshipping him; the old Arrians, and the late Socinians; but how justifiably, when they [Page 6]believe him but a meer man, or only a more excel­lent Creature; they and the Church of Rome are both concerned to defend, and to clear it, if they can of Idolatry. As to the Worship of the Flesh, tho Nestorius could not do this according to his Principles, as St. Cyrill and the Council of Ephesus argue against him; nor could the Ebionites, nor [...] of old; yet I know none but some of their School-men dispute now of Adoring the Flesh or Humane Nature of Christ, which however it be in our minds, is never in truth abstracted from his Di­vinity. But we will not at all trouble our selves with those parts of the Science of controversie; nor shall we stand upon any of those things. Well then, why may not Christ and his Body be adored in the Sacrament, if they are proper Objects of Adorati­ons. No doubt but they may be adored in this Sacra­ment, in the Sacrament of Baptism too, and in all the Offices of the Christian Religion, wherein we pray to Christ, and Kneel before him, and exer­cise the devout acts of the mind toward him, put our trust and hope in him, and expect Salvation from him, and devote our selves in all Subjection to him, and bow both our Souls and our Bodies, and give all, both internal and external Worship to him; this Adoration we give to Christ, who is God blessed for ever, and who sits at the right hand of God the Father. And the very same the Papists give to the Sacrament, to the Host, and the consecrated Ele­ments, the most Sovereign, and Absolute, and high­est Degree of Religious Worship that is due to God, whose creatures those Elements are; or to Christ himself, who commanded us to receive them in re­membrance of him. But it is only Christ, say they, whom we Worship in the Sacrament, whom we adore [Page 7]as being present there with his Body in the Host, and not the Host or the Sacrament it self; so a great many of them would fain bring off the matter, or at least colour and disguise it; Bellar­mine Lib. 4. de Eucha­rist c. 29. Quicquid sit de modo loquendi, status quaestionis non est, nisi an Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu la­triae., when he had entangled him­self with the distinctions of Wor­shipping the Sacrament, whether formally or materially; would extri­cate himself, by thus stating the mat­ter, and reducing it to this questi­on, Whether Christ be to be adored in the Eucharist? And St. Clara St. Clara De­us, Natura, Gratia, p. 308. Nota bene, non dicit Concilium Tridentinum, Sacra­mentum, sed Chri­stum in Sacramento, latria adorandum. would reconcile the dispute with this Observation, Nota benè, Mark this, the Council of Trent does not say, that the Sacrament is to be adored, but Christ in the Sacrament. I won­der so great a man as Cassander Adoratio non ad exterius signune quod exterius vide­tur, sed ad ipsam rem & veritatem quae interius credi­tur referenda, Cas­sand. Consult. de A­dorat. Euchar., should say, Unless, with a design to condemn the thing, That the Ado­ration is not to be given to the outward sign which is seen; but is to be referr'd to the thing it self, and to that which is truly and inwardly believed. But Reconcilers, who will attempt the vain project of Accommodation, must do with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, as Apelles did with Antigonus his face, they must draw but one part, but half of it, that so they may Artificially conceal its deformed, and its blind side. That all these do so, I shall show by stating the Controversie carefully and truly, which is the chiefest thing in this dispute; for they love to hide their own Doctrines as much as they can; and they cunningly contrive most of them with a back door, to slip out at privately and upon occasion. [Page 8]The Council of Trent has in this, as in other things, used art, and not spoke out in one place, as it does in another; that so we may mistake half its words for its full meaning, as Bellarmine and others were willing to do, or at least to have others do so. In its sixth Canon on the Eucharist it only saysConcil. Trident. Can. 6. De Euchar. si quis dixerit in san­cto Eucharistiae Sa­cramento Christum Ʋnigenitum Dei fi­lium non esse cultu Latriae etiam exter­no adorandum, ana­thema sit., If any one shall say, that Christ the only begotten Son of God is not to be adored with the external Worship of Latria, in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be accursed. Who will not say in those general words, that Christ is to be adored with out­ward and inward Worship both, not only in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, but of Baptism too, and in every Christian Office, and in every Prayer, and solemn Invocation of him, ei­ther publick or private? But they mean a great deal more than all this, by Worshipping Christ in the Sacrament, and in as plain words they sayIb. 13. Sess. c. 5., That the Sacrament it self is to be adored; that, whatever it be which is something besides Christ, even according to them, which is placed in the Patin, and upon the Altar, which the Priest holds in his hands, and lifts up to be seen, this very thing is to be adored; There is no doubt, says the CouncilIb. Nullus dubi­tandi locus relinqui­tur quin omnes Chri­sti fideles pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto, latriae custum qui vero Deo debetur, huic san­ctissimo Sacramento in Veneratione adhi­beant; neque enim minus est adoran­dum quod fuerit a Christo Domino ut sumatur, institutum., but that all faithful Chri­stians, according to the custom always received in the Catholick Church, ought to give Supreme and Sovereign Wor­ship, which is due to God himself, to the most Holy Sacrament in their Worship of it; for it is never the less to be adored, tho it was instituted of [Page 9]Christ to be received. That which is to be received, which is to be put into the Peoples Mouths by the Priest (for since they have made a God of the Sacrament, they will not trust the People to feed themselves with it, nor take it into their hands; and they may with as much reason in time not think fit that they should eat it) this which was appointed of Christ to be taken and eaten as a Sacrament; this is now to serve for another use, to be adored as a God; and it would be as true heresie in the Church of Rome, not to say, that the Sacrament of the Altar is to be adored, as not to say, that Christ himself is to be adored. But what according to them is this Sa­crament? It is the remaining Species of Bread and Wine, and the natural Body and Blood of Christ, invisibly, yet carnally present under them; and these together make up one entire Object of their Adoration, which they call Sacramentum; for Christs body with­out those Species, and Accidents at least of Bread and Wine, would not according to them be a Sacrament; they being the outward and visible part, are, according to their School­men, properly and strictly called the Sacramentum, and the other the res Sacramenti; Lombard. sent [...]li 4. dist. 19. and to this external part of the Sacrament, as well as to the internal, they give [...] and Adoration; to these remaining Species, which be they what they will, are but Creatures; religious Worship is given toge­ther with Christs Body, and they with that, are the whole formal Object of their Adoration. Non so­lum Christum sed Totum visibile Sacramentum, uni­co cultu adorari, says SuarezIn Th. Quaest. 79. disp., quia est unum constans ex Christo & Speciebus; Not only Christ, but the [Page 10]whole visible Sacrament (which must be something besides Christs invisible Body) is to be adored with one and the same Worship, because it is one thing (or one Object) consisting of Christ and the Species. So ano­ther of their learned menHenriquez. Moral, l. 8. c. 32., Speci­ebus Eucharistiae datur Latria prop­ter Christum quem continent; The highest Worship is given to the Species of the Eucharist, because of Christ, whom they contain. Now Christ, whom they contain, must be something else than the Species that contain him. Let him be present never so truly and substantially in the Sacrament, or under the Species, he cannot be said to be the same thing with that in which he is said to be present; and as subtil as they are, and as thin and subtil as these Species are, they can never get off from Idolatry upon their own Principles in their Worshipping of them; and they can never be left out, but must be part of the whole which is to be adored, totum illud quod simul adoratur, de Euch. l. 4. c. 30. as Bellarmine calls it, must include these as well as Christs Body. Adorationem, saies BellarmineBellarmine de Euch. l. 4. c. 29., ad Symbola etiam panis & vini pertine­re, ut quod unum cum ipso Christo quem continent, Adoration belongs even to the Sym­bols of Bread and Wine, as they are apprehended to be one with Christ whom they contain; and so make up one entire Object of Worship with him, and may be Worshipt together with Christ, as T. G. Cathol. no Ido­laters, p. 268. owns in his Answer to his most learned Adversary; and are the very term of Adoration, as Gregory de Valentia De Idol. l. 2. c. 5. says, who further adds, that they who think this Worship does not at all belong to the Species, [Page 11]in that heretically oppose the per­petual customand fence of the Church.Qui censeunt nullo modo ad Species ip­sus eam Veneratio­nem pertinere, in eo Haeretice pugnare contra perpetuum usum & sensum Ecclesiae: de Ve­nerati one Sacram. ad Artic. Thom. 5.

Indeed they say, That these Species or Accidents, are not to be Worshipt for themselves, or upon their own account, but because Christ is present in them, and under them; and so they may be Worshipt as T. G. saysIb., with Christ in like manner, as his Gar­ments were Worshipt together with him upon Earth; which is a similitude taken out of Bellarmine, the Magazine not only of Arguments and Authorities, but of Similitudes too, it seems, which are to De­fend that Church; Quemadmodum saies hede Euch. Ve­nerat., qui Christum in terris ve­stitum adorabant, non ipsum solum sed etiam vestes quodam modo adora­bant. And are Christs Garments then to be Worshipt with Latria, as well as Christ himself, or as the Sacra­ment? I think they will not say this of any of the Relicks they have of Christ, or his clothes: Did they, who Worshipt Christ when he was upon the Earth, worship his clothes too? Did the Wise men worship the blankets, the clouts, and the swadling-cloths, as well as the blessed Babe lying in the Man­ger? Might it not as well be supposed that the Peo­ple worshipt the Ass, upon which Christ rode; not for himself, but for the sake, and upon the account of Christ, who was upon him; as that they worshipt his clothes, or his Sandals on which he trod, or the Garments which he wore? Bellarmines quodammodo adorabant, shews his heart misgave him, and that [Page 12]he was sensible the Similitude would not do, when he used it; but T. G. is a man of more heart and courage, or front at least, and he found the cause was in great need of it, and so he saies boldly, without any trem­bling quodammodo, that they worshipt his Garments.

The humane Nature it self of Christ, considered alone, and being a meer Creature, is not an object of Worship, as St. Augustin saiesSt. Aug. Serm. 58. De verbis Dom. Si natura Deus non est filius sed Crea­tura, nec colendus est omnino nec ut Deus Adorandus. Ego Dominicam car­nem, imo perfectam in Christo humani­tatem propterea ado­ro, quod a divinitate suscepta, atque Dei­tati unita est, — Denique si hominem separaveris a Deo, ut Photinus, vel Paulus Samosatenus, illi ego nunquam credo nec servio., but only as it is hyposta­tically united to the Divine Nature, i. e. so intimately and vitally united to it, as to make one Person with it, with God himself, one [...], and so one Object of Worship; and if the Sacramental Symbols or Spe­cies, are to be adored with true latria, not per se, or upon their own account, but by reason of the intimate Union and Conjunction which they have with Christ, as they say, not only with Christs body, for that alone is not to be worshipt much less another thing that is united to it; but with Christs Person, and then there must be as many Persons of Christ, as there are consecrated Wafers; then these Species being thus worshipt upon the same ac­count that Christs humanity is, as Gregory de Valen­tia owns they must, [This Worship, saies he, belongs after a certain manner to the species, as when the Di­vine [...] is worshipt in the humanity which he assu­med, the Divine Worship belongs also to the created Humanity. Pertinet per accidens suo quodam mo­do ea veneratio ad Species, quemadmodum suo mo­do, etiam hoc ipso quod adoratur Divinum verbum in humanitate assumptâ pertinet ejusmodi Divinus [Page 13]cultus, ad illam humanitatem creatam secundario, ne­que in hoc est aliqua Idolola­tria,] must be also united to Christ,Valentia, Disput. 6. Quaest. 11. de ritu & oblat. Eucharist. the same way that his Humanity is united to his Divinity, so as to become with that, one entire object of Worship, as the Species are, ac­cording to them, with Christ in the Eucharist; that is, they must become one suppositum, or one Person with Christ. This is so weighty a difficulty, as makes the greatest Atlas's of the Roman Church not on­ly sweat, but sink under it. Valen­tia De Idol. l. 2. c. 5. owns the wonderful Conjun­ction the Species have with Christ, but denies their being hypostatically united to him; but then, how are they to be worshipt? Since it is owned by him and the Schoolmen, that the very Humanity of Christ is to be worshipt only upon the account of its hypostatical Union; and tho God be very nearly and intimately present in other Crea­tures, yet they are not to be worshipt, notwith­standing that presence, because they do not make one suppositum or hypostasis with him, or are not hy­postatically united to him. Bellarmine being pincht on this side, removes the burden to t'other, that is as sore, and can as little bear it; Christ, says he,Longe aliter est Christus in Eucha­ristia, & in aliis rebus Deus; Nam in Eucharistia unum tantum Suppositum est, idque Divinum, caeteraque omnia ad illud pertinent, & cum illo unum quid faciunt, licet non eodem modo, Bellar. de Euch. l. 4. c. 30. is much otherwise in the Eucharist, than God is in other things; for in the Eucharist, there is but one only suppositum, and that Divine; all other things there present belong to, and make one thing with that. If they do so, then sure they are hypostatically united with Christ, as T. G's. learned Adversary charges upon Bellarmine from this place; if [Page 14]they make but one suppositum with him, and but one with him, let it be in what manner it will, they must be hypostatically united to him. Bellarmines Licet non eodem modo, tho not after the same man­ner, is both unintelligible, and will not at all help the matter; 'tis only a Confession from him, that at the same time that he says they are hypostatically united to Christ, and make one suppositum with him, and one object of Worship, that he does not know how this can be, and that his thoughts are in a great streight about it, so that he doubts they are not hypostatically united at the same time that he yet saies they are so; for this is no way imposed upon him, as T. G. saies, notwithstanding his non eodem modo. If in the Incarnation of Christ, one should say, That the Soul and Body of Christ are both united to his Divinity, but that both were not united after the same manner; but the Soul in such a manner, as being a Spirit, and the Body in another; yet so, that both made but one Suppositum with it, and that Divine; and that all his humane Nature belong'd to that, and made one with that, tho not after the same manner; would not this be still an owning the hypostatical Union between Christs Di­vinity, and his Soul and Body? and so must the o­ther be between Christs Divinity, and his Body, and the Species; if they make one Suppositum, and are, as they hold, to be worshipt as such.

Thus I have taken care to give you their Doctrine, and state the Case with some exactness; tho I am sensible, with too much length; but that is the way to shorten the Controversie; and by this means I have cut off their common retreats, and stopt up those little lurking holes they generally run to, and in which they are wont to Earth themselves. As, that [Page 15]they worship only Christ in the Sacrament, or Christ under the accidents of Bread and Wine; and that 'tis only Christ, or the Body of Christ with which his Divinity is always present, is the formal object of their Adoration in the Sacrament, and that their Worship is given to that, and not to the consecra­ted Elements, or to the remaining Species of Bread and Wine; it appears from their own Doctrine and Principles to be quite otherwise; and if we take them at their own words, they are sufficient to bear witness against them, and condemn them of Idola­try; but this will be found to be much greater and grosser, when the whole foundation of this Doctrine of theirs of the Worship of the Host, proves upon Examination to be false, and one of the most thick and unreasonable Errors in the World, to wit, the belief of Transubstantiation, or that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, are converted into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ, so that there remains nothing of the substance of the Bread and Wine after Consecration, but only the Flesh and Blood of Christ corporally present, under the Species and Accidents of Bread and Wine. If this Doctrine be true, it will in great measure discharge them from the guilt of Idolatry; for then their only fault will be their joyning the Species, which how thin and ghostly soever they be, yet are Creatures, together with Christ, as one Object of Worship; and unless they alter their Doctrine on this point, from what it is now, I see not how they can justifie their wor­shipping with [...], or the Worship due only to God, not only the adorable substance of Christs Body, but the very Veils and Symbols under which they suppose that to lye; and yet when they teach, as they do, the adoring of the Sacrament, [Page 16]they must adore the visible and outward part of it, as well as the invisible Body of Christ; for without the remaining Species, it would not, according to them, be a Sacrament; and they have not gone so far yet, I think, as to deny that there are any remain­ing Species, and that our senses do so far wholly de­ceive us, that when we see something, there is really nothing of a visible Object. And the same Object which is visible, is adorable too, according to them: If Christs Body were substantially present in the Sacra­ment, tho it were lawful to adore it as there present; but by no means, either the substance or Species of Bread with it; yet it is much to be doubted, whe­ther it were a duty, or necessary to do so. It would be present so like a Prince in Incognito, that he would seem not to require that Honour which we ought to give him under a more publick appearance. God we know is present in all his Creatures, but yet we are not to Worship him as present in any of them; un­less, where he makes a sensible Manifestation of him­self, and appears by his Shechinah, or his Glory, as to Moses in the burning Bush, and to others in like manners: and it would be very strange to make the Bread in the Eucharist a Shechinah of God, which appears without any Alteration just as it was be­fore it was made such; and especially, to make it such a continuing Shechinah as the Papists do, that Christ is present in it, not only in the action and solemn Celebration, but extra usum, as they speak, and per­manenter, even after the whole Solemnity and Use is over; that he should continue there, as a praesens Numen, as Boileau expresly calls itde Eucharistiae Adorat. p. 140., and be showed and carried about and honoured as such, and dwell in [Page 17]the Species as long as they continue, as truly as he dwelt in the Flesh, before that was crucified; this is strange and monstrous even to those who think Christ is present in the Sacrament, but not so as the Papists believe, nor so as to be worshipped. I mean the Lutherans. But to bring the matter to a closer issue; the Papists themselves are forced to confess, that if the Bread remain after Consecration, and be still Bread, and be not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ, that they are then Idolaters. So Fisher against Oecclampadius, l. 1. c. 2. in express words. So Coster in his Enchiridion de Euch. c. 8.In tali errore at­que Idololatria, qualis in orbe terra­rum nunquam vel visus vel auditus fuit. Tolerabilior est enim error eorum qui pro Deo colunt Statuam auream aut argenteam, aut al­terius materiae ima­ginem, quomodo Gentiles Deos suos venerabantur, vel panum rubrum in hastam elevatum quod narratur de Lappis, vel viva animalia ut quon­dam Aegyptii, quam eorum qui frustum panis. Coster Ench. c. 8. S. 10. Longe potiori ratione ex­cusandi essent infi­deles Idololatrae qui Statuas adoraverunt, Ib. If the true Body of Christ be not present in the Sacra­ment, then they are left in such an Error and Idolatry, as was never seen or heard; for that of the Heathens would be more tolerable, who Worship a golden or silver Statue for God, or any other Image, or even a red Cloth, as the Laplan­ders are said to do, or living Animals, as the Egyptians, than of those who worship a piece of Bread. And again, Those Infidel Idolaters would be more ex­cusable, who worshipt their Sta­tues. To whom I shall add Bellar­mine ^a, who saies, It does not seem strange, that they call the Adoration of the Sacrament Idolatry, who do not believe that Christ is there truly [Page 18]present, but that the Bread is still true Bread.

If then the Bread do still remain Bread in the Host, and the Elements in the Eucharist are not sub­stantially changed into the natural and substan­tial Body and Blood of Christ, then it is confest Idolatry, and it is not strange according to Bellar­mine, that it should be so; and then sure it will be true [...], or Bread-worship too, if that be Bread which they Worship, and be not the natural Body of Christ; that which is there present, that they adore; and if that be only Bread, then they adore Bread. And here I should enter that controversie, which has given rise to most of their abominable Abuses and Errors about the Eucharist; the making both a God of it, and also a true Sacrifice of this God instead of a Sacrament, which Christ intended it, and that is their Doctrine of Transubstantiation; but a great man has spared me this trouble, by his late excellent Discourse against it, to which I shall wholly refer this part of our present Controversie, and shall take it for granted, as any one must, who reads that, that (unless in Boileau's PhraseHomo opiniosus cui tenacitas Erroris sensum communem abstulit, Boil. p. 159., he be such a Bigot, whose tenaciousness of his Error, has quite bereaved him of common Sense, which is an unlucky Character of his own Friends) that Doctrine is false; and therefore, that the charge of Idolatry in this matter, is by their own Confession true. But there are some more cautious and wary men amongst them, who out of very just and reasonable Fears [Page 19]and Suspicions, that Transubstantion should not prove true, and that they may happen to be mista­ken in that, have thought of another way, to cover and excuse their Idolatry; and that is, not from the Truth, but meerly from the Belief of Transubstan­tiation. As long, say they, as we believe Transub­stantiation to be true, and do really think that the Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood, and so Worship the Sacrament upon that account, tho we should be mistaken in this our belief; yet as long as we think that Christ is there pre­sent, and design only to Worship him, and not the Bread, which we believe to be done away; this were enough to free us from the charge of Idolatry. To which, because it is the greatest, and the best Plea they have, and they that make it have some misgi­vings, I doubt not, that Transustantiation will not hold; I shall therefore give a full Answer to it, in the following Particulars.

1. All Idolatry does proceed from a mistaken be­lief, and a false supposal of the mind, which being gross and unreasonable, will not at all excuse those who are guilty of it; there were never any Idola­ters, but might plead the excuse of a mistake, and that not much more culpable and notorious, one would think, than the mistake of those who think a bit of Bread, or a Wafer, is turn'd by a few words into a God. They all thought, however blindly and foolishly, that whatever it was they worshipt, ought to be worshipt upon some account or other; that it was a true and fit Object, and that Adoration right­ly belong'd to it. Idolatry, tho it be a great Sin, and a great injury and affront to God, yet arises not so much from the malice of the will, as the blindness and darkness of the understanding; there were hard­ly [Page 20]ever any such Idolaters as maliciously, and de­signedly intended to affront the true God, by wor­shipping false Gods or Creatures; as if a Subject should pass by his Prince out of ill will, and a pur­pose to affront and defie him, and give the Reverence and Homage that was due to him, to a Rebel or fellow Subject standing by him; but they did this, because they mistook the person, and thought this to be the Prince that was not, or that he was there where he was not, or that that which was there, ought to be worshipt for his sake; still falsly supposing that they ought to worship that wrong Object, which they took to be right; or in that false manner which they took to be true; for if a mistake will excuse, it will excuse in one as well as another.

2. Tho they do not only think and believe that which they worship, to be a true Divine Object; but it really be so in it self, and that which they have in their Thoughts and intentions to worship, be right; yet they may still be guilty of Idolatry; for so were the Jews in the Idolatry of the golden Calf, whereby they intended not to throw off the Worship of the true God, The God of Israel, Exod. 32.4, 5. who brought them out of the land of Egypt; for they appointed the Feast to him under that Title, and under the Name of Jehovah at the same time; and so in the Idolatry of the Calves set up by Jeroboam; 1 K. 12.27, 28. they were not designed to draw off the people from wor­shipping the same God, who was worshipt at Hierusalem, but only to do it in another place, and after another manner; but still as T. G. Cath. no Idol. p. 330. says of the Roman Idolaters, so it may be said of these Jewish, [Page 21]That what they had in their Minds and Intentions to Worship, was the true God; and whatever was the ma­terial object of their Worship, he was the formal; for they did no more think the Gold, than the Papists think the Bread to be God. So the Manichees in their Idolatry, which St. Austin often mentionsContra Fau­stum Manicheum, l. 1. c. 3. Tom. 1. de Genesi contra Manich. l. 2. c. 25. Tom. 2. Epist. 74. ad Deuterium, Solem etiam & Lunam adorant & colunt., of adoring the Sun and Moon, the Object which they had in their Minds, and Thoughts, and Purposes to Worship, was Christ, as much as the Papists have him in the Eucharist. I would only ask, if a persons having a right Object in his mind, in his thoughts and pur­poses to adore, which T. G. Catholicks no Idolaters, p. 329, 330. so of­ten pretends, would excuse him from Idolatry; then suppose a per­son should before Consecration, Worship the Sa­cramental Elements, to prevent which they gene­rally keep them from being seen; yet in the Thoughts, and Intentions, and Purposes of his mind, design to worship Christ then supposed, tho falsly, to be there, as they Worship him afterwards; whether this would be Idolatry in him or no? If not, then they may worship the unconsecrated Elements, as well as consecrated, even whilst they believe they are Bread; if it be, then having a right Object in our Thoughts, and Purposes, and Intentions, will not excuse from Idolatry.

3. Whatever was the material Object of Idola­trous worship, it was not worshipt for it self, no more than the Bread or its Accidents are by the Papists in the Eucharist; but as they say of the Host, because they believed that the true Object of worship was really present in it, or in an ex­traordinary [Page 22]manner united to itDeos relictis sedibus propriis non recusare nec fugere, habitaculainire ter­rena, quinimo jure dedicationis impul­sos simulachrorum coalescere inunctioni, Arnob. contra gent. l. 6.; so did the Gentiles, who thought the Gods themselves, or at least a Divine Power, was brought into their Images, by their Consecrati­ons, and that it resided and dwelt there, and they worshipped their Images only upon this accountDeos per simu­lachra Veneramur, Ib.. Now if they had thought this of the true God himself, that it was he, and not any false God that was thus present in their Images, this would have been nevertheless Idolatry. Thus the Manichees, who worshipt the Sun, did not worship it for it self, but be­cause they believed Christ had placed his Tabernacle in the Sun; so the more Philosophi­cal Idolaters among the Heathens,See Voss. de Ido­lol. l. 8. c. 1. who worshipt the several Things of Nature, as parts, they thought, of the Great and Omnipresent God; they did not worship them pure­ly for themselves, but as God was in them, and they were as St. Austin speaks, Aut partes ejus aut mem­bra ejus, aut aliquid substantiae ip­sius August. l. 24. contra Faustum.. Either parts of him, or Mem­bers of him, or something of his substance, as the Papists believe the Sacrament to be his Body. Thus they deified the things of Nature, tho they thought there was but one Supreme God, whom they worshipt in them, as Eu­sebius says of them; they believe [...]. Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 3. c. 13., That one God fills all things with his various power, and pervades all things, and that he is to be worshipped in, and by all visible things; but yet [Page 23]they denied that those visible things were to be wor­shipt for themselves, but for the sake of God, and those invisible Powers of God, which were in them, as appears from the same place [...]., They do not, they say, make Gods of the visible Bodies of the Sun, Moon and Stars, or the other sensible parts of the World; but they worship those invisible Powers that are in them of that God, who is God over all. Nay the Egyptians themselves, did not as Celsus pleads even for those Idola­ters, worship their brute Animals, but only as they were Spmbols of God [...], Orig. contra Cel. l. 3..

4. Yet notwithstanding this Plea of Idolaters, they may justly be charged with worshipping those material Objects, which they say, as the Papists, when we charge them with Bread worship, that they do not Worship. So the Egyptians might be charged with brute worship, the Heathens with the Worship of the Sun and Moon; and the Scrip­tureIsa. 44.17. expresly Reproaches and Ac­cuses the Idolaters with worshipping a Stock or Stone, or a piece of Wood; tho it was the constant Plea and Pretence of the Heathens, that they did no more worship those material Objects, than the Papists do Bread.Non ego illum lapidem colo nec il­lud simulachrum quod est sine sensu, Aug. in Psal. 69. I do not Worship the senseless Stone or Image, which has Eyes and sees not, Ears and hears not, saies the Hea­then in St. Austin; and in Arnobius, We do not worship the Brass, or the Gold, or Silver, [Page 24]or any of the matter of which our Images are made Nos nequeaera, neque auri argenti­que materias neque alias quibus signa consiciunt eas esse per se Religiosa de­cern [...]mus numina, sed eos in his colimus eosque veneramur quos dedicatio infert Sacra Arnobius contra Gentes.; and in St. Austin, again, Do ye think we or our Forefa­thers were such Fools as to take these for Gods Ʋsque adeone Majores nostros insi­pientes fuisse creden­dum est ut Deos —? No, they would disown it as much as Boile au does, With his, who shall say we adore the Bread or Wine? ^c or T. G's. pretending that we run upon that false ground, that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God. And yet, I see not why there may not be good reason to charge the one, as well as the o­ther.

5. If those other Idolaters had been so foolish and absurd, as to believe and think, that those things which they worshipt were their very Gods them­selves, substantially present, and that the visible sub­stance of their Idols, had been converted and turn­ed into the substance of their Gods; this would have made their Idolatry only more horribly sot­tish and ridiculous, but would not in the least have made it more excusable. If the Jews had thought that by the powerful words of Consecration, pro­nounced by Aaron their High Priest, the Calf had been turned into the very sustance of God, and that, tho the Figure and Shape of the Calf had remained, and the Accidents and Species of Gold, which ap­peared to their sight; yet that the substance of it had been perfectly done away, and that only God him­self, had been there under those appearing Species of a golden Calf; would this have mended the matter, or better excused their Idolatry, because they had been so extremely sottish, That they conceived the [Page 25]Gold not to be there at all, but in the place thereof, the only true and eternal God; and so, altho the Object (or rather Subject) materially present in such a case would have been the golden Calf; yet their Act of Ado­ration would not have been terminated formally upon that, but only upon God, as T. G. saies of the Bread, p. 329. Or if the Manichees had thought the Body of the Sun had been converted into the glorious Body of Jesus Christ, would this have signified any thing to bring them of; if their mistake had been, as T. G. saies, p. 327. theirs is concerning the Bread, that they believed the Sun not to be there at all, and there­fore, what they would have in their minds would not, or could not be the Sun, but the only true and eternal Son of God. Indeed they had as it appears from St. Austin Eum (sc. Chri­stum) navim quan­dam esse dicitis, eum triangulum esse per­hibetis, id est, per quandam trian­gulam caeli Fene­stram lucem istam mundo terrisque radiare. August. contra Faustum Ma­nichaeum, l. 20. c. 6. Nescio quam navim per foramen Trian­gulum micantem at­que lucentem, quam confictam cogitatis, adoretis Ibid., some such absurd Imagination; they did think that it was not the material Sun, which appeared to their senses; but a certain Navis, which was the sub­stance of Christ, that did radiate, through the triangular Fenestra in the Heavens to the World, and to the Earth. These wretched Figments of theirs, whereby they made the Father the Light, that was in­accessible, and placed Christ in the Sun and Moon, and the Holy Ghost in the AirTrinitati loca tria datis; patri unum i. e. lumen in accessibile, filio duo Solem & Lunam, spiritui sancto rursus unum, Aeris hunc omnem ambitum, Ibid. c. 7., and called these the Seals of their substance ^c; these made them indeed as he says, worship on­ly the Figments of their own cra­zy heads, and things that were [Page 26]notIn iis non quod sunt, sed quod vobis dementissime fingi­tis adoratis, Ib. c. 9. Vos autem colitis ea quae nec dii nec ali­quid sunt quoniam prorsus nulla sunt, Ib. c. 9.; but yet this madness and extravagance did not excuse them from Idolatry, which he still charges them withal. They worshipt that in the Sun, which was not there, as the Papists do in the Sacrament, to wit, Christs natural Body, let it be Phantastick or not; and they en­deavoured to turn away the Senses of men, as he saysSensus Simpli­cium conantur aver­tere, & nonnullo­rum avertunt. Id. Enarrat in Psal. 10., from that visi­ble Sun, and perswade them that it was Christ himself. So that as T. G. says of their mistake concerning the Bread, They did not in their minds, affirm the Sun to be, but not to be, p. 330. and so it could not according to him, be the Object of their worship, because whatever is so, the understanding must affirm (either truly or falsly) to be, p. 329.

There was an Idolatry among the Persians, which Xenophon Cyrop. l. 8., and Quin­tus Curtius l. 3. give an account of, in their worship of Fire, and carrying it about with the most stately Pomp and Solemnity upon silver Altars, and a great Train of Priests and others; which does the most resemble the car­rying about the Host in Procession of any thing I have met with, as it is described by Curtius. Here the sacred Fire as they call'd it, which no doubt was consecrated by some Religious Ceremonies, and was no more counted ignis ex culinâ, than the holy Bread is panis ex furno; if they had supposed it by the magical Charms of the Priests to have been turned into some other substance than common Fire, and had thought it to have become the most noble Sym­bol of the great God, or the illustrious Veil, under [Page 27]which lay the Divinity of the great Lord of the World, and that all the substance of common Fire was quite changed, and done away in this sacred and eternal Fire, as they accounted itIgnis quem ipsi sacrum & aeternum vocabant, argenetis altaribus perfereba­tur, Curt. Ib., this would not sure have made them to be no Idolaters. T. G. will make himself a very great Patron of dolaters, if with this Art and Sophi­stry of his he can bring them off, as he would the Worshippers of the Host, by the meer adding of more thick Grosness, and more Absurdi­ties to their other mistakes. He will haveP. 322. the Israelites to take the gol­den Calf for God, and the Egyptians the Sun to be God, and perhaps some of the most stupid Heathens did take their very Images for Gods, and by his way, these were the most excusable, be­cause they were the most mistaken. These mistakes would after this rate do great and extraordinary things for Idolaters, and would be much better se­curity for the Roman Church, than her pretended Infallibility; and indeed 'tis these must bring off her, and her Members from the guilt, tho not from the Acts of Idolatry, as well as from other things, or else she and they are in a very sad and desperate Con­dition.

But now I dare appeal to any man, who shall take in all those Considerations I have mentioned together, whether the Papist's adoring the Host, up­on the supposal and belief of Transubstantiation, if that be not true, will excuse them from Idolatry, and whither if a mistake in this Case, will excuse them, it will not excuse the grossest Idolatry in the World? Notwitstanding all the little Shifts and Eva­sions, that T. G. uses to wriggle himself out of this [Page 28]streight and difficulty, into which his learned Adver­sary had driven him.

HAving considered the Adoration of the Host, as it is Taught in the Church of Rome, I shall now consider the Practice of it, which is more plain and evident, and notorious to all the World; how­ever they would palliate and disguise their Do­ctrine. According to their Missal, which is wholly different in this, as well as other things from the old Lyturgic, and Eucharistic forms, as I shall show by and by, the PriestCelebrans hosti­am inter pollices te­nens — genuflexus eam adorat tum usque in terram ge­nuflexus hostiam ip­sam veneratur — sic de calice, reponit calicem super corpo­rale & genuflexus sanguinem reveren­ter adorat illum populo ostendens ado­randum Sacramen­tum genuflexus ve­neratur in Canon. Miss. genuflexus reverentiam facit Sacramento. in every Mass, as soon as he has consecrated the Bread and Wine, with bended Knees, he adores the Sacrament Missale Roma­num c. 9. Sacramen­tum genuflexus ado­rat Capite inclinato versus Sacramentum dicit Intelligibili vo­ce Agnus Dei qui tol­lis peccati mundi mi­serere nobis, Da no­bis pacem., that which he has consecrated, that very thing which is before him, upon the Paten, and in the Chalice, and gives the same Worship and Subjection, both of Body and Mind to it, as he could to God or Christ himself; for with his Head, and his Soul, bowing towards it, and his Eyes and Thoughts fixt upon it, and directed to it, he prays to it, as to Christ himself: Lamb of God that takest away the Sins of the World, have Mercy upon us, Grant us Peace and the like; then the Priest rising up after he has thus adored it himself, he lifts it up as high as conve­niently he can above his head, and with Eyes fixt upon it, he shows it [Page 29]to be devoutly adored by the Peo­ple Sacerdos post­quam ipse hostiam genuflexus adoravit, continuo se erigens quantum commode potest, elevat in al­tum & intentis in eam oculis populo reverenter ostendit adorandam., who having notice also, by ringing the Mass Bell, as soon as they see it, fall down in the hum­blest Adorations to it, as if it were the very appearance of God himself, and if Christ himself were visibly present before them, they could not show more acts of Reverence and Devotion, and Worship to him, than they do to the Host; they Pray to it, and use the very Forms of Petition and Invocation to that, as to Christ himself; such as these, O saving Host, or blessed Sacrament which openest the door of Heaven, give me strength and and power against dangers, and a­gainst all my Enemies O salutaris Ho­stia, quae caeli pandis ostium, bella pre­munt hostilia, Da robur, fer auxilium. Hymnus in Festo corporis Christi in Breviar. Rom.. Adoro te devote latens Deitas, quae sub his figuris vere latitas, tibi se cor meum subjicit, Deum meum te confiteor. Fac me tibi ma­gis credere, in te spem habere, te de­ligere, praesta menti de te vivere & te illi semper dulce sapere, Rythmus, St. Thom. ad Eucharist in Mis­sal. Make me always mere to believe, to hope in thee, to love thee; Grant that my Soul may always live upon thee, and that thou mayst always tast sweet unto it. Thus both the Priest, and the People are several times to Adore and Worship both the Host and the Cup in the Celebration of the Eucharist, and they will not disown, nor cannot, their directing and terminating their Devotions and Prayers upon the Sacrament, which is before them; Prayers, they call them to the Eucha­ristAd Sacram. Eu­charistiam Rythmus Rom. breviar.; and 'tis become a common form of Doxology amongst them, instead of saying, Praise be given to God, to say, Praise be given to the most holy SacramentLaus sacrati [...]i­mo Sacramento.; as 'tis in one of their Authors, instead [Page 30]of, ye shall pray to God, ye shall pray to the Bo­dy of Christ, i. e. to the Sacra­mentOrlandinus hist.. Sanders in his Book of the Supper of the LordCorpori & san­guini Christi sub Speciebus panis & vim omnis honor, Laus & Gratiarum actio in secula secu­lorum. Sanderus de caena Dom., instead of Glory be to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, turns it thus, To the Body and Blood of our Saviour, under the Species of Bread and Wine, be all Honour and Praise, and Thanksgiving for evermore, as if it were another Person of the blessed God­head.

This Adoration is not only in the time of Commu­nion, when it is properly the Lords Supper and Sa­crament; but at other times out of it, whenever it is set upon the Altar with the Candles burning, and the Incense smoking before it, or hung up in its rich Shrine and Tabernacle, with a Canopy of State over it. And not only in the Church which is sanctified, they say, by this Sacrament, as by the Pre­sence of God himselfBellarm. de sanct. c. 5., but when it is carried through the Sreets in a solemn and pompous Procession, as it is before the Pope, when he goes abroad, just as the Persian fire was before the Em­perorCurt. l. 3. S. 3., meerly by way of state, or for a superstitious end, that he may better the be Guarded and Defended by the company of his GodAd capitis illi­us sacri custodiam praesidialem & pa­tronalem. Perron. de Euch. l. 3. c. 19.. In all these times it is to worshipped and adored by all persons as it passeth by, as if it were the Glory of God which passed by. They are like Mo­ses, to make hast and bow their heads to the Earth and worship Exod. 34.8.; but above [Page 31]all, upon that high day, which they have dedicated to this Sacrament, as if it were some new Deity, the Festum Dei, as they call it, the Feast of God, or the Festum Corporis Christi, the Feast of the Body of Christ; for to call the Sacrament God, is a general Expression among them, as when they have received the Sacrament, to say, I have received my Maker to day; and the Person who in great Churches, is to carry the Sacrament to the numerous Communicants, is called, Bajulus Dei, the Porter or Carrier of God; and they always account it, and so always reve­rence it, as Boileau falsly saysEucharistiam pro praesente numi­ne semper habuisse Veteres., the Ancients did, as a present Numen and Deity. This Feast was appoint­ed by Pope Ʋrban the 4th, about the middle of the twelfth Century; and again by Clement the fifth in the beginning of the 13th, as is owned by themselves, upon the occasion of a Vision to one Juliana, who saw a crack in the Moon, that signified, it seems, a great defect in the Church for want of this Solemnity: such was the rise of this great FestivalBzovii Annal. in Contin. Baron. Anno Dom. 1230., and so late was its Institution in the Ro­man Church, in which alone, and in no other Christian Church of the World, it is observed to this day. And that the whole practice of the Adoration to the Host is Novel, and unknown to the primitive Church, and to the Ancient Writers, I shall endeavour to make evident a­gainst that bold and impudent Canon of the Council of Trent, which is the first Council that commanded it in these wordsSi quis dixerit, non esse hoc Sacra­mentum peculiari fe­stivia celebritate ve­nerandum, neque in processionibus se­cundum laudabilem & Universalem Ec­clesiae sanctae ritum & consuetudinem, solenniter circum­gestandum, vel non publice ut adoretur, populo proponen­dum, & ejus Adora­tores esse Idololatras anathema sit. Concil. Trident. Can. 6. Sess. 13., If any one shall say that the Sacrament is not to be worshipt by a peculiar Festival, nor to be solemnly carried [Page 32]about in Processions according to the laudable and universal manner and custom of the Holy Church, nor to be publickly proposed to the People that it may be adored by them, and that the Worshippers of it are Idolaters, let him be accursed. To confront this insolent pretence of theirs, that it was an universal custom of the Church, thus to carry the Sacra­ment in Processions, the ingenuous confession of their own Cassander is sufficient, The custom, says heConsuetudo qua panis Eucharistiae in publica pompa con­spicuus circumfertur ac passim omnium oculis ingeritur, prae­ter veterum morem ac mentem haud ita longo tempore in­ducta & recepta vi­detur. Illi enim hoc mysterium in tanta religione ac venera­tione habuerunt, ut non modo ad ejus perceptionem, sed ne inspectionem qui­dem admitterent, ni­si fideles, quos Christi membra & tanta participatione dig­nos esse existimarent, quare ante Consecra­tionem Catechumeni Energumeni, paeni­tentes, denique non Communicantes Di­aconi voce & Osti­ariorum Ministerio secludebantur, Cas­sand. Consult., of carrying about the Sacramental Bread in publick pomp, to be seen and expo­sed to all eyes, is contrary to the mind and custom of the Ancients, and seems to be lately brought in and re­ceived; for they had this mystery in such religious Veneration, that they would not admit any, not only to the partaking, but not to the sight of it, but the Faithful, whom they accounted members of Christ, and worthy to partake of such a Mystery. Wherefore all those who were but Catechumens, or were Energumeni or Penitents, and not Communicants, were always put out and dismist at the Celebration of it. Whether they be Idolaters for adoring the Sacrament, I have considered already, and their pra­ctice joined with their Doctrine, makes it more evident. I shall now prove that this Adoration of theirs, [Page 33]was neither commanded nor used by Christ, or the Apostles, nor by the Primitive Church, nor is truly meant and designed by any of those Authorities of the Fathers, which they produce for it; and upon a ge­neral view of the whole matter, That it is a very ab­surd and ridiculous thing that tends most shamefully to reproach, and expose Christianity.

1. That it was not used or commanded by Christ or the Apostles, is plain from the account that all the Evangelists give us of Christs celebrating this Sa­crament with his Apostles, where is only mention of their taking and eating the Bread, and drinking the Wine, after it was blessed by him, but not the least tittle of their adoring it; so far from it, that they were not then in a posture of Adoration, which they should have been in, if they had inwardly adored it, which makes this not only a Ne­gative Argument, as Boileau De Adorat. Euch. l. 2. c. 1. would have it, but a positive one. To take off this argument from the no mention of any such command or practice of Adoration to the Sacrament in the Gospel; he says, Neither is the Adoration of Christ, prescribed in express wordsNullo exiis loco conceptis verbis praescriptam fuisse Adorationem, (sc. Christi) p. 27., nor that of the Holy Ghost, either commanded or performedNullibi praecep­tam ejus Adoratio­nem aut confestim peractam conceptis intelligamus, p. 98.. But I hope all those places of Scripture, that so fully tell us, that both Christ and the Holy Ghost are God, do sufficiently com­mand us to worship them, by bid­ding us worship God; and if it had told us that the Sacrament is as much God as they, it had then commanded us to adore it. There are sufficient instances of Christs being adored, when he appeared upon Earth, and had the other Divine Per­sons [Page 34]assumed a bodily Shape; those who had seen and known it, would have particularly adored it, and so would the Apostles, no doubt, have done the Sa­crament, if they had thought that, when it was be­fore them, an object of worship. St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11. c. when he wrote to the Co­rinthians of their very great Irre­verence in receiving the Lords Supper, had very good occasion to have put them in mind of adoring it, had that been their Duty; this then would have been a proper means to have brought them to the highest reverence of it; but he never intimates any thing of worshipping it, when he delivers to them, the full account of its institution, and its design; nor never reproves them among all their other unwor­thy abuses of it, for their not adoring it; and 'tis a very strange fetch in Boileau Ib. p. 103. l. 2., that he would draw St. Pauls com­mand of examining our selves before we eat, to mean our adoring when, or what we eat; and that not discerning the Lords body, and being guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, is the not worshipping the Sacrament, which he never so much as touches upon among all their other faults. Are there not many other ways of abusing the Sacrament, besides the not worshipping it? this is like his first Argu­ment out of Ignatius his Epistlesl. 1. c. 2. [...], Ep. ad Smyr. at ipsemet nos docet nihil nos diligere de­bere praeter So­lum Deum., that because he says, the Sacrament ought to be loved, therefore he meant that it ought to be adored. At which rate I should be afraid to love this Gentleman however taking he was, lest I should consequently a­dore him, or because I am not to a­buse him, therefore it would follow, that I must worship him.

2. This Adoration was not in use in the Primitive Church, as I shall show,

• 1. From those Writers who give us an account of the manner of celebrating the Eucharist among the Ancient Christians.
• 2. From the oldest Liturgies and Eucharistick forms.
• 3. From some very antient Customs.

1. Those most ancient Writers, 1. Justin Martyr. 2.Justin Marty. 2. Apolog. versus fi­nem. Apostol. Con­stitut. l. 8. c. 11, 12, 13, 14. 3. Cyril Hierosol. Cateches. mystagog c 5. The Author of the Apostolick Constitutions: And 3. St. Cyril of Hierusalem, who ac­quaint us with the manner how they celebrated the Eucharist, which was generally then one constant part of their publick worship; they give no account of any Adoration given to the Sacrament, or to the consecrated Elements, tho they are very particular and exact in mentioning other less considerable things that were then in use, the Kiss of Cha­rity, in token of their mutual Love and Reconcilli­ation; this Justin Martyr mentions as the first thing just before the Sacrament [...]. Justin Mar­tyr, Apol. 2.. In St. Cyril's timeCatech. mysta­gog. 5. Apostol. Con­stit. l. 8. c. 11., the first thing was the bringing of Water by the Deacon, and the Priests washing their hands in it, to denote that purity with which they were to compass Gods Altar; and then the Deacon spoke to the people, to give the holy Kiss; then Bread was brought to the Bi­shop or Priest, and [...]. Just. Mar­tyr. Wine mixt with Water in those hot Countries, [Page 36]and after Prayers and Thanksgivings by the Priest, to which the people to joyned their Amen. [...], Just. Martyr, Ib. The Deacons gave every one present, of the blessed Bread, and Wine, and Water; and to those that were not present, they carried it home; this, says Justin Martyr, we account not common Bread, or com­mon Drink, but the Body and Blood of Christ [...]. Ib., the blessed Food, by which our Flesh and Blood is nourisht, that is, being turned into it, which could not be said of Christs natural Body; nor is there the least men­tion of any worship given to that, as there present, or to any of the blessed Elements. The others are longer and much later, and speak of the particular Prayers and Thanksgivings that were then used by the Church, of the Sursum Corda, lift up your heart; which St.Cyril Hierosol. mystagog. Cat. 5. Cyril saies, followed after the Kiss of Charity; of the Sancta Sanctis, things holy belong to those that are holy; then they describe how they came to Communicate, how they held their hand [...], Ib. when they received the Elements; how careful they were that none of them should fall upon the Ground; but among all these most minute and particular Descriptions of their way and man­ner of receiving the Sacrament, no account is there of their adoring it, which surely there would have been, had there been any such in the Primitive Church, as now is in the Roman.

We own indeed, as Boileau objects to usL. 2. P. 106., that from these it appears, that some things were then in use, which we observe not now; neither do the Church of Rome all of them, for they are not essential, but indiffe­rent matters, as mixing Water with Wine, the Priest's washing, the Kiss of Charity, and sending the Sa­crament to the absent; but the Church may alter these upon good reasons according to its prudence and discretion; but Adoration to the Sacrament, if it be ever a Duty, is always so, and never ought upon any account to be omitted; nor would have been so by the Primitive Christians, had they had the same Opinion of it, that the Papists have now.

2. From the oldest Lyturgies, and the Euchari­stick Forms; in them it appears that there was no such Adoration to the Sacrament, till of late; for in none of them is there any such mention, either by the Priest or the People, as in the Roman Missal and Ritual, nor any such Forms of Prayer to it, as in their Breviary. Cassander Cassandri Ly­turgic. has collected together most of the old Liturgies, and Endeavours, as far as he can, to shew their agreement; with that of the Roman Church; but neither in the old Greek, nor in the old Latin ones, is there any instance to be produced of the Priests or the Peoples adoring the Sacrament, as soon as he had consecrated it; but this was perfectly added, and brought in a new into the Roman Lyturgy, after the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was esta­blisht in that Church, which has altered not only their Lyturgy, but even their Religion in good part, and made a new sort of Worship unknown, not on­ly in the first and best times of the Church, but for [Page 38]above a thousand years after Christ; Boileau finding this, tho a negative Argument, press very hard upon them; and sure it cannot but satissie any reasonable man, that there is no Direction in the ancient Lytur­gies for adoring the Sacrament; and it is very hard to require us to produce a Rubrick against it, when no body thought of that which after-Superstition brought in; He would fain therefore find something in an old Liturgy that should look like that of their own; and no doubt but he might have easily met with abundant places for their worshipping and adoring God and Christ at that solemn Office of the Christian worship, the blessed Sacrament; and there­fore out of the Liturgy called St. Chrysostomes, which he owns to be two hundred years later then St. Chry­sostome, he produces a placeBoil. l. 2. p. 74. ex Chrysost. Liturg. [...]., wherein it is said, That the Priest and the Deacon worship in the place they are in, and likewise the people; but do they worship the Sacrament? Is that, or only God and Christ the object of their worship there? Is there any such thing to determine this as they have taken care there should be in their Missal? where it is expresly several times, they shall worship the Sacra­mentSacramentum Adorare, Rom. mis­sal. Cooperto calice Sacramentum ado­rare, & genuflexus Sacramentum ado­rare.; but here in St. Chrysos. Li­turgy, 'tis God, who is to be wor­shipt, God be merciful to me a Sin­ner [...], Chrys. Lyturg.; but in the Roman, 'tis the Sacrament is prayed to Stans oculis ad Sacramentum intentis precari., and they would reckon and account it as true Irreligion, not to worship and pray [Page 39]to that, as not to worship God and Christ. So in the Lyturgy, that goes under the name of St. James, the Worship is only before the Holy Table [...]. Lyturg. St. 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 De Orat. c. 14. Accepto [...]orpore Domini & reservato., and from St. Cyprian 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 [Page 40]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 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; andIren. 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 [Page 41]Elements that remained after the Communion, as Hesychius 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 Consult. de Cir­cumgest. Sacram. owns, and Albas­pinaeus 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 [Page 42]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 themAnnuae 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 [Page 43]be tryed only by that, and not by Scripture, which the Church of Rome generally demurs to; that we shall not fear to allow them to bring all the Fathers they can for their Witnesses in this matter, and we shall not in the least decline their Testimony. Boi­leau Musters up a great many, some of which are wholly impertinent and insignisicant to the matter in hand, and none of them speak home to the bu­siness he brings them for. He was to prove, that they Taught that the Sacrament was to be adored, as it is in the Church of Rome; but they only Teach as we do, That it is to be had in great reverence and re­spect, as all other things relating to the Divine Worship; that it is to be received with great Devo­tion, both of Body and Soul, and in such a Posture, as is to express this, A Posture of Adoration; that Christ is then to be worshipped by us in this Office especially, as well as he is in all other Offices of our Religion; that his Body, and his Flesh, which is uni­ted to his Divinity, and which he offered up to his Father as a Sacrifice for all Mankind, and by which we are Redeemed, and which we do spiritu­ally partake of in the Sacrament, that this is to be adored by us; but not as being corporally pre­sent there, or that the Sacrament is to be wor­shipt with that, or for the sake of that, or that which the Priest holds up in his Hands, or lyes upon the Altar, is to be the Object of our Adorati­on, but only Christ and his blessed Body, which is in Heaven.

To these four Heads, I shall reduce the Autho­ri [...]ies which Boileau produces for the Adoration of the Host, and which seem to speak any thing to his purpose; and no wonder that among so many De­vout [Page 44]Persons that speak as great things as can be of the Sacrament, and used, and perswaded the great­est Devotion, as is certainly our Duty, in the recei­ving it; there should be something that may seem to look that way to those, who are very willing it should, or that may by a little stretching be drawn further than their true and genu­ine meaning, which was not to Worship the Sa­crament it self, or the consecrated Elements, but ei­ther

1. To Worship Christ, who is to be adored by us in all places, and at all times, but especially in the places set apart for his Worship, and at those times we are performing them in the Church, and upon the Altar, in Mysteriis, as St. Am­brose speaks,De Spir. St. l. 3. c. 12. in the Mysteries, both of Baptism and the Lords Supper, and in all the Offices of Christian Worship, as Nazianzen Orat. 11. de Gorgon. [...]. said of his Sister Gorgonia, that She called up­on him, who is honoured upon the the Altar. That Christ is to be ho­noured upon the Altar, where we see the great and honourable work of mens Redemption as 'twas per­formed by his Death, represented to us, is not at all strange; if it had been another, and more full word, that he was to be worshipt there, 'tis no more than what is very allowable, tho it had not been in a Rhetorical Oration; 'tis no more than to say, That the God of Israel was worshipt upon the Jewish Altar, or upon this Mountain. For 'tis plain, She did not mean to worship the Sacrament, as if that were Christ or God, for She made an ointment [Page 45]of it, and mixt it with her tears, and anointed her Body with it, as a Medicine to recover her Health, which she did miraculously upon it. Now, sure 'tis a very strange thing that she should use that as a Plaister, which She thought to be a God; but She still took it for Bread and Wine, that had extraor­dinary Vertue in it, and it is so called there by Na­zianzen, the Antitypes [...]. Ib. of Christs Body and Blood, which shews they were not thought to be the substance of it; and she had all these about her, and in her own keeping, as many private Christians had in those times; and there was no Host then upon the Altar, when she worshipped Christ upon it, for it was in the night [...]. Ib., she went thus to the Church. So St. Chrysostom Vid. Boileau, c. 7. l. 1. ex Chry­sost. in all the places quoted out of him, only recommends the worshipping of Christ our blessed Saviour, and our coming to the Sacrament with all Humility and Reverence, like humble Supplicants upon our Knees, and with Tears in our Eyes, and all Expres­sions of Sorrow for our Sins, and Love, and Honour to our Saviour, whom we are to meet there, and whom we do, as it were, [...], Chrys. in 1. Ep. Cor. 10. c. see upon upon the Altar, which is the great stress of all that is produced out of him. That we do not truly see him upon the Altar, the Papists must own, tho they be­lieve him there; but not so as to be visible to our Senses; and he is no more to be truly adored as cor­porally present, than he is visibly present. St. Ambrose In Sermone 56 Stephanus in terris positus Christum tangit in caelo. says of St. [Page 46] Stephen, that he being on Earth, toucheth Christ in Heaven; just as St. Chrysostom says, Thou seest him on the Altar; and as he and any one that will not re­solve to strain an easie figurative Expression, must mean, not by a bodily touch, or sight, but by FaithNon corporali tactu, sed fide., and by that we own, that we see Christ there, and that he is there present.

