Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	body_n	bread_n	consecration_n	9,959	5	11.0641	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56740	A discourse of the communion in one kind in answer to a treatise of the Bishop of Meaux's, of Communion under both species, lately translated into English.	Payne, William, 1650-1696.	1687 (1687)	Wing P900; ESTC R12583	117,082	148

his Blood * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. The Lyturgy which bears the name of St. Mark describes the Priest as praying for all those who were to communicate that they might be worthy to receive of those good things which were set before them the immaculate Body and the precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Chrst † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Marci Ib. and using these words in his Prayer of Consecration over the Elements That they may become available to all those who partake of them to Faith Sobriety ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and Christian Vertues Which had bin very improper if none but himself had bin to partake of them So that whatever Antiquity and whatever Authority may be allowed to those Lyturgies who go under the names of those Apostolic Saints the advantage of them is wholly for the Communion in one kind And those Churches who used these Lyturgies and so probably ascribed these Names to them as Hierusalem that of St. James Alexandria that of St. Mark these must be acknowledged to have given the Communion in both kinds as anciently and as certainly as it can be proved or may be supposed that they used these Lyturgies But to come to the more Authentic Lyturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom which are now used in the Greek Churches though both the time and the Authors of these may be very questionable yet with all their present Additions and Interpolations there is a manifest proof in both of them for the Communion in both kinds In the former the Priest thus prays for himself and all the Communicants that we all who partake of one Bread and one Cup may be united together into the Communion of one holy Spirit and that none of us may be partakers of the Body or Bloud of Christ to judgement or condemnation * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Basil so that it was plain he did not communicate of the Bread or Cup alone nor was alone partaker of the Body or Bloud of Christ in another Prayer he mentions the people expresly and begs of Christ that he would vouchsafe by his great power to give unto them his pure Bloud and by them that is by the Priests to all the People † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And as the Priest thus prays for the People and for others before the Communion so he offers up a Thanksgiving for them afterwards in these words We give thee thanks O Lord our God for the participation of thy holy pure and heavenly Mysteries which thou hast given us to the benefit sanctification and health both of our Souls and Bodies Do thou O Lord of all things grant unto us that this may be the partaking of the Body and Bloud of Christ to our sincere Faith ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. In the Lyturgie of St. Chrysostom the Priest having prayed God to make this Bread the precious Body of Christ * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Chrysost Savil. Edit Tom. 6. which is an expression the Church of Rome will by no means allow and that which is in the Cup his Blood † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. that so they may become to those who partake of them for the cleansing of the Soul the remission of Sins ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and the like And having used that Prayer Vouchsafe to give us this pure Body and Blood and by us to all the people He gives the Deacons both the Bread and Wine and uses particular expressions at the giving of each As this hath touched thy Lips and will take away thy Sins and purge away thy Wickedness * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and then afterwards the Deacon having the Cup speaks to the people to draw nigh in the fear of God and in Charity † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And though there is no particular description of their Communion as there is of the Deacons yet this is onely an Argument that it was the same and had it been different no doubt there would have been an account of it but after all the Priest makes a general Thanksgiving in the name of all Blessing God that he has vouchsafed us this day his heavenly and immortal Mysteries ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 1003. To confirm this observation of the Communion in both kinds from the Lyturgy of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom Cassander in his Lyturgies tells us * Lyturgia Aethiopum sententia orationum ordine actionis fere cum Graecorum Chrysost Basilii Lyturgiis convenit Lyturg. per G. Cassand That the Lyturgie of the Aethiopians agrees with these two both in the prayers and the orders of the performance and in this the people as he informs us pray towards the conclusion That God would bless them who have received the sacred Body and the precious Blood † Populus sub finem benedic nos Domine servos tuos qui sanctum corpus pretiosum sanguinem sumpsimus Benedictus sit qui dedit sanctum corpus pretiosum sanguinem Gratia sit Domino qui dedit nobis corpus suum sanctum pretiosum sanguinem suum Ib. and blessed be God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Bloud And again Thanks be to God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Blood. As to the Lyturgies of the Latins which they call Missals they have received such Additions and Corrections at Rome as was necessary to make them sute with the present Opinions and Practices of that Church but yet we have many of those which have escaped that usage and which contain the Communion in both kinds as appears by the Codices Sacramentorum publisht at Rome by Thomasius where the Gelasian Form that is older than the Gregorian speaks of the Priests communicating alike with the sacred Orders and with all the People ‖ Post haec Communicat sacerdes cum ordinibus sacris cum omni populo P. 199. without any difference and all along mentions both the Symbols by the words Sacramenta Mysteria Dona in the plural number and concludes with this Prayer That as many as have taken the Body and Blood of Christ may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace * Vt quotquot ex hâc altaris partici patione sacrosanctum silii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti gratiâ repleamur p. 198. The three other are lately published by Mabillon and were used very anciently in the Gallican Church before that Nation had received the Roman Office in all which also there are plain evidences for the Communion in both kinds in the old Gothic one after the Lord's Prayer follows this † Libera nos à malo Domine Christe Jesu Corpus tuum pro nobis crucifixum edimus sanguinem sanctum tuum bibimus fiat nobis corpus sanctum tuum ad salutem

and imperfect Communion as this will be no good president nor an instance of any weight and authority to justifie the practice of Public Communion in one kind But after all perhaps there may be a great mistake and this Mass on Good-Friday though it be very different from all others yet may not be a Communion in one kind but in both and so may that in the Greek Church in the Lyturgy of the Presanctified which is used on most days in Lent and then we may relieve the Church of Rome from the difficulty of the Priests Communicating but in one kind and vindicate both the Churches in great measure from being guilty of such an irregular practice contrary to the general practice of the whole Church and to the institution of Christ this cannot to this day be laid to the Greek Church who never uses the Communion in one kind neither privately nor publickly nor could it be charged upon the Roman till long after this particular Mass on Good-Friday was used in it which it is plain it was in the eleventh Age from the Ordo Romanus Amulatius Alcuinus Rupertus Tuiriensis and others but there is no manner of proof that the Public Communion in one kind was brought into the Church of Rome till the thirteenth Century when it came by degrees into some particular Churches as Thomas Aquinas informs us and was afterwards established by a general Decree in the Council of Constance The Mass therefore on Good-Friday though it was a singular and different Office from all others they not thinking it fit for I know not what reasons to make a formal Consecration of Christ's Body on the same day he died but to Celebrate the Communion with what was thus consecrated the day before yet it was not wholly in the one species of Bread but in that of Wine too as is plain from the Office it self and from those Authors who have wrote upon it Corpus Domini quod pridiè remansit ponentes in patenam Subdiaconus teneat calicem cum vino non consecrato alter Subdiaconus patenam cum corpore Domini quibus tenentibus accipit unus Presbyter prior patenam alter calicem defertur super altare nudatum Ordo Romanus p. 75. ex Edit Hittorp The Bread which was Consecrated the day before was brought by the Sub Deacon and a Calice of unconsecrated Wine by another Sub-Deacon and the Priest sets them both together upon the Altar then after some Prayers and particularly the Lord's Prayer he takes the consecrated Bread ‖ Sumit de Sanctâ ponit in calicem Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sactificatum panem communicant omnes cum silentio Ib. and puts into the Calice and so the unconsecrated Wine is sanctified by the sanctified Bread and then they all Communicate with silence They Communicated with the Bread and the Wine thus mixed together and so their Communion this day was not in one kind But this Wine says de Meaux was not truely Consecrated this Sanctification of the unconsecrated Wine by the mixture of the Body of our Lord cannot be that true Consecration by which the Wine is changed into the Bloud I cannot tell whether it be such a Consecration that does that in his sense but it may be as true a Sacramental Consecration of the Elements for all that not onely by vertue of the mixture and by way of contact as some explain it * Allter in Romano Ordine legitur ut contactu Dominici corporis integra fiat Communio Cassand de Com. sub utr p. 1027. Concil Araus primum but by the solemnity of the action and by all the Religious circumstances that attend it and especially by those Prayers and Thanksgivings which were then used as in Micrologus 't is clearly and plainly exprest † Vinum non consecratum cum Dominicâ Oratione Dominici Corporis immissione jubet consecrare Microlog de Ecclesiast Observ c. 19. in Edit Hittorp p. 742. that the Wine is Consecrated with the Lords Prayer and the Immission of the Lord's Body And why will not de Meaux allow that a true Consecration may be made by those words and prayers as well as by those formal words This is my Body when it is made out beyound all contradiction both by Dallee and Albertinus that the Primitive Church did not Consecrate by those words but by a Prayer and their own St. Gregory says ‖ Apostolos solâ Dominicâ prece praemissâ consecrasse Sacramenta distribnisse Greg. l. 7. Ep. 63. ad Syr. That the Apostles Consecrated the Sacrament only with the Lord's Prayer Which was used here and particularly observed to be so by Micrologus as that whereby the Wine was consecrated so that all Monsieur de Meaux's labour is vain to shew that the Consecration could not be without words And that it cannot enter into the mind of a man of sense that it could ever be believed in the Church the Wine was consecrated without words by the sole mixture of the Body The Consecration might be made without those very formal words now used in the Roman Missal as it was by Prayer in the Primitive Church Walafridus Strabo observes concerning this very Office on Good-Friday that it was agreeable to the more ancient and simple way of the Communion of the first Christians which was performed only with the use of the Lord's Prayer and some commemoration of Christ's Passion * Et relatio majorum est ita primis temporibus Missas fieri solitas sicut modo in Parasceue Paschae communicationem facere solemus i. e. prâmissâ Oratione Dominicâ sicut ipse Dominus noster praecepit commemoratione passionis ejus adhibita Walagrid Strabo de rebus Eccles c. 22. p. 680. Edit Hittorp and yet he did not question but the Consecration was truly made by that simple manner and it did so far enter into the minds of the men of sense that were in those times that they all did believe that the Wine was truly consecrated this way for so says expresly the Ordo Romanus the ancient Ceremonial as he calls it of that Church the Wine is sanctified and there is no difference between that and consecrated that I know of and it is plain they both mean the same thing there for it calls the consecrated Body the sanctified Body † Sanctificatur vinum non consecratumper sanctificatum panem and I know not what Sanctification of another nature that can be which is not Consecration or Sanctifing it to a holy and Sacramental use indeed this may not so well agree with the Doctrine and Opinion of Transubstantiation which requires the powerful and almighty words of This is my Body this is my Bloud to be pronounced over the Elements to convert them into Christ's natural Flesh and Blood but it agrees as well with the true notion of the Sacrament and the Primitive Christians no doubt had

the Sumption of both necessary to him as the Eucharist is a Sacrament which Bellarmine says it is upon that very account † Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti Bellarm. de Euch. c. 4. If the taking of one be sufficient to convey the whole grace and vertue of both and the other be not necessary for this end All these questions will return upon de Meaux though the Eucharist were a Sacrifice and as to that I shall onely ask him this question Whether Christ did as truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood as a Sacrifice to God when he instituted this Sacrament as he did upon the Cross If he did and therefore two Species were necessary though if his Body and Blood be both together in one that might be sufficient why needed he then to have afterwards offered up himself upon the Cross when he had as truly offered up his Body and Blood before in the Eucharist If two Species are necessary to make a full representation of Christ's death and to preserve a perfect image of his Sacrifice upon the Cross and by the mystical seperation of his Body and Blood in the Eucharist to represent how they were really separated at his death why are they not then necessary as de Meaux says They are not to the ground of the Mystery Is not the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament designed to do all this and to be such a Remembrance of Christ and a shewing forth the Lord's death till he come as the Scripture speaks And do not they in great measure destroy this by giving the Sacrament in one kind without this mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood and without preserving such a sacramental Representation of it as Christ has appointed But says de Meaux The ultimate exactness of representation is not requisite ‖ P. 175. This I confess for then the eating the Flesh and drinking the Bloud of a man as some Heretics did of an Infant might more exactly represent than Bread and Wine but such a representation as Christ himself has appointed and commanded this is requisite and when he can prove that Christ has commanded Immersion in Baptism to represent the cleansing of the Soul as he has done taking Bread broken and Wine poured out in the Eucharist to represent his Death I will own that to be requisite in answer to his § 11. There ought to be also an expression of the grace of the Sacrament which is not found in one Species alone for that is not a full expression of our perfect nourishment both by meat and drink and if the Sacraments onely exhibit what they represent which is an Axiom of the School-men then as one kind represents our spiritual nourishment imperfectly so it exhibits it imperfectly but however if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament be given by one Species the other must be wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the inward effect and so at most it must be but a meer significant sign void of all grace as de Meaux indeed makes it though the name of a sign as applied to the Sacrament is so hard to go down with them at other times when he says of the species of Wine That the whole fruit of the Sacrament is given without it and that this can adde nothing thereunto but onely a more full expression of the same Mystery * P. 185. II. The second question I proposed to consider was Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy do not contain and give whole Christ and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament This de Meaux and all of them pleade That each Species contains Jesus Christ whole and entire † P. 306. §. 9. so that we have in his Flesh his Blood and in his Blood his Flesh and in either of the two his Person whole and entire and in both the one and the other his blessed Soul with his Divinity whole and entire so that there is in either of the Species the whole substance of the Sacrament and together with that substance the whole essential vertue of the Eucharist ‖ P. 327. according to these Principles of the Roman Church I am not here to dispute against those nor to shew the falseness and unreasonableness of that which is the ground of them and which if it be false destroys all the rest I mean Transubstantiation whereby they suppose the Bread to be turn'd into the very natural Body of Christ with Flesh Bones Nerves and all other parts belonging to it and the Wine to be turned into the very natural substance of his Bloud and since this Flesh is not a dead Flesh it must have the Blood joyned with it and even the very Soul and Divinity of Christ which is always Hypostatically united to it and so does necessarily accompany it and the Body with Christ's Soul and Divinity must thus likewise ever accompany his Blood To which prodigious Doctrine of theirs as it relates to the Communion in one kind I have these things to say 1. It does so confound the two Species and make them to be one and the same thing that it renders the distinct consecration of them to be not onely impertinent but senceless For to what purpose or with what sense can the words of Consecration be said over the Bread This is my Body and those again over the Wine This is my Blood If upon the saying of them by the Priest the Bread does immediately become both the Body and Blood of Christ and the Wine both his Blood and his Body too this is to make the Bread become the same thing with the Wine and the Wine the same thing with the Bread and to make onely the same thing twice over and to do that again with one form of words which was done before with another for upon repeating the words This is my Body Christ's Body and Blood are both of them immediately and truly present and when they are so what need is there of the other form This is my Blood to make the same thing present again which was truly present before It matters not at all in this case whether they be present by vertue of the consecration or by vertue of Concomitancy for if they be truly present once what need they be present again if they become the same thing after the first form of Consecration which they do after the second why do they become the same thing twice or what need is there of another form of words to make the Wine become that which the Bread was before they hold it indeed to be Sacriledge not to consecrate both the Species but I cannot see according to this principle of theirs why the consecrating of one Species should not be sufficient when upon the consecration

of that it immediately becomes both Christ's Body and Blood and what reason is there for making the same Body and Blood over again by another consecration They might if they pleased say over the Bread alone Hoc est Corpus meum hoc est sanguis meus This is my Body and this is my Bloud for they believe it is so upon the saying those words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body And if it be so as soon as the words are pronounced they may as truly affirm it to be both as one What does it signifie to say they are both present by Concomitancy does not Concomitancy always go along with the Consecration is there any space between the Consecration and the Concomitancy is not the one as quick and sudden as the other and can it be said over the Species of Bread This is my Body before it can be as truly said This is my Blood why therefore may not they be both said together Nay it may be as truly said by vertue of this Doctrine not only This is my Body and Blood but this is my Soul and my Divinity for though they will not say it is made all those yet it becomes all those and truly is all those by this Concomitancy upon the Consecration and it may be said to be all those as soon as it is consecrated and at the same time that those words are spoke There being a distinct Consecration of Christ's Body and Bloud in the Sacrament if Christ's Body and Bloud be really present there by vertue of the words of Consecration yet they ought to be as distinctly present as they are distinctly consecrated that is the Body present in the species of Bread and the Blood in the species of Wine for else they are not present according to the Consecration so that this Concomitancy by which they are present together does quite spoile the Consecration by which they are present asunder and so confounds the two Species as to make them become both the same thing after they are consecrated and renders the consecration of one of them to be without either use or sense 2. It makes the distinct Sumption of both the Species to be vain and unnecessary to any persons to the Priests or to any others to whom the Pope has sometimes granted them and even to the Apostles and all the first Christians who received both for if the one contains the very same thing with the other and gives the very same thing what need is there of having or of taking both that is of taking the very same thing twice over at the same time If one Species contain Jesus Christ whole and entire his Body Bloud Soul and Divinity and all these are given by one Species what can be desired more as de Meaux says Then Jesus Christ himself and what then can the other Species give but the same thing is Jesus Christ with whole Humanity and Divinity to be thus taken over and over and to be taken twice at the same time if he be why not several times more and if he were so this might be done by taking several times the same Species since one Species contains the same as both even the whole substance and the whole essential effect of the Sacrament and the very person of Jesus Christ himself This does so alter the nature of the Sacrament by which we have a continual nourishment conveyed to our Souls and receive the Grace and Spirit of Christ by fresh and daily recruits and in several measures and degrees every time we Communicate that it makes it not onely to no purpose for any person to take more than one Species at once but to take the Sacrament more than once all his whole life for what need he desire more who has received together with the humanity of Jesus Christ his Divinity also whole and entire † P. 314. and if he has received that once there is no reason for receiving it again for this as it renders the Grace and Substance of the Sacrament Indivisible as de Meaux often pleades so it renders it Infinite to which nothing can be ever added by receiving it never so often and if we thus make this Sacrament to give the very Body and Bloud of Christ and so the whole and entire Person of Christ and his whole Humanity and his whole Divinity instead of giving the spiritual Graces and Vertues of Christ's Body and Bloud we then make every Communicant to receive all that by one single Communion which he can ever receive by never so many thousands and we make all persons to receive this alike however different the preparations and dispositions of their minds are and even the most wicked and vile wretches must receive not onely Christ's Body and Blood but even his Soul and his Divinity and his whole and entire Person for though the spiritual graces and vertues may be given in different measures and degrees and in different proportions according to the capacity of the receiver yet the Humanity and Divinity of Christ which is whole and entire in each Species never can Thirdly If Christ's Body and Bloud were thus always joyned together in the Sacrament and were both contained in one Species yet this would not be a true Sacramental reception of them for to make that they ought to be taken as separate and divided from one another his Body from his Blood and his Bloud from his Body and not as conjoyned or mixt together this was the way and manner which Christ himself appointed and this is the onely way by which we can be said to eat his Body and to drink his Blood and as they own they ought to be thus consecrated so they ought also to be thus received for I cannot understand why they might not be as well consecrated together as received together and why it would not be as true a Sacrament with such a Consecration as with such a Sumption nay I think the Consecration this way would have more sense in it than the Sumption for it is nothing so odd and strange to suppose the Bread to be turned into the Body and Bloud of Christ as to suppose that by eating that we both eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ to make eating and drinking the same thing or to say we drink by eating and eat by drinking are very unaccountable and unintelligible expressions so that Concomitancy does wholly confound those two Sacramental Phrases and Sacramental Actions But is it not enough says de Meaux ‖ P. 323. for a Christian to receive Jesus Christ is it not a Sacrament where Jesus Christ is pleased to be in person But Jesus Christ is not received in the Sacrament in any other manner but by receiving his Body and Bloud nor is it his Person he bids us receive but his Body and Bloud and the way by which we are to receive them is by eating the one and drinking the other and

