weigh the reasons which move us to continue in the one and the Arguments he brings to make us quit it and walk in the other To effect this let us divide this Article into three Sections In the first of which I will shew what is the Doctrin which we maintain and what our opposers hold in the second I will endeavour according to my Ability to hint at some of the many reasons why we persevere in that Doctrin and in the last I intend to examin his Objections and shew the Fallacies of his Arguments SECT 1. Our and our Adversaries Tenets WHen we speak of Jesus Christ §. 64. Christ must be either really or only figuratively present in the Sacrament we speak of one who is both God and Man and when we speak of his Presence in a place we must either speak of the presence of his Manhood together with his Divinity by a real substantial presence or we must speak of his presence in a figurative manner seeing there cannot possibly be a Medium For either Christ who is God and Man is there body and Soul and Divinity or he is not there If then he be present in the blessed Sacrament he must be either really present which cannot be unless his Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity be there really and substantially or he must be there only morally or figuratively as signified by the exterior Signs of Bread and Wine and by them bestowing upon us the benefits which he purchased for us by taking our Natures on him Now Jesus Christ may be really §. 65. He may be really present after different manners essentially and Substantially present in a place after different manners For he rendred himself sometimes visible and palpable and sometimes not yet was his Body essentially the same when he was invisible and not to be felt as when otherwise His body was sown a Corruptible Body but is now raised a Spiritual Body yet is this Spiritual Body essentially and substantially the same with that which was once corruptible tho' it was never to see Corruption All Persons §. 66. All agree that Christ is morally present in the Sacrament Catholics and Lutherans that he is really present but not after a natural manner both Catholics and Protestants acknowledge that Jesus Christ is morally or figuratively present in the Sacrament that is that the outward elements signify his Body and Blood that a lively Faith apprehends him there present and that he bestows upon the worthy Communicants the Graces purchased for us by his becoming Man and dying upon the Cross But Catholics and Lutherans agree further in this that Jesus Christ that is God and Man Flesh and Blood Soul and Divinity is not only morally there but also truly really and substantially present in the Blessed Sacrament tho' they both of them deny him to be there circumscriptivè as the Schools call it that is in his Natural Body after a natural manner with respect to place Their chief difference consists in this that the Lutherans will have him to be so present that Bread is also present with him which Catholics deny and tho' they pretend to submit their Faith to the acknowledgment of his real presence which they do not see yet will they follow Sense so far as to judge because they see the appearance of Bread to remain that is is really Bread also when the Substance of Bread is as invisible The Zuinglians c. say he is only figuratively there as that of the Body of Christ The Zuinglians Socinians c. admit nothing at all of real here The presence which they speak of is only figurative signified by the Bread and Wine so that as they see the Bread broken eaten c. and the Wine poured out c. so ought they to call to mind that Christ's Body was Crucified and torn c. for us which whil'st they reflect upon and receive they are by Faith or a strong Fancy made partakers as they think of the Benefits of that his Death and Passion the Blessings which the offering of his Body may procure But Calvin perceiving that if he said no more §. 67. Calvin would find a midle way he should find it an insuperable Task to answer all the plain expressions from Scripture and Fathers would seek a midle way where there can be none and therefore no wonder if he fell into such a contradiction as is that of a real presence and no real presence Sometimes he (a) Calv. Consinsus cum Pastoribus Tigurinis In sine affirms Christs Body to be only in Heaven and (b) Vere in Caena datur nobis corpus Christi ut sit animis nostris in cibum salutarem hoc est substantia Corporis Christi pascuntur animae nostrae ut vere unum efficiamur cum eo Calv. in cap. 26. Matth. sometimes to be truly in the Sacrament Sometimes (c) Porro de modo st quis me interroget faieri non pudebit sublimius esse arcanum quam ut vgel meo ingenio comprehendi vel enarrari verbis queat Id. lib. 4. Instit c. 17. §. 32. Telling us that it is a Mystery that we cannot comprehend much less explicate that Christs Flesh and Blood should come to us from such a distance and be our Food and (d) Interins vero hanc non aliam esse quam fidei manducationem fatemur ut nulla alia fingi potest Id. ibid. §. 5. at other times telling us that this Manducation is only by Faith and the like Absurdities and Contradictions some of which may be seen in Cardinal Bellarmin Lib. 1. de Euchar. Sacram. cap. 1. This Doctrin of Calvin being the most agreeable to the Polititians in King Edwards Reign and to Queen Elizabeth's Interest §. 