2. Adoring the Flesh and Body of Christ, which tho considered without his Divinity, it would be worshipping a Creature as St. Cyril of Alexandria saysIn actis Con­cil. Ephes. [...]., yet as it is al­ways united to his Divinity, 'tis a true object of Worship, and ought to be so to us, who are to expect Salvation by it, [...]. Chry­sost. Homil. 108. even from the Blood, and the Body, and Flesh of Christ; and therefore, as we inwardly trust in it, so we ought to adore it, as no doubt the Angels do in Heaven, and as we are to do in all the Offices of our Religion; tho that be in Heaven, yet we are to worship it upon Earth, and especially, when it is brought to our minds and thought, by that which is appointed by Christ himself to be the Figure and Memorial of it, the blessed Sacrament, there and in Baptism especially, when we put on Christ, and have his Death, and Rising again represented to us, and have such great benefits of his Death and Incar­nation bestowed upon us; in these Mysteries we are, as St. Ambrose Caro Christi, quam hodie in My­steriis adoramus, Ambros. l. 3. de Sp. San. c. 12. apud Boil. p. 32. says, to Adore the Body and the Flesh of Christ, to which we imme­diately and particularly owe them, [Page 47]and which we may truly call our Saviour. St. Am­brose, and St. Austin August: Enar. in Ps. 98. his Scholar after him, supposing that there was a great difficulty in that passage of the Psalms, worship his footstool, for so it is in the Latin Adorate scabel­lum pedum ejus., without the Preposition at his footstool, they laboured to reconcile this with that command of Worshipping and Serving God alone; and to give an account how the Earth, which was Gods footstool, could be worshipt; and the way they take, was this, to make Christs Flesh, which he took of the Earth, to be meant by that Earth which was Gods footstoolInvenio quo­modo sine Impieta­te adoretur terra, scabellum pedum ejus; suscepit enim de terra terram, quia caro de terra est, & de carne Ma­riae carnem accepit, August. Ib.; and this, say they, we ought to wor­ship; his Apostles did so whilst he was upon Earth, and we do so now, whilst he is in Heaven. We wor­ship the Flesh of Christ, which was crucified for us, and by the bene­fit of which we hope for Pardon and Salvation, we worship that, tho it be now in Heaven; we worship it in the So­lemn Offices of our ReligionIpsam carnem nobis manducan­dam ad falutem dedit (nemo autem illam carnem man­ducat, nisi pri­us adoraverit) Aug. Ib., that Flesh which he gave to be ea­ten by us for our Salvation, that we worship, for none eates that Flesh, but he first worships: Wor­ships that, if they please; tho St. Austin do not expresly say that; but we will own, and we will be always ready to Worship the Flesh of Christ, by which we are sa­ved, and we will do this especially at the Sacrament; and that more truly and properly, than they them­selves will own, that we eat and manducate it, as St. [Page 48] Austin says, not with our Teeth, as we do the Bread, but eat it, and worship it too, as it is Heaven. St Hierome Epist. ad Mar­cel. Ibant Christia­ni Hierosolymam ut Christum in illis a­dorarent locis, in quibus primum E­vangelium de pati­bulo coruscaverat. says of some devout Christians, That they went to Hierusalem, that they might adore Christ in those places, where the Gospel first shone from the Cross. They went, that they might adore Christ in those places; not that they believed him to be corporally present in those pla­ces; much less, that they worshipt the places them­selves; but they made a more lively impression of Christ upon them, and made them remember him with more Passion and Devotion; and so does the blessed Sacrament upon us, and we therefore worship Christ, whom we believe to be in Heaven in the Sa­crament, as they worshipt him in those places, where they were especially put in mind of him. Thus St. Hierome says, He worshipped Christ in the Grave, and that Paula worshipped him in the Stall Ad Paul. & Eustoch., and so we may be said to worship him on the Cross, or on the Altar, or in the Sacra­ment, and yet not to worship the Cross, or the Altar, or the Sacrament it self.

3. Other places out of the Fathers brought by him for the Adoration of the Host, mean only, that the Sacrament is to be had in great reverence and esteem by us, as all things sacred and set apart to religious uses are; that a singular Veneration is due to the Eucharist, as St. Austin saysEucharistiae de­beri singularem ve­nerationem, Epist. 118. c. 3., and as is to Baptism also, of which he uses the same word, We venerate Baptism Baptismum, u­bicunque est, veneramur, Id Epist. 146., as we ought to do all [Page 49]the Rites and Ordinances of our Religion; this is meant by Origen in that first place of him produced by Boileau De Euch. Ador. p. 10. ex Orig. Ho­mil. 13. Nostis qui Divinis mysteriis in­teresse consuestis, quomodo cum sus­cipitis corpus Do­mini, cum omni cautela & venerati­one servatis, ne ex eo parum quid de­cidat, ne consecrati muneris aliquid di­labatur. Reos enim vos creditis & recte creditis, siquid inde per negligentiam decidat., Ye that are wont to be present at the Divine Mysteries, know how, when ye re­ceive the Body of Christ, ye keep it with all Caution and Veneration, that no part of the consecrated gift be let fall; for ye think, and that rightly, that ye should be guilty of a fault, if any of it should be let fall through your negligence. And Christans have this Care and Veneration of those consecrated Symbols of the Body and Blood of their Saviour, of these wonderful Pledges of his Love, that they would not willingly spill them, or let them fall to the ground, through their carelesness and neg­lect; they that have that due regard to the Holy Bible which they ought, would not trample it un­der their feet, or show any such disrespect to it; it was this, which Origen was recommending in that place from that example of their care and respect to the Sacrament Elements, that they should give it also to the Word of GodQuod si cir­ca corpus ejus tan­ta urimini cantela, & merito utimini; quomodo putatis minoris esse piaculi Verbum Dei neg­lexisse quam Corpus ejus. Ib., But if ye use such care, and that very deser­vedly about keeping his Body, how do ye think it to be a less fault to neglect the word of God, than to neglect his Body. The Comparison here made between the Word of God, and the Sacrament, so plainly shows that he no way meant its Adoration, that I wonder this Person was not ashamed to pretend just before it, [Page 50]that heAlienum esse ab institutis meis ullum in medium addu­cere patrem quin conceptis verbis propitium, Boil. p. 10. would bring no Authori­ty, but what was expresly for his Opinion, and use none butAnimo decre­verim argumenta invictissima conclu­dere. in­vincible Arguments; but Roman Faith must be defended with Ro­man courage and confidence, which is the only invincible thing they have.

The words of Theodoret are a great deal more plausible, and seem at the first glance, to look more fairly, than any for their purpose. The Elements are understood to be what they are made, and they are believed and reve­renced, as those things which they are believed [...]. Theod. Dialog. [...]. apud Boil. p. 64.. Here our Faith makes the Sacrament to be what it signi­fies, to become to us the res Sacra­menti, as well as a sign and Repre­sentation of it, and that thing is to be adored by us, in the use of the Sacrament, which is the true sense of Theodorets words; and that he cannot mean in the Roman sense, that the Elements are converted into another substance, the substance of Christs Body, is plain from what immediately goes before, and utter­ly destroys what they would catch from half his words; for he says, That the Elements, or the mysti­cal Signs do not after sanctification recede from their own, but remain in their former sub­stance [...]. Ib.. Thus their best Witness, that seems to speak the most for them, yet speaks that against them, which destroys their whole cause, as he must own, whoever reads the [Page 51]Dialogue, and considers the design of it, which was to answer the pretence of those, who said that the Body of Christ was after his Ascension, turned into a Divine substance, and lost the true nature of Body [...]., as the Sym­bols of Christs Body and Blood are changed, say those Hereticks, into what they were not before, Yes saies he, Now ye are taken in your own net; for they remain in their for­mer nature and substance afterwards, and so does Christs Body. If then the change of these sacred Ele­ments be only as to their use and vertue, but not as to their substance, according to Theodoret, then he could not mean that they should be adored, but only reverenced by the word [...], just as the Holy Bible [...]. Liturg. Chrysost. [...]. Acta Concil. Ephes., is said to be reverenced, and the Priest themselves, by the very same word z.

4. Some of the Fathers words imply, that when we come to the Sacrament, it should be with the greatest lowliness, both of Body and Mind; and as the Primitive Church used to do, and as the Church of England does, in a posture of Worship and Adoration, in the form and manner of Worship, as St. Cyril of Hieros. speaks [...]. Cate­ch. Myst. 5., or as St. Chrysostome, In the form of Sup­plicants and Worshippers [...], Chrysost. Homil. 7. in Matth. [...]. Ibid. [...]. Homil. de Phil. [...]. Homil. in c. 10. Ep. 1. ad Cor. of Christ, [Page 52]as the Magi were, when they came to bring their presents to him; do thou then present him with humi­lity, and a lowly and submissive heart, and be not like Herod, who pretended he would come to worship him, but it was to murder him; but rather imitate the Magi, and come with greater fear and reverence to thy Savi­our than they did. This is the whole design and sub­stance of what is produced out of St. Chrysostom Boil. c. 7. l 1., And this is the plain meaning of Origen Hom. 5. in N. T. Tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum in­greditur; tu ergo hu­milians teipsum imi­tare hunc Centurio­nem & dicito, Do­mine non sum dig­nus ut intres sub tectum menm., that when we come to receive Christ in the Sacrament, we should do it with all Humility; for consider, says he, That then the Lord enters under thy roof; do thou therefore humble thy self, and imitate the Centurion, and say, Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof. When the Fathers would give us the Picture of a devout Communicant, they draw him in the greatest Posture of Humility and Reverence, look­ing upon and [...], Chrysostom in Serm. 31. in natal Dom. [...]. Johan. Hieros. apud Chrysost. & apud Boil. p. 44. [...], Chrysost. Ibid. adoring his Saviour, who died for him upon the Cross, prostrating his Soul, and his Body before him, and exercising the high­est acts of Devotion to him, and with Tears in his Eyes and Sorrow in his heart, standing like a Peni­tent before him, trembling and a­fraid, [Page 53]as sensible of his own guilt; with his Eyes cast down, and with dejected Looks considering that he is but Dust and Ashes, who is vouchsafed to this Honour, and inwardly Groaning, and Sighing, and Panting in his Soul, saying, Lord I am not worthy, that thou shouldest enter under my roof; and the like. And thus they may find all devout Communicants in our Church behaving themselves, during the whole Solemnity and Celebration of that blessed Sacra­ment, in which Mystery they always adore Christ, and that Flesh of Christ which was crucified; for then as St. Ambrose, and St. Austin speak, when their minds are all the while inflamed with the most devout Affections, and they are performing all the inward and outward Acts of the highest Devotion to God and their Saviour, then they are upon their Knees, offering up most ardent Prayers and Thanks­givings; but not to the sacred Symbols which are before them, or the Sacrament it self as the object to which, but as the Circumstance, at and in which all this Devotion and Worship is performed. And there is a great deal of difference from all this in the Church of Rome, when they direct all this to the Sacrament it self, and to the consecrated Elements, when they terminate their Worship upon what is be­fore them, and direct their Intentions to that as an Object; and therefore, whenever they have this Object appear to them, they immediately fall down and worship it, not only in the time of the Commu­nion, when it finds them at their Devotion, but at all other times, when they are standing or walking in the Streets, and are in no present Temper or Po­sture of Devotion; yet all of a sudden, as soon as they see the Host coming by, they must put themselves [Page 54]into one, and Adore that very Object, that appears to them.

The Fathers always speak of Persons as coming to the Sacrament, and partaking of it, and worship­ping Christ, and the Body of Christ in the Celebra­tion of those Divine Mysteries; but it never enter'd into their minds or thoughts, to perswade or encou­rage their hearers in their most devout Discourses, to Adore the Host, as the Church of Rome does, ei­ther in, or especially out of the time of that sacred So­lemnity; and tho it be very easie to make a Book out of the Fathers, and to heap Authorities out of them to little purpose; yet, it is imposible to prove by all the places produced out of them, by T. G. Chap. 1. Of the Adoration of the blessed Sacrament., or more largely by Boi­leau, that they meant any more than what we are very willing to joyn with them in, that Christ is to be worshipt in the Sacrament, as in Baptism, and the other Offices of our Religion; and that his Body and Flesh, which he offered for us, and by which we expect Salvati­on, is also to be adored, as being always united to his Divine Nature; and that the Sacrament it self, as representing the great Mystery of our Redemp­tion is to be highly reverenced by us, and that we should come to receive it with all Humility, and in the most decent Posture of Worship and Adoration, as the Primitive Christians did. But that the Sacra­ment it self is to be adored, as 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 [Page 55]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 sayConcil. 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 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 'tis 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 [Page 56]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 'tis 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 [Page 57]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 [...]. 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 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 [...]. 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 FurnaceIncoctos 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 SilverDeus aereus vel argenteus, Minut. Octav. p. 74.? And [Page 58]yet they counted the Silver or the Brass no more a GodNos 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 ThievesDeos 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 TemplesQuanto 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 ofAntonin. de de­fect. Miss. in Bishop Jewels reply.; but however, if no such mis­fortune come to it, it will in a little time, if it be kept, prove sowre, and grow mouldy; and when it does so, what should then thrust out the Deity, and bring in again the substance of the Bread that was quite gone before, is an unaccountable Miracle; and that which is taken of it into our Bodies, is not like one would think to have any better, or more be­coming treatment there, than by the other ways; so that upon all these accounts, this which is worship­ped by Christians, is in as ill Condition as that which was worshipped by Heathens; and those wit­ty [Page 59]Adversaries, Celsus, and Porphyry, and Julian would have thrown all that the Christians had said against the Heathen Idols, back upon themselves, and have improved them with as great Advantage, and retorted them with as much force, had the Christians in those times worshipt the Host, or the Sacramental Elements, as the Papists do now; and 'tis more than a Presumption, no less than a Demonstration that the Christians did not, because none of these things that were so obnoxious, and so obvious, were ever in the least mentioned by the Heathens, or made matter of Reflection upon them, when they pickt up all other things, let them be true or false, that they could make any use of to object against them. But the Primi­tive Christians gave them no such occasion; which was the only Reason they did not take it. As soon as the Church of Rome did so, by setting up the worship of the HostApud Dionys. Carthus in 4. dist. Nullam se sectam Christiana deterio­rem aut ineptiorem reperire. Quem colunt Deum, dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt ac devorant.. Averroes the Arabian Philosopher, in the 13th Century, gave this Character of Chri­stians, that he had found no Sect more foolish, or worse than they, in all his Travels and Observations, upon this very account, For they eat the God whom they worship; andBullaeus Gultius in Itin. Mange Dieu. a later Histo­rian and Traveller tells us, that 'tis a common Reproach in the Mouths of the Turks and Mahumetans, to call the Christians Devourers of their God; and a Jew, in a Book Printed at Amsterdam in the year 1662, among other Questions put to Christians, asks this shrewd one, If the Host be a God, why does it corrupt and grow covered with Mold? and why is it gnawn by Mice or other Animals Si Hostia Deus est cur situ obducta corrumpitur? curagliribus & umribus correditur? Lib. quaest. & Resp.?

The only way the Papists have to bring themselves off from these manifest Absurdities, is only a running farther into greater; and their little Shifts and Evasi­ons, are so thin and subtil Sophistry, or rather such gross and thick falshoods, that it could not be imagined that the Heathen Advertaries could ever know them, and therefore be so civil as Boileau would make themCap. 10. l. 2. de ador. Euch., as not to lay those charges upon them, as others do; nor can any reasonable and impartial man ever be­lieve them; for they are plainly these two; That they do not worship what all the World sees they worship; And that they do not eat what they take into their Mouths and swallow down: Which is in plain words an open Confession, that they are ashamed to own what they plainly do; We do not worship the Bread, say they, for that we believe is done away, and turned into the natural Body of Christ, and so we cannot be char­ged with Bread-worship. But do ye not worship that which ye see, and which ye have before ye, and which is carried about? And would not any man that sees what that is, think ye worship Bread or Wafer? And could you ever perswade him, that it was any thing else? And if notwithstanding what you think of it against all Sense and Reason, it be still Bread; then I hope it is Bread that ye worship; and till others think as wildly as ye do, ye must give them leave to think and charge ye thus. But if it were true, that ye did not worship the Bread, yet ye must and do own, that ye worship the Species of the Bread; and how ye should do that, without being guilty of another very gross Absur­dity, ye do not know your selves; for ye must make them so united to Christ, as to make one Sup­positum, and so one Object of Worship, as his Hu­manity [Page 61]and Godhead are; and then according to this way of yours, Christ may as well be said to be Impanated and United to Bread, or its Species, as Incarnated and United to Flesh, as some of you have taughtBellarm. de Ruperto Abbate Tui­tiensi, l. 3. de Euch. c. 11. that the Bread in the Eucharist is assumed by the [...], as the humine Nature was. But not to mention these, which wheresoever ye turn ye, state ye full in the face, and should make ye blush, one would think, had ye not put off all shame, as well as all sense in this matter; grant ye what ye would have, that it is not Bread, but the substantial Body, Flesh and Blood of a man, that is in the Host; will this help much to mend the matter, or to lessen the Absurdi­ty, and not rather increase and swell it? For besides the incredible wonder, that a bit of Bread should by a few words of every common Priest, be turned immediately into the true and perfect Body of a man; nay, into ten thousand Bodies at the same time, which is a greater Miracle than ever was done i'th' World, and is as great almost, as creating the World it self out of nothing; and if it were true, would make the Priest a God, certainly, and not a man, and much rather to be worshipt than a bit of Bread, as Lactantius saies of the Heathen Idols, He that made them, ought rather to be worshipt than they Meliorem esse qui fecit, quam illa quae facta sunt & si haec adoranda sunt, artificem a quo fa­cta sunt, ipsum quo­que multo potiori jure adorandum esse, Lactant. Instit. l. 2. c. 2.. Besides this, it seems it is the whole Body of a man, then, which is eaten and swallowed down, instead of Bread; for sure the same thing is not one thing when it is worshipt, and another thing when it is eaten; and then how barbarous and inhumane, as [Page 62]well as absurd and ridiculous, must this appear to any man, that is not used to swallow the most sub­stantial Nonsense, as well as the whole Body of a man for a Morsel? and then all the former Absurdities which I mentioned, do return again, of the Eating that which we worship, which the Apologists thought so wild and extravagant in the Egyptian God eaters. Well then, there is no other way, but to say, we don't eat him as we eat other foodBoil c. 10. l. 2. Comestionem sub­stantiae corporis Christi non esse na­turalem.; so might the Egypti­ans have said too, if they had plea­sed; tho, how they can otherwise eat him, 'tis hard to understand; but only in the heretical sense of Spiritual and Sacramental Eating; unless they will at the same time say, They do not eat him truly and naturally, and yet do eat him so; and they are so used to Contradictions in this point, that I don't know whether they will make any more Bones of this, than of the rest, or of the substantial Body of a man himself, when they have got so large a Faith, or rather so large a Swallow. But how is it, that ye do not eat him after a natural and carnal manner, and yet it is a carnal Body, that ye so much con­tend for, and that ye really and truly eat, and 'tis a Carnal mouth and throat he is put into, and some­times a very foul and wicked one? And yet this must by this carnal way eat the very Body of Christ, as well as the most faithful; But we do not grind this Body with our Teeth, nor chew him in our Mouths, as our other Food; nor digest him in our Stomachs, nor cast him out into the draught; if ye do not as ye pretend, being ashamed of the most shameful and abominable Consequences of it; and yet a very [Page 63]great many among you, have owned all thatRetract. Be­reng. sub Nicol. 2 in Concil. Rom. Verum corpus Domini no­stri Jesu Christi sen­sualiter, non solum Sacramento, sed in veritate, manibus Sacerdotum tracta­ri & frangi & fide­lium dentibus atteri, Sic Gualt. & Ab­baud apud. Boil. p. 177., as not knowing how it could be otherwise, and how if this eating be Spiritual and Sacra­mental, Christs presence may not be so too, which is the Heresie on the other sideIste in omnibus veritatem subtra­hit, dum asserit om­nia fieri (sc. fracti­onem & attritio­nem corporis Christi in Eucharistia) non substantia sed in spe­cie visibili & forma panis & Sacramen­to tantum. Gualter adversus Abailard. apud Boil. 179.; and ye seem to make strange Monsters of your selves that have spiritual Teeth, and can spiri­tually, and not naturally eat a na­tural, and a carnal Body; and if ye do not thus eat it, as ye eat other meat, when ye take it into your Mouths, and into your Stomacks, and do every thing to it that you do to your other food, which is as like eating as if it were very true and na­tural eating; and if it be not Bread, which is thus eaten, when it is just as like other Bread as is possible, then it is certainly, the most phantastick Food, and the most phantastick way of eating it, that can be imagined; then there must be a new way of eating, which is not eating, and a new way for a Body to be present, and yet not present as a Body; and I will add there must certainly be then a new understanding, which is no understanding, that can understand, or believe all this.

But further, ye have found it necessary for your purpose of Adoring the Host, to keep the Body of Christ confined to it, and inclosed in it as a Prisoner, till the Species corrupt, and so the prison is as it were opened, and the Body let loose, and when that is gone, whether ye think it be the Species, or the Sub­stance [Page 64]of Bread that corrupts, I would gladly know; and surely then, when the Body is gone, there is no need of such a miracle to keep the Accidents with­out a Subject; if it be Bread, what think ye of this sudden Transmutation from Bread to Flesh, and from Flesh to Bread again, and this latter without any words from the Priest; but since Christs Body must be so permanently in the Host, not only in the act and use of the Sacrament, but at all other times; ye are then forced to own, that as it is eaten in the Communion, as well by those who have no faith, as by the most faithful Christians, so if any other Animals should happen to eat the Host, taking it no doubt heretically for meer Bread, that yet they truly take the Body of Christ, and eat it after some manner or other, but whether it be after a natural manner in them or no, I don't know how you have resolved, but most of the Schoolmen have agreed that Scandalous questionAn mus, vel Porcus vel canis comedens hostiam suscipit corpus Chri­sti? Bishop Jewels reply Artic. 24. See Burchard de Correct. Miss. upon those Questions, De vino in calice congelato, de musca vel aranea vel veneno mixto cum sanguine, de vomitu post recep­tionem Sacramenti, Quando cadit cor­pus Christi, Quando cadit sanguis Chri­sti. fol. 51, 52. in the Affirmative, Whether if a Mouse, or a Hig, or a Dog eat the Host, they do partake of Christs Body? Or as Thomas Aquinas, your most An­gelick Doctor says, consequently to this Opinion of yoursAlter deroga­ret veritati corporis Christi. p. 3. qu. 79., It would otherwise derogate from the truth of this Sacrament and Christs presence in it. So that wherever the Species are, there is always Christs Body, and whatever happens to them, happens to that also; If they fall to the ground, Christs Body does so to; and so, if they lie in a hol­low Tooth, or hang but in the least [Page 65]crum or drop upon a Communicants Beard; there according to their principles, they and the Bo­dy must be worshipt with Latria; and if they be in a Mouse or Flies body, that has got to them, the adorable Object still goes with the Species, till they be corrupted; and whither the Species be corrupted, or no if they be poysoned as they have somtimes been, or whether Christ be there with the Accidents of the Poyson, I can't tell; but when the Species are in the pix, he is as fast there, as he ever was in his Sepulcher, and to all appearance as dead and senseless, and if the Species be Burnt or Gnawn, or vomited out of the Stomack, before they are corrupted, all these mis­fortunes belong as truly to Christs Body as to them, and so worse indignities may be thus offered every day to Christ glorious Body, than ever were offered to it, in its state of Humility and Contempt upon Earth, when it was Spit upon, and Scourged, and Pierced, and Crucified by the Jews. But Good God! that men should think to Honour and Adore Christ and his Body, by thus exposing them to the danger of the vilest Abuses! that humane reason should be so decayed and besotted, as to believe and defend such palpable Absurdities! that Christianity should be so shamefully and abominably exposed to all the World, by such an extravagant Doctrine, and such an obnoxious practice and unreasonable Idola­try as this is? God Almighty open all our Eyes, that we may not be given up to blindness of Mind, and darkness of Understanding, and to the belief of Lies, as most Idolaters generally were; but may it please him, who is the God of Truth, to bring into the way of Truth, all such as have erred and are [Page 66]deceived, in this or any other matter; in which charitable and constant Prayer of our Church, which is much better than Cursing and Anathema­tizing, its Adversaries, I hope, as well as its Friends will not refuse to joyn with it.

A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind.

THE Controversie about the Communion in One Kind, is accounted by a late French Writer upon that Subject, one of the chief­est and most capital Controversies in Chri­stian Religion Cum haec quaestio ac Controversia visa sit semper in Religione Christi­anâ praecipua ac capitalis. Boileau de praecepto divino Commun. sub u­trâ (que) specie. p. 217. I suppose he means, that is, in difference between the Reformed and the Church of Rome; it is indeed such a Case as brings almost all other matters between us to an issue; namely to this Point, Whether the Church may give a Non obstante to the Laws of Christ, and make other Laws con­trary to his, by vertue of its own Power and Preroga­tive? If it may in this case, it may in all others, and therefore it is the more considerable Question, because a great many others depend upon the Resolution of it: When it had been thus determined in the Council of Constance, yet a great many were so dis-satisfied, namely, the Bohe­mians to have the Cup taken from them, that the Coun­cil of Basil was forced, upon their importunity, to grant it them again; and at the Council of Trent, it was most earnestly prest by the Germans and the French, by the Embassadors of those Nations, and by the Bishops, that [Page 2]the People might have the Cup restored to them. The truth in this cause, and the advantage seems to be so plain on the side of the Reformation, that as it required great Authority to bear it down, so it calls for the greatest Art and Sophistry plausibly to oppose it: One would think the case were so evident, that it were needless to say much for it, and impossible to say any thing conside­rable against it; but it is some mens excellency to shew their skill in a bad cause, and Monsieur de Meaux has chosen that Province, to make an experiment of his ex­traordinary Wit and Learning, and to let us see how far those will go to perplex and intangle the clearest Truth: He has mixt a great deal of boldness with those as it was necessary for him, when he would pretend that Communion in one kind was the Practice of the Primi­tive Church, and that it was as effectual as in both, and that the Cup did not belong to the substance of the In­stitution, but was wholly indifferent to the Sacrament, and might be used or not used as the Church thought fit: How horribly false and erronious those Pleas of his are, the following Discourse will sufficiently make out; and though he has said as much, and with as much arti­fice and subtilty as is possible in this cause, yet there being another Writer later then himBoileau de praecepto divi­no commun. Sub utrâ (que) spe­cie. Paris, 1685. who denys that there is any Divine Precept for Communion in both kinds, and who hath designedly undertaken the Scripture part of this Controversie, which Monsieur de Meaux has onely here and there cunningly interwoven in his Dis­course: I resolve to consider and examine it as it lies in both those Authors; and though I have chosen my own method to handle it, which is, First, from Scripture, then from Antiquity, and lastly from the Reasonings and Principles made use of by our Adversaries; yet I shall all along have a particular regard to those two great men, and keep my eye upon them in this Treatise, so as to pass by nothing that is said by either of them, that has [Page 3]any strength or show in it; for my design is to defend the Doctrine of our own Church in this matter, which our Adversaries have thought fit to attaque, and to fall upon, not with their own, but the borrowed forces of the Bishop of Meaux, whose great name and exploits are e­very-where famous and renowned; but since we have all Christian Churches in the World, except the Roman, to be our seconds in this Cause, we shall not fear to de­fend them and our selves, and so plain a Truth against all the cunning and Sophistry of our Adversaries, though it be never so artificially, and drest after the French Mode.

We will begin with Scripture, which ought to be our onely Rule, not onely in matters of Faith, which should be founded upon nothing less than a Divine Revelation, but in matters of pure positive and arbitrary Institution, as the Sacraments are; for they depend merely upon the will and pleasure, the mind and intention of him that appointed them; and the best, and indeed the onely way to know that, is, by recurring to his own Insti­tution; as we know the mind of a Testator by going to his last Will and Testament, and by consulting that, do best find how he has ordered those things that were of his own free and arbitrary disposal. And by this way we shall find, that the Church of Rome by taking away the Cup, has plainly violated the Institution of our bles­sed Saviour, and deprived the People of a considerable part of that Legacy which he bequeathed to them. Let us lay therefore before us the Institution of our Saviour, as we find it in the three Evangelists, and in St. Paul as he received it of the Lord.

From all these it evidently appears, that our Saviour appoints the Cup as well as the Bread, and commands that to be drunk as much as the other to be eat: And two of the Evangelists remark that particularly of the Cup, which they do not of the Bread, that they all drank of it, and that Christ said expresly to them, Drink ye all of it: As if the infinite Wisdom of God which foresaw all future events, and all the after-errours that should arise a­bout this Sacrament, had had some especial regard to this very thing, and designed to prevent the abuse and mistake of those who would not have all Christians drink of this Cup, as well as eat of the Bread. What other reason there should be of those particular and remarkable words in St. Mathew and St. Mark, relating to the Cup more than to the Bread; I believe it will be hard to find out, for Christ gave them the Bread just as he did the Cup, and there was no more danger that any of them at that time should omit drinking the one, any more than eating the other; nor did there need any greater caution that we know of, or more particular command [Page 5]in reference to themselves for the one more than the o­ther; and yet no doubt there was some great and pecu­liar reason for St. Matthew and St. Mark's adding of those words, of which there can be no such probable account given, as their having a respect and relation to after Ages, as many other things in the Scripture have, which was written for the use, not onely of the present, but all times of the Church; and if these were spoken to the Apostles onely as Priests, as the Roman Sophisters pre­tend, though without any ground, as we shall shew by and by, there cannot then be given any reason for them as yet, for there is no such corruption yet got into any part of the Christian Church, as to forbid the Priests to drink of the Cup; and therefore it cannot be said that this remark or precaution was upon their account, unless the Romanists will think fit to take it to themselves, up­on the account of their not allowing their very Priests to Communicate of the Cup, unless when they Mini­ster and Consecrate; and so will have it regard onely that other abuse of theirs which is unjustifiable, even up­on their own grounds, to wit, That the assistent Priests are not to receive it, though Christ by their own con­fession said to the Priests who were present, Drink ye all of it: Which is the best way that I know, for them to come off of those words by their own Principles. For to avoid the force of those words, and to elude the plain Command and Institution of our Saviour, about the Cup's being given to all Christians, they say, The Apo­stles received it onely in the capacity of Priests; and that our Saviour's Command, Drink ye all of it, belongs onely to Priests, and was given to the Apostles meer­ly as such; nay, Monsieur Boileau says,Igitur haec verba S. Mat­thei, bibete ex hoc omnes & haec S. Marci, & biberant ex illio omnes neminem hominem praeter duodecim Apostolos spectant aut attinent. Boileau de pra­cepto divino Commun. Sub utrâ (que) specie. p. 188. that those words in St. Matthew, Drink ye all of it, and in St. Mark, they all drank of it: Respect no man whatsoever, nor belong to no other man but to the twelve Apostles; and Monsieur [Page 6] de Meaux tells us,P. 237. that these words were addressed to the Apostles onely who were present, and had their entire accom­plishment, when in effect they all drunk of it. Then it seems none but the Apostles themselves, no other Priests have a right or a command to drink of the Cup, but onely the Apostles: And this they might say if they pleased, upon as good grounds, and defend with as much reason, as that the Apostles onely drank of it as Priests; but I suppose they do not intend to improve this notion so far, but mean onely the same with their Brethren who say, that those words concern the Apostles, not onely in their own persons, but as Priests, and as bear­ing the persons of all Christian Priests, in which capa­city alone they received the Cup and were commanded by our Saviour to drink of it; whereas they received the Bread as Lay-men, and as representing the whole body of private and ordinary Christians. What a sud­den change is here in the Apostles! they who sat down as Lay-men, and as Lay-men took the Bread just before, have their capacity altered in a trice, and are made Priests in a moment: Yes, say they, so they were, at that very time they were made Priests, whilst they were sitting at Table with Christ, and Celebrating this his last Supper; the first and only ordination that ever was, either in the Jewish or Christian Church, in the time of eating and siting at Table. And they may set up, I dare say, for the first Authors among all the Christian Wri­ters that ever were of this Opinion that is now held by them; That Christ at his last Supper appointed not one­ly one, but two Sacraments; that of Orders as well as that of the Eucharist; and the first without any proper Solemnity for such a purpose, without any outward Acti­on or any Words, one would think, importing any such thing: But they were made Priests; say they, by vertue of those words, Hoc facite, Do this; which Christ spake to them after he had given them the Bread. This [Page 7]is a very short and a quick form of Ordination; and had it been known to be one sooner, for 'tis a very late discovery, I suppose the Roman Church would have kept to that in the Ordaining Priests, as they do to Hoc est Corpus, in Consecrating the Sacramental Bread: But this short form whereby they will have the Apo­stles made Preists so suddenly and unexpectedly, hap­pens to be too quick, and to make them Priests a little too soon, which is a very unlucky thing for their pur­pose; for Christ said those words, Hoc facite, do this; just as he gave them the Bread, and spoke them in one continued sentence, with, Take, eat: this is my body; so that whether he gave the Bread severally to each of them, or they took it as it was upon the table, as it is said, they divided the Cup among themselves; it cannot be suppo­sed, but that those words hoc facite were spoken by Christ, before the Apostles did receive the Bread, or at least before they ate it; so that it might as fairly be pretended, and as truly, that the Apostles ate the Bread as Priests, as well as drank the Wine as such; for they were made as much Priests by those words, before they ate the Bread, as before they drank the Wine: If we do suppose they did receive the Bread into their hands, before those words were pronounced by our Saviour; which is the most that can be, yet they could not eat it before they were. And so this fine and subtle Hypo­thesis which they have invented to deprive the Laiety of the Cup, will deprive them of the Bread too, and will in its consequence, and by the same train of arguing, tend to take away the whole Sacrament from the Peo­ple, and make it peculiar to the Priests, as some of the Jewish Sacrifices were, and the People shall not at all partake of the Altar, but it shall be reserved as a pecu­liar right and priviledge of the Priests, to which the Laity ought not to pretend, because the Apostles took the Sacrament only as Priests, and were made Priests [Page 8]fore they either ate the Bread or drank the Wine; this would make a greater difference and distinction between the Priests and the Laiety, and tend more to preserve the honour and esteem of one above the other. Which is the great reason they themselves give, and no doubt a true one, for their taking away the Cup from the People; and I don't question, but so great a Wit, and so elo­quent an Artist in pleading, as the Bishop of Meaux is, who can say a great deal for any cause, be it never so bad, may with as good grounds, and as great a shew of reason, justifie if he please, the taking away the whole Sacrament from the Laiety as the Cup, and may to this purpose improve and advance this notion of the Apostles, receiving both kinds as Priests, to prove the Laiety have a right to neither, and may take off the ne­cessity of both parts as well as one, by pretending that the real effect and vertue of the Sacrament is received some other way, by the Sacrifice of the Mass, or by Spiritual Manducation, or by some thing else without partaking a­ny of the Symbols, as well as without partaking all of them as Christ has appointed, for if the effect and ver­tue of the Sacrament depend upon Christs Institution, then both are necessary, if it may be had without keep­ing to that, then neither is so, but of this afterwards, when we come to examine his grounds and reasons. I shall make some Reflections upon our Saviours Institu­tion of this Sacrament, and offer some considerations a­gainst these pretences and Sophistries of our Adversaries.

1. I would ask them whither those words of our Sa­viour, Do this in remembrance of me, do not belong to all Christians as well as to the Apostles? if they do not, then where is there any command given to Christians for to receive the Sacrament, either in both or in one kind? Where is there any command at all for Christi­ans to Celebrate or come to the Lords Supper? or to ob­serve this Christian Rite, which is the peculiar mark and [Page 9]badge of our Profession, and the most solemn part of Christian Worship? Those words surely contain in them as plain a Command, and as direct an Obligation upon all Christians to perform this Duty to the end of the World, as they did upon the Apostles at that time; or else we must say with the Socinians, That the Sacrament was onely a temporary Rite, that belonged onely to the Apostles, and was not to continue in the Church, or be observed by all Christians in all Ages: But St. Paul says,1 Cor. 11.26. we do hereby shew, or declare the Lord's death till he come, by this solemn way of eating Bread broken, and Wine poured out; we are to remember Christ who dyed for us, and is gone into Heaven, till he come again, when we shall live with him, and enjoy his Presence for ever: Christ has given a command to all Christians to do this, and they are to Do this in remembrance of him; they are as much obliged to this, as the Apostles were; and the command does as much belong to the People, to receive the Sacrament, as to the Apostles, or to their Suc­cessors to give it them. The Apostles and Christian Priests are hereby commanded to do their parts, which is, not onely to receive, but to dispence and distribute the Sacrament; and the People or Christian Laiety, are com­manded to do theirs, which is, to receive it: The A­postles are to do that which Christ did, to Bless the Bread and breake it, and give it to be eaten; to bless the Cup, and give it to be drunk by the Communicants; and the Communicants are to eat the Bread and drink the Cup: and if they do not both of them do this that belongs to them, and perform those proper parts of their Duty, which are here commanded them, they are both guilty of an unexcusable disobedience to this plain com­mand of Christ, Do this in remembrance of me. No body ever denyed that those words, and this command of Christ, belonged to the Apostles; but to say they be­long to them alone, and not to all Christians, is to take [Page 10]away the Command and Obligation which all Christians have to receive the Holy Supper.

2. This command of Christ, as it obliges all Christi­ans to receive the Sacrament, the Laiety as well as the Clergy, so it obliges them to receive it in both kinds; and as it obliges the Clergy to give the People the Sacra­ment, so it obliges them to give it in both kinds; for the command of Doing this in remembrance of Christ, be­longs as much to one kind as the other; and is as ex­presly added concerning the Cup, as concerning the Bread; for so it is in St. Paul ‖ beyond all contradiction, and to the unanswerable confusion of our Adversaries, who would pretend it belongs only to the Bread; Bel­larmine observing these words in St. Luke, to be added only after the giving of the Bread, for they are in nei­ther of the two other Evangelists, falls into a mighty tri­umph, and into a most Religious fit of Catholic Devo­tion, admiring the wonderful Providence of GOD,Mirabilis est providentia Dei in sanctis literis, nam ut non haberent haeretici justam excusationem, sustu­lit eis omnem tergiversando occasio­nem: Nam Lucas illud, Hoc faci­te, posuit post datum Sacramentum. Sub specie panis, post datum autem calicem illud non repetivit, ut intel­ligeremus jussisse Dominum ut sub specie panis omnibus distribueretur Sacramentum, sub specie autem vi­ni non utrem. Bellarm. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 4. c. 25. that to take away all Heretical Tergi­versation, this should so happen, that it might be plainly understood, that the Wine was not to be given to all, and that this command did not belong to that, but onely to the Bread: But this shews how over-hasty he was to catch at any thing, though by the plainest mi­stake in the World, that might help him in his straights, and how over-glad to find any thing that might seem to favour and relieve him in his distressed cause; and how his zeal and for­wardness out run, not onely his judgement, but even his memory; for if he had but turned to St. Paul, and had but thought of this passage in him, where he addes these very words, Do this in remembrance of me, to the Cup as well as to the Bread, it would have quite spoiled his mighty Observation, and made him ashamed of it, and [Page 11]not have suffered him to be guilty of so horrid a flip. But the Bishop of Meaux espied this,P. 255. as it is hard to miss it; and what way has he to put by the force of those words, which so undeniably belong to the Cup, as well as the Bread? He says, They import onely a condi­tional order, to do this in remembrance of Christ, as often as one shall do it? and not an order absolute to do it. But does not this conditional order imply an absolute one, to do it often; and virtually forbid the not doing it at all? if he had gone on but to the very next verse, would he not have found that St. Paul gives the same conditional order concerning eating the Bread, as both here and there concerning drinking the Cup? As often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do shew forth, or do ye shew forth, [...], the Lord's death till he come, And do not those words, though spoke conditionally of the Bread, yet absolutely order the eating of it, when we received the Sacrament? if they do, as sure no body will deny, then they as well absolutely order the drink­ing the Cup too, when we do so, Affirmative precepts, such as this is, oblige us not absolutely at all times, as when ye pray, when ye fast, are onely conditional commands; but yet they import an absolute command to perform those duties, and when we do so, to perform them so as Christ has appointed us to do: and thus we have an absolute precept in the Gospel, to receive the Sacrament, which he is very willing we should not have,P. 256. and when we do so, we are to receive it as Christ com­manded we should, by eating Bread, and drinking Wine, and doing both those in remembrance of him.

3. Christ's own Institution, had there been no such particular Commands to Drink, as well as to Eat, and to Do both in remembrance of him; I say, his own Institu­tion of the Sacrament, both by Bread and Wine, should suffice, methinks, to show us what we should do, when we Celebrate the same Sacrament that he did; namely, [Page 12]use both Bread and Wine; and eat and drink it as was done then; if it be the same Sacrament that he celebrated with his Disciples, why do not we celebrate it as he did? why should we not observe his own Institution? but without any order from him, and contrary to what he did, leave out part of it; and that part of it which is as considerable and as remarkable in his Institution, as the other? If from the bare Institution of Christ, all Christians are bound to receive this Sacrament, which surely they are; then from thence they are bound as much to drink the Cup, as to eat the Bread; for both are equally instituted. If the Institution, for of that I speak now, as 'tis in St. Matthew and St. Mark, with­out the additional command of Do this; if that do not oblige to drink the Cup, neither does it oblige to eat the Bread; for that is no more in the Institution then the other: And if the Church has such a power as to take away the Cup, notwithstanding the Institution, it may have a power to take away the Bread too, notwith­standing the Institution; for the one is as much in the Institution as the other; and if the Cup be not an Essen­tial part of the Sacrament, which is the other thing they say, and which the Bishop of Meaux insists on, which I shall examine afterwards: then neither is the Bread, so far as appears by the Institution, and so nei­ther of them may be necessary, and both of them may be taken away, notwithstanding Christ's own Institu­tion of both. Which, though it be the most presump­tuous boldness, and the most horrid Sacriledge that can be, yet shall I say no more to it at present, but what St. Cyprian does upon the like case, of those who would omit the Wine in the Sacrament, and use water instead of it.Quod si nec minima deman­datis Christi licet solvere, quanto magis tam magna tam grandia tam ad ipsum dominicae passionis & nostrae Redemptionis Sacramentum pertinentia fas non est infringere aut in aliud quam quod divinitùs institutum sit, humanâ insti­tutione mutare? Cyprian ep. 63. ad Caecilium. But if it be not lawful to loose any one of the least Commands of Christ; how much more is it not lawful to infringe so great and so weighty ones? and such as the [Page 13]very Sacrament of our Lord's Passion, and our Redemption; and to change it by Humane Institution into quite another thing, then what it is by Divine Institution.

4. The reason added by our Saviour, to his Institution, and Command of, Drink ye all of it; Matth. 26.28. for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you; as in St. Luke, for many; as in St. Matthew and St. Mark, for the remis­sion of sins: This shews the Cup, not onely to have a peculiar use, as well as the Bread, and a particular misti­cal relation to his Blood shed or poured out; but that it belongs to all those to drink of it, for whom Christ's Blood was shed; who are to have remission of sins by it, and who have a right to the new Covenant which Christ has purchased and establisht in his Blood; which I suppose, are the Christian Laiety, as well as the Priests; though I do not think with Bellarmine Dispute de Euch. l. 4. that all Turks and Infidels ought to have the Cup, because Christ's Blood was shed for them too; but I presume, he will not say, they have the same right to it, or interest in it, that Christians have; and yet I own they ought as much to have the Cup, as they ought to turn Christians, that is, they ought to do both: But yet, first I think to become Christians, and be Baptized, before they have ordinarily a right either to Christ's Blood, or to the Sa­crament; and it must seem very strange, and grate very much upon all Christian ears, to have it said, that Turks and Infidels have a right to the Cup and Blood of Christ, as well as Christians, from this reason here of our Saviour to his Disciples, concerning which it is, I think, very ob­servable, that to partake of the Sacrificial Blood, and to drink that Sacramentally, which was shed for the ex­piation of our Sins, is a peculiar and extraordinary privi­ledge allowed to Christians. The Jews were forbid all blood, for this reason given by God himself,Levit. 1 [...].10, 11. For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for [Page 14]your souls: The life of the Beast which was given, and accepted by God, for the life of the Offender, that was forfeited by the Law, was supposed to be in the Blood; as 'tis there added, the life of the flesh is in the blood, and therefore the Blood of the Sacrifice was poured out, and so given to God at the Altar; the peculiar vertue and atonement of Christs Sacrifice is attributed to his Blood, We have redemption through his blood, Eph. 1.7. We are justified by his blood. Rom. 5.9. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, Coloss. 1.14. And without shedding of blood, either under the Law or un­der the Gospel, there was no remission to be had Heb. 9.22.. Now for Christians to partake and Communicate of that Blood in the Sacrament, which was shed and sacrificed for them, and by which they have atonement and expi­ation of Sins, this is a peculiar favour, and singular pri­viledge, which Christ has vouchsafed to Christians, and which he takes notice of at his Institution of this Sacra­ment, Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins. The Author of the Treatise de caenâ Domini, in the Works of St. Cyprian Nova est hujus Sacramenti do­ctrina, & scholae Evangelicae hoc primum Magisterium protulerunt, & doctore Christo primum haec mundo innotuit disciplina, ut biberent san­guinem Christiani, cujus esum legis antiquae auctoritas districtissimè in­terdicit, Lex quippe esum sanguinis prohibet, Evangelicum praecipit ut bibatur. has remarked this, as first brought in by Christ, and as a new thing belonging to the Sacrament of the Gospel, That Christians should drink Blood, which the old Law did absolutely forbid, but this, says he, the Gospel com­mands; and St. Chrysostome [...]. Homil. 18. in 2 Cor. observes, It is not now as it was formerly, when the Priest ate of that which the People might not partake of; but now one Body and one Cup is offered to all. So it was it seems in his time, and they had not then learnt the way of drinking the Blood, by eating the Body, which now they pretend to do in the Church of Rome; we do, say they, partake of the Blood and the Body both together, for [Page 15]the Blood is in the Body, and necessarily joyned with it; but besides, that, this depends upon that [...], the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, upon which, this and a great many other things are built, when it is yet too hea­vy and ruinous to bear its own weight; yet this cannot here do the business, for we are to drink the Blood, and not to eat it, that is, we are to partake of it, as separated from the Body, as shed for us, or else it is not a Sacramen­tal partaking of it; we are to receive Christ's Body as it was a Sacrifice for us, but it was not a Sacrifice but as the Blood was poured out and separated from it, and we can­not any other way partake of the Sacrificial Blood, which is to be drunk by all Christians.

5. It is a most groundless fancy, and an Opinion perfectly precarious, to suppose the Apostles were made Priests, at our Saviour's Institution of the Sacrament, by those words, Hoc facite, and that they received the Cup onely as Priests. None of the Ancients who write up­on this Sacrament, or upon these words of its Institu­tion, ever thought so; nor did it ever enter into the head of any man, till a few late School-men invented this new subtilty, that they might have something to say against the clearest cause, and to shift off, if they could, the plainest Evidence in the World; and though they now generally take up with this Sophistical Evasion, which Monsieur Boileau Creavit & instituit Sacer­dotes his ver­bis hoc facite. p. 189. insists upon, yet some of the wisest men among them are ashamed of it: Estius owns, that this appears not at all solid, nor agreable to ancient Interpreters, No­bis parum so­lidum videtur nec apud vete­res interpretes. Dist. 12. §. 11. and confesses, that Hoc facite, be­longs to the common People eating and drinking of this Sacrament, and that St. Paul refers it to them Et Paulus 1 Cor. 11. illad facere etiam ad plebem refert edenter, & bibentem de hoc Sacramento, quando ait hoc facite, quo­tiescun (que). Sua­rez acknowledges, it is not convincing Hoc argumenti genus per se non convincere. Disp. 74. Tom. 3.. And Alfonsus à Castro Contra haeres, Tit. Euch. p. 99. would not make use of it, because he says, it does [Page 16]not appear, whether those words were spoken by Christ before, or after he gave the Eucharist to the Apo­stles, and he rather thinks after, and that they took it not as PriestsIb.. He was aware of a difficulty, if the Apostles took the Cup onely as Priests, and by the right of Priests, at the first Institution, then it would be con­trary to that, to have any but Priests receive the Cup: And then, why is it ever given to the Laiety, as it is sometimes by the Pope's favour and concession; if it be­long onely to Priests, and the Priests onely have right to it, from the first Institution, because the Apostles re­ceived it only as Priests? But so inconsistent are they to their own Principles, that they do not give the Cup, even to their Priests, unless when they themselves Consecrate and Officiate: None but the Minister Conficiens is to receive that, though never so many other Priests be by, so much at variance are they, between this their pre­tence, and their own practice, and so do they fight, even with their own shadows; if the Apostles received the Cup as Priests, Why then do not all Priests receive it, as well as the Priest who Consecrates, if onely he that Consecrates be to receive it, then by this rule, the A­postles should not have received it at the first Institution, for they did not then Consecrate? Christ was then alone, the Minister Conficiens, and so according to them, he ought onely to have received it, and not the Apostles, and yet 'tis most probable that Christ did not himself receive either the Cup, or the Bread, so that if they will keep close to this whimsical Notion of theirs, the Minister Conficiens is not to receive at all, but to Con­secrate and give to the other Priests that are present; but further, if the Apostles were made Priests by those words, Hoc facite, which they so earnestly contend, and spend so much Critical learning to show that face­re signifies to Sacrifice, then they were twice made Priests at the same time, for those words were said by [Page 17]our Saviour, as St. Paul Witnesses, not onely after gi­ving the Bread, but repeated again also after the Cup, so that the Apostles were doubly Consecrated, and the Character of Priests, was twice Imprinted upon them at the same time, which is another difficulty with which they must be encumbred according to their own prin­ciples, for though this Opinion be wholly Imaginary, yet like the Night-mare, 'tis a real weight lying upon them, and I shall leave them to sweat under it, and get it off as well as they can.

6. Whatever be the effects and benefits which we re­ceive by partaking of this Blessed Sacrament, they de­pend upon the Institution of it, and are not ordinarily to be had without observing of that; I say ordinarily, because Cases of Necessity dispence with positive pre­cepts, as if a sick man cannot swallow the Bread, about which there is a Provision in the Eleventh Council of To­ledo, if the natural Infirmity of anothers Stomack be such, that he cannot drink Wine, which the French Discipline speaks of, and which Monsieur de Meaux P. 181. makes an Objection against them, if the place be such that no Wine is to be had or procured, as in Norway where Pope Innocent the Eighth allowed them to Celebrate without Wine; in those extraordinary Cases, God has not so tied the inward Grace to the outward Signe, but that he can give it without it; as if a Catechumen wil­ling and desirous of Baptism, die without it, because he could not have it, yet the Church has always supposed he may have the benefit of it, and so I charitably hope that the Pious and Religious Laiety in the Church of Rome, shall have the benefit of the Blood of Christ, though they are deprived of it in the Sacrament, and through the meer fault of their Governours, and of their Priests, are excluded from it, and forced to violate the Divine Institution, which is all that Calixtus and others which Monsieur de Meaux P. 277. is willing to take ad­vantage [Page 18]of, charitably allow, as not being willing to exclude any one for Salvation, for what he cannot help; but this is no manner of prejudice to the cause that we defend, and no excuse in the World for breaking the Institution of Christ, and altering his positive precept without any necessity, for though God can give the in­ward Grace, and no doubt, but he will do it in extraor­dinary Cases without the Sacrament, without either the whole, or any part of it, yet, he will not ordinarily do this, nor is it ordinarily to be had, or to be expected, without keeping to that Institution, by vertue of which, God has annexed, and promised such inward vertues, and benefits to such outward signs, and holy Symbols, and Ceremonies, which he himself has appointed; and therefore, though God, if he had pleased, might have annexed the whole vertue and effect of the Sacrament, to the eating the Bread, or to the drinking the Wine alone, or might have given it without either of them, yet he having by the Institution, appointed both parts of the Sacrament, hath annexed the grace and vertue to both, and not to one only. Monsieur de Meaux, will needs have the whole fruit, and vertue, and essential effect of the Sacrament, to be given by one species, which is the great principle he goes upon, which I shall more fully examine afterwards, but if the vertue and essential ef­fect depend upon the Institution, and it can depend up­on nothing else, and if both species be instituted by Christ, as I have shown, then the vertue and effect depends up­on both species, and not upon one. Monsieur de Meaux asks, Whether in the very moment, the Body of our Lord is received, all the effects be not likewise received P. 328.? I answer No, because all that is required in the Institu­tion, is not then received. He farther asks, Whether the blood can add any thing essential? I answer Yes, because that also is in the Institution; if one of the Apostles had stopt our Saviour, when he had given them the Bread, [Page 19]and told them this was his Body, and askt him this ve­ry question, I ask, whither he thinks this would have hindred him from going on with the Cup, because they had already received the whole vertue and effect of the Sacrament without that; and nothing essential could be added by that? Christ, it seems by the Institution, did go on to the Cup, after he had given the other spe­cies, and to say, he did not give any essential vertue, or efficacy by the Cup, is an unwarrantable boldness, and blasphemous impudence, which may as well deny, that he gave any by the Bread; this is to make the Cup a very empty signe, and naked figure, devoid of all inward vertue and efficacy, and to serve as de Meaux would have it, onely for Representation, and a more full and express SignificationP. 176., in which he joyns us to the Cup, with those his Adversaries, who have the meanest thoughts of the Sacrament, and indeed, it is to make the Cup wholly superfluous, and unnecessary, as to the conveying or exhibiting any real Vertue, or inward Grace, which is to be received thereby, and as Monsieur de Meaux is forced to own, when he answers that demand, to what purpose then, was the Institu­tion of both speciesP. 179.? to make it only a more full Im­age, and Representation of the Sacrifice of Christ, but not to give us any of the vertue or efficacy of it.

Christ, he says, cannot separate the vertue, or effect, that any other Grace should accompany his blood, then the same in ground and substance which accompanys his body P. 182., but he can make the whole Vertue and Grace accompa­ny and depend upon both the Sacramental Body, and Sacramental Blood together, and so he has done by his In­stitution, according to which, the Sacramental Grace is not to be expected ordinarily, without both; but he may deprive those Persons wholly of this, who violate his Institution, and who receive not both species, as he has appointed and commanded team; which is a very dread­ful [Page 20]consideration, which should make men afraid to dare to alter any such thing as Christ's own Institution, upon which the whole vertue of the Sacraments does depend.

7. 'Tis from the Institution of the Sacrament, that we know what belongs to the substance of it, and is essenti­al to it, and what is onely circumstantial and accidental: I own there were several things, even at the Institution of it by Christ, which were onely circumstantials; as the place where, the time when, the number of persons, to whom, the posture in which he gave it; for all these are plainly, and in their own nature, circumstantial matters; so that no body can think it necessary or essential to the Sacrament, that it be Celebrated in an upper Room, at night after Supper, onely with twelve persons, and those sitting or lying upon Beds, as the Jews used to do at Meals; for the same thing which Christ bids them do, may be done, the same Sacramental Action performed in another place, at another time, with fewer or more persons, and those otherwise postured or situated; but it cannot be the same Sacrament or same Action, if Bread be not blessed and eaten, if Wine be not blessed and drunken, as they were both then blessed by Christ, and eaten and drunk by his Apostles: The doing of these is not a circumstance, but the very thing it self, and the ve­ry substance and essence of the Sacrament; for without these we do not do what Christ did, whereas we may do the very same thing which he did, without any of those circumstances with which he did it: Thus in the other Sacrament of Baptism or washing with water, whether that be done by washing the whole body in immersion, or by washing a part of the Body in sprinkling, is but a circumstance, that is not necessary or essential to Bap­tism, but to wash with Water, is the very thing in which Baptism consists, and the very substance of the Sacrament which is essential and unalterable; the quantity of Water with which we wash is not, no more is the quantity of [Page 21]Bread and Wine which we eat and drink in the Sacrament but eating Bread and drinking Wine is as essential to the Eucharist, as washing with Water is to Baptism. Monsieur de Meaux betrays the great weakness of his Cause, and his own inability to defend it, when to take off the Argument from the Institution, he says,P. 168. We do not give the Lord's Supper at Table, or during Supper, as Jesus Christ did, neither do we regard, as necessary, many other things which he observed. And when he re­curs to BaptismP. 173. as if by not using immersion, we did not observe the Institution of that Sacrament, when [...] so plainly signifies washing with water, without plunging or immerging, as Mark 7.4. [...], except they are washed or baptized when they return from the Market, they eat not, and the [...] the washings of Pots, and of Cups, Mark 7.4.8. and in the washing of the dead, and divers washings [...] of the Jews, Hebrews 9.10. which were without any plunging or immerging, as is suffici­ently made out by all Authors, against the Anabaptists: A great man, must be mightily put to his shifts, when he is fain to use such poor cavils, and such little evasions as these, against a plain command, and a clear Institution; where to drink is as evidently commanded, as to eat, and where it is equally commanded to do both; and where it appears that doing both those in remembrance of Christ, make up the very substance and essence of what was done, and commanded by him, in the Institution. The matter of the Sacraments is certainly of the substance of them; Why else might we not Baptize without Water as well as perform the Eucharist without Bread and Wine? This the Schools are unanimously agreed in, and this was the Argument of St. Cyprian, against the Aqua­rii, who used Water instead of Wine; of Pope Julius a­gainst other Hereticks, who used Milk; and of Thomas Aquinas, against the Artotyritae, who offered Bread and [Page 22]Cheese together in this Sacrament; they tell them, thatExcluduntur per hoc quod Chri­stus, hoc Sacramentum instituit in pane. Aquinas Part 3. Quest. 24. Christ Instituted this Sacrament in another Element, Nulli lac sed panem tantùm & calicem sub hoc Sacramento nosci­mus dedisse. Julius P. apud Grati­an de Consecr. that he did not give Milk, but Bread and Wine in this Sacrament; and that Admonitos nos scias ut in ca­lice offerendo Traditio observetur, ne (que) aliquid fiat à nobis quàm quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecerit, ne­mini fas est ab eo quod Christus Magister & precepit & gessit hu­manâ & novellâ institutione dece­dere. they ought to observe the Divine Tradi­tion, neither ought any thing to be done, but what was first done by our Lord; for it is not lawful for any by any Humane and Novel Institution, to depart from what Christ our Master commanded and did; and that this was a sufficient confutation of them, that they did not do that which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Author and Teacher of this Sacrifice, both did and Taught Non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus Deus noster Sa­crificis hujus Auctor & Doctor fecit & docuit. Cypr. Ep. 63.. They all suppose it necessary to use the Elements which Christ used and appointed, and that because of his Institution, by which it plainly appears, what belongs to the Essence and Sub­stance of this Sacrament, to wit, Eating of Bread and drinking Wine blessed, in remembrance of Christ. It must be a very strange thing sure, to make these to be but cir­cumstances in the Sacrament, and to doubt whether they do belong to the substance and essence of it, and to pre­tend that we cannot know this from the Institution: Monsieur de Meaux, could not have done this in earnest, had he not considered the cause he was to defend, more than the Institution of Christ; in which, no man that will not shut his eyes but must see what belongs to the Essence and Substance of the Sacrament.

