A TREATISE OF COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES. By the Lord JAMES BENIGN BOSSUET ' Bishop of Meaux, Counsellor to the King, heretofore Preceptor to Monseigneur le DAUPHIN, first Almoner to Madame la DAUPHINE.   printer's device of Sebastian Cramoisy, featuring two flying storks or cranes fighting for a snake or worm; in the background a town in the countryside; the whole framed by a snake with its tail in its mouth, forming a circle 
PRINTED AT PARIS By SEBASTIAN MABRE CRAMOISY, Printer to his Majesty. M.DC.LXXXV. WITH PRIVILEGE.   

THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER.  
MANY doubtesse will wonder that I, who cannot well endure the very Name even but of a Papist in Masquerade, should yet translate and publish a Book of popery, and this too in a point peradventure of higher concern than any other now in debate between Papists and Protestants. To give therefore some account of my proceeding herein, it is to be noted, that the Church of England (if I apprehend her doctrine aright concerning the Sacrament of the last Supper) hath receded from the Tenent of the Church of Rome, not so much in the thing received, as in the manner of receiving Christ's Body and Blood: both Churches agree, that Christ our Saviour is truly, really, wholly, yea and substantially (though not exposed to our external senses) present in the Sacrament. And thus they understand the words of Christ: This is my Body which shall be delivered for you. This is my Blood which shall be shed for the remission of sins: my Flesh is meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed, etc. Only the Papists say, This real presence is effected by Transubstantiation of the elements; and Protestants say, Noah; but by some other way unintelligible to us. Nor is the adoration of Christ acknowledged present under the forms of bread and wine so great a Bugbear as some peradventure imagine. For as John Calvin rightly intimates adoration is a necessary sequel to real presence. 
Calvin. de Participate. Corpor. Chr. in Coenâ.  What is more strange (saith he) then to place him in Bread and yet not to adore him there? And if JESUS-CHRIST be in the bread, 'tis then under the bread he ought to be adored. Much less is the Oblation of Christ when present upon the Altar, under the symbols, such an incongruity as to render the Breach between Papists and Protestants (by Protestants I mean Church of England men) wholly irreparable; for if Christ be really present under the consecrated species upon the Altar, why may he not so present be offered a grateful Sacrifice to his heavenly Father, in thanksgiving for blessings received, in a propitiation for sin, and in commemoration of his Death and Passion? 
1. Cor. 11.   
But the main stone of offence and Rock of scandal in this grand Affair is Communion under one kind, 
1. Pet. 2.8.  wherein the Roman Clergy are by some hearty blamed for depriving tke Laity of half Christ, and half the Sacrament. For my part I am not for making wider Divisions already too great; nor do I approve of the spirit of those who tear Christ's seamelesse Garment, by fomenting and augmenting schisms in the universal Church. Indeed I do not find it any Part or Article of the Protestant faith to believe that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, one half of Christ is in the bread, and the other half in the Wine; but on the contrary, that in some exigences (as of sickness) a man may receive under one kind or species, all Christ, and an entire Sacrament. So that upon the whole matter the difference herein between the Church of England and the Roman, seems to me from the concessions of the most learned and ancient Protestants (for I wave the figments of modern Novelists) reducible in great measure to mere form and Ceremony. It is true Christ instituted this Sacrament at his jast Supper under two kinds [which he did as well to signify by a corporeal Analogy to bread and wine, the full effect and refreshment this divine food works in the soul; as also (say the Papists) to render the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood upon the Altar, distinctly commemorative or representative of his Passion; and therefore when he said: 
Luke. 22.  This is my Body which is (now) given (not only to you but) for you, 
1. Cor. 11.  he added, This (not only eat but) do (that is Offer or Sacrifice) in remembrance of me: 
Act. 13.2.  Hence the Christians in the Acts of the Apostles are found Ministering that is, as the Greek text hath it, sacrificing to the Lord, of which Sacrifice Saint Paul also speaks, We have an Altar (saith he) whereof they have no right to eat who serve the Tabernacle] But that Christ gave his Body separated from his Blood under one element, and his Blood squeezed from his Body under another, and that, by consequence, he that receives under one kind receives only half Christ, and half a Sacrament, is (as Saint Austin attests) a Judaical way of understanding this Mystery no wise agreeable (as is before said (to the doctrine of the Church of England. 
Jo. 6.53.  Nevertheless this Communion under one kind, though in my judgement but a bare Ceremony, yet hath been since the reformation always regarded as a mighty eyesore, and alleged as one sufficient cause of a voluntary departure and separation from the preexistent Church of Rome. Wherefore being conscious of the dreadful guilt, danger and mischief of Shisme, and unwilling to shut myself out of Christ's visible sheepfold upon dislike of a Ceremony, so to lose the substance for the shadow; after having duly examined the Arguments made by some Protestant divines against the Papists on this subject, I thought it prudence and justice, both to myself and them, to hear also what the Papists could say in their own defence: And lest I might be imposed upon by the malice or ignorance of any in a business of this high nature, I made choice of an Author, whose learning and virtue renders him omni exceptione major above the reach of calumny to denigrate, or even criticism to find a blemish in. A person who (were he not a Romanist) might justly be styled the Treasury of Wisdom, the Fountain of Eloquence, the Oracle of his age. In brief to speak all in a word, 'Tis the great James formerly Bishop of Condom now of Meaux. Whether the Author ennoble the work or the work the Author I dare not say, but 'tis certain that if he writ reason he deserves to be believed; if otherwise he deserves to be confuted; And however it be, 'Tis no fault (especially in Protestants who adhere to the Dictamen of their own Judgement without penning their Faith on Church-Authority) to read him, and this too without Passion or Prejudice. To which end I have here, as a friend to Truth and lover of unity, translated his Treatise into English, for the benefit of such as being of the same spirit with me, are yet strangers to the French language.   

