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 u­trâ (que) 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[Page 2]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 utrâ (que) 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[Page 3]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.

[Page 4]

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 [Page 5]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 utrâ (que) 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[Page 6] 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[Page 7]is a very short and a quick form of Ordination; and had it been known to be one sooner, for 'tis 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, before they ate the Bread, as before they drank the Wine: If we do suppose they did receive the Bread into their hands, before those words were pronounced by our Saviour; which is the most that can be, yet they could not eat it before they were. And so this fine and subtle Hypo­thesis which they have invented to deprive the Laiety of the Cup, will deprive them of the Bread too, and will in its consequence, and by the same train of arguing, tend to take away the whole Sacrament from the Peo­ple, and make it peculiar to the Priests, as some of the Jewish Sacrifices were, and the People shall not at all partake of the Altar, but it shall be reserved as a pecu­liar right and priviledge of the Priests, to which the Laity ought not to pretend, because the Apostles took the Sacrament only as Priests, and were made Priests[Page 8]fore they either ate the Bread or drank the Wine; this would make a greater difference and distinction between the Priests and the Laiety, and tend more to preserve the honour and esteem of one above the other. Which is the great reason they themselves give, and no doubt a true one, for their taking away the Cup from the People; and I don't question, but so great a Wit, and so elo­quent an Artist in pleading, as the Bishop of Meaux is, who can say a great deal for any cause, be it never so bad, may with as good grounds, and as great a shew of reason, justifie if he please, the taking away the whole Sacrament from the Laiety as the Cup, and may to this purpose improve and advance this notion of the Apostles, receiving both kinds as Priests, to prove the Laiety have a right to neither, and may take off the ne­cessity of both parts as well as one, by pretending that the real effect and vertue of the Sacrament is received some other way, by the Sacrifice of the Mass, or by Spiritual Manducation, or by some thing else without partaking a­ny of the Symbols, as well as without partaking all of them as Christ has appointed, for if the effect and ver­tue of the Sacrament depend upon Christs Institution, then both are necessary, if it may be had without keep­ing to that, then neither is so, but of this afterwards, when we come to examine his grounds and reasons. I shall make some Reflections upon our Saviours Institu­tion of this Sacrament, and offer some considerations a­gainst these pretences and Sophistries of our Adversaries.

1. I would ask them whither those words of our Sa­viour, Do this in remembrance of me, do not belong to all Christians as well as to the Apostles? if they do not, then where is there any command given to Christians for to receive the Sacrament, either in both or in one kind? Where is there any command at all for Christi­ans to Celebrate or come to the Lords Supper? or to ob­serve this Christian Rite, which is the peculiar mark and[Page 9]badge of our Profession, and the most solemn part of Christian Worship? Those words surely contain in them as plain a Command, and as direct an Obligation upon all Christians to perform this Duty to the end of the World, as they did upon the Apostles at that time; or else we must say with the Socinians, That the Sacrament was onely a temporary Rite, that belonged onely to the Apostles, and was not to continue in the Church, or be observed by all Christians in all Ages: But St. Paul says, 1 Cor. 11.26. we do hereby shew, or declare the Lord's death till he come, by this solemn way of eating Bread broken, and Wine poured out; we are to remember Christ who dyed for us, and is gone into Heaven, till he come again, when we shall live with him, and enjoy his Presence for ever: Christ has given a command to all Christians to do this, and they are to Do this in remembrance of him; they are as much obliged to this, as the Apostles were; and the command does as much belong to the People, to receive the Sacrament, as to the Apostles, or to their Suc­cessors to give it them. The Apostles and Christian Priests are hereby commanded to do their parts, which is, not onely to receive, but to dispence and distribute the Sacrament; and the People or Christian Laiety, are com­manded to do theirs, which is, to receive it: The A­postles are to do that which Christ did, to Bless the Bread and breake it, and give it to be eaten; to bless the Cup, and give it to be drunk by the Communicants; and the Communicants are to eat the Bread and drink the Cup: and if they do not both of them do this that belongs to them, and perform those proper parts of their Duty, which are here commanded them, they are both guilty of an unexcusable disobedience to this plain com­mand of Christ, Do this in remembrance of me. No body ever denyed that those words, and this command of Christ, belonged to the Apostles; but to say they be­long to them alone, and not to all Christians, is to take [Page 10]away the Command and Obligation which all Christians have to receive the Holy Supper.

2. This command of Christ, as it obliges all Christi­ans to receive the Sacrament, the Laiety as well as the Clergy, so it obliges them to receive it in both kinds; and as it obliges the Clergy to give the People the Sacra­ment, so it obliges them to give it in both kinds; for the command of Doing this in remembrance of Christ, be­longs as much to one kind as the other; and is as ex­presly added concerning the Cup, as concerning the Bread; for so it is in St. Paul ‖ beyond all contradiction, and to the unanswerable confusion of our Adversaries, who would pretend it belongs only to the Bread; Bel­larmine observing these words in St. Luke, to be added only after the giving of the Bread, for they are in nei­ther of the two other Evangelists, falls into a mighty tri­umph, and into a most Religious fit of Catholic Devo­tion, admiring the wonderful Providence of GOD, Mirabilis est providentia Dei in sanctis literis, nam ut non haberent haeretici justam excusationem, sustu­lit eis omnem tergiversando occasio­nem: Nam Lucas illud, Hoc faci­te, posuit post datum Sacramentum. Sub specie panis, post datum autem calicem illud non repetivit, ut intel­ligeremus jussisse Dominum ut sub specie panis omnibus distribueretur Sacramentum, sub specie autem vi­ni non utrem. Bellarm. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 4. c. 25. that to take away all Heretical Tergi­versation, this should so happen, that it might be plainly understood, that the Wine was not to be given to all, and that this command did not belong to that, but onely to the Bread: But this shews how over-hasty he was to catch at any thing, though by the plainest mi­stake in the World, that might help him in his straights, and how over-glad to find any thing that might seem to favour and relieve him in his distressed cause; and how his zeal and for­wardness out run, not onely his judgement, but even his memory; for if he had but turned to St. Paul, and had but thought of this passage in him, where he addes these very words, Do this in remembrance of me, to the Cup as well as to the Bread, it would have quite spoiled his mighty Observation, and made him ashamed of it, and[Page 11]not have suffered him to be guilty of so horrid a flip. But the Bishop of Meaux espied this, P. 255. as it is hard to miss it; and what way has he to put by the force of those words, which so undeniably belong to the Cup, as well as the Bread? He says, They import onely a condi­tional order, to do this in remembrance of Christ, as often as one shall do it? and not an order absolute to do it. But does not this conditional order imply an absolute one, to do it often; and virtually forbid the not doing it at all? if he had gone on but to the very next verse, would he not have found that St. Paul gives the same conditional order concerning eating the Bread, as both here and there concerning drinking the Cup? As often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do shew forth, or do ye shew forth, [...], the Lord's death till he come, And do not those words, though spoke conditionally of the Bread, yet absolutely order the eating of it, when we received the Sacrament? if they do, as sure no body will deny, then they as well absolutely order the drink­ing the Cup too, when we do so, Affirmative precepts, such as this is, oblige us not absolutely at all times, as when ye pray, when ye fast, are onely conditional commands; but yet they import an absolute command to perform those duties, and when we do so, to perform them so as Christ has appointed us to do: and thus we have an absolute precept in the Gospel, to receive the Sacrament, which he is very willing we should not have, P. 256. and when we do so, we are to receive it as Christ com­manded we should, by eating Bread, and drinking Wine, and doing both those in remembrance of him.