It is no less boldness to say, as Monsieur Boileau P. 191. and o­thers do, though de Meaux was too wise to offer any such thing in all his Book, That Christ himself varied from his own Institution after his Resurrection, and gave the Sacrament to some of the Disciples at Emmaus, under the one Species of Bread. And that the Apostles after his Ascension, and the sending of the Spirit upon them, Celebrated the Eucha­rist [Page 23]together with the whole Multitude of Believers, onely in Bread. It will be very strange if the Apostles, the ve­ry first time they gave the Sacrament, should be found to break Christ's Institution and Command about it, which were so very plain; if St. Peter and the rest of those ho­ly men did this, I shall never blame the Church of Rome, nor any of his Successors for doing it afterwards, and if they did it just after they were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and had that in such a Miraclous manner given unto them; I shall conclude, it was not the office of that blessed Spirit to bring all things to their remembrance which Christ had said unto them, as he told them it should be, but to teach them things quite contrary to what he had a little before commanded and appointed them: And it will be more strange if Christ himself, after his Resurrection, should give the Sacrament in another man­ner then he had done four days before. Let us therefore examine those places from which all these strange things are pretended, and see if any such matter is to be found in them, which I confess, will be very surprizing, if they be: As to the first, St. Luke tells us, Chap. 24. That the same day Christ was risen, two of the Disciples, the name of one of which was Cleophas, going to Emmaus, a Village near to Hierusalem; Christ, as they were Com­muning together about him and his Resurrection, drew near, and went along with them, and discourst to them about those things, as a person unknown; and going in­to a House and fitting at meat with them, he took bread and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them, v. 30. Here, say they, Christ gave the Sacrament, and gave it onely in Bread, for he took bread and blessed, and brake, and gave to them; which are the very words used at his giving his last Supper: But must Christ always be supposed to give the Sacrament whenever he took bread and blessed, and brake it, and gave it to others? Then he did so when he filled the five thousand with five Loaves and two [Page 42]Fishes, for then he looked up to heaven and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to others, Mark 6.41. Mat. 14.19. And so he did when he filled four thou­sand at another time, he took the seven loaves and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them, Mark 8.6. Here though he blessed the Bread, and gave thanks, as was always the custom of Pious and Religi­ous Men, at their ordinary meals, and though he brake the Bread, which is a Jewish phrase for distributing and giving it; yet it cannot in the least be pretended, that in any of these places he gave the Sacrament, nor is there any manner of reason to suppose he did so at Emmaus, with these Disciples, but to satisfie them of the truth, of himself and his Resurrection; he took meat with them, as he did afterwards with the Eleven Apostles, and by his behaviour at Table, and by his form of Blessing, which was probably the same he used at other times, and by thus seeing and conversing with him more intimately at Table, they came to understand who it was, and their eyes were opened, and they knew him, or as is v. 35. he was known to them in breaking of bread; that is, in eating with him, not that any thing miraculous or ex­traordinary was here shewn by Christ, or wrought up­on them, any more than was to the Apostles afterwards, to whom he shewed himself likewise, and took meat with them, to give them full satisfaction, that it was the same person who was Crucified, and who was risen with the same Body he had before; or if they were illumina­ted, and their eyes open'd in an extraordinary manner at that time; yet it was not necessary this should be done by the Sacrament, of all the vertues of which, the opening mens eyes, and curing them of Infidelity, is the least to be ascribed to it, since it is onely to be taken by those who do believe, and whose eyes are opened before, though this may sometimes be applyed to it, by way of Allegory and allusion, as it is by St. Austine, Theophy­lact, [Page 25]and others, who make the Pool of Bethesda, and the curing of the Lame and the Leprous by a word, to be as much Sacramental as they do this that is to have some signification or resemblance to Spiritual things: But there is not one Father or ancient Interpreter, who does plainly affirm, that Christ did here give the Sacrament, to those Disciples at Emmaus: The Bread which Christ blessed, was no more truly made a Sacrament thereby, than the House of Cleophas, was dedicated into a Church by Christ's presence and Divine Discourses there; which, yet it might be, according to St. Hierom's words, with­out any administring of the Sacrament, of which that place quoted out of him, makes no mention:Boileau, p. 192. But if it must be supposed without any Authority, and without any Reason, that Christ did here give the Sacrament, it must also be granted, that he did something more, than is rela­ted in that short account, which is there given; he must not onely have blessed and brake the bread, and given it to them, but he must have done it with those words, This is my body; which, they say, are always necessary to the true Consecration of this Sacrament: And if he may be supposed to have used those, though they are not mentioned, which is a good argument to prove it was not the Sacrament, but onely an ordinary Meal; then we may as well suppose, that at the same time he used Wine too, though that is not mentioned, and though we have no account of any Drink, which yet we cannot but think they had at that Supper let it be what it will: eating together and sitting at meat, includes and suppo­ses drinking too, though there is no particular or express mention of it: As in the

2. Second place in those several instances, out of the Acts of the Apostles, wherein it is said of the first Con­verts to Christianity, that they continued in breaking of Bread, and in Prayer Acts 2.42., and in breaking Bread, from house to house Acts 2.46, and that they came together on the [Page 26]first day of the Week, to break Bread Acts 20.7., which I am willing to allow, may be meant of the Sacrament, though a great many Learned men, think they belong to the charitable and friendly way of living among those first Christians, who had all things in common, and who came to eat together, at the same time that they came to pray, and contrived these daily meetings, for Worship and Refreshment, in the same house, for great­er conveniency: Yet, that they did not drink together, as well as eat, and that by an usual Synecdoche, both those are not included in the Phrase of breaking of Bread, is not to be imagined, Bread was a word, by which, not onely amongst the Jews, but all Nations, all manner of food, and nourishment necessary to life, was signified; as being the most considerable part of it, so that we mean this when we pray for our daily Bread, and when we say a man wanteth Bread, and so to break our Bread to the hungry, Isa. 58.7. and by the young childrens asking bread, and no man breaketh it unto them. Lament. 4.4. the same is imported. To break Bread, was an usual Hebrew expression, for giving all manner of food, as appears by those instances, so that when Bread, which is but one part of food, is expressed; yet the other is included and meant also, as when Christ went into the house of one of the chief Pharises to eat bread, Luke 14.1. we cannot suppose that he had only such a dry Banquet, as not to drink with him too, and when Joseph told the Steward of his house, that he should prepare an entertain­ment for his brethren, for they are to eat with me at noon, Gen. 43.16. hodie sunt mecum comesturi, as in the Vulgar, he did not I suppose, think they were not to drink with him too, and that he was not to provide Wine, as well as other Victuals, neither did Joseph's own Brethren, suspect he would send them away dry and thirsty, when they onely heard that they should eat bread there, v. 25. Notwithstanding this alone is mentioned, yet they [Page 27]met with plenty of Wine too, as may be seen at the latter end of the Chapter, where in the vulgar Latin it is said, Biberunt & inebriati sunt cum eo.

The Greeks thought Wine and Drinking so consider­able a part of the Feast, that they called the whole, from that one part, [...], and yet when they thus drank to­gether at their Entertainments, they did no doubt eat too; though, if we will as strictly insist upon the phrase, and not allow a Synecdoche here, as well as in the Jewish one, of breaking or eating Bread, we must make their Feasts to be all of Liquids, and the other all of Solids: But the phrase is so clear and so usual, that nothing could make men deny its being so, but their being willing to stick to any thing, however weak and little it be, that seems in the least to favour a bad cause, which is forced to call in the help of a Phrase, used in a short History, and that against its usual meaning, to com­bat with a plain Command and clear Institution; I would only ask these Gentlemen, and Monsi. Boileau, with whom I am especially concerned, whither he does not think the first Christians, when they met together to break Bread, allowing thereby, it was to receive the Sacrament, did not also at the same time feast together at their [...], & whe­ther those were not joyned with the Sacrament, and whe­these also are not meant here, and included in their break­ing of Bread together? Which I think, he or any one versed in Antiquity, will not deny. And if so, he must either say, that at those Love-feasts they used no Wine or Drink, because none is expresly mentioned here; though it is plain they did in the Church of Corinth, even to ex­cess; or else, that this Jewish phrase of breaking Bread, is to be here taken, as it is in other places, by a Synecdo­che, for both eating and drinking together, and that ei­ther at the Lord's Table or at any other. But in the

3. Third place, I have an undeniable Argument to prove, either that this must be so meant, or else that the [Page 28]Sacrament cannot be meant, either in these places or a­ny other, where there is onely mention of Bread, with­out Wine: For it is universally owned by all the Popish Writers, as well as by all others, that to the making a Sacrament, there ought to be both the Species Consecra­ted, though they are not both given: So that in this, says Boileau,Hoc enim convenit nobis cum Protestan­tibus, semper debere sacerdo­tes Eucharisti­am consicere sub utra (que) specie. p. 207. we agree with the Protestants, that the Priests always ought to Consecrate the Eucharist in both kinds; and Monsieur de Meaux, P. 182. when he pretends, that he finds upon several occasions, in Antiquity, the Body given without the Blood, and the Blood given without the Body; which I shall examine by and by, yet confesses, that ne­ver one of them was Consecrated without the other; and it would be Sacriledge, says Valentia,Si enim una species abs­que alterâ con­ficiatur, Sacri­legium commit­titur. De usu Sacram. c. 13. if one Species were Consecrated without the other; and after they are Conse­crated, Bellarmine Sacerdo­tibus utriusque speciei sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacra­menti de Euch. c. 4. owns, That the sumption of both Species is necessary to the Priests who Consecrate, and that upon the account of its being a Sacrament; as well it seems as both ought to be Consecrated to make it a Sacrifice. Now in all these places of the Disciples at Emmaus, of those in the Acts, of St. Paul at Troas, which is another but too slight to be particularly considered, there is no mention of any thing but breaking Bread, not one word said of any other Species, either as consecrated, or as re­ceived by any one: So that if these places do prove any thing for Communion in one kind, they prove as much for Consecration in one kind, and for the sumption of one kind, even by the Priest that consecrates. So that as it was wisely declared in the Council of Trent, Soave's History of the Coun. of Trent. l. 6. These places, and the reasons from them, must be laid aside, be­cause by them it would be concluded, that it was not Sacri­ledge to Consecrate one kind without the other; which is contrary to all the Doctors and meaning of the Church, and overthroweth the distinction of the Eucharist, as it is a Sa­crifice, and as it is a Sacrament. So that Monsieur Boi­leau's strongest Argument, is too high charged, and re­coils [Page 29]upon himself and his own Church; and his friends are obliged to take it out of his hands, least he do more harm to them by it, than execution upon his enemy. But he is a bold man, that dare face the mouth of a Can­non, who dare undertake to prove the Communion in one kind, out of the eleventh Chapter of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians; which is such a perfect demon­stration against it, that a man must out-face the Sun, who offers at any such thing.

St. Paul, as the best and truest means to correct the abuses got into the Church of Corinth, about the Eucharist, recurs to the Institution which he recei­ved from Christ himself, and which he delivered to the Church of Corinth; in which there is so full an account of both the species, and such a command of both, as is sufficient to shew the Apostolical practice confor­mable to the Institution of Christ, and to let us see what Tradition they left in their Churches about it. Had there been any difference between the Priests and the Peoples receiving the Bread and Wine; St. Paul, who wrote to the Laiety, would no doubt have taken no­tice of it, and told them their respective duties; but he delivers the Institution to them, just as Christ did to his Apostles; says not a tittle of their not being to re­ceive the Cup, but on the contrary, adds that command to it, which is in none of the Evangolists, Do this in remembrance of me; Gives not the least intimation, that this was given to the Apostles as Priests, or that they were made Priests then; but what is observable, does not so much as mention the Apostles, or take any notice of the persons that were present at the Institution, and to whom the words, Do this, were spoken. So, that so far as appears from him, they might be spoken to other Disciples, to ordinary Laics; nay, to the women who might be present at this first Sacrament, as well as the Apostles; and so must have been made Priests by those [Page 30]words, Hoc facite, as well as they. After the recital of the Institution, in which he observes no difference be­tween the Priests and Laics; he tells the Faithful of the Church of Corinth, that as often as they did eat this Bread and drink this Cup, they shewed forth the Lord's death, till he come: So that they who were to shew forth Christ's death, as well as the Priests, were to do it both by eating the Bread and drinking the Cup; and, indeed, one of them does not shew forth his death so well as both; for it does not shew his Blood separated from his Body. He goes on to shew 'um the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking, for he all along joyns both those Acts, as a phrase, signifying the Communion; and he expresly uses it no less than four times in that Chapter: But in some Copies, say they, instead of and, he uses the particle or, in the 27 v. Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink this cup unworthily: and here Monsieur Boileau would gladly find something for either Eating or Drink­ing, without doing both; which is such a shift and cavil, as nothing would make a man catch at, but such a de­sperate cause as has nothing else to be said for it: If the particle [...] or, were used in that place instead of [...] and, yet he has but little skil either in Greek or Latine Authors, who knows not that it is the commonest thing in both, to use that disjunctive for a copulative; as, to Abraham or his seed, for to Abraham and his seed Ro. 4.13.: Of which it were easie to give innumerable instances, both in the Bible and profane History: The Apostle having used the copulative in all other Verses, and all along in this Chap­ter, and having joyned eating and drinking, cannot be supposed here to use a disjunctive, and to separate them; but after all, there are Copies of as great Cre­dit and Authority for the particle [...], as for [...], though I think no such weight bears upon the difference of these particles, as to make it worth our while to examine them; for if the Apostles did disjoyn them, it was onely [Page 31]to lay a greater Emphasis upon the guilt of unwor­thy eating and drinking, which though they both go to­gether, yet are both very great Sins; and I see no man­ner of consequence, that because a man may both eat and drink unworthily, that therefore he should onely eat, and not drink at all; or that the Apostles supposed it law­ful to eat without drinking, or drink without eating.

But the Apostolical practice, and the Institution of our Saviour, for Communion in both kinds, though it be very plain and clear in Scripture, and being founded upon so full a Command, and a Divine Institution; I know no Power in the Church to alter it, or vary from it; yet it will be further confirmed, and strengthened by the Universal Practice of the whole Christian Church, and of the purest Ages after the Apostles, and by the general consent of Antiquity, for a thousand years and more after Christ; in which I shall prove the Eucharist was always given to all the Faithful, who came to the pub­lic Worship; and to the Communion in both kinds, without any difference made between the Priests and the Laiety, as to this matter, which was a thing never heard of in Antiquity, nor ever so much as mentioned in any Author, till after the Twelfth Century; in which wretched times of Ignorance and Superstition, the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation being newly brought in, struck men with such horror, and Superstitious Reverence of the sacred Symbols, which they believed to be turn­ed into the very substance of Christ's Body and Blood; that they begun to be afraid of taking that part which was fluid and might be spilt, each drop of which they thought to be the same blood that flowed out of the side of Christ, and the very substantial Blood that was running in his Veins, and now by a miraculous way, was conveyed into the Chalice. Hence at first, they u­sed Pipes and Quils to suck it out of the Cup, and some used intinction or dipping of the Bread in the Wine; [Page 32]and afterwards the same superstition increasing, they came to leave off, and abstaine wholly from drinking the Cup; which was reserved onely to the more sacred lips of the Priests, who were willing to be hereby di­stinguisht from the more unworthy and prophane Laie­ty. The Council of Constance, first made this a Law, in the Year 1415, which was before a new and super­stitious custom, used only in some few places, and got by degrees into some particular Churches of the Latine Communion, (for it never was in any other, nor is to this day) of which we have the first mention in Thomas Aquinas, who lived in the Thirteenth Age, and who speaks of it thus faintly in his time,In aliqui­bus Ecclesiis ser­vatur ut solus sacerdos com­municetsangui­ne, reliqui vero Corpore. Comment. in Johan. c. 6. v. 53. In some Churches it is observed, that onely the Priest Communicates of the blood, and others of the Body; In quibus­dam Ecclesiis observatur sum. p. 3. q. 80. In quibusdam & in Ali­quibus Ecclesiis; shows that it was then but creeping into a few particular Churches, and very far from being generally observed in the Western Parts. And that it was quite otherwise in the whole Primitive Church, for above a thousand years, who in all their assemblies kept to our Saviour's Institution of both kinds, and ne­ver varied from what Christ and his Apostles had com­manded and delivered to them; as the Church of Rome now does, I shall fully prove, that so, according to Vin­centius Lirinensis his rule, against all manner of Here­sies, the truth may be establisht, First, Primo sci­licet divinae le­gis auctoritate, tum deinde Ec­clesiae Catholi­cae traditione. by the authority of a divine Law, and then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church; which Tradition being well made out, does more fully explain the Law, and shew the necessity of observing it: The Universal practice of the Catholic Church, being a demonstration how they understood it, contrary to the new Sophistry of our Adversaries, and how they always thought themselves obliged by it; And because none are more apt to boast of Tradition, and the name of the Catholic Church upon all accounts, than these men; I shall more largely shew, how shame­fully [Page 33]they depart from it in this, as they do, indeed, in all other points of Controversie between us; and how they set up the Authority of their own private Church, in opposition to the Universal, as well as to the Laws of Christ, and Practice of the Apostles: Their Communi­on in one kind is such a demonstration of this, that we need no other to prove this charge upon them; and as I have showed this to be contrary to the Institution, and command of Christ, and the writings of the Apo­stles, so I shall evidently make it out, to be contrary to the whole Primitive and Catholick Church, in all Ages; and this

• First, From the most ancient Rituals, or the earliest accounts we have, of the manner of celebrating the bles­sed Eucharist in Christian Churches.
• Secondly, From the most ancient Lyturgies.
• Thirdly, From the Testimony and Authority of the Fathers or antient Writers.
• Fourthly, From some ancient Customs.
• Fifthly, From the Custom still remaining in all Chri­stian Churches of the World, except the Roman.
• Sixthly, From the Confession of the most learned of our Adversaries.

1. From the most ancient Rituals, or the earliest ac­counts we have of the manner of celebrating the blessed Eucharist in the Christian Church; The first and most Authentic of which, is in Justin Martyr's second Apo­logy, where he describes the publick Worship of Chri­stians upon Sundays, according to its true Primitive Simplicity; and as to the Eucharist which was always a part of it, [...]. Justia Martyr Apolog. 2. There was brought, he says, Bread and Wine with water (according to the custom, I suppose, of the Greeks and Eastern Countries, who generally drank their Wines so mixt) and these being offered to the chief Mini­ster, [Page 34]he receiving them, giveth Honour and Glory to the Fa­ther of all things, through the Name of the Son and the Ho­ly Ghost, and rendreth thanksgiving to him for these things; and having finished his Prayers and giving of Thanks, to which the People that were present joyn their Amen: The Deacons give to every one that is present, to partake of the blessed Bread, and Wine and Water; and to those that are absent, they carry them. Having discoursed of the nature of this Sacramental food, and shewn the Institution and design of it, out of the Gospel, and from the words of our Saviour; he again repeats their manner of Celebra­ting, in the same words almost which he had used before, and says, [...]. Ib. propè fiaem. That the distribution and participation of what is blessed by the President, is made to every one; which e­very one belongs plainly to the [...], that just goes before. Nothing is more evident, than that all the Elements were given to the People, and to every one of them; and no man, I think, ever had the impudence to questi­on this, or make the least doubt of it, before Monsieur Boileau, who, if ever he read this place, may be ashamed to say as he does,Haec Sti. Justini verba per­peràm assumuntur ad concluden­dum verè & castigatè, aetate sancti Martyris Eucharistiam ple­bi administratam fuisse sub utra (que) specie. Boileau de praecepto di­vino Commun. sub utra (que) specie. p. 215. That it cannot be true­ly and strictly concluded from hence, that the Eucharist was Communicated to the People under both kinds, in the Age of this Holy Martyr. And what man of modesty or creticism, besides Monsieur Boileau, would have observed that both the Elements were not then carried to the absent? which Monsieur de Meaux In the ex­ample of S. Ju­stinus, the two Species, 'tis true, were car­ried. p. 112. owns were, though it is plainly said they car­ried the [...], the same things that were blessed, and that those who were present did partake of; yet it is not said, that they Non dicit ta conjunctìm vel alternatìm ad absentes per­ferunt, [...], sed tantummodò ad absentes perferunt. Ib. p. 214. carried both together, [...]. He might as well have pretended that though they carried, yet they carried nothing at all: And they [Page 35]that make such answers to such plain places, had, I am sure, better say nothing at all.

Next to Justin Martyr, St. Cyril of Hierusalem gives us the fullest account of the manner of Celebrating the blessed Eucharist, in his Mystagogic Catechisms, they are cal­led; wherein having discoursed of all the Christian My­steries, to those who were newly Baptized, and so fit and capable to be instructed in them, he comes at last to the highest Christian Mystery, that of the Lord's Supper; and in his fifth Catechism largely describes the perfor­mance of it, with a great many more particular Cere­monies and Forms of Prayer, then were used before: And having told his young Christians, in the foregoing Homily [...]. Cyril. Catech. Mystag. 4., That in the Species of Bread, is given the Body of Christ, and in the Spe­cies of Wine, his Blood; that so by par­taking of the Body and Bloud of Christ, he may become one body and one bloud with him; he bids him come with firm Faith and great Devotion; and tells him how he should receive the Holy Bread very particularly, and directs him to the very po­sture of his Hands and Fingers; and afterwards, he as particularly, orders him how, and in what manner, he should come to receive the Cup [...]. Ic. Catech. 5. of the Lord's Blood, not stretching out his hands, but bending, and in the po­sture of worship and adoration, and whilst the moisture is upon his lips [...]. Ib., he bids him take it with his finger and touch his eyes and forehead, and other parts, and so san­ctifie them: However superstitious that was, for I can­not but think this use of the Sacrament to be so, as well as many others, that were yet very ancient; it is plain that the newly baptized Christians did then receive the Eu­charist in both kinds, and were commanded [...]. Ib. to come to receive the Cup, and to drink of the Wine, as well as to partake of the Bread.

To St. Cyril, who lived towards the latter end of the [Page 36]fourth Century, I shall joyn the Apostolic Constitu­tions, as they are called, which I suppose, not to be ancienter; and in these in one place [...]. Constit. Apostol. l. 2. c. 57., The Sacrifice or Eucharist, is ordered to be cele­brated; the People standing and praying si­lently, and after the oblation, every order, (to wit, of young and aged, of men and women, into which they were ranged before at their Religious Assemblies, as appears in that Chapter) seve­rally and by themselves, take the body and blood of Christ; and when the women do it in their order, they are to have their heads covered [...]. Ib.; So that 'tis plain all orders, both of Men and Women, were to receive both the Body and Blood; In another placeL. 8. c. 13. where is a more perfect ac­count of the Eucharistic solemnity, and of the Prayers and Ceremonies used in it; at the latter end he describes the order, in which they Communicated, first the Bi­shops, then the Presbyters and Deacons, and other Inferior Orders, then the Religious Women, the Deaconesses, the Vir­gins, the Widdows and their Children; and after that, the whole People with great Reverence, and without any tumult or noise; The Bishop gives the Bread saying, The Body of Christ, and he that receives it, sayes Amen: The Deacon gives the Cup, and says, The Blood of Christ, the Cup of Life; and he that drinks it, says Amen. And when they have all Communicated, both men and women, the Deacons take the re­mainders and carry them into the Pastophory or Vestry.

St. Dennis the Areopagite, I put after all these, because I doubt not, but that the Book under his name, was la­ter than any of them; there is this passage of Celebrating the Eucharist, in those Books of the Ecclesiastical Hierar­chy, the Priest praying that all, who partake of the Sa­crament, may do it worthily, The Bread which was cover­ed and whole, he uncovers and divides into many parts, and the one Cup he divides to all [...]. Dyonys. Eccles. Hlerat. c. 3 p. 103.; and afterwards, he speaks [Page 37]particularly of the Priests first taking himself that which he gave to others [...]. Ib., and mentions nothing else taken by him, then what the others do partake of.

I shall to these add, the famous Ordo Romanus, which de Meaux calls the antient Ceremonial of the Roman Church, neither the time, nor the Author of it is cer­tainly known; it concerns not me to inquire whether it belong to the Eighth or the Eleventh Age, which is up­on other accounts a dispute between the Reformed, and Roman Divines; I suppose it to be made at several times, and to have had several Additions made to it by sever­al Popes, one after another; for all Missals and Eucha­ristic formes were at first very short, and afterwards increased by further compositions: Pope Gregory, who had the greatest hand in it, speaks of one Scholasticus, who composed the Prayer to be said over the Oblation Ʋt precem quam Schola­sticus composu­erat, super obla­tionem dicere­mus. Greg. l. 7. ep. 64. before him; who that Scholasticus was, Strabo and Berno, and the other Writers upon the Ordo Romanus, have owned themselves ignorant, and other Learned men have anxi­ously enquired; the Learned Colomesius thinks it as clear as the light that this was Pope Gelasius Ex quo meridianâ luce clariùs patet quis fuerit Scholasticus ille Gregorio M. l. 7. ep. 64. lauda­tus. Colomesius in Paralipom. ad Chartophyl. Eccles. verb. Gelasius.: But whoever were the Au­thors of it, and whensoever it was com­posed, as we now have it, it is suffici­ent to my purpose, that the Communi­on is there distributed in both kinds; and the manner of it is thus prescribed;Deinde ve­nit Archidia­conus cum ca­lice ad cornu altaris — & refuso parum in calicem de scypho inter manus acolyti accedunt primùm Episcopi ad sedem ut commmunicent de manu Pontificis secundum ordinem; sed & Presbyteri omnes ascen­dunt ut communicent, ad altare. Episcopus autem primus accipit calicem de manu Archidiaconi & stat in cornu altaris ut confirmet sequentes ordines; Deinde Archidiacono accepto de manu ill is calice, refundit in scypho & tradit calicem subdiacano regionario, qui tradit ei pugillarem cum quo comfirmet populum — Quos dum confirmaverit — Postea Episcopi communicant populum & post eos Diaconi confirmant, — Presbyteri jussu Pontificis communicant populum, & ipsi vicissim comfirmant, nam mox ut Pontifex caeperit communicare populum — psallunt us (que) dum communi­cato omni populo etiam in parte mulierum. Ordo Romanus p. 6. Edit. Hittorp. Paris. Then cometh the Arch-deacon with the Cup at the side of the Altar, —and pouring a little into the [Page 38]Chalice out of the Flaggon, in the hands of the Acolyte, the Bishops first come to their Seat, that they may Communicate from the hand of the Pope, acccording to their order; and the Presbyters also ascend to the Altar, that they may Com­municate: the Bishop first takes the Cup from the hand of the Arch-deacon, and stands at the side of the Altar, that he may confirm the following orders; then the Arch-deacon taking the Chalice from his hand, pours it again into the Flaggon, and gives the Cup to the regionary Sub-deacon, who gives him a hollow Pipe, with which he may confirm the people, —Whom, when he hath confirmed, — afterwards the Bishops communicate the people, and after them the Deacons confirm them; — the Priests by the command of the Pope, communicate the people, and they also confirm them: for as soon as the Pope begins to communicate the people, the Anti­phone begins, and they sing till all the people have communi­cated, even on the womens side. However Rome has thought fit of late to depart from their own Ordo Romanus; yet there is a very remarkable story of one of their own Popes, Pope Martin the Fifth, who, after the Council of Constance, did in a solemn Office at Easter, Communicate the people in both kinds, according to the Roman Order; which was not so alter'd and changed at that time, as it was afterwards: Cassander in his Consultatio Martinus Sanctus etiam post tem­pora Constantiensis synodi in solenni Paschae officio, juxta praescriptum or­dinis Romani universum populum cor­pore & sanguine Dⁿⁱ. communicasse le­gitur. Consult. de Com. subutr., and Lindanus in his Pa­noplia Martinus ipse P R. 5. utram (que) le­gitur Romae administrasse speciem, quod non de Diacono, Pontificis Administro accipiendum est sed ut populo. Lin­dan. Panoplia. l. 4. c. 56., are both positive Witnesses for this matter of Fact, which is not onely considerable in it self, but a clear Argu­ment of the late change and alteration, both of the old Roman Practice, and the old Roman Order.

2. The most ancient Lyturgies that are described, and Celebrate the Communion in both kinds: So That [...]. under the name of St. Peter, represents all the people, as parta­king of the divine, pure, heavenly, quickning, tremendous [Page 39]Mysteries; and this Prayer or Thanksgiving is used for them all, [...]. Lyturg. Pe­tr. in Biblioth. Patr. Blessed be God who has vouchsafed us to par­take of his immaculate Body, and his most precious Bloud. That under the name of St. James, after the Prayer of the Priest, that the holy Spirit coming and sanctifying the Elements, would make them become the Body and Blood of Christ, that they may be effectual to all that receive them for remission of Sins [...]. Lytur. Jacob. Ib. (which word all, supposes more than the Priest who Consecrates) represents the Deacons, after the communion of the Clergy, as taking up both the Patens and the Chalices to give to the people [...]. Ib.; and after they had received of both, the Deacons and the Peo­ple both give thanks to Christ, because he has vouchsafed them to partake of his Body and of his Blood [...]. Ib.. The Ly­turgy which bears the name of St. Mark, describes the Priest as praying for all those who were to communicate, that they might be worthy to receive of those good things which were set before them, the immaculate Body, and the precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Chrst [...]. Lyturg. Marcl. Ib.; and using these words in his Prayer of Consecration over the Elements, That they may become available to all those who partake of them to Faith, Sobriety [...] Ib., and Christian Ver­tues: Which had bin very improper, if none but himself had bin to partake of them: So that whatever Anti­quity, and whatever Authority, may be allowed to those Lyturgies, who go under the names of those Apostolic Saints, the advantage of them is wholly for the Com­munion in one kind. And those Churches who used these Lyturgies, and so probably ascribed these Names to them, as Hierusalem, that of St. James, Alexandria, that of St. Mark; these must be acknowledged to have given the Communion in both kinds, as anciently and as cer­tainly as it can be proved, or may be supposed that they used these Lyturgies: But to come to the more Authen­tic Lyturgies of St. Basil and St.Chrysostom, which are now used in the Greek Churches, though both the time [Page 40]and the Authors of these may be very questionable; yet with all their present Additions and Interpolations, there is a manifest proof in both of them, for the Communi­on in both kinds: In the former, the Priest thus prays for himself and all the Communicants, that we all, who partake of one Bread, and one Cup, may be united toge­ther into the Communion of one holy Spirit, and that none of us may be partakers of the Body or Bloud of Christ, to judgement or condemnation [...]. Lyturg. Easil.; so that it was plain he did not communicate of the Bread or Cup alone, nor was a­lone partaker of the Body or Bloud of Christ; in ano­ther Prayer he mentions the people expresly, and begs of Christ that he would vouchsafe, by his great power, to give unto them his pure Bloud, and by them, that is, by the Priests, to all the People [...]. Ib.. And as the Priest thus prays for the People, and for others before the Communion, so he offers up a Thanksgiving for them afterwards in these words: We give thee thanks, O Lord our God, for the par­ticipation of thy holy, pure, and heavenly Mysteries, which thou hast given us, to the benefit, sanctification, and health, both of our Souls and Bodies: Do thou, O Lord of all things, grant unto us, that this may be the partaking of the Body and Bloud of Christ to our sincere Faith [...]. Ib.. In the Lyturgie of St. Chrysostom, the Priest having prayed God to make this Bread the precious Body of Christ [...]. Lyturg. Chry­sost. Savil. Edit. Tom. 6.; which is an expression the Church of Rome will by no means allow, and that which is in the Cup, his Blood [...]. Ib.; that so they may become to those who partake of them, for the cleansing of the Soul, the re­mission of Sins [...]. Ib., and the like: And having used that Prayer, Vouchsafe to give us this pure Body and Blood, and by us to all the people. He gives the Deacons both the Bread and Wine, and uses particular expressions at the giving of each, As this hath touched thy Lips, and will take away thy Sins, and purge away thy Wickedness [...]. Ib.: [Page 41]and then afterwards the Deacon having the Cup, speaks to the people to draw nigh in the fear of God, and in Charity [...]. Ib.: And though there is no particular description of their Communion, as there is of the Deacons, yet this is onely an Argument that it was the same; and had it been different, no doubt, there would have been an account of it: but after all, the Priest makes a general Thanksgiving, in the name of all, Blessing God, that he has vouch­safed us this day his heavenly and immortal Myste­ries [...]. Ib. p. 1003.. To confirm this observation of the Communion in both kinds, from the Lyturgy of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom; Cassander in his Ly­turgies tells us,Lyturgia Aethiopum sententia ora­tionum & ordine actionis fere cum Grae­corum Chrysost. & Basilii Lyturgiis con­venit. Lyturg. per G. Cassand. That the Lyturgie of the Aethiopians agrees with these two, both in the pray­ers, and the orders of the performance; and in this the people, as he informs us, pray towards the conclusion, That God would bless them who have received the sacred Body and the precious Blood Populus sub finem, benedic nos Do­mine servos tuos qui sanctum corpus & pretiosum sanguinem sumpsimus. Benedi­ctus sit qui aedit sanctum corpus & pre­tiosum sanguinem. Gratia sit Domino qui dedit nobis corpus suum sanctum & pretiosum sanguinem suum. Ib.; and blessed be God who has given us his sa­cred Body and precious Bloud. And a­gain, Thanks be to God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Blood. As to the Lyturgies of the Latins, which they call Missals, they have received such Additi­ons and Corrections at Rome, as was necessary to make them sute with the present Opinions and Practices of that Church; but yet we have many of those which have e­scaped that usage, and which contain the Communion in both kinds, as appears by the Codices Sacramentorum, publisht at Rome by Thomasius, where the Gelasian Form, that is older than the Gregorian, speaks of the Priests com­municating alike with the sacred Orders, and with all the People Post haec Communicat sacerdos cum ordinibus sacris cum omni populo. P. 199., without any difference, and all along menti­ons [Page 42]both the Symbols, by the words, Sacramenta, Myste­ria, Dona, in the plural number; and concludes with this Prayer, That as many as have taken the Body and Blood of Christ, may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace Ʋt quotquot ex hâc altaris partici patione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedicti­one caelesti & gratiâ repleamur. p. 198.. The three other are lately pub­lished by Mabillon, and were used very anciently in the Gallican Church, before that Nation had received the Ro­man Office; in all which also, there are plain evidences for the Communion in both kinds; in the old Gothic one, after the Lord's Prayer follows this,Libera nos à malo Domine Christe Jesu, Corpus tuum pro nobis crucisixum edimus & sanguinem sanctum tuum bi­bimus; fiat nobis corpus sanctum tuum ad salutem, & sanguis sanctas tuus in remissionem peccatorum hìc & in aeter­nùm Missale Gothico-Gallicanum apud Mabillon de Lyturg. Gallic. p. 300. Deliver us from evil, O Lord Jesus Christ, we have eaten thy Body crucified for us, we have drunk thy ho­ly Blood, which was shed for us: Let thy sacred Body be unto us for Salvati­on, and thy sacred Blood for the remis­sion of Sins, here and for ever. And in the Missa Domini­calis, after the Communion, there is this Prayer, Thy bo­dy, O Lord, which we have taken, and thy Cup which we have drunk, let it stick in our entrails Corpus tuum Domine quod accepi­mus, & calicem tuum quem potavimus haereat visceribus nostris. Ib. p. 297.. An expression used now in the Canon Missae. In the Missale Franco­rum, which is but short, the Sacramenta and Mysteria, and Sacrosancta Mysteria, are used in the plural, which may denote the two parts of the Sacrament; but in the old Gallican Missal, it is as plain as can be in the Collect after the Eucharist, We have taken from the holy Altars, the body and blood of Christ, our Lord and our God: Let us pray that we being always filled with Faith, may hunger and thirst after Righteousness Sumsimus ex sacris altaribus Chri­sti Domini & Dei nostri corpus & san­guinem —oremus ut semper nobis fide ple­nis esurire detur ac sitire justitiam. Ib. p. 331.. And in another Col­lect, after the Communion upon Ea­ster day, We beseech thee, O Lord, that this wholsome food and sacred drink, may bring up thy Ser­vants Quaesumus Domine famu­los tuos saluta­ris cibus & sacer potus instituat. Ib. p. 366.. There are several old Missals produced by Me­nardus, [Page 43]at the end of his Notes on Gregory's Sacramen­tary, which are supposed to be written about the Tenth and the Eleventh Century; and though the Doctrine of Transubstantiation creeping in, in those dark and igno­rant times, made them begin to have a superstitious fear of spilling the Wine, and so brought them, in order to prevent that, to mix the two Elements together; yet they never gave the one without the other, as appears in all those Masses. The Sacramentary of St. Gregory is a­lone a sufficient Authority for Communion in both kinds, in which the Priest who Celebrates, prays, that as many as shall take the sacred Body and Blood of thy Son, may be filled with all heavenly bles­sings Quotquot ex hâc altaris parti­cipatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus, omni be­nedictione caelesti repleamur. Gregor. Sacram.; and we who take the Communion of this holy Bread and Cup, are made one bo­dy of Christ Ipsi qui sumimus Communionem hujus sancti panis & calicis, unum Christi corpus efficimur. Ib.. So that the Body and Blood of Christ were plainly to be ta­ken, by more than himself, and were so by all the Faithful, who were thereby to be made the Body of Christ; so we are fed with his flesh, we are strengthned by his bloud Cajus cane pascimur, reboramur & sanguine. Ib.. Thou hast re­freshed us with the body and bloud of thy Son Corpore & sanguine filii tui nos resecisti. Ib.; and we beseech thee that we may be numbred amongst his members, whose body and bloud we do Communicate Quaesumus, ut inter ejus membra numeremur cujus corpori communica­mus & sanguini. Ib.. I have before considered the Ordo Roma­nus, as an ancient Ritual of the Latine Church; and both that and the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, which are the most ancient Writings, at least next to Gelasius, that give us an account of these things in the Roman Church, do bear witness to the custom of gi­ving the Cup in the Communion, as well as the Bread; which Cassander al­so observesQuem morem sanguinis Domiai porrigendi & antiqua Sacramentaria B. Gregorii & libellus Ordinis Ro­mani apertè testantur. Cassand. Con­sult. de commun. sub utrâ que., who had as great skill as any man in these matters, but yet had not seen the Gelasian Sacramentary, since published out of [Page 44]the Queen of Sweden's Library, which is a further con­firmation of this.

3. As to the Testimony of the Fathers or ancient Writers, some of those have been already given upon the two former heads; I shall add several others to them, who bear witness to the Communion in both kinds: Ignatius in one of his E­pistles says, One Bread is broken to all, one Cup is distributed to all [...]. Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph.. And here I cannot but admire the Confidence and Folly of Mon­sieur Boileau De solitario pane mentionem fa­cit Ignatius. Boileau de praecept. Di­vin. Commun. sub utráque. p. 216., who brings this very passage, One Bread is broken for them all, as a proof that it was onely the Bread that was given, and leaves out what is immediately added, One Cup is distributed to all; which not onely confutes, but shames him.Quomodo dicunt carnem in cor­ruptionem devenire, & non perci­pere vitam, quae à corpore Domini & sanguine alitur. Iren. l. 4. c. 34. Irenaeus says, The flesh is fed by the body and bloud of Christ, and that of the Cup and the Bread, the substance of our flesh is increased and consists Quando ergo mixtus calix & fraclus panis percipit verbum Det, fit Eucht. istia sangutnis & corporis Christi, x quibus augetur & consistit carnti nostrae substantia; quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donati­o is Dei. qui est vitae aeterna, quae sanguine & corpere Christi nutri­tur, & membrum ejus? Id. l. 5. c. 2.; And from hence, he there proves the Resurrection of the Body, against those Hereticks that denied it, because the body is nourished by the bloud and body of Christ, and is made a member of him. He must mean this of the Bodies of all Christians, un­less the Resurrection of the Body be­long onely to the Priests, as well as the Cup. Ter­tullian upon the Resurrection, says the same with Irenae­us, Our flesh is fed with the body and bloud of Christ Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur. Tertul. de Resur. carnis.: And in his Book to his Wife, he speaks of her taking the Cup, in two several placesD [...]c [...]jus manu desiderabit? dè cujus poculo participabit? Id. ad ux­or. l. 2. c. 6. De cibo, de poculo invadere, desi­derare in mente habere. Id. c. 4.. Upon one of which, a very learned Critic of the Ro­man Church, who owns those places to belong to the Communion, has made this observation [Page 45]to our hands, At that time the Supper of the Lord was Celebrated in both Species Sub utrâque specie illo tempore convivium Domini cerebratur, quod tantâ aviditate arripiebatur ut il­lud invadere, desiderare, in mente ha­bere. De la Cerda Not. in locum. p. 634.; Even to Women it seems, who, I suppose, were no Priests. Origen upon the Book of Numbers, says, We drink the bloud of Christ Sacramentally in the Eucharist, as well as Spiritually, by believing his Do­ctrine Bibere dicimur sanguinem Chri­sti non solùm Sacramentorum ritu se & cum sermenes ejus recipimus. Quis est iste populus qui in usa habet san­guinem bibere? Origent. homil. 16. in Num.: When he had before asked, What people drink of Bloud? St. Cy­prian admonishes Christians to prepare themselves for the hardest encounters, as the Souldiers of Christ, Considering that for this very purpose, Gravior nunc & ferocior pugna immicet ad quam parare debent mi­lites Christi, considerantes idcirco se quotidiè calicem sanguinis Christi bi­bere, ut possint & ipsi propter Chri­stum sanguinem fundere. Ep. 58. ad plebem Thiberitanam. Edit. Oxon. they every day drink the Cup of Christ's Bloud, that so they may also shed their bloud for Christ. And he pleads for giving the Communion to the lap­sed, upon this very account, to arm and fortifie them for farther tryals and per­secutions; How can we teach or provoke them to shed their bloud for the confession of Christ, if we de­ny them the Bloud of Christ Nam quomodo docemus aut pro­vocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere, si eis mili­taturis Christi sanguinem denega­mus? aut quomodo ad Martyrit po­culum idoneos facimus, si non eos prius ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ pocu­lum Domini jure communionis admit­timus? Ep. 57. ad Cornel.? Or how can we make them fit for the Cup of Martyr­dom, if we do not first admit them to drink the Cup of the Lord, in the Church, by the right of Communion? The excellent E­pistleEp. 63. Caecilio fratri. of that Holy Martyr, against those, who out of a principle of abstain­ing wholly from Wine, or lest they should by the smell of Wine, which they had drunk in the Morning-Sacri­fices,Simili mo­do & calicem, — quod si & à Domino prae­cipitur, & ab Apostoloejus hoc idem confirma­tur & tradi­tur — hoc faciamus quod fecit & Dominus; invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatum nisi eadem quae Dominus fecit nos quo (que) faciamus & calicem Dom. pari ratione miscentes à divine Magisterio non recedamus. Ib. Quod nos obandire & facere oportet, quod Christus fecit & faciendum esse mandavit. Ib. discover themselves to be Christians, used Water in the Eucharist instead of Wine, is so full a demonstra­tion that the Wine ought always to be taken in the Sa­crament, and that Christ's Institution and Command [Page 46]could not otherwise be observed; that there needs no other Arguments, but what that great Man there uses, to shew the necessity of Christians Communicating in both the Species of Bread and Wine; Christ, Quare si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemus attendere, quod a­lius ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid, qui ante omnes est, Christus pri­er fecerit. Ib. Quomodo autem de creaturâ vi­tis novum vinum cum Christo in reg­no patris bibemus, si in sacraficio Dei Patris & Christi vinum non offeri­mus, nec calicem Domini dominicâ traditione miscemus? Ib. says he, gave the Cup, and we are to do that which Christ did, and ought by no means to depart from what was com­manded by Christ, and delivered by the Apostles, upon any custom or pretence what­soever. How shall we drink, says he, of the fruit of the Vine with Christ, in the Kingdom of his Father, if we do not now of­fer the Wine in the Sacrifice, and mingle the Cup of the Lord as he delivered it to us. And that this Wine was drunk by all Christians, is plain from that fear which some had, lest by their drinking it in the morning, they should smell of it Nisi in sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis veretur, ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi. Ib. p. 155., and so discover themselves to the Hea­thens: It was then it seems a mark to know Christians by, That they did smell of the bloud of Christ: which if they had done as the Papists now do, they need not have been afraid of. But to proceed to others, who, though they speak less of this then St. Cyprian, yet speak plain­ly of Christians taking the Bloud as well as the Body: Athanasius speaking of the Cup, says, It belongs to the Priests of right, to give this to the People [...]. Apolog 2.. St. Basil in one of his Epistles says, It is good and profitable to Communi­cate every day of the Body and Bloud of Christ [...]. Ep. ad Caesar.: And speaking of the peculi­ar Vertues of Christians, asks, What is proper to those that eat the Bread and drink the Cup of the Lord [...]. Id. Moral.? denoting that to belong to all Christians. St. Chrysostom in his Oratorian manner, speaks of Christians, as being all Died and Purpled [Page 47]with the Bloud of Christ [...]. De Sacerdot. l. 3.: And thus compares all Christians in general with the Israelites, As thou eatest the Body of Christ, so did they Manna; as thou drinkest the Bloud of Christ, so did they Water out of the Rock [...]. Id. Homil. 23. in 1 Cor.. And in another place he expresly ob­serves, what I have taken notice of be­fore, That 'tis not now as under the Jew­ish Law, where the Priest partook of seve­ral things from the Altar, which the People did not: There is no difference between the Priest and the People, when we come to receive the Ho­ly Mysteries; for one Body and one Cup is offered to all [...]. Id. in Homil. 18. in 2 Cor.. St Hierom says, The Priests serve the Eucharist, and divide the Bloud of the Lord among the People Sacerdotes Eucharisticae servi­unt, & sanguinem Domini populis ejus dividunt. Hieron. in Sophon. c. 2.. And upon occasion, speaks of some loose and vitious Women, who yet would not abstain from the bloud of Christ Eb [...]tati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt, Absit ut ego me à Christi san­guine abstineam. Id, Ep. ad Eustoch.. So that this, it is plain, was taken by the Women. St. Austin to the newly Bap­tized Christians, says, That in all their tryals and their time of being Catechumens, they did ap­prove themselves, that they might eat the Lord's Body, and drink the Cup Ʋt cum seipsos probaverint, tunc de mensâ Domini manducent, & de calice bibant. August. de fide & O­per.. And speaking of the prohibition of Blood to the Jews, because it was offer'd in Sacrifice; but from taking the Bloud of the Sacrifice of our Lord, no one, says he, is not onely forbidden, but all are exhorted to drink of it, who will have Life Ab hujus sacrificii sanguine in alimeatum sumendo non solum nemo prohibetur, sed ad bibendum omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vi­tam. Id. in Levit. qu. 57.. I might easily bring down the like clear authorities of ancient Writers much lower, even to the times of the very Schoolmen, who are the first that ever mention any thing about the Communion in one kind: But that I may not over-load my self or my Reader, I shall onely [Page 48]offer one or two more of much later date, but yet more considerable, to our Adversaries at least, because they believed Transubstantiation, but had not it seems im­proved it into that consequence, which Superstition af­terwards did, of Communicating in one kind: Pascha­sius Ratbertus, Abbot of Corbey, was the very Parent of Transubstantiation, and the first founder of that Do­ctrine, in the Ninth Century; yet in the same Book, in which he broaches that new Opinion, he fully and plain­ly asserts the old Practice of the Communion in both kinds, The Priest, says he, consecrates by the power of Christ, and performs the part of Christ, between God and the People; he offers their Prayers and Oblations to God, and what he hath obtain­ed of God, he renders to them, by the body and bloud of Christ, which he distributes to every one of them Caeterum sacerdos quia vices Christi visibili specie inter Deum & populum agere videtur, infert per manûs Angeli vota populi ad Deum & refert, Vota quidem offert & mu­nera, refert autem imperata per Cor­pus & sanguinem & distribuit sin­gnlis. Paschas. de Corpore & san­guine Domini. c. 12.. Those Singuli must be the People, whose Prayers the Priest offered, and to whom he distri­buted the Bloud as well as the Body of Christ; and to shew further, that the Bloud was given in the Sacrament, not to the Priest onely, but to the Peo­ple, he most expresly says, That when Christ gives the Sacrament by the hands of the Ministers, he says also by them, Take, and drink ye all of this; as well Ministers as all the rest that believe, This is the cup of my bloud of the new and everlasting testament Et ideo hic solus est qui fran­git hunc panem, & per manus mini­strorum distribuit credentibus, dicens, Accipite & bibete ex hoc omnes tam Ministri quam & reliqui credeates, hic est calix sanguinis mei novi & aeterni testamenti. Ib. c. 15.. Then which words there could nothing have been said, that does more directly de­stroy the late pretence of our Adversaries, of the Cup's being given, and belonging onely to the Priests, or Mi­nisters, and not to all the Faithful, or the Reliqui Cre­dentes: But he still goes further, as to this matter, and makes the partaking of the Bloud to be necessa­ry to Salvation in another Chapter, It is manifest, says [Page 49]he,Constat igitur & liquet omni­bus quòd in hâc mortali vitâ sine ci­bo & potu non vivitur, sic ita (que) ad illam aeternam non pervenitur, ni­si duobus istis ad immortalitatem nutriatur. Ib. c. 19. that in this mortal life we cannot live without meat and drink, so therefore, likewise can we not come to eternal life, unless we are spiritu­ally nourisht with those two unto Immorta­lity: and speaks of the Cup in the very next words. To him I shall add Alge­rus, a very zealous defender of Paschasi­us his Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and as heartily a­greeing with him in the practice and necessity of Com­municating in both kinds, Because, says he, we live by meat and drink, that we can want nei­ther, therefore Christ would have them both in his Sacrament Ʋnde etiam quia potu & clod ita vivimus ut alterntro carere ne­queumus, ntrumque in Sacramento suo esse voluit. Algerus de Sacra­mento. l. 2. c. 5.: And as he re­deemed both our body and our soul, by his body and blood; so, he argues,Nos qui corpore & animâ peri­eramus, corpus per corpus, & animam per animam, Christus redimens, — simul corpus & sanguis sumitur à fi­delibus — ut sumpto corpore & a­nimâ Christi totus homo vivificetur, Ib. c. 8. we ought to partake both of his body and of his blood, that our whole man may be quick­ned by both. Then he quotes St. Austin and Gelasius, for the taking of both Spe­cies,Ʋnde ut ait Augustinus nec ca­ro sine sanguine, nec sanguis sine car­ne jure communicatur. Item Gela­sius Majorico & Joanni Episcopis; Comperimus quòd quidam sumptâ tantùm corporis portione à calice sa­cri cruoris abstineant, qui proculdu­biò aut integra Sacramenta accipi­ant aut ab Integris arceantur, quia divisio unius ejusdem (que) mysterii si­ne grandi sacrilegio non potest pro­venire. Ib. c. 8. From whence, as St. Austin says, neither the flesh is rightly Communicated without the blood, nor the blood without the flesh. So also Gelasius to Majoricus and John Bishops, We find that some ta­king onely the part of the body, abstain from the Cup of the holy bloud; who ought unquestionably either to take the whole Sa­crament, or to be kept wholly from it; be­cause the division of one and the same Sacrament, cannot be without grand Sacriledge. He that had this Belief, and these Arguments for it, could not but be a great enemy to the Mutilated and Sacrilegious Communion in one kind, however great a friend he was to Transustantiati­on; and his authority and his words, are the more re­markable, because he lived in the Twelfth Century, which makes him, as a great many others then [Page 50]were, which I could produce, an undeniable Evidence, that that corruption was not brought into the Latine Church, till the next Age; against which, we have the full testimony of both ancient and later Writers.