68. Agreeable to our English Polititians who were desirous to accommodate a Religion to all parties and Factions no wonder if they embraced it And therefore lest Catholics or Lutherans should have any just cause to renounce their Communion for want of a Real presence their Catechism tels us the Inward part or thing signified in this Holy Supper is the Body and Blood of Christ See the Church Catechisim which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lords Supper But lest if this should be understood plainly as the words import the Sacramentarians should be against them therefore their 28 Article has taken care of them too and tels 'um that the Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lords Supper only after a Spiritual and Heavenly manner and the means by which this is done is Faith. But then again if this Article be a Faithful Comment upon their Catechism how shall the Primitive Fathers be answered and what will the Calvinists say To have an evasion therefore and to gain them this presence must be sometimes called a real presence and sometimes only a spiritual A spiritual Presence not only as to
the manner for the Defender thinks it is a plain Contradiction Defence pag 61. that a Body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a Body i. e. Corporeal but as to the nature of the thing it self but yet it is real too A Jargon What kind of Jargon is this and what Absurdities must needs follow from such palpable Contradictions Christ is really present §. 69. Pag. 60. line 32. says the Defender in the Sacrament in as much as they who worthily receive it have thereby really conveyed to them our Saviour Christ and all the Benefits of that Body and Blood whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs and therefore it is more than a meer Figure One would think this enough Oh but his Body is not there How is Christ there and not his Body Yes his Body is not there after the manner that the Papists imagine there is no corporeal Presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood Rulric at the end of the Communion Office. for his Body is only in Heaven and it is against the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one How is it then that he is there will you acknowledge Casâ—â—b Epist ad â—â—rd Pâ—â—en with King James the First that you believe a Presence no less true and real than Catholics do only you are ignorant of the manner If so tell us and recal what you have said that it is a plain Contradiction that a Body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a Body i. e. Corporeal I suppose you mean with all the qualities of a natural Body seeing it may be there after a manner which you are ignorant of No this would be to give up the Cause to Catholics And further the late Church Rubric whose Fate has been so various and the * I A B. Do solemnly and sincerely in the Presence of God profess testify and declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever and that the Sacrifice of the Mass as it is now used in the Church of Rome is Superstitious and Idolatrous 30 Car. 2. Test The Church of England has altered her Doctrin since King James the first time contradict the Religion professed in that Kings days for now at least you know by a new Revelator that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not there by Transubstantiation otherwise you would not impose the belief of it upon all persons in any public Employments and make them swear and subscribe to it under such forfeitures and penalties This is the Doctrin we are invited to believe which how inconsistent it is with it self appears to every one who rightly apprehends the Terms of Real and Spiritual and Figurative Let us now see what is the Doctrin of Roman Catholics The Council of (a) Sess 13. c. 4. Trent tels us §. 70. The Roman Catholic Doctrin that because Christ our Redeemer did truly say that that was his Body which he offered under the species of Bread therefore it was always believed in the Church of God and this Holy Synod does now again declare it that by the Consecration of Bread and Wine there is made a conversion or change of the whole substance of Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of Wine into the substance of his Blood which change is conveniently and properly called by the Catholic Church Transubstantiation And the same (b) Ib. can 1. Council pronounces an Anathema against all those who shall deny the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ to be truly really and substantially contained in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist or that shall affirm it to be there only as in a Sign or in Figure or Vertue Thus we believe a true real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament that is of his Body and Blood Soul and Divinity The Lutherans agree with us in it but will have Bread to remain too which we deny And the Calvinists seem at least in words to confess the same but will have the presence to be Spiritual by which as I told them if they intend only that Christs presence is not there after a natural circumscribed corporeal extensive manner we admit of it but if they mean by this spiritual manner that Christ who is both God and Man is not truly really essentially substantially present we deny it They who affirm §. 