we cannot be properly said to do that or to receive Christ or his Body and Blood Sacramentally but this way Though the Body and Blood of Christ therefore should be both in one Species and both received by one Species yet this would not be the eating the Body and the drinking the Blood for as one of their own Popes Innocent the Third says and Durandus from him Neither is the Blood drunk under the Species of Bread nor the Body eaten under the Species of Wine for as the Blood is not eaten nor the Body drank so neither is drunk under the Species of Bread nor eat under the Species of Wine * Nec sanguis sub specie panis nec Corpus sub specie vini bibitur aut comeditur quia sicut nec sanguis comeditur nec Corpus bibitur ita neutrum sub species panis bibitur aut sub specie vini comeditur Durand Rational l. 4. c. 42. And therefore though they should be both received according to them by one Species yet they would not be both eat and drank that is received Sacramentally eating and drinking are distinct things and both belong to the Sacrament and though eating and drinking spiritually be as de Meaux says The same thing † P. 184. and both the one and the other is to believe Yet eating and drinking Sacramentally are not but are to be two distinct outward actions that are to go along in the Sacrament with our inward Faith. This Doctrine of Concomitancy and of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ together in that gross manner which is believed in the Roman Church does quite spoile the Sacramental reception of Christ's Body and Bloud for according to that they can never be received separate and apart no not by the two Species but they must be always received together in either of them so that though by the Institution the Species of Bread seems particularly to contain or rather give the Body and the Species of Wine the Bloud and as St. Paul says ‖ 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we bless is it not the communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we bless is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ Yet hereby either of them is made the Communion of both and it is made impossible to receive them asunder as Christ instituted and appointed and as is plainly implied by eating and drinking and seems to be the very nature of a Sacramental reception But Fourthly This Concomitancy makes us to receive Christ's Body and Bloud not as sacrificed and shed for us upon the Cross but as they are now living and both joyned together in Heaven whereas Christ's Body and Bloud is given in the Sacrament not as in the state of life and glory but as under the state of death for so he tells us This is my body which is given for you that is to God as a Sacrifice and Oblation and This is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins So that we are to take Christ's Body in the Sacrament as it was crucified for us and offered up upon the Cross and his Bloud as it was shed and poured out not as joyned with his Body but as separated from it the Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud cometh from his Death and from its being a Sacrifice which was slain and whose Blood was poured out for to make expiation for our Sins and as such we are to take Christ's Body and Bloud that is the vertue and benefits of them in the Sacrament for as de Meaux says * P. 311. This Body and this Blood with which he nourisheth and quickneth us would not have the vertue if they had not been once actually separated and if this separation had not caused the violent Death of our Saviour by which he became our Victim So neither will it have that vertue in the Sacrament if the Body be not taken as broken and sacrificed and the Bloud as shed or poured out and both as separated from one another De Meaux owns We ought to have our living Victim under an image of Death otherwise we should not be enlivened † P. 312. I do not well understand the meaning of a living Victim for though Christ who was our Victim is alive yet he was a Victim onely as he died so that a living Victim is perhaps as improper a phrase as a dead Animal If we are to receive Christ then in the Sacrament as a Victim or Sacrifice we are to receive him not as living but as dead I would not have de Meaux or any else mistake me as if I asserted that we received a dead Body a dead flesh a carcase as he calls it ‖ P. 309. in the Sacrament for he knows we do not believe that we receive any real flesh or any proper natural Body at all but onely the mystical or sacramental Body of Christ or to speak plainer the true and real Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud offered for us and we are not onely to have this under an image of death that is to have the two Species set before us to look upon but we are to receive it under this image and to eat the Body as broken and the Bloud as poured out and so to partake of Christ's death in the very partaking of the Sacrament de Meaux speaks very well when he says * P. 312. The Vertue of Christ's Body and his Blood coming from his Death he would conserve the image of his Death when he gave us them in his holy Supper and by so lively a representation keep us always in mind to the cause of our Salvation that is to say the Sacrifice of the Cross But how is this image of his Death conserved in his holy Supper if Christ be there given not as dead but living Concomitancy does rather mind us of Christ's Resurrection when his Body was made alive again and reunited to his Soul and to his Divinity than of his death when it was divided and separated from them and it makes us not to partake of Christ's Body as crucified upon the Cross but as glorified in Heaven as it is so indeed Christ's body cannot be divided from his bloud and his whole humanity soul and body are always united with his Divinity but we do not take it as such in the Sacrament but as his body was sacrificed and flain and wounded and his bloud as shed and separated from it They who can think of a crucified Saviour may think of receiving him thus in the Sacrament without horrour de Meaux owns That this mystical separation of Christ's body and bloud ought to be in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice † P. 180 181. And why not then as it is a Sacrament is there any more horror to have Christ's body thus consecrated then thus eaten and received The words of consecration he says do renew mystically as by a spiritual Sword together with

onely Modern Novellists as the Translatour calls those who are not for his Real Presence and his Reconciling way but the most learned and ancient Protestants who have been either Bishops Priests or Deacons in our Church have owned and subscribed namely That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men † Article 30 th ADVERTISEMENT The Reader is desired to Correct the small Errata of the Press without a particular Account of them A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind THE Controversie about the Communion in One Kind is accounted by a late French Writer upon that Subject one of the chiefest and most capital Controversies in Christian Religion * Cum haec quaestio at Controversia visa sit semper in Religione Christianâ praecipua ac capitalis Boileau de praecepto divino Commun sub utrâque specie p. 217. I suppose he means that is in difference between the Reformed and the Church of Rome it is indeed such a Case as brings almost all other matters between us to an issue namely to this Point Whether the Church may give a Non obstante to the Laws of Christ and make other Laws contrary to his by vertue of its own Power and Prerogative If it may in this case it may in all others and therefore it is the more considerable Question because a great many others depend upon the Resolution of it When it had been thus determined in the Council of Constance yet a great many were so dis-satisfied namely the Bohemians to have the Cup taken from them that the Council of Basil was forced upon their importunity to grant it them again and at the Council of Trent it was most earnestly prest by the Germans and the French by the Embassadors of those Nations and by the Bishops that the People might have the Cup restored to them The truth in this cause and the advantage seems to be so plain on the side of the Reformation that as it required great Authority to bear it down so it calls for the greatest Art and Sophistry plausibly to oppose it One would think the case were so evident that it were needless to say much for it and impossible to say any thing considerable against it but it is some mens excellency to shew their skill in a bad cause and Monsieur de Meaux has chosen that Province to make an experiment of his extraordinary Wit and Learning and to let us see how far those will go to perplex and intangle the clearest Truth He has mixt a great deal of boldness with those as it was necessary for him when he would pretend that Communion in one kind was the Practice of the Primitive Church and that it was as effectual as in both and that the Cup did not belong to the substance of the Institution but was wholly indifferent to the Sacrament and might be used or not used as the Church thought fit How horribly false and erronious those Pleas of his are the following Discourse will sufficiently make out and though he has said as much and with as much-artifice and subtilty as is possible in this cause yet there being another Writer later then him † Boileau de precepto divino commun Sub utrâque specie Paris 1685. who denys that there is any Divine Precept for Communion in both kinds and who hath designedly undertaken the Scripture part of this Controversie which Monsieur de Meaux has onely here and there cunningly interwoven in his Discourse I resolve to consider and examine it as it lies in both those Authors and though I have chosen my own method to handle it which is First from Scripture then from Antiquity and lastly from the Reasonings and Principles made use of by our Adversaries yet I shall all along have a particular regard to those two great men and keep my eye upon them in this Treatise so as to pass by nothing that is said by either of them that has any strength or show in it for my design is to defend the Doctrine of our own Church in this matter which our Adversaries have thought fit to attaque and to fall upon not with their own but the borrowed forces of the Bishop of Meaux whose great name and exploits are every-where famous and renowned but since we have all Christian Churches in the World except the Roman to be our seconds in this Cause we shall not fear to defend them and our selves and so plain a Truth against all the cunning and Sophistry of our Adversaries though it be never so artificially and drest after the French Mode We will begin with Scripture which ought to be our onely Rule not onely in matters of Faith which should be founded upon nothing less than a Divine Revelation but in matters of pure positive and arbitrary Institution as the Sacraments are for they depend merely upon the will and pleasure the mind and intention of him that appointed them and the best and indeed the onely way to know that is by recurring to his own Institution as we know the mind of a Testator by going to his last Will and Testament and by consulting that do best find how he has ordered those things that were of his own free and arbitrary disposal And by this way we shall find that the Church of Rome by taking away the Cup has plainly violated the Institution of our blessed Saviour and deprived the People of a considerable part of that Legacy which he bequeathed to them Let us lay therefore before us the Institution of our Saviour as we find it in the three Evangelists and-in St. Paul as he received it of the Lord. Matthew 26.26,27,28 JESUS took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins Mark 14.22,23,24 JESUS took bread and blessed and brake it and gave to them and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them and they all drank of it And he said unto them This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many Luke 22.19,20 And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me Likewise also the cup after supper saying This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you 1 Corinthians 11.23,24,25 The LORD JESUS the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take eat this is my body which is broken for you this do in

and the writings of the Apostles so I shall evidently make it out to be contrary to the whole Primitive and Catholick Church in all Ages and this First From the most ancient Rituals or the earliest accounts we have of the manner of celebrating the blessed Eucharist in Christian Churches Secondly From the most ancient Lyturgies Thirdly From the Testimony and Authority of the Fathers or antient Writers Fourthly From some ancient Customs Fifthly From the Custom still remaining in all Christian Churches of the World except the Roman Sixthly From the Confession of the most learned of our Adversaries 1. From the most ancient Rituals or the earliest accounts we have of the manner of celebrating the blessed Eucharist in the Christian Church The first and most Authentic of which is in Justin Martyr's second Apology where he describes the publick Worship of Christians upon Sundays according to its true Primitive Simplicity and as to the Eucharist which was always a part of it * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. There was brought he says Bread and Wine with water according to the custom I suppose of the Greeks and Eastern Countries who generally drank their Wines so mixt and these being offered to the chief Minister he receiving them giveth Honour and Glory to the Father of all things through the Name of the Son and the Holy Ghost and rendreth thanksgiving to him for these things and having finished his Prayers and giving of Thanks to which the People that were present joyn their Amen The Deacons give to every one that is present to partake of the blessed Bread and Wine and Water and to those that are absent they carry them Having discoursed of the nature of this Sacramental food and shewn the Institution and design of it out of the Gospel and from the words of our Saviour he again repeats their manner of Celebrating in the same words almost which he had used before and says † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. propè finem That the distribution and participation of what is blessed by the President is made to every one which every one belongs plainly to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that just goes before Nothing is more evident than that all the Elements were given to the People and to every one of them and no man I think ever had the impudence to question this or make the least doubt of it before Monsieur Boileau who if ever he read this place may be ashamed to say as he does ‖ Haec Sti. Justini verba perperàm assumuntur ad concludendum verè castigatè aetate sancti Martyris Eucharistiam plebi administratam fuisse sub utraque specie Boileau de praecepto divino Commun sub utraque specie p. 215. That it cannot be truely and strictly concluded from hence that the Eucharist was Communicated to the People under both kinds in the Age of this Holy Martyr And what man of modesty or creticism besides Monsieur Boileau would have observed that both the Elements were not then carried to the absent which Monsieur de Meaux * In the example of S. Justinus the two Species 't is true were carried p. 112. owns were though it is plainly said they carried the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same things that were blessed and that those who were present did partake of yet it is not said that they † Non dicit ta conjunctìm vel alternatìm ad absentes perserunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed tantummodò ad absentes perserunt Ib. p. 214. carried both together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He might as well have pretended that though they carried yet they carried nothing at all And they that make such answers to such plain places had I am sure better say nothing at all Next to Justin Martyr St. Cyril of Hierusalem gives us the fullest account of the manner of Celebrating the blessed Eucharist in his Mystagogic Catechisms they are called wherein having discoursed of all the Christian Mysteries to those who were newly Baptized and so fit and capable to be instructed in them he comes at last to the highest Christian Mystery that of the Lord's Supper and in his fifth Catechism largely describes the performance of it with a great many more particular Ceremonies and Forms of Prayer then were used before And having told his young Christians in the foregoing Homily † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Catech. Mystag 4. That in the Species of Bread is given the Body of Christ and in the Species of Wine his Blood that so by partaking of the Body and Bloud of Christ he may become one body and one bloud with him he bids him come with firm Faith and great Devotion and tells him how he should receive the Holy Bread very particularly and directs him to the very posture of his Hands and Fingers and afterwards he as particularly orders him how and in what manner he should come to receive the Cup ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. Catech. 5. of the Lord's Blood not stretching out his hands but bending and in the posture of worship and adoration and whilst the moisture is upon his lips * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. he bids him take it with his finger and touch his eyes and forehead and other parts and so sanctifie them However superstitious that was for I cannot but think this use of the Sacrament to be so as well as many others that were yet very ancient it is plain that the newly baptized Christians did then receive the Eucharist in both kinds and were commanded † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. to come to receive the Cup and to drink of the Wine as well as to partake of the Bread. To St. Cyril who lived towards the latter end of the fourth Century I shall joyn the Apostolic Constitutions as they are called which I suppose not to be ancienter and in these in one place ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constit Apostol l. 2. c. 57. The Sacrifice or Eucharist is ordered to be celebrated the People standing and praying silently and after the oblation every order to wit of young and aged of men and women into which they were ranged before at their Religious Assemblies as appears in that Chapter severally and by themselves take the body and blood of Christ and when the women do it in their order they are to have their heads covered * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. So that 't is plain all orders both of Men and Women were to receive both the Body and Blood In another place † L. 8. c. 13. where is a more perfect account of the Eucharistic solemnity and of the Prayers and Ceremonies used in it at the latter end he describes the order in which they Communicated first the Bishops then the Presbyters and Deacons and other Inferior Orders then the Religious Women the Deaconesses the Virgins the Widdows and their Children and after that

the whole People with great Reverence and without any tumult or noise The Bishop gives the Bread saying The Body of Christ and he that receives it sayes Amen The Deacon gives the Cup and says The Blood of Christ the Cup of Life and he that drinks it says Amen And when they have all Communicated both men and women the Deacons take the remainders and carry them into the Pastophory or Vestry St. Dennis the Areopagite I put after all these because I doubt not but that the Book under his name was later than any of them there is this passage of Celebrating the Eucharist in those Books of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy the Priest praying that all who partake of the Sacrament may do it worthily The Bread which was covered and whole he uncovers and divides into many parts and the one Cup he divides to all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dyonys Eccles Hierar c. 3. p. 103. and afterwards he speaks particularly of the Priests first taking himself that which he gave to others * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and mentions nothing else taken by him then what the others do partake of I shall to these add the famous Ordo Romanus which de Meaux calls the antient Ceremonial of the Roman Church neither the time nor the Author of it is certainly known it concerns not me to inquire whether it belong to the Eighth or the Eleventh Age which is upon other accounts a dispute between the Reformed and Roman Divines I suppose it to be made at several times and to have had several Additions made to it by several Popes one after another for all Missals and Eucharistic formes were at first very short and afterwards increased by further compositions Pope Gregory who had the greatest hand in it speaks of one Scholasticus who composed the Prayer to be said over the Oblation † Vt precem quam Scholasticus composuerat super oblationem diceremus Greg. l. 7. ep 64. before him who that Scholasticus was Strabo and Berno and the other Writers upon the Ordo Romanus have owned themselves ignorant and other Learned men have anxiously enquired the Learned Colomesius thinks it as clear as the light that this was Pope Gelasius ‖ Ex quo meridianâ luce clariùs patet quis fuerit Scholasticus ille Gregorio M. l. 7. ep 64. laudatus Colomesius in Paralipom ad Chartophyl Eccles verb. Gelasius But whoever were the Authors of it and whensoever it was composed as we now have it it is sufficient to my purpose that the Communion is there distributed in both kinds and the manner of it is thus prescribed * Deinde venit Archidiaconus cum calice ad cornu altaris refuso parum in calicem de scypho inter manus acolyti accedunt primùm Episcopi ad sedem ut commmunicent de manu Pontificis secundum ordinem sed Presbyteri omnes ascendunt ut communicent ad altare Episcopus autem primus accipit calicem de manu Archidiaconi stat in cornu altaris ut confirmet sequentes ordines Deinde Archidiacono accepto de manu illis ealice refundit in scypho tradit calicem subdiacano regionario qui tradit ei pugillarem cum quo comfirmet populum Quos dum confirmaverit Postea Episcopi communicant populum post eos Diaconi confirmant Presbyteri jussu Pontificis communicant populum ipsi vicissim comfirmant nam mox ut Pontifex caeperit communicare populum psallunt usque dum communicato omni populo etiam in parte mulierum Ordo Romanus p. 6. Edit Hittorp Paris Then cometh the Arch-deacon with the Cup at the side of the Altar and pouring a little into the Chalice out of the Flaggon in the hands of the Acolyte the Bishops first come to their Seat that they may Communicate from the hand of the Pope according to their order and the Presbyters also ascend to the Altar that they may Communicate the Bishop first takes the Cup from the hand of the Arch-deacon and stands at the side of the Altar that he may confirm the following orders then the Arch-deacon taking the Chalice from his hand pours it again into the Flaggon and gives the Cup to the regionary Sub-deacon who gives him a hollow Pipe with which he may confirm the people Whom when he hath confirmed afterwards the Bishops communicate the people and after them the Deacons confirm them the Priests by the command of the Pope communicate the people and they also confirm them for as soon as the Pope begins to communicate the people the Antiphone begins and they sing till all the people have communicated even on the womens side However Rome has thought fit of late to depart from their own Ordo Romanus yet there is a very remarkable story of one of their own Popes Pope Martin the Fifth who after the Council of Constance did in a solemn Office at Easter Communicate the people in both kinds according to the Roman Order which was not so alter'd and changed at that time as it was afterwards Cassander in his Consultatio † Martinus Sanctus etiam post tempora Constantiensis synodi in solenni Paschae officio juxta praescriptum ordinis Romani universum populum corpore sanguine D ● communicasse legitur Consult de Com. subutr and Lindanus in his Panoplia ‖ Martinus ipse P R 5. utramque legitur Romae administrasse speciem quod non de Diacono Pontificis Administro accipiendum est sed ut populo Lindan Panoplia l. 4. c. 56. are both positive Witnesses for this matter of Fact which is not onely considerable in it self but a clear Argument of the late change and alteration both of the old Roman Practice and the old Roman Order 2. The most ancient Lyturgies that are described and Celebrate the Communion in both kinds So That * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the name of St. Peter represents all the people as partaking of the divine pure heavenly quickning tremendous Mysteries and this Prayer or Thanksgiving is used for them all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Petr in Biblioth Patr. Blessed be God who has vouchsafed us to partake of his immaculate Body and his most precious Bloud That under the name of St. James after the Prayer of the Priest that the holy Spirit coming and sanctifying the Elements would make them become the Body and Blood of Christ that they may be effectual to all that receive them for remission of Sins † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lytur Jacob. Ib. which word all supposes more than the Priest who Consecrates represents the Deacons after the communion of the Clergy as taking up both the Patens and the Chalices to give to the people ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and after they had received of both the Deacons and the People both give thanks to Christ because he has vouchsafed them to partake of his Body and of

sanguis sanctas tuus in remissionem peccatorum hìc in aeternùm Missale Gothico-Gallicanum apud Mabillon de Lyturg. Gallic p. 300. Deliver us from evil O Lord Jesus Christ we have eaten thy Body crucified for us we have drunk thy holy Blood which was shed for us Let thy sacred Body be unto us for Salvation and thy sacred Blood for the remission of Sins here and for ever And in the Missa Dominicalis after the Communion there is this Prayer Thy body O Lord which we have taken and thy Cup which we have drunk let it stick in our entrails ‖ Corpus tuum Domine quod accepimus calicem tuum quem potavimus haereat visceribus nostris Ib. p. 297. An expression used now in the Canon Missae In the Missale Francorum which is but short the Sacramenta and Mysteria and Sacrosancta Mysteria are used in the plural which may denote the two parts of the Sacrament but in the old Gallican Missal it is as plain as can be in the Collect after the Eucharist We have taken from the holy Altars the body and blood of Christ our Lord and our God Let us pray that we being always filled with Faith may hunger and thirst after Righteousness * Sumsimus ex sacris altaribus Christi Domini Dei nostri corpus sanguinem oremus ut semper nobis fide plenis esurire detur ac sitire justitiam Ib. p. 331. And in another Collect after the Communion upon Easter day We beseech thee O Lord that this wholsome food and sacred drink may bring up thy Servants † Quaesumus Domine famulos tuos salutaris cibus sacer potus instituat Ib. p. 366. There are several old Missals produced by Menardus at the end of his Notes on Gregory's Sacramentary which are supposed to be written about the Tenth and the Eleventh Century and though the Doctrine of Transubstantiation creeping in in those dark and ignorant times made them begin to have a superstitious fear of spilling the Wine and so brought them in order to prevent that to mix the two Elements together yet they never gave the one without the other as appears in all those Masses The Sacramentary of St. Gregory is alone a sufficient Authority for Communion in both kinds in which the Priest who Celebrates prays that as many as shall take the sacred Body and Blood of thy Son may be filled with all heavenly blessings ‖ Quotquot ex hâc altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti repleamur Gregor Sacram. and we who take the Communion of this holy Bread and Cup are made one body of Christ * Ipsi qui sumimus Communionem hujus sancti panis calicis unum Christi corpus efficimur Ib. So that the Body and Blood of Christ were plainly to be taken by more than himself and were so by all the Faithful who were thereby to be made the Body of Christ so we are fed with his flesh we are strengthned by his bloud † Cujus cane pascimur reboramur sanguine Ib. Thou hast refreshed us with the body and bloud of thy Son ‖ Corpore sanguine fi ii tui nos resecisti Ib. and we beseech thee that we may be numbred amongst his members whose body and bloud we do Communicate * Quaesumus ut inter ejus membra numeremur cujus corpori communicamus sanguini Ib. I have before considered the Ordo Romanus as an ancient Ritual of the Latine Church and both that and the Sacramentary of St. Gregory which are the most ancient Writings at least next to Gelasius that give us an account of these things in the Roman Church do bear witness to the custom of giving the Cup in the Communion as well as the Bread which Cassander also observes † Quem morem sanguinis Domini porrigendi antiqua Sacramentaria B. Gregorii libellus Ordinis Romani apertè testantur Cassand Consult de commun sub utrâque who had as great skill as any man in these matters but yet had not seen the Gelasian Sacramentary since published out of the Queen of Sweden's Library which is a further confirmation of this 3. As to the Testimony of the Fathers or ancient Writers some of those have been already given upon the two former heads I shall add several others to them who bear witness to the Communion in both kinds Ignatius in one of his Epistles says One Bread is broken to all one Cup is distributed to all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph And here I cannot but admire the Confidence and Folly of Monsieur Boileau * De solitario pane mentionem facit Ignatius Boileau de praecept Divin Commun sub utrâque p. 216. who brings this very passage One Bread is broken for them all as a proof that it was onely the Bread that was given and leaves out what is immediately added One Cup is distributed to all which not onely confutes but shames him † Quomodo dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire non percipere vitam quae à corpore Domini sanguine alitur Iren. l. 4. c. 34. Irenaeus says The flesh is fed by the body and bloud of Christ and that of the Cup and the Bread the substance of our flesh is increased and consists ‖ Quando ergo mixtus calix fractus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christ ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vitae aeterna quae sanguine corpore Christi nutritur membrum ejus Id. l. 5. c. 2. And from hence he there proves the Resurrection of the Body against those Hereticks that denied it because the body is nourished by the bloud and body of Christ and is made a member of him He must mean this of the Bodies of all Christians unless the Resurrection of the Body belong onely to the Priests as well as the Cup. Tertullian upon the Resurrection says the same with Irenaeus Our flesh is fed with the body and bloud of Christ * Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur Tertul. de Resur carnis And in his Book to his Wife he speaks of her taking the Cup in two several places † De cujus manu desiderabit dè cujus poculo participabit Id. ad uxor l. 2. c. 6. De cibo de poculo invadere desiderare in mente habere Id. c. 4. Upon one of which a very learned Critic of the Roman Church who owns those places to belong to the Communion has made this observation to our hands At that time the Supper of the Lord was Celebrated in both Species ‖ Sub utrâque specie illo tempore canvivium Domini celebratur quod tantâ aviditate arripiebatur

