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,…

The pitiful Cavils of our Author ⟨p. 382⟩against the Apostle's express and often repeated words, deserve not our notice; yet for the sake of those whom he intends to deceive, I shall briefly show their insufficiency to invalidate St. Paul's Authority and Reasonings.

The pitiful Cavils of our Author ⟨p. 382⟩against the Apostle's express and often repeated words, deserve not our notice; yet for the sake of those whom he intends to deceive, I shall briefly shew their insufficiency to invalidate St. Paul's Authority and Reasonings.

1. He says, That we may easily see what was St. Paul's opinion from those words, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink this cup of our Lord unworthily; and so say I too, the meaning of them is before declared; but, saith he, repeating the institution as our Lord delivered, he makes him, after the consecration of the bread, say absolutely, Do this in commemoration of me. But after the chalice, he speaks with a limitation, Do this as oft as you shall drink it, in commemoration of me; What then? Pray, What are the next words? Are they not, For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup? Is not the same term as often annexed to the one, as well as to the other? Is it a limitation of the use of either, and not a limitation of that kind of Commemoration of the Lord's Death to the use of both? From these doughty observations, he concludes, that the particle [and] in the other Text, must needs be ⟨p. 383⟩taken disjunctively; we are all partakers of one bread, and of one cup. That is, all of us, either partake of both, or each one, at least, either of the one or other. A brave exposition! But, What shall we say to the other, and, in the other Texts, so often occurring to the same purpose? Are they also to be taken disjunctively? This, it seems, is to interpret Scripture according to the sense of the Fathers; to vent idle cavils, which they were never so weak, or perverse, as once to dream of. Had the Apostle but once used that expression, this bread, and this cup, yet adjoining that expression to the Institution of Christ, commanding the administration of that bread and cup, it were temerarious boldness so to disjoint his words, and render them incongruous to his purpose? But repeating the same expression so often as he doth, still with respect to the Institution of the Ordinance whereof he speaks, to make us believe, that in all those expressions, he intended quite another thing then what he says, is a wild attempt. Miserable error! What sorry shifts dost thou cast thy Patrons upon? Who would love such a