71. Three manners of a Real presence as we do that Christs Body is really present in the Sacrament Propose several ways by which they think it may be done all which may be reduced to Three First that his Body may be present together with the Bread as Fire is together with Iron when red hot Water with Ashes c. Secondly present so as that the Bread remaininig Bread is also the true Body of Christ Or Thirdly that the Substance of the Body of Christ should be there the Substance of Bread ceasing to be As to the first the words of the Institute are against it For if Christ had rendred his Body present after that manner he would not have said Hoc est corpus meum but Hîc est corpus meum Here is my Body The second manner is acknowledged by English Protestants to be wholy impossible as implying a manisest Contradiction that it should be Bread and not Bread the Body of Christ and not the Body of Christ The third is the true Catholic Doctrin and is called by the Church Transubstantiation that is a Conversion of the whole substance of Bread into the true Body and of the whole substance of the Wine into the Blood as I have mentioned from the Council And thus Christ is really present in the Sacrament Now this existence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is not after a natural corporeal extensive manner because it is neither visible nor palpable But yet for all this the same substantial Body may be really present after a spiritual manner in the Sacrament We have Examples of this from Holy Writ For if we doubt not but that he could free his Body from being visible palpable and heavy and could make it so spiritual as to pass from his Virgin mothers Womb without breach of her Virginity and through the Doors when shut can we doubt his Power in rendring it present without local extension or the other qualifications of a common natural Body And tho' this presence cannot be called spiritual in a strict sense yet may it be so called in that sense which St. Paul uses when he tels us that the Body is sown a corruptible Body and is raised a spiritual Body As to those seeming Contradictions of a Bodies
after Christ shew the practice to have had the primary respect to Bodily Cures and that Cardinal Cajetan himself freely confessed the words of St. James could belong to no other and from thence concluded they had reason to leave off this Extream Unction because Miracles are now ceased In answer to this A Falsification of Cajetan I told him First that Cardinal Cajetan did not positively say as he affirmed he did But what if he had Would it be sufficient to reject a practice coming down from the Apostles and from Age to Age visibly continued in all Christian Churches both of the East and West for 800 Years as he himself confesses notwithstanding that the Gifts of Miracles were ceased and this upon the Testimony of one Mans affirming that it cannot be proved from that Text of Scripture What if it may be proved by the Universal Practice and Tradition of the Church is not that Practice and Tradition the best Interpreter must that be laid aside because a Cajetan or some few persons in these latter Ages think St. James in that passage had an Eye to the miraculous Cures of the Apostles when it is most likely the Unction mentioned by the Holy Evangelist St. Mark had a respect at least as a Figure to this Sacrament 2. §. 52. It has a respect to bodyly Cures As to the Antient Rituals I told him that ours also agree with them that this Sacrament has a respect to bodily Cures as well as those of the Mind and therefore I told him that unless he could manifestly prove that the Unction mentioned by St. James and practised by the Primitive Church for the first 800 Years had no relation to the Sickness of the Soul as a Sacrament but only to the Body in order to miraculous Cures He would prove nothing against us who acknowledge that the Sick persons do many times by it obtain health of Body when it is expedient for the Salvation of their Souls But this he saw was impossible However something must be said tho' to no purpose and therefore to make the unwary Reader think he had much the better on it St. Gregory's Ritual and the other antient Forms used in the Greek and Latin Church for 800 Years must be quoted at large and all the passages in them that tend to the Cures of the Body varied in a different Character but where the Mind is concerned the ordinary Character must serve and thence as wild a Conclusion must be drawn that this Unction had more than a bare respect to bodily Cures nay that it was especially or as he said before primarily designed for them How did the Greek and Latin Churches for the first 800 Years practise this Unction and do Protestants §. 53. who pretend to reform according to the Primitive purity reject it Yes but They practised it with a primary respect to Bodily Cures and we to those of the Soul. Sanctisying Grace Assistance against Temptations and Remission of Sin are the Primary Effects No wonder if we call Sanctifying Grace Assistance against Temptations in the last Agony and Remission of Sin the primary effects in Dignity whilst the corporal Cure may be the primary in Order and only with respect to the other But how does he prove that the Unction used by the Primitive Christians for the first 800 Years respected miraculous Cures only All the Prayers and Ceremonies says he shew it And do they not also shew a respect to those of the Soul Is there not mentioned a Tutamen mentis as well as Corporis Defence p. 46. in the Benediction of the Oyl Ejusque dimite peccata Ibid. Eripe animam