A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES contained in this Treatise.  

THE FIRST PART. The Practice and Judgement of the Church from the first ages.  
I. AN Explication of this Practice. p. 2  
II. Four authentic Customs, to ' show the judgement of the primitive Church. p. 7 First Custom. Communion of the sick. p. 8  
III. Second Custom. Communion of little Children. p. 65  
IU. Third Custom. Domestic Communion. p. 94  
V. Fourth Custom. Communion at the Church, and in the ordinary Office. p. 119  
VI A continuation. The Mass on Good Friday, and that of the Presanctifyed. p. 131  
VII. The Judgement and Practice of the later ages founded upon the judgement and Practice of the primitive Church. p. 160   

THE SECOND PART. Principles on which are established the judgement and practice of the Church: of which principles the Pretended Reformers make use as well as we.  
I. FIrst Principle. There is nothing indispensible in the Sacraments, but that which is of their substance or essential to them, p. 167  
II. Second Principle. To know the substance or essence of a Sacrament, we must regard its essential effect. p. 173  
III. That the Pretended Reformers do agree with us in this principle; and can have no other foundation of their discipline. An examen of the doctrine of M. Jurieux in his Book entitled, Le Préservatif, etc. p. 165  
IU. Third Principle. The law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual Practice. An exposition of this Principle by the example of the civil law. p. 194  
V. A proof from the observances of the Old Testament. p. 205  
VI A proof from the observances of the New Testament. p. 224  
VII. Communion under one kind established without contradiction. p. 260  
VIII. A refutation of the History concerning the taking away the Cup writ by M. Jurieux. p. 279  
IX. A reflection upon concomitancy, and upon the doctrine of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Saint John. p. 306  
X. Some Objections solved, by the precedent doctrine. p. 322  
XI. A reflection upon the manner how the Pretended Reformers make use of Scripture. p. 334  
XII. Occurring difficulties; vain subtilityes of the Calvinists and M. Jurieux: the judgement of antiquity concerning concomitancy: reverence exhibited to JESUS-CHRIST in the Eucharist: the doctrine of this Treatise confirmed. 342    

A TREATISE OF COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES.  

A division of this discourse into two parts.  
THIS Question concerning the two Species, whatever is said thereof by those of the Pretended Reformed Religion, hath but an apparent difficulty, which may be solved by the constant and perpetual practice of the Church, and by Principles assented unto by the Pretended Reformers themselves.  
I shall then in this discourse lay open. 1. This Practice of the Church; 2. These Principles on which this Practice is grounded.  
Thus the business will be cleared; for on the one side we shall see the constant matter of Fact; and on the other side, the assured causes of it.   

THE FIRST PART. The Practice and judgement of the Church from the first ages.  

§ I. An Explication of this Practice.  
THE Practice of the Church from the Primitive times is, that Communicants received under one or both kinds, without ever imagining there wanted any thing to the integrity of Communion, when they received under one alone.  
It was never so much as thought on, that the Grace annexed to the Body of our Lord was any other then that which was annexed to his Blood. He gave his Body before he gave his Blood; and it may be further concluded from the words of S. Lukc, and S. Paul, 
Lukc. 22. v. 20. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24.  that he gave his Body during the supper, and his Blood after supper, in such sort that there was a considerable interval between the two actions. Did he then suspend the effect, which his body was to produce, until such time as the Apostles had received the Blood? or did they so soon as they had received the Body at the same instant receive also the Grace which accompanied it, that is to say, that of being incorporated to Jesus Christ, and nourished by his substance? Undoubtedly the later. So that the receiving of the Blood is not necessary for the Grace of the Sacrament, nor for the ground of the Mystery: The substance is there whole and entiere under one sole Species; and neither does each of the Species, nor both together contain other than the same ground of sanctification and of Grace.  
S. 
1. Cor. 11.27.  Paul manifestly supposeth this Doctrine when he writes, that He who eateth this Bread or drinketh the Chalice of our Lord unworthily, is guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord: From whence he leaveth us to draw this consequence, that if in receiving the one or the other unworthily we profane them both, in receiving either of the two worthily we participate of the Grace of both.  
To this there can be no other reply, but by saying, as the Protestants also do, that the disjunctive particle or which the Apostle makes use of in the first part of the Text, hath the force of the conjunctive, and of which he serveth himself in the second. This is the only answer M. 
