not tell how and when it came in yet it would be the wildest and most extravagant thing in the world to set up a pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain Experience and matter of Fact This is just Zeno's Demonstration of the impossibility of motion against Diogenes walking before his Eyes For this is to undertake to prove that impossible to have been which most certainly was Just thus the Servants in the Parable might have demonstrated that the Tares were Wheat because they were sure none but good seed was sown at first and no man could give any account of the punctual time when any Tares were sown or by whom and if an Enemy had come to do it he must needs have met with great resistance and opposition but no such resistance was made and therefore there could be no Tares in the field but that which they call'd Tares was certainly good wheat At the same rate a man might demonstrate that our King his Majesty of great Britain is not return'd into England nor restor'd to his Crown because there being so great and powerful an Army possess'd of his Lands and therefore oblidged by interest to keep him out it was impossible He should ever come in without a great deal of fighting and bloud shed but there was no such thing therefore he is not return'd and restor'd to his Crown And by the like kind of Demonstration one might prove that the Turk did not invade Christendom last year and besiege Vienna because if he had the most Christian King who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness would certainly have imployed it against him but Monsieur Arnauld certainly knowes no such thing was done And therefore according to his way of Demonstration the matter of fact so commonly reported and believed concerning the Turks Invasion of Christendom and besieging Vienna last year was a perfect mistake But a man may demonstrate till his head and heart ake before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly is or was never to have been For of all sorts of impossibles nothing is more evidently so then to make that which hath been not to have been All the reason in the world is too weak to cope with so tough and obstinate a difficulty And I have often wonder'd how a man of Monsieur Arnaulds great wit and sharp Judgement could prevail with himself to engage in so bad and baffled a cause or could think to defend it with so wooden a Dagger as his Demonstration of Reason against certain Experience and matter of Fact A thing if it be possible of equal absurdity with what he pretends to demonstrate Transubstantiation it self I proceed to the Third pretended Ground of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that is The Infallible Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith And this in truth is the ground into which the most of the Learned Men in their Church did heretofore and many do still resolve their belief of this Doctrine And as I have already shewn do plainly say that they see no sufficient reason either from Scripture or Tradition for the belief of it And that they should have believed the contrary had not the determination of the Church oblidged them otherwise But if this Doctrine be obtruded upon the world merely by vertue of the Authority of the Roman Church and the Declation of the Council under Pope Gregory the VII or of the Lateran Council under Innocent the III. then it is plain Innovation in the Christian Doctrine and a new Article of Faith impos'd upon the Christian World And if any Church hath this power the Christian Faith may be enlarged and changed as often as men please and that which is no part of our Saviour's Doctrine nay any thing though never so absurd and unreasonable may become an Article of Faith oblidging all Christians to the belief of it when ever the Church of Rome shall think fit to stamp her Authority upon it which would make Christianity a most uncertain and endless thing The Fourth pretended ground of this Doctrine is the necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive it But there is no colour for this if the thing be rightly consider'd Because the comfort and benefit of the Sacrament depends upon the blessing annexed to the Institution And as Water in Baptism without any substantial change made in that Element may by the Divine blessing accompanying the Institution be effectual to the washing away of Sin and Spiritual Regeneration So there can no reason in the world be given why the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper may not by the same Divine blessing accompanying this Institution make the worthy receivers partakers of all the Spiritual comfort and benefit designed to us thereby without any substantial change made in those Elements since our Lord hath told us that verily the flesh profiteth nothing So that if we could do so odd and strange a thing as to eat the very natural flesh and drink the bloud of our Lord I do not see of what greater advantage it would be