ejus pag. 48. In te habitet Virtus Christi Altissimi Spiritus Sancti p. 49 Viseerumque ac cordium interna medica Medullarum quoque cogitationum sana discrimina Does not the Priest pray for the Remission of his Sins a delivery of his Soul that the Power or Vertue of Christ the most High and of the Holy Ghost way dwell in him He prays also tho' the Defender did not think it convenient to tell his Readers so in English That the interior of his Heart and Cogitations may find a remedy that God would heal the Distempers of the inward parts and thoughts that the corruptions of his Vlcers and Vanities may be evacuated that God would skin over the antient Scars of his Conscience and Wounds that he would take away his mighty Passions Vlcerum vanitatumque putredines evacua Conscientiarumque atque plagarum abducito cicatrices veteres immensasquo remove Passiones Carnis ac Sanguinis materiam reforma DELICTORVMQVE cunctorum veniam tribue fiat illi haec Olei Sacri perunctio morbi languoris praesentis expulsio atque PECCATORVM omnium OPTATA REMISSIOt Per Dom. pag. 50.51 and Pardon all his Sins and which is worthy our remark does not this Prayer end with begging that this anointing him with Holy Oyl may be an expulsion of his present Sickness and Infirmity and the desired Remission of all his Sins Through our Lord Jesus Christ c. Again How had these a respect to miraculous Cures only when the Fathers of those Times tell us that such Miracles ceased presently after the Apostles Times Does not their practising of this after the cessation of those Miracles shew that they expected an interior Assistance of the Soul rather than a miraculous Cure of the Body Well might I therefore tell him that his sense of the words of St. James and of the intention of this Extream Unction was contrary to what we were taught by all Antiquity I told him also §. 54. that the very words of St. James evinced it And I have heard of some Protestant Anabaptists that think so and therefore use it Luther However he knows who they were that threw off the Epistle partly upon that account Infirmatur quis in vobis The words of St. James Evince it says the Apostle If any one or whoever is Sick amongst you The words belong to all Christians But if he had spoken of miraculous Cures only he needed not have invited them their own Wants would have perswaded them sufficiently to send for those who had the Gift of Miracles as the Centurion sent to our Blessed Saviour Inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae Let him bring in the Priests the Clergy the Ordinary standing Rulers of the Church of which as I told him All had not the Gift of Healing and some who were not of the Clergy had it 'T is manifest then the Apostle would have said send for those who have the Gift of Healing be they Clergy or Lay persons had he spoken of miraculous Cures only But says the Defender if all had it not 'T is very like St. James meant They should be sent for that had it whereas first this is clear against the Text which speaks at Large send for the Priests Secondly It would have been to no
they will have the Essence of a Sacrifice to consist in a slaying of the Victim but by that act only there is a true Immolation of Jesus Christ viz. a separation of his Body from his Blood by â—he words of Consecration tho' the natural concomitance hinder the Blood or Soul from being truly separated from the Body Against this reason after other Arguments he brings this Denique vel in Missa fit vera vealis Christi mactatie occisio vel non sit Si non fit non est verum reale Sacrificium Missa Sacrisâ—eium enim verum reale veram realem occisionem exigit quando in occisione ponitur essentia Sacrisicii Si autem sit ergo verum erit dicere à Sacerdotibus Christianis verè realiter Christium occidi at hâ—o Sacrilegium non sacrificium esse videtur de Missa lib. 1. cap. 27. pag. 873. A. In the Sacrifice of the Mass either there is says he a true and real mactation and slaying of Jesus Christ or there is not If there be not then according to you the Mass is no real Sacrifice for when the Essence of a Sacrifice consists in being slain as it is your opinion a true and real Sacrifice requires a true and real slaying But if there be then we might truly say that Christ is truly and really slain by Christian Priests but this is rather a Sacrilege than a Sacrifice From this manner of Arguing any one may see that it is neither the Cardinals §. 100. The essence of a Sacrifice consills not in slaying the Victim nor the Churches opinion that the Essence of a Sacrifice consists in Slaying of the Victim But yet we acknowledg a True and Real Sacrifice in the Mass And had he gone a little farther in this Author he would have seen how all the Essential parts of a Sacrifice are contained in it Our Defender in his Exposition tells us there are Four things required to make a Sacrifice Pag. 66. Four things reqired to a Sacrifice 1. That what is offered be something that is Visible 2. That of profane which it was before it be now made Sacred 3. That it be offered to God. And 4 ly by that offering suffer an Essential destruction And supposes the greatest part of these conditions nay all of them to be evidently wanting Now Bellarmin in this same place tells him that three of these Conditions are fund in the Consecration of the Eucharist and the other is evidently included in them First says he a Profane or common thing Bread is