Exam. de l'Euch. V I. Tr. 7. Sect. p. 483.  Jurieux affords to this passage, in the treatise he lately published upon the subject of the Eucharist; and he calls our Argument a ridiculous cavil, but without ground. For though he had made it out, that these particles are sometimes taken the one for the other, yet here, where S. Paul useth them both so manifestly with design, in placing or in the first part of his discourse, and reserving and for the second, we must of necessity acknowledge, that by so remarkable a distinction he would render us attentive to some important truth; and the truth which he would here teach us is, that if after having taken worthily the consecrated Bread, we should so forget the Grace received, afterwards to take the sacred liquor with a criminal intention, we should be guilly not only of the blood of our Lord but also of his Body. A truth which can have no other ground than what we lay dowen (viz) that both the one and the other part of this Sacrament have the same foundation of Grace, in such a manner as that we cannot profane one without profaning both; nor also receive either of the two devoutly, without partaking of the sanctity and virtue both of the one and the other.  
'Tis also for this reason, that from the beginning of Christianity the faithful believed, that after what manner soever they communicated, whether under one or both species, the Communion had always the same efficacy of virtue.   

§ II. Four authentic Customs to show the judgement of the Primitive Church.  
FOUR authentic customs of the Primitive Church demonstrate this Truth. These customs will appear so constant, and the oppositions made against them so contradictory and vain, that I dare avouch an express acknowledgement of them would not render them more indisputable.  

First Custom. Communion of the sick.  
I Find then the custom of receiving under one kind or Species in the Communion of the sick; in the Communion of infants; in domestic Communions formerly in practise when the Faithful carried the Eucharist home to communicate in their own houses; and lastly (a thing which will much surprise our Reformers) in the public and solemn Communions of the Church.  
These important and decisive Points have, I confess, been frequently handled; yet peradventure all the vain subtleties of the Ministers have not been sufficiently examined. God by his Grace assist us to perform this in such a manner that not only antiquity may be illustrated but that truth also may be come manifest and triumphant.  
The first practice I insist upon, is that the sick were usually communicated under the Species of Bread alone. 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. It was also too subject to be spilt, especially when it was to be carried to many persons in places far distant, and with very little conveniency during the times of persecution. The Church therefore would at once, both facilitate the Communion of the sick, and avoid the danger of this effusion, which was never beheld without horror in all ages, as hereafter shall appear.  
The example of Serapion recorded in the Ecclesiastical History, 
Euseb. l. VI c. 44. edit. Val.  makes clear what was practised in regard to the sick. He was in penance: but as the law required that the Eucharist should be given to Penitents when they were in danger of death, Serapion perceiving himself in this state, sent to demand this holy Viaticum. The Priest, who could not carry it himself, gave to a young man a small parcel of the Eucharist which he ordered him to Moisten and so convey into the mouth of the old man. The youth being returned home moistened the parcel of the Eucharist and at the same time infused it into the mouth of Serapion, who having by degrees swallowed it, presently gave up the Ghost. Although it appears by this relation, that the Priest sent only to his penitent that part of the Sacrament which was solid, in that he ordained only 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: on the contrary, having thus communicated he departed in peace: and God who miraculously preserved him until he had been partaker of this Grace, enfranchised him immediately after he had received. S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria, who lived in the third age of the Church, writ this history in a letter cited at large by Eusebius of Caesaraea, and he writ it to a renowned Bishop, mentioning this passage as a thing then usual, by which it is demonstrative that it was received and authorized, and moreover so holy that God was pleased to confirm it by a visible effect of his Grace.  
The most able and ingenuous Protestants Willingly acknowledge there is no mention made, 
Tho. Smith. Ep. de Eccles. Gr. hod. stat. p. 107. 108. 2. ed. 130. & seqq.  but of the consecrated Bread in this passage. M. Smith a Protestant Minister of the Church of England accordeth hereunto in a learned and judicious Treatise which he writ some years since; and he owneth at the same time, that there was nothing reserved but the consecrated Bread in Domestic communions, which he regards as the source of that reserve which was made for the sick.  
But M. 
Hist. de l' Eucharist. I. p. chap. 12. p. 145.  de la Roque a famous Minister who has writ an history of the Eucharist, and M. 
Du Board. deux rép. à deux Traitez sur le retranchement de la coupe. Seconde rép. chap. 22. p. 367.  du Bourdieu a Minister at Montpellier, who has lately dedicated to M. Claude a treatise concerning the taking away of the Cup, approved by the same M. Claude, & by another of his brethren, have not the same sincerity. These would willingly persuade us that this Penitent received the holy Sacrament under both kinds, and that the two species were mixed together, as it was often practised, but a long time after these primitive ages, and as it is still practised in the East at the ordinary communions of the faithful. But besides, that this mixture of the two species, so expressly separated in the Gospel, is but a late invention and appears no sooner then in the VII. age, where it appears even then only to be forbidden, as we shall see hereafter; the words of S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria will not bear the interpretation of these gentlemen, saying the Priest, of whom he there speaks, doth not command to mingle the two species, but to moisten that which he gives, that is to say without doubt the solid part, which having been kept several days for the use of the sick according to the perpetual custom of the Church, stood need of being moistened in some liquor that it might enter the parched throat of an agonizing man.  
The same reason makes the Fathers of the III. Council of Carthage, to which S. 
Conc. Carthag. III. c. 76. t. 3. Conc. ult. edit. Paris.  Augustin subscribed, say, that the Eucharist must be infused into the mouth of a dying man: infundi ori ejus Eucharistiam. This word infused, infundi, does not denote the blood alone, as it might be imagined; for from what has been said out of Eusebius and the history of Serapion we find, that although the consecrated bread and the solid part of the Blessed Sacrament were only given, yet they expressed it by infusion when they gave it steeped in any liquor for its more easy reception only. And Rufinus, who writ in the time of the III. 