to us then what we may have by partaking of the Symbols of his body and bloud as he hath appointed in remembrance of him For the spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament doth not depend upon the nature of the thing received supposing we receive what our Lord appointed and receive it with a right preparation and disposition of mind but upon the supernatural blessing that goes along with it and makes it effectual to those Spiritual ends for which it was appointed The Fifth and last pretended ground of this Doctrine is to magnify the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle And this with great pride and pomp is often urg'd by them as a transcendent instance of the Divine Wisdom to find out so admirable a way to raise the power and reverence of the Priest that he should be able every day and as often as he pleases by repeating a few words to work so miraculous a change and as they love most absurdly and blasphemously to speak to make God himself But this is to pretend to a power above that of God himself for he did not nor cannot make himself nor do any thing that implies a contradiction as Transubstantiation evidently does in their pretending to make God For to make that which already is and to make that now which alwayes was is not only vain and trifling if it could be done but impossible because it implies a contradiction And what if after all Transubstantiation if it were possible and actually wrought by the Priest would yet be no Miracle For there are two things necessary to a Miracle that there be a supernatural effect wrought and that this effect be evident to sense So that though a supernatural effect be wrought yet if it be not evident â—o sense it
we had more of their History and more of their Writings we should find more of their errors They have shewed both ignorance and extravagance in opinion and error in the Faith it self There are not perhaps weaker or more absurd passages in any Ecclesiastical Writer than we may find in the works of Pope Innocent the third who was called the Wonder of the World * Mat. par A. 1217. stupor mundi He saith of Sub-deacons that they represented the Nethinims †Ezra 8. 20. â— or Nathinnims as he calls them and that Nathaniel was one of that Order * Innoc. 3. Myst missael 1. c. 2. fol 15â— That the Pope does not use a Pastoral rod because St. Peter sent his Sâ—â—ff to Eucharius the first Bishop of Treves to whom Maternus succeeded who by the same Staff was raised from the dead †Iunoc 3. ibid. c. 62 fol. 165. That the People have seven Salvations in the Mass in order to the expelling the seven deadly Sins and receiving the seven fold Grace of God * Ibid. l. 2. c. 24. fol. 170. That an Epistle signifying in Greek an Over-sending or supererogation the word agrees very well to the Apostolical Epistle which are supperadded to the Gospel a Ibid. c 29. fol. 171. He allots to each Article of the Apostolical and Constantinopolitan Creeds a particular Apostle and finds the mystery in all things that are twelve in number For example sake in the twelve loaves of Shew-Bread in the twelve Tribes twelve hours twelve Moneths He gives this reason why Water is by the Bishop mixed with Wine in the Holy chalâ—ce because it is said in the Revelation that many Waters signify many People and that Christ shed his Blood for the People b Ibid. c. 58. fol. 177. He saith that Judas was not at the Sacrament c Ibid. l. 4. c. 13. fol. 189. because he was not to drink it new with Christ in his Kingdom which priviledge he had promised to all the partakers He teached that Mice eat only the Shews of consecrated Bread d Ibid. c. 16 fol. 190. He professeth rather to venerate Sacraments then to prie into them e Ibid. c. 19. because it is written in Exodus the twelfth concerning the Pafchal Lamb Eat not of it raw nor sodden at all with Water but rost with Fire I have not narrowly ransacked the plaits of the Popes Vestments for this is obvious enough and so were a great many other sayings of equal weakness but I am weary of the folly of them There have been other Popes also injudicious even to Duncery Eugeniout the third approved of the Prophesies or Enthusiastick Dreams of Hildegardis in the Synod of Tryers as Inspirations Pope Zachary judged the true Doctrine of Antipodes to be heretical in the case of the more Learned and Knowing Virgilius a Epist Zach. p. ad Bonifac. inter op M. Velseri in l. 5. Rer. Boic p. 148. deperversa autem Virgilii DoctrinaÌ„ quam contra Dominum animam suam locutus est quod scil alius mundus alii homines sub terra sint aliusque Sol Luna si convictus fuerit ita confiteri hunc accito Concilio ab EcclesiaÌ„ pelle Sacerdotii honore privatum Herein the Pope commited a greater error than the poor Priest who Baptized in nomina Patria Filia Spiritus Sancta b Velser op Ibid. p. 147. and whose lack of Latin Boniface the German Apostle would have punished by the Rebaptization of his Proselytes if the said Virgilius