1 In the original edition it is printed "rain," thoiigli in reprints of the work the ■word " reign" lias been substituted, as seemingly more intelligible. Dr Owen, however, is adopting in part an expression which seems to be a favourite witli him, as it occurs more than once in his writings: — " One lie must bo thatched with another, or it will quickly rain through." ^co vol. viii. 584. — Ed.
ENTITLED FIAT LUX. " 1 47
in the way of Protestauts? " Because they place the effect of the com- munion in the operation of faith ; and therefore, according to tlieni, one kind is enough: nay, if we have neither kind, there is no loss but of a ceremony, Avhicli may be well enough supplied at our ordinar}^ tables." This is pretty logic, which it seems our author learned out of Smith and Seaton. Protestants generally think that men see with their eyes, and yet they think the light of the sun necessary to the exercising of their sight; and though they believe that all saving effect's of the sacrament depend on the operation of faith (and Catho- lics do so too, at least I am sure they say so), yet they believe also that the sacrament which Christ appointed, and the use of it as by him appointed, is necessary in its own kind for the producing of those effects. These things destroy not, but mutually assist one another, working effectually in their several kinds to the same end and pur- pose. Nor can there be any operation of faith, as to the special end of the sacrament, without the administration of it according to the mind and will of Christ. Besides, Protestants know that the fre- quent distinct proposals in the Scripture of the benefits of the death of Christ, as arising sometimes from the suffering of the body, some- times from the effusion of the blood of their Saviour, lead them to such a distinct acting of faith upon him and receiving of him, as must needs be hindered and disturbed in the administration of the sacrament under one kind; especially if that symbol be taken from them which is peculiarly called his testament, and that blood where- with his covenant with them was sealed : so that, according to the principles of the Protestants, the participation of the cup is of an in- dispensable necessity unto them that intend to use that ordinance to their benefit and comfort. And what he adds, about " drinking at our ordinary tables," because we are now speaking plainly, I must needs tell him is a profane piece of scurrility, which he may do well to abstain from for the future. What is or is not necessary, according to their Catholic doctrine, we shall not trouble ourselves, knowing that which is so called by him to be very far from being truly catholic. The Romanists' doctrine of concomitancy,^ being a late figment to countenance their spoiling the people of the legacy of Christ, unknown to antiquity, and contrary to Scripture, and ener- vating the doctrine of the death of Christ, whose most precious blood was truly separated from his body, — the benefit of which separation is exhibited unto us in the sacrament by himself appointed to repre- sent it, — we neither believe nor value.
1 According to the Council of Trent (Catech., cap. iii. quKStio 32), the ichole of Clu'ist, his blood as well as his body, is contained under both species, — both the bread and the ■wine. This is the Romish doctrine of concomitance ; and hence the notion that the laity, in receiving the bread as the body of Christ, do not need the wine, but receive his blood nevertheless, inasmuch as it is contained in the body. — Ed.
148 ANIMADVERSIONS ON A TREATISE
As the necessity of it is denied, so also that there is any precept for it. What tliink you, then, of n/sre It, auroD vdvnc, — " Drink ye all of it," that is, this cup ? They think this to be a precept to be ob- served towards all those who come to this supper. What Christ did, that he commanded his apostles to do: he gives the cup to all that were present at his supper, and commands them all to drink of it. Why, I pray, are they not to do so? Why is not this part of his com- mand as obligatory to them as any others? Alas! "They were the priests that were present ; all lay people were excluded." Not one was excluded from the cup that was there at any part of the ordinance. What if they were all priests that were there (as no one of them was), — was the supper administered to them as priests, or as disciples? or is there any colour or pretence to say that one kind was given to them as priests, another as disciples? " Die aliquem, die, Quintiliane, colorem." Was not the whole church of Christ represented by them? Is not the command equal to all? Nay, as if on purpose to obviate this sacrilegious figment, is not this word, " Drink you all of this," added emphatically above what is spoken of the other kind? Many strange thing's there are which these gentlemen would have us believe about this sacrament, but none of them of a more incredible nature than this, that when Christ says to all his communicants, " Drink 3^ou all of this," and commands them to do the same that he did, his mean- ing was that we should say, " Drink you none of this." They had need, not of a " spatula linguae," to let such things as these down our throats, but a bed-staff, to cram them down, or they will choke us in the swallowing, and, I am sure, will not well digest when received. He must have an iron stomach that can concoct such crude morsels.