PHILODOX.

Yet, it is allowed that these practices are inseparable from the belief of transubstantiation.

ORTHODOX.

If this be the case, we may draw thence an irrefragable proof of its falsehood. Shew a solitary instance of such practices for the first thousand years. Were the Fathers blind to these consequences? Did not those holy men, filled with charity and devotion, find out what reverence was due to their divine Master? They counted not their lives dear unto themselves; their blood was the seed, and their works, subordinate to scripture, the preservative, of the faith. Did they believe the elements to be their beloved Lord, when their custom was, to burn what remained uneaten; to make plasters of it; to bury it with the dead; to mix the wine with ink; and to permit people to take it home; and endless other such practices, which refute the modern notion more powerfully than words can do?

Finally, other Churches have not made this tenet the test of Catholicism, and let loose a tide of devastating tyranny over Christendom, to enforce it. If therefore all, equally with them, held the doctrine, yet idle would it be to draw a parallel be

tween them for far as the east is from the west; far as is patient endurance of conflicting opinions from ferocious and systematic persecution; far as is speculative error from practical idolatry; so far do they stand severed from the Church of Rome.

DIALOGUE III.

OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.

ORTHODOX.

WE will now proceed to those tenets which result from the preceding. And, first, of communion under one species; which rests mainly upon the authority of the Council of Constance, confirmed, with the customary anathema, by the Council of Trent. This was an immediate and obvious consequence of transubstantiation. It seems needless to dwell long upon it; inasmuch as the simple dispute is, Which are we to obey; Christ or Rome?

PHILODOX.

"It is true, our blessed Saviour instituted the holy sacrament under two kinds; but it must be observed, that he then made it a sacrifice, as well as a sacrament, and that he ordained priests, viz. his apostles (for none else were present) to consecrate this sacrament, and offer this sacrifice.

Now it was requisite, for the completion of the sacrifice, that the priests should consummate it in both kinds. Hence it is seen, that the command of

Christ, drink 'drink ye all of this', regards the apostles as priests; not the laity, as communicants.”*

ORTHODOX.

We will leave the consideration of so much as relates to the sacrifice in this statement, until our next discussion. If there be any thing in the above pretence, it proves too much. By the same argument, they may as well take away the bread as the cup. When Christ instituted the sacrament, "none but the apostles were present." They were present too, not as priests, but as communicants. Christ was the sole priest in that action. To whom he said, "Take, eat"; he said also,

this"; to whom the one part of the

Drink ye all of

command is addressed, the other is addressed also. The reason for receiving is, "This is my body broken for you; this is my blood shed for you." They who inherit the benefits, are to fulfil the precept. If his body was broken, and his blood poured out for the laity, then to the laity the command of commemorating these blessings applies. How came the people to have any concern in it at all, unless they derive it from the first institution? Romanists say, that "when Christ promised this sacrament to the faithful, he promised in express terms both his body * End of Controversy, L. xxxix.

L

and his blood: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, AND drink his blood, ye have no life in you: whoso eateth my flesh, AND drinketh my blood, hath eternal life."

PHILODOX.

But "this does not imply, that they must therefore receive under both kinds."

ORTHODOX.

Whether it implies it or not, you may decide. If, as they argue, those words are a precept for the sacrament, it is peremptorily commanded, in language as explicit as "Thou shalt do no murder"; and eternal life suspended upon obedience.

6

PHILODOX.

But the Council of Trent teaches, He who said, Except ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you';

6

said also,' If any man shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.' And He who said, Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life eternal', also said, 'The bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.""

ORTHODOX.

Certainly, this infallible exposition only makes our Lord say and unsay; command with one breath,