L.

Pray, Sr, what Catholick Divine in the World ever faid, that when the Flesh or Body of Chrift is mention'd alone in holy Scripture, his Blood is excluded? Or that it is not neceffary to receive his Blood as well as Body? On the contrary we maintain expressly, that Chrift's Body and Blood are wholly infeparable; whence we conclude, that his Body can not poffibly be received without his Blood, nor his Blood without his Body; and that, by Confequence, whole Chrift is always received whether by a Communion in one or both Kinds: fo far are we from excluding the Neceffity or Obligation of Receiving his Blood. So pray, Sr, leave off Beating the Air, and Fighting against your own Shadow.

As to your pleasant Parity of inviting me to eat with you, and giving me no Drink to my Dinner, if you do not expressly name it: I affure you, Sr, I shall take. it very ill to be fo ufed: unless you can contrive Matters fo, that Eating alone shall be equivalent both to Eating and Drinking; which is the Cafe in the Lord's Supper; where our Spiritual Meat and Drink, that is, the Body and Blood of Chrift are infeparable, as I have fully proved. So that whoever eats his Body, by the fame Action receives his facred Blood into his Stomach. And fo I hope that when I come to eat with you, you will not refufe me Drink by Way of Argumentation.

» G. But, My Lord, if by Eating we commonly » mean the whole Meal, and Drinking is likewife in»cluded, the Criticifm upon the Lord's Supper will » appear what it is, and not be thought fufficient to » exclude the Cup in the Sacrament, and you have » no other Foundation in Scripture. pag. 174.

L. Sr, I grant that by Eating is commonly meant the whole Meal, and that Drinking is likewife included if we speak of ordinary Meals, because in thefe

the Action of Eating or Drinking alone cannot convey both Meat and Drink into our Stomachs. But the Cafe is quite otherwise in the Lord's Suppers where, as I told you just now, our fpiritual Meat and Drink, that is, the Body and Blood of Chrift being infeparable are convey'd into our Stomachs either by the Action of Eating or Drinking alone. And this is no Criticism, but a folid Truth ; unless you will maintain this impious Abfurdity, that we receive one Half of Christ by Eating, and the other Half by Drinking.

This therefore fuffices to juftify Communion in one Kind. Because whoever receives the whole Body and Blood of Chrift cannot furely be faid to be defrauded any Part of the fpiritual Meal, he has ordain'd

of

for us.

But fince you tell me, we have no other Foundation in Scripture, but what I have infifted upon from the 6th Chapter of St John (tho that might fuffice) I think St Paul has laid a very folid Foun dation both of our Doctrine and Difcipline in the two following Texts. First, that Chrift being raised from the Dead dieth no more. Rom. 6. v. 9. And 2dly, that whosoever shall eat this Bread, OR drink this Cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord. 1, Cor, C. 11, V. 27. Whence (befides a clear innuendo, that the primitive Chriftians did fometimes either only eat the Bread, or only drink the Cup) it follows plainly, that as either Eating or Drinking unworthily fuffices to render us guilty both of the Body and Blood of our Lord, fo either Eating OR Drinking worthily fuffices to render us Partakers both of his Body and Blood.

I know your Tranflators have boldly falfified this Text of St Paul by changing Or into AND, to avoid the force of this Argument: and there is not a lear

ned Man amongst you but knows it. Yet it ftands to this Day uncorrected in your Bibles. So tender is your Church of the Purity of God's Words.

» G. But, My Lord, if I once call it Eating the Lord's Supper, and feveral Times call it both Ea ting and Drinking, will not the latter explain the Former? Or will Eating exclude Drinking, tho Drinking be expressly named? To eat the Lord's Supper is the only Phrafe we ufe, I never heard any Body call it Drinking the Lord's Supper. And you may thence prove that we have not the Cup in our Sacrament as well as that the Apostles had it not; because it is faid, they eat Bread, and broke Bread. But I have overlabour'd this Point, because you lay fo much Strefs upon it. pag.