3. Christ's own Institution, had there been no such particular Commands to Drink, as well as to Eat, and to Do both in remembrance of him; I say, his own Institu­tion of the Sacrament, both by Bread and Wine, should suffice, methinks, to show us what we should do, when we Celebrate the same Sacrament that he did; namely, [Page 12]use both Bread and Wine; and eat and drink it as was done then; if it be the same Sacrament that he celebrated with his Disciples, why do not we celebrate it as he did? why should we not observe his own Institution? but without any order from him, and contrary to what he did, leave out part of it; and that part of it which is as considerable and as remarkable in his Institution, as the other? If from the bare Institution of Christ, all Christians are bound to receive this Sacrament, which surely they are; then from thence they are bound as much to drink the Cup, as to eat the Bread; for both are equally instituted. If the Institution, for of that I speak now, as 'tis in St. Matthew and St. Mark, with­out the additional command of Do this; if that do not oblige to drink the Cup, neither does it oblige to eat the Bread; for that is no more in the Institution then the other: And if the Church has such a power as to take away the Cup, notwithstanding the Institution, it may have a power to take away the Bread too, notwith­standing the Institution; for the one is as much in the Institution as the other; and if the Cup be not an Essen­tial part of the Sacrament, which is the other thing they say, and which the Bishop of Meaux insists on, which I shall examine afterwards: then neither is the Bread, so far as appears by the Institution, and so nei­ther of them may be necessary, and both of them may be taken away, notwithstanding Christ's own Institu­tion of both. Which, though it be the most presump­tuous boldness, and the most horrid Sacriledge that can be, yet shall I say no more to it at present, but what St. Cyprian does upon the like case, of those who would omit the Wine in the Sacrament, and use water instead of it. Quod si nec minimademan­datis Christi licet solvere, quanto magis tam magna tam grandia tam ad ipsum dominicae passionis & nostrae Redemptionis Sacramentum pertinentia fas non est infringere aut in aliud quam quod divinitùs institutum sit, humanâ insti­tutione mutare? Cyprian ep. 63. ad Caecilium. But if it be not lawful to loose any one of the least Commands of Christ; how much more is it not lawful to infringe so great and so weighty ones? and such as the[Page 13]very Sacrament of our Lord's Passion, and our Redemption; and to change it by Humane Institution into quite another thing, then what it is by Divine Institution.

4. The reason added by our Saviour, to his Institution, and Command of, Drink ye all of it; Matth. 26.28. for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you; as in St. Luke, for many; as in St. Matthew and St. Mark, for the remis­sion of sins: This shews the Cup, not onely to have a peculiar use, as well as the Bread, and a particular misti­cal relation to his Blood shed or poured out; but that it belongs to all those to drink of it, for whom Christ's Blood was shed; who are to have remission of sins by it, and who have a right to the new Covenant which Christ has purchased and establisht in his Blood; which I suppose, are the Christian Laiety, as well as the Priests; though I do not think with Bellarmine Dispute de Euch. l. 4. that all Turks and Infidels ought to have the Cup, because Christ's Blood was shed for them too; but I presume, he will not say, they have the same right to it, or interest in it, that Christians have; and yet I own they ought as much to have the Cup, as they ought to turn Christians, that is, they ought to do both: But yet, first I think to become Christians, and be Baptized, before they have ordinarily a right either to Christ's Blood, or to the Sa­crament; and it must seem very strange, and grate very much upon all Christian ears, to have it said, that Turks and Infidels have a right to the Cup and Blood of Christ, as well as Christians, from this reason here of our Saviour to his Disciples, concerning which it is, I think, very ob­servable, that to partake of the Sacrificial Blood, and to drink that Sacramentally, which was shed for the ex­piation of our Sins, is a peculiar and extraordinary privi­ledge allowed to Christians. The Jews were forbid all blood, for this reason given by 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 [Page 14]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 'tis 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 [Page 15]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, quo­tiescun (que). 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[Page 16]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 PriestsIb.. 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 'tis 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[Page 17]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, 'tis 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[Page 18]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,[Page 19]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 SignificationP. 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 speciesP. 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[Page 20]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. 'Tis 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 with twelve persons, and those sitting or lying upon Beds, as the Jews used to do at Meals; for the same thing which Christ bids them do, may be done, the same Sacramental Action performed in another place, at another time, with fewer or more persons, and those otherwise postured or situated; but it cannot be the same Sacrament or same Action, if Bread be not blessed and eaten, if Wine be not blessed and drunken, as they were both then blessed by Christ, and eaten and drunk by his Apostles: The doing of these is not a circumstance, but the very thing it self, and the ve­ry substance and essence of the Sacrament; for without these we do not do what Christ did, whereas we may do the very same thing which he did, without any of those circumstances with which he did it: Thus in the other Sacrament of Baptism or washing with water, whether that be done by washing the whole body in immersion, or by washing a part of the Body in sprinkling, is but a circumstance, that is not necessary or essential to Bap­tism, but to wash with Water, is the very thing in which Baptism consists, and the very substance of the Sacrament which is essential and unalterable; the quantity of Water with which we wash is not, no more is the quantity of [Page 21]Bread and Wine which we eat and drink in the Sacrament but eating Bread and drinking Wine is as essential to the Eucharist, as washing with Water is to Baptism. Monsieur de Meaux betrays the great weakness of his Cause, and his own inability to defend it, when to take off the Argument from the Institution, he says, P. 168. We do not give the Lord's Supper at Table, or during Supper, as Jesus Christ did, neither do we regard, as necessary, many other things which he observed. And when he re­curs to Baptism P. 173. as if by not using immersion, we did not observe the Institution of that Sacrament, when [...] so plainly signifies washing with water, without plunging or immerging, as Mark 7.4. [...], except they are washed or baptized when they return from the Market, they eat not, and the [...] the washings of Pots, and of Cups, Mark 7.4.8. and in the washing of the dead, and divers washings [...] of the Jews, Hebrews 9.10. which were without any plunging or immerging, as is suffici­ently made out by all Authors, against the Anabaptists: A great man, must be mightily put to his shifts, when he is fain to use such poor cavils, and such little evasions as these, against a plain command, and a clear Institution; where to drink is as evidently commanded, as to eat, and where it is equally commanded to do both; and where it appears that doing both those in remembrance of Christ, make up the very substance and essence of what was done, and commanded by him, in the Institution. The matter of the Sacraments is certainly of the substance of them; Why else might we not Baptize without Water as well as perform the Eucharist without Bread and Wine? This the Schools are unanimously agreed in, and this was the Argument of St. Cyprian, against the Aqua­rii, who used Water instead of Wine; of Pope Julius a­gainst other Hereticks, who used Milk; and of Thomas Aquinas, against the Artotyritae, who offered Bread and[Page 22]Cheese together in this Sacrament; they tell them, that Excluduntur per hoc quod Chri­stus, hoc Sacramentum instituit in pane. Aquinas Part 3. Quest. 24. Christ Instituted this Sacrament in another Element, Nulli lac sed panem tantùm & calicem sub hoc Sacramento nosci­mus dedisse. Julius P. apud Grati­an de Consecr. that he did not give Milk, but Bread and Wine in this Sacrament; and that Admonitos nos scias ut in ca­lice offerendo Traditio observetur, ne (que) aliquid fiat à nobis quàm quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecerit, ne­mini fas est ab eo quod Christus Magister & praecepit & gessit hu­manâ & novellâ institutione dece­dere. they ought to observe the Divine Tradi­tion, neither ought any thing to be done, but what was first done by our Lord; for it is not lawful for any by any Humane and Novel Institution, to depart from what Christ our Master commanded and did; and that this was a sufficient confutation of them, that they did not do that which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Author and Teacher of this Sacrifice, both did and Taught Non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus Deus noster Sa­crificis hujus Auctor & Doctor fecit & docuit. Cypr. Ep. 63.. They all suppose it necessary to use the Elements which Christ used and appointed, and that because of his Institution, by which it plainly appears, what belongs to the Essence and Sub­stance of this Sacrament, to wit, Eating of Bread and drinking Wine blessed, in remembrance of Christ. It must be a very strange thing sure, to make these to be but cir­cumstances in the Sacrament, and to doubt whether they do belong to the substance and essence of it, and to pre­tend that we cannot know this from the Institution. Monsieur de Meaux, could not have done this in earnest, had he not considered the cause he was to defend, more than the Institution of Christ; in which, no man that will not shut his eyes but must see what belongs to the Essence and Substance of the Sacrament.

