But the second continues he which the Gospel has not explicated we have expresly received from the Church that is the Conversion of Bread into the Body of CHRIST which he says we have not only received from the ancient Doctors of the Church but from the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the Third De Summa Trinit Fide Cath. Firmiter credimus where both Points are expressed viz. That the Body and Blood of CHRIST are truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine which regards the first And it follows The Bread bein transubstantiated into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by Divine Power After this he speaks of the Reality of CHRIST's Body in the Eucharist and of the Manner how it becomes there viz. by Conversion and of the first he says Sciendum est omnes circa primam novitatem continentiae re voce consensisse dum omnes communiter fatemur corpus Christi prius non contentum sub hac hostia modo veraciter contineri quamvis circa modum quo continetur variae sint opiniones i.e. We must know that all Persons are at perfect agreement both as to the manner of Expression and as to the thing it self when we speak of the first new Change which is there made of the thing contained seeing we all commonly confess that the Body of CHRIST which was not at first contained under this Host is now truly there contained tho there be various Opinions concerning the manner how he is there contained Then summing up several of those Opinions as Whether it be by such a Change as is made by Nutrition or Whether the Bread be Annihilated or Whether it be by a true Conversion he undertakes to prove that it is by a Conversion which do's produce and effect the Presence of CHRIST in the Host and freely confesses that this Conversion is not explicitly mentioned in the Gospel but only deduced from the words This is my Body by the Doctors of the Church After which returning to his first Point in which he had concluded that the Body of CHRIST was truly in the Sacrament he tels us In hoc omnes fideles conveniunt sed modus quo est in disputationem vertitur All the Faithful agree in this but as to the manner how he is there that is a disputable Question This is in short the Intent of that Article which is far from what this Author has imposed upon him Next he tells us That the generality of our Commanion confess that if the Words of Consecration refer to the Bread which is changed by them they must be taken in their Figurative sence Pag. 74 75. But this has been sufficiently cleared already Lastly He tells us That this Doctrine was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 years after CHRIST and that had not That and the Council of Trent since interposed it would not have been so to this very day What Doctrine do's he here mean Not that of the Schools concerning the manner of CHRIST's Existence in the Sacrament for a little after he tells us That Anathema's have been pronounced against them and they esteemed Heretics and Schismatics for opposing it But the Church never yet proceeded so far as to declare the Manner or censure any Opinions concerning it By this Doctrine then which he tells us was not of Faith till the Council of Lateran he must understand the Doctrine of the Church and say That the Body and blood of JESUS CHRIST was not till then believed to be truly really and substantially present under the species or appearances of Bread the Substance of Bread being not so present after Consecration But how do's he prove this He first brings Scotus cited by Bellarmine but we have already examined his Concessions pag. 84. which make but little for our Adversary Then he quotes Gabriel cited by Suarez T. 3. Disp 50. sect 1. But Suarez there undertaking to prove two Assertions the first That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is made by a true Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of CHRIST which he tells us is of Faith and the second That this Sacrament is made by a true Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body and of the Wine into the Blood of CHRIST he tells us That the word Transubstantiation taken in its proper and strict sence signifies transitum seu conversionem totius substantiae in totam substantiam a Transition or Conversion of a whole Substance into a whole Substance After which he concludes thus From this Doctrine of Faith we may gather first That the Scholastics as Scotus and Gabriel are to be corrected and secondly That the thing it self was ancient and perpetually believed in the Church Non suerit tam apertè explicata sicut mode est tho perhaps in former times it was not so fully explicated as now it is In the last place he quotes Lombard L. 4. Dist 11. Lit. A. But it is manifest that Lombard speaks there only of a Scholastic Tenet Which to the end you may see as also what was esteemed of Faith in his time before the Council of Lateran I will give you a short account of his whole Doctrine as to this Point He begins his eighth Distinction telling us Lomb. in 4. dist 8. Lit. B. That the Blessed Sacrament was instituted when JESUS CHRIST after the Typical Lamb gave to his Disciples his Body and Blood in the Last Supper Then speaking of the Form This is my Body c. Lit. C. he tells us Cum haec verba proferuntur conversio fit panis vini in substantiam corporis sanguinis Christi That when these words are pronounced there is made a Conversion of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of