4. It appears by some ancient Customs, that Christi­ans were so far from receiving the Sacrament onely in one kind, that they used extraordinary care and contri­vance to receive it in both kinds: From hence it was that they used intinction, or dipping of the Bread in the Wine, which was very early, as appears by the Decree of Pope Julius, who forbad it in the Third Cen­turyIllud vero quod pro complemen­to communionis intinctam tradunt Eucharistiam populis, nec hoc prola­tum ex Evangelio testimonium reci­pit, ubi Apostolis corpus suum & san­guinem commendavit, seorsùm enim panis & seorsùm calicis commendatio memoratur. Julius Papa Episcopis per Aegypt. apud Gratian. decret. de Consecr. 3 Pars dist. 2.. It is probable that it was thus given to the Sick, as in the instance of Serapion, and to Infants, in the time of St. Cyprian, which we shall have occasi­on to consider afterwards: In the Council of Braga, in the seventh AgeConcil. Bra­carense., this Custom, which it seems continu­ed, was prohibited in the very words almost of Pope Ju­lius; so that some learned men mistake the one for the other: Afterwards in the Council of Clermont, as it is gi­ven by Baronius, The Twenty Eighth Canon forbids any to Communicate of the Altar, unless he take the body separately, and the blood also separately, unless through necessity, and with caution Ne quis communicet de altari nisi corpus separatìm & sanguinem similitèr sumit, nisi per necessitatem & per cautelam. Canones Conci­lii Claramont. apud Baron Annal. An. 1094. §. 25.. This In­tinction was generally forbid, unless in some cases, as of the Sick, and the like; to whom the Council of Tours Quae sacra oblatio intincta esse debet in sanguine Christi ut veracitèr Presbyter possit dicere infirmo, Cor­pus & sanguis Domini proficiat tibi. Apud Burchard. l. 5. c. 9. & Cas­sand. Dialog. p. 5. commands that the Sacrament be thus given, Steeped and dipped, and that for a most considerable reason, That the Priest might truly say to the person, to whom he gave it, the body and blood of Christ, be profitable to thee for remission of Sins. This it seems, could not have been truely said to them, unless they had some way or other given them both kinds: [Page 51]That this Intinction was also in use in private Monaste­ries, appears from several Manuscripts produced by Me­nardus Not. in Gre­gor. Sacrament; and it is notorious, that the whole Greek Churches do use it to this day in the Communion, not onely of the Sick and Infants, but of all Laics; I am not concerned to defend or justifie this Custom, nor to say any thing more about it, but onely to observe this plain inference from it, That they who thus used Intinction or the mixing and steeping of the Elements together, did hereby plainly declare, that it was necessary to give the Sacrament in both kinds, and not in one: I might make also the same remark upon the several Heretical Customs of using Water or Milk instead of Wine, as it appears in St. Cyprian and Pope Julius, to have been the manner of some, who though they were very blameable, and justly censured for so doing; yet they hereby confest, that there ought to be two species given in the Sacrament, a liquid one, as well as a solid: The Romanists and the Manichees, are the onely Christians that ever thought otherwise. When the Doctrine of Transubstantiation began to creep into the Church, in the time of Berengarius, and some Christians were thereupon possest with a greater fear of spilling the Blood of Christ; they did not however at first leave drinking the Cup for that reason, but they brought in another custom to prevent spilling; which was, to fasten little Pipes or Quills to the Chalices they then used, and through them to suck the consecrated Wine: This ap­pears in the order of Celebrating Mass by the Pope, ta­ken out of several Books of the Ordo Romanus, in Cassan­der's Lyturgics, The Arch-deacon receives of the Regionary Sub-deacon a Pugillaris, with which he confirms the people Archidiaconus accepto à Sub­diacono regionario pugillari cum quo confirmet populum. Cassander Ly­turg. in ordine celebrat. Miss. per Romanos celebrante pontifice.: Cas­sander in his Notes upon the word Pu­gillaris, says, They were Pipes or Canes, with which the Sacramental Blood was suckt out of the Chalice Fistule seu cannae quibus sanguis è Do­minico calice exugebatur. Ib.. And he [Page 52]says, he had seen several of these in his time: So that in those times when the fear of effusion was greater than it was in the time of the Apostles and Primitive Christians, who yet had as much reverence, no doubt, for the Sa­crament as any after-Ages, they were so unwilling to be deprived of the precious Blood of their Saviour in the Sacrament, that though their superstition made them contrive new ways to receive it, yet they could not be contented to be wholly without it: But

5. The custom still remaining in all other Churches of the Christian World, except the Roman, of Commu­nicating in both kinds, is a demonstration of its Aposto­lical and Primitive Practice, and of an Universal and Un­interrupted Tradition for it; we see plainly where this Practice was broke, and this Tradition violated, in the Roman Church, after above 1200 years, till which time it bears witness against it self, and condemns its own late In­novation, which is contrary not onely to all former Ages, but to the present practice of all other Christian Churches. I need not produce witnesses to prove this, the matter of Fact is plain and undeniable, and none of their Writers can, or do pretend the contrary as to public and general Com­munion concerning any Christians, except those few that they have lately brought over by their well-known Arts, to submit to the Roman Church, as the Maronites and the Indians of St. Thomas: All the other vast number of Christians over all the World, the Greeks, the Muscovites, the Russians, the Aethiopians, the Armenians, the Assyrians, the Nestorians, the Georgians, and others do all administer the Eucharist to the people in both kinds: There is some little difference indeed among them in the manner of doing it; as some of them take the two Species mingled together in a Spoon, as the Greeks and Muscovites; o­thers dip the Bread in the Wine, as the Armenians; but they all agree in this, that they always receive both the Species of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, and never [Page 53]give the one without the other. Cassander has collected several of their Rites and Orders in their public Ly­turgies, as of the Syrians, the Aethiopians, the Armenians, the Abyssins in the Kingdom of Prester John; of whom he says, That as many as Communicate of the Body, Com­municate of the Bloud also Quotquot communicant de corpore, to­tidem commu­nicant etiam de sangine. Cas­and. Lyturg. Reliquis omnibus nationibus Christiani nominis, ut Graecis, Ruthenis, Armeniis, Aethiopibus priscum institutum porrigendi populo sanguinis in hunc us (que) diem retinentibus. Id. Dialog.. But we need not call in any other Churches to vouch for the universal and pri­mitive practice of the Communion in both kinds: We have in the last place

6. The most learned of our Adversaries, who cannot but confess this, and therefore are forced to take other measures to defend themselves and their cause; name­ly, by the Authority of the present Church, and not by the Tradition or Practice of the Primitive, as de Meaux vainly attempts to do; which they freely give up and acknowledge to be contrary to the Communion, as it is now practiced in one kind. Cassander has fully and plainly declared his mind in a particular Treatise on this Subject, among his Works printed at Paris, and in his Dialogue which was put out by Calixtus, not being a­mong his other Works; in his Consultation, and in his Lyturgics; Concerning the administration, says he, of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, it is sufficiently known, that the Ʋniversal Church of Christ to this very day, and the Western or Roman, for above a thousand years after Christ, did exhibit both the Species of Bread and Wine, to all the mem­bers of the Church of Christ, especially in the solemn and ordinary dispensation of this Sacrament; which appears from innume­rable testimones, both of ancient Greek and Latine Writers De administratione sacrosancti Sacramenti Eucharistiae satis comper­tum est, universalem Christi Ecclesi­am in hunc us (que) diem; Occidenta­lem vero seu Romanam mille ampli­ùs à Christo annis in solenni preser­tim & ordinariâ hujus sacramenti dispensatione utram (que) panis & vini speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christi mem­bris exhibuisse, id quod ex innumeris veterum scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum testimoriis manife­stum est. Cassandri Consultatio de utrà (que) specie Sacramenti.. In his Dialogue speak­ing against those who pretended that the use of either [Page 54]one or both kinds was indifferent, and who indeavoured to make this out by the Authority and Practice of the Primitive Church; which is the way which de Meaux takes, he thus seriously and heartily gives his judgement, I have searcht, says he,Equidem haud oscitanter & ve­teris Ecclesiae consuetudinem perscru­tatus sum, & attento aequo (que) animo, torum scripta, qui hoc argumentum tractarunt, legisse & rationes qui­bus indifferentem eum morem probare nituntur, expendisse profiteor; ne (que) tamen firmam ullam demonstratio­nem, quae non apertissimè refelli possit, reperire hactenus potui, quamvis id vehementèr exoptassem; quin multae & firmissimae rationes suppetunt, quae contrarium evincunt. G. Cassand. Di­alog. apud Calixt. p. 6. and that not slightly, the Custom of the ancient Church, and, I profess, I have read the Writings of those who have hand­led this argument with an attent and im­partial mind, and have weighed the rea­sons by which they endeavour to prove this indifferent Custom; but neither could I yet find any firm proof, which could not be most plainly refuted, although I most earnestly desired it; but there remain many, and those the most strong Reasons which do evince the contrary. And be­cause de Meaux pretends that there are some instances of public Communion in the Church in one kind, I will add one other testimony of that great man, who after the strictest search and enquiry into every thing in Anti­quity, that could be brought to colour any such thing, thus determines, Wherefore I do not think that it can be shewn that for a whole thou­sand years and more, that this most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist was ever ad­ministred from the Lord's Table, in the holy Communion, to the faithful people in a­ny part of the Catholic Church, otherwise than under both the Symbols of Bread and Wine Quare nec puto demonstrari to­tis mille amplius annis in ullâ Catho­licae Ecclesiae parte Sacrosanctum hoc Eucharistiae Sacramentum alitèr in sacrâ synaxi è mensâ Dominicâ fideli populo, quam sub utro (que) panis & vini symbolo, administratum fuisse. Id. de Sac. Com. sub utra (que) specie. p. 1027.. Wicelius, another Divine of great learn­ing and judgement, agrees fully with Cassander, It is confest that the holy Sumption from the Ecclesiastic Altar, was equally common to all Christians for Salvation, through all the times of the New Testament Et in con­fesso sumptio­nem sanctam de altari Ecclesi­astico aequè omnibus Christianis communem extitisse ad salutem per omnia novi testamenti tempo­ra. Vicel via Reg. tit. de utr. Specie., by which he means of the Christian Church, as appears by what im­mediately follows, It is a little obliterated, indeed, a­mong [Page 55]us of the Western Church, and se­parated from a promiscuous use for some reasons, but not wholly blotted out and destroyed Obliteratam quidem paulisper apud nos Occidentales, & ab usu pro­miscuo semotam suas ob causas. at non deletam omninò at (que) exstinctam. Ib.. For it was then granted to some, as to the Bohemians; Of this thing, that is of the Holy Sumption common to all Christians, Since we are Ejusce rei cum nube quodam cer­tissimorum testium septi sumus, [...] amplectimur omni excluso du­bio. Ib. encompast with a cloud of most certain witnesses, we embrace this as a most sure thing without any doubt. And therefore in his Ac­count of Abuses, he reckons that of the Communion in one kindId. Elench. abus.: But lest these two men, though their learning and credit be unquestionable, should be thought through their great temper and moderation, to have yielded more in this cause than others of that Communion, I shall shew that the same has been done by others, who cannot be suspected to have granted more than the meer force of Truth extorted from them; Thomas Aquinas who was the first man that proposed that question to be disputed, Whether it were lawful to take the Body of Christ without the Bloud Ʋtrum liceat sumere corpus Christi sine sauguine. Th. Aquin. Sum. pars 3 qu. 80. art. 12.? And who first tells us, That it was the use of many Churches so to do Multarum Ecclesiarum usus in quibus populo communicanti datur corpus Christi sumendum, non autem sanguis. Ib., though Bonaventure his contemporary, who died the same year, mentions nothing of it; he in his Comment upon the Sixth of St. John, where he says, It was observed, not in many but in some Churches, that for fear of effusion, the Priest alone Com­municated of the Blood, and the rest of the Body Propter periculum effusionis in a­liquibus Ecclesiis servatur ut solus sacerdos communicet sanguine, reli­qui vero corpore. Id. in Johan. 6., freely owns, that according to the custom of the ancient Church, all persons as they communicated of the Body, so they communicated also of the Bloud Dicendum, quod secundum an­tiquae Ecclesiae consuetudinem, omnes sicut communicabant corpori, ita communicabant & sanguini. Ib.; and this he addes, is as yet also observed in some Churches Quod etiam adhuc in aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur. Ib.. Which shews that this half-Communion was not univer­fally brought into the Latine Church in the thirteenth [Page 56]Century. Salmeron the Jesuit says, We ingenuously and openly confess (which ingenuity it were to be wisht, Monsieur de Meaux had had) that it was the general custom to communicate the Laics under both species Ingenui & aperti consitemur morem generalem extitisse communi­candi etiam Laicos sub utra (que) spe­cie. Salmeron. Tract. 35.. Cardinal Bona, upon this subject owns,Certum quippe est omnes passim Clericos & Laicos viros & mulie­res sub utra (que) specie sacra mysteria antiquitùs sumsisse cum solenni eorum celebrationi aderant, — consenti­unt omnes tam Catholici quam secta­rii nec eam negare potest qui vel le­vissimâ rerum Ecclesiasticarum noti­tiâ imbutus sit, semper enim & Ʋ ­bi (que) ab Ecclesiae primordiis us (que) ad saeculum duodecimum sub specie panis & vini communicarunt fideles. Bo­na rer. Lyturg. l. 2. c. 18. That it is cer­tain that Clergymen every-where and La­ics, men and women did anciently receive the holy Mysteries under both kinds, when they were present at the solemn Celebrati­on of them: In this, says he, all, both Ca­tholics and Sectaries agree, neither can a­ny one deny it, who is endued with the least knowledge of the Ecclesiastical Affairs; for at all times, and in all places, from the first beginnings of the Church, even to the twelfth Age, the faithful communicated under the species of Bread and Wine. Nay, Bellarmine himself owns, that both Christ instituted under both species, and that the ancient Church ministred under both species; but the multitude increasing, this was found more and more inconvenient and so by degrees the custom of both kinds ceased Nam Christus inftituit quidem sub duplici specie Ecclesia autem ve­tus ministrabat sub duplici specie, crescente autem multitudine magìs & magìs apparuit incommodum & sic paulatim desiit usus sub utrâ (que) Bellarm. l. 4. c. 4. de Euch.. But when did it cease? not so soon as Christians grew very numerous, for that they were long before this was practiced, in the most flourish­ing Ages of Christianity, but after the new Doctrine of Transubstantiation made them grow superstitious, and afraid to spill that liquor, which they were taught to be­lieve, was the very substantial and natural Blood of Christ. It is plain from Thomas Aquinas that it was not wholly ceased in the thirteenth Century, and Valentia ownsDe legit. usu Euch c. 10. that it was but a little before the Council of Con­stance. It was not so much by the command of the Bishops, as by the practice and use of the people; it was first disused, says Costor, in his Enchiridion, where he owns that in [Page 57]the time of Cyprian the people received both species Est (que) boc diligentèr notandum alterius speciei Communionem non tam Episcoporum mandato quam po­puli usa & facto introductam. p 415. Quia suô, i. e. Cypriani tempore populus utram (que) speciem sumebat. Ib. p. 421.. But when the Bishops took advantage of that superstition they had taught the people, and made this new Custom of theirs a Law of the Church; yet in that very Council which first command­ed the Communion in one kind, It was owned that it u­sed to be received of the Faithful in both, in the Primitive Church Licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ bu­jusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utrâ (que) spscie, tamen haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pe­ricula & scandala, est rationabili­tèr introducta. Concil. Constant. Sess. 13., but to prevent some scandals and dangers, which the Primitive Church it seems never thought of, nor took care to avoid, as the peo­ple themselves now did, the Council de­clares this custom to be fitly brought in, and so decrees it to be observed under the penalty of Excommunication. The Council of Trent also acknowledges, though as spairingly as may be, that in the begin­nings of Christian Religion, the use of both kinds was not infrequent or unusual Licet ab initio Christianae Reli­gionis non infrequens utrius (que) speciei usus fuisset, tamen progressu temporis, latissimè jam mutatâ illâ consuetudi­ne de gravibus & justis causis ad­ducta, hanc consuetudinem sub alterâ specie communicandi approbavit. Sess. 5. Canone 2. de Doctr.; why truely, that which was constant was not infrequent, but in the progress of time, 'twas a pretty long progress from the beginning of Christianity to the Thir­teenth Century, that custom being very widely chang'd, for great and just causes, such as the Lay-mens dipping their Beards in the Wine, when in the Primitive times, I suppose, they had no Beards, it approved the custom of Communicating in one kind, though contrary to the cu­stom of the whole Primitive Church for above a thou­sand years; who must yet have had the same reasons to have done it, if they had been such great and just ones; for there can be no other reason given now, but what would have been as good five hundred or a thousand years before; but they having altered the Doctrine of the Primitive Church; this was a just reason to alter the practice. I might adde several other confessions of [Page 58]their own learned men, for the Primitive Practice of Communion in both kinds, as Albaspinaeus, de la Cerda, and many others, but it might be tedious to my Reader as well as my self; I will conclude with one whom Mon­sieur de Meaux is very well acquainted with, and whom he knows to be as great a Master in Antiquity and all Learning, as any the French Church now has; and I will beg leave to put the same words to Monsieur de Meaux, Negabitne hunc Eucharisticae sub utra (que) specie Communionis usum Apo­stolis temporibus fuisse? Multis (que) in­de saeculis apud Ecclesiam perseveras­se? Atqui hoc negare vel inficiari non potest, nisi vel in ultimâ indocto­rum, vel certé in primâ imprudenti­um hominum classe censeri velit. Pe­tav. de paenit. pub. c. 5., that he does to Monsieur Ar­naud, Will any one deny this use of the Eucharistic Communion to have been in both kinds, in the times of the Apostles? And that it continued in the Church many Ages after? No man can deny or question this, unless he be willing to be rec­koned either in the last rank of unlearned, or in the first of imprudent men.

And now having given so full a proof that the Com­munion in both kinds, was the Practice of the Primitive Church, which I have done so largely, because Monsieur de Meaux has the face to deny this, and to attempt to prove the contrary; it will be very strange if after so many Affirmative Evidences, who all unanimously and positively declare that the Communion was always in both kinds, there should be any Negative Testimonies produced to the contrary, who shall fully contradict these, and depose that it was very often the custom of the Church to Communicate but in one. Monsieur de Meaux has made it his business to do this, and brings se­veral instances out of Antiquity to shew, that the Com­munion was very frequently given in the Primitive Church but in one kind, as in the Communion of the Sick, the Communion of Infants, Domestic Communion, and which, as he tells us, is very surprizing, the Public Communion in the Church. If he can but make out one of these cu­stoms, to wit, the latter, that of Public Communion in [Page 59]the Church, it will be much more considerable than all his other; for if they should prove true, namely, that in particular and extraordinary cases of necessity, to which we know all positive precepts are to give way; the Communion was given but in one kind to those who were uncapable to receive both, as to sick Persons and Children, or that in times of Persecution Christians did carry home onely the Bread with them, that so they might eat it in private, when they could not so conve­niently carry home the Wine; What will this signifie to the justifying the Constant and Public Communions in one kind, when there are no such particular or extraor­dinary reasons for it, and the establishing this by a Law, as a standing and necessary Practice to be observed by the whole Church? The doing this, is as if the Jews, because whilst they were in the Wilderness they could not so well observe the Precept of Circumcision, and so were at that time for a particular reason excused from it, should ever after have omitted it as unnecessary, and have thought fit at last to forbid it by a Law of their Sanhedrim: This sure had been making too bold with a positive Precept, although there might be a particular case or instance wherein it was not so exactly to be ob­served: Every Christian is obliged to have and to read the Word of God, notwithstanding that there may be instances of some who are Dumb or Blind, who are un­capable and so excused from those otherwise necessary duties, as the Sick and the Captives, and the Deaf are, from coming to Public Prayers and Public Worship; and where there are the like particular exceptions, and as particular reasons for not receiving the Sacrament in both kinds, as in the Sick, and Infants, who cannot swal­low the Bread, the Abstemii, who naturally abhor Wine and the like, there without any derogating to the gene­ral Law of Christ, they may be dispensed withal by ver­tue of that necessity, which takes away the obligation of [Page 60]all positive Laws; but it will not at all follow from hence, that the Law does not oblige in all other cases. If Mon­sieur de Meaux therefore could prove, as he offers to do, but upon what false, or at least dubious grounds, I shall consider by and by, that the Sick and Infants who could not swallow the Bread did receive onely the Wine; and that in the times of Persecution when they could not come so often to the public Communion, that they com­municated at home onely of tha Bread which they could carry away and keep safely by them, when they could not so well either keep or carry away the Wine; this will by no means justifie the single Communion to all persons, and at all other times, when there is no such particular necessity or extraordinary reason for it: Though they might in those cases hope for the benefit of the Sa­crament, and not doubt but that God would bestow it upon them, though they received but in one kind, when they could not receive both, yet there is not the same reason to expect it at other times when we may, and so are obliged to both; as the Jews whilst in the Wilder­ness might hope to enjoy all the benefits of Circumcisi­on, and being in Covenant with God, though they did not then observe the Law and Institution of that Sacra­ment, but this they could not expect, but would certain­ly have forfeited, if they did not punctually observe it afterwards as it was commanded them.

And as for the two instances he brings of Public Com­munion in the Church in one kind, as on Good-Friday in the Latine Church, and all Lent in the Mass of the Pre­sanctified, in the Greek, were those true, as I shall shew they are not, but that both Species were used in both those Communions, yet they being such Communions as were particular to those days, and remarkably diffe­rent from the Communions at all other times of the year, would plainly prove, that the ordinary and usual Communions upon all other other days, and at all other [Page 61]times, were constantly in both kinds in the Latine and Greek Church: If they were not, why are these pickt out by him as single Instances of Communions in one kind? By this he plainly acknowledges, that these differed from the stated and constant Communions, and so confesses that those were in both kinds: And though he ventures to say, that in the ordinary Office the Church received ei­ther both species, or one onely; yet this is so wholly without any shadow of proof, that I wonder he would expose the credit of his learning, or his honesty upon so notorious a falshood, that has not the least Fig-leave to cover its shame; for as to the decrees of Pope Leo and Gelasius, against Communicating in one kind, to make these an Argument for it, is a piece of such refined art and skill, as no body but de Meaux could have found out or made use of; but because the strength of his Book lies upon the truth of these Instances of his, though I think that be already shaken, yet I shall take it down to the very foundation, and shew how weak that is, and how unable to bear what he would build upon it.

The first Custom he alledges of Communion in one kind, is that of the Sick; Communion of Sick. the two examples he gives of this, are Serapion and St. Ambrose, neither of which are sufficient to his purpose; As to the first, we have the ac­count of it in an Epistle of St. Dennis of Alexandria, in the History of Eusebius L. 6. c. 44.: He was in the state of Pe­nance, having lapsed in a former persecution, and at his death desired the Eucharist to be given as a token of Peace and Communion with the Church; which was a favour thought fit to be then granted to Penitents; to this pur­pose he sent for the Priest, but he being sick, and it being in the night-time, upon consideration of his extremity and nearness to death, for he had lain three days speech­less and senseless before he came to himself, and had de­sired this; the Priest, rather than he should want this comfort, sent him by the young man who came to him, [Page 62] a small parcel of the Eucharist, bidding him moisten it, and so put it into the mouth of the old man; which he did, and so he immediately gave up the Ghost: Now here, says de Meaux [...]. Ib., although it appears from this rela­tion, that the Priest sent onely to his Penitent that part of the Sacrament which was solid, in that he ordained onely the young man whom he sent, to moisten it in some liquor be­fore he gave it to the sick person; yet the good old man ne­ver complained that any thing was wanting. But how does it appear from this relation that he sent onely the Bread, or what was solid; does [...], a little of the Sacrament, which is the thing he is said to send, signifie onely Bread or the solid part? or does it not rather sig­nifie a little of both the Species which make the Sacra­ment; as it plainly does in Justin Martyr, who speaking of that Sacramental Food under both kinds, says, this [...] is called by us the [...] Apolog. 2.; And why might not he give him a little Wine as well as a little Bread? and why may we not suppose that the liquour he was to moisten the Bread in was the Wine? And not as Valesi­us, without any grounds, puts in his Translation Water: I believe it is a thing strange and unheard of in Antiqui­ty, to mix the Eucharistic Bread with meer Water, and so take it infused in Water without any Wine: Mon­sieur de Meaux who says the Custom of mixing the two species together, was not in use till after-Ages (not in public I own, but in private it might) will be more hard put to it to shew the custom of mixing the Species of Bread with Water; and this was so mixt with some liquor, that it was rather fluid than solid, and so was said to be infused or poured into his mouth [...]. Ib.. That the Wine was used to be carried to the sick as well as the Bread, is plain from Justin Martyr, if those who were absent from the Public Communion, were, as it is probable, the sick, for to them the Deacons carried the very same that they [Page 63]gave to those that were present, with­out any manner of difference [...]. Justin Mar­tyr. Apolog. 2., as is plain from that fore-quoted place in his second Apology. And St. Hierom re­lates of Exuperius, Bishop of Tholouse, that he carried the Body of our Lord in a Basket, and the Bloud in a Vessel of GlassQui corpus Domini canistrivi­mineo, sanguinem portat in vitro. Ep. ad Rustic. Monach., after he had sold the rich Utensils and Plate of the Church to relieve the Poor and redeem Captives: And the Council of Tours thought the Wine so necessary as well as the Bread, that it com­mands, that the Bread be always dipped in the Cup, that so the Priest may truly say the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ avail unto thee for the remission of Sins, and to eternal Life. This Cassan­der Ego sane demonstare possum e­tiam infirmis plenum corporis & san­guinis Sacramentam dispensatum, certè in promtu est Capitulum Turo­nensis Concilii quod ab Ivone, Regi­none & Burchardo anducitur, quo ju­betur ut Eucharistia quae in viaticum è vitâ excedentium rese vatur intin­cta sit in Calicem Dⁿⁱ. ut Presbyter veraciter possit dicere, Corpus & sanguis Dⁿⁱ. nostri Jesu Christi prosit tibi in vitam aeternam. Cassand. Dialog. apud Calixt. p. 5. produces as a demonstration that the Communion of the Sick used to be in both kinds; and the reason which is there given for this, is so considerable, that it plainly shews that both Species were necessary to make it a true Sacrament, and that neither the Body and Bloud of Christ, nor the vertue and benefit of them could be given without both: and this forces de Meaux to confessP. 52., after all his shifts and arti­fices, that in effect, it is true that in some sense, to be able to call it the Body and the Bloud, the two Species must be given. And further, from hence also the whole Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation and Concomitancy ground­ed upon it, whereby they suppose the Body and Bloud of Christ to be in either of the Species, is wholly over­thrown and destroyed; but this by the by: as to Sera­pion, it is strange that the Priest should not rather have sent him the Wine alone, if he had intended him but one Species, that being more fit to be received, and more proper to enter the parcht throat of an agonizing man, as [Page 64] de Meaux speaks, then the Bread, however moistened, and therefore it was provided both by the Cannons of some CouncilsConcil. Carthag. 4. To­led. 11. and the Decrees of some PopesPaschal. 2. Ʋrban. 2., that in cales of extraordinary necessity (which dispence with positive Precepts) the sick and dying who could not swallow the Bread, might Communicate onely with the Wine; but to give them onely Bread as de Meaux would have it in both his In­stances of Serapion and St. Ambrose, who were both a dy­ing, and not to give them the more proper Species of Wine, was very strange, if they had designed them but one onely Species without the other: But I pass to con­sider St. Ambrose by it self, Paulinus who wrote his Life, relates this of his Death, That Honoratus Bishop of Ver­ceills, being to visit him in the night whilst he was at his re­pose, he heard this Voice three times, Rise, stay not, he is a dying: He went down and gave him the Body of our Lord, and the Saint had no sooner received it, but he gave up the Ghost. So that it seems he died and received on­ly one kind; but who can help that, if he did, if he died before he could receive the other, as it is probable from the History he did: If the Roman Priests did like Honora­tus give onely the Bread to those, who when they have received it die before they can take the Cup; this would be a very justifiable excuse, and needs no great Authori­ty to defend it; but if they will undertake to prove that St. Ambrose had time enough to have received the Cup as well as the Bread before he died, which they must meerly by supposing some thing more than is in the Hi­story; then by the very same way I will prove that he did receive the Cup, and that that by a Syneckdoche is to be understood as well as the Bread, by the Body of Christ which he is there said to receive: And I am sure I have a better argument for this than they can have against it, or than these two Instances of Serapion and St. Ambrose are for the custom of Communicating the Sick in one [Page 65]kind, and that is a full proof of a contrary custom for their Communicating in both: I confess I cannot produce a­ny very ancient testimonies for this, because in the first Ages the faithful who used to receive the Communion very frequently in public, it being in its self and its own nature a true part of public Worship, did seldom or ne­ver take it upon their Death beds in privateVide Dallae­um de Cult. l. 4. c. 3.; and there­fore they who give us an account of the death of several very pious and devout Christians, as Athanasius of St. Antony, Gregory Nazianzen of Athanasius, of his own Father, and of his Sister Gorgonia, yet they never menti­on any thing of their receiving the Sacrament at their deaths; no more does Eusebius De vitâ Con­stant. l. 3. c. 46. in his History of the Death of Helena, the most zealous Mother of Constantine; but so soon as Christians came to receive the Sacrament as the most comfortable Viaticum at their deaths, which was not till after-Ages, then by whatever instances it appears that they received it at all, it appears also, that they received it in both kinds; and it is plain, that a­mong the numerous examples of this nature, which are to be found in Bede and Surius, and the Writers of the Saints Lives, there is not one to be produced to the con­trary; else no doubt the learned Bishop of Meaux, who picks up every thing that seems to make for his pur­pose, and who was fain to content himself with those two insignificant ones of Serapion and St. Ambrose, would not have omitted them. I shall mention some few in opposition to those two of his, of those who according to St. Austine's advice,Quoties aliqua infirmitas su­pervenerit, Corpus & sanguinem Christi ille qui aegrotat, accipiat. Sermo. 215 de Tempore. When they were sick, did partake both of the Body and of the Bloud of Christ, contrary to what they would have Paulinus report of St. Ambrose to St. Austine himself, that he did onely receive the Body: And the first shall be that of Valentinus of Pavia, in the fifth Century,Ante o­bitum propriis manibus accepit corporis & sanginis Domini Sacramentum. Surius August. 4. who before his death took with [Page 66]his own hands the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. The second, that of Elpidius, as it is in the next Century reported by Gregory the Great [...]. Gregorii Di­alog. 616. [...]., That calling his Brethren, and standing in the midst of them, he took the Body and the Blood of the Lord, and continuing in pray­er, gave up the Ghost: And he menti­ons this no less then of three others in the same Dialogues, and in his Office for Visiting the Infirm, after Prayers and other things, then says he,Deinde communicet eum corpore & sanguine Domini. Gregor. Sa­cram. Visit. infirm. Let the Priest Communi­cate him with the Body and Bloud of Christ. In the same Age the Writer of St. Vedastus his Life, says,Sacrosancto Corporis & sangui­nis Domini Viatico confirmatus obiit. Alcuin in vit. Vedast. He died, being confirmed with the most sacred Viaticum of the Body and Blood of Christ. And the same al­so of Richarius, very near in the same words; Isidore, the famous Bishop of Sevil, Received with a profound sigh the Body and Bloud of the Lord, and died presently afterCorpus & sanguinem Domini cum profundo gemitu suscepit. Re­demptus de obit. Isidor.: And to go down no lower than the next Age, Bede then re­ports of Ceadda, a British Bishop, That he fortified his departure with the perception of the Body and Bloud of our Lord seven days before Obitum suum Dominici Corporis & sanguinis perceptione septimo ante mortem die munivit. Bed. Hist. Angl. l. 4.: And the same of St. Cuthbert, Who re­ceived from him the most wholsome Sacra­ments of Christ's Body and Bloud Acceptis à me Sacramentis sa­lutaribus Dominici Corporis & San­guinis. Id. in vit. Cuthberti.. And thus did that glorious Prince Charles the Great, make his pious exit, Commanding his most familiar Priest Hiltibald, to come unto him and give him the Sacraments of the Lords Body and Bloud Jussit familiarissimum Pontifi­cem suum Hiltibaldum venire ad se ut ei Sacramenta Dominici Corporis & Sanguinis tribueret. Eginhard vit. Caroli Mag.. And the same universal Custom and Practice I might bring down to all those other Ages that succeed, till a new Doctrine of the Sacrament brought in a new Practice by degrees; but I cannot omit one in the [Page 67]Eleventh Age, though it has a Legendary Miracle joyn­ed with it; 'tis an account Damianus Presbyterum quendam Cumanae Ecclesie Eucharistium detalisse aegro­to, illum mox cum in Ecclesiam redi­ens aliquantulum Dominici sanguinis comperisset remansisse in calice — Pe­ri Damian. Opusc. gives of a Priest, Who had carried the Eucharist to a sick person, and by negli­gence brought back, and left in the Cup a little of the Bloud of the Lord: So that it is plain, nowithstanding the fear either of keeping or spilling, they carried the Wine with them to the sick as well as the Bread, and Communicated them with both: And now if we adde to these the Decree of Pope Paschal the Second, forbidding to mix the Sacra­mental Elements, but to give them seperately and di­stinctly, unless to young Children and to the Sick (which exception makes it unquestionable, that both were then given to the Sick) and the fore-mentioned Canon of the Council of Tours, which is in Burchard, Ivo, and Regino, commanding the Bread to be dipt in the Wine, that the Priest may truely say to the sick, The Body and Bloud of Christ be profitable to thee; these being all laid together, make it clear beyond all contradiction, that the Commu­nion of the Sick was not, as de Meaux pretends, in one kind, but in both: and as a parting blow upon this point, I shall onely offer that observation of their own learned Menardus Cum communicat infirmus quem vis morbi non ad tantam virium im­becillitatem adduxit dicitur utrâ (que) formâ Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat te in vitam aeter­nam, sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Chri­sti redimat te in vitam aeternam, quae distinctam sumptionem indicant; at dum communicat infirmus qui ingra­vari caeperit, unica tantum formula recitatur in hunc modum Corpus & Sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam ae­ternam. Menard. notae in Greg. Sacram. p. 379, 380., from an ancient Mass, in his Notes upon the Sacramenta­ry of St. Gregory, that in case the sick person was in a condition to receive the Elements separately, then this form was used, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep thee to eternal Life; The Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thee to e­ternal Life; which, says he, shews a di­stinct Sumption: If he was in such weak­ness and extremity as to have them gi­ven mixt, then it was said, The Body and Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul to [Page 68]Eternal Life: which as well shews a Sumption of both the Elements, though in a different manner, according to the different state of the sick per­son.

The Communion of Infants is the next custom alledged by this Author;Communion of Infants. it was a very ancient, and almost uni­versal practice of the Church, to give the Eucharist to little Children as soon as they were Baptized, thinking it to be as necessary to their Salvation as Baptism, and that they were as capable of the one as the other; and therefore the Council of Trent, which has condemned all those who say the Eucharist is necessary for Infants, has herein determined against the general sence and practice of the Church, and put no less men than St. Austin and Innocent, a Pope of their own, notwithstanding his In­fallibility, who were notoriously of this Opinion, under an Anathema; which, how they can reconcile with their other principles of following Tradition, and of the Churches Infallibility in all Ages, I shall leave to them to consider and make out if they can: But as to our pre­sent question, when the Communion was thus given to Infants, I utterly deny that it was onely in one kind; I cannot indeed produce so many proofs that it was in both, as in the Sick, because there was not so much occa­sion in any History to make mention of the one as the other; but that which was the very ground and founda­tion of this Practice of Communicating Infants, and the reason why they thought it necessary to their Salvation, namely, those words of our Saviour, John 6.53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you: these do suppose an equal necessity to drink the Bloud as to eat the Flesh, and to do both as well as one: And hence St. Austine who denys, as he says, all Catholics do with him, That Infants can have Life without partaking of the Eucharist, expresses it in such words as suppose plainly their partaking of both kinds, [Page 69] viz. Parvulos sine cibo carnis Christi & sanguinis potu vitam non habitu­ros — sine participatione corporis & sanguinis Domini. Ep. 106. Their distinct eating the flesh and drinking the bloud of Christ; as other Authors also do, who mention this ve­ry thing in relation to InfantsNon cibatis carne ne (que) potatis sanguine Christi Hipogn. l. 5. Corpo­ris Dominici edulio ac sanguinis hau­stu satiatos. Liber Catoh. magni de Imag. c. 27.; and Pope Paschal the Second, who in the e­leventh Century, allows the mixing the two species for Infants, by this means appoints them to take both, and supposes it an original custom to do so; and if we had nothing else, yet the re­maining custom in the Greek and Eastern, and in all Churches that still continue the Communion of Infants, to Communicate them in both kinds, is as full an evi­dence of this as can be expected: And de Meaux has not been able to offer any one example to the contrary, but that poor one out of St. Cyprian, which if it proves any thing, it proves that the whole Christian Assembly received onely the Cup in their public and solemn Meet­ings, as well as the Infant he mentions; which he is not so hardy as to venture to say, nor dare any one that un­derstands any thing of St. Cyprian's time; but the Story he would improve to his purpose is this:Cyprian de Lausis p. 132. Edit Oxon. A Child who had been carried by its Nurse to an Idol Temple, and had there tasted of a little Bread and Wine that was Sacri­ficed, this was afterwards brought by its Mother, who knew nothing of this matter, to the Christian Assembly, and there it discovered the strange misfortune had be­fallen to it; For all the time of the Prayers it was in great trouble and uneasiness, it cried and tost and was impatient, as if it had been in a fit and an agony, and seemed to confess that by its actions, which it could not by words; thus it continued whilst the Solemn Offices were performed, and to­wards the end of them, when the Deacon bringing the Cup a­bout to all the rest, at last came to that, it turned a­way its face and kept its lips close, and would not receive it, but the Deacon poured in a little into its mouth against its will, which it quickly brought up again, not being able to re­tain [Page 70]what was so holy and sacred in its impure and pollu­ted stomack: This was a miraculous and extraordina­ry warning to others not to partake with any part of the Idol Worship or Offerings, which they were in that time greatly tempted to; and for this purpose St. Cy­prian relates the thing of his own knowledge, he being an eye-Witness of it: But Monsieur de Meaux would have this serve to shew, that the Child had the Cup one­ly given to it, there being no mention of the Bread, and therefore that it received but in one kind, and conse­quently that it was the custom for Infants to receive but in one kind in St. Cyprian's time; if so, then it was the custom also for all Christians in their Religious As­semblies to receive onely in one kind; for St. Cyprian mentions nothing at all of the Bread in this place given to the rest, any more than to the Child; and if de Meaux or any one that pretends to any thing of Learning, will assert this, That in St. Cyprian's time Christians in the public Communion received but one Species, and that this Species was that of Wine; I'll willingly give them this instance of the Child, and take them up upon the o­ther, where I am sure I have all the learned men that e­ver read St. Cyprian, or understand any thing of Antiqui­ty, on my side: But why does not St. Cyprian mention a­ny thing of the Bread, if that were then given to the Child or others? Because he had no reason to do it in this short relation, which was not to give an account of all that was then done by the Christians in their Religious Offi­ces, but onely of this accident which happened to the Child at that time, it being his business in that Discourse to deter men from joyning in the Pagan Idolatry, from the terrible Judgements of God upon several who had done this; and after this remarkable instance of the Child, he relates another of a man who had received the Bread in the Sacrament Sacrificio à sacerdote ce­lebrato, partem cum caeteris au­sus est latenter accipere, sanctum Domini edere & contrectare non potuit, cinerem ferre se apertis manibus invenit. Cyp. Ib. de Laps. (so that they received that, it [Page 71]seems, as well as the Wine) which was as miraculously turn­ed into Ashes. But why was not the Child as much disturb­ed at the receiving the Bread, if that was given it, as at the receiving the Wine? Why so it was, during the whole time of being there at the Prayers, and at the whole So­lemnity it was under the same trouble, agitation, and dis­composure, but most remarkably at the end and con­clusion of all when it had taken the whole Sacrament.

If the other Christians received the other part of the Sacrament, though it be not mentioned, so might this child; and as, I think, none will from hence attempt to shew that all Christians were then deprived of the Bread, so it is plain, they all had the Cup, and that the Children as well as the Adult, did then partake of both, appears from the same Treatise of St. Cyprian de Lapsis, where he represents the Children who were thus carried to partake of the Idol Offerings, as blaming their Parents for it, and making this Vindication for them­selves,Nos nihil secimus nec derelicto cibo & poculo Domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus — Perdidit nos aliena persidia. Cypr. de Laps. We have not left the Meat nor the Cup of the Lord, nor gone of our selves to the profane Banquets, but anothers per­fidiousness has destroyed us. So that they were then to partake not onely of the Cup, but of the Meat of the Lord.

Monsieur de Meaux was in a great streight sure for some other instances of the Communion of Children in one kind, when he brings inP. 91, 92, 94. the School-Boys at Constan­tinople, who according to Evagrius Hist. l. 4., had the remainders of the Bread that was left at the Communion given to them; which custom he finds also in a French CouncilMascon.; Were these Boys true Communicants for all that? were not the Elements given them, as they were some­times to the Poor, who were not present at the Office, meerly that they might consume them, that so they might not be undecently kept or carried away? As for the same reason it was the custom to burn them in the [Page 72]Church of Hierusalem Hesych. in Levit. l. 2. c. 8., and as it is now with us in the Church of England, for the Communicants to eat them before they go out of the Church: If we should have some remainders of consecrated Bread which we might call the particles of Christ's Body, as Evagrius there does, would the eating of them be an argument that we had a custom to Communicate in one kind; and yet Monsieur de Meaux's Wit and Eloquence must be laid out on such ridiculous things as these, to shew what Customs there re­main in History in testimony against the Protestants, P. 94. and how the Communion of some Infants under the sole Species of Wine, and some under that of Bread, is a clear conviction of their errour. It would be to little other purpose, but to tire my self and my Reader to follow that great man through all his little Arguments and Authorities of this Nature, and especially into the dark and blind paths of later Ages, when Superstition and Ignorance lead men out of the way, both of Scripture and Antiquity, which are the good old Paths that we are resolved to walk in. His French Answerers, I hear, have pursued him through all these, and driven him out of every private skulking-hole he would make to himself: I am rather for meeting him in the open Field, and for engaging his main strength, and most considerable arguments and objections; and I se­riously profess, though I never met with any Book written so shrewdly and cunningly, with so much Art and Eloquence, upon a subject that I thought could hardly bear it, though it stood in need of it above a­ny other; yet there is not any thing of strength in it, that I have not fairly considered, and I hope fully an­swered.

The third Custom is the Domestic Communion, Of Domestic Communion. when af­ter the Christians had received the Sacrament in their publick Meetings, they carried it also home with them to receive it alone in their private Houses; this must be allowed also to be very ancient, being mentioned both [Page 73]by Tertullian Accepto corpore Domini & Re­servato de orat. Cap. ult. Nesciat maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gustes. Ad Uxor. l. 2. and St. Cyprian Cum quaedam arcam suam, in quâ Domini sanctum fuit. De Laps., and the reason of it was, that in those times of Persecution when they could not come so frequently to the public Com­munions, and yet stood in need of the greatest aids and supports, they might not want the benefit and comfort of what was so precious to them; but though there might be great zeal and piety in this practice, yet I cannot wholly excuse it from superstition, nor think it to be any thing less than an abuse of the Sa­crament; and the same opinion the Church quickly had of it, and therefore universally forbad itConcil. Cae­sar Augustan.; and as Peta­vius says,De paenit. publ. l. 1. c. 7. It would be now a very punishable action, and accounted a great profanation of the Sacrament. Howe-ever angry Monsieur de Meaux is with the Protestants for calling it soP. 105., undoubtedly the Eucharist was not in­tended by our Saviour for any such private use, but to be a public part of Christian Worship, and a solemn Com­memoration of his Death and Passion: And I know not how to call this a true or perfect Communion, unless as it was a part of the same Communion that was in the Church; as the sending a person part of the entertain­ment at a common Feast or Banquet, is a making him partaker of the same Feast, though he be not present at the Table, but eats it by himself; however, let it be al­lowed to be never so true a Communion, yet I know no advantage that can be made of it, to the purpose of Com­munion in one kind, unless it can be made appear, that after the Faithful had communicated of both kinds in the Church, that they onely reserved and carried home one Species to be received in their private Houses: How improbable is this, if it be granted that they received both in public, which is not denied; why should not they be as desirous to partake of both at home, as they were in the Church? Ʋpon what account, as de Meaux says,P. 114. should they refuse them both? And believe that the [Page 74]the sacred Body with which they trusted them, was more pre­cious than the Bloud? He is forced to own, That the Bloud was not refused to the Faithful to carry with them, when they required it P. 113.. And why they should not desire that as well as the other, I cannot imagine; the onely argument he has against it, is that they could not keep it any long time: But could not they keep it so long as till the next publick Communion? could they not con­serve the Wine in little Vessels to that purpose, as well as the Bread? Does Nature it self, as he pretends, more op­pose the one than the other? when we find by experience that Wine will keep much longer without corruption than Bread; What a vain cavil is it therefore, which be­gins and runs through his whole Book, to make us be­lieve, that the Christians so often communicated under the species of Bread alone, because the species of Wine could not be either so long or so easily reserved, being too subject to al­teration; and Jesus Christ would not that any thing should appear to the sense in this Mystery of Faith, contrary to the ordinary course of Nature P. 9.. But it is matter of fact we have now to do with, and that must be made out, not by slight surmises, but by good testimony; and whe­ther the Christians when this custom of Domestic Com­munion was in use among them, did not reserve and car­ry home both kinds, the Wine as well as the Bread, let us now examine: Monsieur de Meaux has not one Au­thority that proves any thing more, than that they used to reserve the Sacrament or Body of Christ, which by a Synecdoche is a common phrase in Ecclesiastical Writers for the whole Eucharist, and is used by Tertullian and St. Cyprian, where the two Species were unquestionably u­sed, as in the Public Communion; St. Basil who speaks of the Communion of Hermits, and who is produced as an evidence by de Meaux, that they communicated in the Deserts, advises them expresly to partake of the Body and of the Bloud of Christ [...]. Basil. Ep. 280.; and when those Solitarys [Page 75]had the Communion brought to them, that it was in both kinds, appears from their own Cardinal Bona Re um Ly­turg. l. 2. c. 18., in the relation of Zozimus, an Abbot of a Monastery, his carrying in a Vessel a portion of the sacred Body and Bloud of Christ, to one Mary of Aegypt, who had lived forty se­ven years in the Wilderness. That those who communi­cated at home had both kinds sent to them, appears e­vidently from Justin Martyr Apolog. 2., and de Meaux owns from him, That the two species 'tis true, were carried P. 112.; but this, says he, was presently after they had been consecrated. Not till the Public Communion was over, and then also the Faithful carried away what they reserved; but it does not appear that they kept them; nor does it appear to the contrary, but they might have kept them if they had pleased.

He who wrote the Life of St. Basil, by the name of Amphilochius, reports the story of a Jew, who being got secretly among the Christians at the time of Communi­on, communicated with them, and took the Sacrament first of the Body, and then of the Bloud; and then took and carried away with him [...]. Amphiloch. vit. Basil. c. 7. some part of each of the Elements, and shewed them to his Wife, to confirm the truth of what he had done. Monsieur de Meaux has made no objection to the credit of this Writer; and no doubt had it not been usual for Christians to carry away both the Elements, the Writer of that Life, let him be who he will, had not told so improbable a Story.

Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 11. relates of his Sister Gorgonia, That what her hands had treasured up of the Anti-types of the pre­cious Body or Bloud of Christ, that she mingled with her tears, and anointed her self withal. So that it seems her hands treasured up both the Species or Anti-types, as he calls them; and it is a mighty subtilty to say, She did not treasure them up both together, when she certainly treasured up both.

But if we had no such instances as these, there are two such unanswerable Authorities against de Meaux his Opi­nion, That the faithful carried home only the Bread, and communicated but in one kind, as are enough to make him give up this part of the Cause, and those are the fa­mous Albaspinaeus, Bishop of Orleans, and Cardinal Baroni­us, two men whose skill in Antiquity is enough to weigh down whatever can be said by de Meaux, or any other, and whose words will go farther in the Church of Rome than most mens; and they are both positive, that not onely the Bread, but that the Wine also was reserved and carried home by Christians in their Domestic Commu­nions; Ʋpon what account can they prove, says Albaspinae­us Sed quo tandem pacto probare poterunt Laicis Eucharistiam sub spe­cie panis domum portare licuisse, sub vini non licuisse. Albaspin. Obser­vat. 4. l. 1., that it was lawful for Laics to carry home the Eucharist under the Species of Bread, and not under the Species of Wine? Consider, says Baronius Hic Lector considera quàm pro­cul abhorreant à Patrum Traditione usu (que) Ecclesiae Catholicae qui nostro tempore Heretici negant, asservan­dam esse Sacratissimam Eucharisti­am quam videmus non sub specie pa­nis tantum sed sub specie vini olim consuevisse recondi. Baron. Annal. an. 404. n. 32. to his Reader, how the Hereticks of our time differ from the Tradition of the Fathers, and the Cu­stom of the Catholic Church, who deny that the Eucharist is to be reserved, when we see it used to be kept, not onely in the Species of Bread, but in the Species of Wine. And that he meant this of private reservation as well as in the Church, he goes on further, to prove this keeping of both Species by the Authority of Grego­ry the Great, who gives an account in his Dialogues of one Maximianus a Monk, and others his Companions, who being in a great Storm and Tempest at Sea, and in great danger of their Lives, they took the Sacrament which they had carried with them, and in both kinds received the Body and Bloud of their Re­deemer [...]. Greg. Dia­log. Graecè. l. 3. c. 36.: But to this says Monsieur de Meaux, To shew the faithful had kept the two Species in their Vessel from Rome to Constantinople, it ought before to have been certain that [Page 77]there was no Priest in this Vessel, or that Maximian, of whom St. Gregory speaks in this place, was none, though he was the Superiour of a Monastery. But Gregory speaks not a word of any Priest being there, and Maximian might be no Priest, though he were Superiour of a Monastery, for they and the Monks were often no Priests; but if a Priest had been there, it had been unlawful for him, ac­cording to the Principles of the Roman Church, to have Consecrated the Eucharist in such a Tempest, in an un­consecrated place, and at Sea; where according to Cas­sander Lyturgic. c. 34. Haec Missa sic­ca, i. e. sine consecratione & com­municatione, etiam navalis seu nau­tica dicitur, eò quòd in loco fluctu­ante & vacillante ut in mari & fla­minibus, quibus in locis plenam mis­sam celebrandam non putant. In li­bello ordinis Missae secundum usum Romanae Ecclesiae., they are not permitted to use Consecration, nor to have the full Mass, but onely what he calls the Missa sicca, and the Missa Navalis: and it is plain Baronius, with whose Authority I am now urging de Meaux, is of the mind that the faithful did carry the two Spe­cies in their Vessel, for he says so expresly in so many wordsIn Navi portasse Navigantes Christi Corpus & Sanguinem. Ba­ron. Annal. an. 404. n. 32.: There is no get­ting off the plain and evident Authority of these two great men for receiving the Eucharist in both kinds; Monsieur de Meaux, though he heaves a little, yet cannot but sink under it, and it makes him confess, That these passages may very well prove that the Bloud was not refused to the faithful to carry with them, if they re­quired it, but can never prove that they could keep it any long time, since that Nature it self opposes it. So that if Nature be not against keeping the Wine, Custom and Au­thority it seems are for it; and I dare say, that Nature will suffer the Wine to be kept as long as the Bread; howe­ver, they who are such friends to Miracles, and have them so ready at every turn, especially in the Sacrament, have no reason methinks to be so afraid of Nature.

Monsieur de Meaux passes next to the Public Commu­nion in the Church;Of Public Communion in the Church. And if he can prove that to have been in one kind, he has gained his main point, however [Page 78]unsuccessfully he has come off with the rest; though we see all his other pretences are too weak to be defended, and we have destroyed, I think, all his out-works, yet if he can but maintain this great fort, he saves the Ca­pitol, and preserves the Romish Cause: He has used, I confess, all imaginable stratagems to do it, and has en­deavoured to make up his want of strength, with subtle­ty and intrigue. He will not pretend it was a constant custom to have the Public Communion in one kind, but that it was free for Christians to receive either both Species, or one only, in the Church it self, and in their solemn Assemblies; and that they did this on some particular days and occasions, as in the Latine Church on Good-Fri­day, and almost all Lent in the Greek. Now though we have made it out, that the whole Catholic Church did generally in their Public Communions use both kinds, yet if they left it free to Christians to receive one or both as they pleased, or to receive sometimes both, and some­times one, this if it can be proved, will shew that they thought Communion in one might be lawful and suffici­ent, and that it was not necessary to be in both: Let us therefore see what evidence there is for any such thing, for it looks very strangely, that the Church in all its Ly­turgies, in all the accounts of celebrating the Communi­on, should always use both kinds to all that partook of the Sacrament, and yet leave it free to Christians to receive it in one if they pleased, and that on some few days they should give the same Sacrament in a quite dif­ferent manner then they used at all other times; this if it be true, must be very odd and unaccountable, and unless there be very full and evident proof of it, we may cer­tainly conclude it to be false: What cloud of witnesses then does de Meaux bring to justifie this, what names of credit and authority does he produce for it? Why, not one, not so much as a single testimony against the uni­versal suffrage of the whole Church, and of the most [Page 79]learned of our Adversaries, who all agree in this truth, That the Public Communion was in both kinds for above a thousand years: Is there any one Writer in all the Ten, nay, Twelve Centuries, who plainly contradicts it? a­ny one between the Apostles and Thomas Aquinas, who says, it was the Custom of the Catholic Church or any part of it, to Communicate onely in one kind? Nay, can de Meaux shew any particular persons, or any sort of Christians that ever were in the World before the thir­teenth Age, that were against both kinds, and received onely in one, except the Manichees, a sort of vile and a­bominable Hereticks, who are the onely Instances in An­tiquity for Communion in one kind: These men be­lieving Christ not to have really shed his Blood, but one­ly in phantasm and appearance, would not take the Sacra­ment of his Bloud, and by the same reason neither should they have taken that of his Body; and thinking Wine not to be the Creature of God, the Father of Christ, but of the Devil, or some evil Principle or bad Spirit, and so calling it the Gall of the Dragon; they had a general ab­horrence from it, and so would not receive it in the Sa­crament: Pope Leo heard that several of these were at Rome, and that to cover their infidelity, and skulk more securely,Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse myste­riis, ita in Sacramentorum Commu­nione se temperant, ut interdum tuti­ùs lateant ore indigno Christi Cor­pus accipiunt, Sanguinem autem Re­demptionis nostrae haurire omnino de­clinant, Quod ideo vestram volumus scire sanctitatem ut vobis hujusmodi homines & his manisestentur indici­is, & quorum deprehema fuerit sacri­lega simulatio, notati & proditi, à sanctorum societate sacerdotali au­ctoritate pellantur. Leo Sermo 4 de Quadrag. they came to the public Assemblies, and were present at the very Sacrament; but yet they did so order themselves at the Communion, that so they might the more safely hide them­selves, and be undiscovered: They take with their unworthy mouth the Body of Christ, but they refused to drink his Blood; this he gave notice of to his Roman Con­gregation, that so these men might be made manifest to them by these marks and to­kens, that their sacrilegious disimulation being apprehended, they might be markt and discovered, and so expelled or ex­communicated [Page 80]from the society of the Faithful, by the Priest­ly Authority. Now how can all this, which shews plain­ly, that the Communion at Rome was in both kinds, be turned to the advantage of Communion in one; this re­quires the slight and the dexterity of Monsieur de Meaux, and 'tis one of the most artificial fetches that ever were; It is the onely argument which he has to prove that the Public Communion was not in both kinds; This remark upon the words of Pope Leo, and upon the Decree of Ge­lasius. which is much of the like nature; This fraudulent design, says he, of the Manichees, could hardly be discover­ed, because Catholics themselves did not all of them Commu­nicate under both Species. But how knows he that? That is the question that is not to be begged, but pro­ved; and 'tis a strange way of proving it by no other medium but onely supposing it, and that very groundlesly and unreasonably: Is this poor weak supposition to bear the weight of that bold assertion which contradicts all manner of Evidence and Authority, that the Public Communion in the Church was in one kind? If it had been so, and Catholics had not all of them Communica­ted under both Species, the Manichees would not have been discovered at all, for they would have done the same the Catholics did, and to all outward appearance been as good Catholics as they; they might have kept their Opinion and Heresie to themselves, and that it seems they intended to dissemble and keep private; but as to their Practice it would have been but the same with others, and so they could not have been found out or dis­covered by that; But it was taken notice of at the last, says de Meaux, that these Heretics did it out of affectation, insomuch that the holy Pope, St. Leo the Great, would that those who were known as such by this mark, should be expel­led the Church. How does it appear that their affectati­on was taken notice of? or that they did it out of that? does Pope Leo say any thing of this? but onely points at [Page 81]their Practice without so much as intimating their rea­son; Was their affectation the mark by which the Pope would have them known? As de Meaux slighly, but not honestly, makes him speak, by putting those words of his, as relating to his own that went before, whereas in Leo they relate not to the doing it outof affectation, for he speaks not a word of that, but meerly to the not drinking the Bloud; This was the onely mark by which they were known as such; by these indicia, these marks and tokens of not drinking the Bloud, they were to be known, and discovered, and made manifest, according to the words of St. Leo, by their visible Practice, not by their Opinion or their Affectation; and for this they were to be expelled the Society of Christians, because they refused to drink the Bloud of our Redemption, without regard to their private or particular reasons, which St. Leo takes no notice of: These cunning and dissembling He­retics to cover their dissimulation and infidelity, and hide themselves the better, which was it seems their main end and design, might take the Cup, but yet not drink of it nor tast the least drop of Wine; and for this cause there must have been time and a particular vigilance to discern these Heretics from amongst the Faithful, and not because there was a general liberty to receive one or both Species; as de Meaux pretends, That liberty is a ve­ry strange thing which has no manner of evidence for it, which Pope Leo says nothing of, but the quite contrary, namely, that the Body and Bloud were both received in the Communion; and which if it had been allowed, as it would have bred infinite confusion in the Church, so the Manichees might have made use of it to their wicked purpose, of receiving onely in one kind. The continu­ance of this fraud and dissimulation, either in the Mani­chees or some other Heretics and superstitious Christians, for it does not appear who they were caused a necessity at last in the time of Pope Gelasius, to make an express Or­der [Page 82]and Decree against the sacrilegious dividing of the Sacrament, and the taking of one Species without the o­ther: And let us now come to consider that, as it is in Gratian's Decree, Comperimus autem quod qui­dam sumptâ tantummodò corporis sa­cri portione à calice Sacrati cruoris abstineant, qui proculdubiò (quoniam nescio quâ superstitione docentur a­stringi) aut integra Sacramenta per­cipiant aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius ejusdem (que) mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest per­venire. Gratian. decret. 3. pars dist. 2. We find, says he, that some taking onely a portion of the Body, abstain from the Cup of the holy Bloud, which persons (because they seem to ad­here to I know not what superstition) let them either take the Sacraments entirely, or else be wholly kept from them, because the division of one and the same Mystery cannot be without great Sacriledge. Can any thing be more plain or more full than this against mangling and dividing the blessed Sacrament, and against taking it in one kind? is it possible to put by such a home-thrust against it as this is? and will it not require great art to turn this into an argument for Communion in one kind, which is so directly against it? Surely the sub­stance of words and arguments must be annihilated and transubstantiated into quite another thing, before this can be done: Let us see another tryal of Monsieur de Meaux's skill, Gelasius, says he, was obliged to forbid expresly to Communicate any other ways then under both Species: A signe that the thing was free before, and that they would not have thought of making this Ordinance, but to take from the Manicheans the means of deceiving. Was it then free till the time of Pope Gelasius, to receive either in one or both kinds? does any such thing appear in the whole Christian Church? or is there any instance of any one Public Communion without both kinds? is a Decree of a Church-Governour upon a particular occasi­on against particular Heretics and superstitious Persons new rose up, and persuant to a general Law of Christi­anity, and the Custom of the whole Church? is that a sign the thing was free before? Then it was free for Christians not to come to the Sacrament at all, before [Page 83]such and such Councils and Bishops commanded them to come at such times: Then it was free for the Priests who minister'd, to receive but in one kind, before this Decree of Gelasius, for 'tis to those it is refer'd in Gratian, where the title of it is, The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ, without the Bloud Corpus Christi sine ejus san­guine sacerdos non debet accipere. Ib.. Though there is no mention of the Priest in the Decree, neither was there in the title in the ancient MSS Copies, as Cassander assures usEp. 19.; and it seems plainly to concern neither the Priest nor the Faithful, who by a constant and universal custom recei­ved in both kinds, but onely those superstitious persons who were then at Rome, and, for I know not what rea­son, refused the Cup; and though there was a particu­lar reason to make this Decree against them, yet there needed no reason to make a Decree for the Faithful, who always Communicated in both kinds, and it is plain from hence, did so in the time of Gelasius.