It is no less boldness to say, as Monsieur Boileau P. 191. and o­thers do, though de Meaux was too wise to offer any such thing in all his Book. That Christ himself varied from his own Institution after his Resurrection, and gave the Sacrament to some of the Disciples at Emmaus, under the one Species of Bread. And that the Apostles after his Ascension, and the sending of the Spirit upon them, Celebrated the Eucha­rist[Page 23]together with the whole Multitude of Believers, onely in Bread. It will be very strange if the Apostles, the ve­ry first time they gave the Sacrament, should be found to break Christ's Institution and Command about it, which were so very plain; if St. Peter and the rest of those ho­ly men did this, I shall never blame the Church of Rome, nor any of his Successors for doing it afterwards, and if they did it just after they were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and had that in such a Miraclous manner given unto them; I shall conclude, it was not the office of that blessed Spirit to bring all things to their remembrance which Christ had said unto them, as he told them it should be, but to teach them things quite contrary to what he had a little before commanded and appointed them: And it will be more strange if Christ himself, after his Resurrection, should give the Sacrament in another man­ner then he had done four days before. Let us therefore examine those places from which all these strange things are pretended, and see if any such matter is to be found in them, which I confess, will be very surprizing, if they be: As to the first, St. Luke tells us, Chap. 24. That the same day Christ was risen, two of the Disciples, the name of one of which was Cleophas, going to Emmaus, a Village near to Hierusalem; Christ, as they were Com­muning together about him and his Resurrection, drew near, and went along with them, and discourst to them about those things, as a person unknown; and going in­to a House and sitting at meat with them, he took bread and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them, v. 30. Here, say they, Christ gave the Sacrament, and gave it onely in Bread, for he took bread and blessed, and brake, and gave to them; which are the very words used at his giving his last Supper: But must Christ always be supposed to give the Sacrament whenever he took bread and blessed, and brake it, and gave it to others? Then he did so when he filled the five thousand with five Loaves and two[Page 24]Fishes, for then he looked up to heaven and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to others, Mark 6.41. Mat. 14.19. And so he did when he filled four thou­sand at another time, he took the seven loaves and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them, Mark 8.6. Here though he blessed the Bread, and gave thanks, as was always the custom of Pious and Religi­ous Men, at their ordinary meals, and though he brake the Bread, which is a Jewish phrase for distributing and giving it; yet it cannot in the least be pretended, that in any of these places he gave the Sacrament, nor is there any manner of reason to suppose he did so at Emmaus, with these Disciples, but to satisfie them of the truth, of himself and his Resurrection; he took meat with them, as he did afterwards with the Eleven Apostles, and by his behaviour at Table, and by his form of Blessing, which was probably the same he used at other times, and by thus seeing and conversing with him more intimately at Table, they came to understand who it was, and their eyes were opened, and they knew him, or as is v. 35. he was known to them in breaking of bread; that is, in eating with him, not that any thing miraculous or ex­traordinary was here shewn by Christ, or wrought up­on them, any more than was to the Apostles afterwards, to whom he shewed himself likewise, and took meat with them, to give them full satisfaction, that it was the same person who was Crucified, and who was risen with the same Body he had before; or if they were illumina­ted, and their eyes open'd in an extraordinary manner at that time; yet it was not necessary this should be done by the Sacrament, of all the vertues of which, the opening mens eyes, and curing them of Infidelity, is the least to be ascribed to it, since it is onely to be taken by those who do believe, and whose eyes are opened before, though this may sometimes be applyed to it, by way of Allegory and allusion, as it is by St. Austine, Theophy­lact, [Page 25]and others, who make the Pool of Bethesda; and the curing of the Lame and the Leprous by a word, to be as much Sacramental as they do this that is to have some signification or resemblance to Spiritual things: But there is not one Father or ancient Interpreter, who does plainly affirm, that Christ did here give the Sacrament, to those Disciples at Emmaus: The Bread which Christ blessed, was no more truly made a Sacrament thereby, than the House of Cleophas, was dedicated into a Church by Christ's presence and Divine Discourses there; which, yet it might be, according to St. Hierom's words, with­out any administring of the Sacrament, of which that place quoted out of him, makes no mention: Boileau, p. 192. But if it must be supposed without any Authority, and without any Reason, that Christ did here give the Sacrament, it must also be granted, that he did something more, than is rela­ted in that short account, which is there given; he must not onely have blessed and brake the bread, and given it to them, but he must have done it with those words, This is my body; which, they say, are always necessary to the true Consecration of this Sacrament: And if he may be supposed to have used those, though they are not mentioned, which is a good argument to prove it was not the Sacrament, but onely an ordinary Meal; then we may as well suppose, that at the same time he used Wine too, though that is not mentioned, and though we have no account of any Drink, which yet we cannot but think they had at that Supper let it be what it will: eating together and sitting at meat, includes and suppo­ses drinking too, though there is no particular or express mention of it: As in the