CHRIST Then speaking of a Sacrament as being the Sign of a Sacred thing Lit. D. he tells us what is the sign and what is the Thing in this Sacrament The Form i.e. Appearance says he of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is the Sign of the Sacred thing So that the species bear the Name of the Things which they were before that is of Bread and Wine But the thing signified is twofold the one contained under those species and signified by them the other signified but not contained The thing contained and signified is the Flesh of Christ which he took from the Blessed Virgin and the Blood which he shed for us But the thing which is signified and not contain'd is the Unity of the Church in those who are Predestinated Called Justified and Glorified So that there are says he three things to be distinguish'd one which is only a Sacrament and not the thing viz. the visible species of Bread and Wine another which is the Sacrament and the thing viz. the proper Flesh and Blood of Christ and a third which is the thing and not the Sacrament viz.
Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body referred to the Bread that our Saviour held in his Hands the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another Bread and CHRIST's Body will necessarily required the Figurative Interpretation But unless he can prove that the Pronoun hoc this must necessarily relate to Panis Bread and not to Corpus Body his Argument will avail him nothing but that all his Logic will never be able to effect Pag. 45. His Argument is this What did he say was his Body but that which he gave to his Discipoles What did he give to his Disciples but that which he broke What brake he but that which he took And St. Luke says expresly He took Bread But what follows from all this but that JESVS took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat THIS IS MY BODY But he go's on What JESVS took in his Hands that he blessed What he blessed the same he brake and gave to his Disciples What he gave to his Disciples of that he said This is my Body But JESUS says the Text took Bread of the Bread therefore he said THIS IS MY BODY But what do's all this argue against us unless he beg the Question and suppose that no real Change was made by those Words Which to shew how true it is let us propose an Example We will suppose and that not incongruously that our Blessed Saviour in changing the Water into Wine might have made use of these either mental or vocal Words This is Wine or let this be Wine Now here it is manifest the Word This was not determined but only signified Substance till the Word Wine was annexed This supposed if any one would see the force of his Argument let him change the Expression and instead of Bread use Water and instead of Body use Wine and then reflect whether he can from thence prove that these Words This is Wine must necessarily mean This Water is Wine or rather whether that would not be a Proposition which implies a Contradiction Gratian de Consecrat d. 2. c. 55. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 19. SS prumum as Gratian and Cardinal Bellarmine prove in the foregoing Places cited by him of the like Proposition This is my Body But it will not be amiss to consider Cardinal Bellarmine's Argument to which this Author refers He tell us there how these Words Take and eat for this is my Body must necessarily infer either a real Change of the Bread as Catholics or else a metaphorical Change as the Calvinists hold but that they will by no means admit of the Lutheans sence Which Proposition he endeavours to prove against the Lutherans assirming the Words This is my Body to bear necessarily one of these three sences First This which is contained under the species of Bread is my Body which is the Catholic sence and supposes a Mutation The second is that of the Sacramentaries who admit of no Mutation and their sence is This Bread is the Figure of my Body The third which is that of the Lutherans who admit of no Change but yet allow a Real Presence must bear this Interpretation This truly Wheaten Bread is truly and properly my Body But this says he can by no means be admitted whether we speak of the thing it self or of the Proposition For it cannot possibly be that one thing should not be changed and yet should be another for it would be that thing and would not be that thing Moreover in an Affirmative Proposition it is necessary the Subjectum or thing of which any thing is affirmed and the Praedicatum or thing affirm'd of it should have a regard to the same thing Then follow the Words which he cites It cannot therefore be that that Proposition should be true in which the Subjectum or former part designs Bread and the Praedicatum or latter part the Body of CHRIST For Bread and the Body of CHRIST are two very different things This indeed may prove that the Words of the Institution may possibly lead to a Figurative Interpretation but are far from proving that they oblige us to take them so which was what the Bishop of Condom affirmed and which he if he had used Sincerity should have oppugned and not have spent so much time to prove what was not the Question But as I said it is not my Business here to justifie our Tenets but to see what he has to say against the Exposition as such I do not find he pretends here that the Bishop of Meaux has palliated or prevaricated the Doctrine of the Catholic Church But I observe he uses frequently the Word Corporeally and the