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little of the Sacrament which is the thing he is said to send signifie onely Bread or the solid part or does it not rather signifie a little of both the Species which make the Sacrament as it plainly does in Justin Martyr who speaking of that Sacramental Food under both kinds says this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called by us the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‖ Apolog. 2. And why might not he give him a little Wine as well as a little Bread and why may we not suppose that the liquour he was to moisten the Bread in was the Wine And not as Valesius without any grounds puts in his Translation Water I believe it is a thing strange and unheard of in Antiquity to mix the Eucharistic Bread with meer Water and so take it infused in Water without any Wine Monsieur de Meaux who says the Custom of mixing the two species together was not in use till after-Ages not in public I own but in private it might will be more hard put to it to shew the custom of mixing the Species of Bread with Water and this was so mixt with some liquor that it was rather fluid than solid and so was said to be infused or poured into his mouth * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. That the Wine was used to be carried to the sick as well as the Bread is plain from Justin Martyr if those who were absent from the Public Communion were as it is probable the sick for to them the Deacons carried the very same that they gave to those that were present without any manner of difference † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. as is plain from that fore-quoted place in his second Apology And St. Hierom relates of Exuperius Bisnop of Tholouse that he carried the Body of our Lord in a Basket and the Bloud in a Vessel of Glass ‖ Qui corpus Domini canistre vimineo sanguinem portat in vitro Ep. ad Rustic Monach. after he had sold the rich Utensils and Plate of the Church to relieve the Poor and redeem Captives And the Council of Tours thought the Wine so necessary as well as the Bread that it commands that the Bread be always dipped in the Cup that so the Priest may truly say the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ avail unto thee for the remission of Sins and to eternal Life This Cassander * Ego sane demonstare possum etiam infirmis plenum corporis sanguinis Sacramentum dispensatum certè in promtu est Capitulum Turonensis Concilii quod ab Ivone Reginone Burchardo anducitur quo jubetur ut Eucharistia quae in viaticum è vitâ excedentium reservatur intincta sit in Calicem D ● ut Presbyter veraciter possit dicere Corpus sanguis D ni nostri Jesu Christi prosit tibi in vitam aeternam Cassand Dialog apud Calixt p. 5. produces as a demonstration that the Communion of the Sick used to be in both kinds and the reason which is there given for this is so considerable that it plainly shews that both Species were necessary to make it a true Sacrament and that neither the Body and Bloud of Christ nor the vertue and benefit of them could be given without both and this forces de Meaux to confess † p. 52. after all his shifts and artifices that in effect it is true that in some sense to be able to call it the Body and the Bloud the two Species must be given And further from hence also the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation and Concomitancy grounded upon it whereby they suppose the Body and Bloud of Christ to be in either of the Species is wholly overthrown and destroyed but this by the by as to Serapion it is strange that the Priest should not rather have sent him the Wine alone if he had intended him but one Species that being more fit to be received and more proper to enter the parcht throat of an agonizing man as de Meaux speaks then the Bread however moistened and therefore it was provided both by the Cannons of some Councils ‖ Concil Carthag 4. Toled 11. and the Decrees of some Popes * Paschal 2. Vrban 2. that in cases of extraordinary necessity which dispence with positive Precepts the sick and dying who could not swallow the Bread might Communicate onely with the Wine but to give them onely Bread as de Meaux would have it in both his Instances of Serapion and St. Ambrose who were both a dying and not to give them the more proper Species of Wine was very strange if they had designed them but one onely Species without the other But I pass to consider St. Ambrose by it self Paulinus who wrote his Life relates this of his Death That Honoratus Bishop of Verceills being to visit him in the night whilst he was at his repose he heard this Voice three times Rise stay not he is a dying He went down and gave him the Body of our Lord and the Saint had no sooner received it but he gave up the Ghost So that it seems he died and received only one kind but who can help that if he did if he died before he could receive the other as it is probable from the History he did If the Roman Priests did like Honoratus give onely the Bread to those who when they have received it die before they can take the Cup this would be a very justifiable excuse and needs no great Authority to defend it but if they will undertake to prove that St. Ambrose had time enough to have received the Cup as well as the Bread before he died which they must meerly by supposing some thing more than is in the History then by the very same way I will prove that he did receive the Cup and that that by a Syneckdoche is to be understood as well as the Bread by the Body of Christ which he is there said to receive And I am sure I have a better argument for this than they can have against it or than these two Instances of Serapion and St. Ambrose are for the custom of Communicating the Sick in one kind and that is a full proof of a contrary custom for their Communicating in both I confess I cannot produce any very ancient testimonies for this because in the first Ages the faithful who used to receive the Communion very frequently in public it being in its self and its own nature a true part of public Worship did seldom or never take it upon their Death beds in private † Vide Dallaeum de Cult l. 4. c. 3. and therefore they who give us an account of the death of several very pious and devout Christians as Athanasius of St. Antony Gregory Nazianzen of Athanasius of his own Father and of his Sister Gorgonia yet they never mention any thing of their receiving the Sacrament at their deaths no more

does Eusebius ‖ De vitâ Constant l. 3. c. 46. in his History of the Death of Helena the most zealous Mother of Constantine but so soon as Christians came to receive the Sacrament as the most comfortable Viaticum at their deaths which was not till after-Ages then by whatever instances it appears that they received it at all it appears also that they received it in both kinds and it is plain that among the numerous examples of this nature which are to be found in Bede and Surius and the Writers of the Saints Lives there is not one to be produced to the contrary else no doubt the learned Bishop of Meaux who picks up every thing that seems to make for his purpose and who was fain to content himself with those two insignificant ones of Serapion and St. Ambrose would not have omitted them I shall mention some few in opposition to those two of his of those who according to St. Austine's advice * Quoties aliqua infirmitas supervenerit Corpus sanguinem Christi ille qui aegrotat accipiat Sermo 215 de Tempore When they were sick did partake both of the Body and of the Bloud of Christ contrary to what they would have Paulinus report of St. Ambrose to St. Austine himself that he did onely receive the Body And the first shall be that of Valentinus of Pavia in the fifth Century † Ante obitum propriis manibus accepit corporis sanginis Domini Sacramentum Surius August 4. who before his death took with his own hands the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. The second that of Elpidius as it is in the next Century reported by Gregory the Great ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregorii Dialog 616. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That calling his Brethren and standing in the midst of them he took the Body and the Blood of the Lord and continuing in prayer gave up the Ghost And he mentions this no less then of three others in the same Dialogues and in his Office for Visiting the Infirm after Prayers and other things then says he * Deinde communicet eum corpore sanguine Domini Gregor Sacram Visit infirm Let the Priest Communicate him with the Body and Bloud of Christ. In the same Age the Writer of St. Vedastus his Life says † Sacrosancto Corporis sanguinis Domini Viatico confirmatus obiit Alcuin in vit Vedast He died being confirmed with the most sacred Viaticum of the Body and Blood of Christ. And the same also of Richarius very near in the same words Isidore the famous Bishop of Sevil Received with a profound sigh the Body and Bloud of the Lord and died presently after ‖ Corpus sanguinem Domini cum prosundo gemitu suscepit Redemptus de obit Isidor And to go down no lower than the next Age Bede then reports of Ceadda a British Bishop That he fortified his departure with the perception of the Body and Bloud of our Lord seven days before * Obitum suum Dominici Corporis sanguinis perceptione septimo ante mortem die munivit Bed. Hist Angl. l. 4. And the same of St. Cuthbert Who received from him the most wholsome Sacraments of Christ's Body and Bloud † Acceptis à me Sacramentis salutaribus Dominici Corporis Sanguinis Id. in vit Cuthberti And thus did that glorious Prince Charles the Great make his pious exit Commanding his most familiar Priest Hiltibald to come unto him and give him the Sacraments of the Lord's Body and Bloud ‖ Jussit familiarissimum Pontisicem suum Hiltibaldum venire ad se ut ei Sacramenta Dominici Corporis Sanguinis tribueret Eginhard vit Caroli Mag. And the same universal Custom and Practice I might bring down to all those other Ages that succeed till a new Doctrine of the Sacrament brought in a new Practice by degrees but I cannot omit one in the Eleventh Age though it has a Legendary Miracle joyned with it 't is an account Damianus * Presbyterum quendam Cumanae Ecclesie Eucharistium detulisse aegroto illum mox cum in Ecclesiam rediens aliquantulum Dominici sanguinis comperisset remansisse in calice Peri Damian Opusc gives of a Priest Who had carried the Eucharist to a sick person and by negligence brought back and left in the Cup a little of the Bloud of the Lord So that it is plain nowithstanding the fear either of keeping or spilling they carried the Wine with them to the sick as well as the Bread and Communicated them with both And now if we adde to these the Decree of Pope Paschal the Second forbidding to mix the Sacramental Elements but to give them seperately and distinctly unless to young Children and to the Sick which exception makes it unquestionable that both were then given to the Sick and the fore-mentioned Canon of the Council of Tours which is in Burchard Ivo and Regino commanding the Bread to be dipt in the Wine that the Priest may truely say to the sick The Body and Bloud of Christ be profitable to thee these being all laid together make it clear beyond all contradiction that the Communion of the Sick was not as de Meaux pretends in one kind but in both and as a parting blow upon this point I shall onely offer that observation of their own learned Menardus † Cum communicat infirmus quem vis morbi non ad tantam virium imbecillitatem adduxit dicitur utrâque formâ Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat te in vitam aeternam sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi redimat te in vitam aeternam quae distinctam sumptionem indicant at dum communicat infirmus qui ingravari caeperit unica tantum formula recitatur in hunc modum Corpus Sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam Menard notae in Greg. Sacram. p. 379 380. from an ancient Mass in his Notes upon the Sacramentary of St. Gregory that in case the sick person was in a condition to receive the Elements separately then this form was used The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep thee to eternal Life The Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thee to eternal Life which says he shews a distinct Sumption If he was in such weakness and extremity as to have them given mixt then it was said The Body and Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul to Eternal Life which as well shews a Sumption of both the Elements though in a different manner according to the different state of the sick person Communion of Infants The Communion of Infants is the next custom alledged by this Author it was a very ancient and almost universal practice of the Church to give the Eucharist to little Children as soon as they were Baptized thinking it to be as necessary to their Salvation as Baptism and that they were as

as truely the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament though they used not those words of Consecration which the Latines now do and the Latines had them both as truly in the Missa Parascues in which as Strabo says they used the old simple manner of Communion as much as on any other days De Meaux must either deny that Consecration of the Elements may be truly performed by that simple and ancient way which will be to deny the Apostolic and first Ages to have had any true Consecration or else he must own this to be a true one The Roman Order says not onely the Wine is Consecrated which it does in more places then one but that it is fully and wholly Consecrated so that the people may be confirmed by it ‖ Vt ex eadem sacro vase confirmetur populus quia vinum etiam non consecratum sed sanguine Domini commixtum sanctificatur per omnem modum Ord. Rom. a phrase often used in Ecclesiastical Writers for partaking of the Cup and entire Sacrament Amalarius thinks this to be so true a Consecration that he says * Qui juxta ordinem libelli per commixtionem panis vini consecrat vinum non observat traditionem Ecclesiae de quâ dicit Innocentius isto biduo Sacramenta penitùs non celebrari Amalar. Fortunat. de Eccles Offic. l. 1. c. 15. Edit Hittorp He who according to the order of that Book Consecrates the Wine by the commixtion of the Bread and Wine does not observe the Tradition of the Church of which Innocent speaks that on these two days Friday and Saturday before Easter no Sacraments at all should be Celebrated So that he complains of it because such a Consecration is used on that day The Author of the Book of Divine Offices under the name of Alcuinus † De hâc autem Communicatione utrum debeat fieri suprà relatum est Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem Alcuini lib. de Off. div p. 253. Ib. makes a question whether there ought to be such a Communion but says expresly that the Vnconsecrated Wine is sanctified by the sanctified Bread. Micrologus says the same in the place produced before that it is Consecrated by Prayer as well as mixture with the Body and he gives this as a reason against Intinction in that Chapter ‖ C. 19. In parascene vinum non consecratum cum Doninicâ oratione Dominici corporis immissione jubet consecrare ut populus plenè possit communicare quod utique superfluo praeciperet si intinctum Dominicum à priore die corpus servaretur ita intinctum populo ad Communicandum sufficere videretur that the Wine is Consecrated on that day so that the people might fully Communicate to shew that it would not have been sufficient as he thinks to have had the Bread dipt in the Wine the day before and so kept and I suppose he was of de Meaux's mind that the Wine was not so fit to be kept for fear of that change which might happen to it even from one day to the next but he is so far from Communion in one kind that in that very Chapter against Intinction he mentions Pope Julius his Decree * Julius Papa bujusmodi intinctionem penitus prohibet seorsùm panem seorsùm calicem juxta Dominicam institutionem sumenda docet which forbids that and commands the Bread to be given by it self and the Wine by it self according to Christ's Institution and likewise the Decree of Gelasius † Vnde beatus Gelasius excommunicari illos praecepit quicunque sumpto corpore Dominico à calicis participatione se abstinerent nam ipse in eodem decreto asserit bujusmodi Sacramentorum divisio sine grandi sacrilegio provenire non potest Ib. Microlog in these words He commanded those to be Excommunicated who taking the Lord's Body abstained from the participation of the Cup And he asserts says he in the same Decree that this division of the Sacraments could not be without great Sacriledge So that this man could not be a favourer of Communion in one kind or an asserter that the Good Friday Communion was such When ever this Communion came into the Latine Church for it was not ancient to have any Communion on those two days on which Christ died and was buried yet it will by no means serve the purpose of de Meaux for Communion in the Church in one kind for it is plain this Communion was in both and it was the belief of the Church and of all those who writ upon the Roman Order except Hugo de St. Victore who is very late and no older than the twelfth Century when Corruptions were come to a great height that the Communion on that day was full and entire as well with the Bread which was reserved the day before as with the Wine which was truly Consecrated on that and held to be so by the opinion of them all Of the Office of the Presanctified in the Greek Church The Lyturgy of the Presanctified in the Greek Church will afford as little assistance if not much less to de Meaux's Opinion of Public Communion in one kind then the Missa Parasceues we see has done in the Latine the Greeks do not think fit solemnly to Consecrate the Eucharist which is a Religious Feast of Joy upon those days which they appoint to Fasting Mortification and Sadness and therefore during the whole time of Lent they Consecrate onely upon Saturdays and Sundays on which they do not fast and all the other five days of the Week they receive the Communion in those Elements which are Consecrated upon those two days which they therefore call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presanctified The antiquity of this observation cannot be contested as de Meaux says seeing it appears not in the sixth Age as he would have it but in the seventh whereas the beginning of the Latin Office on Good-Friday is very uncertain and there is no evidence for it till towards the ninth Century In a Council held under Justinian in the Hall of the Imperial Palace at Constantinople called therefore in Trullo An. 686 there is a Canon which commands that on all days of Lent except Saturday and Sunday and the day of the Annunciation the Communion be made of the Presanctified there was long before a Canon in the Council of Laodicea which forbad any Oblation to be made in Lent but upon those days viz. The Sabbath and the Lord's Day but that says nothing of the Presanctified nor of any Communion on the other days but let it be as ancient as they please although it be a peculiar Office which is neither in the Lyturgy of St. Basil or St. Chrysostom but is to be found by it self in the Bibliotheca Patrum where it is translated by Genebrardus it is most abominably false that it was onely the Bread which

they reserved or which they distributed in those days to the People for they pour some of the consecrated Wine upon the consecrated Bread which they reserve on those days and make the form of the Cross with it upon the Bread as appears from the Rubric in the Greek Euchologion ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Eucholog And whatever any private men may pretend to the contrary as Michael Cerularius or Leo Allatius a Latinized Greek this can with no manner of reason prejudice or confront the public Ritual of a Church which as it in no instance practices Communion in one kind but to prevent that uses often the mixture of the two Species where never so little of each is sufficient to justifie the use of both so by this custom of dropping some of the consecrated Wine upon the reserved Bread it shews both its judgement and its care never to have the Communion wholly in one kind But to take off this custom of theirs of dropping some Wine upon the Bread which they reserved for this Communion de Meaux says That immediately after they have dropped it they dry the Bread upon a Chafendish and reduce it to Powder and in that manner keep it as well for the Sick as for the Office of the Presanctified So that no part of the fluid Wine can remain in the Bread thus dryed and powdered however this is for I must take it upon de Meaux's credit finding nothing like it in this Office of the Greeks yet to a man that believes Transubstantiation and thinks the most minute particle of the Species of Wine or Bread contains in a miraculous manner the whole substance of Christ's Body and Blood this difficulty methinks might in some measure be salved however small parts of the Wine may be supposed to remain in the crums of Bread and as the Greeks when they mix the Wine and the Bread together for the Sick and Infants yet believe that they give both the Species however small the margaritae or crums be which are in the Wine so they do the same as to the presanctified Bread however few unexhaled particles of Wine remain in it But Monsieur de Meaux knows very well and acknowledges that the Greeks do further provide against a meer dry Communion in this Office by mixing this sacred Bread with more Wine and Water at the time of the Communion and then as I proved in the case of the Latine Office on Good Friday that the unconsecrated Wine was consecrated by this mixture and by the Prayers and Thanksgivings that were used at that Solemnity so by this way as well as by the first mixture of some drops of Wine with the Bread the Communion in both kinds will be secured in the Greek Church in their Office of the Presanctified and to put it out of all doubt that this is such a Communion let us but look into their Office and we shall find there it plainly is so Behold say the Faithful in their Prayer before the Communion the immaculate Body and the quickning Bloud of Christ are here to be set before us on this mystical Table * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Priest in his low Prayer Begs of Christ that he would vouchsafe to communicate to them his immaculate Body and sacred Bloud and by them to the whole People † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. Then after he has Communicated He returns God thanks for the Communion of the holy Body and Bloud of Christ. So that it is most remarkable as de Meaux says that the Greeks change nothing in this Office from their ordinary Formularies the sacred Gifts are always named in the plural and they speak no less there in their Prayers of the Body and the Blood Is it to be imagined they could do this if they received not any thing upon these days but the Body of our Lord would they not then as the Church of Rome has done change in this Office from their ordinary Formularies but so stedfastly is it says he imprinted in the minds of Christians that they cannot receive one of the Species without receiving at the same time not onely the vertue but also the substance of one and the other So firmly is it imprinted upon the minds of those Christians that they ought not to receive one Species alone without the other contrary to the plain Institution of Christ that they take all care not to do it either in this or any other Office least they should loose the whole vertue and substance and benefit of them If in spite of the opinions of the Greeks themselves which de Meaux owns are of another mind and in spight of their publie Rubric their Rituals and Missals they must be understood to celebrate the Communion in their Churches in one kind then so far as I know de Meaux may as confidently impose upon us and all the World and bear us down by dint of Impudence that both the Greek Church and all the Christian Churches that ever were in the World had always the Public Communion in one kind notwithstanding all their Offices and all their Lyturgies speak to the contrary And now having so fully shewen the universal consent and constant and perpetual Practice of the Church for Communion in both kinds and having answered all the Instances by which de Meaux vainly endeavours to overthrow that I have I hope in some measure performed what was the subject of de Meaux's Prayer at the beginning of his Treatise That not onely Antiquity may be illustrated but that Truth also may become manifest and triumphant † P. 9. And I have hereby wholly taken away the main strength and the very foundation of his Book for that lies in those several customs and pretended matters of fact which he brings to justifie the Churches practice for single Communion and if these be all false and mistaken as upon examination they appear to be then his principles upon which he founds this wrong practice if they are not false and erronious yet they are useless and insignificant for they do not prove but onely suppose the Churches practice and if the practice be not true as it is plain it is not then what signifie those principles which are wholly grounded upon a wrong supposal and are onely designed to make out that which never was Those principles are like framing an Hypothesis to give an account of the reason of some strange and extraordinary thing which thing upon enquiry proves false and mistaken and so they are but like the Virtuoso's solution of a Phoenominon which nothwithstanding all his Philosophic fancy and fine Hypothesis never was in Nature Monsieur de Meaux must better prove to us the Practice of the Church for Communion in one kind then he has yet done before he establishes such Principles by which such a Practise may be made out for whatever the Principles be as long as the Practice is false the Principles will not

