we are at great pains to observe and collect. Perhaps they are ashamed of it, and willing it should pass under some more general phrase, and less' offensive. How-. ever, by that expression of the body of our Lord, ' whom being present, we adore,' we guess their meaning; but how incoherent with their own words, as well as reason, may easily appear.

First, They acknowledge that it is a sacrament, or sign. If so, it is impoffible that it should be, at the same time, both the sign, and the thing signified: for if the very body of Christ be present CORPORALLY, (as they use to assert) it cannot be sacramentally fo, but really and corporally there, which is destructive of the nature of a sacrament, which is but the representative, or image, of something mystical, thereby refembled and signified.

Secondly, If this doctrine were true, their LORD would be made by their priest: for till he says the words, there is no real presence: and so the creature (and sometimes a sad one too) makes his CREATOR ! Which is nothing short of wretched blafphemy.

Thirdly, The Lord they adore and reverence, they EAT; and He that made heaven and earth, is comprehended of the creature.

Fourthly, I know but of one gospel, perhaps they know of two, because they seem to own principles so contrary to the true one; but let that other be accurst ! If they would have us understand by their expression, two of the evangelists, then it is not unlikely but we may ken their meaning; and what they refer to must be Christ's benediction of the bread and wine, and the giving them both to his disciples, faying, “ Take, this is my body;” and “take, this is " my blood.” But what then? Can any think that Christ gave his body with his body? That it was the giver and the gift? That it was the body blefing, and the body bleft? Did the same body hold the fame body in its own fingers ? And was it eaten by the disciples, and yet without them? And was it no bigger than a small piece of bread, and yet of the proportion of a man? VOL. III

E

And

• in one, as now administered; though the receiving

of it so is not matter of faith.'

Answ. Three things are very observable from this part of their confeffion.

I. That because it was sometimes received in one • kind according to circumstances, it insensibly be

came received by holy church but in one kind. More nonsense and falfhood could not well be in fo many words. [Nonsense], For what consequence can the latter words be to the former? If in each kind, then not any one more than the other: or why not blood, and not bread; as well as bread, and not blood? But among the Papists, the people only partake of the wafer. [Falíhood], For they neither have, nor can they give one instance of that nippery or heedless way of receiving it, as in each kind; but whenever it was taken, for three hundred years together, it was in both kinds.

And what were those circumstances, that we can hear of none of them? Horrible cheats, and idle impostures, to delude the unlearned and unstable! Nor is it less impudence for them to say, "That the • church received it but in one kind upon any such <score.' The conclusion can never be right, where the premises are false.

2. “That upon great motives, it was afterwards or« dained to be received but in one kind:' which great motives they keep to themselves. Either they must think us such fools as to credit them hand over head, and fo needed not to mention them; or else, they doubting their great motive to be downright diffuafives with all sober and intelligent people, chofe rather to be silent, than more particular.

3. · That the fo receiving it is no matter of faith ;' which is so notorious an untruth, as their own annals expressly tell us, that Boniface the 8th, and John the 22d, (if I mistake not; for I was, when I met the pamphlet, deftitute of such books) highly contradicted

2

one

one another: one threatening the priests to turn them out, if they did not administer it in both kinds; and the other, to excommunicate them, if not burn them, in case they did. Which as it shews the eagerness of the popes, so there is a choice piece of infallibility to be observed : 'two infallible popes accusing each other of gross fallibility.

Papist. Neither do we believe religious commu• nicants are hereby bereaved of any benefit in obey

ing the church's order; since our belief instructs us, " that our Blessed Lord is equally present in one kind, « as in both.'

Answ. To say that religious communicants are not bereaved of any benefit by receiving it in one kind, would imply, that irreligious communicants, the receivers of both kinds, have the advantage. If so, methinks it is natural to believe, that religious commu. nicants, in both kinds, have the most benefit. But what church is it that gives those orders ? • A free

general council of Christians, where men may speak without being in danger of their lives?' No, but a cabal of persons, picked, with a probatum eft ftamped upon them, out of the pope's closet, or conclave of cardinals, before they be admitted into the assembly of judges; as most of the council of Trent notoriously were (often cited by the author of this pamphlet). So that in plain terms, · The church is what

the pope and his cardinals will have it :' to whose interest most councils have sacrificed their privileges, and thereby brought universal bondage upon whole kingdoms and states.

That belief which instructs them, “That Christ is equally present, and therefore no need of receiving « in both kinds, must needs be built upon the sandy foundation of papal tradition; not that of scripture, reason, or antiquity. For if that very specifical and numerical virtue which is in the bread, be in the wine,

E 3

then Christ is implicitly charged, by the Romanists, of an unnecessary matter. But if there be some virtue signified by the wine, more than by the bread, · It is • horrid sacrilege to rob the sign, much more the thing

hgnified. It is a supper; and at supper there should « be to drink, as well as to eat. There can be no body

without blood; and the drinking of his blood shews a shedding of his blood for the world, and a participation of it.?

Besides, the sign is incomplete; and the end of that facrament or sign not fully answered, but plainly maimed; and what God hath put together, they have put asunder. So that the falseness and unscriptural practice of these men are very manifeft.

The sense of antiquity, and their own authors.

Of their dismembering this sign or figure, their own council of Constance is very plain, ? That whereas • some presume to affirm, that Chriftian people ought < to receive the facrament of the eucharist under both kinds of bread and wine,' &c.

(Hence the council decrees against this error): . And that though Christ did so administer it, and

although in the primitive church it was received, (confessions very large of the author, and example)

we command, under excommunication, that no priest communicate to the people under both kinds

of bread and wine. C. C. Seff. 13. So says Aquin. Com. in 6 John, lect. 7.

And said pope Gelasius, “Let them receive in both • kinds, or neither.' Thus popes against councils, and doctor against doctor: yet will the foolish Romanifts (to say no more) vaunt of the unity and infalli, bility of both.

VI. Of the SACRIFICE of the ALTAR.

Papift. ' TH

HE holy facrifice indeed of the altar,

' we clearly believe ought to be celebrated in both kinds, as now it is, according to the • divine institution, as being done in commemoration ' of the Lord's blessed pallion on the cross, wherein

the body and blood were separated.'

Answ. Whether it be fair for the Papists to sacrifice at the altar in both kinds, and refer to Christ's words, Luke xxi. 9. as a divine institution, and yet deny both kinds to the people, as no matter of faith, or of eminent regard ; let the sober judge. Is the parsage of divine institution for the sacrifice, and not for the sacrament? But it plainly manifests the exorbitant power they ascribe to their church above the scriptures; since with them an order of her's may, and ought, to break what themselves call a divine institution.

Papist. "Whatsoever, therefore, propitiatory power our holy religion attributes to this commemorative i sacrifice; it is by virtue of the sacrifice of the cross, ' as being by this applied to us : so that we still hum• bly acknowledge the ground of our salvation to be

derived from our Lord's blessed passion.'

Answ. Their affront to God, and juggle with men, in this very matter, are most detestable! For notwithstanding the scriptures expressly tell us, that we have an High Priest that “needs not sacrifice once a year," but " who hath offered One sacrifice; and that, “ by the will of God we are sanctified through the

offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all; “ and that by ONE offering he perfected them that " are fanctified,” Heb. x. 10, 11, 14; yet do they daily sacrifice him afresh, as if his first were insufficient, or their daily fins required a new one. But

E 4