# 174.

L. You have indeed overlabour'd it, and shew'd yourself a moft skilful Puzzle-Cause in darkning and perplexing the cleareft Truth. You ask, if it be once call'd Eating the Lord's Supper, and feveral Times both Eating and Drinking, whether the latter de's not explain the former? I answer the latter do's fo far explain the former as to render it manifeft, that ho Man eats the Lord's Supper, unless he receives both his Body and Blood into his Stomach. But fince I have demonftrated that this is done either by Ea ring or Drinking only, a man muft renounce common Senfe to pretend, that the external Form both of Earing and Drinking is necessary.

You ask again, whether Eating do's exclude Drinking, the Drinking be expressly named? I answer it do's not; if by Drinking be meant, receiving the Blood of Chrift. Because his Body and Blood being infeparable, we cannot eat his Body without receiving his Blood. But if you mean no more than the external Form of Drinking, it is neither excluded by the Texts which

mention Eating alone, nor commanded by the Texts, which mention them both. But our Saviour's Attri :buting the whole Virtue and Efficacy of the Sacrament fometimes to Eating alone, other Times to Ea ting and Drinking join'd together shews very plainly that it is not the external Form, or Manner of Receiving under One or both Kinds, but the Thing received, which beftows Grace and Life everlafting on the worthy Receiver.

Finally, you tell me, you never call it otherwife than Eating the Lord's Supper, and that I may prove thence that you have not the Cup in the Sacrament as well as that the Apostles had it not, because it is faid, they eat Bread, and broke Bread. But pray Sr, when did I prove from thofe Words, that the Apostles had not the Cup? I never faid any fuch Thing, and fo you ought not to charge we with it. I have indeed drawn an Argument from the 6th Chapter of St John ̧ where our Saviour attributes the whole Virtue of the Sacrament to Eating alone, as well as to Eating and Drinking. But can I therefore pretend to prove, that you have not the Cup in the Sacrament, becaufe you call it Eating the Lord's Supper? No, Sr, I am not difpofed to trifle thus with Words; because I know your Meaning both from your Principles, and conftant Practice: Whereas I find the very Reverse of thofe Principles in the Word of God. I find St Paul telling the Romans, that Chrift being raifed from the Dead dieth no more. 6. . 9. the Con fequence whereof is that his Body and Blood are now infeparable; and this is the very Foundation of the Doctrine of Concomitancy. Whence it follows, that Communion in one Kind cannot be a mangled Sa crament, as you pretend. I find the fame Apoftle telling the Corinthians, that whosoever shall eat the ·Bread, & drink the Cup unworthily, shall be guilty ₤

5.41. the Body AND Blood of our Lord. 1. Cor. 11. . 27. Now, if either Eating Or Drinking unworthily fuffices to render us guilty both of the Body and Blood of our Lord, 'tis manifeft that either eating or Drin king worthily fuffices to render us Partakers both of his Body and Blood. From these two Principles clearly deliver'd in holy Writ we may legally infer, that our Saviour's often Attributing the whole Vic, tue and Efficacy of the Sacrament to Eating alone is a folid Proof, that when he mentions both Eating and Drinking it is not meant as a Precept to oblige all to receive the Sacrament in both Kinds, but only to receive his Body and Blood, which is done by a Communion in one Kind as well as both; as I have fully demonftrated to any Man, who believes the Bady and Blood of Chrift to be really and truly pre fent in the Sacrament.

But who are the Perfons appointed by Christ to be the Interpreters of his facred Word? He that beareth you (lays Chrift) heareth me, and he that defpifeth you, defpifeth me. Luke 10. . 16. Again, who are the Perfons commiffion'd by him to feed and gavern his Flock, and prefcribe the proper Methods of Adminiftring the Sacraments? St Paul refolves the Question in these few Words. Let a Man fo account of us as of the Minifters of Chrift, and the Stewards of the Mysteries of God. 1. Cor. 4. . 1. From which two Texts it is plain, that the Bishops and Paftors of the Church, who are the Succeffors of the Apostles, and to whom Chrift has promifed his perpetual Affiftance, are the only Perfons authoriz'd by him to interpret the Word of God, and regulate the Manner of Dif. penfing the Sacred Myfteries to the People. And was it not then a moft infolent Madness (for St Austin fpeaking of a parallel Cafe gives it no fofter Name) in a few private Perfons to pretend to understand