which he was to be delivered it was at this time he would leave us his Body given for us Does the time or the hour then belong to the Institution does this appertain to the essence of it and is it not as plainly and evidently a circumstance as night or noon is a circumstance to eating and drinking Does the command of Christ Do this belong to that or to the other circumstances of doing it when the same thing the same Sacramental action may be done without them is not this a plain rule to make a distinction between the act it self and the circumstances of performing it Because there were a great many things done by Jesus Christ in this Mystery which we do not believe our selves obliged to do such as being in an upper Room lying upon a Bed and the like which are not properly things done by Christ so much as circumstances of doing it for the thing done was taking Bread and Wine and blessing and distributing them does therefore Christ's command Do this belong no more to eating and drinking than it does to those other things or rather circumstances with which he performed those is drinking as much a circumstance as doing it after supper if it be earing may be so too Monsieur de Meaux is ashamed to say this but yet 't is what he aims at for else the Cup will necessarily appear to belong to the Sacrament as an essential and consequently an indispensible part of it and this may be plainly known to be so from the words of Christ and from Scripture without the help of Tradition though that also as I have shewn does fully agree with those but they are so plain as not to need it in this case Eating and drinking are so plainly the essential part of the Sacrament and so clearly distinguisht from the other circumstances in Scripture that St. Paul always speaks of those without any regard to the other The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ the Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ * 1 Cor. 10.16 For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come † 1 Cor. 11.26,27,28,29 Whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup for he that eateth and drinketh So that he must be wilfully blind who cannot see from Scripture what is essential to this Sacrament from what is not But Monsieur de Meaux thinks to find more advantage in the other Sacrament of Baptism and therefore he chiefly insists upon that under this head and his design is to make out that immersion or plunging under Water is meant and signified by the word Baptize in which he tells us the whole World agree ‖ P. 168. and that this is the onely manner of Baptizing we read of in the Scriptures and that he can shew by the Acts of Councils and by ancient Rituals that for thirteen hundred years the whole Church Baptized after this manner as much as it was possible * P. 171. If it be so than it seems there is not only Scripture but Tradition for it which is the great principle he takes so much pains to establish And what then shall we have to say to the Anabaptists to whom de Meaux seems to have given up that cause that he may defend 〈◊〉 other of Communion in one kind for his aim in all this is to make immersion as essential to Baptism as eating and drinking to the Lord's Supper and if Scripture and Tradition be both so fully for it I know not what can be against it but de Meaux knows some Gentlemen who answer things as best pleases them P. 299. the present difficulty transports them and being pressed by the objection they say at that moment what seems most to disentangle them from it without much reflecting whether it agree I do not say with truth but with their own thoughts The Institution of the Eucharist in Bread and Wine and the command to do this which belonged to both eating and drinking lay very heavy upon him and to ease himself of those which he could not do if it were always necessary to observe what Christ instituted and commanded he was willing to make Baptism by dipping to be as much commanded and instituted as this though it be not now observed as necessary either by those of the Church of Rome or the Reformed and besides his arguments to prove that from Scripture he makes an universal Tradition of the Church which he pretends all along in his Book is against Communion in both kinds and which is the great thing he goes upon yet to be for this sort of Baptism no less than 1300 years So that neither the law in Scripture nor Tradition as it explains that law is always it seems to be observed which is the thing ought openly to be said for Communion in one kind The Cause it self demands this and we must not expect that an errour can be defended after a consequent manner ‖ Ib. But is Scripture and Tradition both for Baptism by immersion Surely not the word Baptize in which the command is given signifies only to wash in general and not to plung all over as I have already shewn in this Treatise † P. 21. and as all Writers against the Anabaptists do sufficiently make out to whom I shall refer the Reader for further satisfaction in that Controversie which it is not my business to consider at present and so much is de Meaux out about Tradition being so wholly and universally for Baptism by immersion that Tertullian plainly speaks of it by intinction ‖ Omne praeterea cunctationis tergiversationis erga p●…nitentiam viti●… praesum●… intiuctionis importat Tertul. de paenit Cap. 6. and by sprinkling * Quis enim tibi tam insidae paenitentiae viro aspergiuem unam cujuslibet aquae comm odabit Ib. reprehending those who presumed upon pardon to be obtained by Baptism without repentance and S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Magnus determines That the form of Baptism by aspersion is as good and valid as by immersion and confirms this by several examples and instances of the Jewish Purifications † Aspergam super vos aquam mundam Ezech. 36.25 non erit mundus quoniam aqua aspersionis non est super eum sparsa Num. 19.19 Aqua aspersionis purificatio est Num. 19.9 unde apparet aspersionem quoque aquae instar salutaris lavacri obtinere Cypr Ep. 96. Edit Oxon. which were onely by sprinkling It is not the manner of washing nor the quantity or the sort of Water but onely washing with Water which is essential to Baptism and unalterable and so it is not the sort of Bread or Wine or the manner of receiving them that

and pleasure for the receiving of it and that way and manner which he himself has appointed Others there are who though they defend the Communion in one kind yet speak very doubtingly about that question Whether more spiritual fruit or more grace be not received by both than by one Salmeron says It is a difficult question because we have nothing from the Ancients whereby we can decide it ‖ Dissicilis sane quaestio propterea quod ex antiquis quicquam vix habemus unde possimus eam decidere Salmer de Euch. no truly the question and the reason of it which is their practice is too late and novel to have any thing produced for it out of Antiquity So that those Doctors who speak of this matter have had various opinions about it * Vt propterea Doctores qui de hac reloqunti sunt in varias iverint sententias Ib. Some saw there was no reason for it and that it was perfectly precarious and ungrounded but others thought it necessary to defend their Communion in one kind Bellarmine himself owns that this is not so certain for divers have different sentiments concerning it neither does the Council openly define it † Haec propositio non est adeo certa de hâc enim variè sentiunt Theologi neque Concilium eam apertè definire videtur Bellar. de Euch. But de Meaux has done it very positively and definitively contrary to many learned men in his own Church and without any warrant from the Council of Trent or any other Secondly To make the whole Grace and Vertue and entire Fruit of the Sacrament to be given by one Species is to render the other wholly useless and superfluous as to the conveying any real vertue or benefit to him that receives it When the Priest has taken the Species of Bread and has by that fully received the whole Grace and entire Fruit of the Sacrament what can he further receive by the Cup and what benefit can he have by it De Meaux will by no means have the effect of the Body suspended till the Bloud is received ‖ P. 3. though Bellarmine is willing it should * De Euch. l. 4. c. 23. But if it be so to the Priests why may it not likewise to the people and if the Priests receive any benefit by the Cup which they would not have without it why may not the people also For they have not yet declared that I know of that the Priest is to receive more grace by the Sacrament than the people What a meer empty Cup must the Priest then receive void of all grace and vertue after he has taken the Species of Bread which has before given him the whole and entire fruit and grace of the Sacrament to which the Cup can add nothing at all It must be then as utterly fruitless to him as the Wine of ablution is to the Laiety and if it be so inconsiderable they need not methinks be so afraid of the Laymens spilling it or dipping their Beards and Whiskers in it but it is still the very natural and true Blood of Christ if it be so 't is strange that it should have no true and essential vertue belonging to it surely Christ's Bloud is never without that nor ought any to have so mean and low an opinion of it Why did Christ give the Cup to the Apostles as part of the Sacrament if they had received the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament before and if so soon as they had received his Body at the same instant they received the whole grace that accompanied that and his Blood too Christ if he did not suspend the effect of the Blood till it was taken must have prevented it and given it before it was Christ no doubt might have given the whole grace and effect of the Sacrament by one Species if he had pleased but if he had done that he would not have given the other nor should we have had two Species Instituted by him if he had restrained the effect of those two to one onely When Christ has appointed two and gave two himself for men to come and argue that one alone may give the whole good of both because the Grace of both is the same and inseparable from either and because Christ did not suspend the effect of one till he gave the other and that 't is impossible he should separate the effect of his Bloud from that of his Body this is to argue at all adventures against what is known from what is secret and uncertain against the plain will of Christ from his power and against what he has done from what he might do and is to set up a precarious and ungrounded Hypothesis of our own from the nature of the thing when the thing itself is purely arbitrary and positive and depends wholly upon Christ's will and pleasure If Christ himself has appointed two Species in the Sacrament to convey the whole and entire vertue of the Sacrament to worthy receivers as he seems plainly to have done by instituting both and giving both to his Apostles and commanding both how groundless and arrogant is it in any to say That one is sufficient to give this and that both are not necessary to this end without knowing any thing further of Christ's will about it and when they believe as de Meaux does † P. 130. That Jesus Christ has equally instituted both parts Yet notwithstanding to make one unnecessary to the giving any real vertue and benefit and to dare to affirm as de Meaux does ‖ P. 4. That the receiving the Blood is not necessary for the grace of the Sacrament or the ground of the Mystery Let me then ask what it is necessary for and why it was equally instituted with the other De Meaux gives not a plain answer to that but tells us That the Eucharist has another quality namely that of a Sacrifice * P. 179. and for this reason both Species are always consecrated that so they may be offered to God and a more lively representation may be made of Christ's death But this is no answer to the question for I do not ask why they are necessary as the Eucharist is a Sacrifice which it is not in a proper sence though it be not my business to shew that here but as it is a Sacrament Why did Christ institute both Species in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament and why did he give both Species to his Apostles He did not give these to them as a Sacrifice for as such if it were so it was to be onely offered up to God but he gave both the Species to his Disciples and why did he do this if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament was given by one and why does the Priest receive both as well as offer both to God He does not receive them as a Sacrifice but as a Sacrament And why is

all the wounds he received in his body the total effusion of his blood ‖ Ib. Why may we not then receive Christ's body as thus wounded and his bloud as thus poured out in this mystical Table and why must Concomitancy joyn those together which Consecration has thus separated and divided Christ's body and bloud we say ought to be thus mystically separated in the Sacramental reception of them and so ought to be taken separately and distinctly they own they ought to be thus mystically separated in the consecration though how that consists with Concomitancy is hard to understand but whatever they have to say against the separating them in the Reception may be as well said against their separating them in the Consecration P. 310. Is Christ then divided is his body then despoiled of bloud and blood actually separated from the body ought Christ to die often and often to shed his blood A thing unworthy the glorious state of his Resurrection where he ought to conserve eternally humane nature as entire as he had at first assumed it Why do they then make this separation of his body and bloud when they consecrate it if that be onely mystical and representative so is it in our reception much better for we do not pretend to receive Christ's natural body and bloud as they do to consecrate them but onely his mystical body and bloud which is always to conserve this figure of Death and the character of a Victim not onely when it is consecrated but when it is eaten and drunk which it cannot otherwise be 'T is this errour of receiving Christ's natural body in the Sacrament which has led men into all those dark Mazes and Labyrinths wherein they have bewildred and entangled themselves in this matter and so by applying all the properties of Christ's natural body to his mystical body in the Sacrament they have run themselves into endless difficulties and destroyed the very notion as well as the nature of the Sacrament The third Principle of Monsieur de Meaux is this That the Law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual practice But cannot then a Law of God be so plain and clear as to be very well known and understood by all those to whom it is given without being thus explained Surely so wise a Law-Giver as our blessed Saviour would not give a Law to all Christians that was not easie to be understood by them it cannot be said without great reflection upon his infinite Wisdom that his Laws are so obscure and dark as they are delivered by himself and as they are necessary to be observed by us that we cannot know the meaning of them without a further explication If constant and perpetual practice be necessary to explain the Law how could they know it or understand it to whom it was first given and who were first to observe it before there was any such practice to explain it by This practice must begin some where and the Law of Christ must be known to those who begun it antecedent to their own practice There may be great danger if we make Practice to be the Rule of the Law and not the Law the Rule of Practice and God's Laws may be very fairly explained away if they are lest wholly to the mercy of men to explain them For thus it was the Pharisees who were the great men of old for Tradition did thereby reject and lay aside the Commandment of God by making Tradition explain it contrary to its true sense and meaning This Principle therefore of Monsieur de Meaux's must not be admitted without some caution and though we are well assured of constant and perpetual practice for Communion in one kind yet the Law of Christ is so clear as not to need that to explain it and we may know what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of the Sacraments from the Law it self and from the divine Institution of them as I have all along shewn in this Treatise It would have been a great reflection upon the Church if its Practice had not agreed with the Law of Christ though so plain and express a Law ought neither to loose its force nor its meaning by any subsequent practice I have so great a regard and honour for the Catholic Church that I do not believe it can be guilty of any Practice so contrary to the Law of Christ as Communion in one kind and I have therefore fully shewn that its Practice has always agreed with this Law in opposition to de Meaux who falsely reproaches the Church with a practice contrary to it his design was to destroy the Law of Christ by the Practice of the Church mine is to defend the Practice of the Church as agreeable to and founded upon the Law of Christ but the Law of Christ ought to take place and is antecedent both to the Churches Practice and the Churches Authority As to Tradition which was the main thing which de Meaux appealed to I have joyned issue with him in that point and must leave it to those who are able to judge which of us have given in the better evidence and I do not doubt but we may venture the Cause upon the strength of that but there is another more considerable plea which is prior to Tradition and which as de Meaux owns † P. 201. Is the necessary ground work of it and that is Scripture or the Command and Institution of Christ contained in Scripture which is so plain and manifest that it may be very well understood by all without the help of Tradition I do not therefore make any manner of exceptions to Tradition in this case onely I would set it in its right place and not found the Law of Christ upon Tradition but Tradition upon the Law of Christ and I am willing to admit it as far as de Meaux pleases with this reasonable Proviso That it does not interprete us out of a plain Law nor make void any Command of God that may be known without it I have therefore prevented de Meaux in all he brings for Tradition and the Practice of the Church unless he will lay so great stress upon that as to make it null and supersede a divine Law nor am I at all concerned in all the instances he brings for it out of the Old and New Testament ‖ §. V. §. VI. unless he can bring one to prove that either the Jewish Synagogue or the Christian Church did ever make void a Divine Law by a contrary Practice and Tradition of their own I can never allow any Church to have a power and Authority to do this and I am willing to allow it all Authority that is kept within those bounds It was boldly and openly done indeed by the Council of Constance when it owned That Christ instituted the Sacrament and administred it to his Disciples under both kinds * Licet Christus post caenam instituerit

Licensed Aug. 3. 1686. A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind IN ANSWER TO A TREATISE OF THE BISHOP of MEAVX's OF Communion under both Species Lately Translated into English LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil MDCLXXXVII AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE of the Publisher THe Translatour of the Bishop of Meaux's Book of Communion under both Species having told us why he made choice of this Author whom he stiles The Treasury of Wisdom the Fountain of Eloquence the Oracle of his Age and in brief to speak all in a word the Great James formerly Bishop of Condom now of Meaux Having thus brought forth this great Champion of the Roman Church he makes a plain Challenge with him to us of the Church of England in these words If this Author write Reason he deserves to be believed if otherwise he deserves to be confuted By this I perceived he expected that we should be so civil as to take notice of so great a Man as the Bishop of Meaux or any thing that bears his Name and not let it pass unregarded by us after it was for our benefit as he tell us made English and besides I did not know but some unwary persons among us might believe the reason he writes however bad and therefore I thought he deserved to be confuted and ought by no means to go without the civility and complement of an English Answer This I doubt not might have been very well spared had the Publisher been pleased to have gone on a little further with his Work of Translating and obliged us who are strangers to the French Tongue with one of those Answers which are made to de Meaux's Book in that Language but since he has not thought fit to do that I must desire him to accept of such Entertainment as our Country will afford him though it is something hard that we must not only treat our Friends at home but have as many Strangers as they please put upon us But we who cannot Translate so well as others which is a much easier part than to Write at ones own charge must beg leave of our French Adversaries if we sometimes speak to them in plain English and the Bishop of Meaux must excuse me if Truth has sometimes made me otherwise answer him then if I were a Curé in his own Diocess Whoever has so great an opinion of the Bishop of Meaux's Vertue and Learning as to take matter of Fact upon his word which the Translatour's mighty Commendations were designed no doubt to beget in his Reader must believe the Communion in One Kind was the Practice of the Primitive and the Catholic Church which if it were true would be a very great if not sufficient excuse for the Roman This the Bishop asserts with all the confidence in the World and this his Book is designed to make out and whoever will not believe it must necessarily question either the Learning of this great Man or else his Sincerity I shall not dare to do the former but his late Pastoral Letter has given too much reason to suspect the latter He that can now tell the World That there has been no Persecution in France and that none has suffered violence either in their Persons or their Estates there for their Religion may be allowed to say That the Primitive Church had the Communion but in one Kind a great while ago But the one of these matters of Fact deserves more I think to be confuted than the other I suppose it was for the sake of the Author that the Translatour chose this subject of Communion in One kind though he says It is a point peradventure of higher concern than any other now in debate between Papists and Protestants this being the main Stone of Offence and Rock of Scandal and it having been always regarded since the Reformation as a mighty eye-sore and alledged as one sufficient Cause of a voluntary departure and separation from the Pre-existent Church of Rome When this Pre-existent Church of Rome fell into her Corrupt Terrestrial and Vnchristian State among other Corruptions this was one that gave just offence and was together with many more the Cause of our separating from it That it gave the Eucharist but in one kind contrary to Christ's Institution and took away the Cup of Christ's precious Bloud from the People But yet this point of highest concern is in the judgement of the Translatour but a bare Ceremony and upon the whole matter the difference herein between the Church of England and the Roman seems to him reducible in great measure to meer Form and Ceremony If it be then I hope it may be easily compromized and agreed for I assure him I am as little as he for making wider Divisions already too great nor do I approve of the Spirit of those who tear Christ's seamless Garment for a meer Form and Ceremony but we who are sometimes thought fit to be called Heretics and to be Censured and Anathematized as differing in Essential matters from the Church of Rome at other times are made such good Friends to it that we differ but very little and there is nothing but Form and Ceremony between us But what is to Accomodate this matter and Reconcile this difference between the two Churches Why the Doctrine of the Real Presence in which Both Churches he says agree that Christ our Saviour is truly really wholly yea and substantially present in the Sacrament This is to close up the difference not onely of Communion in one kind but of the Adoration of the Sacrament and the Sacrifice of Mass too in the Translatour's judgement But does the Church of England then agree with the Roman in the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body and Bloud in the Sacrament Does it not expresly say the contrary namely That the natural Body and Bloud of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here and that it is against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one * Rubric after Office of Communion So that though Christ be really present by his Spirit and the real Vertue and Efficacy of his Body and Bloud be given in the Sacrament yet his natutural Body is by no means present there either by Transubstantiation or by any other way unintelligible to us as the Translatour would insinuate so that all those consequences which he or others would willingly draw from the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament as believed by us do fall to the ground and I doubt he or I shall never be so happy as to make up this great breach between the two Churches however willing we may be to do it but instead of making a Reconciliation between them which is impossible as long as the Doctrines of each of them stand as they do I shall endeavour to defend that Article of the Church of England which not