by Consecration made the Body of Christ the Visible Species of Bread remaining neither does it follow from thence that Bread is only Sacrificed but that which remains the change being made 2. That Sacred thing which remains under the Visible species is offered to God by being placed upon the Altar Lastly From hence it appears how falsely our defender in his Exposition pag. 65. accused the Cardinal of saying that Either Christ Sacrificed in Eating or there is no other action in which he can be said to have done it Read his 7. Proposition in the same 27. Ch. of his 1. Book Sacramenti consumptio ut fit a Sacerdote Sacrificante pâ—rs est essentialn sed non tots Essentia And the 8th Consecratio Eucharislia ad Essentiam Sacrificii pertinet The words of Bellarmin which he cited are these Christus isse out Consecrando consumendo Sacrificavit aus nullo modo Sacrificavit But it was not to his purpose to put in consecrando By Consecration that which is offered is ordained to a True Real and external change and destruction which was necessary for the Essence of a Sacrifice for by Consecration the Body of Christ receives the form of food but food is ordained to be Eaten and by that to a change and destructon neither is that any objecton that the Body of Christ suffers not nor loses its natural being when we receive the Eucharist for it loses its Sacramental being and thereby ceases to be really upon the Altar ceases to be a sensible food The Cardinal being thus Vindicated I say Our Defender cannot deny Malac. 1 11. 3. 3. Esay 66.21 but that the Prophets in the Old Law foretold and that in the time of Antichrist the dayly Sacrifice should be taken away He cannot also deny but that the New Testament speaks of Altars and Priesis Dan 11 3â— 12.11 hebr 13. 10. compared with the 1 Cor. 10. And that the Fathers of the Primitive Church usually called the Eucharist a Sacrifice an Oblation an unbloody Sacrifice a Sacrifice which * Pervenit ad Sanctum magnumque Concâ—tium quod in quibusdam locir civitatibus Presbyteris gratiam Sacrae communionis Diaconi porrigant quod nec regula nec consuetudo tradidit ut ab his qui potessatem non habent offerendt illi qui offerunt Christi corpus accipiant Conc. Nic. Primum can 18. Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 344. Deacons had not power to offer but only Priests and the like Expressions Upon what ground then can he pretend that all these Expressions were Metaphorical and endeavour to elude all these by sticking firm to his Notion of a Sacrifice that there can be no true offering without suffering And because Christ does not suffer in the Mass therefore he is not truly Offered The Bishop of Meaux one would have thought has fully removed that difficulty telling him that if we take the word Offer in the sense it is made use of in the Epistle to the Hebrews as implying the Actual death of the Victim we will publickly consess that Jesus Christ is now no more Offered up neither in the Eucharist nor any where else But because this word has a larger signification in other places of Scripture where it is often said we offer up to God what we present before him the Church which forms her Language and her Doctrin not from the sole Epistle to the Hebrews but from the whole body of the Holy Scriptures is not afraid to say that Jesus Christ Offers up himself to God wherever he appears before his Face upon our behalf and that by consequence he Offers up himself in the Eucharist according to the Holy Fathers expressions We affirm then that in the Mass is Offered up to God a True proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice A Sacrifice in remembrance of that on the Cross and applying to us the benefits there purchased for us A Sacrifice in which Jesus Christ is both the Priest and the Victim But yet no bloody Sacrifice Here is no Death of the Victim but in Mystery and representation But however it is a True and proper Sacrifice as Christ is truly and properly a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec I might here have taken notice how this Expositor brings in the Bishop of Meaux §. 101. Expos Ch. of Eng. pag. 67. observing that the Author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews concludes that there ought not only no other Victim to the Offered for sin after that of Christ but that even Christ himself ought not to be any more Offered and makes his Advantage of it Whereas if he had added the next words they would have solved the Difficulty A Falsification For the Bishops words are that the Aposile concludes we ought not only to Offer up no more Victims after Jesus Christ but that Jesus Christ himself ought to be but once Offered up to Death for us But these last words were overseen by our Expositor or he was loath to trouble himself with such distinctions as make for Peace I might also take notice how cautiously the Defender avoids my question concerning what the Church of England holds concerning her Priests whether they be truly Priests or no whether she acknowledge a Sacrifice and an Altar truly and properly speaking or no tho' possibly not in such a rigorous sense as may be put upon the words To all which he returns a profound silence As for the Reflections upon what has been said I leave the Reader to make them himself and hope if he have a True Zeal for the Salvation of his Soul he will seriously consider the premises and heartily beseech Almighty