had not by application to that Pope prevented it It is true Virgilius was accused as an Heretick who had set up another Sun and another Moon as well as another world of Men whose feet were oposite to ours But Velserus himself c Vels Ibid. p. 149. hath the ingenuity to confess this was meant only of the Sun and Moon as shining to our Ant-podes as well as to us And that the accusation was framed by ignorant Men who had not the acuteness to understand the Globular form of the Earth and the scâ—eme of the propâ—ser Neither had Pope Zachary himself sagacity enough to disceâ—n the nature of this ridiculous charge He who can mistake Truth for Heresie may mistake Heresie for Truth Now that Popes have erred not only in lesser things but even in Matters of Faith is plain from History I will instance only in Vigilius and Honorius forbearing to speak of Liberius and divers others who swerved from the truly Ancient Catholick Faith Pope Vigilius framed a constitution in favour of the three chapters or Nestorian-Writings of Ibas Bishop of Edessa Theodorus of Mopsuestia and Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus This Constitution was published by Cardinal Baronius †Baron Anal. A. 553. N. 48. ed. colon p. 486. out of an Ancient Manuscript in the Vatican Library And he calls it a Decree * Id. Ibid. N. 218. p. 419. in defence of these chapters In this Decree the Pope doth not only justify these Heretical Writings but with the Followers of Theodorus he falsly chargeth upon the council of Chalcedon the Epistle of Ibas * Id. An. 553. N. 292. p. 511. and calls it Orthodox This charge the Fathers of the fifth general Council a Conc. Constant 2. colat 6. shew to be unjust and false That Council condemneth those three Chapters as Heretical And together with them it condemneth b Defin. conc col 8. Pope Vigilius and others under the name of Sequaces or Followers of Nestorius and Theodorus Baronius himself acknowledgeth that the decree of that council was set up against the decree of that Pope c Baron Annal. 553. N. 212. p. 417. Actumque est ut apparet adversus Vigili constitutum licet prae reverentiaÌ„ ipsum non nominaverint These Chapters had not been condemned if they had not contained in them the Nestorian-Heresie The Epistle of Ibas does in particular manner extoll Theodorus And the council affirmeth concerning his Creed that the father of lies composed it And it denounceth a curse against both the composer and the Believers of it Yet doubtless these writings were in themselves inconsiderable enough But the council opposed them with such rigour because the Faction had made them very popular and advanced them into the Quality of a kind of Bible of the Party For Pope Honorius he fell into the Heresie of the Monotholites * Dezall Hist mon. scrut 5. p. 192. 193. Altera phrasis Honoriana longe difficilior Minimè tamen dissimulanda ea est quod dicat aperte Unde unam voluntatem fatemur Dom nostri Jesu Christi That is of those who held that there is but one Will in both the Natures of Christ This Doctrine he published in his Epistles This he declared in the sixth General Council †Syn 6. Act. 13. See Richer Hist conc General vol. 1. p. 569 c. he is in the
Bread and that to be Wine and we see thy body to be distinct from both we see thy body not broken and thy bloud not shed From all which it must needs be very evident to any man that will impartially consider things how little reason there is to understand those words of our Saviour this is my body and this is my bloud in the sense of Transubstantiation nay on the contrary that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise I proceed to shew 2ly That this Doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual belief of the Christian Church which the Church of Rome vainly pretends as an evidence that the Church did alwayes understand and interpret our Saviour's words in this sense To manifest the groundlesness of this pretence I shall 1. shew by plain testimony of the Fathers in several Ages that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Christian Church 2. I shall shew the time and occasion of its coming in and by what degrees it grew up and was established in the Roman Church 3. I shall answer their great pretended Demonstration that this alwayes was and must have been the constant belief of the Christian Church 1. I shall shew by plain Testimonies of the Fathers in several Ages for above five hundred years after Christ that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Christian Church I deny not but that the Fathers do and that with great reason very much magnify the wonderfull mystery and efficacy of this Sacrament and frequently speak of a great supernatural change made by the divine benediction which we also readily acknowledge They say indeed that the Elements of bread and Wine do by the divine blessing become to us the body and bloud of Christ But they likewise say that the names of the