2. Second place in those several instances, out of the Acts of the Apostles, wherein it is said of the first Con­verts to Christianity, that they continued in breaking of Bread, and in Prayer Acts 2.42., and in breaking Bread, from house to house Acts 2.46, and that they came together on the [Page 26]first day of the Week, to break Bread Acts 20.7., which I am willing to allow, may be meant of the Sacrament, though a great many Learned men, think they belong to the charitable and friendly way of living among those first Christians, who had all things in common, and who came to eat together, at the same time that they came to pray, and contrived these daily meetings, for Worship and Refreshment, in the same house, for great­er conveniency: Yet, that they did not drink together, as well as eat, and that by an usual Synecdoche, both those are not included in the Phrase of breaking of Bread, is not to be imagined, Bread was a word, by which, not onely amongst the Jews, but all Nations, all manner of food, and nourishment necessary to life, was signified; as being the most considerable part of it, so that we mean this when we pray for our daily Bread, and when we say a man wanteth Bread, and so to break our Bread to the hungry, Isa. 58.7. and by the young childrens asking bread, and no man breaketh it unto them. Lament. 4.4. the same is imported. To break Bread, was an usual Hebrew expression, for giving all manner of food, as appears by those instances, so that when Bread, which is but one part of food, is expressed; yet the other is included and meant also, as when Christ went into the house of one of the chief Pharises to eat bread, Luke 14.1. we cannot suppose that he had only such a dry Banquet, as not to drink with him too, and when Joseph told the Steward of his house, that he should prepare an entertain­ment for his brethren, for they are to eat with me at noon, Gen. 43.16. hodie sunt mecum comesturi, as in the vulgar, he did not I 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[Page 27]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[Page 28]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 utra (que) 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[Page 29]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 [Page 30]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 [Page 31]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;[Page 32]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 [Page 33]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, 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, [Page 34]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 utra (que) specie. Boileau de praecepto di­vino Commun. sub utra (que) 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, 'tis 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 [Page 35]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 [Page 36]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 'tis 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[Page 37]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 Ʋt 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 us (que) 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 [Page 38]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. utram (que) 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 [Page 39]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 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 [Page 40]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.:[Page 41]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 [Page 42]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 Ʋt 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, & 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, [Page 43]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 observesQuem 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 [Page 44]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 placesDe 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[Page 45]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 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 quo (que) 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[Page 46]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[Page 47]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 'tis 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 Ʋt 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 [Page 48]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 [Page 49]he, Constat igitur & liquet omni­bus quòd in hâc mortali vitâ sine ci­bo & potu non vivitur, sic ita (que) 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 Ʋnde 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, Ʋnde 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 ejusdem (que) 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[Page 50]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 Cen­turyIllud 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 AgeConcil. 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:[Page 51]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 [Page 52]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 [Page 53]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 us (que) 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 Ʋniversal 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 us (que) diem; Occidenta­lem vero seu Romanam mille ampli­ùs à Christo annis in solenni preser­tim & ordinariâ hujus sacramenti dispensatione utram (que) panis & vini speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christi mem­bris exhibuisse, id quod ex innumeris veterum scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum testimoniis manife­stum est. Cassandri Consultatio de utrà (que) specie Sacramenti.. In his Dialogue speak­ing against those who pretended that the use of either[Page 54]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 aequo (que) animo, eorum scripta, qui hoe argumentum tractarunt, legisse & rationes qui­bus indifferentem eum morem probare nituntur, expendisse prositeor; ne (que) 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 utro (que) panis & vini symbolo, administratum fuisse. Id. de Sac. Com. sub utra (que) 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[Page 55]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 at (que) 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 kindId. 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 Ʋtrum 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[Page 56]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 utra (que) spe­tie. Salmeron. Tract. 35.. Cardinal Bona, upon this subject owns, Certum quippe est omnes passim Clericos & Laicos viros & mulie­res sub utra (que) specie sacra mysteria antiquitùs sumsisse cum solenni eorum celebrationi aderant, — consenti­unt omnes tam Catholici quam secta­rii nec eam negare potest qui vel le­vissimâ rerum Ecclesiasticarum noti­tiâ imbutus sit, semper enim & Ʋ ­bi (que) ab Ecclesiae primordiis us (que) ad seculum duodecimum sub specie panis & vini communicarunt fideles. Bo­na rer. Lyturg. l. 2. c. 18. That it is cer­tain that Clergymen every-where and La­ics, men and women did anciently receive the holy Mysteries under both kinds, when they were present at the solemn Celebrati­on of them: In this, says he, all, both Ca­tholics and Sectaries agree, neither can a­ny one deny it, who is endued with the least knowledge of the Ecclesiastical Affairs; for at all times, and in all places, from the first beginnings of the Church, even to the twelfth Age, the faithful communicated under the species of Bread and Wine. Nay, Bellarmine himself owns, that both Christ instituted under both species, and that the ancient Church ministred under both species; but the multitude increasing, this was found more and more inconvenient and so by degrees the custom of both kinds ceased Nam Christus inftituit quidem sub duplici specie Ecclesia autem ve­tus ministrabat sub duplici specie, crescente autem multitudine magìs & magìs apparuit incommodum & sic paulatim desiit usus sub utrâ (que) Bellarm. l. 4. c. 4. de Euch.. But when did it cease? not so soon as Christians grew very numerous, for that they were long before this was practiced, in the most flourish­ing Ages of Christianity, but after the new Doctrine of Transubstantiation made them grow superstitious, and afraid to spill that liquor, which they were taught to be­lieve, was the very substantial and natural Blood of Christ. It is plain from Thomas Aquinas that it was not wholly ceased in the thirteenth Century, and Valentia owns De legit. usu Euch. c. 10. that it was but a little before the Council of Con­stance. It was not so much by the command of the Bishops, as by the practice and use of the people; it was first disused, says Costor, in his Enchiridion, where he owns that in [Page 57] Est (que) bot diligentèr notandum alterius speciei Communionem non tam Episcoporum mandato quam po­puli usu & facto introductam. p 415. the time of Cyprian the people received both species Quia suô, i. e. Cypriani tempore populus utram (que) speciem sumebat. Ib. p. 421.. But when the Bishops took advantage of that superstition they had taught the people, and made this new Custom of theirs a Law of the Church; yet in that very Council which first command­ed the Communion in one kind, It was owned that it u­sed to be received of the Faithful in both, in the Primitive Church Licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ bu­jusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utrâ (que) specie, tamen haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pe­ricula & scandala, est rationabili­tèr introducta. Concil. Constant. Sess. 13., but to prevent some scandals and dangers, which the Primitive Church it seems never thought of, nor took care to avoid, as the peo­ple themselves now did, the Council de­clares this custom to be fitly brought in, and so decrees it to be observed under the penalty of Excommunication. The Council of Trent also acknowledges, though as spairingly as may be, that in the begin­nings of Christian Religion, the use of both kinds was not infrequent or unusual Licet ab initio Christianae Reli­gionis non insrequens utrius (que) speciei usus fuisset, tamen progressu temporis, latissimè jam mutatâ illâ consuetudi­ne de gravibus & justis causis ad­ducta, banc consuetudinem sub alterâ specie communicandi approbavit. Sess. 5. Canone 2. de Doctr.; why truely, that which was constant was not infrequent, but in the progress of time, 'twas a pretty long progress from the beginning of Christianity to the Thir­teenth Century, that custom being very widely chang'd, for great and just causes, such as the Lay-mens dipping their Beards in the Wine, when in the Primitive times, I suppose, they had no Beards, it approved the custom of Communicating in one kind, though contrary to the cu­stom of the whole Primitive Church for above a thou­sand years; who must yet have had the same reasons to have done it, if they had been such great and just ones; for there can be no other reason given now, but what would have been as good five hundred or a thousand years before; but they having altered the Doctrine of the Primitive Church; this was a just reason to alter the practice. I might adde several other confessions of[Page 58]their own learned men, for the Primitive Practice of Communion in both kinds, as Albaspinaeus, de la Cerda, and many others, but it might be tedious to my Reader as well as my self; I will conclude with one whom Mon­sieur de Meaux is very well acquainted with, and whom he knows to be as great a Master in Antiquity and all Learning, as any the French Church now has; and I will beg leave to put the same words to Monsieur de Meaux, that he does to Monsieur Ar­naud, Negabitne hunc Eucharisticae sub utra (que) specie Communionis usum Apo­stolis temporibas fuisse? Multis (que) in­de saeculi apud Ecclesiam perseveras­se? Atqui hoc negare vel inficiari non potest, nisi vel in ultimâ indocto­rum, vel certé in primâ imprudenti­um hominum classe censeri velit. Pe­tay. de paenit. pub. c. 5. Will any one deny this use of the Eucharistic Communion to have been in both kinds, in the times of the Apostles? And that it continued in the Church many Ages after? No man can deny or question this, unless he be willing to be rec­koned either in the last rank of unlearned, or in the first of imprudent men.