The motive inducing this Pope to make this Decree was, because he found that some did not receive the Blood as well as the Body; and the reason why they did not, was some either Manichean or other Superstiti­on; so that this Decree, I own, was occasioned by them, and particularly relates to them, and shews that they herein differed from the Faithful, not onely in their su­perstition, but in the practice too; but to say that he forbad this practice onely in respect of such a Superstiti­on going along with it, and that he did not forbid the Practice it self, which was the effect of it, is so notori­ously false, that the Decree relates wholly to the Pra­ctice, and as to the Superstition it does not inform us what it was, or wherein it consisted; no doubt it must be some Superstition or other, that hinders any from ta­king the Cup, the superstitious fear of spilling Christ's Blood, or the superstitious belief that one Species con­tains both the Body and Bloud together, and so conveys [Page 84]the whole vertue of both; which is truely Superstition, as having no foundation in Scripture, or in the Instituti­on of Christ, which gives the Sacrament its whole ver­tue, and and annexs it not to one but to both Species. And whatever the Superstition be, Gelasius declares it is Sacriledge to divide the Mystery, or to take one Species without the other; the reason which he gives against ta­king one kind, is general and absolute, because the My­stery cannot be divided without Sacriledge; so that how­ever our Adversaries may assoile themselves from the Su­perstition in Gelasius, they can never get off from the Sa­criledge: How wide these conjectures from Pope Leo and Gelasius are from the mark, which de Meaux aims at, I shall let him see from one of his own Communion, whose knowledge and judgement in antiquity was no way infe­riour to his own, and his honesty much greater; who thus sums up that matter against one that would have strained and perverted it to the same use that de Meaux does:Conjectura vero quam adfert ex Leonis Sermone & Gelasii decreto prorsus contrarium evincit, nam ex iis Manifestè constat, horum Pontificum temporibus Communionem non nisi in utrâ (que) specie in Ecclesiâ usitatam fu­isse; Quomodo enim Manichaei hâc notâ deprehenderentur, quod ingre­dientes Ecclesiam, percepto cum reli­quis corpore Domini à sanguine Re­demptionis abstinerent nisi calix Do­minici sanguinis distributue fuisset & quomodo superstitionis convincerentur qui sumptâ Dominici corporis pertio­ne, à calice sacrati cruoris abstinerent nisi calix ille sacrati cruoris omnibus in Ecclesiâ fuisset oblatus? non igi­tur ut quidam existimant novo de­creto utrius (que) speciei usum hi sanctis­simi Pontisices edixerunt sed eos qui solennem hunc & receptum calicis su­mendi morem neglexerunt, ille ut heresis Manichaeae affines notandos & evitandos, hic ad usita­tatam integri Sacramenti perceptionem compellendos aut ab omni prorsus Communione arcendos censait, Nam Catholicis novo decreto non opus erat qui receptam integra Sacramenta percipiendi consuetudinem religiosè servabant. Cassand. de Com. sub utrâ (que) p. 1026. The Conjecture, says he, which he makes from the Sermon of Pope Leo, and the Decrees of Gelasius, does wholly evince the contrary to what he pretends, for from them it manifestly appears, that in the time of these two Popes, the Communion was one­ly used in both kinds; for how should the Manichees be known by this mark, that when they came to the Churches, they ab­stained from the Bloud of our Redemption, after they had with others, taken the Bo­dy of the Lord; unless the Cup of the Lord had been distributed? and how should they be convicted of Superstition, who took a portion of the Lord's Body, and abstained [Page 85]from the Cup, unless the Cup of his sacred Bloud had been offered to all in the Church? These holy Popes did not there­fore, as some imagine, appoint the use of both Species by a new Decree, but those who neglected this solemn and recei­ved custom of taking the Cup; one of these Popes would have them avoided and markt as those, who were a-kin to the Ma­nichean Heresie; the other would have them compelled to the accustomed perception of the entire Sacrament, or else to be wholly kept from all Communion, for there was need of no new Decree for the Catholics who did Religiously observe the received custom of taking the Sacrament entirely, that is, in both kinds.

There needs much better Arguments to prove the Public Communion in the Church to have been ever in one kind, than such improbable Guesses and forced Con­jectures, whereby plain and full evidences are rackt and tortured to get that out of them, which is contrary to their whole testimony, sense, and meaning. Let us en­quire then, whether any particular instances can be given as matters of fact, which will make it appear, that the Church ever used onely one kind in its Public Commu­nions; this de Meaux attempts to shew in the last place, and as the strongest evidence he can rally up for his o­therwise vanquisht cause: He brings both the Latine and Greek Church to his assistance, though the latter he owns, appears not for the most part, very favourable to Commu­nion under one Species, but yet this manner of Communica­ting is practised however, and consecrated too by the Tra­dition of both Churches: If it be but practiced in both Churches, this will go a great way to make it a Practice of the Catholic Church; though neither of those Chur­ches singly, nor both of them together, do make the Catholic: But let us see how this is practiced in those two great, though particular Churches, Why in the Office of Good-Friday, in the Latine Church, and the Office of the Greek Church every day in Lent, except Saturday and [Page 86]Sunday; at those times it seems, these two Churches have the Communion onely in one kind, as appears by their public Offices; if they have it so at those times, at other times then, I suppose, they have it in both, or else how come those particular times, and those particular Of­fices, to be singled out and remarked as distinct and diffe­rent from all the rest; then generally and for the most part the Public Communion is to be in both kinds, ac­cording to the Tradition of both those Churches; and then surely this Tradition which is thus consecrated by both the Churches,Of the Mass on Good-Fri­day in the Ro­man Church. is violated by the Roman: But the Priest himself who officiates, takes but in one kind, in the Missa Parasceues, as they call it, or the Mass on Good-Friday, as appears by the Office; this custom then will shew that the Priest himself, or the Minister Conficiens, may receive onely in one kind in the Public Communi­on, as well as the People, which I think they ordinarily think unlawful, and call it Sacriledge if he should ordi­narily do so; and if I remember, Bellarmine himself says,Sacerdotibus utrius (que) speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sa­cramenti, nam quia Sacramentum sub duplici specie institutum est, u­tra (que) species necessariò ab aliquibus sumenda est. Bellarm. de Euchar. c. 4. c. 23. The Sumption of both Species is necessary for the Priest, who officiates, as it is a Sa­crament as well as a Sacrifice; for since the Sacrament was Instituted under both kinds, it is necessary that both kinds be ta­ken by some-body, to make it a Sacrament. This Communion then of the Priest in one kind, must be no Sacrament, and the Missa Parasceues, must be a ve­ry imperfect one, and I think themselves are pleased so to call it, it must be but equivocally call'd a Mass, as Cardi­nal de Bona phrases itMissam illam non nisi aequi­vocè ita dici. Bona rer. Lyturg. l. 1. c. 15.; and consequent­ly such an unusual, and extraordinary, and imperfect Communion as this, will be no good president, nor an instance of any weight and authority to justifie the practice of Public Commu­nion in one kind: But after all, perhaps there may be a great mistake, and this Mass on Good-Friday, though it [Page 87]be very different from all others, yet may not be a Com­munion in one kind, but in both; and so may that in the Greek Church, in the Lyturgy of the Presanctified, which is used on most days in Lent; and then we may relieve the Church of Rome from the difficulty of the Priests Communicating but in one kind, and vindicate both the Churches in great measure, from being guilty of such an irregular practice, contrary to the general practice of the whole Church, and to the institution of Christ; this cannot to this day be laid to the Greek Church, who ne­ver uses the Communion in one kind, neither privately nor publickly, nor could it be charged upon the Roman till long after this particular Mass on Good-Friday was used in it, which it is plain it was in the eleventh Age, from the Ordo Romanus, Amulatius, Alcuinus, Rupertus Tuirien­sis, and others; but there is no manner of proof that the Public Communion in one kind was brought into the Church of Rome till the thirteenth Century, when it came by degrees into some particular Churches, as Tho­mas Aquinas informs us, and was afterwards established by a general Decree in the Council of Constance: The Mass therefore on Good-Friday, though it was a singular and different Office from all others, they not thinking it fit, for I know not what reasons, to make a formal Con­secration of Christ's Body on the same day he died, but to Celebrate the Communion with what was thus conse­crated the day before, yet it was not wholly in the one species of Bread, but in that of Wine too, as is plain from the Office it self, and from those Authors who have wrote upon it: The Bread which was Con­secrated the day before, Corpus Domini quod pridiè reman­sit ponentes in patenam- & Subdiaco­nus teneat calicem cum vino non con­secrato, & alter Subdiaconus pate­nam cum corpore Domini— quibus te­nentibus accipit unus Presbyter pri­or patenam, & alter calicem & defertur super altare nudatum. Ordo Romanus, p. 75. ex Edit. Hittorp. was brought by the Sub-Deacon, and a Calice of unconsecrated Wine by another Sub-Deacon; and the Priest sets them both together upon the Al­tar; [Page 88]then after some Prayers, and particularly the Lord's Prayer, he takes the consecrated Bread Sumit de Sanctâ & ponit in caticem, Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum pa­nem & communicant omnes cum si­lantio. Ib. and puts into the Calice, and so the uncon­secrated Wine is sanctified by the sanctified Bread; and then they all Communicate with silence: They Communicated with the Bread and the Wine thus mixed together, and so their Communion this day was not in one kind: But this Wine, says de Meaux, was not truely Consecrated, this Sanctification of the unconsecrated Wine, by the mixture of the Body of our Lord, cannot be that true Consecration by which the Wine is changed into the Bloud: I cannot tell whether it be such a Consecration that does that in his sense, but it may be as true a Sacramental Consecration of the Elements for all that, not onely by vertue of the mixture and by way of contact, as some explain itAliter in Romano Ordine legi­tur ut contactu Dominici corporis integra fiat Communio. Cassand. de Com. sub utr. p. 1027. Concil. Araus. primum., but by the solemnity of the action, and by all the Religious circumstances that attend it, and especially by those Prayers and Thanksgivings which were then used; as in Micrologus, 'tis clearly and plain­ly exprest,Vinum non consecratum cum Do­minicâ Oratione & Dominici Corpo­ris immissione jubet consecrare. Mi­crolog. de Ecclesiast. Observ. c. 19. in Edit. Hittorp. p. 742. that the Wine is Consecra­ted with the Lord's Prayer, and the Im­mission of the Lord's Body. And why will not de Meaux allow, that a true Consecration may be made by those words and prayers, as well as by those formal words, This is my Body; when it is made out beyound all contradiction, both by Dallee and Albertinus, that the Primitive Church did not Con­secrate by those words, but by a Prayer, and their own St. Gregory says,Apostolos sulâ Dominicâ prece praemissâ consecrasse & Sacramenta distribuisse. Greg. l. 7. Ep. 63. ad Syr. That the Apostles Con­secrated the Sacrament only with the Lord's Prayer: Which was used here and par­ticularly observed to be so by Micrologus, as that whereby the Wine was consecrated; so that all Monsieur de Meaux's labour is vain, to shew that the [Page 89]Consecration could not be without words; And that it cannot enter into the mind of a man of sense, that it could ever be believed in the Church, the Wine was consecrated without words, by the sole mixture of the Body: The Con­secration might be made without those very formal words now used in the Roman Missal, as it was by Prayer in the Primitive Church; Walafridus Strabo, observes concern­ing this very Office on Good-Friday, that it was agree­able to the more ancient and simple way of the Com­munion of the first Christians, which was performed only with the use of the Lord's Prayer, and some comme­moration of Christ's PassionEt relatio majorum est ita pri­mis temporibus Missas fieri solitas, sicut modo in Parasceue Paschae com­municationem facere solemus, i. e. prâ­missâ Oratione Dominicâ & sicut ip­se Dominus noster praecepit, comme­moratione passionis ejus adhibita. Walagrid. Strabo de rebus Eccles. c. 22. p. 680. Edit. Hittorp., and yet he did not question but the Consecrati­on was truly made by that simple man­ner; and it did so far enter into the minds of the men of sense, that were in those times, that they all did believe that the Wine was truly consecrated this way; for so says expresly the Ordo Romanus, the ancient Ceremonial, as he calls it, of that Church; the Wine is sanctified and there is no difference between that and consecrated, that I know of, and it is plain they both mean the same thing there, for it calls the consecrated Body, the sanctified Body Sanctifica­tur vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem., and I know not what Sancti­fication of another nature that can be, which is not Con­secration, or Sanctifing it to a holy and Sacramental use; indeed this may not so well agree with the Doctrine and Opinion of Transubstantiation, which requires the pow­erful and almighty words of, This is my Body; this is my Bloud, to be pronounced over the Elements, to convert them into Christ's natural Flesh and Blood; but it a­grees as well with the true notion of the Sacrament, and the Primitive Christians no doubt had as truely the Bo­dy and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, though they used not those words of Consecration, which the Latines now do; and the Latines had them both as truly in the [Page 90] Missa Parascues, in which as Strabo says, they used the old simple manner of Communion, as much as on any other days: De Meaux must either deny that Consecra­tion of the Elements may be truly performed by that simple and ancient way, which will be to deny the A­postolic and first Ages to have had any true Consecration, or else he must own this to be a true one; The Roman Order says, not onely the Wine is Consecrated, which it does in more places then one, but that it is fully and wholly Consecrated, so that the people may be confirmed by it Ʋt ex eadem sacro vase confir­metur populus quia vinum etiam non consecratum sed sanguine Domini commixtum sanctificatur per omnem modum. Ord. Rom.; a phrase often used in Ecclesiastical Writers for partaking of the Cup and entire Sacra­ment; Amalarius thinks this to be so true a Consecrati­on, that he saysQui juxta ordinem libelli per commixtionem panis & vini conse­crat vinum, non observat traditio­nem Ecclesiae de quâ dicit Innocenti­us, isto biduo Sacramenta penitùs non celebrari. Amalar. Fortunat. de Eccles. Offic. l. 1. c. 15. Edit. Hittorp., He who according to the order of that Book, Consecrates the Wine by the commixtion of the Bread and Wine, does not observe the Tradition of the Church, of which Innocent speaks, that on these two days (Friday and Saturday be­fore Easter) no Sacraments at all should be Celebrated: So that he complains of it, because such a Consecration is used on that day. The Author of the Book of Divine Offices, under the name of Alcuinus De hâc autem Communicatione utrum debeat fieri suprà relatum est — Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem. Alcuini. lib. de Off. div. p. 253. Ib., makes a question whe­ther there ought to be such a Commu­nion? but says expresly that the Ʋn­consecrated Wine is sanctified by the sancti­fied Bread. Micrologus says the same, in the place pro­duced before, that it is Consecrated by Prayer as well as mixture with the Body; and he gives this as a reason against Intinction in that ChapterC. 19. In parascene vinum non consecratum cum Dominicâ oratione & Dominici corporis immissione jubet consecrare, ut populus plenè possit communicare; quod uti (que) superflao praeciperet, si intinctum Dominicum à priore die corpus servaretur, & ita intinctum populo ad Com­municandum sufficere videretur., that the Wine is Consecrated on that day, so that the people might fully Communicate; to shew that it would not have been [Page 91]sufficient, as he thinks, to have had the Bread dipt in the Wine the day before and so kept; and I suppose, he was of de Meaux's mind, that the Wine was not so fit to be kept for fear of that change which might happen to it, even from one day to the next; but he is so far from Communi­on in one kind, that in that very Chapter against Intincti­on, he mentions Pope Julius his DecreeJulias Papa huiusmodi intin­ctionem penitus probibet, & seorsùm panem & seorsùm calicem juxta Do­minicam institutionem, sumenda do­cet. which forbids that, and commands the Bread to be given by it self, and the Wine by it self, according to Christ's Institution; and likewise the Decree of Gelasius Ʋnde & beatus Gelasius excommunicari illos praecepit, quicun­que sumpto corpore Dominico, à cali­cis participatione se abstinerent, nam & ipse in eodem decreto asserit, hu­jusmodi Sacramentorum divisio sine grandi sacrilegio provenire non po­test. Ib. Microlog. in these words: He commanded those to be Excommunicated who taking the Lord's Body abstained from the parti­cipation of the Cup: And he asserts, says he, in the same Decree, that this division of the Sacraments could not be without great Sacriledge. So that this man could not be a favourer of Communion in one kind, or an asserter that the Good Friday Communi­on was such. When ever this Communion came into the Latine Church, for it was not ancient to have any Communion on those two days on which Christ died and was buried, yet it will by no means serve the pur­pose of de Meaux for Communion in the Church in one kind, for it is plain, this Communion was in both; and it was the belief of the Church, and of all those who writ upon the Roman Order, except Hugo de St. Victore who is very late and no older than the twelfth Century, when Corruptions were come to a great height, that the Communion on that day was full and entire, as well with the Bread which was reserved the day before, as with the Wine which was truly Consecrated on that, and held to be so by the opinion of them all.

The Lyturgy of the Presanctified in the Greek Church, Of the Office of the Presan­ctified in the Greek Church. will afford as little assistance, if not much less, to de Meaux's Opinion of Public Communion in one kind, [Page 92]then the Missa Parasceues we see has done in the Latine; the Greeks do not think fit solemnly to Consecrate the Eucharist, which is a Religious Feast of Joy, upon those days which they appoint to Fasting, Mortification, and Sadness, and therefore during the whole time of Lent they Consecrate onely upon Saturdays and Sundays, on which they do not fast, and all the other five days of the Week they receive the Communion in those Elements which are Consecrated upon those two days, which they therefore call the [...], or Presanctified: The anti­quity of this observation cannot be contested, as de Meaux says, seeing it appears, not in the sixth Age, as he would have it, but in the seventh, whereas the beginning of the Latin Office on Good-Friday is very uncertain, and there is no evidence for it, till towards the ninth Century: In a Council held under Justinian, in the Hall of the Impe­rial Palace at Constantinople, called therefore in Trullo, An. 686. there is a Canon which commands that on all days of Lent, except Saturday and Sunday, and the day of the Annunciation, the Communion be made of the Presanctifi­ed; there was long before a Canon in the Council of La­odicea, which forbad any Oblation to be made in Lent but upon those days, viz. The Sabbath and the Lord's Day, but that says nothing of the Presanctified, nor of any Communion on the other days; but let it be as ancient as they please, although it be a peculiar Office, which is neither in the Lyturgy of St. Basil, or St. Chrysostom, but is to be found by it self in the Bibliotheca Patrum, where it is translated by Genebrardus, it is most abominably false that it was onely the Bread which they reserved, or which they distributed in those days to the People; for they pour some of the consecrated Wine upon the conse­crated Bread, which they reserve on those days, and make the form of the Cross with it upon the Bread; as appears from the Rubric in the Greek Euchologion [...]. In Eu­cholog.: And whatever any private men may pretend to the contrary, [Page 93]as Michael Cerularius, or Leo Allatius, a Latinized Greek, this can with no manner of reason prejudice or confront the public Ritual of a Church, which as it in no instance practices Communion in one kind, but to prevent that, uses often the mixture of the two Species, where never so little of each is sufficient to justifie the use of both; so by this custom of dropping some of the consecrated Wine upon the reserved Bread, it shews both its judgement and its care never to have the Communion wholly in one kind: But to take off this custom of theirs of dropping some Wine upon the Bread which they reserved for this Communion, de Meaux says, That immediately after they have dropped it, they dry the Bread upon a Chafendish, and reduce it to Powder, and in that manner keep it, as well for the Sick, as for the Office of the Presanctified. So that no part of the fluid Wine can remain in the Bread thus dryed and powdered; however this is, for I must take it upon de Meaux's credit, finding nothing like it in this Office of the Greeks, yet to a man that believes Transubstantiation, and thinks the most minute particle of the Species of Wine or Bread contains in a miraculous manner the whole substance of Christ's Body and Blood, this difficul­ty methinks might in some measure be salved, however small parts of the Wine may be supposed to remain in the crums of Bread; and as the Greeks when they mix the Wine and the Bread together for the Sick and Infants, yet believe that they give both the Species, however small the margaritae or crums be which are in the Wine, so they do the same as to the presanctified Bread, however few unexhaled particles of Wine remain in it: But Mon­sieur de Meaux knows very well, and acknowledges that the Greeks do further provide against a meer dry Com­munion in this Office, by mixing this sacred Bread with more Wine and Water at the time of the Communion; and then, as I proved, in the case of the Latine Office on Good-Friday, that the unconsecrated Wine was consecra­ted [Page 94]by this mixture and by the Prayers and Thanksgi­vings that were used at that Solemnity; so by this way as well as by the first mixture of some drops of Wine with the Bread, the Communion in both kinds will be secured in the Greek Church, in their Office of the Presan­ctified; and to put it out of all doubt, that this is such a Communion, let us but look into their Office, and we shall find there it plainly is so: Behold, say the Faithful, in their Prayer before the Communion, the immaculate Body and the quickning Bloud of Christ, are here to be set before us on this mystical Table [...].: And the Priest in his low Pray­er, Begs of Christ that he would vouchsafe to communicate to them his immaculate Bo­dy and sacred Bloud, and by them to the whole People [...]. Ib.: Then after he has Com­municated, He returns God thanks for the Communion of the holy Body and Bloud of Christ. So that it is most remarkable, as de Meaux says, that the Greeks change nothing in this Office, from their ordinary Formula­ries; the sacred Gifts are always named in the plural, and they speak no less there in their Prayers of the Body and the Blood: Is it to be imagined they could do this, if they received not any thing upon these days but the Body of our Lord? would they not then as the Church of Rome has done, change in this Office from their ordinary Formula­ries; but so stedfastly is it, says he, imprinted in the minds of Christians, that they cannot receive one of the Species without receiving at the same time, not onely the vertue but also the substance of one and the other. So firmly is it im­printed upon the minds of those Christians, that they ought not to receive one Species alone without the other, contrary to the plain Institution of Christ, that they take all care not to do it, either in this or any other Office, least they should loose the whole vertue, and substance, and benefit of them: If in spite of the opinions of the Greeks [Page 95]themselves, which de Meaux owns are of another mind, and in spight of their public Rubric, their Rituals and Mis­sals, they must be understood to celebrate the Communi­on in their Churches in one kind; then so far as I know, de Meaux may as confidently impose upon us and all the World, and bear us down by dint of Impudence, that both the Greek Church and all the Christian Churches that ever were in the World, had always the Public Commu­nion in one kind, notwithstanding all their Offices and all their Lyturgies speak to the contrary.

And now having so fully shewen the universal consent and constant and perpetual Practice of the Church for Communion in both kinds, and having answered all the Instances by which de Meaux vainly endeavours to over­throw that: I have, I hope, in some measure perform­ed what was the subject of de Meaux's Prayer at the be­ginning of his Treatise, That not onely Antiquity may be il­lustrated, but that Truth also may become manifest and tri­umphant P. 9.. And I have hereby wholly taken away the main strength, and the very foundation of his Book, for that lies in those several customs and pretended matters of fact which he brings to justifie the Churches practice for single Communion; and if these be all false and mistaken, as upon examination they appear to be, then his prin­ciples upon which he founds this wrong practice, if they are not false and erronious, yet they are useless and in­significant, for they do not prove, but onely suppose the Churches practice; and if the practice be not true, as it is plain it is not, then what signifie those principles which are wholly grounded upon a wrong supposal, and are one­ly designed to make out that which never was? Those principles are like framing an Hypothesis to give an ac­count of the reason of some strange and extraordinary thing, which thing upon enquiry, proves false and mista­ken, and so they are but like the Virtuoso's solution of a Phoenominon, which, nothwithstanding all his Philosophic [Page 96]fancy and fine Hypothesis, never was in Nature. Monsieur de Meaux must better prove to us the Practice of the Church for Communion in one kind, then he has yet done, before he establishes such Principles, by which such a Practise may be made out; for whatever the Prin­ciples be, as long as the Practice is false, the Principles will not make it true. And since I have so largely pro­ved that Communion in both kinds, was the Practice of the Primitive and the whole Catholick Church for a­bove Twelve hundred years, and have disproved all the instances of de Meaux to the contrary, so that no man­ner of question can be made of the truth of this matter of fact, unless where, as de Meaux says, Passion makes pre­varicated persons undertake and believe any thing P. 164.: I have sufficiently answered that part of de Meaux's Book, wherein the strength of the whole lies, and that which is the ground and foundation of all the rest being destroy­ed, the other falls of its self; I might therefore spare my self the trouble of Examining the Principles which de Meaux layes down, as the Reasons of the Churches practice; for if the Practice of the Church be against him, the reasons of that Practice will be so too, and I may turn those upon him as I have done the other: His third Principle, which is the most considerable, and which alone, he says, carries along with it, the decision of this que­stion P. 194., namely, That the Law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual Practice, this is wholly for us, who are assured that we have the constant and perpetual Practice of the Church for so many Ages for the Com­munion in both kinds, and therefore though the Law of Christ, which is so clear in it self, that it needs nothing to explain it, be the main thing upon which the decision of this matter depends, yet the Tradition and Practice of the Church is a farther confirmation of the Law to us, and we shall be willing to joyn with de Meaux in what­ever he can say for Tradition, provided it be so certain [Page 97]and general and authentic, as we have proved it to be for Communion in both kinds, and provided that it do not destroy a plain Law of Christ, nor make void the Commandment of God, which we can never believe that an universal Tradition of the Catholic Church ever will do: What a vain and empty flourish some are used to make with a name of Tradition and the Church: I have shewn in this question of the Communion in one kind, in the managing of which, I have, as de Meaux speaks, Attacked our enemies in their own Fortress P. 254., and taken this Goliah weapon out of their hands; and though the disarming de Meaux of that, in which his whole strength lies, is entirely to overcome him; yet since some of the reasons he lays down to justifie his pretended Tradition, may without that, considered meerly by themselves, car­ry a seeming plausibleness, if not real strength in them to defend the Communion in one kind from those appa­rent difficulties under which, as he owns, it labours, and which he would willingly take off from it: I shall in the last place consider all those principles and arguments from Reason which are laid down by him to this pur­pose.

His first principle is this: That in the administration of the Sacraments we are obliged to do not all that which Je­sus Christ hath done, but onely that which is essential to them. This we allow, and this principle, as he says, Is without contest: No Church, nor no Christians, did ever think themselves obliged to all those circumstances with which Christ celebrated the blessed Eucharist at its first Institution; and as to Baptism, Christ himself did not perform, but onely command that Sacrament: I cannot think that Monsieur Jurieux should propose this for a rule, as de Meaux charges himP. 349., To do universally all that Jesus Christ did, in such sort, that we should regard all circumstances he observed, as being of absolute necessity. What to do it onely at night, and after supper, and in an [Page 98]upper room, and the like? This could never enter into any mans head of common understanding, much less in­to so learned a mans as Monsieur Jurieux. They who are so zealous for unleavened Bread, because Christ pro­bably used it (for there are disputes about it) at his Pas­chal Supper, though if he did it was onely by accident, yet do not think fit to enquire what was the particular sort of Wine which he blessed and gave his Disciples, nor think themselves obliged to celebrate only in that, which yet they might do with as much reason; and though the putting Water into the Wine, which was very anci­ent, and used very likely by the Jews and others in those hot Countrys, is not remarked in the first Institution; yet I know none that make any great scruple at it: As to the posture of receiving, which has been the most controverted, yet the stiffest Contenders in that, have not thought it necessary to keep exactly to the same in which Christ gave and the Apostles received at first, which was discumbency; if these circumstances indeed had been commanded, as a great many of the like nature were very precisely to the Jews in their eating the Pas­sover, then they ought to have been observed in obedi­ence to the Divine Law; but the Command of Christ, Do this; does not in the least extend to these, but onely to the Sacramental Action of blessing Bread and eating it, blessing Wine and drinking it in remembrance of Christ: For that was the thing which Christ did, and which he com­manded them to do; and the very same thing may be done with quite other circumstances then those with which he did it, with other words, for we know not what were the words with which Christ blest the Bread or the Wine; with other company, more or less then twelve men, in another posture then that of lying, and in another place and time, and the like; he that does not plainly see those to be circumstances, and cannot easily distinguish them from the thing it self which Christ did and commanded to be [Page 99]done, must not know what it is to eat and to drink, un­less it be with his own family, in such a room of his own house, and at such an hour of the day; 'tis 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 [Page 100]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 'tis 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 [Page 101]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 [Page 102]already shewn in this TreatiseP. 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 viro asperginem unam cuju­slibet aquae commodabit? Ib.; reprehending those who pre­sumed upon pardon to be obtained by Ba­ptism without repentance: and S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Magnus, determines, That the form of Baptism by aspersion, is as good and valid as by immersion, and confirms this by several examples and instances of the Jewish Purificati­onsAspergam super vos aquam mun­dam — Ezech. 36.25. non erit mun­dus quoniam aqua aspersionis non est super eum sparsa Num. 19.19. Aqua aspersionis purificatio est Num. 19.9. unde apparet aspersionem quo (que) aquae, instar salutaris lavacri obtinere. Cy­pr. Ep. 96. Edit. Oxon., which were onely by sprinkling. It is not the manner of washing, nor the quantity, or the sort of Water, but one­ly washing with Water, which is essenti­al to Baptism, and unalterable; and so it is not the sort of Bread, or Wine, or the manner of receiving them, that is essential to the Eucharist, but the receiving both of them is, because they are both commanded and instituted, and both of them are the matter of that Sacrament, as much as Water is of Baptism; in a word, without those we cannot do what Christ did and commanded to be done, though we may without the other circumstances with which he did them, which I think is a very plain way to distinguish the one from the other, though de Meaux is so unwilling to see it.

The second principle of de Meaux is, That to distinguish what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of a Sacrament; we must regard the essential effect of that Sa­crament. But must we regard nothing else? must we not regard the outward part as well as the inward? and does not that appertain to the substance of a Sacrament [Page 103]as well as the other? I confess the word substance which de Meaux uses, is equivocal and ambiguous, for it may sig­nifie either the outward part of it as 'tis a sacred sign or symbol, and so the matter and form does appertain to the substance or essence of it, or it may signifie the inward grace and vertue, which is also of the substance of the Sacrament as 'tis the thing signified, and it is not onely one but both of these that do appertain to the substance of the Sacrament, or to speak more clearly and plainly, that make it a Sacrament: If de Meaux understands no­thing else by the substance of the Sacrament but the es­sential effect of it, then his words are confused and run to­gether, and he had as good have put it thus: That to di­stinguish what appertains or does not appertain to the essenti­al effect of the Sacrament, we must regard the essential effect of the Sacrament: Which though it had not been sense, yet he had better told us his meaning by it; but surely there is something else that does plainly belong to the substance of the Sacrament, besides the essential effect; 'tis strange that de Meaux, the Treasury of Wisdom, the Fountain of Eloquence, the Oracle of his Age, as he is stiled by the Translator, but who like the Oracles of old, too often doubles and equivocates, that so great a man should not either understand or consider the plain nature of a Sacrament, so as to account the external and visible part to belong to the essence or substance of it, as well as the internal or the essential effect: Does not every Cate­chism tell us that the Sacrament is made up of these two parts, of the Res Terrena and Caelestis, as Irenaeus L. 4. calls it; the Esca Corporalis and Spiritualis, as St. Ambrose De Myst.; the Sacramentum or outward Sign, and Res Sacramenti, as St. Austin De Consec­dist. 2.; and must we not have regard to both these, without which we destroy the very nature of a Sacrament, as well as to one? The very essence or sub­stance, if de Meaux pleases, of the Sacrament of Baptism lies in the outward washing the body with Water, in the [Page 104]name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost, which is the outward form of it, without which it was declared null, as well as in the cleansing the Soul, and we must regard the one as well as the other,1 Pet. 3.21. though St. Peter tells us, It is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, whereby ba­ptism saveth us, but the answer of a good conscience towards God. Yet still we are to observe the outward ceremo­ny, and may know by another way, namely, from the Institution, that that does appertain to the substance of it; else with the Quakers and Socinians, we may leave off all Sacraments, and all the positive and outward ceremo­nies of Christianity, and onely regard the essential effect and invisible grace of them, which they also pretend to have without the visible sign: As washing with water does appertain to the substance of Baptism, so does eating Bread and drinking Wine appertain to the substance of the Eu­charist; and we must regard those which are the true matter of this Sacrament as well as the essential effect of it; else how were the Aquarii that used Water, and o­thers that used Milk, reproved so severely by St. Cyprian and Pope Julius, if the keeping to the outward Elements which Christ has instituted and appointed, be not as well to be regarded as the inward and essential effect? and if these do not appertain to the substance of the Sacrament, and could not be easily known and distinguisht from the other circumstances of the Sacrament, by other means than by regard to the essential effect, which they might hope to partake of without them: De Meaux is so wholly taken up with the essential Effect, and entire Fruit, and the inseparable Grace of the Sacrament, with which words he hopes to blind and amuse his Reader, and therefore he drops them almost in half the Pages of his Book, that he takes not due care, nor is much concerned about the outward and visible part of the Sacrament, which he knows is so grosly violated, and shamefully mangled, and mutilated in his Church, and yet this is so considerable, [Page 105]that 'tis not a true Sacrament without it; and Gelasius plainly calls the dividing of the outward part of the Sa­crament the dividing of the Mystery; and to be plain with him, and to give the killing blow to his cause, and to all the artifical slights with which he fences and de­fends it, and as he speaks, For once to stop the mouth of these Cavillers, I shall lay down this principle, that the essen­tial effect or inward substance of the Sacrament is not ordina­rily to be received or partaken, without receiving and par­taking the external part or the outward substance of it, which is instituted and appointed by Christ: And by this plain principle which I have made use of before, and shall further strengthen and confirm, all that he says about receiving the Grace, and Vertue, and essential Effect of the Sacrament by one kind, will be quite taken off and destroyed; but because this is the great Plea, and the fundamental reasoning which he every-where uses in his Book, I shall therefore fully consider it under these two Questions:

• 1. Whether the same Grace, Vertue, and Benefit do not belong to one Species, or be not given by one Spe­cies which is by both?
• 2. Whether one Species containing both Christ's Bo­dy and Blood, by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy, do not contain and give whole Christ, and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament?

I. Whether the same Grace, Vertue, and Benefit be not given by one Species as by both? This de Meaux e­very-where asserts, and 'tis the foundation he all along goes upon; but is it not strange presumption when God has been pleased to appoint such a Religious Rite and Sa­cramental Action to be performed in such a manner, with [Page 106]a promise of such graces and benefits to those who per­form it aright, to think he will grant the same benefits to those who perform it otherwise than he has appointed, and to venture to make a change and alteration from what he positively ordered, and yet think to partake of the same benefits another way, without any such out­ward means, and without any Sacraments at all, for they are wholly in his own free disposal, and he is not tied to any outward means, nor to such particular means as the Sacraments are; but since he has thought fit to make them the ordinary means of conveying those benefits to us, we cannot ordinarily hope for the one without the o­ther; thus we cannot expect the vertue and benefit of Baptism without the outward ceremony of washing, and without observing that in such a way as Christ has ap­pointed, i. e. washing with Water in the name of the Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost; neither can we receive the inward grace and vertue of the Eucharist without taking that Sacrament as Christ hath appointed and command­ed it, for all Sacraments would loose their worth and value, their esteem and reverence, and would not be ne­cessary to be observed according to the Divine Instituti­on, if without the observance of that we had any just grounds to hope for the vertue and benefits of them; there is therefore all the reason in the World to fear that God to preserve the integrity of his own Institution, and the force and authority of his own Laws, will deny the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament to those who wilfully violate and transgress the outward obser­vance of it in such a way as he has appointed: Has not Christ annexed the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sa­crament to the outward Sign? If he have, and we do not receive the outward Sign as he has appointed, how can we then hope to receive the inward Grace? What is it that makes such an outward sign or ceremony as a Sacrament, be a means of conveying such spiritual Grace [Page 107]and Vertue, and exibiting such inward benefits to our minds? It is not any physical power, or natural vertue which they have in themselves; it is not the washing with a little Water can cleanse the Soul, or the eating a little Bread and drinking a little Wine, can nourish and strengthen it, but it is the Divine Power of Christ, who by his Institution has given such a spiritual and inward vertue to such outward signs and visible actions, and made these the means and instruments of conveying and exhibiting such grace and vertue and real benefits to us; all the power and efficacy they have to do this is owing purely to the Divine Institution, and wholly depends up­on that; if therefore we do not observe the Institution, how can we expect the benefit that comes wholly from that, and if Christ by the Institution has annexed the grace, and vertue, and benefit of the Sacrament to both kinds, which he has plainly done by instituting of both; how can we then hope to receive it by one contrary to the Institution? and how can we be assured that we loose nothing, and are deprived of nothing by taking one onely, and that this is as good and sufficient as taking of both? There is nothing appears from the will and plea­sure of him that instituted both, upon which the whole vertue of them does entirely depend, from whence we can gather any such thing, it rather appears from thence that both are necessary, because both are instituted; de Meaux therefore does not fetch it from thence, but from the na­ture of the thing it self, from the inseperableness of that grace which is given in the Sacrament, and from the im­possibility in the thing to have it otherwise: Christ, says he, cannot seperate the vertue of the Sacrament, nor effect that any other grace should accompany his Blood shed, than that same in the ground and substance which accompanies his Body immolated P. 182.. But Christ can annex the vertue of the Sacrament to the whole Sacrament, and not to a­ny part of it, and he can effect that the grace of his Bo­dy [Page 108]and Blould should accompany or belong to both the eating his Body and drinking his Blood, and not to the doing one of these without the other, contrary to his command and institution; although the grace be insepa­rable, so that the grace annexed to the Body be no other than that which is annexed to the Blood P. 3.; yet this grace may not be given till both the Body and Blood are re­ceived, as Bellarmine expresly says, it may not in the case of the Priests taking both kinds till the whole sumption of both Species is performed and finished Possit etiam dici Eucharistiam sub specie panis non conferre gratiam nisi totâ sumptione Eucharistiae abso­latâ, & quia cum sumitur utra (que) spe­cies non censetur absoluta sumptio nisi cum sumta est utra (que) species, ideò Eucharistiam sub specie panis confer­re quidem gratiam sed non ante sum­ptionem alterius speciei. Bellarm. de Sacram. Euch. l. 4. c. 23.; and if it may not be so in the case of the Priest, why not also in all other Communicants, unless Christ have made and declared it otherwise, which he has not? what will it then signifie, if, as de Meaux says, It be impossible to separate in the application the effect of Christ's Bloud from that of his Body P. 182.: If the effect of these be not appli­ed till they are both received, and there be no applica­tion of the effect, as we cannot be assured there is without the receiving of both: But did Christ then, says he, suspend the effect which his Body was to pro­duce, until such time as the Apostles had received the Bloud, in the first institution of this Sacrament, and in the internal between their taking the Bread and the Cup? I answer, they did not receive the grace of the Sacrament till they had received the whole Sacrament, because the grace and effect was annexed to the whole and not to any part of it; and therefore the effect may not one­ly be suspended till the whole is taken, but even utterly lost without receiving the whole. It is a little too nice and curious to enquire what are the precise moments in which we receive this grace of the Sacrament, or any other ordinance as well as what is the particular manner in which we do receive it, as whether all at once or by part, or whether the effect be given in such a minute, or suspend­ed [Page 109]till the next? In return to de Meaux's question, I might as well ask him whether the effect of the Body is given when 'tis just put into the mouth? or when the species is chewed there? or when it is swallowed down and comes into the stomack? or whether it be suspend­ed till all this is done? So in Baptism which he will needs have to be commanded by Christ, and anciently practi­sed by immersion; Was the grace of it given when part of the body was dipt, or the whole immerged? and then, whether when the body was under water, or when it was raised out of it? and when this was performed by Trine Immersion, as 'tis commanded in the Apostolic Canons Canon. 50., was the effect of it suspended till the last im­mersion was over? so in the Jews eating of their Sacri­fices whereby they were made partakers of the Altar, and had the vertue of those applied to them, as we by feeding on the Christian Sacrifice do partake of the ver­tue of that, Was this done by the first bit they ate of them? or was the half the vertue applied when they had ate half? or was the whole suspended till the whole was eaten? By these questions I hope de Meaux may see the vain subtilty and folly of his own, which he thinks is so much to the purpose, and does the business of proving the effect of the Sacrament to be given by one Species either before or without the other; when the effect de­pends, besides other things, upon the whole action, and the whole performance, and the receiving of both of them. When there is a conveyance of a thing by some visible ceremony which consists of several parts and seve­ral actions; as suppose the conveying an Estate by Deed, there is to be the setting of a Hand, and the putting of a Seal, and the delivery of it, and something given and re­ceived, as Livery and Seizin, and the like; all those things which the Law requires to be done as a form of passing and transferring of a right from one and recei­ving it by another; these are all to be done before the [Page 110]thing is truly, and legally, and rightly conveyed: The Sacraments he knows are outward tokens, and visible pledges, and solemn rites and ceremonies of Christ's con­veying and our receiving his Body and Bloud, and all the effects and benefits of them, and till all that the Law of Christ appoints to be done in them according to his command and institution, be truly and fully perform­ed; we do not ordinarily receive, nor can we pretend a right to those things which they are designed to convey to us; which I think is a plain illustration of the thing, and takes off all the vain and nice subtilties of de Meaux about this matter; but yet I shall offer something fur­ther concerning it.

First, The Grace of the Sacrament which God has an­nexed to both, and not to one Species, though it be not to be seperated so that [...]e Species should have a peculiar and distinct vertue proper to that, which does not be­long to both of them, (as there were not two distinct vertues in the Sacrifice and the pouring out the Blood of the Sacrifice but one expiatory vertue by the Sacrifice whose Blood was poured out) yet this Grace is given in different measures and degrees, so that however confi­dently de Meaux determines,P. 179, 184. P. 7.5.161. That the whole Grace and the entire Fruit of the Sacrament is received by one Spe­cies as well as both, and that one has always the same efficacy of vertue that both, so that we loose nothing by ta­king one Species onely, but that Communion under one is as good and sufficient as under both: Yet this is contrary to the opinion of the learned men even of his own Church; Vasquez expresly declares the contrary, Their opinion, says he, seemed always more probable to me, who say, that there is greater fruit of grace received from both kinds than from one onley, and therefore that they who take the Cup do attain a new increase of Grace Probabili­or sententia mi­hi semper visa est eorum qui dicunt majorem frugem gratiae ex utrâ (que) specie hujus Sacramenti, quàm ex alterâ tantùm percipi, ac proinde eos qui calicem sumunt, novum augmentum gratiae consequi. Vas­quez in Tert. disp. 215. c. 2.: And he cites several o­ther [Page 111]Writers of the Roman Communion as agreeing with him in this, and even one of their own Popes, Clement the sixth, who granting the Communion of both kinds to one of our English Kings, does it with this particular reason set down in his Bull, That it might be for the augmentation of Grace Ʋt ad Gratiae augmentum sub utrâ (que) specie communicaret. Ib.. Alexander Alensis said the same before Vasquez, namely, That the Sumption under both kinds, which was that which our Lord delivered, was more complete and more efficacious Sumptio sub utrâ (que) specie, quem modum sumendi tradidit Dominus, est majoris efficaciae & complemen­ti. Alexand. Alens. in 4 sent. quest. 53.; and although he defends and asserts that the Sumption under one is sufficient, yet that under both, he acknowledges, is of greater merit Licet illa sumtio, quae est in ac­cipiendo sub unâ specie sufficiat, illa tamen quae est sub duabus est majoris meriti. Ib.. Suarez tells us, This was the opinion of many Catholics, That there was more Grace given by both Species than by one alone; and grave men, says he, relate that this was held by most of the Fathers, who were present in the Council of Trent, and therefore that Council speaks very cautiously, and onely says that the Faithful by communicating onely in one kind, are deprived of no Grace necessary to Salvation Fuit multorum Catholicorum opinio, plus gratiae dari per duas spe­cies quam per unam tantùm, Quam viri graves referunt tenuisse plures ex Patribus qui Concilio Tridentino affuerunt, & ideo idem Concilium cautè dixisse, fideles eo quòd commu­nicent sub unâ tantùm specie, nullâ Gratiâ ad salutem necessariâ defrau­dari. Suarez Tom. 3. in Tert. Disp. 63.. So that it seems they may by their own tacit confession be de­prived of some grace that is very useful and beneficial to a Christian, or of some degree of that Sacramental Grace which is given by both Species and not by one: If it were no more than this, which themselves own, yet 'tis pitty sure that Christians should be deprived of that; but they can never assure Christians that they are not deprived of all, even of that which is necessary to Salvation. So far as the Grace of the Sacrament is so, because this necessary Grace is annexed not to one kind but to both, and the taking the species of Wine is as necessary to receive that by Christ's Institution, as the species of Bread, for no reason [Page 112]can be imagined why the one should give onely the neces­sary Grace, and the other onely the additional. Men must make too bold with the Grace of God, and the Grace of the Sacrament, who think to give it as they please, and to part and divide it as they think fit by their presumptuous and ungrounded fancies, and do not whol­ly depend upon his will and pleasure for the receiving of it, and that way and manner which he himself has ap­pointed. Others there are who though they defend the Communion in one kind, yet speak very doubtingly a­bout that question, Whether more spiritual fruit or more grace be not received by both than by one: Salmeron says, It is a difficult question, because we have nothing from the Ancients whereby we can decide it Dissicilis sane quaestio propterea quòd ex antiquis quicquam vix ha­bemus unde possimus eam decidere. Salmer. de Euch.; no truly the question and the reason of it, which is their pra­ctice, is too late and novel to have any thing produced for it out of Antiquity: So that those Doctors who speak of this matter, have had various opinions about it Ʋt propterea Doctores qui de hac reloquuti sunt in varias iverint sententias. Ib.. Some saw there was no reason for it, and that it was perfectly precarious and ungrounded, but others thought it neces­sary to defend their Communion in one kind: Bellar­mine himself owns that this is not so cer­tain, for divers have different sentiments concerning it; neither does the Council o­penly define it Haec propositio non est adeo cer­ta — de hâc enim variè sentiunt Theologi ne (que) Concilium eam apertè definire videtur. Bellar. de Euch.. But de Meaux has done it very positively and definitively, contrary to ma­ny learned men in his own Church, and without any warrant from the Council of Trent or any other.

Secondly, To make the whole Grace, and Vertue, and entire Fruit of the Sacrament to be given by one Species, is to render the other wholly useless and superfluous as to the conveying any real vertue or benefit to him that receives it. When the Priest has taken the Species of Bread, and has by that fully received the whole Grace and [Page 113] entire Fruit of the Sacrament, what can he further re­ceive by the Cup, and what benefit can he have by it? De Meaux will by no means have the effect of the Body suspended till the Bloud is received P. 3.; though Bellarmine is willing it shouldDe Euch. l. 4. c. 23.: But if it be so to the Priests why may it not likewise to the people? and if the Priests re­ceive any benefit by the Cup, which they would not have without it, why may not the people also? For they have not yet declared, that I know of, that the Priest is to re­ceive more grace by the Sacrament than the people: What a meer empty Cup must the Priest then receive, void of all grace and vertue, after he has taken the Spe­cies of Bread which has before given him the whole and entire fruit and grace of the Sacrament, to which the Cup can add nothing at all? It must be then as utterly fruitless to him, as the Wine of ablution is to the Laiety, and if it be so inconsiderable, they need not, methinks, be so afraid of the Laymens spilling it or dipping their Beards and Whiskers in it; but it is still the very natural and true Blood of Christ; if it be so, 'tis strange that it should have no true and essential vertue belonging to it, surely Christ's Bloud is never without that, nor ought any to have so mean and low an opinion of it.

Why did Christ give the Cup to the Apostles, as part of the Sacrament, if they had received the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament before? and if so soon as they had received his Body, at the same instant they received the whole grace that accompanied that, and his Blood too? Christ if he did not suspend the effect of the Blood till it was taken, must have prevented it, and given it before it was. Christ no doubt might have given the whole grace and effect of the Sacrament by one Species, if he had pleased; but if he had done that, he would not have given the other, nor should we have had two Species In­stituted by him, if he had restrained the effect of those two to one onely: When Christ has appointed two and [Page 114]gave two himself, for men to come and argue that one alone may give the whole good of both, because the Grace of both is the same, and inseparable from either, and because Christ did not suspend the effect of one till he gave the other, and that 'tis impossible he should separate the effect of his Bloud from that of his Body; this is to argue at all adventures against what is known, from what is secret and uncertain, against the plain will of Christ from his power, and against what he has done from what he might do, and is to set up a precarious and ungrounded Hypothesis of our own, from the nature of the thing, when the thing itself is purely arbitrary and positive, and depends wholly upon Christ's will and pleasure. If Christ himself has appointed two Species in the Sacra­ment to convey the whole and entire vertue of the Sa­crament to worthy receivers, as he seems plainly to have done by instituting both, and giving both to his Apostles, and commanding both; how groundless and arrogant is it in any to say, That one is sufficient to give this, and that both are not necessary to this end; without know­ing any thing further of Christ's will about it; and when they believe as de Meaux does,P. 130. That Jesus Christ has equally instituted both parts; Yet notwithstanding to make one unnecessary to the giving any real vertue and benefit, and to dare to affirm as de Meaux does,P. 4. That the receiving the Blood is not necessary for the grace of the Sacrament, or the ground of the Mystery.

Let me then ask what it is necessary for, and why it was equally instituted with the other? De Meaux gives not a plain answer to that, but tells us, That the Eucharist has another quality, namely, that of a Sacrifice P. 179.; and for this reason, both Species are always consecrated, that so they may be offered to God, and a more lively representation may be made of Christ's death. But this is no answer to the question, for I do not ask why they are necessary as the Eucharist is a Sacrifice, which it is not in a proper [Page 115]sence, though it be not my business to shew that here, but as it is a Sacrament; Why did Christ institute both Species in the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament? and why did he give both Species to his Apostles? He did not give these to them as a Sacrifice, for as such, if it were so, it was to be onely offered up to God; but he gave both the Species to his Disciples; and why did he do this, if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament was gi­ven by one? and why does the Priest receive both as well as offer both to God? He does not receive them as a Sacrifice, but as a Sacrament: And why is the Sumpti­on of both necessary to him, as the Eucharist is a Sacra­ment; which Bellarmine says it is, upon that very account Sacerdotibus utrius (que) speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sa­cramenti. Bellarm. de Euch. c. 4.; If the taking of one be sufficient to convey the whole grace and vertue of both, and the other be not necessary for this end? All these questions will return upon de Meaux though the Eucharist were a Sacrifice; and as to that I shall onely ask him this question, Whether Christ did as truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood as a Sa­crifice to God when he instituted this Sacrament, as he did upon the Cross? If he did, and therefore two Spe­cies were necessary, (though if his Body and Blood be both together in one, that might be sufficient) why need­ed he then to have afterwards offered up himself upon the Cross, when he had as truly offered up his Body and Blood before in the Eucharist?

If two Species are necessary to make a full representa­tion of Christ's death, and to preserve a perfect image of his Sacrifice upon the Cross, and by the mystical sepera­tion of his Body and Blood in the Eucharist, to represent how they were really separated at his death; why are they not then necessary as de Meaux says, They are not to the ground of the Mystery: Is not the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament, designed to do all this, and to be such a Re­membrance of Christ, and a shewing forth the Lord's death [Page 116]till he come; as the Scripture speaks? And do not they in great measure destroy this, by giving the Sacrament in one kind, without this mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood; and without preserving such a sacra­mental Representation of it as Christ has appointed? But says de Meaux, The ultimate exactness of representation is not requisite P. 175.. This I confess, for then the eating the Flesh and drinking the Bloud of a man, as some Heretics did of an Infant, might more exactly represent than Bread and Wine; but such a representation as Christ him­self has appointed and commanded, this is requisite: and when he can prove that Christ has commanded Immer­sion in Baptism to represent the cleansing of the Soul, as he has done taking Bread broken and Wine poured out in the Eucharist, to represent his Death, I will own that to be requisite in answer to his §. 11. There ought to be also an expression of the grace of the Sacrament, which is not found in one Species alone, for that is not a full expression of our perfect nourishment both by meat and drink; and if the Sacraments onely exhibit what they represent, which is an Axiom of the School-men; then as one kind represents our spiritual nourishment im­perfectly, so it exhibits it imperfectly; but however, if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament be given by one Species, the other must be wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the inward effect, and so at most it must be but a meer significant sign, void of all grace, as de Meaux indeed makes it, though the name of a sign, as applied to the Sacrament, is so hard to go down with them at other times, when he says of the species of Wine, That the whole fruit of the Sacrament is given without it, and that this can adde nothing thereunto, but onely a more full expression of the same Mystery P. 185..

II. The second question I proposed to consider, was, Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and conse­quently [Page 117]the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy, do not contain and give whole Christ, and so the whole substance and thing sig­nified of the Sacrament? This de Meaux and all of them pleade, That each Species contains Jesus Christ whole and entire P. 306. §. 9.; so that we have in his Flesh his Blood, and in his Blood his Flesh, and in either of the two his Person whole and entire, and in both the one and the other his blessed Soul with his Divinity, whole and entire, so that there is in either of the Species the whole substance of the Sacrament, and together with that substance the whole essential vertue of the Eucharist P. 327., according to these Principles of the Roman Church. I am not here to dispute against those, nor to shew the falseness and unreasonableness of that which is the ground of them, and which if it be false de­stroys all the rest, I mean Transubstantiation, whereby they suppose the Bread to be turn'd into the very na­tural Body of Christ, with Flesh, Bones, Nerves, and all other parts belonging to it, and the Wine to be turned in­to the very natural substance of his Bloud; and since this Flesh is not a dead Flesh, it must have the Blood joyn­ed with it, and even the very Soul and Divinity of Christ, which is always Hypostatically united to it, and so does necessarily accompany it; and the Body with Christ's Soul and Divinity, must thus likewise ever ac­company his Blood: To which prodigious Doctrine of theirs as it relates to the Communion in one kind, I have these things to say:

1. It does so confound the two Species, and make them to be one and the same thing, that it renders the distinct consecration of them to be not onely imperti­nent but senceless; For to what purpose, or with what sense can the words of Consecration be said over the Bread, This is my Body? and those again over the Wine, This is my Blood: If upon the saying of them by the Priest the Bread does immediately become both the Bo­dy [Page 118]and Blood of Christ, and the Wine both his Blood and his Body too; this is to make the Bread become the same thing with the Wine, and the Wine the same thing with the Bread, and to make onely the same thing twice over, and to do that again with one form of words which was done before with another; for upon repeat­ing the words, This is my Body, Christ's Body and Blood are both of them immediately and truly present; and when they are so, what need is there of the other form, This is my Blood, to make the same thing present again, which was truly present before? It matters not at all in this case, whether they be present by vertue of the con­secration, or by vertue of Concomitancy, for if they be truly present once, what need they be present again, if they become the same thing after the first form of Con­secration which they do after the second? why do they become the same thing twice? or what need is there of another form of words to make the Wine become that which the Bread was before? they hold it indeed to be Sacriledge not to consecrate both the Species, but I can­not see according to this principle of theirs, why the con­secrating of one Species should not be sufficient, when upon the consecration of that, it immediately becomes both Christ's Body and Blood; and what reason is there for making the same Body and Blood over again by a­nother consecration? They might if they pleased say o­ver the Bread alone, Hoc est Corpus meum, & hoc est san­guis meus; This is my Body, and this is my Bloud: for they believe it is so upon the saying those words, Hoc est Corpus meum; This is my Body And if it be so as soon as the words are pronounced, they may as truly affirm it to be both as one: What does it signifie to say, they are both present by Concomitancy? does not Concomi­tancy always go along with the Consecration? is there any space between the Consecration and the Concomi­tancy? is not the one as quick and sudden as the other? [Page 119]and can it be said over the Species of Bread, This is my Bo­dy, before it can be as truly said, This is my Blood? why therefore may not they be both said together? Nay, it may be as truly said by vertue of this Doctrine not only, This is my Body and Blood, but this is my Soul and my Divinity; for though they will not say it is made all those, yet it becomes all those, and truly is all those by this Concomitancy upon the Consecration, and it may be said to be all those as soon as it is consecrated, and at the same time that those words are spoke.