things signified are given to the Signs that the bread and Wine do still remain in their proper nature and substance and that they are turn'd into the substance of our bodies that the body of Christ in the Sacrament is not his natural body but the sign and figure of it not that body which was crucified nor that bloud which was shed upon the Cross and that it is impious to understand the eating of the flesh of the Son of man and drinking his â—loud literally all which are directly opposite to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and utterly inconsistent with it I will select but some few Testimonies of many which I might bring to this purpose I begin with Justin Martyr who sayes expresly that * Apol. 2. p. 98. Edit Paris 1636. our bloud and Flesh are nourished by the conversion of that food which we receive in the Eucharist But that cannot be the natural body and bloud of Christ for no man will say that is converted into the nourishment of our bodies The Second is * Lib. 4. c. 34. Irenoeus who speaking of this Sacrament sayes that the bread which is from the earth receiving the divine invocation is now no longer common bread but the Eucharist or Sacrament consisting of two thingâ— the one earthly the other heavenly He sayes it is no longer common bread but after invocation or consecration it becomes the Sacrament that is bread sanctified consisting of two things an earthly and a heavenly the earthly thing is bread and the heavenly is the divine blessing which by the invocation or consecration is added to it And * lib. 5. c. 2. elsewhere he hath this passage when therefore the cup that is mix'd that is of Wine and Water and the bread that is broken receives the word of God it becomes the Eucharist of the bloud and body of Christ of which the substance of our flesh is increased and consists But if that which we receive in the Sacrament do nourish our bodies it must be bread and wine and not the natural body and bloud of Christ There is another remarkable Testimony of Irenoeus which though it be not now extant in those works of his which remain yet hath been preserv'd by * Comment in 1 Pet. c. 3. Oecumenius and it is this when sayes he the Greeks had taken some Servants of the Christian Catechumeni that is such as had not been admitted to the Sacrament and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians these Servants having nothing to say that might gratify those who offered violence to them except only that they had heard from their Masters that the divine Communion was the bloud and body of Christ they thinking that it was really bloud and flesh declar'd as much to those that questioned them The Greeks taking this as if it were really done by the Christâ—â—ns discovered it to others of the Greeks who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture to make them confess it to whom Blandina boldly answered How would they endure to do this who by way of exercise or abstinence do not eat that flesh which may lawfully be eaten By which it appears that this which they would have charged upon Christians as if they had literally eatten the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament was a false accusation which these Martyrs denied saying they were so far from that that they for their part did not eat any flesh at all The next is â—ertullian who proves against Marcion the Heretick that the Body of our Saviour was not a mere phaâ—â—asm and appearance but a real Body because the Sacrament is a figure and image of his Body and if there be an image of his body he must have a real body otherwise the Sacrament would be an image of an image His words are these * Advers Marcionem l. 4. p. 571. Edit Rigalt Paris 1634 the bread which our Saviour took and distributed to his Disciples he made his own body saying this is my body that is the image or figure of my body But it could not have been the figure of his body if there had not been a true and real body And arguing against the Scepticks who denied the certainty of sense he useth this Argument That if we question our senses we may doubt whither our Blessed Saviour were not deceived in what he heard and saw and touched * Lib. de Anima p. 319. He might sayes he be deceived in the voice from heaven in the smell of the ointment with which he was anointed against his burial and in the taste of the wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his bloud So that it seems we are to tâ—ust ouâ— senses even in the matter of the Sacrament and if that be true the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is certainly false Origen in his * Edit Huetii Comment on Matth. 15 speaking of the Sacrament hath this passage That food which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer as to that of it which is material goeth into the belly and is cast out into the