And now having given so full a proof that the Com­munion in both kinds, was the Practice of the Primitive Church, which I have done so largely, because Monsieur de Meaux has the face to deny this, and to attempt to prove the contrary; it will be very strange if after so many Affirmative Evidences, who all unanimously and positively declare that the Communion was always in both kinds, there should be any Negative Testimonies produced to the contrary, who shall fully contradict these, and depose that it was very often the custom of the Church to Communicate but in one. Monsieur de Meaux has made it his business to do this, and brings se­veral instances out of Antiquity to shew, that the Com­munion was very frequently given in the Primitive Church but in one kind, as in the Communion of the Sick, the Communion of Infants, Domestic Communion, and which, as he tells us, is very surprizing, the Public Communion in the Church. If he can but make out one of these cu­stoms, to wit, the latter, that of Public Communion in[Page 59]the Church, it will be much more considerable than all his other; for if they should prove true, namely, that in particular and extraordinary cases of necessity, to which we know all positive precepts are to give way; the Communion was given but in one kind to those who were uncapable to receive both, as to sick Persons and Children, or that in times of Persecution Christians did carry home onely the Bread with them, that so they might eat it in private, when they could not so conve­niently carry home the Wine; What will this signifie to the justifying the Constant and Public Communions in one kind, when there are no such particular or extraor­dinary reasons for it, and the establishing this by a Law, as a standing and necessary Practice to be observed by the whole Church? The doing this, is as if the Jews, because whilst they were in the Wilderness they could not so well observe the Precept of Circumcision, and so were at that time for a particular reason excused from it, should ever after have omitted it as unnecessary, and have thought fit at last to forbid it by a Law of their Sanhedrim: This sure had been making too bold with a positive Precept, although there might be a particular case or instance wherein it was not so exactly to be ob­served: Every Christian is obliged to have and to read the Word of God, notwithstanding that there may be instances of some who are Dumb or Blind, who are un­capable and so excused from those otherwise necessary duties, as the Sick and the Captives, and the Deaf are, from coming to Public Prayers and Public Worship; and where there are the like particular exceptions, and as particular reasons for not receiving the Sacrament in both kinds, as in the Sick, and Infants, who cannot swal­low the Bread, the Abstemii, who naturally abhor Wine and the like, there without any derogating to the gene­ral Law of Christ, they may be dispensed withal by ver­tue of that necessity, which takes away the obligation of[Page 60]all positive Laws; but it will not at all follow from hence, that the Law does not oblige in all other cases. If Mon­sieur de Meaux therefore could prove, as he offers to do, but upon what false, or at least dubious grounds, I shall consider by and by, that the Sick and Infants who could not swallow the Bread did receive onely the Wine; and that in the times of Persecution when they could not come so often to the public Communion, that they com­municated at home onely of that Bread which they could carry away and keep safely by them, when they could not so well either keep or carry away the Wine; this will by no means justifie the single Communion to all persons, and at all other times, when there is no such particular necessity or extraordinary reason for it: Though they might in those cases hope for the benefit of the Sa­crament, and not doubt but that God would bestow it upon them, though they received but in one kind, when they could not receive both, yet there is not the same reason to expect it at other times when we may, and so are obliged to both; as the Jews whilst in the Wilder­ness might hope to enjoy all the benefits of Circumcisi­on, and being in Covenant with God, though they did not then observe the Law and Institution of that Sacra­ment, but this they could not expect, but would certain­ly have forfeited, if they did not punctually observe it afterwards as it was commanded them.

And as for the two instances he brings of Public Com­munion in the Church in one kind, as on Good-Friday in the Latine Church, and all Lent in the Mass of the Pre­sanctified, in the Greek, were those true, as I shall shew they are not, but that both Species were used in both those Communions, yet they being such Communions as were particular to those days, and remarkably diffe­rent from the Communions at all other times of the year, would plainly prove, that the ordinary and usual Communions upon all other other days, and at all other [Page 61]times, were constantly in both kinds in the Latine and Greek Church: If they were not, why are these pickt out by him as single Instances of Communions in one kind? By this he plainly acknowledges, that these differed from the stated and constant Communions, and so confesses that those were in both kinds: And though he ventures to say, that in the ordinary Office the Church received ei­ther both species, or one onely; yet this is so wholly without any shadow of proof, that I wonder he would expose the credit of his learning, or his honesty upon so notorious a falshood, that has not the least Fig-leave to cover its shame; for as to the decrees of Pope Leo and Gelasius, against Communicating in one kind, to make these an Argument for it, is a piece of such refined art and skill, as no body but de Meaux could have found out or made use of; but because the strength of his Book lies upon the truth of these Instances of his, though I think that be already shaken, yet I shall take it down to the very foundation, and shew how weak that is, and how unable to bear what he would build upon it.