Hist. Eccl. Euseb. Ruf. init. lib. 6. cap. 34.  Council of Carthage, in his translation of Eusebius expresses Serapions communion no other wise than the Council, saying that they caused a little of the Eucharist to be infused into his mouth: Parum Eucharistiae infusum jussit seni praeberi. The which demonstrates the custom of these primitive times, and explicates what was meant by this infusion of the Eucharist.  
It is the interest of Truth only which obliges me to make this remark, seeing in the substance it imports little to our subject, whether the body or the blood alone were given to the sick, and that in short it is still to communicate under one species alone. For as to the distribution of the two species mixed together, I fear not that any one who is sincere (if never so little read in antiquity) should imagine it to have been in use in these primitive times, during which it appears not upon any account that so much as the Idea was had of it. The History of Serapion makes it sufficiently appear, that the consecrated bread alone was carried from the Priest to the sick; and that it was in the sick man's house they moistened it, to the end he might swallow it with more ease; and that they were so far from the thought of mingling it with the blood, that they mad use of another liquor to steep it in a common liquor taken at the house of the sick. In fine, this distribution of the body and blood mixed together gins not to appear till the VII. 
Conc. Brac. IU. t. 6. Concil. ult. edit. c. 2.  age in the Council of Brague, where it is moreover forbidden by an express Canon. From whence it is easy to comprehend how much a coustume, which at first appears only in the VII. age in a Canon which disapproves it, is short not only of the third age, and the time of S. Denis of Alexandria, but likewise of the fourth and that of the third Council of Carthage, (viz) three or four hundred years.  
We shall see, in another place, who much difficulty was made to admit of the establishment of this mixture even in the X. and XI. age especially in the Latin Church; and this will serve as a new argument to demonstrate how little it was thought of in the primitive times, and in the III. Council of Carthage: from whence may be undoubtfully gathered that the Communion which was there ordained for the sick was, without doubt, under one species, and moreover, like that of Serapions, under the species of bread only.  
Neither will there be any difficulty to acknowledge this when we reflect upon the manner how S. Ambrose communicated at his death in the same age. We have the life of this Great man writ at the entreaty of S. Augustin and dedicated to him by Paulinus S. Ambroses Deacon and Secretary (whom Erasmus improperly confounds with the great Saint Paulinus Bishop of Nole) in which he relates that S. Honoratus the famous Bishop of Verceil, who was come to assist this Saint at his death, heard this voice three times during the silence of the night. Rise, stay not, he is going to die. He went down, presented him the body of our Lord, and the Saint had no sooner received it but he gave up the ghost. Who does not see that this great Saint is represented to us, as one for whom God took care that he should die in a state where nothing more could be desired, seeing he had just received the body of his Lord? And at the same time who would not believe, that he had communicated aright in receiving after the same manner that Saint Ambrose did in dying; after the same manner that Saint Honoratus gave it; after the same manner it was writ to Saint Augustin; and after the same manner the whole Church saw it, without finding therein any thing of new or extraordinary.  
The subtlety of the Protestants is at a loss about this passage. 
Georg. Calixt. disp. count. comm. sub una specie n. 162.  The famous George Calixte, the most able amongst the Lutherans of our times, and he who has writ the most learnedly upon the two species against us, sustains, that Saint Ambrose received in both kinds; and for an answer to Paulinus, who relates only, that the body was given him which he had no sooner received but he gave up the Ghost; this subtle Minister has recourse to a Grammatical figure called Synecdoche which puts the part for the whole, without ever so much as offering to bring us one example of such a kind of speech in a like occasion. Oh strange effect of a prejudicated opinion! We see in the Communion of Serapion an assured example of one only species, where the restriction of the figure Synecdoche cannot have the least admittance, seeing Saint Denis of Alexandria expresses so precisely, that the bread and solid part alone was given. We find the same language and the same thing in the Council of Carthage, and we see at the same time Saint Ambroses communion, in which there is no mention of any thing but the body. Nay further (for I may well here presuppose what I shall presently demonstrate) all ages show us nothing but the body alone reserved for the ordinary communion of the sick: and yet this consequence must not be allowed, and a Synecdoche without aledging one example must be preferred to so many examples that are received. What blindness, or rather what cavil is this!  
If these Gentlemen would act sincerely and not study how to evade rather, then to instruct, they would see that it does not suffice to allege at random the figure Synecdoche, and to say that it is ordinary, by the use of this figure, to express the whole by its part. All things are eluded by these means, and nothing of certain is left in speech. A man must come to the matter proposed in particular, and to the place under debate. He must examine, for example, weather the figure he would apply to this relation of Paulinus, be found in any other of the like nature, and weather it agree in particular to that of this Historian. Calixt does nothing of all this because all this would only have served to confound him.  
And at the very first sight it is clear and certain the figure of which he speaks is not one of those which are common in ordinary speech, as when we say to eat together, to express the whole feast, and to drink as well as to eat, or as the Hebrews mentioned bread alone to express in general the whole nourishment. It is not the custom of Ecclesiastical language, nor in common use to name the body alone to express the body and the blood, seeing on the contrary we may find passages in every page of the fathers, where the distribution of the body and blood is related in expressly naming the one and the other; and it may be for certain held that this is the ordinary practice.  