There being a distinct Consecration of Christ's Body and Bloud in the Sacrament, if Christ's Body and Bloud be really present there by vertue of the words of Conse­cration, yet they ought to be as distinctly present as they are distinctly consecrated, that is, the Body present in the species of Bread, and the Blood in the species of Wine, for else they are not present according to the Consecration; so that this Concomitancy by which they are present to­gether, does quite spoile the Consecration by which they are present asunder, and so confounds the two Species as to make them become both the same thing after they are consecrated, and renders the consecration of one of them to be without either use or sense.

2. It makes the distinct Sumption of both the Species to be vain and unnecessary to any persons, to the Priests or to any others to whom the Pope has sometimes gran­ted them, and even to the Apostles and all the first Chri­stians who received both; for if the one contains the ve­ry same thing with the other, and gives the very same thing, what need is there of having or of taking both, that is, of taking the very same thing twice over at the same time? If one Species contain Jesus Christ whole and entire, his Body, Bloud, Soul, and Divinity, and all these are given by one Species, what can be desired more as de Meaux says, Then Jesus Christ himself? and what then can the other Species give but the same thing? is [Page 120]Jesus Christ with whole Humanity and Divinity to be thus taken over and over, and to be taken twice at the same time? if he be, why not several times more, and if he were so, this might be done by taking several times the same Species, since one Species contains the same as both, even the whole substance, and the whole essential effect of the Sacrament, and the very person of Jesus Christ himself. This does so alter the nature of the Sa­crament by which we have a continual nourishment conveyed to our Souls, and receive the Grace and Spi­rit of Christ by fresh and daily recruits, and in several measures and degrees every time we Communicate, that it makes it not onely to no purpose for any person to take more than one Species at once, but to take the Sa­crament more than once all his whole life, for what need he desire more, who has received together with the hu­manity of Jesus Christ, his Divinity also whole and entire P. 314., and if he has received that once, there is no reason for receiving it again, for this as it renders the Grace and Substance of the Sacrament Indivisible, as de Meaux of­ten pleades, so it renders it Infinite, to which nothing can be ever added by receiving it never so often; and if we thus make this Sacrament to give the very Body and Bloud of Christ, and so the whole and entire Person of Christ, and his whole Humanity and his whole Divi­nity, instead of giving the spiritual Graces and Vertues of Christ's Body and Bloud, we then make every Commu­nicant to receive all that by one single Communion which he can ever receive by never so many thousands, and we make all persons to receive this alike, however different the preparations and dispositions of their minds are, and even the most wicked and vile wretches must receive, not onely Christ's Body and Blood, but even his Soul, and his Divinity, and his whole and entire Person; for though the spiritual graces and vertues may be given in different measures and degrees, and in different pro­portions [Page 121]according to the capacity of the receiver, yet the Humanity and Divinity of Christ, which is whole and entire in each Species, never can.

Thirdly, If Christ's Body and Bloud were thus always joyned together in the Sacrament, and were both con­tained in one Species, yet this would not be a true Sa­cramental reception of them, for to make that, they ought to be taken as separate and divided from one another, his Body from his Blood, and his Bloud from his Body, and not as conjoyned or mixt together; this was the way and manner which Christ himself appointed, and this is the onely way by which we can be said to eat his Body and to drink his Blood: and as they own they ought to be thus consecrated, so they ought also to be thus received, for I cannot understand why they might not be as well consecrated together as received together, and why it would not be as true a Sacrament with such a Consecration as with such a Sumption; nay, I think the Consecration this way would have more sense in it than the Sumption, for it is nothing so odd and strange to suppose the Bread to be turned into the Body and Bloud of Christ, as to suppose that by eating that we both eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ; to make eating and drinking the same thing, or to say we drink by eat­ing, and eat by drinking, are very unaccountable and un­intelligible expressions, so that Concomitancy does whol­ly confound those two Sacramental Phrases and Sacra­mental Actions: But is it not enough, says de Meaux P. 323., for a Christian to receive Jesus Christ? is it not a Sacra­ment where Jesus Christ is pleased to be in person? But Jesus Christ is not received in the Sacrament in any o­ther manner but by receiving his Body and Bloud, nor is it his Person he bids us receive, but his Body and Bloud, and the way by which we are to receive them is by eat­ing the one and drinking the other, and we cannot be properly said to do that, or to receive Christ or his [Page 122]Body and Blood Sacramentally, but this way: Though the Body and Blood of Christ, therefore should be both in one Species and both received by one Species, yet this would not be the eating the Body and the drinking the Blood, for as one of their own Popes, Innocent the Third, says, and Durandus from him, Neither is the Blood drunk under the Species of Bread, nor the Body eaten under the Species of Wine, for as the Blood is not eaten nor the Body drank, so neither is drunk under the Species of Bread nor eat under the Species of Wine Nec sanguis sub specie panis nec Corpus sub specie vini bibitur aut comeditur, quia sicut nec sanguis co­meditur nec Corpus bibitur ita neu­trum sub species panis bibitur aut sub specie vini comeditur. Durand. Ra­tional. l. 4. c. 42.. And therefore though they should be both received according to them by one Species, yet they would not be both eat and drank, that is received Sacramentally; eating and drinking are distinct things, and both belong to the Sacrament; and though eating and drinking spiritually be as de Meaux says, The same thingP. 184., and both the one and the other is to believe: Yet eating and drinking Sacramentally are not, but are to be two distinct outward actions that are to go along in the Sacrament with our inward Faith.

This Doctrine of Concomitancy and of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ together in that gross manner which is believed in the Roman Church, does quite spoile the Sacramental reception of Christ's Body and Bloud, for according to that, they can never be received separate and apart, no not by the two Species, but they must be always received together in either of them; so that though by the Institution the Species of Bread seems par­ticularly to contain, or rather give the Body, and the Species of Wine the Bloud, and as St. Paul says1 Cor. 10.16., The bread which we bless, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? and the cup which we bless, is it not the Commu­nion of the blood of Christ? Yet hereby either of them is made the Communion of both, and it is made impossible to receive them asunder, as Christ instituted and appoint­ed [Page 123]and as is plainly implied by eating and drinking, and seems to be the very nature of a Sacramental reception: But

Fourthly, This Concomitancy makes us to receive Christ's Body and Bloud not as sacrificed and shed for us upon the Cross, but as they are now living and both joyned together in Heaven, whereas Christ's Body and Bloud is given in the Sacrament, not as in the state of life and glory, but as under the state of death, for so he tells us, This is my body which is given for you, that is, to God as a Sacrifice and Oblation, and, This is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins. So that we are to take Christ's Body in the Sacrament as it was crucified for us and offered up upon the Cross, and his Bloud as it was shed and poured out, not as joyned with his Body, but as separated from it: the Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud cometh from his Death and from its being a Sacri­fice which was slain, and whose Blood was poured out for to make expiation for our Sins, and as such we are to take Christ's Body and Bloud, that is, the vertue and be­nefits of them in the Sacrament, for as de Meaux says,P. 311. This Body and this Blood with which he nourisheth and quickneth us, would not have the vertue if they had not been once actually separated, and if this separation had not caused the violent Death of our Saviour, by which he became our Victim. So neither will it have that vertue in the Sacrament if the Body be not taken as broken and sacri­ficed, and the Bloud as shed or poured out, and both as separated from one another: De Meaux owns, We ought to have our living Victim under an image of Death, other­wise we should not be enlivened P. 312.. I do not well un­derstand the meaning of a living Victim, for though Christ who was our Victim is alive, yet he was a Victim onely as he died; so that a living Victim is perhaps as im­proper a phrase as a dead Animal. If we are to receive Christ then in the Sacrament as a Victim or Sacrifice, [Page 124]we are to receive him not as living but as dead; I would not have de Meaux or any else mistake me, as if I assert­ed that we received a dead Body, a dead flesh, a carcase as he calls itP. 309. in the Sacrament, for he knows we do not believe that we receive any real flesh, or any proper natu­ral Body at all, but onely the mystical or sacramental Body of Christ, or to speak plainer, the true and real Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud offered for us, and we are not onely to have this under an image of death, that is, to have the two Species set before us to look up­on, but we are to receive it under this image, and to eat the Body as broken, and the Bloud as poured out, and so to partake of Christ's death in the very partaking of the Sacrament; de Meaux speaks very well, when he says,P. 312. The Vertue of Christ's Body and his Blood coming from his Death, he would conserve the image of his Death when he gave us them in his holy Supper, and by so lively a representation keep us always in mind to the cause of our Salvation, that is to say, the Sacrifice of the Cross. But how is this image of his Death conserved in his holy Sup­per, if Christ be there given not as dead but living, Con­comitancy does rather mind us of Christ's Resurrection when his Body was made alive again and reunited to his Soul and to his Divinity, than of his death when it was divided and 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 [Page 125]it is a SacrificeP. 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 126]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 [Page 127]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 [Page 128]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 without it; I have therefore pre­vented de Meaux in all he brings for Tradition and the Practice of the Church, unless he will lay so great stress upon that, as to make it null, and supersede a divine Law; nor am I at all concerned in all the instances he brings for it out of the Old and New Testament § V. §. VI., unless he can bring one to prove that either the Jewish Syna­gogue or the Christian Church did ever make void a Di­vine Law by a contrary Practice and Tradition of their own; I can never allow any Church to have a power and Authority to do this, and I am willing to allow it all Authority that is kept within those bounds. It was boldly and openly done indeed by the Council of Con­stance, when it owned, That Christ instituted the Sacra­ment and administred it to his Disciples un­der both kinds Licet Christus post caenam in­stituerit & suis Discipulis admini­straverit subutrā (que) specie panis & vi­ni hoc venerabile Sacramentum — Et similitèr quòd licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ hujusmodi Sacramentum re­ciperetur à sidelibus sub utrâ (que) spe­cie. Concil. Constant. Sess. 11. and that the faithful re­ceived it under both kinds in the Primi­tive Church: Yet to command it under one by its own power and authority, and by its own Prerogative to give a Non obstante to Christ's Institution; this was done like those that had a sufficient plenitude of power, and were resolved to let the World see they had so, and that Christ's own Institution was to give way to it; they had not then found out the more sly and shift­ing subtilties that Christ gave the Cup to his Disciples onely as Priests, and made them Priests just after the gi­ving them the Bread; this was a late invention found out since that Council, by some more timerous and wary So­phisters who were afraid of setting up the Churches Power against a Divine Institution; neither did they then offer to justifie the Communion in one kind by the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church, as de Meaux and others have done since, but they plainly gave [Page 129]up this, and onely made a late Custom, which was af­terwards introduced, to become a Law by vertue of their present Power, notwithstanding the Institution of Christ and the Practice of the Primitive Church to the contrary: Here the Case truly lies, though de Meaux is willing to go off from it, there must be a power in the Church to void a Divine Institution, and to null a Law of Christ, which can be no other than an Anti­christian power in the strictest sense, which may by the same reason take away all the positive Laws of Christianity, or else Communion in one kind is not to be maintained; and this power must be in a particu­lar present Church, in opposition to the Primitive and the Universal, or else this Communion is not to be maintained in the Church of Rome: De Meaux must be driven to defend that post which he seems to have quitted and deserted, or else he can never defend this half-Communion, which is contrary, as I have proved, and as the Council of Constance owns, to the Institution of Christ, and to the Practice of the Primitive Church. The new Out-work he has raised from Tradition, in which he puts all the forces of his Book, and the main strength of his Cause; this I have not beat down or de­stroyed, but taken from him; and his cause can never hold out upon his own principles of Tradition and the Practice of the Church, which is a very strong batte­ry against it, as I have largely shewn; so that all that he says for Tradition is in vain, and to no purpose, since this Tradition he pleades for is utterly against him, and if it were never so much for him, yet no Tradition can take away a Divine Law.

He seems to own, and I think he dare not expresly deny, that what is essential to the Sacraments, or be­longs to the substance of them cannot be taken away by Tradition or the Power of the Church, but he ut­terly destroys this by making onely Tradition and the [Page 130] Practice of the Church to determine what is thus essen­tial to the Sacraments, for if nothing be essential but what is made so by them, and may be known by them, then they have a power to make or to alter even the very essentials of the Sacraments, which are hereby made wholly to depend upon the Church and Traditi­on: We are willing to own that nothing is unalterable in the Sacraments, but what is essential to them, and that all other indifferent things belonging to them, may be altered by the Church, or by Tradition; but then we say that what is essential is fixt and known by the Institution, and by a Divine Law, antecedent to Tradi­tion; and if it were not so, then there were nothing essential in the Sacraments at all, but all would be in­different, and all would depend upon Tradition and the Churches Power; and then to what purpose is it to say, That the Church has power onely in the Accidentals, and may alter whatever is not essential, or belongs not to the substance of the Sacraments; this onely shews that they are ashamed to speak out, and they dare not but grant with one hand, that which they are forced to take away with another; they dare not openly say, That the Church has power over the essentials of the Sacraments; but yet they say, That there are no es­sentials but what are made and declared to be so by the Church: So the streight they are in obliges them in effect to revoke their own concessions, and Truth makes them say that which their Cause forces them to unsay again, and they are put upon those things in their own necessary defence, which amount in the whole to a contradiction.

If the Bishop of Meaux can shew us that any Divine Institution was ever altered by the Jewish or Chri­stian Church, or any Law of God relating to Pra­ctice and Ceremony was ever taken away by a con­trary Practice and Tradition, then he says something [Page 131]to the purpose, of Communion in one kind, but if the many Instances which he brings for Tradition out of the Old and New Testament, do none of them do this, they are then useless and insufficient, they fall short of what they ought to prove, and come not up to the question in hand, but are wholly vain and insignificant, and to shew they are so, I shall reduce them to these fol­lowing heads:

1. They chiefly relate to the Churches Power in ap­pointing and determining several things which are left indifferent and undetermined by the Law of God; and here we acknowledge the Church to have a proper Power, and that it may oblige even in Conscience to many things, to which we are not obliged by the Law of God; and may determine many things for the sake of Peace and Uniformity in Divine Worship, which are not so precisely determined by 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 [Page 132]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 [Page 133]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 ScriptureBellarmin. 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 [Page 134]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 [Page 135]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 themselves upon the Sab­bath, on which they were commanded so strictly to rest, it was both necessity and the reason of the Law which made this justifiable, and not any Tradition or a­ny sentence of the Sanhedrim; and our Saviour when he blames their superstitious observance of the Sabbath, does not reprove them for keeping it as it was com­manded, or otherwise than Tradition had explained it, but contrary to the true reason and meaning of it, and to the true mind and will of the Lawgiver.

As to the Christians changing the Sabbath into the first Day of the Week, this was not done by Traditi­on, but by the Apostolical Authority; and whatever ob­ligation there may be antecedent to the Law of Moses for observing one day in seven, it can neither be pro­ved that the Jews observed exactly the Seventh day from the Creation, much less that the Christians are under any such obligation now, or I may adde, if they were, that Tradition would excuse them from a Divine Law.

All the instances which Monsieur de Meaux heaps up, are very short of proving that, and though I have examined every one of them, except that pretended Jewish Tradition of Praying for the Dead, which is both false and to no purpose, yet it was not because there was any strength in them to the maintaining his sinking Cause, but that I might take away every slender prop by which he endeavours in vain to keep it up, and drive him out of every little hole in which he strives with so much labour to Earth himself, when after all his turnings and windings he finds he must be run down.

If any instance could be found by de Meaux or o­thers, of any Tradition, or any Practice of a Church contrary to a Divine Institution, and to a plain Law of God, they would deserve no other answer to be re­turned to it, but what Christ gave to the Pharisees in the like case: Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition Mar. 15.3.? Our Saviour did not put the matter upon this issue, Whether the Tradition by which they explained the Law, so as to make it of none effect, was truly ancient and authentic, and deri­ved to them from their fore-Fathers; but he thought it sufficient to tell them that it made void, and was contrary to a Divine Law.

There is no Tradition, nor no Church, which has e­ver broke so plain a Law, and so shamefully violated a Divine Institution, as that which has set up Com­munion in One Kind: the true reason why it did so was not Tradition, no, that was not so much as pre­tended at first for the doing of it, but onely some ima­ginary dangers and inconveniencies, which brought in a new custom contrary to ancient Tradition: These were the onely things insisted on in its defence at first, the danger of spilling the Wine, and the difficulty of get­ting it in some places, and the undecency of Laymens dip­ping their Beards in it: These were the mighty rea­sons which Gerson brought of old against the Heresie, as he calls it, of Communicating in both Kinds Tractatus Magistri Jo­hannis de Ger­son contra hae­resin de com­munionae Lai­corum sub utra­que specie.; as if it were a new Heresie to believe that Wine might be spilt, or that men wore Beards, or as if the Sacrament were appointed only for those Countreys where there were Vines growing. De Meaux was very sensible of the weakness and folly of those pretences, though they are the pericula and the scandala meant by the Council of Constance, and therefore he takes very little notice of them, and indeed he has quite taken away all their arguments against the particular use of the Wine, be­cause [Page 137]he all along pleades for either of the Species, and owns it to be indifferent which of them so ever is used in the Sacrament: But I have shewn that both of them are necessary to make a true Sacrament, be­cause both are commanded, and both instituted, and both of them equally belong to the matter of the Sa­crament, and so to the essence of it, and both are or­dinarily necessary to the receiving the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament, because that is annext to both by the Institution, and cannot warrantably be expected without both.

To conclude therefore, Communion in One Kind is both contrary to the Institution and to the Command of Christ, and to the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church grounded upon that Command, and is no less in it self than a sacrilegious dividing and mangling of the most sacred Mystery of Christianity, a destroying the very Nature of the Sacrament, which is to represent the Death of Christ, and his Blood se­parated from his Body; a lessening the signification and reception of our compleat and entire spiritual Nourishment, whereby we are Sacramentally to eat Christ's Body and drink his Bloud; an unjust depriving the People of that most pretious Legacy which Christ left to all of them, to wit, His Sacrificial Bloud which was shed for us, and which it is the peculiar privi­ledge of Christians thus mystically to partake of; and lastly, a robbing them of that Grace, and Vertue, and Benefit of the Sacrament which belongs not to any part, but to the whole of it, and cannot ordinarily be received without both kinds: O that God would there­fore put it into the hearts of those who are most con­cerned, not to do so much injury to Christians and to Christianity; and not to suffer any longer that Di­vine Majesty, which is the great Foundation of all Spiritual Grace and Life, to be tainted and poy­soned [Page 138]with so many corruptions as we find it is a­bove all other parts of Christianity! And O that that blessed Sacrament which was designed by Christ to be the very Bond of Peace, and the Cement of Unity a­mong all Christians, and to make them all one Bread and one Body, may not by the perversness of men and the craft of the Devil, be made a means to divide and separate them from each other, and to break that Uni­ty and Charity which it ought to preserve!

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 [Page 2]Exchequer in the World was ever owner of; 'tis 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, and the most useful and comfortable part of Christian Wor­ship, and if it be so, it is a great defect in us that want it; they charge us very high for being without it, without a Sacrifice, which no Religion (they tell us) in the World ever was before: and one amongst them of great Learning, and some temper in other things, yet upon this occasion askes, whether it can be doubted, where there is no Sacrifice, there can be any Religion An dubitari potest ubi nullum peculiare Sacri­sitium, ibi ne Religionem qui­dem esse posse? Canus in loc. Theol. l. 12. p. 813.? We on the other side account it a very great corrupt­ion of the Eucharist, to turn that which is a Sacrament to be received by us into a Sacrifice to be offer'd to God, and there being no Foundation for any such thing in Scripture, but the whole ground of it being an Error and mistake, as we shall see anon, and it being a most bold and daring presumption, to pretend proper­ly to Sacrifice Christs body again which implyes no less then to Murder and Crucifie him; we therefore call it a Blasphemous Fable See Article 31. of the 39 Articles of Re­ligion., and as it is made use of to deceive people into the vain hopes of receiving benefit by the Communion without partaking of it, and a true [Page 3]pardon of sin by way of price, and recompence is attri­buted to it, and it is made as truly propitiatory as Christs sacrifice upon the Cross, both for the dead and living, and for that purpose is scandalously bought and sold, so that many are hereby cheated not onely of their mony but of their souls too, it is to be feared, who trust too much to this easie way of having a great many Masses said for them, and because when the priest pretends to do those two great things in the Mass, to turn the Bread and Wine into the very substance of Christs Body and Blood, and then to offer Christ up again to his Father as truly as he offered himself upon the cross, which are as great as the greatest works which ever God did at the very Creation and Redemption of the World) yet that he really does no such thing as he then vaunts and boasts of; for these Reasons we deem it no less then a dangerous deceit Ibid..

These are high charges on both sides, and it concerns those who make them to be well assured of the grounds of them. And here I cannot but passionately resent the sad state of Christianity, which will certainly be very heavy upon those who have been the cause of it, when the corruptions of it are so great, and the divi­sions so wide about that which is one of the most sacred and the most useful parts of it, the Blessed Eucharist; which is above any other the most sadly depraved and perverted, as if the Devil had hereby shown his ut­most malice and subtlety, to poyson one of the greatest Fountains of Christianity, and to make that which should yield the Waters of Life be the Cup of destru­ction. That blessed Sacrament which was designed to unite Christians, is made the very bone of Contention, and the greatest instrument to divide them; and that bread of Life is turned into a stone, and become the great Rock of offence between them. Besides the lesser corruptions of the Eucharist in the Church of Rome, [Page 4]such as using thin Wafers instead of bread, and inject­ing them whole into the mouths of the Communicants, and Consecrating without a Prayer, and speaking the words of Consecration secretly, and the like; there are four such great ones as violate and destroy the very substance and Essence of the Sacrament, and make it to be a quite other thing then Christ ever intended it, and therefore such as make Communion with the Ro­man Altar utterly sinful and unlawful: These are the Adoration of the Host, or making the Sacrament an object of Divine Worship; the Communion in one Kind, or taking away the Cup from the People; the turning the Sacrament into a true and proper Sacrifice propitiatory for the Quick and the Dead, and the using of private or solitary Masses, wherein the Priest who celebrates, Communicates alone. The two for­mer of these have been considered in some late dis­courses upon those subjects; the fourth is a result and consequence of the third, for when the Sacrament was turned into a sacrifice the people left off the frequent communicating, and expected to be benefitted by it another way; so that this will fall in as to the main Reasons of it, with what I now design to consider and Examine, The Sacrifice of the Mass or Altar, wherein the Priest every time he celebrates the Communion is supposed to offer to God the Body and Blood of Christ under the forms of Bread and Wine, as truely as Christ once offered himself upon the cross, and that this is as true a proper and propitiatory Sacrifice as the other, and that 'tis so not only for the Living but al­so for the Dead. The Objections we make against it and the Arguments by which they defend it will fall in together at the same time, and I shall endeavour fairly and impartially to represent them in their utmost strength, that so what we have to say against it, and what they have to say for it, may be offered to the [Page 5]Reader at one view, that he may the better judg of those high charges which are made, he sees, on each side.

First then we say, That the very foundation of this Sacrifice of the Mass, is established upon two very great Errors and Mistakes: The one is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or Christs Corporal presence in the Eucharist; The other is the Opinion, That Christ did offer up his body and blood as a sacrifice to God in his last Supper, before he offered up himself upon the Cross: If either or both of these prove false, the Sa­crifice of the Mass is so far from being true, that it must necessarily fall to the ground, according to their own principles and acknowledgments.

Secondly, There is no Scripture ground for any such sacrifice, but it is expresly contrary to Scripture; un­der which head I shall examine all their Scriptural pre­tences for it, and produce such places as are directly contrary to it, and perfectly overthrow it.

Thirdly, That it has no just claim to Antiquity, nor was there any such Doctrine or practise in the Primitive Church.

Fourthly, That it is in it self unreasonable and ab­surd, and has a great many gross Errors involved in it.

First we say, That the very Foundation of this sacrifice is established upon two very great Errors and Mistakes, the first of which is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or which may be sufficient for their purpose, the corporal presence of Christs natural body and blood in the Eucharist, though they disclaim the belief of this without the other: but if Christs body and blood be not substantially present under the species of bread and Wine, they have no subject matter for a sa­crifice, for 'tis not the bread and wine which they pre­tend [Page 6]to offer, nor the bare species and accidents of those, nor can they call them a proper propitiatory sacrifice, but 'tis 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 confessPanis & 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 'tis 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; 'tis 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 [Page 7]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, [Page 8]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 [Page 9]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 and cer­tain? Does not our Saviour do it more than once at other times? The Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners, [...], Matth. 26.45. before he was so, though Judas was then nigh and coming about it. So John 10.17. I lay down my Life, [...], when he was ready to do so; as he was to have his body broken and his blood shed, when he was prepared as a victim to be offered the next day, so St. Paul says, [...], I now offer up my self, 2 Tim. 4.6. when, as we translate it, he was ready to be offered. That Christ here used the present tense for the future is owned by Cardinal Cajetan In Luc. 22., and other Learned menSa. Barrad. of the Roman Church, and Jansenius Concord. 131. sayes, the pour­ing out of the blood is rightly understood of the pouring it out upon the Cross.

Christs body was not broke, nor his blood poured out till the next day, nor did he offer up himself as a sacrifice to his Father until then, Christ did not then command his Apostles to offer him up in the Eucharist, when he bad them do this: hoc facite, does not signi­fie to sacrifice, nor will it be supposed I hope our Sa­viour did then use the vulgar Latin, the phrase in Virgil, cum faciam vitula, which is always quoted to this purpose, shows it only to be so meant when the occasion or subject matter does require it; but in our Saviours words it plainly refers to those acts of taking bread and breaking it, and taking Wine and Blessing it, & then giving or distributing of them, as he had done just before, and as he commanded then to do in remem­brance [Page 10]of him, and that it does not relate to sacrificing is plain from St. Paul who applyes it particularly to drinking the Cup, do this as oft as ye drink it in re­membrance of me, 1 Cor. 11.25. That the Apostles were made Priests by Christ at his last Supper, by those words, hoc facite, do this, is so precarious and senseless an opinion, that it only shows what wonderful streights and extremities our adversaries are driven to, who are forced to espouse this to support their ill-framed Hy­pothesis about the Holy Eucharist, in those two do­ctrines of the Communion in One Kind, and the Sacri­fice of the Mass. There is not one Father or Antient Interpreter, that gives any the least countenance to it, and many of their own Authors are ashamed of it, as may be seen in a late Discourse of the Communion in One Kind pag. 15., where this is so fully exposed that I shall here say no more of it, but that if those words make the Apo­stles Priests, it makes them so twice, for they are twice repeated by our Saviour after giving the Cup, as well as after giving the bread, as St. Paul witnesses, 1 Cor. 11.25. and so the character of Priesthood must be dou­ble, and they must be twice ordained at the same time, when there is nothing appears like any Ordina­tion at all; but if they were then made Priests they were not made so to sacrifice Christs Body and Blood, or to do more then he did at that time: and so this is no­thing to the purpose if he himself did not then truly offer and sacrifice himself, which is the plainest thing in the World he did not. And what should make any man imagine that Christs body was broke, and his blood shed at his last Supper; or that he then sacrificed and offered up himself I cannot conceive. Had he been no otherwise sacrificed, nor his body any otherwise bro­ken, nor his blood in any otherway shed besides this the Jews had been liable to much less guilt, but mankind had bin a more wretched condition, for Christ had not [Page 11]Redeemed them had he not dyed for them upon the Cross. If the sacrifice of Christ at his last Supper, the night before his crucifixion, was a true proper and propitiatory sacrifice, what needed he have suffered the next day, if that was of the same nature and value with the other, as they say, and did truly propitiate God, and procure pardon and remission of sins for mankind, what need was there of the Cross of Christ? it was hereby made void and of none Effect, or at least of no necessity. If Christ had done the work with­out it, his sacrifice upon the Altar or the Table might have excused his sacrifice upon the Cross, and thus the bitter Cup might have past from him, and he might have been Crucifyed only in Effigie, and slain mysti­cally and sacramentally; and his body might have been thus broken and his blood shed, and yet the one have been still whole, and the other in his veins.

For these Reasons one of their own Bishops in the Council of Trent denyed openly, That Christ offered up any proper sacrifice at his last Supper Cornelius E­piscopas Biton­tinus, in concilio apud Tridentum, —qui dixerit Christum in cae­nâ non suum cor­pus & sanguinem obtulisse, Canus in loc. Theol. l. 12.. But if he did not then there was no ground for them ever to offer any in the Eucharist, and therefore the Council was forced to declare he did, though no such thing appears in the Evangelical History, nor could any collect it from thence, but it was a necessary after-thought, and a groundless supposal, to help out and establish the sacrifice of the Mass.

Secondly, There is no Scripture ground for any such sacrifice, but 'tis expresly contrary to Scripture, to sacrifice Christ over again, and to have any other pro­pitiatory sacrifice besides that of the Cross, and to offer up Christs body and blood every day which was to be but once offered and that by himself. I have already shown that the greatest foundation of this their sacrifice out of Scripture, which is Christ offering up himself at his last Supper and commanding others to [Page 12]offer him there is a mistake, and if it be so, all their other Scriptural pretences are vain and to no purpose; and must be so acknowledged by themselves, for there is none other that does institute and appoint any such sacrifice, or can with any colour or shadow be pretended to do so, and I hope they will own that without a divine institution, there cannot be a proper and much less a propitiatory sacrifice, and this indeed they do, they confess that it is not in the power of the Church to institute a sacrifice Non est in po­testate Ecclesiae. instituere Sacra­mentum, Salme­ron, Tom. 9. Tract. 28.. And that the very being and Essence of this sacrifice depends upon the Institution of Christ Tota Essentia Sacrificii pendet ex institutione Christi, Salme­ron, ib. Suarez. Tom. 3. Disp. 75.. If that be then taken away, and there be no such thing in Scripture as I have shown there is not, then whatever other places they can produce to esta­blish this are all insignificant and to no purpose; for if they did mention this either by way of Prophecy or of History, yet if it be no where instituted, this will not do the business, for the Institution ought not to be supposed but clearly proved and made out, and if that cannot be, every thing else that is to support it as a collateral evidence falls to the ground. What will it signifie if Melchisedec did offer Bread and Wine not to Abraham only but to God, and as a Priest did sacri­fice them, rather then make an hospitable entertain­ment with them, is this any foundation for the sacri­fice of the Mass? If Christ did not institute that at his last Supper with his Disciples, Melchisedec I hope did not institute it with Abraham and his Souldiers. If the Prophet Malachi speaks never so much of a pure offering, yet if Christ did not offer up himself in the Sacrament, nor command the Apostles to offer him up there, Malachi's Prophesie will not make the Eucha­rist to be a sacrifice or a pure offering, if Christ did not make it so: nor will the Priests I suppos desire their power of sacrificing either from Melchisedecs act or Malachi's prediction without Christs Institution; it is [Page 13]not only a presumption but a demonstration that those Scriptures which they bring, do not really mean or truly speak of any such thing, as The sacrifice of the Mass, when there is no such thing any where instituted or appointed by Christ, and without such an institution there cannot (as they confess) be any ground for it. All their little scattered forces therefore which they rally and pick up here and there out of Scripture, and which against their will they press into the ser­vice of the Mass-sacrifice are hereby wholly cut off and utterly defeated, by having their main strength without which they can do nothing of themselves, ta­ken away from them, and I shall examine them only to show the weakness of them, which they being ve­ry sensible of themselves endeavour to make up their want of strength by the greatness of their number; and surely never were so many places brought out of Scripture to so little purpose, as what they produce for the sacrifice of the Mass.

First then they go back as far as Genesis for it, and it is very strange they should find it there; this will make it very primitive and ancient indeed, but where­ever they meet with bread and Wine, which are things of very great Antiquity, they resolve to make a sacrifice of them; especially if there be but a Priest by who has the power of Consecrating, for they suppose he must presently fall to his office and put on his habit if bread and wine be before him, and that he cannot like other men eat and drink them as his ordinary food or entertain his friends and others with them, except he not only Religiously bless them by Prayer and Thanksgiving which every good man ought to do, and it was the custom even of the Heathens to do this before they ate, but he must sacrifice and offer them up to God. This they will needs have Melchisedec do in the 14. of Gen. 18. verse. Melchisedec King of [Page 14]Salem brought forth bread and wine, and he was the Priest of the most High God. What is there here to show that Melchisedec offered bread and wine as a sacrifice to God, the very word in their own vulgar Latin answering to the Hebrew is protulit, he brought forth, not obtulit, he offered; and if it were the latter, could not he offer bread and wine to Abraham and his Com­pany upon a Table, but must it necessarily be to God upon an Altar? Abraham with his Three Hundred and Eighteen Trained Servants,Ver. 14, 15. had been by night pur­suing those who had taken away his brother Lot Cap­tive, and when they were thus weary and hungry, Melchisedec hospitably and kindly entertained them with provision to refresh them; and brought forth bread and wine to them, thus it lyes in the Sacred Hi­story and Context, and thus Jo­sephus [...]. l. 1. c. 11. relates it, and there is not the least mention or intima­tion of any sacrifice as Cajetan Nihil hic scribitur de sacrificio sed de prolatione seu extractione, quam Josephus dicit factam ad reficiendos victores, Cajetan in Gen. 14. owns upon the place, and so do many of their own Authors, whom Possevine Biblioth. l. 4. c. 13. the Jesuit takes upon him to correct for it. Bellarmine indeed, as if he had been by at the enter­tainment, and been one of Abraham's Souldiers, tells us, they had ate and drank very well before, and therefore desires Melchisedec to excuse them, for they had no need of his Bread and Wine at that timeQuid igitur opus erat pane & vino ijs qui spoliis abundabant & paulo ante comederant & biberant? Bellarm. de Miss. l. 1. c. 6. D. and yet in the same place owns that these were given to Abraham and his Companions for foodAt nos non negamus data illa in cibum Abrahae & sociis, sed dicimus fuisse prius Deo oblata & consecrata, & tum data hominibus ut de sacrificio participarent, Ib. but that they were first offered to God and then given to them to partake of them as of a sacri­fice: But why were they given as Food, if they had [Page 15]no need of Food? Did Melchisedec know they had eaten? Or does the Scripture say so? Or might not he treat them as a King though they had victuals of their own? How does Bellarmine know they were first sacrificed when there is not the least word of that? Ay, but it is said that he was the Priest of the most high God, therefore it is likely he sacrificed, why else should that be added? It was added because he was so, or be­cause as it immediately follows, he blessed Abraham,Ver. 19.20. and Abraham gave him Tithes of all his spoils, this is more likely than because he sacrificed, for there is no menti­on of that as of the other, and 'tis not said he brought forth bread and wine because he was the Priest of the high God, 'tis only a conjunctive particle, and, he was, not a causal for. It is said also in the same place, that he was King of Salem, and why might not his entertain­ing Abraham be as he was a King, because he is said there to be a King, as well as a Priest, and yet I sup­pose a Priest may be said to treat his Friends, as ano­ther man without officiating then as a Priest, though he be called a Priest. Why Bellarmine should cite any Fathers for his Opinion I cannot imagine, since the oldest of them are I suppose so much latter, and at so great a distance from the times of Melchisedec, that they could no more know what Melchisedec did at that time then we can now, and they are very impro­per witnesses of a matter of fact that was so long ago, which nothing but the Scripture history can give us any account of, to which itis not only precarious but rash to add any of our own guesses and conjectures; however tho some of the Fathers do by way of figure and allusion, make this bread and wine of Melchise­dec, to relate to the Sacramental bread and wine, as they make Manna, and several other things which were not sacrifices, yet none apply it to the sacrifice of the Mass, nor could they well do it since they believed [Page 16]no such thing in the Romish sense, as I shall show af­terwards. But after all, what if Melchisedec did sa­crifice bread and wine? What service will this do to the sacrifice of the Mass? The Priests do not there sacrifice bread and wine according to this Mystical Type, nor did Melchisedec sure offer up Christs body and bloud under the species of his bread & wine; if we allow all that can be begged and desired that Melchi­sedec did sacrifice, and that this his sacrifice was a Type and figure of another sacrifice, why may not that be of the sacrifice of the Cross, which is the true and only proper Christian sacrifice, when Christ the Bread of Life was offered up unto God for us? So that there is no necessity to bring in the sacrifice of the Mass to complete and answer this figure, were there any thing in it besides guesse and fancy which I see no manner of reason to believe there is, since there is nothing to countenance it in the New Testament, and 'tis very presumptuous and ungrounded to make any thing a true Type, or to have a Typical meaning farther then Gods Spirit, which alone could know this, has given us warrant to do it by Revelation. Yet without any such ground both Bellarmine de Missâ l. 1. c. 6., and the Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 1., make this to be the notion of Christ being a Priest after the order of Melchisedec, that he was to offer up a visible and unbloody sacrifice of bread and wine, and to appoint others to do this for ever, where­as as the Scripture makes Christ to be a Priest after the Order of Melchisedec, not upon any such account: for the Author to the Hebrews makes not the least menti­on of this in his large discourse of this matterHeb. 5.7., but in his having no Predecessor nor no Successor in his Priesthood, as Melchisedec is represented in Scripture without any account of his Family or Genealogy, with­out Father, without Mother, without Descent, Heb. 7. v. 3. and in the excellency of that in general above the im­perfect [Page 17] Aaronic Priesthood, and in the Eternity and Im­mutability of it, because he continueth ever, and hath an unchangeable Priesthood, verse 24. How little the Mel­chisedecian Priesthood of Christ, upon which they lay so much stress, will serve the purpose of the Mass-sacri­fice, nay how contrary 'tis to it, I shall endeavour to manifest in a few particulars.

First then, Christ it is plain did offer up to God not an unbloody, but a bloody sacrifice upon the Cross; I ask whether he did this according to his Melchisede­cian Priesthood? If he did, then Melchisedec probably as Priest of the High God might offer the bloody sacri­fices of living creatures, and if he were Shem the Eldest Son of Noah, as is fairly conjectured by Learned men, he might learn this of his Father, who after the Flood built an Altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings on the Altar, Gen. 8.20. but then how will this be reconciled with what our adversaries pretend, that it was the proper and peculiar office of Melchisedec to offer the pure and unbloody sacrifice of bread and wine? And that according to that the Roman Priests are to do that, and that Christ did that at his last Supper. Christs Priesthood was the same at his Sup­per and upon the Cross, if he acted therefore as a Priest of Melchisedec in one, he did so in both.

Secondly, The Scripture mentions no Act or Office of Melchisedec's Priesthood but in blessing Abraham, Gen. 14.18, 19. Melchisedec King of Salem brought forth bread and Wine, and he was the Priest of the most high God, and he blessed him, and said, blessed be Abra­ham of the most high God which hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand. And this the Authour to the Hebrews takes particular notice ofch. 7. v. 1., and this answers to what St. Peter says of Christ after his Resurrection, [Page 18] God having raised up his son Jesus sent him to bless you Acts 3.26., which general word of blessing may include in it, whatever is done for us by Christs Priesthood after his Resurrection, particularly his praying and inter­ceding to God for us. Had it been any part of Christs Melchisedecian Priesthood to offer up bread and wine, much more had it wholly consisted in this, 'tis strange the Apostle in a set and large discourse of this, should not speak one word, nor take the least notice of it.

Thirdly, Christ is to have none to succeed him in his Melchisedecian Priesthood, but he was himself to remain a Priest for ever; the Author to the Hebrews makes this difference between the Aaronical Priests and Christ, that they were to succeed one another, and they truly were many Priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death Heb. 7.23., but Christ was an immortal and so a perpetual Priest, but this man be­cause he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood Verse 24., [...], a Priesthood that passes not to others but is ever fixt and appropriate to his own person, and he is made a Priest, after the power of an endless Life Verse 16.. That which belongs then to Christ as he is an immortal Priest, and continueth ever, and hath none to succeed him, that it is which constitutes his Melchise­decian Priesthood, and what that is the Apostle plain­ly informs us in the very next verse to those I have quoted, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for us Verse 24.. Christs interceding with God by vertue of his sacri­fice upon the cross, and appearing in heaven in the presence of God for us, and there presenting his sacri­fice to his Father, and powerfully mediating on our behalf, this is his proper unchangeable, eternal, in­transitive Melchisedecian Priesthood, and 'tis great ar­rogance for any to pretend to share with him or to succeed him therefore in his proper Priesthood, and to [Page 19]call themselves as the Romanists do, Priests after the order of Melchisedec, when none but Christ is so; This his priesthood is not committed to any upon Earth, but is to be for ever executed and discharged by him­self in heaven, and he has left none to be proper priests in this sense, but only to be Ministers to this great High priest, in performing some lesser though peculiar Offices proper to them, as the Levites under the Jew­ish dispensation had their proper work though they were not proper priests.

The next thing they produce out of Scripture for the Sacrifice of the Mass, is the Paschal Lamb, which they will needs have to be a figure of the Eucharist; and since that was a sacrifice, therefore the Eucharist which was figured by it ought to be so too; Now these figura­tive Arguments though they help to make some show as they are drest out by fancy, yet they have generally this fault that they prove either too much or too little, and so either shoot over the mark, or fall a great deal short of it, but seldom hit it. The Paschal Lamb, and the Eucharist, the Christian Passeover, do agree in this that they are both solemn and religious Rites, com­memorative of a great deliverance, and that they are both Sacred and Mystical Feasts wherein something is to be eaten with joy and thankfulness, and our Savi­our instituted one to succeed and take place of the other, in these particulars they suit and have an agree­able Analogy with one another; but figures are like Circles, which may touch one another in some points but not in all, for if we go any farther they will nece­ssarily divide and differ. The paschal Lamb was to be eaten but once a year, the Eucharist much oftner, that was a feast of visible and solid flesh, the Eucha­rist only of bread and wine; or if there be any flesh, 'tis invisible and as like bread and wine as can be, how­ever [Page 20]ever this is the flesh, according to our adversaries, of a living man, that of a dead and roasted Lamb, this is not to be slain but eaten whole and alive, the other was, and therefore why may we not adde, to go no further, this is no proper sacrifice, that probably was, for it is not past question whether it was or no, but yet such a sacrifice as was offered without a priest by every Master of a Family: and if the Eucharist were to agree with it in this, the priests would loose a great deal of their design in making it a sacrifice, for then without hiring them every house-keeper would offer it himself; besides the paschal Lamb was not a propi­tiatory sacrifice, I presume, for the quick and dead, so then in correspondence to that neither is the sacri­fice of the Mass, but only an Eucharistic one: but af­ter all the paschal Lamb was not truly a Type and fi­gure of the Eucharist but of Christ crucified, so says St. Paul expresly, Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us 1 Cor. 5.7., and that not I suppose in the Sacrament, but up­on the cross, the Paschal figure was fulfilled, says their own Jansenius, when our true passeover Christ was immo­lated Impleta erat figura Paschatis quando verum nostrum Pascha immolatus est Christus. Jan­sen. Harmon. c. 131. f. 895.. and to show how exact a figure he then bare of the paschal Lamb, a bone of him was not to be broken John 19.33., as it was not likewise of that Exd. 12.46. and this expresly remarkt, that the Scripture might be fulfilled verse 36.. The sacrifice of the paschal Lamb, and the other Jew­ish sacrifices wherein atonement was made for sin by shedding of blood, without which under the Law there was to be no Remission, were all as the Apostle says shadows of good things to come Heb. 20.1., and Types of the more perfect sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, who was the Lamb slain in Types and Figures as well as in design and intention from the beginning of the world, and I cannot but think that from hence arose the uni­versal custom of sacrificing in all Religions over all the World, from an original tradition of the sacrifice of [Page 21]Christ, and out of a primary regard and respect to that, for I cannot imagine what else should be the reason or give rise to expiatory sacrifices, and be the true cause of so general a practice; but tha any of these sacri­fices had relation to the Eucharist, or were intended as figures of that is very precarious and ungrounded; Those Eucharistic sacrifices indeed in which part of what was offered, was eaten by the offerers; or in holocausts when the whole was consumed, where a peace-offering was joined with them which the sacri­ficers used to feast and partake of, as a token of their peace and reconciliation with God, these may fairly relate and have some respect to or at least resemblance with the Eucharist, which is a kind of sacrificial feast, or sacramental feeding upon an oblatum, Christs body and blood offered for us upon the Cross, but that they were Types of this is more then we can be assured of, for a Type is a sign or figure appointed and designed by God to signifie and mark out such a thing, and we cannot know that God appoints or designs any such thing further then we have some ground from Scrip­ture and Revelation, and therefore we must restrain Typical matters within those bounds and must not let fancy loose to make what Types it pleases. There may be some similitude and likeness by which one thing may be compared with another without its being a Type or a Figure of it as Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew calls [...]. Justin Martyr Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 260. Par., The meat-offering of fine flour which the Leper was to bring for his cleansing, Levit. 4.10. an Image or likeness of the Eucha­ristic bread which Christ our Lord appointed to be brought in remem­brance of his Passion whereby our Souls are cleansed from sin and [Page 22]wickedness, and that we may hereby give thanks to God the Creator. So that he makes the Eucharist to answer the Analogy of that meat-offering in three things in the Oblation of bread, and this in commemoration of Christs passion whereby we are delivered from sin, and as a Thanksgiving to God, and in all these it does ve­ry well correspond with it, though that it was strictly a Type of this, and so intended by God is still to be questioned, and he that is acquainted with the Fa­thers and their Allegorical way of explaining Scripture, and applying all things in the Old Testament to mat­ters in the New, will have great reason to doubt whe­ther they did not give too much scope to their fancy in many things, and whether solid Arguments may be drawn from all their Allegorical discourses and applica­tions, but yet none of them that I know of, do make any of the antient propitiatory sacrifices to be Types and Figures of the Eucharist, but of the sacrifice of the Cross; however if they should do this by some remote allusion and partial resemblance, yet not as it is a proper sacrifice or truly propitiatory, therefore not at all to the purpose of the sacrifice of the Mass.

The Prophesie of Malachi is one of the great Scrip­ture proofs for this sacrifice, but it can be at most but a collateral evidence, for if Christ did not in fact insti­tute any such sacrifice as I have proved he did not, this is a much better argument to show there was none such foretold, then it can be to prove he did institute it because it was foretold: Predictions are best under­stood by the completion of them, and if no such thing was done as is pretended from this prediction, this de­monstrates that no such thing was intended or meant by it, so that by taking away that first ground of the Mass-sacrifice, I have taken away all these little under­props and supporters of it; but let us see what seem­ing [Page 23]assistance this place of Malachi will afford them. God having reproved the Jews for their undue and unfit offerings, tells them that better and purer offerings shall be made him every where by the Gentiles, For from the rising of the Sun even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering, for my name shall be great among the Heathen, saith the Lord of Hosts Malac. 1.11.. Thus it is both in the Hebrew and Greek Copies as Bellarmine owns, but it is some­thing different from both those in the Vulgar Latin, where it is, In every place is sacrificed, and is offered to my name a pure Oblation In omni loco sacrifi [...]atur & offertur nomini meo para ob­latio.. They are so in love with the Word sacrifice, that they choose to use that above any other, as if where-ever they meet with that in Scripture it must be meant properly, and of an exter­nal sacrifice, and of no other but the propitiatory sa­crifice of the Mass. Tho the word here Mincha, from which some of our Adversaries are so foolish as to de­rive the Latin word Missa, that signifies only a dismis­sion of the Catechumens and penitents before the Office of the Eucharist, does not signifie a propitiatory sa­crifice but only a meat-offering which was merely Eucharistic, and whereas nothing is more commonly meant by sacrifice in Scripture, then the spiritual sacri­fice of praise and thanksgiving, and prayer, and the like when a pious and devout Soul offers unto God Thanksgiving, and pays its vows unto the most high Psal. 50.14.; when the prayer of the Righteous is set forth as incense, and the lifting up of his hands, as an evening sacrifice Psal. 141.2.. And this is the incense and pure oblation which the Fathers generally understand to be meant in that place, to wit glorifying and blessing God, and Praise and Hymns In Ecclesiis benedicite Domi­num Deum, Psal. 57. ut pariter concurreret Ma­lachiae prophe­tia, in omni loco sacrificium mun­dum, Gloriae sc. relatio [...] bene­dictio & laus & hymni, Ter­tull. contra Marcion. l. 3. as Tertullian in so many words explains this place, and again, a pure offering as Malachi speaks is an honest prayer from a pure Conscience Dicente Ma­lachia sacrifici­um mundum sc. simplex Oratio de consciencia, pura Ib. l. 4. and so in [Page 24]other placesAdversus Judaeos, Ib. he explains it altogether of spiritual sacrifices. Eusebius calls this pure offering of Malachi, the incense of Prayers [...]. Euseb. Demon­strat. l. 1. c. 6. St. Hierom upon the place says, the prophet, teaches that the prayers of holy men should be offered to the Lord not only in the single Pro­vince of Judaea, to which the Jewish sacrifice were confined, but in every place Docet ora­tiones sanctorum Domino offeren­das esse non in unâ orbis pro­vinciâ, Judaeâ, sed in omni loco. Hieron. in Ma­lach. 1. There can be no sa­crifice more acceptable to God, no offering with which he is so well pleased, no incense that is of so sweet a savour as the prayers and praises of a devout mind, and a pure and unblemisht Conscience, and e­specially when these are kindled and enflamed to the highest degrees and ardors at the blessed Sacra­ment, when the soul truly sensible of the Love of God, and the infinite kindness of its dying Saviour, when it has the symbol and representation of his death before it, shall pour out its grateful and hearty resentments, and thereby offer up a more pure and pretious sacri­fice, then thousands of Rams, or ten thousand rivers of Oyl. This is that incense, and that pure offering of Christians which is foretold by the prophet, and this especially offered in the most sacred office of our Religion, the blessed Eucharist; and therefore some of the Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and St. Austin apply this place to the blessed Sacrament, not as any proper sacrifice is there offered, but only such divine and spiritual ones as these; and in what sense they call that a sacrifice and we own it be so, I shall show after­wards.

Why should our Adversaries then charge us with having no sacrifice, and therefore as they charitably tell us no Religion when we have the best and the no­blest sacrifice that can be, that which will please the Lord much better then an Ox or a Bullock that hath horns and hoofs Psal. 69.31. and 40.6. Isai. 1.11.. God was never pleased with those external sa­crifices for themselves, but he often refuses and disre­gards [Page 25]them even under the Jewish dispensation, and they were all to cease with that, and instead of such mean sacrifices and external oblations which were to be offered then but in one place, there should in every place under Christianity be offered the more pure and spiritual sacrifices, the incense of prayer, and the pure oblation of praise and thanksgiving, and such like Christian sacrifices as are often mentioned in Scrip­ture, and which are meant in this prophecy of Mala­chi, of which we shall have further occasion to speak by and by. 'Tis a sort of Judaism then and a returning back to that less perfect and less spiritual state to make the Religion of the Gospel consist in any visible and external sacrifice which our Adversaries so earnestly contend for, rather in those sacrifices which are more spiritual, and therefore more truly Christian, and more agreeable to the spiritual Worship, and the spiritual Oeconomy of the Gospel.

There are some other places of the old Testament brought by Bellarmine, and other defenders of the sa­crifice of the Mass, which are so weak and impertinent that they only serve to expose it, and therefore they are not at all mentioned in the Council of Trent or in the Roman Catechism, such is that saying of the prophet to Eli, 2 Sam. 2.35. That God would raise up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in my heart and in my mind, and I will build him a sure house, and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. This new priest that was to succeed Eli was very pro­bably to be a sacrificing priest, but that he was to offer the sacrifice of the Mass, I leave those who bring this place for it, to prove; for without doubt this was fulfilled long before Christ, in Samuel who succeeded Eli, and in Zadoc who came in the room of Abiathar who was of the Family of Eli, and who was thrust out by Solomon from being priest unto the Lord, that he might [Page 26]fulfil the word of the Lord, which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shilo, 1 Kings 2.27. as the Scripture observes, and to make this figurative or prophetical of the Christian priesthoods succeeding the Aaronical is great strength of fancy, but a very weak argument however for the sacrifice of the Mass, unless that were the work of the Christian priesthood which is hard to be made out.

The Second is that out of the 72, Psalm at the 16. v. There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the Mountains. This handful of Corn is by such Rabbinical men as Galatinus made into a cake or Pla­centa, and that must needs be the wafer cake, which being upon the top of the Mountains, must be heaved and elevated over the head of the priests. This is such an Argument for the sacrifice of the Mass as were suf­ficient to convert the Vicar of Putney, who by the help of Galatinus can prove Transubstantiation out of the Rabbies, and had the good fortune to be brought into the true Church, not by Father P. or Father G. but by Rabbi Solomon, and those two other ancient Rabbies of his, Midras, Coheleth, which writ such a Commentary upon Ecclesiastes, that they are the very Commentary it self. 'Tis strange as he says,Preface in Conse susvete­rum. that the Hebrew Writers should long before Christs time have such notions; but 'tis more strange that some people since Christs time should have no better Arguments for the great principles of their Religion, but the wind, as he goes on, bloweth where it listeth, and some men have such a Wind Mill in their Crowns that any thing will turn it. Whatever Feasts of sweet Meats and dainties the Jews expected as foretold by this Psalm in the days of the Messiah, and were willing to mean by this handful of Corn on the top of the Mountains, they never dreamt of the sacrifice of the Mass.

The next is that of the Proverbs 9. chap. 2d. verse, [Page 27]Wisdom hath killed her beasts, she hath mingled her wine, she hath also furnished her table, but I am sure she never made this Argument for the sacrifice of the Mass; I will improve this place if they please for the proof of other things, as of priests Celibacy, because in the next words 'tis said Wisdom hath sent out her maidens, verse 4. of the Church of Romes being the house that was built by wisdom, because 'tis said in the first verse, She hath hewn out her seven pillars, which are as undoubtedly the seven Hills of Rome, as this Al­legorical Banquet is the sacrifice of the Mass. Our Ad­versaries sure could not be very serious and in good earnest, when they produced such places as these, and therefore they must excuse us for not being so in an­swering them.

I shall mention but one more which if it be not as ridiculous, yet is as impertinent as the other, and that is out of Daniel, chapter 8. verse 11. where it is said the dayly sacrifice was taken away, by a great prince, that is there prophetically described. It is plain that by the dayly sacrifice there is meant that of the Jews, and by the prince who should take it away Antiochus, who did literally perform this by destroying the Jew­ist. Worship, and horribly prophaning the Temple; if by him was allegorically and prophetically meant the Christian Antichrist, if I may so speak, spoken of by St. Paul, 2 Thess. 2. and by St. John, Rev. 13. de­scribed as a beast having seven heads and ten horns, as Bellarmine will have itchap. 9. de Mis. l. 1., then whether this mark be­longs not to him that sets up the sacrifice of the Mass, and destroys as far as he has power, and takes away all the purer Worship of Christ, and has a great many o­ther characters upon him that look very suspitious, will be a great question, for which I dare say there are a great many more probabilities then that by the dayly sacrifice here is meant the sacrifice of the Mass.

I come now to the New Testament, where if there be any proofs for the sacrifice of the Mass, it is more likely to find them then in the Old, yet they produce twice as many such as they are, out of that than this, and like some other people, are more beholden to dark Types and obscure prophesies of the Old Testa­ment to make out their principles, then to the clear light of the Gospel, and to any plain places in the New, and yet if any such doctrine as this were to be received by Christians, and if any such wonderful and essential part of Worship were appointed by Christ, or taught and practised by the Apostles, we should surely have it more plainly set down in the New Testament then they are able to show it.

The first place they urge from thence belongs no more to the sacrifice of the Mass, then the first Command­ment does in the Decalogue, and they had as good have quoted our Saviours words to the Devil, Thou shalt wor­ship the Lord thy God, and so have proved from thence that God ought to be Worshipt by the sacrifice of the Mass, as those to the Woman of Samaria which Bel­larmine de Miss. l. 1. c. 11. brings to this purpose out of John 4.21, 23. The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father, for the hour cometh and now is when the true Worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. From whence he infers that they must Worship him by sacrifice, and that this must be the sacrifice of the Mass, and that this is to Worship him in spirit and truth. If this be not all evidence and de­monstration, there is none in Euclid; and if we may not here cry out, [...] the Mass is found, we are blind and obstinate, but I see very little more for it here then from the other places I named, but rather something against it, for to Worship God in Spirit and Truth, and that because he is a Spirit as our Saviour there adds [Page 29] verse 24. is not to Worship him by an external, visible, Typical sacrifice as the Mass is, and as those of the Jews were, but by a more pure and spiritual Worship of praise and thanksgiving, and prayer, such as that of Christians is to be, as more suitable to the spiritual na­ture of God; and these spiritual sacrifices of Christi­ans are not to be tyed to one place, as those more gross and carnal ones of the Jews were, which was the thing our Saviour here designed. The greatest part of the publick Jewish Worship was fixt to the Temple and to Jerusalem; their Tithes, and First­fruits, and Firstlings, and Festivals as well as their sa­crifices, and there may be divine Worship without sa­crifice as well as with it, and whatever the Worship be, which our Saviour here says was to be spiritual it was not like the Jewish, to be fixt to one place, which is the true scope of those words to the Samaritan Wo­man in answer to her question, v. 20. whether mount Gerizim or Jerusalem was the true place of Worship, which was the great dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans; our Saviour determines for neither, but puts an end to the question, and says, that now under the Gospel, the Worship of God was not local, and as to the manner of it, that it was spiritual.