Corporeal Presence which the Bishop has avoided keeping himself to the Terms of the Council of Trent which tells us only that JESVS CHRIST is truly really and substantially present in the Sacrament but uses not the Word Corporeally I suppose because it may bear a double sence and signifie either first that the Body is really and substantially present tho' not after a carnal gross manner with all the Qualifications of a Natural Body and this is the sence of those Catholics who make use of it Or secondly it may be taken as signifying the Body to be present after a corporeal carnal manner with all the Conditions and Qualities of a Natural Body which sence our Enemies are apt to impute to us as if it were our Doctrine tho very unjustly But had he been Faithful in giving us the Doctrine of the Church of England I doubt not but the Arguments he brings against the Bishop of Meaux would have proved as much against it as it do's against ours He tells us Pag. â—â— They confess this Sacrament to be somewhat more than a meer Figure but they deny that therefore it must be his very Body I would gladly know what that is which is not the thing it self but yet is more than a meer Gigure of it If he mean that it is not the Body Corporeally according to the Explication of the word as I have given it in the Second Sence we agree with him But if he mean by this somewhat more than a meer Figure that the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST is verily and indeed taken and receiv'd by the Faithful in the Lords Supper as their Church Catechism has it I see not also in what the difference consists betwixt us neither can I see how his Arguments oppugn our Doctrine without confuting theirs 'T is true their Twenty eighth Article tells us that The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a Heavenly and Spiritual manner and that the means whereby the Body of CHRIST is receiv'd and eaten in the Supper is Faith Yet because I am not willing to think their Canons and Church Catechism contradict one another I am willing to think the meaning of the saying that Faith is the means by which they
Cardinal Cajetan thought it could not be proved Nec ex verbis nec ex effectu verba haec loquuntur de Sacramentali Unctione Extremae Unctionis sed magis de Unctione quam instituit Dominus JESUS a discipulis exercendam in aegrotis Cajet Annot. in loc neither from the Words nor from the Effect that the Words of St. James speak of the Sacramental Vnction of Extream Vnction but rather of that Vnction which our Lord JESVS instituted in the Gospel to be exercised by his Disciples upon the Sick he had been a faithful Quoter of Cajetan's Sence But to tell us he freely confesses it can belong to no other is to impose upon him and his Readers He tells us They anoint not their Sick for the Recovery of their Bodily Health because the Miraculous Power of Healing to which that Ceremony ministred is ceased in the Church But unless he can manifestly prove the Unction had no relation to the Sicknesses of the Soul and this from clearer Testimonies than the continued Practice of the Church till this last Age he brings nothing against our Possession nor can he justifie the laying it aside ART XIII Of Marriage HE tells us concerning Marriage Art 14. p. 45. That M. de Meaux says nothing of it but what they willingly allow and we desire no more He supposes that all true and proper Sacraments ought to be generally necessary to Salvation Pag. 46. and after the same manner a Sacrament as Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are and cites Lombard quoted by Cassander on their side But this I suppose was only for ostentation for no Catholics ever esteemed Marriage to be a Sacrament generally necessary to Salvation otherwise as he grants himself they would never have prohibited the Use of it to the Clergy But if he intend his Quotations should refer to the Reason he gives why it cannot be a Sacrament after the same manner that Baptism and the Holy Encharist are because as he says it wants an Outward Sign to which by CHRIST's Promise a Blessing is annex'd he will not only find this Author against him but the whole Torrent of the Fathers and the plain Texts of Scripture as interpreted by them ART XIV Of Holy Orders HE tells Art 15. p. 46. That the Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders being accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Spirit may perhaps upon that account be called a kind of particular Sacrament but because the Grace that is conferred by it is not common to all Christians he thinks it ought not to be esteemed a common Sacrament of the whole Church as Baptism and the Lords Supper are So that thus far I find no difference betwixt us He tells us also That they will not raise any Controversie about the distinction of Orders below Deacons because he acknowledges them to be ancient in the Church and I am satisfied with that Acknowledgment and would not willingly raise new Disputes ART XV. Of the Eucharist WE come now to the Article of the Eucharist Art 16. p. 47. in which we cannot but with him testifie our just regret that this Sacrament of Love and Charity should become now an Occasion of Contention It is not my Province to examine the Arguments he brings against our Doctrine they having been so often and so fully answered by others or to shew how weakly he oppugns the Bishop of Condom's Reasons but only to justifie his Exposition Yet however I cannot but take notice