But without tiring our selves unprofitabley in the search of those passages where the Fathers may have mentioned the one without the other, nor the particular reasons which might have obliged them to it; I will say (sticking to the Examples debated of in this place) that I have never seen any relation, where in recounting the distribution of the body and the blood, they have expressed only one of the two.  
And if I have not observed any example of this, neither has Calixte remarked any such more than I; And what ought to make any one believe that there is none, is that a man, so careful as he has been to heap together all he can against us, has not been able to find any.  
I find also M. 
Du Board. ch. 17. p. 317.  du Bourdieu (who has writ since him, and read him so well that he follows him almost throughout, and therefore aught to have supplied his defects) tells us, not upon occasion of Paulinus and Saint Ambrose but upon occasion of Tertullien, that if this Father in speaking of Domestic Communion (of which we shall also treat in its proper place) has mentioned nothing but the body and consecrated bread, without naming the blood or the wine, it is that he expresses the whole by the part, and that there is nothing more common in books and ordinary in human language. But I find not, that in the matter we treat of, and in the relation which is made of the distribution of the Eucharist, he has found in the Fathers, any more than Calixte, one single example of an expression, which according to him should be so common.  
Behold two Ministers in the same perplexity Calixtes finds the body alone mentioned in the communion of the sick, and M. du Bourdieu the same in domestic communion. We are not astonished at it: we believe that the body alone was given in both these Communions: These Ministers will believe nothing of it: both of them bring the figure Synecdoche where by to save themselves: both of them are equally destitute of Examples in the like cases: What therefore remains but to conclude, that their Synecdoche is but imaginary, and that in particular, if Saint Paulinus speak only of the body in the Communion of Saint Ambrose, it is in effect that Saint Ambrose did receive nothing but the body only, according to custom? If he tell us that this great man expired immediately after having received, we must not here search after subtilityes, nor fancy to our selves a figure: It is the simple truth and matter of fact which makes him thus plainly relate what passed.  
But to the end we may complete the conviction of these Ministers, supposing that their Synecdoche is as common in such like cases as it is rare or rather unheard of: let us see whether it agree with the passage in question, and with the History of Saint Ambrose. Paulinus says, S. Honoratus being gone to repose during the silence of the night, a voice from heaven advertised him that his sick man was going to expire; that he immediately went down, presented him with the body of our Lord, and that the Saint give up the Ghost presently after having received it. How comes it to pass that he did not rather say that he died immediately after having received the precious blood, if the thing happened really so? Were it as ordinary as Calixtus would have it, to express only the body, to signify the receiving of the body and the blood, by this figure, which puts the part for the whole: it is as natural also, for the same reason and by the same figure, the blood alone should be sometimes made use of to express the receiving under both the one and the other species. But if ever this should have happened, it ought to have been chiefly upon the occasion of this Communion of Saint Ambrose and of the relation which Paulinus has left us of it. For since he would show the receiving of the Eucharist so immediately fallowed by the death of the Saint, and would represent this great man dying as another Moses in the embraces of his Lord; If he intended to abridge his discourse, he should have done it in abridging and shuning in the relation of that part or action wherein this Holy Bishop terminated his life, that is to say in the reception of the blood, which is always the last; and the rather because this supposed the other, and it would have been in effect immediately after this, that the Saint rendered up his blessed soul to God. Nothing would have so much struck the senses; nothing would have been so strongly printed in the memory; nothing would have presented itself sooner to the thoughts and nothing by consequence would have run more naturally in discourse. If therefore no mention of the blood be found in this historian, it is indeed because Saint Ambrose did not receive it.  
Calixtus foresaw very well, 
Ibid.  that the recitate of Paulinus would form this idea naturally in the reader's minds, and it is thereupon that he adds, it may very well be that they carried to the Saint the precious blood together with the body as equally necessary, but that Saint Ambrose had not the time to receive it being prevented by death: Oh unhappy refuge in a desperate cause! If Paulinus had this idea; instead of representing us his holy Bishop as a man who by a special care of the Divine Providence died with all the helps which a Christian could wish for, he would on the contrary by some word have denoted, that notwithstanding this heavenly advertissement, and the extreme diligence of S. Honoratus, a sudden death had deprived this sick Saint of the blood of his Master and of so essential at part of the Sacrament. But they had not these Ideas in those times, and the Saints believed they gave and received all, in the body only.  
Thus the two answers of Calixtus are equally vain. In like manner M. du Bourdieu his great follower has not dared to express either the one or the other, and in that perplexitay whereinto so pecise testimony had thrown him he endeavours to save himself by answering only that. 
Du Board. rép. chap. 13. p. 378.  Saint Ambrose received the communion as he could; not dreaming that he had immediately before said they had given the two species to Serapion, and that, if it had been the custom, it would not have been more difficult to give them to Saint Ambrose. Moreover if they had believed them inseparable as these Ministers with all those of their religion pretend, it is clear that they would raither have resolved to give neither of the two, then to give only one. Thus all the answers of these Ministers are turned against themselves, and M. du Bourdieu cannot fight against us without fight against himself.  
He has notwithstanding found another expedient to weaken the authority of this passage, and is not afraid, in so knowing an age as this is, to write that before this example of Saint Ambrose there is not any tract to be found of the Communion of the sick in any words of the ansients. 