The second and principal Argument for the sacri­fice of the Mass, is from Christs institution and first ce­lebration of the Eucharist with his Disciples, and here indeed is the true place to find it if there be any such thing, but I have already shownpag. 8, 9, 10. that Christ did nei­ther then sacrifice himself nor command his Disciples to do so, and have taken away that which is the very Foundation of the Mass-sacrifice, and without which every thing else that can be said for it falls to the ground.

There are but two other and those very weak ones behind, the one out of the 13th. of the Acts, where it [Page 30]is said of Saul and Barnabus, and the prophets and Teachers of the Church at Antioch, that they ministered unto the Lord; but could not they minister and per­form the divine office and service without sacrificing? it must be first proved that that was part of the religi­ous office before it can appear that it was m [...]nt here; it is said they fasted and prayed, & in that probably their [...], or Ministry consisted, or as St. Chrysostom Homil. 37. in Act., and after him Oecumenius explain it in preaching, but that they sacrificed there is not the least evidence. The word [...], doth not signifie to sacrifice but to perform any proper function and therefore it is attributed in the Scripture both to the Angels who are called mini­string spirits [...], Heb. 1.14., and to the Magistrates who are called the Ministers of God [...], Rom. 13.6, and yet sacrificing I suppose belongs to neither of them, nor does their own vul­gar Latin so Translate it here.

The last is out of the 1 Cor. 10. for Bellarmine gives up that out of the Hebrews 13. We have an altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the Tabernacle, though 'tis as much to his purpose in my mind as any of the rest, but some Catholick Writers, he says, do by altar mean there, either the Cross or Christ himself Quia non de­sunt ex Catholi­cis qui eo loco per altare intel­ligunt crucem aut ipsum Chri­stum non urgeo ipsum locum, Bellarm. de Mis. c. 14.; but if it were meant of the Eucharist, that is but an Altar in an improper sense, as the sacrifice offered on it is but im­proper and metaphorical as we shall prove, but in the place to the Corinthians, the Apostle Commands them not to eat of things offered to Idols, for to eat of them was to partake of things sacrificed to Devils, and so to have communion with Devils, which was very un­fit for those who were partakers of the Lords Table, and therein truly communicated of the Body and Blood of Christ, as those who are of the Jewish sacrifices were partakers of the Jewish Altar. Now what is here of the sacrifice of the Mass, or any way service­able to it? Why, yes, the Apostle compares the Ta­ble [Page 31]of the Lord with the Table of Devils, and eating of the Lords supper with eating the Jewish and the Heathen sacrifices, therefore the Christians ought to have an Altar as well as the Jews, and what they fed on, ought to be sacrificed as well as the Heathen [...], but the Apostle says nothing of this, nor makes any such comparison between them, but only shows the unfitness of Christians eating of the Heathen sacrifices who partook of the Lords Table; he does not call the Lords Table an Altar, nor the Eucharist a sacrifice, nor was there any danger that the Christians should go to eat in the Idol Temples, but he would not have them eat of their sacrifices brought home, and the whole comparison lyes here, the eating the Lords Supper did make them true partakers of the Lords body and blood sacrificed upon the Cross, as eating of the Jewish sacrifices did make the Jews partakers of the Jewish Altar, and as eating of things offered to Idols was having fellowship with Devils, so that they who partook of such holy food as Christians did, should not communicate of such execrable and diabolical food as the Heathen [...]. If indeed Christians could not partake of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist unless they first made a proper sacrifice and oblation of them, then the Apostles discourse would necessarily suppose and imply them to be thus offered, as the Jewish and Heathen sacrifices were before they were eaten, but since Christs body and blood being once offered upon the Cross is a sufficient sacrifice and ob­lation of them, and the Eucharist is a religious and Sacramental Feast upon the sacrifice of Christ once offered, this is sufficient for the Apostles scope and de­sign in that place, where there is no other comparison made between the Table of the Lord, and the Table of Devils, but that one makes us to be partakers of the body and blood of Christ, and the other to have [Page 32]Fellowship with Devils, and as to the Jewish Altar the Antithesis does not lye here as Bellarmine would have it, between that and the Table of the Lord, that both have proper sacrifices offered upon them, which are eaten after they are sacrificed; but the Cross of Christ rather is the Antithesis to the Jewish Altar, on which sacrifices were really and properly slain, which are not on the Christian Altar, and the feeding and par­taking of those sacrifices so offered, whereby they were made partakers of the Altar, this answers to the sacramental feeding upon Christs body and blood in the Christian Altar whereby we are made partakers of the Cross of Christ, and have the vertue and merit of his sacrifice communicated to us.

Thus I have considered and fully answered what­ever our Adversaries can bring out of Scripture for their sacrifice of the Mass, I shall now offer some places of Scripture that are directly contrary to it, and do perfectly overthrow it: and though their cause must necessarily sink if the Scripture be not for it, be­cause without a Scriptural Foundation there can be no divine institution of a sacrifice which is necessary by their own confession, and so essential a part of worship ought surely to be appointed by no less an Authority then of God himself, so that if it be desti­tute of Scripture-grounds it must like a Castle in the Air fall of it self, and can have nothing else to support it. Yet I shall show that Scripture is plainly against it and that so strong a battery may be raised and levelled at it from thence, that none of their Arts or devices can be able to withstand it; it is from those known places of the Epistle to the Hebrews, from whence I have already shown how contrary their Doctrine is to our Saviours Melchisedecian priesthood, I shall now urge those places out of that Epistle wherein the Divine [Page 33]Authour of it, who was probably St. Paul, largely and designedly showeth the excellency of Christs sa­crifice above those under the Law upon this account, that it had so much vertue and efficacy in it, that by one offering it obtained full and perfect Remission of sin, whereas this was the great imperfection of the others, and showed their great weakness and insufficiency that they were so often offered, and so frequently re­peated, every priest of the Jews standeth dayly mini­string and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sin, chap. 10.11. And it was plain they could not take away sin because they were so often offered over again, either every day or every year, For the Law can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect, chap. 10. verse 1. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged, should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year, verse 2, 3. Those sacrifices being but like the acknowledgments of a Debtor, that he owed a great summ which he had no way fully to pay off and discharge, but he raised and brought what he could, and so owned the Debt, and that he had not where withal to take it quite off, nor to make that so­lution and satisfaction which was necessary. But such was the value of the sacrifice of Christ, that it was a perfect price and payment, and made full satisfaction at once; so that By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, chap. 10. verse 14. and made such full atonement and expiation by that, that there is no more need, nor remains no more sacrifice for sins, but this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God, verse 12. as having fully done the work of a priest upon Earth, and having no need to offer any further sacrifice, nor [Page 34]yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest en­treth into the holy place, every year with blood of others: chap. 9.25. (For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world) but now once in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, verse 26. and Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, verse 28. And we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, chap. 10. verse 10. So that Christ our high priest needeth not dayly, as those high priests, to offer up sacri­fice, first for himself, and then for the people: For this he did once when he offered up himself, chap. 7. ver. 27. Nothing can be said plainer against the sacrifice of the Mass, wherein Christ is often offered and that as pro­perly and truly, they pretend, as the Jewish sacrifices were, or as he was upon the Cross, when it is here so much insisted upon that Christs sacrifice was but once offered, whereas those under the Law were often; and this made an argument of their weakness and im­perfection, and of the full vertue and value of the other: Must it not appear very strange after this that it should be made the great part of some mens Religion, to repeat the same sacrifice of Christ every day, and to offer him up again every day upon the Altar, as truly as the Jews offered their sacrifices day by day continually, and as he once offered up himself upon the Cross, and to make this dayly sacrifice of him in the Mass have as true a vertue to propitiate God and expi­ate sins as the other had, and to be every way as true & proper a sacrifice as the other. I need not labour much to show how contrary this is to this discourse of the Authour to the Hebrews, and to the true scope and de­sign of it, it appears so evidently to be so, that our Adversaries are put to the greatest streights and diffi­culties imaginable to make themselves think otherwise, and to reconcile what the Apostle here says of the sa­crifice [Page 35]of Christ, with what their Church says of the sacrifice of the Mass, and that they are perfectly incon­sistent, notwithstanding all their pretences and eva­sions, I shall make appear by what follows.

First then, They tell us that their sacrifice of the Mass, is but the very same with the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, and so it does not at all take off from the vertue of that, or suppose that to be imperfect, since this is no other, nor no new sacrifice, but only the same both in nature and vertue with that; if it were another sacrifice indeed, or were supposed to have a distinct vertue and efficacy from that of the Cross, it might reflect upon that, and be injurious to it, but since they declare it to be the same, they do not conceive how it is any way so. But the Apostles dis­course (for it is probable an Apostle was Authour of this Epistle) in the forementioned places, is about re­peating the same sacrifices, and offering them up year by year continually, and from hence he grounds the imperfection of them, and that they could not make the comers thereunto perfect, chap. 10. v. 1. These sacrifices indeed were many and of several sorts which they offered, but they still offered them up again and again, both dayly and yearly, and it was their often offering of them as well as their multitude which the Apostle reflects upon, their dayly ministring and offer­ing oftentimes the same sacrifices, chap. 10. verse 11. whereas Christ by one sacrifice and that once offered, chap. 9. verse 28. did fully put away sin, so that had the same sacrifice of Christ been often offered, as the same sacrifices of the Jews were, it had upon that ac­count been liable to the same charge of imperfection; for if by one offering it had for ever perfected them that are sanctified, and had obtained perfect and plenary Re­mission of sins, and had done the whole work, and [Page 36]had the whole effect of all that sacrifices were intend­ed for, then what need it be any further offered? the offering up the same sacrifice, and continuing dai­ly to offer it, shows that it was not sufficient, nor did do the business at once offering, as the frequent using the same medicine shows that it has not fully cured the wound, nor yet perfectly done its work.

Secondly, The sacrifice of the Mass, they say, is on­ly to apply the vertue and merit of the sacrifice of the Cross; for though the sacrifice of the Cross like a po­werful medicament have sufficient vertue in it, yet what does that signifie unless it be applyed to us, which it is by the sacrifice of the Mass? But is there not another way to apply that to us? Is it not appli­ed to us by Faith, and by the common means of Christs own institution, the Christian Sacraments, and especially by the Worthy Receiving of the Lords Sup­per, wherein as the Apostle says, The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ, and the bread which we break, is it not the com­munion of the body of Christ, 1 Cor. 10.16. We do hereby communicate and are made partakers of Christs Body as it was sacrificed for us, that is, of all the ver­tues and benefits of his sacrifice by being as the Apo­stle adds, verse 17. Made partakers of that One bread, that is surely by eating it sacramentally and religiously as Christ has appointed; for it would sound very hard and be a very odd expression, to say we are partakers of that one bread by the sacrificing or offering up of that bread, when they will not own that the bread is sacrificed, or if it were, could we well be thereby partakers of it, but 'tis the eating of that bread which makes us partakers of it; and 'tis the eating Christs Body, and drinking his Blood in the blessed Sacra­ment, that communicates and applies the vertue of his [Page 37]sacrifice of the Cross to us, and not the sacrificing of that again, as the Apostle goes on verse 18. Are not they who eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the Altar? 'tis eating and communicating, that makes us parta­kers of Christs sacrifice. We do then eat of the sacri­fice, and so partake of it as the Jews did of their sacri­fices; the communion is a feasting upon a true oblatum, the body and blood of Christ, as is excellently made out by a Learned man of our own, we do not there sacrifice Christs body, but only sacramentally eat of it, as being already sacrificed and offered once for all, by Christ himself upon the Cross. It is not at all necessa­ry that it should be sacrificed again by us to make us become partakers of it; for cannot a sacrifice be ap­plyed without being sacrificed again? It seems a very strange and uncouth way to sacrifice the same thing over and over in order to applying the vertue of it, as if the Jews when they had slain the Paschal Lamb, must have slain another Lamb in order to the partak­ing the vertue of it, no they were to eat of it for that purpose, and so are we of Christs sacrifice, and this is the way whereby we do communicate of it, and have its full vertue applyed to us. It was the weakness and insufficiency of their sacrifices that made them so often repeat them, and sacrifice them anew, but Christs sacrifice being perfect is to be but once offered, though it be often to be eaten and partaken of by us, which it may be without being again sacri­ficed.

Thirdly, The Authour of this Epistle makes not the least mention of Christs sacrifice being offered again upon Earth, or of its being repeated in the sacrifice of the Mass, but after he himself had once offered it upon the Cross, he immediately speaks of his present­ing it to God in Heaven, and there by vertue of it [Page 38]interceeding and mediating with him for us, that by his own blood he entered into the holy place, having ob­tained eternal Redemption for us, chap. 9. ver. 12. as the Jewish high priest on the great day of expiation after he had offered the sacrifice of atonement for the whole Congregation upon the Altar, carried the blood of it into the Holy of Holies, and there sprinkled it before the mercy-seat, Levit. 16.15. This great An­niversary sacrifice for the whole Congregation was the great Type and Figure of Christs sacrifice for all man­kind, and the Holy of Holies was the Type of Hea­ven, and the High Priest, of Christ, as is confessed by all; Christ therefore our great High Priest to whom alone it belonged to offer this sacrifice of Atonement and Expiation for the whole World, having done this upon the Cross he entred not into the holy places made with hands which are the figures of the true, but into hea­ven it self, now to appear in the presence of God for us, chap, 9. ver. 24. To appear there as our Advocate and Mediator, and by vertue of his own blood there presented to his Father to make a very powerful inter­cession for us. Now from this discourse of the Apo­stle we have a full account of Christs sacrifice that it was to be once offered upon the cross, and then to be carried into the Holy of Holies in Heaven, and no more to be offered upon Earth, for this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God, chap. 10. ver. 12. The Apostle speaks not one tittle, nor gives the least hint or intima­tion of this sacrifice being offered again by others up­on Earth, this lyes cross to the whole tenour of his dis­course, and the similitude and agreement which he represents between the Jewish sacrifice of Atonement, and Christs is quite altered and destroyed by it, for besides the High Priests offering this sacrifice, this makes every lesser Priest to be still offering the same sacrifice [Page 39]upon the Altar, when the High Priest is entred with the blood of it into the Holy of Holies; and though he cannot go in there, upon which the vertue and the perfection of the sacrifice does in great measure de­pend, yet still to offer the same sacrifice; and besides it makes this sacrifice like to the Jewish, where every priest standeth daily ministring and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which for the reason shewed, they could never take away sins, chap. 10. ver. 12. in oppo­sition to which he says, this man after he had offered, one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God, verse 13. that is, Christs sacrifice was never to be repeated as the Jewish were; for if it had been to be offered by others though not by Christ himself, and the Christian Priests were to stand daily ministring and offering the same sacrifice, both they and their sacri­fice would have been the same upon this account with the Jewish, and there had not been that difference be­tween them, which the Apostle does there plainly mean and declare.

Further it cannot but seem very strange that when this Divine Author does so largely and copiously and designedly treat of the sacrifice of Christ and of those of the Jews, and compare them so much together, and show the excellency of the one above the other, that he should never say the least word of the sacrifice of the Mass, when he had so much occasion to do it, that it can hardly be imagined he should have so wholly omitted it, had it been as others since account it, as true and proper a sacrifice as any of the Jewish or of Christs himself upon the cross.

Fourthly, The Apostle here plainly layes down a principle directly contrary and wholly inconsistent with their Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, and that is, that if Christ be offered he must suffer and that [Page 40]without shedding of blood there is no Remission. Nor yet saith he at the 25, 26. verses, and 9th. chapter, That he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world, but now once in the end of the world hath he ap­peared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. For then must he often have suffered if he had been often offer­ed, without suffering then Christ cannot be offered and sacrificed, and indeed to sacrifice any thing is to consume and destroy it, so that it be wholly parted with and given up to God, and to sacrifice any thing that is living, is to take away its life and to kill it, and so to make it suffer death, as a vicarious punishment in anothers stead; this is the common and allowed noti­on of sacrifices, but Christ cannot thus suffer in the Mass, therefore he cannot be truly offered or sacrifi­ced, since according to the Apostle if he be often offered he must often suffer; and they would not I hope crucifie to themselves the Lord of Life again, and put him to death upon the Altar as the Jews did upon the cross, and yet without this they cannot truly sa­crifice him, or properly offer him according to the Apostle. But this says their great Champion the Bi­shop of Meaux is done mystically, Christ is mystically slain, and doth mystically suffer death upon the Altar, that is, by way of representation and resemblance, and the mysterious signification of what is done there, as St. Paul says to the Galatians, chap. 3. v. 1. Before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth crucified among you. Now so Christ may be crucified every time we hear or read his crucifixion lively represented to us, as we may see a bloody Tragedy without one drop of blood spilt, so Christ may be mystically slain in the Sacrament when his body is broke, and his blood poured out in mystery and representation, but this is [Page 41]not true and proper Offering which is necessary to make a true and proper sacrifice as they will have that of the Mass to be; if they would be contented with a mystical sacrifice to represent and commemorate Christs death, that they know we are willing to allow, and then a mystical suffering that is not a real and pro­per, would be sufficient for a mystical that is not proper sacrifice, but the suffering must be as true and proper as the sacrifice, and if the one be but mystical, the other must be so too; if the Bullock or Goat of the sin­offering which was to be offered on the great day of Atonement had been only Mystically slain, and Mysti­cally offered upon the Altar, they had been as really alive for all that as any that were in the Fields, and had been no more true and proper sacrifices of atone­ment and expiation then they were, for without shed­ing of blood, as the Apostle says, there is no Remission, Heb. 9.22. it was the shedding or pouring out the blood in which the Life was supposed to be, and therefore the taking away the Life of the sacrifice that did really make the sacrifice to be truly propitiatory or available before God, as a price and recompence for the remission of sins; and how then can the sacrifice of the Mass be truly propitiatory, when the blood is not truly shed, when according to themselves it is Incruentum sacrifi­cium, an unbloody sacrifice, and therefore according to the Apostle it cannot be pro pitiatory for the Re­mission of sins, as will be further insisted upon after­wards. Thus we see how much there is in those clear places of Scripture against the sacrifice of the Mass, and how little there is for it in those dark ones, which are produced by our Adversaries.

Thirdly, It has no just claim to Antiquity nor was there any such Doctrine or Practice in the Primitive Church; this is greatly boasted and vaunted of, and [Page 42]although their cause runs very low in Scripture, yet they pretend it carries all Antiquity before it, where nothing is more common than to have the name of Ob­lation, and Sacrifice, and Host, and Victim attributed to the blessed Eucharist, and to have it said that we do there offer, and immolate and sacrifice unto God; this we readily acknowledge, and though we can by no means allow Antiquity to take place of Scripture, or to set up either an Article of Faith, or essential part of Worship which is not in Scripture, and our Adver­saries seem to agree with us in this, that there must be a divine Institution for a sacrifice, or else it can have no true foundation; so that if Scripture fails them, 'tis in vain to flye for refuge to Antiquity, yet we doubt not but that Scripture and Antiquity will be fairly recon­ciled and be made very good Friends in this point; and both of them against the sacrifice of the Mass, as 'tis taught and practised in the Church of Rome.

The name of Sacrifice and oblation is often given both in Scripture and Antiquity, in an improper gene­ral and metaphorical sense, thus it is applyed to the inward actions of the mind, to penitence and sorrow for sin, The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart, O God thou wilt not despise, Psal. 51.17. To the outward Thanksgivings of the mouth, when we render unto God the Calves of our lips, Hosea 14.2. When we offer unto him Thanksgiving, Psal. 50.14. or as the Apostle more fully expresses it when he com­mands Christians, to offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name, Heb. 13.15. where the Metaphor is carried on in several words; and in the very next verse 'tis ap­plied to works of Mercy and Charity and beneficence to others, but to do good and to communicate, forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased, verse 16. and St. Paul in another place calls the Philippians Charity, [Page 43] an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God, Philip. 4.18. Nay he calls preaching the Gospel, a [...], which our Adversaries earnestly contend to mean nothing less then a sacrifice, and the converting the Gentiles he calls a [...], an offering acceptable to God, Rom. 15.16 [...]. And in ano­ther place he calls the Faith of Christians a sacrifice, Philip. 2.17 [...].. And his own Martyrdom an Oblati­on, Ib. 1 Tim. 4.6. St. Peter not only calls works of Piety, Spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Je­sus Christ, but he ascribes a holy Priesthood to all Chri­stians to offer these up, 1 Pet. 2.5. and upon that ac­count St. John also gives them the Title of Priests, Rev. 1.6. Now as the holy Spirit of God often chooses to use this phrase, and metaphor which is very easie and natural, so from hence and in accommodation proba­bly both to the Jews and Heathens, the greatest part of whose Religion was sacrifices, the ancient Writers also do very frequently make use of it, and apply it both to actions of morality, and to all parts of Reli­gious Worship, but especially to the blessed Eucharist, which is the most sacred and solemn of all other, but they do not do this in the strict and proper sense of the word sacrifice, as is plain from the foregoing in­stances, but in a large, and general, and metaphorical one, so that though our Adversaries could muster up ten times as many places out of the Fathers wherein the Eucharist is called a sacrifice and oblation, and in the celebrating of which we are said to offer and im­molate to God, with which they are apt to make a great show, and to triumph as if the victory were perfectly gained against us, yet they are all to no purpose, and would do no real execution upon us, unless they can prove that these are to be taken in a strict and proper sense, which it is necessary they should be to make a proper sacrifice, and not in a [Page 44]large and Metaphorical one as we are willing to allow, & in which the Scriptures, we see, do understand them, and so do the Fathers, as I shall evidently demon­strate. Upon what accounts and in what sense the Fathers do call the Eucharist a sacrifice and oblation, and apply the phrases of immolating and offering and the like to it, I shall now particularly consider. And

1. They do this, upon the account of those oblati­ons of bread and wine, and other things which it was the custom for Christians to bring when they came to the Communion, out of which a part was consecrated for the Eucharist, and the remainder was for a common Feast of love and a Religious entertainment, or for the maintenance of the Clergy, and the poor, to whom they were afterwards distributed. This Custom the Apostle take notice of the, 1 Cor. 11. and the An­tient Writers expresly mention it in several places, after the [...], or Feasts of Love were for some abuses laid aside; Clemens Romanus in his first Epistle, the most anci­ent & most unquestioned piece of Antiquity we have, speaks expresly of these [...], Oblations, and joins them with the sacred and Reli­gious Offices [...]. Clemens Ep. 1. aa Corinth. p. 85. Edit. Oxon., and commends those who make these their oblati­ons orderly, and at the appointed times [...] Ib. p. 86.. The Apostolic Canons that go under his name though their credit is not so authentic, speak very particularly of these offerings, and of their being brought to the altar for a sacri­fice [...]. &c. Canon. 3.. Ignatius speaks also of offering and of bringing the sacri­fice [...]. sc. absque Episcopo. Epist. ad Smyrn. Justin Martyr menti­ons, these offerings as accompani­ed [Page 45]with prayer and thanksgiving, and as the way by which Christians worshipt the Creator instead of the bloody sacrfices and libations, and incense that were offered by others [...]. — Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. and these, says he, we account the proper way of ho­nouring him, not by consuming his gifts in the fire, but by thus offe­ring them for the poor, and for our selves. Irenaeus says, The Church offers to God, who affords us food, the first-fruits of his Gifts, and the first-fruits of his Creatures, not as if he wanted but that we may be grateful Ecclesia, —offert Deo, ei qui nobis ali­menta praestat primitias suorum munerum, —pri­mitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis non quasi in­digenti sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi, nec ingrati sint. Iraen. advers. Haeres. l. 4. c. 32. And though Fevardentius in his Notes upon this and the other places of Irenaeus, wherein he speaks of this obla­tion would have it meant of the oblation of Christ himself in the Eucharist, yet that is clearly disproved by his so often calling it the offering to God of his own Creatures, and the first-fruits of his Creatures Primitias earum quae sant ejus crea­turarum offerentes, — offerens ei ex gratiarum actione ex creatura ejus. Ib. c. 34. which must be no other then of bread and wine and the like, and from hence he proves against the marcionites that Christ wasQuomodo autem constabit eum parem in­quo gratiae actae sunt — si non ipsum sabricatoris mundi filium dicant, Ib. the Son of the Creator and Ma­ker of the World, because that his creatures were offered in the Eucharist. St. Cyprian condemning and blaming some of the rich Women who came to the Sacrament without bringing these oblations, thou com­est, says he, into the Lords house, without a sacrifice and takest part of that sacrifice which the poor hath offered in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis, quae partem de sacrificio, quod pauper obtulit sumis. Cypr. de Oper. & Eleemos. St. Au­stin insists upon the same thing and bids them offer the oblations which are consecrated upon the [Page 46]Altar, a man who is able ought to blush if he eat of anothers oblation Oblationes quae in altari conse­er antur offerte, erubescere debet homo idoneus, si de alienâ oblati­one communicet. Aug. Serm. 13. de Temp. without offering himself. These oblations are expresly called a sacrifice in the Apostolic Canons, in Ignatius, and in St. Cyprian, as Alms, and Works of Charity are in the Epistle to the Hebrews chap. 13. ver. 16. and these in our Churches prayer before the Sacra­ment we beg God to accept of. In the Apostolic Con­stitutions where we have the largest if not earliest ac­count of the Eucharistic office, the oblation is thus de­scribed, We offer to thee King and God according to thy appointment, this bread and this cup, and we beseech thee to look graciously upon these gifts set before thee, O thou God who wantest nothing, and send thy holy Spirit upon this sacrifice [...]. Apostol. Constit. l. 8. c. 12. i. e. upon these oblations, and make them to be the body and blood of Christ, i. e. Sa­cramentally and Vertually. In the Ordo Romanus, and in the Canon of the Mass it selfTe igitur Clementissime Pater per Jesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum supplices rogamus at petimus ut accepta habeas & benedi­cas haec dona, haec munera, haec Sancta Sacri­ficia illibata in primis quae tibi offerimus,—Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae sed & cunctae familiae taae quaesumus Domine ut placatus acci­pias— Quam Oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam, escriptam, ratam, rati­onabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris: ut nobis curpus & sanguis fiat dilectissimi fiui tui Domini mostri Jesu Christi. Ordo Romanus p. 62. Edit. Hittorp. Canon Missae. there is this prayer over the oblations, that God would accept and bless these Gifts, these Pre­sents, these Holy and undefiled sa­crifices which we offer to thee, &c. and another to the same purpose said by their Priest with his hand stretched over the oblata, This oblation therefore of our ser­vice and of thy whole Family, we beseech thee, O Lord, mercifully to receive, &c. And again, This oblation, O Lord, we beseech thee to make blessed, &c. signing upon the oblata, That it may be to us the body and blood of thy dearest Son our Lord Jesus Christ. All these prayers over the oblations whereby they are presented to God, are made before Consecration, so [Page 47]that the oblations which are here called Holy and pure Sacrifices are thought worthy of that Name before they are become the Body and Blood of Christ, and so made a proper sacrifice in the present sense of the Church of Rome, the Canon of the Mass is Older then their New doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, and af­fords plain evidence for applying the name of sacri­fice to the Eucharist, upon the account of those offe­rings and oblations that were made there.

2. The Eucharist is called a sacrifice by the Anci­ents upon the account of those religious Acts and Pious Exercises which are there performed by the de­vout Communicants, and which are called sacrifices both in Scripture and in the Fathers, thus our Prayers may be as well a morning as an evening sacrifice, Ps. 141.2. And therefore as Irenaeus says speaking of the Eucharist, God would have us continually offer a gift at his Altar, to wit, our Prayers and Oblations, which are directed to the heavenly Altar Vult nos quo­que sine intermis­sione offerre mu­nus ad altare [...]est ergo altare in coelis, illucenim preces & obla­tiones nostrae di­riguntur. Iren. l. 4. advers. Haers. c. 33., though they are made at the Earthly. So our Praises and Thanksgivings which are then raised to the highest pitch when we have the greatest instance of the Divine Love offered to our minds, are that sacrifice which we are then to offer to God giving thanks to his name, Heb. 13.15. Namely for that Miracle of kindness Christ dying for us, from which the Eucharist has its name, and for which reason it is called a sacrifice of Praise in the Ordo Romanus Memento Domine samulorum famularumque tuarum & omnium circumadstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est & nota devotio qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis prose suisque om­nibus pro Redemptione animarum sucrum, pro spe salutis, &c. —tibique reddunt vota sua, Ordo Romanus p. 62., viz. for our Re­demption and hope of Salvation, and also for those vows which we then render unto God, when we present our bodies a living sacri­fice, holy and acceptable unto God, Rom. 12.1. as the Apostle speaks; and as St. Austin expresses it, the Church is then offered to God, and is [Page 48]made one body in Christ, when we are made to drink into one Spirit, 1 Cor. 12.13. and this is the sacrifice of Christians Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum, multi unum corpus sumus in Christo, quod etiam sacra­mento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia ubi ei demonstratur, quod in eâ oblatione quam offert ipsa offeratur. August. Civitate Del, l. 10. c. 6. not only a sacri­fice of Praise as 'tis called by Eusebius Demonstrat. l. 1. c. 10. St. Basil Liturg. St. Austin Ad Pet. Diac. c. 9. and other Fathers, whereby we offer up unto God the calves of our lips in the Scrip­ture phrase, but wherein we offer and present unto God our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable holy and lively sa­crifice unto him, and though we are unworthy to offer unto him any sacrifice, yet beseech him to accept this our bound­en duty and service, according to the Prayer of our Church in its excellent office of the Communion. Mel­chior Canus, in his Defence of the sacrifice of the Mass, has unawares confest this Truth, That Christ did only offer up at his last Supper a sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving, For to give thanks, says he, after the Jewish manner, and take the Cup into his hands, and lift it up, is truly to offer a sacrifice of Thanksgiving. When Christ therefore said, Do this, he plainly commanded his Apostles that what they saw him do they should do also by offering up a sacrifice of Eucharist, that is, of giving of Thanks Ritu quippe Judaīso gratias agere ca­licem in manibus accipiendo, & levando vere est hostiam gratiarum actionis offerre, Quùm itaque dixit Dominus, hoc facite, planè jussit Apostolis ut quod ipsum facere cernebant, id queque illi farerent Eucharistiae hoc est gratiarum actionis hostiam exblbendo. Canus in locis Theolog. l. 12. p. 806. and he expresly speaks against Christs offering up a Mass-sacrifice for sin then when the day of the bloody sacrifice was now near, and the very hour ap­proaching, and when their general sacrifice was nigh by which it plea­sed the Father to forgive all sins —Christum in caenâ sacrificium non pro peceato quidem sed gratiarum tamen actionis ob­tulisse, —quod cum sacrificii cruenti dies insta­ret jam planè, aut certè jam appropinquaret hora, non oportebat hostiam in caenâ pro peccato Mysti­cam exhibere, cum impenderet generalis hosiia illa in quâ Patri complacuit omnia peccata resolvi. Ib. p. 834. which is to make the Eucharist what we are willing to own it a sacrifice of Thanks­giving, and is in a few words [Page 49]to cut the very throat of their Cause, as to this Con­troversie.

3. The Eucharist is called a sacrifice as it is both a Commemoration and a Representation of Christs sa­crifice upon the Cross, so 'tis a commemorative and re­presentative sacrifice, as we call that a bloody Tragedy which only represents a Murder, and we give the name of the thing to that which is but the resemblance and likeness of it. The Jews called that the Passover which was but a memorial of it, and the Apostle says, we are buryed with Christ in Baptism, and rise with him, Col. 2.12. when those are but remotely signified, thus Christ is immolated and sacrificed in the Eucharist, as St. Austin speaks, when according to the Glosse up­on his words, his immolation is represented and there is made a memorial of his passion Christus Immolatur i. e. Christi immo­latio repraesenta­tur & fit memo­ria Passionis. de Consec. Dist. 2. Christ, says he, was but once offered and yet in the Sacrament he is dayly immolated, neither does he lye who says Christ is immola­ted, for if Sacraments had not the likeness of those things whereof they are sacraments, they would be no sacraments at all, but from this likeness they received the names of the things themselves Nonne Christus semel oblatus est & tamen in Sacramento quotidie populis immolatur, nec men­titur qui dicit Christum immolari, si enim sa­cramenta non haberent similitudinem, earum re­rum quarum sunt sacramenta, nulio modo essent sacramenta, sed ex similitu line saepe nomina earum accipiunt. August. Ep. 120. ad Honorat. Thus as he there gives several instan­ces, wherein that which is the me­morial of a thing, does for its simi­litude to that thing of which it is a memorial receive its name. When Easter approcheth, we say to morrow or next day is the passion of Christ, and on the Lords day, we say this day Christ arose, when Christs passion was but once and that se­veral years ago, and that day is said to be Christs Resurrection which yet it is not Illud quod alicujus memoriale est propter similitudinem saepe ejus rei cujus memoriale est no­men accipiat, ut appropinquante Paschate, dici­mus cras aut perendie est passio Christi, cum semel tantum ante multos annos sit passus, & die Do­minicâ dicimus, hodit Christus resurrexit, prop­ter similitudinem enim dies ille id esse dicitur, quod tamen non est. Ib. What we call then a sacrifice is a me­morial [Page 50]or a sign and a represen­tation of a sacrifice, as he says in another placeQuod appellamus sacrificium signum est & repraesentatio sacrificii. August. de Civit. Dei l. 10. c. 5. We offer the same sacrifice that Christ did, for the passion of Christ is the sacrifice? which we offer, Passio enim Dimini est sacrificium quod offerimus. Cypr. Ep. 3. in St. Cyprians words; or rather we perform a remembrance of a sacrifice as St. Chrysostom speaks [...]. Chrysost. in Heb. 10. Hom. 17., and after him Theophylact, We always offer him or rather we make a re­membrance of his offering [...]. Theophylact. in Heb. 10. don't we offer unbloody sacrifices, yes, we make a remembrance of his bloody death [...]. Ib. so that instead of a sacrifice, i. e. a proper one, he hath commanded us perpetually to offer up a memorial, as Eusebius more strictly words it [...]. Euseb. De­monstrat. l. 1. c. 10.. If we come down to the Elder Schoolmen before the sacrifice of the Mass was under­stood in so strict and proper a sense as it is now in the Church of Rome, and in the Council of Trent, we shall find them calling it a sacrifice only upon this account that it is, a memorial and representation of the true sacri­fice, and of the sacred immolation made upon the Altar of the cross, which are the very words of Peter Lom­bard Ad hoc breviter dici potest illud quod offertur & consecra­tur à sacerdote vocari sacrifici­um & oblatio­nem quia memo­ria est & reprae­sentatio veri sa­crificii, & san­ctae immolatio­nis factae in arâ crucis. Lombard. l. 4. Dist. 12. Master of the Sentences, and Father of the Schoolmen; whom Thomas Aquinas seems wholly to follow, and more largely thus to explain the reason why the celebration of the Sacrament may be called a sacrifice and immolation of Christ, because, says he, first it is an image of Christs passion, for as St. Austin says to Simplicius, Images used to be called by the names of those things of which they are Images, as when we look up­on a painted Table or Wall, we say this is Cicero and this [Page 51]is Salust, but the celebration of this Sacrament is a repre­sentative image of Christs passion which is the true immo­lation. Another way as to the effect of Christs passion it may be called a sacrifice, because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion Tum quia hujus sacramenti celebratio ima­go quaedam est passionis Christi, tum etiam quia per hoc Sacramentum participes efficimur fructus Dominicae passionis —convenienter dicitur Christi immolatio. Primò quidem quia sicut Augustinus ad Simplicium, solent imagines earum rerum nominibus appellari quarum imagines sunt, sicut cum intuentes tabulam aut parietem pictum, dici­mus ille Cicero est, & ille Salustius, celebratio autem hujus Sacramenti imago quaedam est reprae­sentativa passionis Christi, quae est vera ejus im­molatio— alio modo quantum ad effectum passio­nis Christi quia sc. per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur fructûs Dominicae passionis. Thom. Aquin. sum. 3. pars qu. 83. Had the Church of Rome gone no further then this and not made the Eucha­rist a sacrifice in any other sense then as it is commemorative and exhibitive of Christs true sacrifice and immolation upon the crosse, we had not blamed them, nor had there been any controversie between us in this matter; or had they been con­tented to have used the word sacrifice in a large and figurative and improper sense as the Fathers do, when they call the Eucharist a sacrifice, and therefore they immediately correct themselves as it were with this addition, or rather a remembrance of a sacrifice, and explain the reason why they give it that name; but this would not serve our Adversaries purpose, this would not make it a true proper propitiatory sacri­fice for the quick and dead, this would not give it those vertues which they assign to it as a proper sacrifice in it self distinct from its being a sacrament, this would not make it so applicable to others who never partook or communicated of it, and so would not make it of so great price and value, that is, so marketable to themselves, and therefore the Council of Trent con­demns this notion of its being a sacrifice of Praise, and Thanksgiving or a meer commemoration of Christs sacri­fice upon the cross and not a propitiatory one, or that it profits only him that takes it; or that it ought not to be offered for the quick and dead, for sins, for punish­ments, [Page 52]for satisfactions and other necessities Siquis dixerit Missae sacrificium tantum esse laudis & gratiarum actionis aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in cruce peracii non autem propitiatorium vel soli prodesse sumenti, neque pro vivis & defunctis, pro peceatis, pae­nis, satisfactionibus & aliis necessitatibus offer­ri debere, anathema sit. Concil. Trid. de sa­crif. Missae. Canon 3. They make it to have the true vertue of a sacri­fice in its self, as a true price and [...], and compensation to God for sin, and a true satis­faction to divine Justice for the punishment thereof, as much as the sacrifice upon the cross, and that they have the power of applying this whensoever, and for whomso­ever they offer it, which is to have the greatest trea­sure in the World in their hands, and to be able to make a proper propitiation for sin, which belongs only to Christ; but they can offer Christ, as truly as he offe­red himself, and set him upon the Altar as true a sacri­fice as he hung upon the cross. Christ I own is in some sense offered up to God by every communicant in the Sacrament when he does mentally and internal­ly offer him to God and present as it were his bleeding Saviour to his Father, and desire him for his sake to be merciful to him and forgive him his sins, this internal oblation of Christ and his passion is made by every faithful Christian in his particular private devotions, and especially at the more solemn and publick ones of the blessed Sacrament. When he has the sacred sym­bols of Christs death before him, and does then plead the vertue of Christs sacrifice before God, not of the sacrifice then before him, but of the past sacrifice of the crosse. This is all done by the inward acts, the Faith, the devotion of the mind, whereby as St. Au­stin says, Christ is then slain to any one when he believes him slain Tum Chri­stus cuique occi­ditur cum credit occisum. August. quaest. Evang. l. 2. and when we believe in Christ from the very remains of this thought Christ is dayly immolated to us Cum credi­mus in Christum ex ipsis reliquiis cogitationis Christus nobis quotidie immo­latur, Id. in Psal. 73. as St. Hierom says, when we hear the word of our Lord, his flesh and blood is as it were poured into our Ears cum audimus Scrmonem Do­mini caro Christi & sanguis ejus in auribus no­stris funditur. Hieron. in Psal. 147. and so St. Ambrose, calls the virgins minds [Page 53]those Altars on which Christ is dayly offered, for the Redemption of the Body Vestras men­tes considenter altaria dixerim in quibus quoti­diè pro Redemp­tione corporis Christus osser­tur, Ambr. de Virg. l. 2.

The Minister also does not only offer to God the oblations of the faithful at the Altar, and their spiri­tual sacrifices of prayer and praise which it is his pro­per duty in their names to present unto God, but he does offer as it were Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for the people by praying to God for the people as a pu­blic Minister, in and through the merits of Christs death and passion, and by consecrating and admini­string the blessed Sacrament; which is hereby made not only a commemorative sacrifice of Christs body and blood, but does with the outward sign, really ex­hibit the thing signified to the people. So that 'tis no. wonder to meet with the words offering, and offer­ing Christs body and blood as attributed peculiarly to the Minister, as in those known places of Ignatius his Epistles, 'tis not lawful for the Priest to offer without the leave of the Bishop. And in Tertullian, when the Priest is wanting, thou baptizest and offerest, and art a Priest to thy self, and in the Council of Nice, where Deacons are forbid to offer the body of Christ, Can. 14. To offer, and to offer Christs body and blood is made the pecu­liar office of the Priest, as he alone is the steward of these Mysteries of God, and the proper Minister to con­secrate and celebrate this Holy Sacrament, and in that to offer up the peoples requests to God in the name of Christ and his meritorious cross and passion, and by vertue of that to mediate for the people, and pre­sent as it were Christs sacrifice on their behalf; that is Christs body and blood as an objective sacrifice in hea­ven, and as formerly truly offered upon the cross, and now sacramentally and improperly upon the Altar, but not as an external visible proper sacrifice, sub­jectively present and placed upon the Altar by the hands of the Priest, and by a visible and external [Page 54]action presented to God, and offered up as the Jewish sacrifices used to be by any consumption or alteration as they hold the sacrifice of the Mass to be. No such can be found in any of the Fathers or ancient Ecclesi­astic Writers though they speak often of sacrifices and oblations, and sometimes of offering Christ, and the body of Christ in the Eucharist, yet not at all in the present sense of the Romish Church, or according to the doctrine of the Council of Trent, or the Writers since that; which how contrary it is to Antiquity I shall show by a few general Remarks and Conside­rations.

1. Had they had any such sacrifice they might have given another answer, to their Jewish and Heathen Adversaries, who charged them with the want of out­ward Sacrifices and Altars as with a great impiety; to which they made only this return in their Apologies, that they had indeed no proper Altars, nor visible and external sacrifices, but instead of those they offered the more spiritual sacrifices of Praise and Thanksgiving, and of an honest and good mind, and of vertuous and holy actions which were the only sacrifices of Christi­ans, and more acceptable to God then any other: this is the answer which runs through all their excellent Apologies in return to that accusation of their having no sacrifices, which they owned to be true in the sense their Adversaries urged it; that is, that they had no proper external visible sacrifices, such as the Jews and Heathens had, & such as the Roman Church will needs have the Mass to be, but their sacrifices were of ano­ther nature, such as were so only in an improper and metaphorical sense which the Romanists will by no means allow that of the Eucharist to be. We are not Atheists, says Justin Martyr, as they were charg­ged to be, because they had not the visible Worship [Page 55]of sacrifices, but we Worship the maker of all things who needs not blood, or libations, or incense, with the Word of Prayer and Thanksgiving, giving him Praise as much as we can, and counting this the only honour worthy of him [...]. Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. and we are perswaded he needeth no material oblation from men [...]. Ib. And in another place he says, Prayers and Praises made by good men are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God [...]. Dialog. cum Tryph. We are charged by some with Atheism, says Athena­goras, who measure Religion only by the way of sacrifices, and what do ye tell me of sacrifices which God wanteth not, though we ought to bring him an unbloody sa­crifice, and to offer him a rational Worship [...]. Athanag. Legat. pro Christ. where the rational worship explains the meaning of the unbloody sacrifice. Ter­tullian in his Apologetic answering that charge, That Christians did not sacrifice for the Emperours, it follows says he by the same reason we do not sacrifice for others, be­cause neither do we do it for our selves Pro Imperatoribus sacrisi la non pena­tis, sequitur ut eadem ratione pro allis non ra­crificemus quia nec pro nobis ipsis. Tertull. Apologet. adversus gentes, c. 10. but in answer to this he declares how Christians prayed for the Emperour, c. 30. and in another place, he says, they sacrificed for the Emperors health, that is, with a pure prayer as God has commanded Sacrificamus pro salute Tmperatoris, i. e. purâ prece sicut Deus praecepit, Idem ad Scapul. and I offer to God, says he, in the same Apologetic speaking against o­ther sacrifices, a rich and a great­er sacrifice then he commanded [Page 56]the Jews, Prayer from a chast body, from an innocent soul proceeding from the Holy Spi­rit Ei offero opimam & majorem hostiam quam ipse man­davit, orationem de carne pudi­câ, de ammâ innocenti, de Spi­ritu sancto profectam. Ib. Apol. c. 30. This is the Host to be offered, says Minutius Felix, a good mind, a pure soul, a sincere conscience, these are our sacrifices, these are the sacred things of God, in answer to their not having Altars and Shrines Cum sit litabilis hostia bonus animus & pura mens & sincera conscientia — haec nostra sacrificia, haec Dei sacra sunt— Minuc. Octav. Sc. delubra & aras non habe­mus. Ib. which objection made also by Celsus is af­ter the same manner replyed to by Origen, Our Altars are the mind of every one that is righteous from whence is truly sent up sweet smelling sacrifices, to wit, Prayers from a pure conscience [...]. Origen contra Celsum. l. 8. p. 389. Lactantius when he proposes to speak of sacrifice, shows how unsuitable any external one is to God, and that the proper sacrifice to him, is praise and an hymn, blessing alone is his sacrifice, we ought therefore to sacrifice unto God by word, the chief way of worshipping God is Thanksgiving out of the mouth of a just man directed to God Nunc di sacrificio ipso pauca dicemus,— sacrificium laus & hymnus— hujus sacri­ficium sola benedictio, verbo ergo sacrificari oportet Deo— summus igitur colendi Dei ritus est, ex ore justi hominis ad Deum directa laudatio. Lactantius de wero cultu l. 6. §. 25. Could those excel­lent Advocates for Christianity have no other ways assoiled the charge drawn up against them, that they had no sacrifices like all other Reli­gions, but by flying to such spiritual and improper sa­crifices as Praise and Thanksgiving? this plainly de­monstrates that they had no proper and visible sacri­fice, which indeed in so many express words they de­ny when the word sacrifice was under­stood strictly and properlyQuid ergo sacrificia cen­setis nulla esse omnino facienda? nulla. Arnob. disput. adversus Gent. l. 7. Had they so accounted the sacrifice of the Mass as our Adversaries do now, this might have been given in as the Christian sacrifice in­stead of all others, [...]. Clemens Alex­andrin. Strom. l. 7. p. 707. Par. and yet it is strange they scarce ever mention the Eucharist in those discourses of theirs, wherein if it had [Page 57]been a sacrifice it had been most proper and pertinent to have spoke of it, and the sacrifice of a man under the species of bread and wine had outdone all the Jew­ish and most of the Heathen sacrifices, and had been a full answer to the objection as it was made by them; but say our Adversaries they would not speak of so great a mystery as the Eucharist to unbelievers which they were used to conceal even to Catechumens that were not yet perfectly initiated into the Christi­an Rites; but surely they would not have told a downright lye, and denyed that they had any proper sacrifices, had the Eucharist been one, as we see they did, neither did they keep the service of the Eucha­rist so secret as not to let the Heathens be acquainted with it, as is plain from Justin Martyrs Apology, where he largely discourses of its whole performance to Antoninus the EmperourApolog. 2. versus finem.; and to take off this little subterfuge of our Adversaries, I shall adde one thing more on this head, which shows beyond all dis­pute that the Primitive Church had no such opinion of the Eucharists being a sacrifice, and that is the same charge of Julian the Apostate who very well under­stood Christianity and had been a Reader of it in the Church, who notwithstanding objected the same thing to the Christians with the Jews and Heathens, namely that they had no Sacrifices, and that they did not erect altars to sacrifice upon to God [...]. Julian apud Cyril. A­lexand. contra Jul. l. 10. p. 343.. He knew too well the Mysteries of their Religion, so as not to be ignorant that the Eucharist was a proper sacrifice had it really been believed to be so by the Church at that time, and Cyril's answer to him plainly shows that it was not, for he owns the charge, and pleads only that we have spiritual and mental sacrifices which are much better [...]. Ib. p. 345. and instead of Sheep and Oxen, and [Page 58]the like visible sacrifices, we offer, says he, for a sweet savour Faith, Hope, Charity, Righteousness and Praise [...]. Ib. but not a tittle of offering the sacrifice of the Mass which would have been greatly to the purpose had there been any such thing, and there was no reason to have refused the mentioning it to Julian who had once been a Christian, and so must certainly have known it, had there been any such thing in the Christian Church.

2. When the Fathers do call the Eucharist a sacri­fice, they adde such Epithets and Phrases to it as do quite spoil the Roman notion of it, for they call it a spiritual sacrifice, [...] as 'tis in Eusebi­us Demon ftrat. Evangel. l. 5. c. 3. Cyril of Hierusalem Mystagog. Catech. 5. Theodoret Histor. Re­lig. and o­thers besides the Greek Liturgies, and the Apostolick Constitutions, where the word spiritual is generally added to it. Now a spiritual sacrifice they must own is not a proper one, for it cannot be an external and vi­sible one, nor is there any matter or substance to be destroyed. So 'tis called also [...], a reasonable sacrifice Constitut. Apost. l. 6. c. 23. Cyril Cat. my­stag. 5. Chrysost. Hom. 11. in Heb. so then it cannot be an outward bodily one, which the Priest takes up in his hands and sets upon the Altar, 'tis called an unbloody one, not only by the Fathers but themselves, but if it be Christs bo­dy 'tis not without blood, and though it be unbloody in the manner of oblation, yet it could not be called so generally and in it self. 'Tis called a mystic and symbolic sacrifice, and that is very different from a true one, Christ, is said, to be there sacrificed without be­ing sacrificed [...] diatypos. Concil. Niceni apud Gelas. Cyzic., i. e. in figure and representation, he is offered in Image as St. Ambrose expresly saysOffertur in imagine, Am­bros. de Officiis l. 1. c. 48. and as it is in the book of sacraments attributed to him, this oblation is for a figure of the body and blood of Jesus [Page 59]Christ Quod fit in figuram cor­poris & sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi; de Sacram. l. 4. c. 5. if it be a figure it cannot be the thing it self, no more then a man is his own picture; 'tis called also a memorial and commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ as St. Austin says, Christians by the holy oblation at the Eucharist, and by partak­ing of the body and blood of Christ celebrate the memory of the same sacrifice that was ac­complished Jam Christiani peracti ejusdem sacrificii memoriam cele­brant sacrosanctâ oblatione & participatione corporis & sangui­nis Christi. August. contra Faust. l. 20. c. 18. We offer, says Chrysostom, but 'tis by making a remembrance of Christs death and we offer the same sacrifice or rather a remembrance of a sacrifice [...]. Chrysoit. in Heb. Hom. 17. And Eusebius in his Demonstrations giving an account why Christians do not offer sacrifices to God as the Jews did, says, Christ having offer­ed an admirable sacrifice & an excellent victim to his Father for the salvation of us all, hath ordered us to offer always to God a memorial instead of a sacrifice [...]. Euseb. Demonstrat. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. or in the place of a sacrifice, as the word and drift of the discourse clearly imply. If it be then a memorial of a sacrifice, it cannot be the sacrifice it self, for the thing remem­bred must be distinct from that which is to remember it by; and if it be performing a remem­brance of a sacrifice rather then a sacrifice, and the memorial of a sacrifice in stead, or in the place of a sa­crifice, these accounts of it do most perfectly destroy and are wholly inconsistent with that other notion of its being in it self a true and proper sacrifice.

Thirdly, The Novelty of private Masses which were brought in by making the Eucharist a sacrifice to God instead of a sacrament to be partaken by Christians, is a plain Argument of the late and novel Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, as they are a certain consequence [Page 60]of it, for when it began to be believed that the Eu­charist was a true sacrifice that was beneficial and of extraordinary vertue meerly as it was offered to God without being received by themselves, then the peo­ple left off frequent communicating according to the Primitive custom in which there is no such thing to be found as is now introduced into the Church by this new Doctrine, namely, the Priests communicating alone without the people, and celebrating Mass with­out the Communion of others. Bellarmine owns, that there is no express instance to be found of this in any of the Ancients, but this he says may be gathered from con­jectures Nam etiamsi nusquam ex­pressè legamus à veteribus obla­tum secrificium sine communione alicujus vel aliquorum praeter ip­sum sacerdotem tamen id possumus ex conjecturis facilè colligere. Bellarm. de Missâ l. 2. c. 9., but how groundless they are, and how contrary these private Masses be to the Primitive practice, I shall show from certain and undeniable Authorities. Justin Martyr in his account of the Christian Assemblies, and their manner of celebra­ting the Lords Supper, says, the Deacons give to every one of those that are present to partake of the blessed Bread and Wine [...]. Juitin Martyr Apolog. 2.. Ignatius who was before him says, one bread is broken to all, and one cup is distri­buted to every one [...] Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph.; the Apostolic Canons command, All the Faithful who were pre­sent at the Prayers and Reading of the Scrip­tures, to continue also at the Communion, or else commands them to be turned out of the Church Canon 9.. So do the Antient Canons of the Council of Antioch Excommunicate all those who come to the Church, and Prayers with their Brethren, but refuse to communi­cate of the Holy Eucharist [...]. Concil. Antioch. Can. 2. So great a crime was it for any not to keep to constant Communion, which was to be done as much by all the faithful as by the Priest himself; every Christian in those devout ages who was baptized, and had not notoriously violated [Page 61]his baptismal Covenant, so as to be put into the state and number of the publick penitents did always com­municate as often as there was any Sacrament, which was I believe, as often as they assembled for publick Worship, and he that had not done that in those first and purest times would have been thought almost to have been a Deserter and to have renounced his Christianity. All the Catechumens indeed or the Can­didates for Christianity, who were admitted to the Prayers and Sermons, but were not yet baptized, they were commanded to withdraw when the Mass or Communion-service began; and so were the Penitents and the Energumeni; and this is the true meaning of the word Missa, the Deacon in the Latin Church, crying out, Ite, Missa est, when they came to the office of the Eucharist. In the Apostolick Constitutionsl. 8. c. 6, 7, 9. he speaks to them particularly, and dismisses them in these words, [...] so that only the [...], faithful who receiv­ed the Communion were allowed to be present at the celebration of it, which is a very good Argument against our Adversaries opinion of the sacrifice of the Mass, for had they believ'd the Eucharist though re­ceived only by the Priest had done good as a sacrifice to those who were present although they did not par­take of it, as they now do in the Church of Rome, what need they have put out and excluded all those who were Non-communicants; the Jews did not shut the people out of the Temple when the sacrifice was offering. If the Eucharist as a sacrifice had been a part of Worship only to God, an oblation to him, and not a Sacrament to be received by themselves, why might not they have been present at it as well as at the Prayers which were offered to God, and at all the other parts of their Religious Worship? The most ancient ac­counts we have of the manner of celebrating the Eu­charist, [Page 62]and the most ancient Liturgies or Eucharistic forms have not the least shadow of any private Com­munion by the Priest alone, but always speak of the communion of others with him; in the Apostolick Constitutions there is a Relation in what Order all the Faithful received. First the Bishop, then the Priests and Deacons, then the Deaconesses, and Virgins, and Wi­dows, then all the whole people in order, and after all have received then the Deacons take away the remainder. St. Cyril speaks plainly of numbers receiving the Eucharist and not of a single person, for he mentions the Dea­cons speaking to them at first to embrace each other, ( [...],) & give the kiss of Charity: those very ancient Forms and Responses, Lift up your hearts, and the answer, we lift them up unto the Lord [...]., Let us give thanks unto our Lord God, It is just and meet so to do, and afterwards [...], these all show that the Priest did not communicate alone but had always the company of others at the Sacrament to join with him. St. Denys called the Areopagite speaks of the Priests exhorting others at the Cûmmunion, and praying that they who partake of these Mysteries, may partake of them wor­thily. The same is in all the Lyturgies which go un­der the name of St. James, St. Mark, and St. Peter, in which there are the distinct parts of the people, as well as of the Priest, as when the Priest is to say peace be with you all, the people are to answer, and with thy spirit, and the service is so framed as to suppose and re­quire company in Communicating, or else it would be nonsensical and ridiculous for the Priest alone to pray to God to breathe upon us his servants that are present, to grant that the Sacraments may be to all us that partake of them, the Communion of the blessedness of eternal Life; and after the Communion is over, after all have re­ceived, for the priest to give the blessing to all, and pray, God to bless and protect us all who were partakers [Page 63]of the Mysteries; The same form of speaking in the plural is in the more Authentick Liturgies of St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom, where it is very odd for the Priest to exhort others to pray, to give thanks and the like, and to pray God that they may be worthy partakers of the Sacrament, if none were to partake of it but him­self. The Roman Missal which is much older then these private Masses, or then the Doctrine of the Mass, as I shall presently show, speaks after the same man­ner, and makes the Priest pray for all that are present, and that all who have communicated may be filled with all heavenly benediction and Grace. These must be all very improper for the Priest to say when he commu­nicates by himself, and he may with as good reason make a Congregation by himself alone, as make a Communion. Private Masses then which sprang up from the sacrifice of the Mass, and are wholly suited and agreeable to that Doctrine, these being so contra­ry to the best Antiquity, show that that Doctrine also on which they are founded, and from whence they arose is so too. And I have the more largely consi­dered these because they are another great corrupti­on of the Eucharist of the Roman Church, tho they are originally derived from the sacrifice of the Mass.