God to enlighten his mind to the knowledge of his True Faith without which it is impossible to please him ART XXII Communion under both Species THe Vindicator tells me § 102. The Vindicators Arguments shewn to be neither faise unreasonable nor frivolous that I advance Three Arguments in this Article from the public Acts of their own Church The first false The second both false and unreasonable And the third nothing to the purpose By which I see he is not unskilled in Multiplication and very willing to cast the Lyer upon me if he could But the false the unreasonable and the impertinent will be found perhaps to lye at the Accusers Door My Argument was but one and I think neither unreasonable nor impertinent He had told me from their 30th Article Art. 30. That the Church of England declared that the Cup ought not to be denyed to the Lay-people for as much as both parts of the Lords Supper by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be adminisired to all Christian men alike From hence I Argued that if the Church of England allowed the Communion to be given under one Species in cases of Necessity she was not consonant to her self nor agreed with her 30th Article which looked upon it as the express Command of Jesus Christ to give it under both Species and his express Commands are certainly indispensible Also that if she did allow it lawful to give it under one kind in cases of necessity the Arguments which the Bishop of Meaux had brought against the Calvinists of France were equally in force against the Church of England viz. that they must not deny but that both Species were not by the Institution of Christ Essential to the Communion seeing no necessity could require us to go contrary to an Essential Ordinance of Christ But that the Church of England did allow her people to Communicate under one Species in case of Necessity I proved from Edward the Sixths Proclamation before the Order of Communion In which I said he had ordained That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ should from thenceforth be commonly delivered and Administred unto all persons within this our Realm of England and Ireland and other our Dominions under both kinds that is to say of Bread and Wine except necessity otherwise require This he says as thus alledged is False because Edward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing but only says that forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westminster this was Ordained Therefore He for the greater Decency and Uniformity of this Sacred Eucharist now thought fit to appoint the following Form and Order for the Administration of it Let it be so if you please that Edward the 6th did not by vertue of this Proclamation ordain it yet the inserting of that Act of Parliament into that Proclamation served as a Rubrick to inform all those who were to Administer that Sacrament that if necessity required it they might give it in one kind And my Argument has gathered strength by being opposed seeing it has now not only a Proclamation but an Act of Parliament to back it But he says it is also unreasonable to Argue as to the present State of the Church of England from what was allowed only and that in case of necessity too in the very beginning of the Reformation If the Church of England had Repealed this Act of Parliament or by some Authentic Act or Canon declared it to be void it might have seemed unreasonable in me to produce it But if this Act be still in force I see no reason why we may not justly conclude that the Church of England holds it lawful in cases of necessity to Communicate only under one Species which if she do all her Arguments against Catholics as if they deprived the people of an Essential part of the Sacrament violated Christs Ordinance gave but a half Communion and the like have as much force against her self as us And if she leave it to her Ministers to judge when necessity requires it to be given only under one kind why will she deprive the Catholic Church representative of that Power And if a natural Reason such as is a loathing of Wine may induce private Pastors not to give the Cup to some particular persons why may not a Supernatural Reason such as is the detection and by that means the refutation of an Heresy not to mention the avoiding of many indignities c. induce such a Church representative to command that which was already practised by most Christians especially knowing that she deprived them of nothing which was Essential to a Sacrament As for the Note I made use of it only as a thing fit to be remarked and not as an Argument against communicating under both kinds However I might justly conclude that if under one Particle the whole Body of Jesus Christ be contained and this Body be now a living Body which it cannot be unless the Flesh and Blood the Soul and Divinity be united They who receive one Particle receive whole Christ and with him his Gifts and Graces that is a full Sacrament So that the first Falsity he accuses me of is as you see a plain mistake I do not say he had no Reason for it because the Printer had indeed placed the Citation in the Margent over against a wrong place but had he considered the sense he might have saved that ungenteele Answer The second Argument as he calls it is neither false in the bottom nor unreasonable And if the last be not so convincing an Argument yet does it not want some force And I will add to