Animadversions on a treatise entitled Fiat lux, or, A guide in differences of religion,…Animadversions on a treatise intituled Fiat lux, or, A guide in differences of religion,…

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, in concluding, sophistical. The plain story is this, Christ instituting his blessed Supper, appointed Bread and Wine, to be blessed and delivered unto ⟨p. 367⟩them that he invites and admits unto it: of the effect 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 of them into such signs and symbols, as in and by the use thereof, we are made partakers 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, Protestants 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, exhibited in that Cup unto them. Instead of arguing plainly, as he promised to do, in justification of this practise of the Church of Rome, he tells us of the Wine they give their people after they ⟨p. 368⟩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 communicates 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. 11.

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 sayes, he will argue in his plain manner, that is, a manner plainly his, loose, in concluding, sophistical. The plain story is this, Christ instituting his blessed Supper, appointed Bread and Wine, to be blessed and delivered unto