how insincerely he begins his Attaque from whence we may judge what is to be expected in the Sequel He tells us That M. de Meaux seems to allow that in two Cases it might have bene lawful to forsake the Literal Interpretation of these Words This is my Body Ibidem The first is If there be such grounds in those Words for a Figurative Interpretation as naturally lead to it Which having supposed to be grantted by the Bishop he undertakes to prove from Gratian and Bellarmine that the Words do lead to a Figurative Interpretation and endeavours to confirm it by the Words of the Institution and other Examples of Scripture But what will he say now when I shall shew him that he imposes upon the Bishop and has not proved one tittle either against him or us The Bishop's Words are these Expos pag. 19. As for us who find nothing in the Words which JESVS CHRIST makes use of in the Institution of this Mystery OBLIGING VS to take them in a Figuration Sence we think that a sufficient Reason to determine us to the Literal He speaks here you see of our being OBLIGED to take those Words in a Figurative sence which both he and all Catholics affirm can never be proved against us but no body ever denied but the Words as they lie without considering the Circumstances and Practice of the Church delivering the Interpretation of them down to us might possibly lead to a Figurative Interpretation seeing the like Expressions are frequently found in Scripture as for example I am a Door I am a Vine c. which being always taken by the Church in a Figurative sence we should esteem him a Madman that should think it possible after this to persuade all the World they ought to be taken in a Literal And as it would be a Madness to suppose all Mankind might in future Ages become so sottish as to renounce this Figurative Interpretation of JESVS CHRIST's being a Door and a Vine and fall so far into the Literal sence as to believe him to be substantially present in them and pay the utmost Adorations to him there set them up in Temples to be adored and celebrate Feasts in Honour of them So we cannot but think it to be very irrational to imagine that if the Disciples and the whole Church in all Nations had been once taught these Words This is my Body were to be taken in a Figurative sence it could ever have hapned the Visible Church in all Nations should agree to teach their Children that it ought to be taken in a Literal and proceed so far as to pay their Adorations to what they knew was but a morsel of Bread expose it to be worshipped c. which they could not but know was an Idolatry would bring inevitable Damnation to them and their Posterity who should be guilty of it And further We cannot see how it can enter into the Minds of Rational men that this so grand an Errour should either overspread the Church in a moment or so insensibly creep into it that she who was so vigilant in all other Errours of lesser moment should yet be so blind as not to see this or so wicked as not to take notice of it He should then if he would have opposed M. de Meaux or the Catholic Church have undertaken to prove That the very Words of the Institution oblige us to take them in a Literal sence He tells us indeed That if the
as the thing intended by the word Consubstantial was all along of Faith before that Council so was the thing intended by Transubstantiation ever believed by the Faithful in all Ages The thing intended by the word Transubstantiation is expressed by the Council of Trent in these words If any one shall say Sess 13. Can. 2. That the Substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist together with the Body and Blood of our Lord JESUS CHRIST and shall deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of Wine into the Blood the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholic Church do's most aptly call Transubstantiation Let him be Anathema This Council having before expressed our Belief of the true Ibid. Can 1. Chap. 1. real and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST in the most Holy Sacrament brings this Transubstantiation or Conversion of one Substance into another as the natural Consequence of it But because there are many sorts of Conversions of one Substance into another all which may be called Substantial Conversions and by consequence the word Transubstantiation might be properly enough used to express that Change therefore it is manifest the Church do's not intend here to fix the Manner of that Conversion but only to declare the Matter viz. That the body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST becomes truly really and substantially present the Bread and Wine ceasing to be there truly really and substantially present tho the Appearances thereof remain This Matter is that which is of Faith and was always so before the Council of Lateran but as for the Manner how this Conversion is made it is even at present a disputable Question in the Schools It being then manifest that our Dispute with protestants is not about the Manner how JESUS CHRIST is present but only about the thing it self whether the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST be truly really and substantially present after the Words of Consecration under the species or appearance of Bread and Wine the Substance of Bread and Wine being not so present let us examine whether the Authorities he brings as to both his Assertions have any force against our Tenets He tells us first That Lombard Scotus and many others confess that there is not in Scripture any formal Proof of Transubstantiation and cites in the Margin Lombard 4. Sent. dist 10. But there is no such thing in him as I shall more fully shew in declaring his Doctrine He brings in Scotus also 4. Dist 2. Qu. 11. whereas there are only two Questions in that Distinction His next Quotation is Bellarmine Bellar. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. ff Secundo dicit who he says confesses and cites many others of the same Opinion That there is not any formal Proof from Scripture that without that Declaration of the Church would be able to evince it 'T is true Bellarmine here acknowledges that Scotus said there was not any Place in Scripture so express that it would evidently compel any one to admit of Transubstantiation without the Churches Declaration which he confesses is not altogether improbable For says he altho the Scripture which we have mentioned above do's appear to us so clear that it may compel a Man who is not perverse to believe it yet whether it be so or no we may justly doubt since Learned and Acute Men such as in the first place Scotus was have thought the contrary And this is all he says 'T is true also that Scotus in 4. Dist 11. Qu. 3. n. 5. brings this Objection That nothing is to be held as of the Substance of Faith but what is expresly to be had out of Scripture or is expresly declared by the Church or evidently follows from what is plainly contained in Scripture or plainly determined by the Church But that it neither appears manifestly from Scripture nor from the Churches Declaration nor is it evidently inferred from either that the Substance of Bread do's not remain in the Eucharist And answers it n. 15. thus That the Church has declared it in the Council of Lateran c. Firmiter Credimus In which Chapter he tells us the Truth of some things which are to be believed are more explicitly declared than they were in the Apostles Creed or in that of Nice or that of St. Athanasius So that from hence some have concluded that Scotus probably held this Assertion That the Scripture did not evince it as also the other That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not so explicitly believed before that Council of Lateran as it was since But this is no more than what he or any one might say of the Consubstantiality of the Son before the Council of Nice It is also to be taken notice that this Distinction of P. Lombard was wholly written upon the Manner of CHRIST's Existence in the Sacrament and other Scholastic Disputes of that nature and not upon the thing it self as of Faith and therefore no wonder if Scotus writing upon that Distinction should grant how that manner of Conversion which he thought was a Consequence of the Council of Laterans Definition was not so explicitly known before that Council as since or not clearly found in Scripture But if you look upon him Dist 10. qu. 1. n. 2 3. where he is to treat of the Real Presence of CHRIST's Body and Blood under the species of Bread and Wine he tells us that it is a Truth which was expresly delivered from the beginning even from the very time of the Institution of the Eucharist His Words are Ista enim veritas a principio fuit expressè tradita ex quo Eucharistia fuit instituta And he adds That the Foundation of that Authority are the Words of the Institution This is my Body and this is my Blood which he says cannot be taken Figuratively if we observe the Rule of St. Augustin Aug. 83. Quest qu. 69. That the Circumstances of Scripture do clear the Sense of it For CHRIST having added to these Words This is my Body this Circumstance which shall be brokeâ— for you and to these Words This is my Blood thâ—â— Circumstance which shall be shed for you it is manifest they ought to be taken in a Literal sence Then he tells us That Cardinal Cajetan acknowledges That had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the Words the other might with as good warrant have been received and quotes him in 3. D. Thomae qu. 75. art 1. But he says no such thing nay rather the contrary as will appear to any one who reads that Article in which he tells us That we learn from the Truth of the Words of our Lord taken in their proper sence that the Body of CHRIST is truly in the Eucharist which is the first thing says he which we learn concerning this Sacrament from the Gospel
and properly speaking tho' not possibly in such a rigorous sence as may be put upon the Words If she do not what means her Ordination and the Title of Priesthood which her Ministers challenge with so much earnestness And if she do why will he quarrel with the Council of Trent for calling it a True and Proper Sacrifice Sess 22. c. a True and Proper Priesthood especially since the same Council tells us that this Sacrifice is instituted only to represent that which was once accomplished upon the Cross to perpetuate the Memory of it to the end of the World Sess 22. c. r. and so apply to us the saving virtue of it for the remission of those Sins which we commit every day In a word The Bishop of Meaux has expressed himself so clearly and consequently to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and of the Catholic Church that I cannot but admire any one who affirms as this Author do's that the Doctrine the Bishop of Meaux has express'd Pag. 63. is truly the Doctrine of the Catholic Church and such as the Church of England has never refus'd and except it be their