Communion of Sick. The first Custom he alledges of Communion in one kind, is that of the Sick; the two examples he gives of this, are Serapion and St. Ambrose, neither of which are sufficient to his purpose; As to the first, we have the ac­count of it in an Epistle of St. Dennis of Alexandria, in the History of Eusebius L. 6. c. 44.: He was in the state of Pe­nance, having lapsed in a former persecution, and at his death desired the Eucharist to be given as a token of Peace and Communion with the Church; which was a favour thought fit to be then granted to Penitents; to this pur­pose he sent for the Priest, but he being sick, and it being in the night-time, upon consideration of his extremity and nearness to death, for he had lain three days speech­less and senseless before he came to himself, and had de­sired this; the Priest, rather than he should want this comfort, sent him by the young man who came to him,[Page 62] a small parcel of the Eucharist, bidding him moisten it, and so put it into the mouth of the old man; [...]. Ib. which he did, and so he immediately gave up the Ghost: Now here, says de Meaux P. 11., although it appears from this rela­tion, that the Priest sent onely to his Penitent that part of the Sacrament which was solid, in that he ordained onely the young man whom he sent, to moisten it in some liquor be­fore he gave it to the sick person; yet the good old man ne­ver complained that any thing was wanting. But how does it appear from this relation that he sent onely the Bread, or what was solid; does [...], 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 [Page 63]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 GlassQui 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 Dⁿⁱ. 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 confessp. 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[Page 64] 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 PopesPaschal. 2. Ʋrban. 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[Page 65]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 privateVide 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[Page 66]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 afterCorpus & 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[Page 67]Eleventh Age, though it has a Legendary Miracle joyn­ed with it; 'tis 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 utrâ (que) 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[Page 68]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 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,[Page 69] 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 InfantsNon cibatis carne ne (que) 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[Page 70]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 [Page 71]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 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 CouncilMascon.; 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[Page 72]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 [Page 73]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 itConcil. 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. Howe­ever angry Monsieur de Meaux is with the Protestants for calling it soP. 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? Ʋpon what account, as de Meaux says, P. 114. should they refuse them both? And believe that the [Page 74]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[Page 75]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 'tis 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.

[Page 76]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; Ʋpon 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 usu (que) 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 [Page 77]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 wordsIn 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[Page 78]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[Page 79]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[Page 80]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 'tis 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 'tis 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 [Page 81]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[Page 82]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 ejusdem (que) 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 home­thrust 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 [Page 83]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 'tis 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 usEp. 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[Page 84]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 utrâ (que) 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 utrius (que) 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 utrâ (que) 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 [Page 85]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 [Page 86]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 utrius (que) speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sa­cramenti, nam quia Sacramentum sub duplici specie institutum est, u­tra (que) 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 itMissam illam non nisi aequi­vocè ita dici. Bona rer. Lyturg. l. 1. c. 15.; and consequent­ly such an unusual, and extraordinary, 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 [Page 87]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; [Page 88]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 itAllter 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, 'tis 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 [Page 89]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 PassionEt 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 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[Page 90] 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 Ʋt 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 saysQui 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 Ʋn­consecrated 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 ChapterC. 19. In parascene vinum non consecratum cum Doninicâ oratione & Dominici corporis immissione jubet consecrare, ut populus plenè possit communicare; quod uti (que) 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[Page 91]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 Ʋnde & 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,[Page 92]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, [Page 93]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[Page 94]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 [Page 95]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 [Page 96]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 make it true. And since I have so largely pro­ved that Communion in both kinds, was the Practice of the Primitive and the whole Catholick Church for a­bove Twelve hundred years, and have disproved all the instances of de Meaux to the contrary, so that no man­ner of question can be made of the truth of this matter of fact, unless where, as de Meaux says, Passion makes pre­varicated persons undertake and believe any thing P. 164.: I have sufficiently answered that part of de Meaux's Book, wherein the strength of the whole lies, and that which is the ground and foundation of all the rest being destroy­ed, the other falls of its self; I might therefore spare my self the trouble of Examining the Principles which de Meaux layes down, as the Reasons of the Churches practice; for if the Practice of the Church be against him, the reasons of that Practice will be so too, and I may turn those upon him as I have done the other: His third Principle, which is the most considerable, and which alone, he says, carries along with it, the decision of this que­stion P. 194., namely, That the Law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual Practice, this is wholly for us, who are assured that we have the constant and perpetual Practice of the Church for so many Ages for the Com­munion in both kinds, and therefore though the Law of Christ, which is so clear in it self, that it needs nothing to explain it, be the main thing upon which the decision of this matter depends, yet the Tradition and Practice of the Church is a farther confirmation of the Law to us, and we shall be willing to joyn with de Meaux in what­ever he can say for Tradition, provided it be so certain[Page 97]and general and authentic, as we have proved it to be for Communion in both kinds, and provided that it do not destroy a plain Law of Christ, nor make void the Commandment of God, which we can never believe that an universal Tradition of the Catholic Church ever will do: What a vain and empty flourish some are used to make with a name of Tradition and the Church: I have shewn in this question of the Communion in one kind, in the managing of which, I have, as de Meaux speaks, Attacked our enemies in their own Fortress P. 254., and taken this Goliah weapon out of their hands; and though the disarming de Meaux of that, in which his whole strength lies, is entirely to overcome him; yet since some of the reasons he lays down to justifie his pretended Tradition, may without that, considered meerly by themselves, car­ry a seeming plausibleness, if not real strength in them to defend the Communion in one kind from those appa­rent difficulties under which, as he owns, it labours, and which he would willingly take off from it: I shall in the last place consider all those principles and arguments from Reason which are laid down by him to this pur­pose.