dâ—aught which none surely will say of the Body of CHRIST And afterwards he adds by way of explication it is not the matter of the bread but the word which is spoken over it which profiteâ—h him that worthily eateth the Lord and this he sayes he had spoken concerning the typical and Symbolical body So that the matter of bread remaine hâ—m the Sacrament and this Origen calls the typical and symbolical body of CHRIST and it is not the natural body of Christ which is there eatâ—en for the food eaten in the Sacrament as to that of it which is material goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught This testimony is so very plain in the cause that Sextus Senensis suspects â—his place of Origen was depraved by the Heâ—eticks Cardinal Pâ—rron is contented to allow it to be Origens but rejects his testimony because he was accused of Heresie by some of the Fathers and sayes he talks like a Heretick in this place So that with much ado this testimony is yielded to us The same Father in his * cap. 10. Homilies upon Leviticâ—s spâ—â—ks â—hus There is also in the New Testament a letter which kills him who doth not spiritually understand these things which are said for if we take according to the Letter that which is said EXCEPT YE EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOUD this Letter kills And this is also a killing Testimony and not to be answered but in Cardinal Perron's way by saying he talks like a Heretick St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle * Ep. 63. to Cecilius against those who gave the Communion in Water only without Wine mingled with it and his main argument against them is this that the bloud of Christ with which we are redeemed and quickened cannot seem to be in the cup when there is no Wine in the cup by which the Bloud of Christ is represented And afterwards he sayes that contrary to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine water was in some places offered or given in the Lords cup which sayes he alone cannot express or represent the bloud of Christ. And lastly he tels us that by water the people is understood by Wine the bloud of Christ is shewn or represented but when in the cup water is mingled with wine the people is united to Christ. So that according to this Argument Wine in the Sacramental cup is no otherwise chang'd into the bloud of Christ then the Water mixed with it is changed into the People which are said to be united to Christ. I omit many others and pass to St. Austin in the fourth Age after Christ And I the rather insist upon his Testimony because of his eminent esteem and authority in the Latin Church and he also calls the Elements of the Sacrament the figure and sign of Christs body and bloud In his book against Adimantus the Manichee we have this expression * Aug Tom. 6. p. 187. Edit basil 1569 our Lord did not doubt to say this is my body when he gave the sign of his body And in his explication of the third Psalm speaking of Judas whom our Lord admitted to his last supper in which sayes he ‡ enarrat in Psal Tom. 8. p. 16. he commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his body Language which would now be censur'd for Heresie in the Church of Rome Indeed he was never accus'd of Heresie as cardinal Perron sayes Origen was but he talks as like one as Origen himself And in his comment on the 98 Psalm speaking of the offence which the Disciples took at that saying of our Saviour except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud c. He brings in our Saviour speaking thus to them †Id. tom 7. p. 1105. ye must understand spiritually what I have said unto you ye are not to eat his body which ye see and to drink that bloud which shall he shed by those that shall crucify me I have commended a certain Sacrament to you which being spiritually understood will give you life What more opposite to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation then that the Disciples were not to eat that Body of Christ which they saw nor to drink that bloud which was shed upon the Cross but that all this was to be understood spiritually and according to the nature of a Sacrament For that body he tells us is not here but in heaven in his Comment upon these words me ye have not alwayes * Id. Tract 50. in Johan He speaks sayes he of the presence of his body ye shall have me according to my providence according to Majesty and invisible grace but according to the flesh which the word assumed according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary ye shall not have me therefore because he conversed with his Disciples fourty dayes he is ascended up into Heaven and is not here In his 23. Epistle †Id. Tom. 2. p. 93. if the Sacraments sayes he had not some resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all but from this resemblance they take for the most part the name of the things which they represent Therefore as the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some manner or sense Christs body and the Sacrament of his bloud is the bloud of Christ so the Sacrament of faith meaning