Ibid.  The testimony of Saint Justin, who in his second Apology says they carried the Eucharist to those that were absent touches him not: 
Ibid. 382.  For Saint Justin, says he, has not expressly specified the sick; as if their sickness had been a sufficient cause to deprive them of this common consolation, and not raither a new motive to give it them. But what becomes of the example of Serapion? Is it not clearly enough said that he was sick, and dying? 'tis true: but the reason was, because he was one of those who had sacrificed to Idols, and one that was ranked amongst the penitents. He must have been an Idolater to merit to receive the Eucharist in dying, and the faithful who during the whole course of their lives have never been excluded from the participation of this Sacrament by any crime, must be excluded at their death, when they have the most need of such a succour. And thus a man amuses himself, and thinks he has done a learned exploit when he heaps together, as this Minister does, the examples of dyinh persons where there is no mention made of communion; without reflectinh that in these descriptions we often omit that which is most common, and that probably wees hold not have known by this testimony of Paulinus that his Bishop had communicated, if this writer had not intended to show us the particular care which God took to procure him this grace.  
But is this Minister ignorant that in these occasions one only positive testimony renverses the whole fabrik of these negative arguments, which they build with so much industry upon nothing? and is it possible he should not lee that the example alone of Saint Ambrose shows us an established custom, seeing that so soon as Saint Honoratus knew this great man was dying, he understood, without having need that the Eucharist should be mentioned to him, that it was time to carry it to this sick Saint? No matter: The Ministers would have one to doubt of this custom, to the end they may give some resemblance of singularity and novelty to a communion, which was but too clearly given to a Saint, and by a Saint, under one species. And what shall we say to Calixtus who seems to be astonished that we dare count Saint Ambrose amongst those who communicated under one species 
Calixt. v. 163.  in dying? Is it not effect an unheard of baldness to say this after a grave Historian who had been an eye witness of what he writes, and who sent his history to Saint Augustin, after having writ it at his entreaty? But the business is they must be able to say they have answered; and when they are at a non plus it is then the most confidence must be shown.  
In a word, we find in Paulinus nothing but the common customs of the Church which every where makes no mention but of the body, when it mentions that which was kept for the sick. 
Cone. Tur. II. c. 3. Tom. 1. Conc. Gall.  The second Council of Tours celebrated in the year 567. ordains that the body of our Lord should be placed upon the Altar, not in the rank of the Images, non in imaginario ordine, but under the figure of the Cross, sed sub Crucis titulo.  
By the way it may be noted that there were Images placed in the Churches, and that there was a Cross during these primitive ages: it was under this figure of the Cross they reserved the body of our Lord, and the body only; for this reason peradventure it is, that Gregory of Tours at the same time this Council was held, tells us of certain Vessalls or Tabernacles in form of Towers, 
Greg. Tur. L. I. cap. 8.6.  wherein the Box or Pix containing or Lord's Body, was reserved, and which were placed on the Altar in time of Sacrifice; without doubt in Order to the Adoration of the Sacrament so reserved.  
By the Ordinance of Hincmarus the famous Archbishop of Reims who lived in the 1 x. age, 
Cap. Hincmar. art. VIII. Tom. II. Conc. Gall.  there ought to be a box where the holy oblation for the Viaticum of the sick should be decently conserved: both the box and the word itself of holy oblation show sufficiently to those who understand Ecclesiastical language, 
Leo IU. Hom. Tom. VIII. Conc. Spicil. T. II. p. 263.  that only the body was there meant which was ordinarily expressed by this name, or by that of Communion, or simply by that of the Eucharist. The blood was expressed either by its natural name, or by that of the Chalice.  
We find in the same times a Decree of Leo the iv 
Ibid.  where after having spoke of the body and blood for the ordinary communion of the faithful, when he treats of the sick he speaks only of the box, where the Body of our Lord was kept for their Viaticum.  
This Ordinance is repeated in the following age by the famous Rathierus Bishop of Verone; and some time after, under King Robert, 
Gest. Concil. Aurel. ibid. 673.  a Council held at Orleans speaks of the ashes of an infant that was burnt, which some abominable heriticks heaped with as much veneration as Christian piety observes in the custom of keeping the body of our Lord for the Viaticum of the sick. We find here also the body and the blood expressed in the Ordinary communion of the Faithful, and the body only for that of the sick.  
To all these authorityes we must join here that of the Ordo Romanus, 
Bib. P P. part. T. de div. off.  which is not little, seeing it is the ancient Ceremonial of the Roman Church cited and explicated by authors eight or nine hundred years since. We see there in two places the consecrated bread divided into three parts, the one to be distributed to the people, the other to be put into the Chalice, not for the communion of the people, but for the Priest alone, after he had taken the consecrated bread separately, as we do at this present, and the third to be reserved upon the Altar. It was this they kept for the sick, which was for that reason called the dying people's part, 
Microlog. de Ecc. observ. 17. T. XVIII. Max. 616.  as the Micrologist an author of the eleventh age says, and was consecrated in honour of the burial of JESUS-CHRIST, as the two other parts represented his conversation upon Earth and his resurrection. Those who have read the ancient interpreters of the Ecclesiastical Ceremonies understand this language and the mystery of these holy Ceremonies.  
The Author of the life of Saint Basile observes likewise, that this great man separated the consecrated bread into three parts the third of which he hung over the Altar in a Dove of Gold he had caused to be made. 