God himself ‖ Levit. 17.10,11 For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls The life of the Beast which was given and accepted by God for the life of the Offender that was forfeited by the Law was supposed to be in the Blood as 't is there added the life of the flesh is in the blood and therefore the Blood of the Sacrifice was poured out and so given to God at the Altar the peculiar vertue and atonement of Christs Sacrifice is attributed to his Blood We have redemption through his blood * Eph. 1.7 We are justified by his blood † Rom. 5.9 In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins ‖ Coloss 1.14 And without shedding of blood either under the Law or under the Gospel there was no remission to be had * Heb. 9.22 Now for Christians to partake and Communicate of that Blood in the Sacrament which was shed and sacrificed for them and by which they have atonement and expiation of Sins this is a peculiar favour and singular priviledge which Christ has vouchsafed to Christians and which he takes notice of at his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins The Author of the Treatise de caenâ Domini in the Works of St. Cyprian ‖ Nova est hujus Sacramenti doctrina scholae Evangelicae hoc primum Magisterium protalerunt doctore Christo primum haec mundo innotuit disciplina ut biberent sanguinem Christiani cujus esum legis antiquae auctoritas districtissimè interdicit Lex quippe esum sanguinis prohibet Evangelicum praecipit ut bibatur has remarked this as first brought in by Christ and as a new thing belonging to the Sacrament of the Gospel That Christians should drink Blood which the old Law did absolutely forbid but this says he the Gospel commands and St. Chrysostome † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. 18. in 2 Cor. observes It is not now as it was formerly when the Priest ate of that which the People might not partake of but now one Body and one Cup is offered to all So it was it seems in his time and they had not then learnt the way of drinking the Blood by eating the Body which now they pretend to do in the Church of Rome we do say they partake of the Blood and the Body both together for the Blood is in the Body and necessarily joyned with it but besides that this depends upon that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of Transubstantiation upon which this and a great many other things are built when it is yet too heavy and ruinous to bear its own weight yet this cannot here do the business for we are to drink the Blood and not to eat it that is we are to partake of it as separated from the Body as shed for us or else it is not a Sacramental partaking of it we are to receive Christ's Body as it was a Sacrifice for us but it was not a Sacrifice but as the Blood was poured out and separated from it and we cannot any other way partake of the Sacrificial Blood which is to be drunk by all Christians 5. It is a most groundless fancy and an Opinion perfectly precarious to suppose the Apostles were made Priests at our Saviour's Institution of the Sacrament by those words Hoc facite and that they received the Cup onely as Priests None of the Ancients who write upon this Sacrament or upon these words of its Institution ever thought so nor did it ever enter into the head of any man till a few late School-men invented this new subtilty that they might have something to say against the clearest cause and to shift off if they could the plainest Evidence in the World and though they now generally take up with this Sophistical Evasion which Monsieur Boileau † Creavit instituit Sacerdotes his verbis hoc facite p. 189. insists upon yet some of the wisest men among them are ashamed of it Estius owns that this appears not at all solid nor agreable to ancient Interpreters * Nobis parum solidum videtur nec apud veteres interpretes Dist 12. §. 11. and confesses that Hoc facite belongs to the common People eating and drinking of this Sacrament and that St. Paul refers it to them ‖ Et Paulus 1 Cor. 11. illud facere etiam ad plebem refert edenter bibentem de hoc Sacramento quando ait hoc facite quotiescunque Suarez acknowledges it is not convincing † Hoc argumenti genus per se non convincere Disp 74. Tom. 3. And Alfonsus à Castro * Contra haeres Tit. Euch. p. 99. would not make use of it because he says it does not appear whether those words were spoken by Christ before or after he gave the Eucharist to the Apostles and he rather thinks after and that they took it not as Priests * Ib. He was aware of a difficulty if the Apostles took the Cup onely as Priests and by the right of Priests at the first Institution then it would be contrary to that to have any but Priests receive the Cup And then why is it ever given to the Laiety as it is sometimes by the Pope's favour and concession if it belong onely to Priests and the Priests onely have right to it from the first Institution because the Apostles received it only as Priests But so inconsistent are they to their own Principles that they do not give the Cup even to their Priests unless when they themselves Consecrate and Officiate None but the Minister Conficiens is to receive that though never so many other Priests be by so much at variance are they between this their pretence and their own practice and so do they fight even with their own shadows if the Apostles received the Cup as Priests Why then do not all Priests receive it as well as the Priest who Consecrates if onely he that Consecrates be to receive it then by this rule the Apostles should not have received it at the first Institution for they did not then Consecrate Christ was then alone the Minister Conficiens and so according to them he ought onely to have received it and not the Apostles and yet 't is most probable that Christ did not himself receive either the Cup or the Bread so that if they will keep close to this whimsical Notion of theirs the Minister Conficiens is not to receive at all but to Consecrate and give to the other Priests that are present but further if the Apostles were made Priests by those words Hoc facite which they so earnestly contend and spend so much Critical learning to show that facere signifies to Sacrifice

then they were twice made Priests at the same time for those words were said by our Saviour as St. Paul Witnesses not onely after giving the Bread but repeated again also after the Cup so that the Apostles were doubly Consecrated and the Character of Priests was twice Imprinted upon them at the same time which is another difficulty with which they must be encumbred according to their own principles for though this Opinion be wholly Imaginary yet like the Night-mare 't is a real weight lying upon them and I shall leave them to sweat under it and get it off as well as they can 6. Whatever be the effects and benefits which we receive by partaking of this Blessed Sacrament they depend upon the Institution of it and are not ordinarily to be had without observing of that I say ordinarily because Cases of Necessity dispence with positive precepts as if a sick man cannot swallow the Bread about which there is a Provision in the Eleventh Council of Toledo if the natural Infirmity of anothers Stomack be such that he cannot drink Wine which the French Discipline speaks of and which Monsieur de Meaux † P. 181. makes an Objection against them if the place be such that no Wine is to be had or procured as in Norway where Pope Innocent the Eighth allowed them to Celebrate without Wine in those extraordinary Cases God has not so tied the inward Grace to the outward Signe but that he can give it without it as if a Catechumen willing and desirous of Baptism die without it because he could not have it yet the Church has always supposed he may have the benefit of it and so I charitably hope that the Pious and Religious Laiety in the Church of Rome shall have the benefit of the Blood of Christ though they are deprived of it in the Sacrament and through the meer fault of their Governours and of their Priests are excluded from it and forced to violate the Divine Institution which is all that Calixtus and others which Monsieur de Meaux ‖ P. 277. is willing to take advantage of charitably allow as not being willing to exclude any one for Salvation for what he cannot help but this is no manner of prejudice to the cause that we defend and no excuse in the World for breaking the Institution of Christ and altering his positive precept without any necessity for though God can give the inward Grace and no doubt but he will do it in extraordinary Cases without the Sacrament without either the whole or any part of it yet he will not ordinarily do this nor is it ordinarily to be had or to be expected without keeping to that Institution by vertue of which God has annexed and promised such inward vertues and benefits to such outward signs and holy Symbols and Ceremonies which he himself has appointed and therefore though God if he had pleased might have annexed the whole vertue and effect of the Sacrament to the eating the Bread or to the drinking the Wine alone or might have given it without either of them yet he having by the Institution appointed both parts of the Sacrament hath annexed the grace and vertue to both and not to one only Monsieur de Meaux will needs have the whole fruit and vertue and essential effect of the Sacrament to be given by one species which is the great principle he goes upon which I shall more fully examine afterwards but if the vertue and essential effect depend upon the Institution and it can depend upon nothing else and if both species be instituted by Christ as I have shown then the vertue and effect depends upon both species and not upon one Monsieur de Meaux asks Whether in the very moment the Body of our Lord is received all the effects be not likewise received * P. 328. I answer No because all that is required in the Institution is not then received He farther asks Whether the blood can add any thing essential I answer Yes because that also is in the Institution if one of the Apostles had stopt our Saviour when he had given them the Bread and told them this was his Body and askt him this very question I ask whither he thinks this would have hindred him from going on with the Cup because they had already received the whole vertue and effect of the Sacrament without that and nothing essential could be added by that Christ it seems by the Institution did go on to the Cup after he had given the other species and to say he did not give any essential vertue or efficacy by the Cup is an unwarrantable boldness and blasphemous impudence which may as well deny that he gave any by the Bread this is to make the Cup a very empty signe and naked figure devoid of all inward vertue and efficacy and to serve as de Meaux would have it onely for Representation and a more full and express Signification * P. 176. in which he joyns us to the Cup with those his Adversaries who have the meanest thoughts of the Sacrament and indeed it is to make the Cup wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the conveying or exhibiting any real Vertue or inward Grace which is to be received thereby and as Monsieur de Meaux is forced to own when he answers that demand to what purpose then was the Institution of both species ‖ P. 179. to make it only a more full Image and Representation of the Sacrifice of Christ but not to give us any of the vertue or efficacy of it Christ he says cannot separate the vertue or effect that any other Grace should accompany his blood then the same in ground and substance which accompanys his body † P. 182. but he can make the whole Vertue and Grace accompany and depend upon both the Sacramental Body and Sacramental Blood together and so he has done by his Institution according to which the Sacramental Grace is not to be expected ordinarily without both but he may deprive those Persons wholly of this who violate his Institution and who receive not both species as he has appointed and commanded tehm which is a very dreadful consideration which should make men afraid to dare to alter any such thing as Christ's own Institution upon which the whole vertue of the Sacraments does depend 7. 'T is from the Institution of the Sacrament that we know what belongs to the substance of it and is essential to it and what is onely circumstantial and accidental I own there were several things even at the Institution of it by Christ which were onely circumstantials as the place where the time when the number of persons to whom the posture in which he gave it for all these are plainly and in their own nature circumstantial matters so that no body can think it necessary or essential to the Sacrament that it be Celebrated in an upper Room at night after Supper onely

suppose think they were not to drink with him too and that he was not to provide Wine as well as other Victuals neither did Joseph's own Brethren suspect he would send them away dry and thirsty when they onely heard that they should eat bread there v 25. Notwithstanding this alone is mentioned yet they met with plenty of Wine too as may be seen at the latter end of the Chapter where in the vulgar Latin it is said Biberunt inebriati sunt cum eo The Greeks thought Wine and Drinking so considerable a part of the Feast that they called the whole from that one part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet when they thus drank together at their Entertainments they did no doubt eat too though if we will as strictly insist upon the phrase and not allow a Synecdoche here as well as in the Jewish one of breaking or eating Bread we must make their Feasts to be all of Liquids and the other all of Solids But the phrase is so clear and so usual that nothing could make men deny its being so but their being willing to stick to any thing however weak and little it be that seems in the least to favour a bad cause which is forced to call in the help of a Phrase used in a short History and that against its usual meaning to combat with a plain Command and clear Institution I would only ask these Gentlemen and Monsi Boileau with whom I am especially concerned whither he does not think the first Christians when they met together to break Bread allowing thereby it was to receive the Sacrament did not also at the same time feast together at their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether those were not joyned with the Sacrament and whethese also are not meant here and included in their breaking of Bread together Which I think he or any one versed in Antiquity will not deny And if so he must either say that at those Love-feasts they used no Wine or Drink because none is expresly mentioned here though it is plain they did in the Church of Corinth even to excess or else that this Jewish phrase of breaking Bread is to be here taken as it is in other places by a Synecdoche for both eating and drinking together and that either at the Lord's Table or at any other But in the 3. Third place I have an undeniable Argument to prove either that this must be so meant or else that the Sacrament cannot be meant either in these places or any other where there is onely mention of Bread without Wine For it is universally owned by all the Popish Writers as well as by all others that to the making a Sacrament there ought to be both the Species Consecrated though they are not both given So that in this says Boileau † Hoc enim convenit nobis cum Protestantibus semper debere sacerdotes Eucharistiam conficere sub utraque specie p. 207. we agree with the Protestants that the Priests always ought to Consecrate the Eucharist in both kinds and Monsieur de Meaux ‖ P. 182. when he pretends that he finds upon several occasions in Antiquity the Body given without the Blood and the Blood given without the Body which I shall examine by and by yet confesses that never one of them was Consecrated without the other and it would be Sacriledge says Valentia * Si enim una species absque alterâ conficiatur Sacrilegium committitur De usu Sacram. c. 13. if one Species were Consecrated without the other and after they are Consecrated Bellarmine † Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei sumptio necessariaestex parte Sacramenti de Euch. c. 4. owns That the sumption of both Species is necessary to the Priests who Consecrate and that upon the account of its being a Sacrament as well it seems as both ought to be Consecrated to make it a Sacrifice Now in all these places of the Disciples at Emmaus of those in the Acts of St. Paul at Troas which is another but too slight to be particularly considered there is no mention of any thing but breaking Bread not one word said of any other Species either as consecrated or as received by any one So that if these places do prove any thing for Communion in one kind they prove as much for Consecration in one kind and for the sumption of one kind even by the Priest that consecrates So that as it was wisely declared in the Council of Trent ‖ Soave's History of the Coun. of Trent l. 6. These places and the reasons from them must be laid aside because by them it would be concluded that it was not Sacriledge to Consecrate one kind without the other which is contrary to all the Doctors and meaning of the Church and overthroweth the distinction of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice and as it is a Sacrament So that Monsieur Boileau's strongest Argument is too high charged and recoils upon himself and his own Church and his friends are obliged to take it out of his hands least he do more harm to them by it than execution upon his enemy But he is a bold man that dare face the mouth of a Cannon who dare undertake to prove the Communion in one kind out of the eleventh Chapter of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians which is such a perfect demonstration against it that a man must out-face the Sun who offers at any such thing St. Paul as the best and truest means to correct the abuses got into the Church of Corinth about the Eucharist recurs to the Institution which he received from Christ himself and which he delivered to the Church of Corinth in which there is so full an account of both the species and such a command of both as is sufficient to shew the Apostolical practice conformable to the Institution of Christ and to let us see what Tradition they left in their Churches about it Had there been any difference between the Priests and the Peoples receiving the Bread and Wine St. Paul who wrote to the Laiety would no doubt have taken notice of it and told them their respective duties but he delivers the Institution to them just as Christ did to his Apostles says not a tittle of their not being to receive the Cup but on the contrary adds that command to it which is in none of the Evangelists Do this in remembrance of me Gives not the least intimation that this was given to the Apostles as Priests or that they were made Priests then but what is observable does not so much as mention the Apostles or take any notice of the persons that were present at the Institution and to whom the words Do this were spoken So that so far as appears from him they might be spoken to other Disciples to ordinary Laics nay to the women who might be present at this first Sacrament as well as the Apostles and so must have been made

Priests by those words Hoc facite as well as they After the recital of the Institution in which he observes no difference between the Priests and Laics he tells the Faithful of the Church of Corinth that as often as they did eat this Bread and drink this Cup they shewed forth the Lord's death till he come So that they who were to shew forth Christ's death as well as the Priests were to do it both by eating the Bread and drinking the Cup and indeed one of them does not shew forth his death so well as both for it does not shew his Blood separated from his Body He goes on to shew'um the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking for he all along joyns both those Acts as a phrase signifying the Communion and he expresly uses it no less than four times in that Chapter But in some Copies say they instead of and he uses the particle or in the 27 v. Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup unworthily and here Monsieur Boileau would gladly find something for either Eating or Drinking without doing both which is such a shift and cavil as nothing would make a man catch at but such a desperate cause as has nothing else to be said for it If the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or were used in that place instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet he has but little skil either in Greek or Latine Authors who knows not that it is the commonest thing in both to use that disjunctive for a copulative as to Abraham or his seed for to Abraham and his seed ‖ Ro. 4.13 Of which it were easie to give innumerable instances both in the Bible and profane History The Apostle having used the copulative in all other Verses and all along in this Chapter and having joyned eating and drinking cannot be supposed here to use a disjunctive and to separate them but after all there are Copies of as great Credit and Authority for the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though I think no such weight bears upon the difference of these particles as to make it worth our while to examine them for if the Apostles did disjoyn them it was onely to lay a greater Emphasis upon the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking which though they both go together yet are both very great Sins and I see no manner of consequence that because a man may both eat and drink unworthily that therefore he should onely eat and not drink at all or that the Apostles supposed it lawful to eat without drinking or drink without eating But the Apostolical practice and the Institution of our Saviour for Communion in both kinds though it be very plain and clear in Scripture and being founded upon so full a Command and a Divine Institution I know no Power in the Church to alter it or vary from it yet it will be further confirmed and strengthened by the Universal Practice of the whole Christian Church and of the purest Ages after the Apostles and by the general consent of Antiquity for a thousand years and more after Christ in which I shall prove the Eucharist was always given to all the Faithful who came to the public Worship and to the Communion in both kinds without any difference made between the Priests and the Laiety as to this matter which was a thing never heard of in Antiquity nor ever so much as mentioned in any Author till after the Twelfth Century in which wretched times of Ignorance and Superstition the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being newly brought in struck men with such horror and Superstitious Reverence of the sacred Symbols which they believed to be turned into the very substance of Christ's Body and Blood that they begun to be afraid of taking that part which was fluid and might be spilt each drop of which they thought to be the same blood that flowed out of the side of Christ and the very substantial Blood that was running in his Veins and now by a miraculous way was conveyed into the Chalice Hence at first they used Pipes and Quils to suck it out of the Cup and some used intinction or dipping of the Bread in the Wine and afterwards the same superstition increasing they came to leave off and abstaine wholly from drinking the Cup which was reserved onely to the more sacred lips of the Priests who were willing to be hereby distinguisht from the more unworthy and prophane Laiety The Council of Constance first made this a Law in the Year 1415 which was before a new and superstitious custom used only in some few places and got by degrees into some particular Churches of the Latine Communion for it never was in any other nor is to this day of which we have the first mention in Thomas Aquinas who lived in the Thirteenth Age and who speaks of it thus faintly in his time * In aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur ut solus sacerdos communicetsanguine reliqui vero Corpore Comment in Johan c. 6. v. 53. In some Churches it is observed that onely the Priest Communicates of the blood and others of the Body † In quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur sum p. 3. q. 80. In quibusdam in Aliquibus Ecclesiis shows that it was then but creeping into a few particular Churches and very far from being generally observed in the Western Parts And that it was quite otherwise in the whole Primitive Church for above a thousand years who in all their assemblies kept to our Saviour's Institution of both kinds and never varied from what Christ and his Apostles had commanded and delivered to them as the Church of Rome now does I shall fully prove that so according to Vincentius Lirinensis his rule against all manner of Heresies the truth may be establisht First ‖ Primo scilicet divinae legis auctoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholice traditione by the authority of a divine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church which Tradition being well made out does more fully explain the Law and shew the necessity of observing it The Universal practice of the Catholic Church being a demonstration how they understood it contrary to the new Sophistry of our Adversaries and how they always thought themselves obliged by it And because none are more apt to boast of Tradition and the name of the Catholic Church upon all accounts than these men I shall more largely shew how shamefully they depart from it in this as they do indeed in all other points of Controversie between us and how they set up the Authority of their own private Church in opposition to the Universal as well as to the Laws of Christ and Practice of the Apostles Their Communion in one kind is such a demonstration of this that we need no other to prove this charge upon them and as I have showed this to be contrary to the Institution and command of Christ

ut illud invadere desiderare in mente habere De la Cerda Not. in locum p. 634. Even to Women it seems who I suppose were no Priests Origen upon the Book of Numbers says We drink the bloud of Christ Sacramentally in the Eucharist as well as Spiritually by believing his Doctrine * Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi non solùm Sacramentorum ritu se cum sermones ejus recipimus Quis est iste populus qui in usu habet sanguinem bibere Origent homil 16. in Num. When he had before asked What people drink of Bloud St. Cyprian admonishes Christians to prepare themselves for the hardest encounters as the Souldiers of Christ Considering that for this very purpose they every day drink the Cup of Christ's Bloud that so they may also shed their bloud for Christ. Gravior nunc ferocior pugna imminet ad quam parare debent milites Christi considerantes idcirco se quotidiè calicem sanguinis Christi bibere ut possint ipsi propter Christum sanguinem fundere Ep. 58. ad plebem Thiberitanam Edit Oxon. And he pleads for giving the Communion to the lapsed upon this very account to arm and fortifie them for farther tryals and persecutions How can we teach or provoke them to shed their bloud for the confession of Christ if we deny them the Bloud of Christ ‖ Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus aut quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idoneos facimus si non eos prius ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure communionis admittimus Ep. 57. ad Cornel. Or how can we make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not first admit them to drink the Cup of the Lord in the Church by the right of Communion The excellent Epistle * Ep. 63. Caecilio fratri of that Holy Martyr against those who out of a principle of abstaining wholly from Wine or lest they should by the smell of Wine which they had drunk in the Morning-Sacrifices discover themselves to be Christians used Water in the Eucharist instead of Wine Simili modo calicem quod si à Domino praecipitur ab Apostolo ejus hoc idem confirmatur traditur hoc faciamus quod fecit Dominus invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatum nisi eadem quae Dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus calicem Dom. pari ratione miscentes à divino Magisterio non recedamus Ib. Quod nos obandire facere oportet quod Christus fecit faciendum esse mandavit Ib. is so full a demonstration that the Wine ought always to be taken in the Sacrament and that Christ's Institution and Command could not otherwise be observed that there needs no other Arguments but what that great Man there uses to shew the necessity of Christians Communicating in both the Species of Bread and Wine Quare si solus Christus audiendus est non debemus attendere quod alius ante nos faciendum putaverit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit Ib. Quomodo autem de creaturâ vitis notum vinum cum Christo in regno patris bibemus si in sacraficio Dei Patris Christi vinum non offerimus nec calicem Domini dominicâ traditione miscemus Ib. Christ says he gave the Cup and we are to do that which Christ did and ought by no means to depart from what was commanded by Christ and delivered by the Apostles upon any custom or pretence whatsoever How shall we drink says he of the fruit of the Vine with Christ in the Kingdom of his Father if we do not now offer the Wine in the Sacrifice and mingle the Cup of the Lord as he delivered it to us And that this Wine was drunk by all Christians is plain from that fear which some had lest by their drinking it in the morning they should smell of it * Nisi in sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis veretur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi Ib. p. 155. and so discover themselves to the Heathens It was then it seems a mark to know Christians by That they did smell of the bloud of Christ which if they had done as the Papists now do they need not have been afraid of But to proceed to others who though they speak less of this then St. Cyprian yet speak plainly of Christians taking the Bloud as well as the Body Athanasius speaking of the Cup says It belongs to the Priests of right to give this to the People † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apolog 2. St. Basil in one of his Epistles says It is good and profitable to Communicate every day of the Body and Bloud of Christ ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Caesar And speaking of the peculiar Vertues of Christians asks What is proper to those that eat the Bread and drink the Cup of the Lord * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Moral denoting that to belong to all Christians St. Chrysostom in his Oratorian manner speaks of Christians as being all Died and Purpled with the Bloud of Christ † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Sacerdot l. 3. And thus compares all Christians in general with the Israelites As thou eatest the Body of Christ so did they Manna as thou drinkest the Bloud of Christ so did they Water out of the Rock ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Homil. 23. in 1 Cor. And in another place he expresly observes what I have taken notice of before That 't is not now as under the Jewish Law where the Priest partook of several things from the Altar which the People did not There is no difference between the Priest and the People when we come to receive the Holy Mysteries for one Body and one Cup is offered to all † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. in Homil. 18. in 2 Cor. St Hierom says The Priests serve the Eucharist and divide the Bloud of the Lord among the People * Sacerdotes Eucharisticae serviunt sanguinem Domini populis ejus dividunt Hieron in Sophon c. 2. And upon occasion speaks of some loose and vitious Women who yet would not abstain from the bloud of Christ ‖ Ebrietati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt Absit ut ego me à Christi sanguine abstineam Id. Ep. ad Eustoch So that this it is plain was taken by the Women St. Austin to the newly Baptized Christians says That in all their tryals and their time of being Catechumens they did approve themselves that they might eat the Lord's Body and drink the Cup * Vt cum seipsos probaverint tunc de mensâ Domini manducent de calice bibant August de fide Oper And speaking of the prohibition of Blood to the Jews because

