capable of the one as the other and therefore the Council of Trent which has condemned all those who say the Eucharist is necessary for Infants has herein determined against the general sence and practice of the Church and put no less men than St. Austin and Innocent a Pope of their own notwithstanding his Infallibility who were notoriously of this Opinion under an Anathema which how they can reconcile with their other principles of following Tradition and of the Churches Infallibility in all Ages I shall leave to them to consider and make out if they can But as to our present question when the Communion was thus given to Infants I utterly deny that it was onely in one kind I cannot indeed produce so many proofs that it was in both as in the Sick because there was not so much occasion in any History to make mention of the one as the other but that which was the very ground and foundation of this Practice of Communicating Infants and the reason why they thought it necessary to their Salvation namely those words of our Saviour John 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you these do suppose an equal necessity to drink the Bloud as to eat the Flesh and to do both as well as one And hence St. Austine who denys as he says all Catholics do with him That Infants can have Life without partaking of the Eucharist expresses it in such words as suppose plainly their partaking of both kinds viz. * Parvulos sine cibo carnis Christi sanguinis potu vitam non habituros sine participatione corporis sanguinis Domini Ep. 106. Their distinct eating the flesh and drinking the bloud of Christ as other Authors also do who mention this very thing in relation to Infants †Non cibatis carne neque potatis sanguine Christi Hipogn l. 5. Corporis Dominici edulio ac sanguinis haustu satiatos Liber Catoh magni de Imag. c. 27. and Pope Paschal the Second who in the eleventh Century allows the mixing the two species for Infants by this means appoints them to take both and supposes it an original custom to do so and if we had nothing else yet the remaining custom in the Greek and Eastern and in all Churches that still continue the Communion of Infants to Communicate them in both kinds is as full an evidence of this as can be expected And de Meaux has not been able to offer any one example to the contrary but that poor one out of St. Cyprian which if it proves any thing it proves that the whole Christian Assembly received onely the Cup in their public and solemn Meetings as well as the Infant he mentions which he is not so hardy as to venture to say nor dare any one that understands any thing of St. Cyprian's time but the Story he would improve to his purpose is this ‖ Cyprian de Lapsis p. 132. Edit Oxon. A Child who had been carried by its Nurse to an Idol Temple and had there tasted of a little Bread and Wine that was Sacrificed this was afterwards brought by its Mother who knew nothing of this matter to the Christian Assembly and there it discovered the strange misfortune had befallen to it For all the time of the Prayers it was in great trouble and uneasiness it cried and tost and was impatient as if it had been in a fit and an agony and seemed to confess that by its actions which it could not by words thus it continued whilst the Solemn Offices were performed and towards the end of them when the Deacon bringing the Cup about to all the rest at last came to that it turned away its face and kept its lips close and would not receive it but the Deacon poured in a little into its mouth against its will which it quickly brought up again not being able to retain what was so holy and sacred in its impure and polluted stomack This was a miraculous and extraordinary warning to others not to partake with any part of the Idol Worship or Offerings which they were in that time greatly tempted to and for this purpose St. Cyprian relates the thing of his own knowledge he being an eye-Witness of it But Monsieur de Meaux would have this serve to shew that the Child had the Cup onely given to it there being no mention of the Bread and therefore that it received but in one kind and consequently that it was the custom for Infants to receive but in one kind in St. Cyprian's time if so then it was the custom also for all Christians in their Religious Assemblies to receive onely in one kind for St. Cyprian mentions nothing at all of the Bread in this place given to the rest any more than to the Child and if de Meaux or any one that pretends to any thing of Learning will assert this That in St. Cyprian's time Christians in the public Communion received but one Species and that this Species was that of Wine I 'll willingly give them this instance of the Child and take them up upon the other where I am sure I have all the learned men that ever read St. Cyprian or understand any thing of Antiquity on my side But why does not St. Cyprian mention any thing of the Bread if that were then given to the Child or others Because he had no reason to do it in this short relation which was not to give an account of all that was then done by the Christians in their Religious Offices but onely of this accident which happened to the Child at that time it being his business in that Discourse to deter men from joyning in the Pagan Idolatry from the terrible Judgements of God upon several who had done this and after this remarkable instance of the Child he relates another of a man who had received the Bread in the Sacrament * Sacrisicio à sacerdote cetebrato partem cum caeteris ausus est latenter accipere sanctum Domini edere contrectare non potuit cinerem ferre se apertis manibus invenit Cyp. Ib. de Laps so that they received that it seems as well as the Wine which was as miraculously turned into Ashes But why was not the Child as much disturbed at the receiving the Bread if that was given it as at the receiving the Wine Why so it was during the whole time of being there at the Prayers and at the whole Solemnity it was under the same trouble agitation and discomposure but most remarkably at the end and conclusion of all when it had taken the whole Sacrament If the other Christians received the other part of the Sacrament though it be not mentioned so might this child and as I think none will from hence attempt to shew that all Christians were then deprived of the Bread so it is plain they all had the Cup and that the Children
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
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
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 quà m 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