Amphil. vit. S. Basil.  This third part of the consecrated bread which he ordered to be placed there, was manifestly that which was reserved for the sick, and these Doves of gold to hang over the Altars are ancient in the Greek Church, as it appears by a Council of Constantinople held by Mennas under the Empire of Justinien. 
Cone. Const. Menna ad s. T. V Conc.  We see likewise these Doves amongst the Latins, near the same time: all our Authors make mention of them; and the will of Perpetuus Bishp of Tours remarkes amongst the vessels and instruments made use of in the Sacrifice, 
Test. Perp. T. V Spicil.  a Dove of silver wherein to keep the Blessed Sacrament, ad repositorium.  
Furthermore, without tying myself to the name of Amphilochius S. Basils' Contemporary, to whom the life of this Saint is attributed, I will admit that the passage taken out of this life proves only for that time in which this History was writ, let who will be the author of it. Let them say moreover if they will, that this Author attributes to S. Basil the practice of those times in which this life was composed; yet is it enough in either case to confirm what is otherwise certain, that the custom of reserving the species of Bread only for the sick, is of great antiquity in the Greek Church, seeing that the life of Saint Basil is found already translated into Latin in the time of Charles the bald, 
Aeneas Ep. Par. lib. adv. Graec. T. IV. Spic. p. 80. 81.  and cited by Aeneas' Bishop of Paris renowned in these times for his piety and learning, who moreover quotes the very place in this life where mention is made of these Doves, and of the Sacrament of our Lord kept therein and hung over the Altar.  
Hereunto may be reduced those Ciboriums mentioned amongst the presents which Charlemain gave to the Roman Church; 
Anast. Bib. vit. Leon. III. T. II. Conc. Gal.  and all antiquity is full of the like examples.  
And to the end the Tradition of the first and last ages may appear conformable to each other, as we have seen in the first ages, in the history of Serapion, and in the Council of Carthage, that in communicating the sick under the species of bread only, they moistened it in some liqueur: so does the same custom appear in after ages.  
We see this above six hundred years since in the ancient customs of Clugny, 
Ant. Consuet. Cluniac. l. III. c. 28. Tom. iv Spicil.  collected at that time out of most ancient memorial by S. Udalricus a Monk of this Order, 
Hist. Euch. I. P. c. 16, p. 183.  and the Minister de la Roque in his history of the Eucharist citys this book without any reproach. It is remarked in this book that the infirm Religious received the body only, which was given to them steeped in unconsecrated wine. There we find also a cup in which it was steeped, and thus it was the Religious of the most famous and most holy Monastery in the world communicated their sick. By this we may judge of the custom of the rest of the Church. 
Const. Odon. Paris. Episc. c. 5. art. 3. T. X. Conc.  In fine we find every where mention of this cup which was carried for the communion of the sick, 
Const. Episc. anon. T. XI. Syn. Bajoc. c. 77. ibid. 2. p.  but which was made use of only to give them the consecrated bread moistened in common wine to facilitate the passage of this heavenly food.  
The Greeks also retained this tradition as well as the Latins; and as their inviolable custom is not to Consecrate the Eucharist for the sick but upon holy Thursday only, they mix the species of bread, wholly dried during so long a time, either with water or unconsecrated wine. As for consecrated wine it is manifest it could not be kept so long especially in those hot countries, so that their custom of consecrating for the sick only one day in the year, obliged them to communicate them under one only species, that is under that of bread which they could keep without difficulty their Sacrifice in leavened bread keeping better them ours in unleavened, especially after the drying we lately mentioned.  
It is true (for we will dissemble nothing) that at present they make a Cross with the precious bloods upon the consecrated bread which they reserve for the sick. But besides that this is not to give the blood of our Lord to drink as it is expressed in the Gospel, nor to mark the separation of the body and the blood, which alone persuades our Reformers of the necessity of the two species: It abundantly appears that at the years end nothing remains of one or two drops of the precious blood which they put upon the heavenly bread, and that there is nothing left for the sick but one only species. To which we must add, that after all, this custom of the Greeks to mix a little of the blood with the sacred Body (concerning which we see nothing in their ancient Fathers or Canons) is new amongst them; and we shall find some occasion to make this more clearly appear in the following discourse.  
Those who deny every thing, may deny these observances of the Greek Church; but they do not therefore cease to be indubitable, and no one can deny it without a wonderful insincerity, if he be never so little read in the Euchologes of the Greeks, or instructed concerning their rights.  
And as for the Latin Church, 
Conc. sub Edg. Rege Can. 38. T. IX. Conc. p. 628. Conc. Bitur. c. 2. ibid. p. 865. Constit. Odon. Paris. Episc. T. X. p. 1802. Constit. Episc. anon. T. XI. 1. p. Innoc. IU. Ep. X. ibid. 1. Conc. Lambeth. c. 1. ibid. Syn. Exon. c. 4. ibid. 2. p. Synod. Bajoc. c. 12.77. Conc. Ravenn. II. Rub. VII. Conc. Vaur. 6.85 ibid.  the Councils are full of necessary precautions for the conserving of the Body of our Lord, the carrying it with respect and a convenient decorum, and to cause a due adoration to be rendered to it by the people. They speak likewise of the box and linen in which it was kept, and of the care which the Priests ought to have to renew the Hosts every eight days, and to consummate the old ones before they drunk the holy cup. They ordain likewise how those Hosts, which had been kept too long, should be burnt, and the ashes reserved under the Altar, without so much as ever speaking, amongst so many observances, either of vials to conserve the precious Blood in, or of any precautions for the keeping of it, although it be given us under a species much more capable of alteration.  