Fourthly, The very Canon of the Mass, as 'tis at present in the Roman Church, has very little in it agreeable to this new Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, but though it is somewhat difficult to give a cer­tain account of the time of its composition, it being made at first by an unknown Author, whom St. Gre­gory calls Scholasticus, who is supposed by some to be Pope Gelasius, though had St. Gregory known this he would hardly have given him that name; and it having a great many additions given to it by several Popes, as is owned by their own Writers upon the [Page 64] Ordo Romanus Walafrid. Strabo de rebus Eccles. c. 22. Micrologus de Ecclesiast. Obser­vat. c. 12. Ber­no. Augiensis, c. 1. & alii in Collectione, Hittorpii., yet it is no doubt much ancienter then their present Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, which is very near as late as the Council of Trent. The first manner of celebrating the Communion was very plain and simple, so that St. Gregory tells us, The Apostles consecrated the host of oblation only with the Lords Prayer Mos Apostol [...] ­rum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem Domi­nicam oblationis hostiam conscera­rent. Gregorii Regist. Epistol. 64. l. 7., if they did so, and used no other form in that sacred Office, 'tis certain they could not make a sacrifice of the Eucharist nor offer it as such to God, because there are no words or expressions in that prayer, whereby any such thing should be meant or signified, so that this is a most authentick testimony against any such Apostolick practice, but the present Canon Missae or Communion Office of the Roman Church does not fully come up to, nor perfect­ly expresse or contain the present Doctrine of the sa­crifice of the Mass, there is no offering of Christs body and blood under the species of Bread and Wine in any formal words as might be expected in conformity to their Trent Doctrine, nor is there any mention of Christs being there in his natural body or offered to God by the Priest as a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead, for sins, for punishments, and for o­ther necessities. Neither this nor their great Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contained in their present of­fice, so that 'tis to me a plain evidence of the novelty of both of them, and that they are a great deal later then the Canon of the Mass; there are several prayers in­deed that make mention of a sacrifice and of an oblati­on, but most of them, and the most expresse of them are before consecration, so that they plainly be­long to those Gifts and Oblations, which according to the Primitive custom were brought by the Communi­cants, and which as I have shown were one great rea­son of the Eucharist's being called a sacrifice, God is desired to accept and bless these gifts, these presents, these [Page 65]holy and pure sacrifices which we offer to thee, for thy ho­ly Catholick Church— together with thy servant our Pope N. and our Bishop N. and for all the Orthodox, and for all those that hold the Catholick and Apostolick Faith See Canon Missae., and then follows the commemoration Prayer, Remember O Lord, thy servants and thy handmaids, N. and N. and all those who are present, whose Faith and Devotion is known to thee, for whom we offer to thee, or who offer to thee this sacrifice of praise for themselves, and for all others, for the Redemption of their Souls, for the hope of their Salvation and their safety, and render their vows to thee the Eternal, Living and True God, then after the memorial of the Saints, We beseech thee O Lord, that thou wouldst mercifully receive this Oblation of our ser­vice and of all thy Family, and dispose our days in peace, and command us to be delivered from eternal damnation, and to be numbred in the fold of thine Elect, through Je­sus Christ our Lord; then immediately follows this prayer, which Oblation thou O God, we beseech, vouchsafe to make altogether blessed, ascribed, ratified, reasonable and acceptable. Ascripta and Rata are words which they are as much puzled to understand as I am to Translate. All these prayers are before consecration so that they cannot belong to the sacrifice of Christs Body, but only to the oblation of the gifts, and the sacrifice of praise, as 'tis there expresly called; and yet these are a great deal more full and large then the prayers after consecration, wherein there is no manner of mention of offering Christs Body and Blood, but only offering the consecrated Elements as they were offered before when they were unconsecrated, We offer unto thy excellent Majesty of thy gifts and presents, a pure host, an holy host, an immaculate host, the holy bread of Eternal Life, and the cup of Eternal Salvation. The first Composers would have used other words then Bread and Cup had they meant thereby Christs [Page 66]very natural Body and Blood, and it is plain they were not those by what follows, Ʋpon which vouch­safe to look with a propitious and kind countenance, and to accept of them as thou didst accept the gifts of thy righteous child Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that which Melchisedec thy High Priest offered to thee, an Holy Sacrifice, an immaculate Host. Now to compare Christs very Body and Blood with the sacrifices of Abel, Abraham and Melchisedec, and to desire God to look upon his own Son, in whom he was always well pleased with a propitious and kind Countenance is very strange and uncouth, to say no worse of it; and to desire according to what follows, that God would command these to be carried by the hands of his holy Angel, into thy sublime Altar, in the presence of thy Divine Majesty. These cannot be meant or understood of Christs natural Body and Blood, which is already in heaven, and is there to appear in the pre­sence of God for us, as Menardus expresly owns in his notes upon this prayer in Gregories SacramentaryJube haec per­ferri) non Chri­sti corpus sed memoriam passi­onis, fidem. pre­ces & vita side­l [...]. Menardi nota & obser­vat. in lib. Sa­crament. Gre­gori [...] Papae. p. 19., and if so, as we have the confession of the most Learn­ed Ritualist of their own Church, then there is nothing at all in the Canon of the Mass, that does truly belong to these, or that does any way express or come up to the new Tridentine Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass; so that we need go no further then their own office to show the Novelty of this, and as in other things, namely in their prayers to Saints they are forced to use very gentle and softning interpretations to make the words signifie otherwise then what they do in their proper and literal meaning, so here they must put a more strong and hard sense upon them, then they will really bear or was at first intended to make them speak the new meaning of the Mass-sacri­fice; so that they must here contrive a way to raise the sense of the Church as they do in other cases to [Page 67]let it down, or else their Prayers and their Doctrines will never be brought to suit well together. The commemoration for the dead has nothing in it but a meer Remembrance and a Prayer, that God would give to them a place of refreshment, light and peace through Je­sus Christ our Lord, not through the merit or vertue of that sacrifice which is then offered, there is not the least mention or intimation of any such thing nor any expression that looks that way. The Priest indeed a lit­tle before he communicates prays Christ, to deliver him from all his sins, and from all evils by this his most sacred Body and Blood, which he may do without its being a sacrifice, and I know no Protestant would scruple the joining in such a petition. There is a prayer in­deed at the last by the Priest to the Holy Trinity, that the sacrifice which he has unworthily offered to the eyes of the Divine Majesty may be acceptable to it, and through its mercy be propitiable for himself, and for those for which he has offered it, and this seems the fullest and the most to the purpose of the Mass-sacrifice, and yet it may very fairly be understood in a sound sense with­out any such thing, as 'tis a sacrifice of prayer and as God is thereby rendred merciful, and propitious both to our selves and others, but it is to be observed that this prayer is not in the old Ordo Romanus where the others are, nor in the Gelasian or Gregorian Missal, nor in any other ancient one put out by Thomasius, Me­nardus, Pamelius, Cardinal Bona or Mabillon, but was I suppose added of later days to those old Forms.

Fifthly, The new Addition to the form of Ordina­tion in the Roman Church, wherebyAccipe potes­tatem offerre sa­crificium Deo Missasque celebrare tam pro vivis quam pro mortuis. power is given to the Priest to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masses both for the dead and living, this discovers the no­velty of their Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass; for there was no such form of Ordination in the primitive [Page 68]Church, nor is there any such thing mentioned in any Latin or Greek Ordinale for near a thousand years after Christ; The most antient account of the manner of Ordaining is in the fourth Council of Carthage, where there is nothing else but,Presbyter cum Ordinatur, E­piscopo eum benedicente & manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius tenent. Canon 3. Concil. Carthag. the Epis­copal Benediction and Imposition of hands by the Bishop and all the Priests. In the Apostolic Constitutions, there is a pretty long prayer of the Bishops over the Priest who is to be Ordained, [...]. Consti­tut. Apostol. de Ordinat. Presbyt. l. 8. c. 16. that God would look upon his servant, chosen into the Presbyte­ry by the vote and judgment of all the Clergy, and fill him with the spirit of Grace and Wis­dom to help and govern the people with a pure heart— that he may be filled with healing operations, and instructive discourse, and may teach the people with all meekness, and may serve God sincerely with a pure under­standing, and a willing Soul, and may per­form the sacred and pure Offices for the people through Jesus Christ. And this with laying on of hands is all the Form of Ordination which is so anciently prescribed; St. Denis who is falsly called the Areopagite, but was a Writer probably of the fifth Centu­ry before the Council of Calcedon, he has acquainted us with much the like manner of Ordination in that time, [...]. Dionys. Hierarch. Eccles. c. 5. The Priest kneeling before the Altar with the Holy Bible and the Bishops hand over his head was consecrated with holy Prayers. Only there was then added the sign of the cross, and the kiss of peace, but no such thing as the receiving of power to offer sacrifice, and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead. This was a thing unheard of [Page 69]in the ancient Church either Greek or Latin, neither was it brought into the Latin till about the year 1000 as is confest by Morinus de sacris Or­dinat. pars 3. c. 6., nor is it to this day used in the Greek. In that age of Ignorance and Super­stition when Transubstantiation and a great many o­ther Errors and Corruptions crept into the Latin Church, this new Form of Ordination was set up, and the Priests had a new power given them, and a new work put upon them, which was to sacrifice and say Masses for the quick and dead, which, had it been agreeable to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church, and had there been any such opinion then of the Mass-sacrifice as there is now in the Roman Church, there would no doubt have been the same forme of Ordi­nation, or something like this would have been speci­fied in the consecration of a priest. They now make this the great and proper office of the priest, and these words with the delivery of the holy Vessels or sacred Instruments is made the very matter and form of the Sacrament of Orders, and it is made a charge by them against our Ordinations, that we want this essential part of priesthood, which is to offer sacrifice, but since the primitive Church had no such Form as is fully made out by Morinus, a man of great Learning and Credit among themselves who has made a great collection of the most antient Ordinale's to show this, and there is no such thing now in the Greek Churches as appears from Habertus on the Greek Pontifical, we have hereby not only a full defence of our own Orders without any such Form, but a plain demonstra­tion of the novelty of that in the Roman Church, and consequently of that Doctrine which is brought in by it, or perhaps was the occasion of it, of the sa­crifice of the Mass.

4. It is in it self unreasonable and absurd, and has a great many gross Errors involved in it. As

1. It makes an external visible sacrifice of a thing that is perfectly invisible, so that the very matter and substance of the sacrifice which they pretend to offer is not seen or perceived by any of the senses, for 'tis Christs body, and not the Bread and Wine which is the subject-matter and the sacrifice it self. Now this is the strangest sacrifice that ever was in the World, a visible oblation of an invisible thing; had the Jews offered their sacrifices in this manner, they had offer­ed nothing at all, and had Christ thus offered himself to God upon the cross only in phantasm and appea­rance as some Hereticks would have had him, and not in the visible substance of his body, it would have been only a phantastick sacrifice, and we had been redeemed by a shadow. 'Tis contrary to the nature of all proper sacrifices to have the thing offered not to be seen, and not visibly presented to God; an in­visible sacrifice may as well have an invisible Altar, and an invisible Oblation, and an invisible Priest, for why the one should be more visible then the other, I cannot imagine. Bellarmines definition of a sacrifice is this, which we are very willing to allow of, but how it agrees to the sacrifice of the mass I cannot see;Sacrificium est oblatio externa facta soli Deo, quâ ad agniti­onem bumanae in­sirmitatis & professionem di­vinae Majestatis à legitimo Mi­nistro res aliqua sensibilis & per­manens ritu my­stico consecratur & transmuta­tur. Bellarm. de Miss. l. 1. c. 2. A sacrifice is an external Oblation made to God alone, whereby for the acknowledging of humane infirmity, and owning of the Divine Majesty, some sensible and perma­nent thing is by a lawful Minister, and by a Mastic Rite consecrated and changed. Now Christs Body and Blood being the res sacrificii, the matter of the sacrifice, and that being offered to God, I cannot understand how that is a res sensibilis, a sensible thing in the Eucharist, and therefore how according to him it is a sacrifice; so necessary is it for a great man to blunder in a bad [Page 71]cause when he must either weigh in a false ballance, or whatever he says will quickly be found light.

2. It makes a proper sacrifice without a proper sacrificing Act; the Consumption and Destruction of the sacrifice was always necessary, as well as the offer­ing and bringing it to the Altar, and without this it was not properly given to God, but kept to themselves as much as it was before, if it were not either poured out, or burnt, or slain, which was parting with the thing and transferring it wholly to God; & this consumption is so Essential to all sacrifices that Bellarmine puts it in­to the definition of a sacrificeut supra., and says,ad verum sa­crificium requ [...] ­ritur ut id quod offertur Deo in sacrificium plane destruatur. Id. de Miss. l. 1 c. [...]. that to a true sacrifice it is required that that which is offered to God in sacrifice be plainly destroyed. But how will this now belong to Christs body in the sacrifice of the Mass? Is that destroyed there? is not that the sacri­fice? and is not that now in a Glorious, impassible State that can suffer no destruction? Bellarmine is in a sad plunge to get out here, and let us see how he throws himself about, but sticks fast still in the mire. By consecration, says he, the thing which is offered is or­dained to a true real and outward change and desiru­ction, which was necessary to the being of a sacrifice, for by consecration the Body of Christ receives the Form of food, but food is for eating, and by this it is ordained for change and destruction; Is the Body of Christ then de­stroyed by eating? If it be they are true Cannibals or Capernaitical feeders that eat it: I had thought that Christs body was not thus grosly to be broke by the Teeth, or chewed by the jaws of the priest, or Com­municants, so as to be destroyed by them. The Gloss upon Berengarius his Recantation says this is a great­er Heresie then his, unless it be understood of the spe­cies and not of the body it self; and they generally disown that Christs body is thus carnally eaten, but only the Sacramental species, but the species are not [Page 72]the sacrifice, and therefore 'tis not sufficient that they be destroyed, but the sacrifice, that is the body of Christ must be so. Christs body as it is food is not a sacrifice but a Sacrament, they make two distinct things of it as it is a sacrifice, and as it is a Sacrament, as it lies in the Pix, or is carried to the sick it is food and a Sacrament but they will not allow it to be then a sacrifice, and on Maunday Thursday, it is eaten but not accounted a sacrificeFeriâ sextâ majoris hebdo­madae non cen­setur sacrificium Missae propriè celebrari licet vera hostia adsit & frangatur & consumatur. Bel­larm. de Miss. l. 1. c. 27. B.. The Consumption then by eating belongs to it not as a sacrifice but a Sacrament, and the body of Christ is not then consumed but on­ly the species, nay the body of Christ is not then con­sumed under the species, for the real consumption be­longs only to the species and not to the body of Christ, which is no more truly consumed with them, or un­der them, then it is as sitting in heaven, no more then a mans flesh is consumed when only his clothes or his mantle is tore tho he were in them. What though it ceases to be really on the Altar, and ceases to be a sensible food, as he farther explains, or rather intangles it; Is Christs body ever a sensible food? And is its ceasing to be upon the Altar, a consumption of it? Then Isaac was consumed when he was took off from the Altar on which Abraham had laid him, and if his Father had been as subtle as our Roman Sophisters and Sacri­ficers, he might only have covered him with the skin of the Ram, and have consumed that as an ex­ternal species by fire, and so Isaac had been both sa­crificed, and consumed, and destroyed too, and yet have been as live as ever for all this. Such absurdities do they run into when they will make their notion suit of a true sacrifice and that which is not one, and a man of sense must yet destroy his sense one would think before he can talk at this rate.

They are most sadly nonplust and most extremely divided among themselves about the Essence of this their sacrifice of the Mass, and wherein they should place the true sacrificial act, whether in the Oblation of the Elements, or in consecration of them whereby they suppose them turned into Christs Body and blood, and so in the express Oblation of those to God, or in the fraction and commistion of the consecrated Elements, or in the manducation and consumption of them: Suarez and Vasquez and others are for the last of all; the Council of Trent seems to be for Oblation; Bellarmine is for consecration, whereby instead of Bread and Wine Christs Body and Blood are placed upon the Altar, and ordered for consumption. Mel­chior Canus is for all the four last, and he tells us it is the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, docuisse Tho­mam sacrificium ante fractionem hostiae esse perac­tum, sumptio­nemque spectare propriè ad sacra­mentum, oblati­onem verò ad sa­crificium. Can. Loc. Theol. l. 12. p. 833. that the sacrifice is performed before the fraction of the Elements, and that the sumption of them belongs properly to the Sacrament, the Oblation to the sacrifice; so that they know not what to pitch upon to constitute it a sacrifice, and if we exa­mine them all we shall find no true proper sacrificial act in any of them; the Oblation of the Elements be­fore consecration can by no means make such a sacri­fice as they design, for that is but an offering of earthly things not of Christs body, neither are they thereby changed or consumed, and tho they are an offering, they are not a proper sacrifice, though in some sense they are a sacrifice and were accounted so by the Fa­thers, as I have shown. The Fraction of the Elements after they are consecrated which is done by the Priest, not for distribution, for they give them whole to the people, but for another mystical reason, this is not the formal Essence of the sacrifice, for Christ they own did not break them in this manner at his last Supper, when yet they will have him sacrifice, and this is some­times omitted by themselves; neither is manducation, [Page 74]for this is performed by the people as well as the priest when they communicate, and sacrificing does not then belong to them, nor is it ever their work but only the Priests, and yet they then eat and consume the sacra­ment as well as the priest, so that sacrificing cannot properly lye in this, neither can it be proved that Christ did himself eat when he is supposed to sacrifice; and besides both this fraction and manducation belongs only to the species, they are the only proper subject of those actions, but it is the Body and Blood of Christ that is sacrificed and not the species. For this reason therefore consecration it self cannot well pass for the formal act of sacrificing, for 'tis the Bread is consecra­ted, not Christs body: 'tis the bread only is changed by consecration, that is supposed indeed to be destroy­ed when it is consecrated, and if this be sacrificing it is sacrificing of nothing, or at most 'tis but sacrificing of bread which is a meaner sacrifice then many of the Jewish, neither is this change of it visible and external, but they will needs have the sacrificing action to be sensible and external or else the sacrifice will not be so, and if it be only a spiritual and internal and men­tal offering up of Christs body and blood to God this is not proper sacrificing of it again, but only by in­ward Faith and Devotion which we are very willing to allow. But consecration must set Christs body up­on the Altar and put it into the hands of the priest and then it must be visibly offered to God, and visi­bly consumed, and this is the true way of sacrificing it, for Bellarmine takes in consumption as necessary to­gether with consecration; the oblation he owns is not verbal, neither did Christ thus offer his Body and Blood at his last Supper but after he had blessed and brake the bread he gave it to his Disciples, but placing this upon the Altar by the words of consecration is a real Oblation of it, and then eating and consuming it [Page 75]there formally constitutes the sacrifice. The Bishop of Meaux in his Exposition seems to make the whole Essence of the sacrifice consist in Consecration alone without any manducation or destruction, which Bel­larmine makes absolutely necessary; Christ, he says, is placed upon the holy Table, clothed with those signs that represent his death in vertue of the words of consecration which are the spiritual sword that make a mystical sepa­ration betwixt the Body and the Blood. Now if Christ be thus only sacrificed mystically and by representati­on, he is not sacrificed truly and properly, nor is there any true and proper propitiation made hereby, which is the true state of the Controversie between us; Christ may be sacrificed representatively, as Caesar may be slain in a Tragedy, without being really present, and if he were present and placed upon the Altar, as they will needs have him, yet he is no more sacrificed by the mystical representation then if Caesars Picture were stab'd and he were behind it unhurt. I see no reason why Christs presence should be necessary to make such a mystical representative, or commemora­tive sacrifice, and if Christ were present I see not how he is more sacrificed then if he were absent. So that they only confound their thoughts to make a proper sacrifice where there is none, and when they have boasted of a true proper visible external sacrifice, they know not where to find any such thing, and it comes to no more at last then a meer commemorative and representative one, or in plain words to a sacra­mental and Mystical representation and remembrance of a past sacrifice, which there is neither any need nor any possibility of renewing.

Their differences about the proper sacrificial act whereby they do with good success destroy one anothers notions of it, and so taken together destroy the thing it self, these are the more considerable be­cause [Page 76]'tis not the res sacrificii which makes the sacrifice, though that were never so truly present, but the sacri­ficing Act, or the Actual sacrificing it, for as Bellar­mine says,Nam non res illa, sed rei illi­us oblatio proprie est sacrificium, sacrificium enim est a [...] no [...] res permanens. Bel­larm. de Miss. l. 2. c. 4. D. A sacrifice is an action not a permanent thing, and 'tis not the thing it self, but the offering it is properly the sacrifice. So that though Christs natural Body and Blood were never so much present in the Eucharist even according to the Doctrine of Transub­stantiation it self; yet so long as there is no proper acti­on there to sacrifice it, or no sacrificing act, it would signifie nothing to the making it a sacrifice.

3. This Doctrine of the Mass makes a living body a sacrifice which requires it should be dead, and yet at the same represents it dead when it supposes it present in a state of life, which is as odd a jumble as making a man to be by at his own funeral, and at the same time bringing in the person alive, & yet dressing up his picture to remember him dead and in the habit of death it self. The Eucharist is to remember and repre­sent Christ in a state of death, his body and blood as separated from one another, and the one broken and the other poured out, and the words of consecration are the spiritual sword, as the Bishop of Meaux calls them, that are to do this, and so to constitute the sacri­fice, but whilst this is a doing, nay by the very doing this thing, the same spiritual sword becomes a spiritual word, and raises the same body living, and sets it in that state upon the Altar, so that by this means it de­stroys the sacrifice a great deal more then it made it before, for it makes it be then truly living, whereas it only represented it before as dead. So that 'tis at the same time a dead representative sacrifice, and a living proper sacrifice, which is in truth no sacrifice at all, for a living sacrifice is just as much sense as a dead Animal, that is, 'tis a contradiction, and one of the [Page 77]Terms destroys the other. If a Jewish Priest had knockt down the Oxe with one hand, and raised him up with the other, or restored him to life after he had slew him, this would have made but a very odde sa­crifice; and to make Christ dead by the sacramental signs, and to sacrifice him thus in Effigie, and to make him alive again under the sacramental signs, and so to sacrifice him truly this is a strange and unaccountable riddle. I would ask whether the consecrated species of Bread and Wine by which Christs blood is shed mysti­cally, and death intervenes only by representation, as the Bishop of Meaux phrases it, whether these would make a real sacrifice without Christs living body under them? if not, 'tis not this mystical representation of death makes the sacrifice? Or whether Christs liv­ing body without those species and signs of his death would be a sacrifice? If not then 'tis not the placing that upon the Altar and so a real Oblation of it there makes the sacrifice, and then what is it that does so? Is it not very odd that the same person must be there seemingly dead, and yet really alive at the same time to make up this sacrifice?

4. The making it truly propitiatory is a very great Error, and inconsistent with it self. All our Religious Duties and all our vertuous actions may in a large and improper sense be said to be propitiatory, as they are said also in Scripture to be sacrifices, for no doubt but they make God kind and propitious to us, and incline him to have Mercy upon us; and the blessed Eucharist as it exhibits to us all the graces and benefits which Christ hath by his death purchased for us, whereof Pardon and Remission of fin which is hereby sealed to us, is a very great one, so far may be called propi­tiatory, and it may be instituted for the Remission of sin, so far as it is to apply to us the vertue of Christs [Page 78]body and blood and make us partakers of his sacrifice upon the Cross, but this it may do as it is a Sacrament without being any sacrifice, much less without being a propitiatory one as the Council of Trent hath deter­mined it, to be truly propitiatory Vere propitiatorium esse, hujus quippe oblatione placatus Dominus. Concil. Trident. Sest. 6. c. 2. by the oblation of which God is appeased, and this in opposition to a sacrifice of Praise and ThanksgivingSi quis dixerit Missaesa­crificium tantum esse laudis & gratiarum actionis— non autem propitiatorium, Ib. Can. 3. Now as it is a sa­crifice of Praise and spiritual Devotion, it is no doubt, in the Bishop of Meaux's words, acceptable to God and makes him look upon us with a more propitious eye Exposition of the Do­ctrine of the Catholick Church, p. 35. Is this then all the meaning of its being propitiatory? Did ever any Protestant deny it to be thus? And is not this to ex­plain away the true meaning of the word, and to give up the Controversie? The true notion of a propitia­tory sacrifice is this, that it suffers a vicarious punish­ment in anothers stead, that by it the punishment is trans­ferr'd from the offender to that, and so he is dischar­ged from it, and God is pleased for the sake of that not to be angry but kind and propitious to him; this I think cannot be denyed, and let us see if this will fit to the Eucharist; If Christ be really present there, yet does he suffer any punishment there in our stead? does he pay any price there for our sins? If not, there can­not be any true propitiation then made, nor can the sacrifice be truly propitiatory; Christ did once upon the Cross, where he suffered as our [...] a vica­rious punishment for our sins by his one oblation of him­self once offered make a full, perfect, and sufficient sacri­fice for the sins of the whole World Prayer of Con­secrat. in Com­mun. Serv., and Bellarmine is forced to own, That 'tis the sacrifice of the Cross, is pro­perly meritorious and satisfactory, because Christ when he was then mortal could merit and satisfie, but the sacrifice of the Mass is properly only impetratory, for Christ being [Page 79]now immortal can neither merit nor satis­fie Nam sacificium crucis fait meritorium, satisfactorium & impetratorium verè & propriè, quia Christus tunc mortalis erat & mereri ac satisfacere poterat, sacrificium Missae propriè solum est Impetratorium quia Christus nunc immortalis nec mereri nec satisfacere potest. Bellarm. de Missa l. 2. c. 4. C.. Thus truth will out at last, though there be never so much art used to stifle and conceal it, and this is very fairly to give up the question, and surrender the cause; for he owns it is not properly pro­pitiatory and gives a very good reason for it, because Christ in his immortal state cannot merit or satisfie or be a true propi­tiation for us; the Bishop of Meaux was aware of this and therefore he makes Christs presence upon the Altar to be not a propitiation, but a powerful Interces­sion before God for all mankind, according to the saying of the Apostle that Jesus Christ presents himself, and appears for us before the face of God, Heb. 9.24. So that Christ being present upon the holy Table under this figure of death, intercedes for us, and represents continually to his Father that death which he has suffered for his Church Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catho­lick Church.. But how comes this Intercession of Christ to be upon Earth? Is it not to be in heaven, and is not Christ there to appear in the presence of God for us? Is not Christ entered into the heavens for that purpose as the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the great sacrifice of Atonement after that was offered upon the Altar? Does not the Apostle thus represent it in that place in allusion, and with re­lation to that Jewish Oeconomy, and could any but Monsieur de Meaux have brought that place to show that Christ intercedes for us by being present upon the Altar, when the Apostles discourse is as directly con­trary to that as can be, and makes him to appear only in Heaven, or in the presence of God for us, and there present himself and his sacrifice to God, as the Jewish High Priest carried the blood of the Anniver­sary sacrifice of Expiation into the Holy of Holies, and there sprinkled it before the Mercy-seat. Christ is not [Page 80]entred into the holy place made with hands which are the figures of the true, but into Heaven it self, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Christ therefore making Intercession for us only in heaven and propitiation on­ly upon the Cross, how the sacrifice of the Mass should be either Intercessory, which is a new way of de Meaux's or propitiatory as the Council of Trent has determined it, I cannot understand. Some of them tell us it is propitiatory only relatively, and by appli­cation as it relates and applyes to us the propitiatory vertue of the sacrifice of the Cross, but this it may do as a Sacrament, and then it is not propitiatory in it self, for sins, for punishments, and for satisfactions, as the Council declares it, and as propitiatory sacrifices used to be, which were in themselves [...], satisfactory payments and prices for sins, and for the punishments due to them. Bellarmin having owned it not to be properly propitiatory, he says,Cum autem dicitur propitia­torium vel satis­factorium id est intelligendum ratione rei quae impetratur, dici­tur enim propiti­atorium quia impetrat remissi­onem culpae, sa­tisfactorium quia impetrat remissionem poe­nae. Bellarm. de Miss. l. 2. c. 4. C. When it is called pro­pitiatory or satisfactory, this is to be understood by reason of the thing which is impetrated by it, for it is said to be Propitiatory, because it impetrates Remission of sin; Sa­tisfactory because it impetrates Remission of punishment: But thus our Prayers may be said to be propitiatory because by them we beg and obtain Mercy and Par­don at the hands of God, but a propitiatory sacrifice is to do this not only by way of petition and impetrati­on but by way of price, and payment, and satisfacti­on; so that after all this improper sacrifice of the Mass is but very improperly propitiatory, and when they come closely to consider it they are forced to con­fess so, and cannot tell how to make out their Coun­cils Doctrine, that 'tis truly propitiatory for sins and for punishments.

5. Let us consider next how it is impetratory, if they mean only that it is so upon the account of those [Page 81]Prayers which are there made, and which are more efficacious in that solemn office of Religion, as the Eucharist has relation to the Cross, and the sacrifice of Christ upon it, which is the foundation of all our Prayers, and by vertue of which we hope to have them heard and answered by God, so in that solemn, Religious and express memorial of it, we may suppose them to have a greater vertue and efficacy; if this be all they mean, who will deny it, and why may not this be without the Eucharist's being a sacrifice, 'tis only Christs sacrifice and offering upon the Cross that gives vertue and power to our prayers at that time when we are devoutly celebrating the remembrance of it, and 'tis not any offering of him up then any other­wise then by Faith and the inward devotion of our Mind that makes our prayers the more powerful either for our selves or others.

We are to make Prayers and Supplications for all men, and for theirs and our own wants and necessities in this solemn and publick office of our Religion, and so did the first Christians pray then for Kings and all that were in Authority as the Apostle commands, and as we find they did at large in St. Cyril Catech. My­stag. 5., and the Apostolick Constitutionsl. 8. c. 12., and it was in the Sacra­ment they used their Litanies or general Supplications for all men, and for all things; as is evident beyond all dispute from those places where they prayed not only for the Church and the Bishops, Presbyters, and Dea­cons, and all the faithful, but for the King or the Empe­ror where they lived, for the City and all its inhabitants, for the sick, for the Captives and banished, for all that Travelled by Sea or by Land, and so for all things, for the peace of the Church and for the quiet of the Empire, and for all temporal mercies, as well as spiritual, for the fruits of the Earth, and for the temperature of the Air, and for all things they stood in need of. Now they [Page 82]did not think the Eucharist did as a sacrifice impetrate all this, or as a real instead of a verbal prayer as Bel­larmine represents it to beIpsa enim ob­latio tacita quae­dam sed efficacis­sima est invoca­tio. Bellarm. de Miss. l. 2. c. 8. B.; but they made particular and express prayers for these in the Eucharist, and did not think that was to supply the place of prayer or be a prayer in action, or in dumb signs instead of words, neither did the primitive Church ever say a Mass for to quench a fire or stay an Earthquake, much less to cure the Murrain in Cattle, or to recover a Sheep, or a Cow, or Horse when they were sick, as is scandalously and shamefully done by those who ascribe such an im­petratory power to it that it shall do the work in all cases.

6. To make it a sacrifice truly propitiatory in its self and yet only applicatory of the vertue of another sacrifice is, if not a contradiction, yet a great absurdity, for if it only apply the vertue and efficacy of another sacrifice, viz. That of the Cross, which is the only sa­crifice of Redemption that made true expiation for sin, how can this then be called truly propitiatory, if only that other be propitiatory and this is but applicatory of that other? A certain [...] or infallible medicine for all Diseases is given and applyed to us by such a vehicle, is the vehicle therefore that applies this the Medicine it self? Or has that an infallible vertue be­cause the Medicine that is applyed by it has such a vertue? Is laying on a Plaister or applying it to the wound the same thing with the Plaister it self that was made up or compounded long before? If the Mass-sa­crifice be truly propitiatory it must be a sacrifice of Redemption, if it be only Applicatory, and not a sa­crifice of Redemption in it self then 'tis not truly pro­pitiatory. The Eucharist we all say doth apply to us the sacrifice of the Cross, or the benefits of Christs death as it is a Sacrament, but it is not therefore pro­pitiatory [Page 83]as it is such, nor is it any way necessary it should, and as a sacrifice it cannot be applicatory, for it must be offered to God, and therefore as such it could not apply any thing to us, for our giving it up or sa­crificing it to God is quite another thing and very different from Gods giving or applying it to us. God gives Christs body and blood to us in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament, but as it is a sacrifice we must give it to him, and that would be as strange a way of applying it to our selves, as a Patients returning his Physick or making a present of it to the Doctor, would be a new and strange method of taking it himself. And that the Priests intention should apply this is still as strange, for the Priests intention in the Mass is to consecrate and so to sacrifice, and that is giving the thing to God and not applying it to others; if he gives them the sa­crament indeed to eat then he applyes the sacrifice of Christs body and blood to them; but how he can do this when he does not give it them but only give it to God, that is, sacrifice it, I do not understand: The Jews had the vertue of their sacrifices applyed to them by eating of them, or by having the blood sprinkled upon them or by some such Ceremony to make them partakers of them, but that another sacrifice was offe­red or the same sacrifice reiterated in order to apply­ing of them is a thing unknown and unheard of Christs sacrifice is applyed to us by the sacrament of Baptism and therefore that also is called a sacrifice as it both re­presents Christs death, and confers to us the benefits of it, thus Chrysostom expounds that place of Scripture there remains no more sacrifice for sin Heb. 10.26., that is, he can be no more baptized Chrysostom. Homil. 16. in Epist. ad Hebr., and Bishop Canus says,hinc illi (an­tiqui) baptisma translatitiè ho­stiam nuncupâ­runt. Can. loci commun. l. 2. c. 12. the an­tients from hence called Baptism a sacrifice, but figura­tively, and not properly, and just thus indeed they called the Eucharist: Bellarmine was so sensible that this would destroy the notion of the Eucharists being a [Page 84]proper sacrifice, that he absolutely denies thatNusquam Patres haptismum vocant sacrificium, hostiam—Bellarm. de Miss. l. 1. c. 15. the Fathers do ever call baptism a sa­crifice, but he is shamefully mistaken, as appears from the confession of Bishop Ca­nus, and because I will not wholly de­pend upon that I will produce one or two plain Authorities for it out of St. Austin, Holocaustum Dominicae pas­sionis eo tempore pro se quisque offert, quo ejusdem Passionis fi­de dedicatur. August. in Ex­posit. ad Roman. Every one, says he, does offer for himself the sacrifice of Christs passion, at that time when he is dedicated in the Faith of his passion. And the sacrifice of our Lord is in a certain manner offered for every one then when in his name he is signed by Baptism Holocaustum Domini tunc pro unoquoque offertur quodam­modò cum ejus nomine baptizan­do signatur. Ib.. Baptism is then called a sacrifice as well as the Eucharist, though it is only properly a Sacrament, and the sacrifice of Christ is there plainly applyed to us without a sacrifice, and so it may be as well in the Eucharist.

7. They suppose it to be the same sacrifice with that of the Cross, but not to have the same vertue and efficiency, which as Bellarmin says, seems very strange mirum videtur cur valor sacri­ficii hujus sit fi­nitus, cum idem sit hoc sacrifici­um cum sacrificio crucis. Bellarm. de Miss. l. 2. c. 4. F., for the Council of Trent declares it to be one and the same sacrifice with that of the Cross, and one and the same offerer namely Christ by the Ministery of the Priests, and to be differing in nothing but in the manner of offering Ʋna enim ea­demque est hostia idemque offerens sacerdotum mini­sterio— sola offerendi ratione diversâ. Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 2.. Now if the manner of offering be not such as makes it a sacrifice, it can be no sacrifice at all, if it be, it can make no difference as to its value and efficacy, for 'tis not the way of offering but the worth of the thing offered that gives value to the sacrifice. The Beasts were slain upon an Altar and had their blood spilt there as Christs was upon the Cross, but his being the blood of a person of the greatest dignity even of the Son of God, this made his sacrifice once offered to be of in­finite value and efficacy, and sufficient to propitiate God and make expiation for all the sins of the World, now if the same sacrifice be as truly offered in the Mass [Page 85]though not after the same manner, and Christ does by the hands of the Priest as truly offer himself there as he did upon the Cross, why should not this be of as infinite value and efficiency as the other, but if it were says Bellarmine, what need so many Masses be offered for the same thing Nam si Missae valor infinitus esset, frustrà multae Missae praesertim ad rem eandem impetran­dam offerrentur. Ib., so many thousand for example to get a soul out of Purgatory, which if it were not, it would quite spoil the market and utterly destroy the Trade of them; but surely this is but like paying the same full summe of a debt so many times over, when one pay­ment amounts to the whole, and 'tis but the same is brought so many times again; It is to be feared that it is not accepted by God or else it need not be so often tendered, and paid again and again so many several times, but as Bellarmine says, both the sacrifice it self, and Christ who then offers it are infinitely acceptable to God Ipsa hostia & offerens Christus infinito modo sunt Deo grata. Ib.. What account then can be given of this? He is the most miserably put to't that ever good guesser was at this unaccountable thing, and with a salvo to better judgment Videntur mihi, salvo meliore ju­dicio, tres esse causae hujus rei. Bellarm. de Miss. l. 2. c. 4. F., which is a squeamish piece of mo­desty that he is seldom guilty of at other times, he of­fers at three reasons, though he owns the cause of it is not certainCausa non est adeo certa. Ib.. The first is, in respect of the sacrifice it self which is offered, in the sacrifice of the cross, says he, Christ in his very-natural being, and human form was de­stroyed, but 'tis only his sacramental being is so in the Eu­charist Prima sumitur ex parte hostiae quae offertur, nam in sacrificio de­struebatur ad honorem Dei ip­sum esse naturale Christi in formâ humanâ, in sa­crificio Missae destruitur tan­tum esse sacra­mentale. Ib., but Christ I hope is as much in his natural being in the Eucharist as he was upon the cross, else what becomes of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; and he is offered as truly to God in his natural being there, why should not then his natural being be as valuable in the one as in the other, if his natural be­ings not being destroyed there makes it to be no true sacrifice as one would think he had it here in his thoughts, then indeed he gives a good and a true rea­son why the one is not a sacrifice nor upon that account [Page 86]so valuable as the other, but for fear of that he quits this reason and goes to the next, which is,Secunda su­mitur ex parte offerentis, nam in sacrificio crucis offerens est ipsa persona filii Dei per se at in sa­crificio Missae offerens est filius Dei per mini­strum. Ib. in respect of the offerer, because in the one the offerer is the very per­son of the Son of God by himself, but in the other the offer­er is the Son of God by his Minister, but surely if the oblation be the same, of the same worth and value, the offerer will by no means lessen and diminish it, and how often do they tell us that Christ himself is the offerer of the sacrifice of the Mass, when we charge them with the great boldness and presumption of hav­ing a mortal man offer up Christ, and so consequently purchase our Redemption, and make propitiation for sin, which none but Christ can do; to avoid this the Bishop of Meaux says, That Christ being present upon the Table effers up himself to God for us in the Eucharist Exposition of the doctrine of the Catho­lick Church.. So that the Priest is only to set him upon the Table according to him by the words of consecration, and then Christ offers up himself to God, and Christ being present upon the holy Table under this figure of Death, in­tercedes for us, and represents continually to his Father that death which he has suffered for his Church Ib.. And the Council of Trent says, It is the same offerer as well as the same sacrifice that was upon the cross, and the dif­ference between that and the sacrifice of the Mass is not at all upon the account of the offerer, but only the manner of offeringƲna eademque hostia, idemque offerens, sola offerendi ratione di­versâ. Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 2.. This therefore can be no true reason of the different va­lue of the two sacrifices and oblations.

The Third is taken from the will of Christ, for though ChristTertia ratio sumitur ex ipsâ Christi voluntate, nam etiam­si possit Christus per unam obla­tionem sacrificii incruenti sive per se, sive per ministrum oblati quae­libet à Deo & pro quibuscunque impetrare, tamen noluit petere nec impetrare nisi ut pro singulis [...]olationibus applicetur certa men­sura fructus passionis suae sive ad peccati remissionem sive ad alia beneficia, quibus in hâc vitâ in­digemus. Bella. de Miss. l. 2 c. 4. H. could by one oblation offered either by himself or his mini­ster obtain any thing or for any person, yet he would not otherwise desire or impetrate this, but only that in every oblation a certain measure of the fruit of his passion be applyed either to Remission of sin, or to other benefits [Page 87]which we want in this Life, but where does this will of Christ appear? Christ may dispose of his merits and the fruits of his passion as he pleaseth, but how do they know that he intends thus to parcel them out, and to distribute them in such small measures and scantlings as they think fit and as serves only for their purpose? If the sacrifice and oblation be the same, it ought to be without doubt of the same infinite value with that upon the Cross, and though it be very bold and preca­rious to guesse at Christs will without some declaration of it from himself, yet I cannot see how it was possible that it should be Christs will to have it the same sacri­fice, and yet not have the same vertue, which is as if a Physician should have an Universal Medicine, that by once taking would certainly cure all Diseases whatever, and yet should for some reasons so order the matter that the very same Medicine should if he pleased have only a limited vertue, & cure but one Disease at a time, or only some lesser & smaller illnesses, and that even for those it must be often taken; This would certainly bring a suspicion either upon his Medicine or himself, and no body but would doubt either that it had not such a vertue in it at first, or that it was not the same afterwards, nor made truly by him as he pretended.

8. They make the Priest in the Mass-sacrifice, to do all in the name of Christ, and to act as his Agent and Deputy, and so they say 'tis the same Priest who offers, as well as the same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross, and that he pronounces those words of Consecration, This is my Body in Christs name, not by an Historical reciting of them, but as speaking authoritatively in the Person of Christ himself, and that this makes the Sacrifice great and valuable, as it is thus offered to God by Christ himself. I ask then whether all the sacrificial Acts in the Mass, are per­formed [Page 88]by Christ? Does Christ consecrate his own Body? for Consecration is the most principal part of the sacrificing Action, if not the whole of it; or if as some think, the Consumption of the Sacrifice is the great thing that makes it perfect and consummate, I ask whether Christ does then eat his own Body every Mass, when it is eaten by the Priest; If as Bellarmine owns the Consumption of the Sacrifice be absolutely necessary to make a sacrificial Oblation, and the true Offerer be Christ himself, as the Council of Trent says, then Christ himself must consume the sacrifice, that is, he must eat his own body: Bellarmine is really pincht with this difficulty, and he hath so wisely managed the matter, that as he brought himself into this streight, so he knows not how to get out of it, but he is forced to confess,Tamen ipse di­ci potest consu­mere sacramen­tum. Bellarm. de Miss. l. 1. c. 27. That Christ may in some sense be said to con­sume the Sacrament, i. e. himself, for 'tis Christs body and blood is the Sacrament, and not the species, at least not without those. We always thought it a pro­digious if not a horrid thing for another to consume Christs real body, but now for Christ himself to be made to do this, is to expose, Christ shall I say? or themselves? or that cause which is driven to these Absurdities, and which can never avoid them whilest it makes the Mass a true sacrifice, and Christ himself the offerer of it.

9. The Offering this Sacrifice to redeem souls out of Purgatory, as it is made one of the greatest ends and uses of this Sacrifice of the Mass, so is one of the greatest Errors and Abuses that belong to it, for besides that it contains in it all the foregoing Errors and Absurdities of its being a proper Sacrifice, and so bene­fitting those who do not at all receive it as a Sacrament, and being properly propitiatory at least for lesser sins, and for the temporal pains that they suppose due to [Page 89]greater sins after they are forgiven, which is another cluster of Errors that grows likewise to this Doctrine, though it belongs to another place to consider them. I say besides all those Errors it takes in also the ground­less and uncomfortable and erronious opinion of Pur­gatory, whereby a great many departed Souls are sup­posed to be in a sad state of extream pain and torment till they are delivered from it by these Masses and sa­crifices which are offered for them to that purpose. And this is indeed the great advantage of them, I mean to the Priests that offer them, who hereby make Mer­chandize not only of the Souls of Men, but of Christs Body and Blood, and are made by this sacrifice a sort of Mony-changers in the Temple, and instead of Doves sell Christ himself, and the souls in Purgatory are redeemed out of it by such corruptible things, as Silver and Gold, which are to purchase Masses, that is, Christs body and bloud at a certain price. This is a most horrible abuse of Christianity, which exposes it to infinite scandal and reproach, the selling of Masses and Indulgences is so visible a blot in Popery that though nothing has more enriched, yet nothing has more shamed it then these have done; both those have relation to Purgatory which is an unknown Countrey in the other World, that hath given rise to those two profitable Trades and to all that spiritual Traffic that is carried on by it. A Late excellent discourse has so fully considered that subject, that I am no further to meddle with it here then as the sacrifice of the Mass is concerned in it. Our Adversaries most plausible and specious pretence for both those Doctrines is taken from the antient custom of oblations for the Dead, which cannot be denyed to be of great antiquity and general use even very near the beginnings of Christianity, and to have had a long continuance in the Christian Church. Tertullian mentions them as [Page 90]made on every Anniversary of their birth Oblationes pro defunctis prona­talitiis annuâ die facimus. Tertul. de Co­rona militis, c. 3., i. e. on the day wherein they died to this World, and were born into immortality. St. Cyprian speaks of them as so generally used for all persons, that it was made the pu­nishment of him who should leave a Clergyman his Executor, and so take him off from his sacred employ­ment to secular Troubles and Affairs, thatAc siquis hoc fecisset non offerretur pro eo nec sacrificium pro dormitione ejus celebraretur. Cyprian Epist. l. 1. Edit. Ox. no offering should be made for him, neither should any sacrifice be celebrated for his departure, Episcopi antecessores no­stri religiosè considerantes & sa­lubriter providentes censuerunt nequis frater excedens adtutelam vel curam Clericum nominaret, &c. Ib. Contra formam nuper in Con­cilio a Sacerdotibus datam. and this was an Order, he sayes, made by former Bishops in Coun­cil, and therefore he commands that Ge­minius Victor, who had made Geminius Faustinus Tutor to his Will, or his Exe­cutor,Non est quod pro dormi­tione ejus apud vos fiat oblatio, aut deprecatio aliqua nomine ejus in Ecclesiâ frequentetur, Ib. should have no oblation made for his departure nor any Prayer used in his name in the Church. St. Austin gives it in as the custom of the Ʋniversal Church in his time, that a sacrifice was offered for the dead,Non parva est Ecclesiae Ʋniversae quae in hâc consuetudi­ne claret, authoritas —, si nun­quam in Scripturis veteribus scriptum legeretur—sc. oblatum pro mortuis sacrificium, August. cura pro mortuis. and this, he says, is suffici­ent authority for it, though there were no­thing of it in Scripture; and having shown that what happens to the dead body is of no concern to the departed soul,Non existimemus ad mor­tuos pro quibus curam gerimus pervenire, nisi quod pro eis sive altaris, sive orationum sive ele­emosynarum sacrifi [...]iis soleanitèr supplicamus. Ib. versus finem. none of our care, says he, can reach the dead but on­ly that we supplicate for them by the sacrifices of the Altar, of Prayers or of Alms, and the same thing he mentions in several other places of his works, and in his own oblations at the Altar for his Mother Monica after she was dead. Now what can we think of these Oblati­ons unless with the Papists we allow such a state of departed souls as they call Purgatory, that is, neither Heaven nor Hell; for if they were either in the one or the other of those, these oblations would signi­fie nothing to them, and how plain is it that they [Page 91]thought them to be some way benefitted or relieved by the sacrifice of the Mass or Altar. I answer that nei­ther of those Opinions as they are now held, and re­ceived in the Church of Rome do follow from the Pri­mitive Custom of offering for the Dead, but that they were of another nature then what they account them, and this I shall evince from the following conside­rations.

1. Then these Oblations were made for departed Souls who were not supposed to be in a state of pain, as they now believe Purgatory to be, but in a state of ease and happiness, as St. Austin believed his Mother to be when he offered for her, and when he prayed for her,& credo qu [...] jam feceris quod te rego, sed vo­luntaria oris mei approba Do­mine, August. Confess. l. 9. c. 12. he did believe that God had already granted her what he prayed for, but he beg'd him to accept these free Will offerings of his mouth. It was not then a doubt of her state but only the voluntary expressions of his Love and Duty which he designed by his Prayers and Obla­tions for her, and those Olations were made even for Saints and Martyrs, and the most holy Christians of whose future happiness there was no manner of que­stion, and for all indeed who dyed in the Communi­on of the Church. And therefore

2. They were an honorary Testimony given to them of their good state, and of their dying in the Peace and Communion of the Church: to have their names recited at the Altar service out of the Diptychs or folded Tables was an honorary memorial and men­tion of them as members of the Church, and 'twas a dis­owning them as such to expunge, or blot their names out of those Diptychs; and so the making or receiv­ing Oblations for them at the Altar, was an acknow­ledgment of their right to the Altar, & to the Christian Communion, and therefore no oblations were receiv­ed [Page 92]of the [...] and [...] of those who were not Communicants, or had not a right to Communion, of those who were guilty of scandalous sins or of those who were in a state of Penance for them, as may be seen in the Apostolick Constitutionsl. 4. c. 5. l. 3. c. 8., and in one of the most ancient Councils,Episcopum placuit ab eo qui non communicat, munera accipere non debere. Con­cil. Eliber. c. 28. which forbids the Bi­shop to take oblations from him who does not communicate. Petavius has largely made this out in his Notes on Epiphanius Animad­vers. in Epi­phan. Exposit. fid. and produces a Council which pro­videsConcil. Va­sense. Ib. that the Oblations of those penitents should be re­ceived, who were surprized by a sudden death in a journy. Which was a receiving them into the Churches Com­munion, quasi ex Postliminio.

3. By having these Oblations received and offered for them they were made partakers of the prayers that were made for them at the Altar: what ever bene­fit these prayers were believed to be of to departed souls, which I am not here to examine, that did accrue to them by having these oblations made and received for them; for by this means they were particularly men­tioned and recommended in the Prayers at the Altar, and thus both Tertullian, St. Cyprian and St. Austin explain the sacrifices and oblations which they menti­on as made for the dead.Ʋxor pro animâ desuncti maritiorat & ossert annuis die­bus dormitionis ejus. Tertull. de Monogam. The Wife prays for her husbands soul and offers on his Anniversary. And again,Neque enim ad altare meretur nominari in sacerdotum prece qui ab altari sacerdotes & ministros suos avocari voluit. Cypr. Ep. 1. He deserves not to be named in the prayer of the Priests at the Altar of God, who takes off Gods mi­nisters from the Altar, in the fore-menti­oned case of making a Clergy-man Exe­cutor.Ʋbi in precibus sacerdo­tis quae Domino Deo ad ejus al­tare funduntur, locum suum ha­bet etiam commendatio mortuo­rum. August. cura pro mor­tuis. And in the prayers of the Priest which are poured out to God at his Altar, the commendation of the dead has place. So that the good they had by these oblations was upon the account of these Prayers, [Page 93]and not by any vertue in these oblations as they were a sacrifice, distinct from the benefit of the Prayers; as they were Alms indeed together with prayers they thought the dead benefitted by them together with the prayers, and so St. Austin in the fore-quoted place mentions the sacrifices of the Altar which he explains by prayers and Alms, both which he calls sacrificessive altaris, si­ve orationum, si­ve eleemosyna­rum sacrificiis supplicamus. ut supra., but not in a proper and strict sense as our Adversaries must acknowledge. For these sacrifices I hope were not true and proper ones such as the sacrifice of the Mass is held to be, nor were they properly propitia­tory for their sins, nor did the Antients who prayed for the dead at the Altar and made oblations for them, think that these oblations were properly propitiatory, or satisfactory for their sins, as the Church of Rome believes the sacrifice of Mass now to be: there is no­thing that amounts to this in any of those places where they speak of offerings for the dead, nor would St. Cyprian or the Bishops who ordained in Council that no offerings should be made for him who appointed a Clergy-Man Executor to his Will, have inflicted so severe a punishment upon so small a fault, had they thought this would have deprived his soul of a true and real propitiation for his sins, nor would blotting out of the Diptychs have been so commonly put in use, had this been consigning the soul to the punishments of another World.

There was therefore no such thing meant as our Ad­versaries would now draw from that ancient custom of Oblations for the Dead; and yet that this quickly degenerated into superstition and has been farther im­proved in aftertimes and is now come to very great perfection in the Roman Church we willingly own; & that the first beginnings of this were lay'd in this un­scriptural custom, as the Worship of Saints was from the Anniversary memory of the Martyrs is not to be de­nyed: [Page 94]But corruptions in Religion like Diseases in the body might proceed at first from very small causes, but by neglect and carelessness grow oftentimes very great and dangerous, especially when the Physicians that should have cured them, thought it for their pur­pose and interest rather to heighten and increase them.

10. The sacrifice of the Mass must either be unne­cessary, or else must reflect on the sacrifice of the Cross, if it be not necessary for obtaining the pardon and remission of any sin, or for the relief of any spi­ritual want and necessity for which there has been no provision made by the sacrifice of the cross, then it is wholly useless & unprofitable; if it be necessary for any such purpose then the sacrifice of the cross is not per­fect and sufficient for all those ends, but requires this sacrifice of the Mass to make up what is lacking, and behind of the sufferings of Christ upon the cross, which is a great diminution to the infinite value of them. It is impossible to avoid these inconveniences, for if the me­rit of the cross be so great as to expiate all manner of sin, and to take away all kinds of punishment that are due to it, and to supply all the spiritual wants and necessi­ties whatever of all Christians, then what possible need can there be of any other sacrifice? And if Christs sacrifice once offered upon the cross can do all this, why should there be any new offering or any reiteration of the same sacrifice, when by being once offered it hath done the whole business that it can do were it offered never so often: but if there be any kinds of sins, which because they are dayly commit­ted by us therefore require a dayly sacrifice, as they pretend, to be offered for them, which implyes that the constant and abiding vertue of the cross cannot reach them, which is yet as efficacious to all Christi­ans [Page 95]now as the first day it was offered, or as it could be if it were offered every day by Christ himself; or if there be any such temporal remains of punishment after the eternal guilt of them is pardoned, which are not discharged by Christs sacrifice upon the Cross, but there is this small hand-Writing still however against us and continues uncancelled notwithstanding the Death of Christ, then we are not perfectly re­deemed from all punishment, and from the whole Curse of the Law by the sacrifice of the cross, but there is something more necessary to deliver and save us if not from Hell yet from Purgatory, and what­ever Christ has done for us yet the Mass sacrifice must still help us, not as an instrument of Religion to work upon us and make us better, but as a sacrifice to God to prevail with him to free us from punishment, or else we are in a miserable condition, which is the true contrivance of the sacrifice of the Mass, that necessa­rily renders it very injurious to the most perfect and sufficient sacrifice of the cross.

I might add many other Errors belonging to this Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, such as saying their Masses in an unknown Tongue, putting confi­dence in the meer opus operatum, offering up Masses to the honour of the Saints, and the like, but those do more properly fall under other heads of controversie, and are the peculiar subjects of other Treatises that are written on purpose upon those matters; for though these all run into this Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, which is the great Lake into which most of the Po­pish Errors empty themselves, yet the first head and rise of them is not from hence, and so I shall not take them in here.

The Mass sacrifice contains in it a whole Legion of Errors, but 'tis only the principal one which I have endeavoured by this Discourse to cast out, and that [Page 96]is its being a proper and truly propitiatory sacrifice, which I have shown to be founded upon two monstrous Errours, to have no true foundation in Scripture, nor no just claim to Antiquity, but to be plainly contrary to both those, and to be in it self very absurd and Ʋnreasonable, which is enough in conscience against any one Do­ctrine or any Church that maintains it, however In­fallible they may both of them pretend to be, if this be clearly and strongly made out against them, as has been Attempted in this Treatise.