ENTITLED FIAT LUX. 143
lie intends, the only Father of the family, all men know he never, to any of the sons of men immediately, nor by any prophet by him inspired, communicated his mind in Latin. If it be the pope of Rome whom he ascribeth that title unto, I am sorry for the man, not knowing how well he could make himself guilty of a higher blasphemy.
CHAPTER XVIII.
Communion.
Sect. xxvi. In the next section, entitled " Table," our author seems to have lost more of the moderation that he pretends unto, and to have put a keener edge upon his spirit than in any of those foregoing; and thence it is that he falls out into some more open revilings and flourishes of a kind of a dispute than elsewhere. In the entrance of his discourse, speaking of the administration of the sacrament of the Lord's supper by Protestants, wherein the laity are also made par- takers of the blessed cup, according to the institution of our Saviour, the practice of the apostles, and the universal primitive church, this civil gentleman, who complains of " unhandsome and unmannerly dealings" of others in their writings, compares it to a treatment at my lord mayor's feast, adding, scornfully enough, " For who would not have drink to their meat ? and what reason can be given that they should not? or that a feast with wine should not, ' cseteris paribus,' be better than without ? " If he suppose he shall be able to scoff the institutions of Christ out of the world, and to laugh men out of their obedience unto him, I hope he will find himself mistaken, — which is all I shall at present say unto him; only I would advise him to leave for the future such unseemly taunts, lest he should provoke some angry men to return expressions of the like contempt and scorn upon the transubstantiated host; which he not only fancies but adores.
From hence he pretends to proceed unto disputing; but being accustomed to a loose rhetorical sophistry, he is not able to take one smooth step towards the true stating of the matter he is to speak unto, though he says he will argue in his " plain manner," — that is, a manner plainly his, loose, inconcluding, sophistical. The plain story is this, — Christ, instituting his blessed supper, appointed bread and wine to be blessed and delivered unto them that he invites and admits unto it. Of the effects of the blessing; of these elements of bread and wine, — whether it be a transubstantiation of them into the body and blood of Christ, to be corporeally eaten; or a consecration
144 ANIMADVERSIONS ON A TREATISE
of them into such signs and symbols as in and by the use thereof we are made i:)artakers of the body and blood of Christ, feeding really on him by faith, — is not at all now under dispute. Of the bread and cup so blessed, according to the appointment of Christ, the priests with the Romanists only do partake; the people of the bread only. This exclusion of the people from a participation of the cup, Pro- testants aver to be contrary to the institution of Christ, practice of the apostles, nature of the sacrament, constant usage of them in the primitive church; and so, consequently, highly injurious to the sheep of Christ, whom he hath bought with the price of his blood, exhi- bited in that cup unto them. Instead of arguing plainly, as he pro- mised to do, in justification of this practice of the church of Rome, he tells us of the wine they give their people after they have received the body ; which he knows to be in their own esteem a little common drink to wash their mouths, that no crumbs of their wafer should stick by the way. What he adds, of Protestants not believing that the consecrated wine is transubstantiated into the blood of Christ (which is not the matter by himself proposed to debate), of the priest's using both bread and wine in the sacrifice (though he com- municates not both unto the people), when the priest's delivering of the cup is no part of the sacrifice, but of the communion (besides, he knows that he speaks to Protestants, and so should not have pleaded his fictitious sacrifice, which, as distinct from the communion, Paul speaks of, 1 Cor. xi., neither do they acknowledge, nor can he prove it), — [is] very vain; yet with these empty flourishes, it is incredible how he triumphs over Protestants for charging the Romanists with excluding the people from the use of the cup in the sacrament, when yet it is certain they do so, nor can he deny it. " Yea, but Protest- ants should not say so, seeing they believe not in transubstantiation." They believe every word that Christ or his apostles have delivered concerning the nature and use of the sacrament, and all that the primitive church taught about it ; if this will not enable them to say that the Romanists do that which all the world knows they do, and which they will not deny but that they do, unless they believe in tran substantiation also, they are dealt withal on more severe terms than I think our author is authorized to put upon them. But it seems the advantage lies so much in this matter on the Roman Ca- tholics' side, that the Protestants may be for ever silent about it. And why so? " Why, Catholics do really partake of the ' animated and living body of their Redeemer. This ought to be done, to the end we may have life in us ; and yet Protestants do it not.' " Who told you so ? Protestants partake of his body and his blood too, — which Papists do not, — and that really and truly. Again ; " Catholics have it continually sacrificed before their eyes, and the very death