IESVIT.

This Principle, which is no lesse certaine than the true reall Presence supposed, I inferre the lawfulnesse of Com∣munion [ E] vnder one kinde, (to wit, vnder the sole forme of Bread) by this Argument: If Communion vnder one kinde be not against the substance, either of Christs Insti∣tution Page  467 or of his Sacrament, or his Precept, or of the [ A] Practise of the Primitiue Church; it is lawfull, iustifi∣able, and for iust Reasons may be commanded by the Church.

This Proposition is true, because there neither are other causes of dislike, that may not be reduced to these foure; neither doe Christs Institution, or Sacrament, or Precept, or the Primitiue practise, bind vs to keepe them further, than in substance, the accidentall Circumstances of Insti∣tutions, [ B] Sacraments, Precepts, Primitiue Customes, being variable, according to the variable disposition of things, vnto which the Church Militant in this life is subiect. Now I assume, Concomitancie being supposed, it may be made euident, that Communion vnder one kind is not a∣gainst the substance, either of Christs Institution, or of the Sacrament, or of his Precept, or of his Primitiue practise: For the substance of these foure Obligations is one and the same, to wit, that we be truly and really partakers of [ C] the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour; which is fully done by Communion vnder one kind, as I will shew in the foure consequent Sections.