Baptism is faith Upon which words of St. Austin there is this remarkable Gloss in their own Cannon Law †De consecr dist 2. Hoc est the heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly whence it is said that after a manner but not according to the truth of the thing but the mystery of the thing signified So that the meaning is it is called the body of Christ that is it signifies the body of Christ And if this be St. Austin's meaning I am sure no Protestant can speake more plainly against Transubstantiation And in the ancient Canon of the Mass before it was chang'd in complyance with this new Doctrine it is expresly call'd a sacrament a sign an Image and a figure of Christ's body To which I will add that remarkable passage of St. Austin cited by * De consecrat dist 2. sect Vtrum Gratian that as we receive the similitude of his death in baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his flesh and bloud that so neither may truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor Pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking the bloud of one that was slain I will mention but one Testimony more of this Father but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have utter'd It is in his Treatise * Lib. 3. Tom. 3. p. 53. de Doctrina christiaua where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this
him but not the least tittle of their adoring it so farr from it that they were not 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 Å¿ De Adorat Euch. l. 2. c. 1. would have it but a positive one To take off this argument from the not mention of any such command or practice of Adoration to the Sacrament in the Gospel he sayes Neither is the Adoration of Christ prescribed in express words t Nullo ex iis loco conceptis verbis praescriptam fuisse Adorationem sc Christi p. 27. nor that of the Holy Ghost either commanded or performed * Nâ—llibi 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 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 when he wrote to the Corinthians of 1 Cor. 11. c. 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 't is 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 â—heir other fauls Are there not many other wayes of abusing â—he sacrament besides the not worshipping it this is like his â—irst Argument out of Ignatius his Epistles ‡ l. 1. c. 2. synepheren de antois agapan Ep. ad smyr at ipsemet nos docet nihil nos diligere debere praeter solum Deum that because he sayes the â—acrament ought to be loved thereâ—ore he meant that it ought to be â—dored At which rate I should â—e afraid to love this Gentleman â—however taking he was lest I should consequently adore him â—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 shew 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 ancient Customs 1. Those most ancient Writers 1. Justin Martyr 2. The Author 1. Justin Marty 2 Apologversus finem Apostol constitutit l. 8. c. 11 12. 13 14. 3. Cyril Hierosol Cateches mystagog c. 5. 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 to the sacrament or to the consecrated Elements tho' they are 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 Reconciliation this Justin Martyr mentions as the first thing just before the Sacrament y allelous philemati aspazometha epâ—ita prosphoretai artos Justin Martyr Apol. 2. In St. Cyril's time z Catech mystagog 5. Aposstol 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 * Pâ—terion Kramaâ—â—â— Just Martyr to the people to give the holy Kiss then Bread was brought to the Bishop or Priest and ‡ Oi kalumenoi par hemâ—â— diaconoi â—idoasin ekaste paron to metalabein apo tu eucharistethentos artu kai oinu kai hydatos kai tois ou parusin apopherusin Just Martyr Ib. Wine mixt with Water in those hot Countries and after Prayers and Thanksgiving by the Priest to which the people too joyned their Amen * The Deacons gave every one present of the blessed Bread and Wine a Water and to those that were not present they carried it home this says Justin Martyr we account not Common Bread or common ‡ Eucharistetheisan trophen ex hes haima kai sarkes kata metabolen trephontai hemon Ib. Drink but the Body and Blood of Christ the blessed food by which our flesh and blood is nourished that is turned into it which could not be said of Christs natural Body nor is there the least mention of any worship given to that or to any of the blessed Elements The others are longer and much later and speak of the particular Prayers and Thanksgiving that were then used by the church of the sursum corda lift up your heart which St. * cyril Hierosol mystagog cat 5. cyril sayes 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 * Me tetamenois tois toÌ„n cheiroÌ„n karpois mede dieremenois tois daktylois alla ten aristeran 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 us f L. 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 alwayeâ— so and never ought upon any account to