it was offer'd in Sacrifice but from taking the Bloud of the Sacrifice of our Lord no one says he is not onely forbidden but all are exhorted to drink of it who will have Life † Ab hujus sacrificii sanguine in alimeatum sumendo non so um nemo prohibetur sed ad bibendum omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam Id. in Levit. qu. 57. I might easily bring down the like clear authorities of ancient Writers much lower even to the times of the very Schoolmen who are the first that ever mention any thing about the Communion in one kind But that I may not over-load my self or my Reader I shall onely offer one or two more of much later date but yet more considerable to our Adversaries at least because they believed Transubstantiation but had not it seems improved it into that consequence which Superstition afterwards did of Communicating in one kind Paschasius Ratbertus Abbot of Corbey was the very Parent of Transubstantiation and the first founder of that Doctrine in the Ninth Century yet in the same Book in which he broaches that new Opinion he fully and plainly asserts the old Practice of the Communion in both kinds The Priest says he consecrates by the power of Christ and performs the part of Christ between God and the People he offers their Prayers and Oblations to God and what he hath obtained of God he renders to them by the body and bloud of Christ which he distributes to every one of them ‖ Caeterum sacerdos quia vices Christi visibili specie inter Deum populum agere videtur infert per manûs Angeli vota populi ad Deum refert Vota quidem offert munera refert autem imperata per Corpus sanguinem distribuit singulis Paschas de Corpore sanguine Domini c. 12. Those Singuli must be the People whose Prayers the Priest offered and to whom he distributed the Bloud as well as the Body of Christ and to shew further that the Bloud was given in the Sacrament not to the Priest onely but to the People he most expresly says That when Christ gives the Sacrament by the hands of the Ministers he says also by them Take and drink ye all of this as well Ministers as all the rest that believe This is the cup of my bloud of the new and everlasting testament * Et ideo hic solus est qui frangit hunc panem per manus ministrorum distribuit credentibus dicens Accipite bibete ex hoc omnes tam Ministri quam reliqui credentes hic est calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni testamenti Ib. c. 15. Then which words there could nothing have been said that does more directly destroy the late pretence of our Adversaries of the Cup 's being given and belonging onely to the Priests or Ministers and not to all the Faithful or the Reliqui Credentes But he still goes further as to this matter and makes the partaking of the Bloud to be necessary to Salvation in another Chapter It is manifest says he † Constat igitur liquet omnibus quòd in hâc mortali vitâ sine cibo potu non vivitur sic itaque ad illam aeternam non pervenitur nisi duobus istis ad immortalitatem nutriatur Ib. c. 19. that in this mortal life we cannot live without meat and drink so therefore likewise can we not come to eternal life unless we are spiritually nourisht with those two unto Immortality and speaks of the Cup in the very next words To him I shall add Algerus a very zealous defender of Paschasius his Doctrine of Transubstantiation and as heartily agreeing with him in the practice and necessity of Communicating in both kinds Because says he we live by meat and drink that we can want neither therefore Christ would have them both in his Sacrament ‖ Vnde etiam quia potu cibo ita vivimus ut alterutro carere nequeamus utrumque in Sacramento suo esse voluit Algerus de Sacramento l. 2. c. 5. And as he redeemed both our body and our soul by his body and blood so he argues * Nos qui corpore animâ perieramus corpus per corpus animam per animam Christus redimens simul corpus sanguis sumitur à fidelibus ut sumpto corpore animâ Christi totus homo vivificetur Ib. c. 8. we ought to partake both of his body and of his blood that our whole man may be quickned by both Then he quotes St. Austin and Gelasius for the taking of both Species † Vnde ut ait Augustinus nec caro sine sanguine nec sanguis sine carne jure communicatur Item Gelasius Majorico Joanni Episcopis Comperimus quòd quidam sumptâ tantùm corporis portione à calice sacri cruoris abstineant qui proculdubiò aut integra Sacramenta accipiant aut ab Integris arceantur quiae divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire Ib. c. 8. From whence as St. Austin says neither the flesh is rightly Communicated without the blood nor the blood without the flesh So also Gelasius to Majoricus and John Bishops We find that some taking onely the part of the body abstain from the Cup of the holy bloud who ought unquestionably either to take the whole Sacrament or to be kept wholly from it because the division of one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge He that had this Belief and these Arguments for it could not but be a great enemy to the Mutilated and Sacrilegious Communion in one kind however great a friend he was to Transustantiation and his authority and his words are the more remarkable because he lived in the Twelfth Century which makes him as a great many others then were which I could produce and undeniable Evidence that that corruption was not brought into the Latine Church till the next Age against which we have the full testimony of both ancient and later Writers 4. It appears by some ancient Customs that Christians were so far from receiving the Sacrament onely in one kind that they used extraordinary care and contrivance to receive it in both kinds From hence it was that they used intinction or dipping of the Bread in the Wine which was very early as appears by the Decree of Pope Julius who forbad it in the Third Century ‖ Illud vero quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt Eucharistiam populis nec hoc prolatum ex Evangelio testimonium recipit ubi Apostolis corpus suum sanguinem commendavit seorsùm enim panis seorsùm calicis commendatio memoratur Julius Papa Episcopis per Aegypt apud Gratian. decret de Consecr 3 Pars dist 2. It is probable that it was thus given to the Sick as in the instance of Serapion and to Infants in the time of St. Cyprian

which we shall have occasion to consider afterwards In the Council of Braga in the seventh Age * Concil Bracarense this Custom which it seems continued was prohibited in the very words almost of Pope Julius so that some learned men mistake the one for the other Afterwards in the Council of Clermont as it is given by Baronius The Twenty Eighth Canon forbids any to Communicate of the Altar unless he take the body separately and the blood also separately unless through necessity and with caution † Ne quis communicet de altari nisi corpus separatìm sanguinem similitèr sumit nisi per necessitatem per cautelam Canones Concilii Claramont apud Baron Annal. An. 1094. §. 25. This Intinction was generally forbid unless in some cases as of the Sick and the like to whom the Council of Tours ‖ Quae sacra oblatio intincta esse debet in sanguine Christi ut veracitèr Presbyter possit dicere infirmo Corpus sanguis Domini proficiat tibi Apud Burchard l. 5. c. 9. Cassand Dialog p. 5. commands that the Sacrament be thus given Steeped and dipped and that for a most considerable reason That the Priest might truly say to the person to whom he gave it the body and blood of Christ be profitable to thee for remission of Sins This it seems could not have been truely said to them unless they had some way or other given them both kinds That this Intinction was also in use in private Monasteries appears from several Manuscripts produced by Menardus * Not. in Gregor Sacrament and it is notorious that the whole Greek Churches do use it to this day in the Communion not onely of the Sick and Infants but of all Laics I am not concerned to defend or justifie this Custom nor to say any thing more about it but onely to observe this plain inference from it That they who thus used Intinction or the mixing and steeping of the Elements together did hereby plainly declare that it was necessary to give the Sacrament in both kinds and not in one I might make also the same remark upon the several Heretical Customs of using Water or Milk instead of Wine as it appears in St. Cyprian and Pope Julius to have been the manner of some who though they were very blameable and justly censured for so doing yet they hereby confest that there ought to be two species given in the Sacrament a liquid one as well as a solid The Romanists and the Manichees are the onely Christians that ever thought otherwise When the Doctrine of Transubstantiation began to creep into the Church in the time of Berengarius and some Christians were thereupon possest with a greater fear of spilling the Blood of Christ they did not however at first leave drinking the Cup for that reason but they brought in another custom to prevent spilling which was to fasten little Pipes or Quills to the Chalices they then used and through them to suck the consecrated Wine This appears in the order of Celebrating Mass by the Pope taken out of several Books of the Ordo Romanus in Cassander's Lyturgics The Arch-deaconreceives of the Regionary Sub-deacon a Pugillaris with which he confirms the people † Archidiaconus accepto à Subdiacono regionario pugillari cum quo confirmet populum Cassander Lyturg in ordine celebrat Miss per Romanos celebrante pontifice Cassander in his Notes upon the word Pugillaris says They were Pipes or Canes with which the Sacramental Blood was suckt out of the Chalice ‖ Fistulae seu cannae quibus sanguis è Dominico calice exugebatur Ib. And he says he had seen several of these in his time So that in those times when the fear of effusion was greater than it was in the time of the Apostles and Primitive Christians who yet had as much reverence no doubt for the Sacrament as any after-Ages they were so unwilling to be deprived of the precious Blood of their Saviour in the Sacrament that though their superstition made them contrive new ways to receive it yet they could not be contented to be wholly without it But 5. The custom still remaining in all other Churches of the Christian World except the Roman of Communicating in both kinds is a demonstration of its Apostolical and Primitive Practice and of an Universal and Uninterrupted Tradition for it we see plainly where this Practice was broke and this Tradition violated in the Roman Church after above 1200 years till which time it bears witness against it self and condemns its own late Innovation which is contrary not onely to all former Ages but to the present practice of all other Christian Churches I need not produce witnesses to prove this the matter of Fact is plain and undeniable and none of their Writers can or do pretend the contrary as to public and general Communion concerning any Christians except those few that they have lately brought over by their well-known Arts to submit to the Roman Church as the Maronites and the Indians of St. Thomas All the other vast number of Christians over all the World the Greeks the Muscovites the Russians the Aethiopians the Armenians the Assyrians the Nestorians the Georgians and others do all administer the Eucharist to the people in both kinds There is some little difference indeed among them in the manner of doing it as some of them take the two Species mingled together in a Spoon as the Greeks and Muscovites others dip the Bread in the Wine as the Armenians but they all agree in this that they always receive both the Species of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament and never give the one without the other Cassander has collected several of their Rites and Orders in their public Lyturgies as of the Syrians the Aethiopians the Armenians the Abyssins in the Kingdom of Prester John of whom he says That as many as Communicate of the Body Communicate of the Bloud also * Quotquot communicant de corpore totidem communicant etiam de sangine Casand Lyturg. Reliquis omnibus nationibus Christiani nominis ut Graecis Ruthenis Armeniis Aethiopibus priscum institutum porrigendi populo sanguinis in hunc usque diem retinentibus Id. Dialog But we need not call in any other Churches to vouch for the universal and primitive practice of the Communion in both kinds We have in the last place 6. The most learned of our Adversaries who cannot but confess this and therefore are forced to take other measures to defend themselves and their cause namely by the Authority of the present Church and not by the Tradition or Practice of the Primitive as de Meaux vainly attempts to do which they freely give up and acknowledge to be contrary to the Communion as it is now practiced in one kind Cassander has fully and plainly declared his mind in a particular Treatise on this Subject among his Works printed at Paris and in his

Dialogue which was put out by Calixtus not being among his other Works in his Consultation and in his Lyturgics Concerning the administration says he of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist it is sufficiently known that the Vniversal Church of Christ to this very day and the Western or Roman for above a thousand years after Christ did exhibit both the Species of Bread and Wine to all the members of the Church of Christ especially in the solemn and ordinary dispensation of this Sacrament which appears from innumerable testimones both of ancient Greek and Latine Writers † De administratione sacrosancti Sacramenti Eucharistiae satis compertum est universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem Occidentalem vero seu Romanam mille ampliùs à Christo annis in solenni presertim ordinariâ hujus sacramenti dispensatione utramque panis vini speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christi membris exhibuisse id quod ex innumeris veterum scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum testimoniis manifestum est Cassandri Consultatio de utràque specie Sacramenti In his Dialogue speaking against those who pretended that the use of either one or both kinds was indifferent and who indeavoured to make this out by the Authority and Practice of the Primitive Church which is the way which de Meaux takes he thus seriously and heartily gives his judgement I have searcht says he ‖ Equidem haud oscitanter veteris Ecclesiae consuetudinem perscrutatus sum attento aequoque animo eorum scripta qui hoe argumentum tractarunt legisse rationes quibus indifferentem eum morem probare nituntur expendisse prositeor neque tamen firmam ullam demonstrationem quae non apertissime reselli possit reperire hactenus potui quamvis id vehementèr exoptassem quin multae firmissimae rationes suppetunt quae contrarium evincunt G. Cassand Dialog apud Calixt p. 6. and that not slightly the Custom of the ancient Church and I profess I have read the Writings of those who have handled this argument with an attent and impartial mind and have weighed the reasons by which they endeavour to prove this indifferent Custom but neither could I yet find any firm proof which could not be most plainly refuted although I most earnestly desired it but there remain many and those the most strong Reasons which do evince the contrary And because de Meaux pretends that there are some instances of public Communion in the Church in one kind I will add one other testimony of that great man who after the strictest search and enquiry into every thing in Antiquity that could be brought to colour any such thing thus determines Wherefore I do not think that it can be shewn that for a whole thousand years and more that this most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist was ever administred from the Lord's Table in the holy Communion to the faithful people in any part of the Catholic Church otherwise than under both the Symbols of Bread and Wine * Quare nec puto demonstrari totis mille amplius annis in ullâ Cathoticae Ecclesiae parte Sacrosanctum hoc Eucharistiae Sacramentum alitèr in sacrâ synaxi è mensâ Dominicâ fideli populo quam sub utroque panis vini symbolo administratum fuisse Id. de Sac. Com. sub utraque specie p. 1027. Wicelius another Divine of great learning and judgement agrees fully with Cassander It is confest that the holy Sumption from the Ecclesiastic Altar was equally common to all Christians for Salvation through all the times of the New Testament † Et in consesso sumptionem sanctam de altari Ecclesiaftico aequè omnibus Christianis communem extitisse ad salutem per omnia novi testamenti tempora Vicel via Reg. tit de utr Specie by which he means of the Christian Church as appears by what immediately follows It is a little obliterated indeed among us of the Western Church and separated from a promiscuous use for some reasons but not wholly blotted out and destroyed * Obliteratam quidem paulisper apud nos Occidentales ab usu promiscuo semotam suas ob causas at non deletam omninò atque exstinctam Ib. For it was then granted to some as to the Bohemians Of this thing that is of the Holy Sumption common to all Christians Since we are † Ejusce rei cum nube quodam certissimorum testium septi sumus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amplectimur omni excluso dubio Ib. encompast with a cloud of most certain witnesses we embrace this as a most sure thing without any doubt And therefore in his Account of Abuses he reckons that of the Communion in one kind ‖ Id. Elench abus But lest these two men though their learning and credit be unquestionable should be thought through their great temper and moderation to have yielded more in this cause than others of that Communion I shall shew that the same has been done by others who cannot be suspected to have granted more than the meer force of Truth extorted from them Thomas Aquinas who was the first man that proposed that question to be disputed Whether it were lawful to take the Body of Christ without the Bloud * Vtrum liceat sumere corpus Christi sine sauguine Th. Aquin. Sum. pars 3 qu. 80. art 12. And who first tells us That it was the use of many Churches so to do † Multarum Ecclesiarum usus in quibus populo communicanti datur corpus Christi sumendum non autem sanguis Ib. though Bonaventure his contemporary who died the same year mentions nothing of it he in his Comment upon the Sixth of St. John where he says It was observed not in many but in some Churches that for fear of effusion the Priest alone Communicated of the Blood and the rest of the Body ‖ Propter periculum effusionis in aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur ut solus sacerdos communicet sanguine reliqui vero corpore Id. in Johan 6. freely owns that according to the custom of the ancient Church all persons as they communicated of the Body so they communicated also of the Bloud * Dicendum quod secundum antiquae Ecclesiae consuetudinem omnes sicut communicabant corpori it a communicabant sanguini Ib. and this he addes is as yet also observed in some Churches † Quod etiam adbuc in aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur Ib. Which shews that this half-Communion was not universally brought into the Latine Church in the thirteenth Century Salmeron the Jesuit says We ingenuously and openly confess which ingenuity it were to be wisht Monsieur de Meaux had had that it was the general custom to communicate the Laics under both species ‖ Ingenui aperti confitemur morem generalem extitisse communicandi etiam Laicos sub utraque spetie Salmeron Tract 35. Cardinal Bona upon this subject owns *

as well as the Adult did then partake of both appears from the same Treatise of St. Cyprian de Lapsis where he represents the Children who were thus carried to partake of the Idol Offerings as blaming their Parents for it and making this Vindication for themselves † Nos nihil secimus nec derelicto cibo poculo Domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus Perdidit nos aliena perfidia Cyprs de Laps We have not left the Meat nor the Cup of the Lord nor gone of our selves to the profane Banquets but anothers perfidiousness has destroyed us So that they were then to partake not onely of the Cup but of the Meat of the Lord. Monsieur de Meaux was in a great streight sure for some other instances of the Communion of Children in one kind when he brings in ‖ P. 91 92 94. the School-Boys at Constantinople who according to Evagrius * Hist l. 4. had the remainders of the Bread that was left at the Communion given to them which custom he finds also in a French Council † Mascon Were these Boys true Communicants for all that were not the Elements given them as they were sometimes to the Poor who were not present at the Office meerly that they might consume them that so they might not be undecently kept or carried away As for the same reason it was the custom to burn them in the Church of Hierusalem ‖ Hesych in Levit. l. 2. c. 8. and as it is now with us in the Church of England for the Communicants to eat them before they go out of the Church If we should have some remainders of consecrated Bread which we might call the particles of Christ's Body as Evagrius there does would the eating of them be an argument that we had a custom to Communicate in one kind and yet Monsieur de Meaux's Wit and Eloquence must be laid out on such ridiculous things as these to shew what Customs there remain in History in testimony against the Protestants P. 94. and how the Communion of some Infants under the sole Species of Wine and some under that of Bread is a clear conviction of their errour It would be to little other purpose but to tire my self and my Reader to follow that great man through all his little Arguments and Authorities of this Nature and especially into the dark and blind paths of later Ages when Superstition and Ignorance lead men out of the way both of Scripture and Antiquity which are the good old Paths that we are resolved to walk in His French Answerers I hear have pursued him through all these and driven him out of every private skulking-hole he would make to himself I am rather for meeting him in the open Field and for engaging his main strength and most considerable arguments and objections and I seriously profess though I never met with any Book written so shrewdly and cunningly with so much Art and Eloquence upon a subject that I thought could hardly bear it though it stood in need of it above any other yet there is not any thing of strength in it that I have not fairly considered and I hope fully answered Of Domestic Communion The third Custom is the Domestic Communion when after the Christians had received the Sacrament in their publick Meetings they carried it also home with them to receive it alone in their private Houses this must be allowed also to be very ancient being mentioned both by Tertullian * Accepto corpore Domini Reservato de orat Cap. ult Nesciat maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gustes Ad Uxor l. 2. and St. Cyprian † Cum quaedam arcam suam in quâ Domini sanctum suit De Laps and the reason of it was that in those times of Persecution when they could not come so frequently to the public Communions and yet stood in need of the greatest aids and supports they might not want the benefit and comfort of what was so precious to them but though there might be great zeal and piety in this practice yet I cannot wholly excuse it from superstition nor think it to be any thing less than an abuse of the Sacrament and the same opinion the Church quickly had of it and therefore universally forbad it ‖ Concil Caesar Augustan and as Petavius says * De paenit publ l. 1. c. 7. It would be now a very punishable action and accounted a great profanation of the Sacrament Howe-ever angry Monsieur de Meaux is with the Protestants for calling it so † P. 105. undoubtedly the Eucharist was not intended by our Saviour for any such private use but to be a public part of Christian Worship and a solemn Commemoration of his Death and Passion And I know not how to call this a true or perfect Communion unless as it was a part of the same Communion that was in the Church as the sending a person part of the entertainment at a common Feast or Banquet is a making him partaker of the same Feast though he be not present at the Table but eats it by himself however let it be allowed to be never so true a Communion yet I know no advantage that can be made of it to the purpose of Communion in one kind unless it can be made appear that after the Faithful had communicated of both kinds in the Church that they onely reserved and carried home one Species to be received in their private Houses How improbable is this if it be granted that they received both in public which is not denied why should not they be as desirous to partake of both at home as they were in the Church Vpon what account as de Meaux says ‖ P. 114. should they refuse them both And believe that the the sacred Body with which they trusted them was more precious than the Bloud He is forced to own That the Bloud was not refused to the Faithful to carry with them when they required it * P. 113. And why they should not desire that as well as the other I cannot imagine the onely argument he has against it is that they could not keep it any long time But could not they keep it so long as till the next publick Communion could they not conserve the Wine in little Vessels to that purpose as well as the Bread Does Nature it self as he pretends more oppose the one than the other when we find by experience that Wine will keep much longer without corruption than Bread What a vain cavil is it therefore which begins and runs through his whole Book to make us believe that the Christians so often communicated under the species of Bread alone because the species of Wine could not be either so long or so easily reserved being too subject to alteration and Jesus Christ would not that any thing should appear to the sense in this Mystery of Faith