His first principle is this: That in the administration of the Sacraments we are obliged to do not all that which Je­sus Christ hath done, but onely that which is essential to them. This we allow, and this principle, as he says, Is without contest: No Church, nor no Christians, did ever think themselves obliged to all those circumstances with which Christ celebrated the blessed Eucharist at its first Institution; and as to Baptism, Christ himself did not perform, but onely command that Sacrament: I cannot think that Monsieur Jurieux should propose this for a rule, as de Meaux charges himP. 349., To do universally all that Jesus Christ did, in such sort, that we should regard all circumstances he observed, as being of absolute necessity. What to do it onely at night, and after supper, and in an [Page 98]upper room, and the like? This could never enter into any mans head of common understanding, much less in­to so learned a mans as Monsieur Jurieux. They who are so zealous for unleavened Bread, because Christ pro­bably used it (for there are disputes about it) at his Pas­chal Supper, though if he did it was onely by accident, yet do not think fit to enquire what was the particular sort of Wine which he blessed and gave his Disciples, nor think themselves obliged to celebrate only in that, which yet they might do with as much reason; and though the putting Water into the Wine, which was very anci­ent, and used very likely by the Jews and others in those hot Countrys, is not remarked in the first Institution; yet I know none that make any great scruple at it: As to the posture of receiving, which has been the most controverted, yet the stiffest Contenders in that, have not thought it necessary to keep exactly to the same in which Christ gave and the Apostles received at first, which was discumbency; if these circumstances indeed had been commanded, as a great many of the like nature were very precisely to the Jews in their eating the Pas­sover, then they ought to have been observed in obedi­ence to the Divine Law; but the Command of Christ, Do this; does not in the least extend to these, but onely to the Sacramental Action of blessing Bread and eating it, blessing Wine and drinking it in remembrance of Christ: For that was the thing which Christ did, and which he com­manded them to do; and the very same thing may be done with quite other circumstances then those with which he did it, with other words, for we know not what were the words with which Christ blest the Bread or the Wine; with other company, more or less then twelve men, in another posture then that of lying, and in another place and time, and the like; he that does not plainly see those to be circumstances, and cannot easily distinguish them from the thing it self which Christ did and commanded to be[Page 99]done, must not know what it is to eat and to drink, un­less it be with his own family, in such a room of his own house, and at such an hour of the day; 'tis certainly as easie to know what Christ instituted, and what he com­manded, as to know this, and consequently what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament without which it would not be such a Sacrament as Christ celebrated and ap­pointed, as to know what it is to eat and to drink: and yet Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to make this the great difficulty, P. 239, 257, 349. To know what belongs to the essence of the Sacra­ment, and what does not, and to distinguish what is essential in it, from what is not. And by this means he endeavours to darken what is as clear as the light, and so to avoid the plainest Institution and the clearest Command: The Institution, says he, does not suffice, since the question always returns to know what appertains to the essence of the Insti­tution, Jesus Christ not having distinguisht them. Jesus Christ instituted this Sacrament in the evening, at the begin­ning of the night in 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[Page 100]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 'tis 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[Page 101]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 [Page 102]already shewn in this TreatiseP. 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 Purificati­onsAspergam 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 quo (que) 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 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 [Page 103]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 'tis 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 'tis 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; 'tis 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[Page 104]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,[Page 105]that 'tis 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 'tis 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 [Page 106]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[Page 107]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[Page 108]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 utra (que) spe­cies non censetur absoluta sumptio nisi cum sumta est utra (que) 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[Page 109]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 'tis 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 'tis 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 [Page 110]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 utrâ (que) 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 [Page 111]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 Ʋt ad Gratiae augmentum sub utrâ (que) 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 utrâ (que) 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 'tis 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 [Page 112]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 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 Ʋt 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 ne (que) 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 [Page 113] 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 shouldDe 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, 'tis 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[Page 114]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 'tis 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[Page 115]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 the Sumpti­on of both necessary to him, as the Eucharist is a Sacra­ment; which Bellarmine says it is, upon that very account Sacerdotibus utrius (que) 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[Page 116]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[Page 117]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[Page 118]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? [Page 119]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[Page 120]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[Page 121]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[Page 122]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 thingP. 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 says1 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[Page 123]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, [Page 124]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[Page 125]it is a SacrificeP. 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 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. 'Tis 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[Page 126]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[Page 127]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 [Page 128]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 & suis Discipulis admini­straverit subutrâ (que) specie panis & vi­ni hoc venerabile Sacramentum — Et similitèr quòd licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ hujusmodi Sacramentum re­ciperetur à [...]idelibus sub utrâ (que) spe­cie. Concil. Constant. Sess. 11. and that the faithful re­ceived it under both kinds in the Primi­tive Church: Yet to command it under one by its own power and authority, and by its own Prerogative to give a Non obstante to Christ's Institution; this was done like those that had a sufficient plenitude of power, and were resolved to let the World see they had so, and that Christ's own Institution was to give way to it; they had not then found out the more sly and shift­ing subtilties that Christ gave the Cup to his Disciples onely as Priests, and made them Priests just after the gi­ving them the Bread; this was a late invention found out since that Council, by some more timerous and wary So­phisters who were afraid of setting up the Churches Power against a Divine Institution; neither did they then offer to justifie the Communion in one kind by the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church, as de Meaux and others have done since, but they plainly gave [Page 129]up this, and onely made a late Custom, which was af­terwards introduced, to become a Law by vertue of their present Power, notwithstanding the Institution of Christ and the Practice of the Primitive Church to the contrary: Here the Case truly lies, though de Meaux is willing to go off from it, there must be a power in the Church to void a Divine Institution, and to null a Law of Christ, which can be no other than an Anti­christian power in the strictest sense, which may by the same reason take away all the positive Laws of Christianity, or else Communion in one kind is not to be maintained; and this power must be in a particu­lar present Church, in opposition to the Primitive and the Universal, or else this Communion is not to be maintained in the Church of Rome: De Meaux must be driven to defend that post which he seems to have quitted and deserted, or else he can never defend this half-Communion, which is contrary, as I have proved, and as the Council of Constance owns, to the Institution of Christ, and to the Practice of the Primitive Church. The new Out-work he has raised from Tradition, in which he puts all the forces of his Book, and the main strength of his Cause; this I have not beat down or de­stroyed, but taken from him; and his cause can never hold out upon his own principles of Tradition and the Practice of the Church, which is a very strong batte­ry against it, as I have largely shewn; so that all that he says for Tradition is in vain, and to no purpose, since this Tradition he pleades for is utterly against him, and if it were never so much for him, yet no Tradition can take away a Divine Law.

He seems to own, and I think he dare not expresly deny, that what is essential to the Sacraments, or be­longs to the substance of them cannot be taken away by Tradition or the Power of the Church, but he ut­terly destroys this by making onely Tradition and the[Page 130] Practice of the Church to determine what is thus essen­tial to the Sacraments, for if nothing be essential but what is made so by them, and may be known by them, then they have a power to make or to alter even the very essentials of the Sacraments, which are hereby made wholly to depend upon the Church and Traditi­on: We are willing to own that nothing is unalterable in the Sacraments, but what is essential to them, and that all other indifferent things belonging to them, may be altered by the Church, or by Tradition; but then we say that what is essential is fixt and known by the Institution, and by a Divine Law, antecedent to Tradi­tion; and if it were not so, then there were nothing essential in the Sacraments at all, but all would be in­different, and all would depend upon Tradition and the Churches Power; and then to what purpose is it to say, That the Church has power onely in the Accidentals, and may alter whatever is not essential, or belongs not to the substance of the Sacraments; this onely shews that they are ashamed to speak out, and they dare not but grant with one hand, that which they are forced to take away with another; they dare not openly say, That the Church has power over the essentials of the Sacraments; but yet they say, That there are no es­sentials but what are made and declared to be so by the Church: So the streight they are in obliges them in effect to revoke their own concessions, and Truth makes them say that which their Cause forces them to unsay again, and they are put upon those things in their own necessary defence, which amount in the whole to a contradiction.