doubt of the Corporeal Presence Mons de Meaux had certainly reason to expect there was nothing in it which they could justly except against I cannot I say but admire he should upon no better grounds than a pure Cavil about the Name and Nature of a Sacrifice when taken in the strictest Sense and the word Corporeal instead of Real Pag. 62. affirm this to be one of the most dangerous Errours that offend them But the Breach must be kept open and widened too if possible And because the offering of Christ once made is that proper Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World and because there is no other Satisfaction for Sin but that alone Article 31. as their Article expresses it and we allow therefore this Author must from thence conclude that the Representation Commemoration and Application of that first Offering by those who are Members of that Priesthood according to the Order of Melchisedec which the Apostle tells us was to be perpetual must not be called a True Heb. 6. Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice tho' it be only Commemorative and Applicatory ART XVII Of the Epistle to the Hebrews BUT the next Article shews us more manifestly Art 21. p. 67. that all this Dispute is purely de Nomine In which it manifestly appears that he mistakes the Sence of the word Offer Pag. 32. as used by the Catholic Church in this place for the Bishop of Meaux tells us the Catholic Church forms her Language and her Doctrine not from the sole Epistle to the Hebrews but from the whole body of the Holy Scripture and therefore tho' in that strict sence in which the Epistle to the Hebrews uses the word Offer JESUS CHRIST cannot be said to be now offered neither in the Eucharist nor any where else yet because in other places of Scripture the word is used in a larger signification where it is often said we offer to God what we present before him therefore she do's not doubt to say that she offers up our Blessed JESVS to his Father in the Eucharist in which he vouchsafes to render himself present before him But this must not suffice for then that which he calls the principal and most dangerous Errour would appear to be none at all and therefore because the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of one Offering which has fully satisfied for our Sins of one Offering which was no more to be offered that is of an Offering in a strict Sence in which there must be a Real Suffering and Death of the Victim therefore this Epistle must be against the Doctrine of the Roman Church tho' she speak only of an Unbloody Sacrifice of a Commemorative Sacrifice which without the Sacrifice of the Cross would be no Sacrifice which takes its Virtue Efficacy and very Name from it because it refers to it and applies the Virtue of it to our Souls Let any one judge if this be not next door to a wilful misunderstanding of our Tenets Pag. 63. especially when he had before confessed that the presenting to God Almighty the Sacrifice of our Blessed Lord is a most effectual manner of applying his Merits to us and that if this were all the Church of Rome meant by her Propitiatory Sacrifice there is not certainly any Protestant that would oppose her in it This is what she means by it that is an application of the Merits of the Sacrifice of the Cross which was to be but once offered and from whence it takes all its value But this he will not have to be our Doctrine and I see no reason for it but because if he admit it to be so one of the greatest grounds of their pretended Reformation must needs vanish ART XVIII Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine HIs Reflections upon this Doctrine run altogether upon the same strain Art 22. p. 69. and therefore what I have said will suffice in answer to that Article If he admit a Real Presence with the Church of England Reason must necessarily assure us that where Christ is really he ought to be Ador'd and where he really presents himself to his Father to render him Propitious to us he may be said to offer up himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice And those who will admit the Reality or not condemn the belief of it in others ought not to condemn the necessary Consequences of it in us into which we have penetrated better than they ART XIX Communion under both Species COmmunion under one kind being also a Consequence of the Doctrine of the Real Presence Art 23. p. 72. Those who admit the Real Presence or condemn it not ought not to condemn the Consequence of it He refers us to the Answer to M. de Meaux's Book of Communion and I refer him to M. de Meaux's Book which so fully explicates and proves this Doctrine that all the effects against it are but vain But if the Church of England allow the Communion to be given under one Species in case of necessity See Art 30. how will it stand that she esteems it to be the express Command of JESUS CHRIST which is certainly indispensable Edw. Sparrows Canons p. 15. the Sixth in his Proclamation before the Order of Communion ordains That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour JESUS CHRIST should from thenceforth be commonly deliver'd and administred unto all Persons within 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 And after the Order of Communion there is this Annotation Note that the Bread that shall be Consecrated shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed And every of the said Consecrated Breads shall be broken into two pieces at