contrary to the ordinary course of Nature † P. 9. But it is matter of fact we have now to do with and that must be made out not by slight surmises but by good testimony and whether the Christians when this custom of Domestic Communion was in use among them did not reserve and carry home both kinds the Wine as well as the Bread let us now examine Monsieur de Meaux has not one Authority that proves any thing more than that they used to reserve the Sacrament or Body of Christ which by a Synecdoche is a common phrase in Ecclesiastical Writers for the whole Eucharist and is used by Tertullian and St. Cyprian where the two Species were unquestionably used as in the Public Communion St. Basil who speaks of the Communion of Hermits and who is produced as an evidence by de Meaux that they communicated in the Deserts advises them expresly to partake of the Body and of the Bloud of Christ ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil Ep. ●… and when those Solitarys had the Communion brought to them that it was in both kinds appears from their own Cardinal Bona * Rerum Lyturg l. 2. c. 18. in the relation of Zozimus an Abbot of a Monastery his carrying in a Vessel a portion of the sacred Body and Bloud of Christ to one Mary of Aegypt who had lived forty seven years in the Wilderness That those who communicated at home had both kinds sent to them appears evidently from Justin Martyr † Apolog. 2. and de Meaux owns from him That the two species 't is true were carried ‖ P. 112. but this says he was presently after they had been consecrated Not till the Public Communion was over and then also the Faithful carried away what they reserved but it does not appear that they kept them nor does it appear to the contrary but they might have kept them if they had pleased He who wrote the Life of St. Basil by the name of Amphilochius reports the story of a Jew who being got secretly among the Christians at the time of Communion communicated with them and took the Sacrament first of the Body and then of the Bloud and then took and carried away with him * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amphiloch vit Basil c. 7. some part of each of the Elements and shewed them to his Wife to confirm the truth of what he had done Monsieur de Meaux has made no objection to the credit of this Writer and no doubt had it not been usual for Christians to carry away both the Elements the Writer of that Life let him be who he will had not told so improbable a Story Gregory Nazianzen † Orat. 11. relates of his Sister Gorgonia That what her hands had treasured up of the Anti-types of the precious Body or Bloud of Christ that she mingled with her tears and anointed her self withal So that it seems her hands treasured up both the Species or Anti-types as he calls them and it is a mighty subtilty to say She did not treasure them up both together when she certainly treasured up both But if we had no such instances as these there are two such unanswerable Authorities against de Meaux his Opinion That the faithful carried home only the Bread and communicated but in one kind as are enough to make him give up this part of the Cause and those are the famous Albaspinaeus Bishop of Orleans and Cardinal Baronius two men whose skill in Antiquity is enough to weigh down whatever can be said by de Meaux or any other and whose words will go farther in the Church of Rome than most mens and they are both positive that not onely the Bread but that the Wine also was reserved and carried home by Christians in their Domestic Communions Vpon what account can they prove says Albaspinaeus ‖ Sed quo tandem pacto probare poterunt Laicis Eucharistiam sub specie panis domum portare licuisse sub vini non licuisse Albaspin Observat 4. l. 1. that it was lawful for Laics to carry home the Eucharist under the Species of Bread and not under the Species of Wine Consider says Baronius * Hic Lector considera quàm procul abborreant à Patrum Traditione usuque Ecclesiae Catholicae qui nostro tempore Heretici negant asservandam esse Sacratissimam Eucharistiam quam videmus non sub specie panis tantum sed sub specie vini olim consuevisse recondi Baron Annal. an 404. n. 32. to his Reader how the Hereticks of our time differ from the Tradition of the Fathers and the Custom of the Catholic Church who deny that the Eucharist is to be reserved when we see it used to be kept not onely in the Species of Bread but in the Species of Wine And that he meant this of private reservation as well as in the Church he goes on further to prove this keeping of both Species by the Authority of Gregory the Great who gives an account in his Dialogues of one Maximianus a Monk and others his Companions who being in a great Storm and Tempest at Sea and in great danger of their Lives they took the Sacrament which they had carried with them and in both kinds received the Body and Bloud of their Redeemer † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Dialog Graecè l. 3. c. 36. But to this says Monsieur de Meaux To shew the faithful had kept the two Species in their Vessel from Rome to Constantinople it ought before to have been certain that there was no Priest in this Vessel or that Maximian of whom St. Gregory speaks in this place was none though he was the Superiour of a Monastery But Gregory speaks not a word of any Priest being there and Maximian might be no Priest though he were Superiour of a Monastery for they and the Monks were often no Priests but if a Priest had been there it had been unlawful for him according to the Principles of the Roman Church to have Consecrated the Eucharist in such a Tempest in an unconsecrated place and at Sea where according to Cassander ‖ Lyturgic c. 34. Haec Missa sicca i. e. sine consecratione communicatione etiam navalis seu nautica dicitur eò quòd in loco fluctuante vacillante ut in mari fluminibus quibus in locis plenam missam celebrandam non putant In libello ordinis Missae secundum usum Romanae Ecclesiae they are not permitted to use Consecration nor to have the full Mass but onely what he calls the Missa sicca and the Missa Navalis and it is plain Baronius with whose Authority I am now urging de Meaux is of the mind that the faithful did carry the two Species in their Vessel for he says so expresly in so many words * In Navi portasse Navigantes Christi Corpus Sanguinem Baron Annal. an 404. n. 32. There is no getting off

the plain and evident Authority of these two great men for receiving the Eucharist in both kinds Monsieur de Meaux though he heaves a little yet cannot but sink under it and it makes him confess That these passages may very well prove that the Bloud was not refused to the faithful to carry with them if they required it but can never prove that they could keep it any long time since that Nature it self opposes it So that if Nature be not against keeping the Wine Custom and Authority it seems are for it and I dare say that Nature will suffer the Wine to be kept as long as the Bread however they who are such friends to Miracles and have them so ready at every turn especially in the Sacrament have no reason methinks to be so afraid of Nature Of Public Communion in the Church Monsieur de Meaux passes next to the Public Communion in the Church And if he can prove that to have been in one kind he has gained his main point however unsuccessfully he has come off with the rest though we see all his other pretences are too weak to be defended and we have destroyed I think all his out-works yet if he can but maintain this great fort he saves the Capitol and preserves the Romish Cause He has used I confess all imaginable stratagems to do it and has endeavoured to make up his want of strength with subtlety and intrigue He will not pretend it was a constant custom to have the Public Communion in one kind but that it was free for Christians to receive either both Species or one only in the Church it self and in their solemn Assemblies and that they did this on some particular days and occasions as in the Latine Church on Good-Friday and almost all Lent in the Greek Now though we have made it out that the whole Catholic Church did generally in their Public Communions use both kinds yet if they left it free to Christians to receive one or both as they pleased or to receive sometimes both and sometimes one this if it can be proved will shew that they thought Communion in one might be lawful and sufficient and that it was not necessary to be in both Let us therefore see what evidence there is for any such thing for it looks very strangely that the Church in all its Lyturgies in all the accounts of celebrating the Communion should always use both kinds to all that partook of the Sacrament and yet leave it free to Christians to receive it in one if they pleased and that on some few days they should give the same Sacrament in a quite different manner then they used at all other times this if it be true must be very odd and unaccountable and unless there be very full and evident proof of it we may certainly conclude it to be false What cloud of witnesses then does de Meaux bring to justifie this what names of credit and authority does he produce for it Why not one not so much as a single testimony against the universal suffrage of the whole Church and of the most learned of our Adversaries who all agree in this truth That the Public Communion was in both kinds for above a thousand years Is there any one Writer in all the Ten nay Twelve Centuries who plainly contradicts it any one between the Apostles and Thomas Aquinas who says it was the Custom of the Catholic Church or any part of it to Communicate onely in one kind Nay can de Meaux shew any particular persons or any sort of Christians that ever were in the World before the thirteenth Age that were against both kinds and received onely in one except the Manichees a sort of vile and abominable Hereticks who are the onely Instances in Antiquity for Communion in one kind These men believing Christ not to have really shed his Blood but onely in phantasm and appearance would not take the Sacrament of his Bloud and by the same reason neither should they have taken that of his Body and thinking Wine not to be the Creature of God the Father of Christ but of the Devil or some evil Principle or bad Spirit and so calling it the Gall of the Dragon they had a general abhorrence from it and so would not receive it in the Sacrament Pope Leo heard that several of these were at Rome and that to cover their infidelity and skulk more securely Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum Communione se temperant ut interdum tutiùs lateant ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt Sanguinem autem Redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant Quod ideo vestram volumus scire sanctitatem ut vobis bujusmodi homines his manifestentur indiciis quorum deprehensa fuerit sacrilega simulatio notati proditi à sanctorum societate sacerdotali auctoritate pellantur Leo Sermo 4 de Quadrag they came to the public Assemblies and werè present at the very Sacrament but yet they did so order themselves at the Communion that so they might the more safely hide themselves and be undiscovered They take with their unworthy mouth the Body of Christ but they refused to drink his Blood this he gave notice of to his Roman Congregation that so these men might be made manifest to them by these marks and tokens that their sacrilegious disimulation being apprehended they might be markt and discovered and so expelled or excommunicated from the society of the Faithful by the Priestly Authority Now how can all this which shews plainly that the Communion at Rome was in both kinds be turned to the advantage of Communion in one this requires the slight and the dexterity of Monsieur de Meaux and 't is one of the most artificial fetches that ever were It is the onely argument which he has to prove that the Public Communion was not in both kinds This remark upon the words of Pope Leo and upon the Decree of Gelasius which is much of the like nature This fraudulent design says he of the Manichees could hardly be discovered because Catholics themselves did not all of them Communicate under both Species But how knows he that That is the question that is not to be begged but proved and 't is a strange way of proving it by no other medium but onely supposing it and that very groundlesly and unreasonably Is this poor weak supposition to bear the weight of that bold assertion which contradicts all manner of Evidence and Authority that the Public Communion in the Church was in one kind If it had been so and Catholics had not all of them Communicated under both Species the Manichees would not have been discovered at all for they would have done the same the Catholics did and to all outward appearance been as good Catholics as they they might have kept their Opinion and Heresie to themselves and that it seems they

intended to dissemble and keep private but as to their Practice it would have been but the same with others and so they could not have been found out or discovered by that But it was taken notice of at the last says de Meaux that these Heretics did it out of affectation insomuch that the holy Pope St. Leo the Great would that those who were known as such by this mark should be expelled the Church How does it appear that their affectation was taken notice of or that they did it out of that does Pope Leo say any thing of this but onely points at their Practice without so much as intimating their reason Was their affectation the mark by which the Pope would have them known As de Meaux slighly but not honestly makes him speak by putting those words of his as relating to his own that went before whereas in Leo they relate not to the doing it outof affectation for he speaks not a word of that but meerly to the not drinking the Bloud This was the onely mark by which they were known as such by these indicia these marks and tokens of not drinking the Bloud they were to be known and discovered and made manifest according to the words of St. Leo by their visible Practice not by their Opinion or their Affectation and for this they were to be expelled the Society of Christians because they refused to drink the Bloud of our Redemption without regard to their private or particular reasons which St. Leo takes no notice of These cunning and dissembling Heretics to cover their dissimulation and infidelity and hide themselves the better which was it seems their main end and design might take the Cup but yet not drink of it nor tast the least drop of Wine and for this cause there must have been time and a particular vigilance to discern these Heretics from amongst the Faithful and not because there was a general liberty to receive one or both Species as de Meaux pretends That liberty is a very strange thing which has no manner of evidence for it which Pope Leo says nothing of but the quite contrary namely that the Body and Bloud were both received in the Communion and which if it had been allowed as it would have bred infinite confusion in the Church so the Manichees might have made use of it to their wicked purpose of receiving onely in one kind The continuance of this fraud and dissimulation either in the Manichees or some other Heretics and superstitious Christians for it does not appear who they were caused a necessity at last in the time of Pope Gelasius to make an express Order and Decree against the sacrilegious dividing of the Sacrament and the taking of one Species without the other And let us now come to consider that as it is in Gratian's Decree Comperimus autem quod quidam sumptâ tantummodò corporis sacri portione à calice Sacrati cruoris abstineant qui proculdubiò quoniam nescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi aut integra Sacramenta percipia●… aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire Gratian. decret 3. pars dist 2. We find says he that some taking onely a portion of the Body abstain from the Cup of the holy Bloud which persons because they seem to adhere to I know not what superstition let them either take the Sacraments entirely or else be wholly kept from them because the division of one and the same Mystery cannot be without great Sacriledge Can any thing be more plain or more full than this against mangling and dividing the blessed Sacrament and against taking it in one kind is it possible to put by such a home-thrust against it as this is and will it not require great art to turn this into an argument for Communion in one kind which is so directly against it Surely the substance of words and arguments must be annihilated and transubstantiated into quite another thing before this can be done Let us see another tryal of Monsieur de Meaux's skill Gelasius says he was obliged to forbid expresly to Communicate any other ways then under both Species A signe that the thing was free before and that they would not have thought of making this Ordinance but to take from the Manicheans the means of deceiving Was it then free till the time of Pope Gelasius to receive either in one or both kinds does any such thing appear in the whole Christian Church or is there any instance of any one Public Communion without both kinds is a Decree of a Church-Governour upon a particular occasion against particular Heretics and superstitious Persons new rose up and persuant to a general Law of Christianity and the Custom of the whole Church is that a sign the thing was free before Then it was free for Christians not to come to the Sacrament at all before such and such Councils and Bishops commanded them to come at such times Then it was free for the Priests who minister'd to receive but in one kind before this Decree of Gelasius for 't is to those it is refer'd in Gratian where the title of it is The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without the Bloud † Corpus Christi fine ejus sanguine sacerdos non debet accipere Ib. Though there is no mention of the Priest in the Decree neither was there in the title in the ancient MSS Copies as Cassander assures us ‖ Ep. 19. and it seems plainly to concern neither the Priest nor the Faithful who by a constant and universal custom received in both kinds but onely those superstitious persons who were then at Rome and for I know not what reason refused the Cup and though there was a particular reason to make this Decree against them yet there needed no reason to make a Decree for the Faithful who always Communicated in both kinds and it is plain from hence did so in the time of Gelasius The motive inducing this Pope to make this Decree was because he found that some did not receive the Blood as well as the Body and the reason why they did not was some either Manichean or other Superstition so that this Decree I own was occasioned by them and particularly relates to them and shews that they herein differed from the Faithful not onely in their superstition but in the practice too but to say that he forbad this practice onely in respect of such a Superstition going along with it and that he did not forbid the Practice it self which was the effect of it is so notoriously false that the Decree relates wholly to the Practice and as to the Superstition it does not inform us what it was or wherein it consisted no doubt it must be some Superstition or other that hinders any from taking the Cup the superstitious fear of spilling Christ's Blood or the superstitious belief that one

Species contains both the Body and Bloud together and so conveys the whole vertue of both which is truely Superstition as having no foundation in Scripture or in the Institution of Christ which gives the Sacrament its whole vertue and and annexs it not to one but to both Species And whatever the Superstition be Gelasius declares it is Sacriledge to divide the Mystery or to take one Species without the other the reason which he gives against taking one kind is general and absolute because the Mystery cannot be divided without Sacriledge so that however our Adversaries may assoile themselves from the Superstition in Gelasius they can never get off from the Sacriledge How wide these conjectures from Pope Leo and Gelasius are from the mark which de Meaux aims at I shall let him see from one of his own Communion whose knowledge and judgement in antiquity was no way inferiour to his own and his honesty much greater who thus sums up that matter against one that would have strained and perverted it to the same use that de Meaux does Conjectura vero quam adfert ex Leonis Sermone Gelasii decreto prorsus contrarium evincit nam ex iis manifestè constat horum Pontificum temporibus Communionem non nisi in utrâque specie in Ecclesiâ usitatam fuisse Quomodo enim Manichaei hâc notâ deprehenderentur quod ingredientes Ecclesiam percepto cum reliquis corpore Domini à sanguine Redemptionis abstinerent nisi calix Dominici sanguinis distributus fuisset quomodo superstitionis convincerentur qui sumptâ Dominici corporis portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstinerent nisi calix ille sacrati cruoris omnibus 〈◊〉 Ecclesiâ fuisset oblatus non igitar ut quidam existimant novo decreto utriusque speciei usum hi sanctissimi Pontifices edixerunt sed eos qui solennem hunc receptum calicis sumendi morem neglexerunt ille ut heresis Manichaeae affines notandos evitandos bic ad usitatatam integri Sacramenti perceptionem compellendos aut ab omni prorsus Communione arcendos censuit Nam Catholicis novo decreto non opus erat qui receptam integra Sacramenta percipiendi consuetudinem religiosè servabant Cassand de Com. sub utrâque p. 1026. The Conjecture says he which he makes from the Sermon of Pope Leo and the Decrees of Gelasius does wholly evince the contrary to what he pretends for from them it manifestly appears that in the time of these two Popes the Communion was onely used in both kinds for how should the Manichees be known by this mark that when they came to the Churches they abstained from the Bloud of our Redemption after they had with others taken the Body of the Lord unless the Cup of the Lord had been distributed and how should they be convicted of Superstition who took a portion of the Lord's Body and abstained from the Cup unless the Cup of his sacred Bloud had been offered to all in the Church These holy Popes did not therefore as some imagine appoint the use of both Species by a new Decree but those who neglected this solemn and received custom of taking the Cup one of these Popes would have them avoided and markt as those who were a-kin to the Manichean Heresie the other would have them compelled to the accustomed perception of the entire Sacrament or else to be wholly kept from all Communion for there was need of no new Decree for the Catholics who did Religiously observe the received custom of taking the Sacrament entirely that is in both kinds There needs much better Arguments to prove the Public Communion in the Church to have been ever in one kind than such improbable Guesses and forced Conjectures whereby plain and full evidences are rackt and tortured to get that out of them which is contrary to their whole testimony sense and meaning Let us enquire then whether any particular instances can be given as matters of fact which will make it appear that the Church ever used onely one kind in its Public Communions this de Meaux attempts to shew in the last place and as the strongest evidence he can rally up for his otherwise vanquisht cause He brings both the Latine and Greek Church to his assistance though the latter he owns appears not for the most part very favourable to Communion under one Species but yet this manner of Communicating is practised however and consecrated too by the Tradition of both Churches If it be but practiced in both Churches this will go a great way to make it a Practice of the Catholic Church though neither of those Churches singly nor both of them together do make the Catholic But let us see how this is practiced in those two great though particular Churches Why in the Office of Good-Friday in the Latine Church and the Office of the Greek Church every day in Lent except Saturday and Sunday at those times it seems these two Churches have the Communion onely in one kind as appears by their public Offices if they have it so at those times at other times then I suppose they have it in both or else how come those particular times and those particular Offices to be singled out and remarked as distinct and different from all the rest then generally and for the most part the Public Communion is to be in both kinds according to the Tradition of both those Churches and then surely this Tradition which is thus consecrated by both the Churches is violated by the Roman Of the Mass on Good-Friday in the Roman Church But the Priest himself who officiates takes but in one kind in the Missa Parasceues as they call it or the Mass on Good-Friday as appears by the Office this custom then will shew that the Priest himself or the Minister Conficiens may receive onely in one kind in the Public Communion as well as the People which I think they ordinarily think unlawful and call it Sacriledge if he should ordinarily do so and if I remember Bellarmine himself says * Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti nam quia Sacramentum sub duplici specie institutum est utraque species necessariò ab aliquibus sumenda est Bellarm. de Euchar. c. 4. c. 23. The Sumption of both Species is necessary for the Priest who officiates as it is a Sacrament as well as a Sacrifice for since the Sacrament was Instituted under both kinds it is necessary that both kinds be taken by some-body to make it a Sacrament This Communion then of the Priest in one kind must be no Sacrament and the Missa Parasceues must be a very imperfect one and I think themselves are pleased so to call it it must be but equivocally call'd a Mass as Cardinal de Bona phrases it † Missam illam non nisi aequivocè ita dici Bona rer Lyturg. l. 1. c. 15. and consequently such an unusual and extraordinary

is essential to the Eucharist but the receiving both of them is because they are both commanded and instituted and both of them are the matter of that Sacrament as much as Water is of Baptism in a word without those we cannot do what Christ did and commanded to be done though we may without the other circumstances with which he did them which I think is a very plain way to distinguish the one from the other though de Meaux is so unwilling to see it The second principle of de Meaux is That to distinguish what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of a Sacrament we must regard the essential effect of that Sacrament But must we regard nothing else must we not regard the outward part as well as the inward and does not that appertain to the substance of a Sacrament as well as the other I confess the word substance which de Meaux uses is equivocal and ambiguous for it may signifie either the outward part of it as 't is a sacred sign or symbol and so the matter and form does appertain to the substance oressence of it or it may signifie the inward grace and vertue which is also of the substance of the Sacrament as 't is the thing signified and it is not onely one but both of these that do appertain to the substance of the Sacrament or to speak more clearly and plainly that make it a Sacrament If de Meaux understands nothing else by the substance of the Sacrament but the essential effect of it then his words are confused and run together and he had as good have put it thus That to distinguish what appertains or does not appertain to the essential effect of the Sacrament we must regard the essential effect of the Sacrament Which though it had not been sense yet he had better told us his meaning by it but surely there is something else that does plainly belong to the substance of the Sacrament besides the essential effect 't is strange that de Meaux the Treasury of Wisdom the Fountain of Eloquence the Oracle of his Age as he is stiled by the Translator but who like the Oracles of old too often doubles and equivocates that so great a man should not either understand or consider the plain nature of a Sacrament so as to account the external and visible part to belong to the essence or substance of it as well as the internal or the essential effect Does not every Catechism tell us that the Sacrament is made up of these two parts of the Res Terrena and Caelestis as Irenaeus * L. 4. calls it the Esca Corporalis and Spiritualis as St. Ambrose † De Myst the Sacramentum or outward Sign and Res Sacramenti as St. Austin ‖ De Consec dist 2. and must we not have regard to both these without which we destroy the very nature of a Sacrament as well as to one The very essence or substance if de Meaux pleases of the Sacrament of Baptism lies in the outward washing the body with Water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is the outward form of it without which it was declared null as well as in the cleansing the Soul and we must regard the one as well as the other though St. Peter tells us 1 Pet. 3.21 It is not the putting away the filth of the flesh whereby baptism saveth us but the answer of a good conscience towards God. Yet still we are to observe the outward ceremony and may know by another way namely from the Institution that that does appertain to the substance of it else with the Quakers and Socinians we may leave off all Sacraments and all the positive and outward ceremonies of Christianity and onely regard the essential effect and invisible grace of them which they also pretend to have without the visible sign As washing with water does appertain to the substance of Baptism so does eating Bread and drinking Wine appertain to the substance of the Eucharist and we must regard those which are the true matter of this Sacrament as well as the essential effect of it else how were the Aquarii that used Water and others that used Milk reproved so severely by St. Cyprian and Pope Julius if the keeping to the outward Elements which Christ has instituted and appointed be not as well to be regarded as the inward and essential effect and if these do not appertain to the substance of the Sacrament and could not be easily known and distinguisht from the other circumstances of the Sacrament by other means than by regard to the essential effect which they might hope to partake of without them DeMeaux is so wholly taken up with the essential Effect and entire Fruit and the inseparable Grace of the Sacrament with which words he hopes to blind and amuse his Reader and therefore he drops them almost in half the Pages of his Book that he takes not due care nor is much concerned about the outward and visible part of the Sacrament which he knows is so grosly violated and shamefully mangled and mutilated in his Church and yet this is so considerable that 't is not a true Sacrament without it and Gelasius plainly calls the dividing of the outward part of the Sacrament the dividing of the Mystery and to be plain with him and to give the killing blow to his cause and to all the artifical slights with which he fences and defends it and as he speaks For once to stop the mouth of these Cavillers I shall lay down this principle that the essential effect or inward substance of the Sacrament is not ordinarily to be received or partaken without receiving and partaking the external part or the outward substance of it which is instituted and appointed by Christ And by this plain principle which I have made use of before and shall further strengthen and confirm all that he says about receiving the Grace and Vertue and essential Effect of the Sacrament by one kind will be quite taken off and destroyed but because this is the great Plea and the fundamental reasoning which he every-where uses in his Book I shall therefore fully consider it under these two Questions 1. Whether the same Grace Vertue and Benefit do not belong to one Species or be not given by one Species which is by both 2. Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy do not contain and give whole Christ and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament I. Whether the same Grace Vertue and Benefit be not given by one Species as by both This de Meaux every-where asserts and 't is the foundation he all along goes upon but is it not strange presumption when God has been pleased to appoint such a Religious Rite and Sacramental Action to be performed in