If the Bishop of Meaux can shew us that any Divine Institution was ever altered by the Jewish or Chri­stian Church, or any Law of God relating to Pra­ctice and Ceremony was ever taken away by a con­trary Practice and Tradition, then he says something [Page 131]to the purpose, of Communion in one kind, but if the many Instances which he brings for Tradition out of the Old and New Testament, do none of them do this, they are then useless and insufficient, they fall short of what they ought to prove, and come not up to the question in hand, but are wholly vain and insignificant, and to shew they are so, I shall reduce them to these fol­lowing heads:

1. They chiefly relate to the Churches Power in ap­pointing and determining several things which are left indifferent and undetermined by the Law of God; and here we acknowledge the Church to have a proper Power, and that it may oblige even in Conscience to many things, to which we are not obliged by the Law of God; and may determine many things for the sake of Peace and Uniformity in Divine Worship, which are not so precisely determined by God himself. Thus the Jewish Church might settle the time of Ve­spers, on which their Sabbaths and Feasts were to be­gin, the evening being to them the beginning of the next day; so they might appoint also the manner of observing the new Moons; thus they might also settle the times of the Three Sacrifices, the Daily, the Sab­batical, and the Paschal, when they were all to be of­fered the same day upon one Altar; and determine which of them should be offered first, though God himself had not determined it: But could they take a­way any one of these Sacrifices which God had com­manded, upon a pretence that the other were suffici­ent without it? could they have neglected either the New Moons or the Evening-Oblations which God had appointed, because they might appoint what God had not done, namely, the manner of observing them? because they could regulate several things relating to the Law, and necessary to the observance of it, which God had not determined; could they therefore void[Page 132]the Law it self, or transgress and violate it in any of those things which God had particularly appointed? Thus the Christian Church may order many things re­lating to Divine Worship, and even to the Sacraments themselves, which no Law of Christ has ordered or determined, as the time, the place, the outward form and manner of administring them; and yet these as de Meaux says, Are absolutely necessary for the observati­on of the Divine Law; which cannot be observed with­out some of those circumstances; thus as to Baptism it may appoint it to be performed by sprinkling or dipping, because neither of those are commanded by the word Baptize, but onely washing with Water, as I have shewn before against de Meaux, but to do this in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is ab­solutely necessary, because this is commanded, though whether with that form, I baptize thee, or Be thou ba­ptised; which is used in the Greek Church, is indiffe­rent. Thus as to the Eucharist, the Church may com­mand it to be taken kneeling or standing, which was an ancient posture of receiving it; it may use such a form of words in the consecrating the Elements, and in blessing the Bread and Wine, or another, for it is plain, one was not always used, and St. Gregory tells us, That the Apostles consecrated onely with Lord's Prayer Epist. 63. ad Syr.. It may use such a sort of Bread and Wine, or ano­ther, for no particular sort is commanded; but it is necessary to bless and to give both, because both are in­stituted, and both are commanded; and the Ministers, who are the Stewards of the Mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4.1., these alone have the ordinary power of blessing and distri­buting them to the people, but they may do this by the hands of the Deacons, or by suffering the people to take them and divide them among themselves: Such things as these which de Meaux offers to us as great difficulties, are onely indifferent things left undeter­mined [Page 133]by the Divine Law, in which the Church has a power to appoint what it thinks most proper for de­cency, and order, and edification, and thus the great­est knots with which he designed to entangle us are easily resolved and untied, and yet not any one of the Divine Laws are in the least loosened or dissolved. One of the greatest things he urges for the necessity of Tradition and the Practice of the Church, is the Baptism of Infants, for which he says we can produce nothing from Scripture, but must be forced to resolve it wholly into Tradition; as to that I am not willing to begin another Controvesie with him here, and there­fore shall onely send him to Bellarmine for his satisfa­ction, who proves Infant Baptism from Scripture Bellarmin. de Sacram. Baptis­mi. c. 8, 9. as well as from Tradition, and says, It may be clearly gathered from Scripture it self Tamen id & colligitur satis a­pertè ex Scripturis.. But if it were not, does it follow because the Church may make a Law which is not contained in Scripture, that there­fore it may break a Law which is? and because it may appoint some things which God has left indifferent, that therefore it may forbid what he has absolutely commanded.

2. Other instances produced by de Meaux, relate not onely to matters Ecclesiastical, but to those that were Civil, or at least mixt, and so belonging to the Pow­er of the Magistrate, as the Lex Talionis, and the pro­hibition of Marriage with the Moabites and Ammo­nites: The Civil Magistrate was to see all possible Ju­stice done by the one, according to God's own com­mand; and it was a commendable act in him to pre­vent all mischief that might have come by the other, though this was done without a Divine Precept, by a general Power vested in the Magistrate, or a parti­cular and immediate direction, perhaps given by God to Esdras and Nehemiah: But how these can any way[Page 134]serve de Meaux, I cannot imagine, in the present Con­troversie, unless he would prove the Magistrate not bound to execute the Lex Talionis at all, or that the Jews might have dispensed with the Law in Deute­ronomy, which forbad Marriages with the Canaanites, because upon the same ground and reason they for­bad those also with the Ammonites and Moabites after­wards.

3. Some cases he mentions were excused upon the account of necessity, which when it is notorious and unavoidable, dispences with a positive Law. Thus Da­vid's eating the Shewbread, which it was not lawful but for the Priests ordinarily to eat, is approyed by our Saviour, Matth. 12.4. not upon the account of Tradition, or the judgement of the High-Priest, but the extream hunger which he and his Companions were then pressed with, and which made it lawful for them them to eat of the hallowed Bread, when there was no other to be procured: But did this make it lawful afterwards for the High-Priest or the Sanhedrim to have made the holy Bread always common to others when there was no such necessity? Thus if some Christians lived in a Country where it was impossible to have any Wine, this might excuse them from taking the Cup, but does this justisie the making a general Law to take away the Cup when there is no such necessi­ty for it? and the same may be said of many other like instances.

4. In other cases when a Law was founded upon a particular reason, the ceasing of that made the Law to cease, which was wholly grounded upon it, as in the prohibition of eating Bloud, and things strangled, and Meats offered to Idols, this being to avoid giving any scandal to the Jews at that time, when the rea­son of it ceased, so did the Law; and it is not so much Tradition which makes it void, as those general say­ings[Page 135]of Christ and the Apostle, that nothing which enters in at the mouth defiles the man; and that whatever is sold in the shambles may be eat, without asking any que­stion for conscience sake.

As to the Jews defending themselves upon the Sab­bath, on which they were commanded so strictly to rest, it was both necessity and the reason of the Law which made this justifiable, and not any Tradition or a­ny sentence of the Sanhedrim; and our Saviour when he blames their superstitious observance of the Sabbath, does not reprove them for keeping it as it was com­manded, or otherwise than Tradition had explained it, but contrary to the true reason and meaning of it, and to the true mind and will of the Lawgiver.

As to the Christians changing the Sabbath into the first Day of the Week, this was not done by Traditi­on, but by the Apostolical Authority; and whatever ob­ligation there may be antecedent to the Law of Moses for observing one day in seven, it can neither be pro­ved that the Jews observed exactly the Seventh day from the Creation, much less that the Christians are under any such obligation now, or I may adde, if they were, 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.

[Page 136]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[Page 137]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[Page 138]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!