such a manner with a promise of such graces and benefits to those who perform it aright to think he will grant the same benefits to those who perform it otherwise than he has appointed and to venture to make a change and alteration from what he positively ordered and yet think to partake of the same benefits another way without any such outward means and without any Sacraments at all for they are wholly in his own free disposal and he is not tied to any outward means nor to such particular means as the Sacraments are but since he has thought fit to make them the ordinary means of conveying those benefits to us we cannot ordinarily hope for the one without the other thus we cannot expect the vertue and benefit of Baptism without the outward ceremony of washing and without observing that in such a way as Christ has appointed i. e. washing with Water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost neither can we receive the inward grace and vertue of the Eucharist without taking that Sacrament as Christ hath appointed and commanded it for all Sacraments would loose their worth and value their esteem and reverence and would not be necessary to be observed according to the Divine Institution if without the observance of that we had any just grounds to hope for the vertue and benefits of them there is therefore all the reason in the World to fear that God to preserve the integrity of his own Institution and the force and authority of his own Laws will deny the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament to those who wilfully violate and transgress the outward observance of it in such a way as he has appointed Has not Christ annexed the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament to the outward Sign If he have and we do not receive the outward Sign as he has appointed how can we then hope to receive the inward Grace What is it that makes such an outward sign or ceremony as a Sacrament be a means of conveying such spiritual Grace and Vertue and exibiting such inward benefits to our minds It is not any physical power or natural vertue which they have in themselves it is not the washing with a little Water can cleanse the Soul or the eating a little Bread and drinking a little Wine can nourish and strengthen it but it is the Divine Power of Christ who by his Institution has given such a spiritual and inward vertue to such outward signs and visible actions and made these the means and instruments of conveying and exhibiting such grace and vertue and real benefits to us all the power and efficacy they have to do this is owing purely to the Divine Institution and wholly depends upon that if therefore we do not observe the Institution how can we expect the benefit that comes wholly from that and if Christ by the Institution has annexed the grace and vertue and benefit of the Sacrament to both kinds which he has plainly done by instituting of both how can we then hope to receive it by one contrary to the Institution and how can we be assured that we loose nothing and are deprived of nothing by taking one onely and that this is as good and sufficient as taking of both There is nothing appears from the will and pleasure of him that instituted both upon which the whole vertue of them does entirely depend from whence we can gather any such thing it rather appears from thence that both are necessary because bothare instituted de Meaux therefore does not fetch it from thence but from the nature of the thing it self from the inseperableness of that grace which is given in the Sacrament and from the impossibility in the thing to have it otherwise Christ says he cannot seperate the vertue of the Sacrament nor effect that any other grace should accompany his Blood shed than that same in the ground and substance which accompanies his Body immolated † P. 182. But Christ can annex the vertue of the Sacrament to the whole Sacrament and not to any part of it and he can effect that the grace of his Body and Blould should accompany or belong to both the eating his Body and drinking his Blood and not to the doing one of these without the other contrary to his command and institution although the grace be inseparable so that the grace annexed to the Body be no other than that which is annexed to the Blood ‖ P. 3. yet this grace may not be given till both the Body and Blood are received as Bellarmine expresly says it may not in the case of the Priests taking both kinds till the whole sumption of both Species is performed and finished * Possit etiam dici Eucharistiam sub specie panis non conferre gratiam nisi totâ sumptione Eucharistiae absolutâ quia cum sumitur utraque species non censetur absoluta sumptio nisi cum sumta est utraque species ideò Eucharistiam sub specie panis conferre quidem gratiam sed non ante sumptionem alterius speciei Bellarm. de Sacram. Euch. l. 4. c. 23. and if it may not be so in the case of the Priest why not also in all other Communicants unless Christ have made and declared it otherwise which he has not what will it then signifie if as de Meaux says It be impossible to separate in the application the effect of Christ's Bloud from that of his Body † P. 182. If the effect of these be not applied till they are both received and there be no application of the effect as we cannot be assured there is without the receiving of both But did Christ then says he suspend the effect which his Body was to produce until such time as the Apostles had received the Bloud in the first institution of this Sacrament and in the internal between their taking the Bread and the Cup I answer they did not receive the grace of the Sacrament till they had received the whole Sacrament because the grace and effect was annexed to the whole and not to any part of it and therefore the effect may not onely be suspended till the whole is taken but even utterly lost without receiving the whole It is a little too nice and curious to enquire what are the precise moments in which we receive this grace of the Sacrament or any other ordinance as well as what is the particular manner in which we do receive it as whether all at once or by part or whether the effect be given in such a minute or suspended till the next In return to de Meaux's question I might as well ask him whether the effect of the Body is given when 't is just put into the mouth or when the species is chewed there or when it is swallowed down and comes into the stomack or whether it be suspended till all this is done So in Baptism which he will needs have to be

commanded by Christ and anciently practised by immersion Was the grace of it given when part of the body was dipt or the whole immerged and then whether when the body was under water or when it was raised out of it and when this was performed by Trine Immersion as 't is commanded in the Apostolic Canons † Canon 50. was the effect of it suspended till the last immersion was over so in the Jews eating of their Sacrifices whereby they were made partakers of the Altar and had the vertue of those applied to them as we by feeding on the Christian Sacrifice do partake of the vertue of that Was this done by the first bit they ate of them or was the half the vertue applied when they had ate half or was the whole suspended till the whole was eaten By these questions I hope de Meaux may see the vain subtilty and folly of his own which he thinks is so much to the purpose and does the business of proving the effect of the Sacrament to be given by one Species either before or without the other when the effect depends besides other things upon the whole action and the whole performance and the receiving of both of them When there is a conveyance of a thing by some visible ceremony which consists of several parts and several actions as suppose the conveying an Estate by Deed there is to be the setting of a Hand and the putting of a Seal and the delivery of it and something given and received as Livery and Seizin and the like all those things which the Law requires to be done as a form of passing and transferring of a right from one and receiving it by another these are all to be done before the thing is truly and legally and rightly conveyed The Sacraments he knows are outward tokens and visible pledges and solemn rites and ceremonies of Christ's conveying and our receiving his Body and Bloud and all the effects and benesits of them and till all that the Law of Christ appoints to be done in them according to his command and institution be truly and fully performed we do not ordinarily receive nor can we pretend a right to those things which they are designed to convey to us which I think is a plain illustration of the thing and takes off all the vain and nice subtilties of de Meaux about this matter but yet I shall offer something further concerning it First The Grace of the Sacrament which God has annexed to both and not to one Species though it be not to be seperated so that one Species should have a peculiar and distinct vertue proper to that which does not belong to both of them as there were not two distinct vertues in the Sacrifice and the pouring out the Blood of the Sacrifice but one expiatory vertue by the Sacrifice whose Blood was poured out yet this Grace is given in different measures and degrees so that however confidently de Meaux determines P. 179 184. P. 7. 5. 161. That the whole Grace and the entire Fruit of the Sacrament is received by one Species as well as both and that one has always the same efficacy of vertue that both so that we loose nothing by taking one Species onely but that Communion under one is as good and sufficient as under both Yet this is contrary to the opinion of the learned men even of his own Church Vasquez expresly declares the contrary Their opinion says he seemed always more probable to me who say that there is greater fruit of grace received from both kinds than from one onely and therefore that they who take the Cup do attain a new increase of Grace * Probabilior sententia mihi semper visa est eorum qui dicunt majorem frugem gratiae ex utrâque specie hujus Sacramenti quàm ex alterâ tantùm percipi ac proinde cos qui calicem sumunt novum augmentum gratiae consequi Vasquez in Tert. disp 215. c. 2. And he cites several other Writers of the Roman Communion as agreeing with him in this and even one of their own Popes Clement the sixth who granting the Communion of both kinds to one of our English Kings does it with this particular reason set down in his Bull That it might be for the augmentation of Grace † Vt ad Gratiae augmentum sub utrâque specie communicaret Ib. Alexander Alensis said the same before Vasquez namely That the Sumption under both kinds which was that which our Lord delivered was more complete and more efficacious ‖ Sumptio sub utrâque specie quem modam samendi tradidit Dominus est majoris efficaciae complementi Alexand. Alens in 4 sent quest 53. and although he defends and asserts that the Sumption under one is sufficient yet that under both he acknowledges is of greater merit * Licet ill a sumtio quae est in accipien do sub unâ specie sufficiat illa tamen quae est sub duabus est majoris meriti Ib. Suarez tells us This was the opinion of many Catholics That there was more Grace given by both Species than by one alone and grave men says he relate that this was held by most of the Fathers who were present in the Council of Trent and therefore that Council speaks very cautiously and onely says that the Faithful by communicating onely in one kind are deprived of no Grace necessary to Salvation † Fuit multorum Catholicorum opinio plus gratiae dari per duas species quam per unam tantùm Quam viri graves referunt tenuisse plures ex Patribus qui Concilio Tridentino affuerunt ideo idem Concilium cautè dixisse fideles eo quòd communicent sub unâ tantùm specie nullâ Gratiâ ad salutem necessariâ defraudari Suarez Tom. 3. in Tert. Disp 63. So that it seems they may by their own tacit confession be deprived of some grace that is very useful and beneficial to a Christian or of some degree of that Sacramental Grace which is given by both Species and not by one If it were no more than this which themselves own yet 't is pitty sure that Christians should be deprived of that but they can never assure Christians that they are not deprived of all even of that which is necessary to Salvation So far as the Grace of the Sacrament is so because this necessary Grace is annexed not to one kind but to both and the taking the species of Wine is as necessary to receive that by Christ's Institution as the species of Bread for no reason can be imagined why the one should give onely the necessary Grace and the other onely the additional Men must make too bold with the Grace of God and the Grace of the Sacrament who think to give it as they please and to part and divide it as they think fit by their presumptuous and ungrounded fancies and do not wholly depend upon his will

that Tradition would excuse them from a Divine Law. All the instances which Monsieur de Meaux heaps up are very short of proving that and though I have examined every one of them except that pretended Jewish Tradition of Praying for the Dead which is both false and to no purpose yet it was not because there was any strength in them to the maintaining his sinking Cause but that I might take away every slender prop by which he endeavours in vain to keep it up and drive him out of every little hole in which he strives with so much labour to Earth himself when after all his turnings and windings he finds he must be run down If any instance could be found by de Meaux or others of any Tradition or any Practice of a Church contrary to a Divine Institution and to a plain Law of God they would deserve no other answer to be returned to it but what Christ gave to the Pharisees in the like case Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition ‖ Mat. 15.3 Our Saviour did not put the matter upon this issue Whether the Tradition by which they explained the Law so as to make it of none effect was truly ancient and authentic and derived to them from their fore-Fathers but he thought it sufficient to tell them that it made void and was contrary to a Divine Law. There is no Tradition nor no Church which has ever broke so plain a Law and so shamefully violated a Divine Institution as that which has set up Communion in One Kind the true reason why it did so was not Tradition no that was not so much as pretended at first for the doing of it but onely some imaginary dangers and inconveniencies which brought in a new custom contrary to ancient Tradition These were the onely things insisted on in its defence at first the danger of spilling the Wine and the difficulty of getting it in some places and the undecency of Laymens dipping their Beards in it These were the mighty reasons which Gerson brought of old against the Heresie as he calls it of Communicating in both Kinds † Tractatus Magistri Johannis de Gerson contra haeresin de communionae Laicorum sub utraque specie as if it were a new Heresie to believe that Wine might be spilt or that men wore Beards or as if the Sacrament were appointed only for those Countreys where there were Vines growing De Meaux was very sensible of the weakness and folly of those pretences though they are the pericula and the scandala meant by the Council of Constance and therefore he takes very little notice of them and indeed he has quite taken away all their arguments against the particular use of the Wine because he all along pleades for either of the Species and owns it to be indifferent which of them so ever is used in the Sacrament But I have shewn that both of them are necessary to make a true Sacrament because both are commanded and both instituted and both of them equally belong to the matter of the Sacrament and so to the essence of it and both are ordinarily necessary to the receiving the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament because that is annext to both by the Institution and cannot warrantably be expected without both To conclude therefore Communion in One Kind is both contrary to the Institution and to the Command of Christ and to the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church grounded upon that Command and is no less in it self than a sacrilegious dividing and mangling of the most sacred Mystery of Christianity a destroying the very Nature of the Sacrament which is to represent the Death of Christ and his Blood separated from his Body a lessening the signification and reception of our compleat and entire spiritual Nourishment whereby we are Sacramentally to eat Christ's Body and drink his Bloud an unjust depriving the People of that most pretious Legacy which Christ left to all of them to wit His Sacrificial Bloud which was shed for us and which it is the peculiar priviledge of Christians thus mystically to partake of and lastly a robbing them of that Grace and Vertue and Benefit of the Sacrament which belongs not to any part but to the whole of it and cannot ordinarily be received without both kinds O that God would therefore put it into the hearts of those who are most concerned not to do so much injury to Christians and to Christianity and not to suffer any longer that Divine Majesty which is the great Foundation of all Spiritual Grace and Life to be tainted and poysoned with so many corruptions as we find it is above all other parts of Christianity And O that that blessed Sacrament which was designed by Christ to be the very Bond of Peace and the Cement of Unity among all Christians and to make them all one Bread and one Body may not by the perversness of men and the craft of the Devil be made a means to divide and separate them from each other and to break that Unity and Charity which it ought to preserve FINIS A CATALOGUE of some Discourses sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil 1. A Perswasive to an Ingenuous Tryal of Opinions in Religion 2. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of the Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 3. A Discourse about the Charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith being an Answer to Three Questions I. How far we must depend on the Authority of the Church for the true Sence of Scripture II. Whether a vissible Succession from Christ to this day makes a Church which has this vissible Succession an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture and whether no Church which has not this visible Succession can teach the true Sence of Scripture III. Whether the Church of England can make out such a visible Succession 5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in matters of Faith with Respect especially to the Romish pretence of the Necessity of such a one as is Infallible 6. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be Received and what Tradition is to be Rejected 7. A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church maintained in the Church of England 8. A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with Respect to the Errours and Corruptions of the Church of Rome In two Parts 9. A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship or a Scripture-Proof of the Unlawfulness of giving any Religious Worship to any other Being besides the one Supream God. 10. A Discourse against Transubstantiation 11. A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host as it is Taught and Practised in the Church of Rome Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject and to Monsieur Bocleau's late Book de Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. 12. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints 13. A Discourse concerning the Devotions of the Church of Rome 14. A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue 15. A Discourse concerning Auricular Confession as it is Prescribed by the Council of Trent and Practised in the Church of Rome With a Postscript on occasion of a Book lately printed in France called Historia Confessionis Auricularis 16. A Discourse concerning the Worship of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints with an Account of the Beginnings and Rise of it amongst Christians In Answer to Monsieur de Meaux's Appeal to the Fourth Age in his Exposition and his Pastoral Letter 17. A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux's Treatise of Communion under both Species Lately Translated into English

remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the new testament in my blood this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me From all these it evidently appears that our Saviour appoints the Cup as well as the Bread and commands that to be drunk as much as the other to be eat And two of the Evangelists remark that particularly of the Cup which they do not of the Bread that they all drank of it and that Christ said expresly to them Drink ye all of it As if the infinite Wisdom of God which foresaw all future events and all the after-errours that should arise about this Sacrament had had some especial regard to this very thing and designed to prevent the abuse and mistake of those who would not have all Christians drink of this Cup as well as eat of the Bread. What other reason there should be of those particular and remarkable words in St. Mathew and St. Mark relating to the Cup more than to the Bread I believe it will be hard to find out for Christ gave them the Bread just as he did the Cup and there was no more danger that any of them at that time should omit drinking the one any more than eating the other nor did there need any greater caution that we know of or more particular command in reference to themselves for the one more than the other and yet no doubt there was some great and peculiar reason for St. Matthew and St. Mark 's adding of those words of which there can be no such probable account given as their having a respect and relation to after Ages as many other things in the Scripture have which was written for the use not onely of the present but all times of the Church and if these were spoken to the Apostles onely as Priests as the Roman Sophisters pretend though without any ground as we shall shew by and by there cannot then be given any reason for them as yet for there is no such corruption yet got into any part of the Christian Church as to forbid the Priests to drink of the Cup and therefore it cannot be said that this remark or precaution was upon their account unless the Romanists will think fit to take it to themselves upon the account of their not allowing their very Priests to Communicate of the Cup unless when they Minister and Consecrate and so will have it regard onely that other abuse of theirs which is unjustifiable even upon their own grounds to wit That the assistent Priests are not to receive it though Christ by their own confession said to the Priests who were present Drink ye all of it Which is the best way that I know for them to come off of those words by their own Principles For to avoid the force of those words and to elude the plain Command and Institution of our Saviour about the Cup 's being given to all Christians they say The Apostles received it onely in the capacity of Priests and that our Saviour's Command Drink ye all of it belongs onely to Priests and was given to the Apostles meerly as such nay Monsieur Boileau says ‖ Igitur haec verba S. Matthei bibete ex hoc omnes haec S. Marci biberant ex illio omnes neminem hominem praeter duodecim Apostoles spectant aut attinent Boileau de praecepto divino Commun Sub utrâque specie p. 188. that those words in St. Matthew Drink ye all of it and in St. Mark they all drank of it Respect no man whatsoever nor belong to no other man but to the twelve Apostles and Monsieur de Meaux tells us P. 237. that these words were addressed to the Apostles onely who were present and had their entire accomplishment when in effect they all drunk of it Then it seems none but the Apostles themselves no other Priests have a right or a command to drink of the Cup but onely the Apostles And this they might say if they pleased upon as good grounds and defend with as much reason as that the Apostles onely drank of it as Priests but I suppose they do not intend to improve this notion so far but mean onely the same with their Brethren who say that those words concern the Apostles not onely in their own persons but as Priests and as bearing the persons of all Christian Priests in which capacity alone they received the Cup and were commanded by our Saviour to drink of it whereas they received the Bread as Lay-men and as representing the whole body of private and ordinary Christians What a sudden change is here in the Apostles they who sat down as Lay-men and as Lay-men took the Bread just before have their capacity altered in a trice and are made Priests in a moment Yes say they so they were at that very time they were made Priests whilst they were sitting at Table with Christ and Celebrating this his last Supper the first and only ordination that ever was either in the Jewish or Christian Church in the time of eating and siting at Table And they may set up I dare say for the first Authors among all the Christian Writers that ever were of this Opinion that is now held by them That Christ at his last Supper appointed not onely one but two Sacraments that of Orders as well as that of the Eucharist and the first without any proper Solemnity for such a purpose without any outward Action or any Words one would think importing any such thing But they were made Priests say they by vertue of those words Hoc facite Do this which Christ spake to them after he had given them the Bread. This is a very short and a quick form of Ordination and had it been known to be one sooner for 't is a very late discovery I suppose the Roman Church would have kept to that in the Ordaining Priests as they do to Hoc est Corpus in Consecrating the Sacramental Bread But this short form whereby they will have the Apostles made Preists so suddenly and unexpectedly happens to be too quick and to make them Priests a little too soon which is a very unlucky thing for their purpose for Christ said those words Hoc facite do this just as he gave them the Bread and spoke them in one continued sentence with Take eat this is my body so that whether he gave the Bread severally to each of them or they took it as it was upon the table as it is said they divided the Cup among themselves it cannot be supposed but that those words hoc facite were spoken by Christ before the Apostles did receive the Bread or at least before they ate it so that it might as fairly be pretended and as truly that the Apostles ate the Bread as Priests as well as drank the Wine as such for they were made as much Priests by those words