We may allege also upon the same account a Canon, which all the Ministers object against us: It is a Canon of the Council of Tours, which we find not in the volumes of the Councils, 
Burch. Coll. Can. l. V c. 9 Yvo dec. II. P. c. 19  but in Burchard and Yvo of Chartres collectors of the Canons of the eleaventh age. This Canon as well, as others says, that the holy oblation which is kept for the sick, that is the species of bread as appears by what follows, aught to be renewed every eight days: but it adds, which we find not where else in the West, that it must be dipped in the blood to the end it may be said truly that the body and blood is given.  
If this Canon gave us any difficulty, 
Aubert. de Euch. lib. II. in Exam. Pii. p. 288.  we might say with Aubertin, what is very true, that Burchard and Yvo of Charters collected many things together without choice or judgement, and that they give us many pieces as ancient which are not such. But to act in every thing which sincerity, it may be said, that this Canon so exactly transcribed by these Authors is not false, as also that it is none of those which were admitted, since we see nothing like it in all the others.  
Moreover this Canon which does not appear but in above named collections for certain was not made any long time before, and the sole mixing of the body and blood shows sufficiently how far short it is of the first antiquity. But let it be in what time it will, it is apparent that before it was made it was the custom to name the body and blood even in giving the body only, and this by the natural union of the substance and the Grace both of the one and the other. We see nevertheless that this Council had some scruple concerning this matter, and believed that in expressing the two species, they ought both of them to be given in some manner. In effect, it is true, that in some sense, to be able to call it the body and the blood the two species must be given, because the natural dessine of this expression is to denote that which each of them contains in virtue of the Institution. But it will be granted me that to mix them in this manner, and let them dry for eight days together was but a very weak means to conserve the two species; and how ever it be this part of the Canon which contains a custom so particular, cannot be a prejudice to so many decrees, where we see not only nothing resembling it, but moreover quite the contrary.  
That which is most certain is that this Canon makes it appear they did not believe the holy liquor could with ease be conserved in its proper species, and that their endeavours were chiefly to conserve the consecrated bread. As to the other part which regards the mixture, what we have said tooching the Grecians may be applied here; and all the subtlety of the Ministers cannot hinder but it will always be certain by this Cannon, that they never believed themselves bound either to make the person communicating drink, or to give him the blood separated from the body, to denote the violent death of our Lord, or lastly to give him in effect any liquor at all seeing after eight days, it is sufficiently clear there remained nothing of the oblation but the dry and solid part. So that this Canon so much boasted of by the Ministers without concluding any thing against us, serves only to show that liberty which the Churches thought themselves to have in the administration of the sacred species of the Eucharist.  
After all these remarks we have made, it must pass for constant and undeniable, that neither the Greeks nor the Latins ever believed, that all that is writ in the Gospel tooching the communion under two species, was essential and expressly commanded; and that, on the contrary, it was always believed even from the first ages that one sole species was sufficient for a true communion seeing that the custom was to keep nothing for, nor give nothing to the sick, but one only.  
It serves for nothing to object, that the two species were frequently carried to the sick, and more over in general that they were carried to those that were absent. Saint Justin, 
Just. Apol. 1.  I own is express in this matter: But why do they allege to us these passages which serve for nothing? It is one thing to say, as Saint Justin does, that the two species of the Sacrament were carried at the same time (as M. de la Roque speaks) it was celebrated in the Church: 
Hist. de l'Eucharist. 1. P. c. 15. p. 176.  and another thing, to say they could reserve them so long a time as was necessary for the sick, and that it was the custom to do so, especially in a time when persecution permitted not frequent Ecclesiastical assemblies. 
Hier. Ep. IU. ad Rust.  The same thing must be said of Saint Exuperius Bishop of Toulouze, of whom Saint Hierome writ, that after he had sold all the rich vessels of the Church to redeem captives and solace the poor, he carried the Body of our Lord in a basket, and the Blood in a vessel of glass. He carried them says S. Hierome, but he does not say he kept them, which is our question: And I acknowledge that when there was any sick persons to be communicated, in those circumstances where they could commodiously receive both the species without being at all changed, they made no difficulty in it. But it is no less certain, by the common deposition of so many testimonies, that where as the species of wine could not be kept with ease, the ordinary communion of the sick, like that of Serapion and Saint Ambrose, was under the sole species of bread.  
In effect, 
Hist. Fr. Script. T. IU.  we read in the life of Lovis the VI called the Gross, written by Sugerus Abbot of Saint Denis, that in the last sickness of this Prince the Body and Blood of our Lord was carried to him, but we see there also that this faithful Historien thought himself obliged to render the reason of it, and to advertise, that it was as they came from saying Mass, and that they carried it devoutly in procession to his chamher: which ought to make us understand in what manner it was used out of these conjunctures.  
But that which puts the thing out of all doubt is, that in substance M. de la Roque agrees with us as to the matter of fact in debate. There is no more difficulty to communicate the sick under the sole species of bread, then under that of wine only, a practice which this curious observer shows us in the VII. 
Hist. Euch. I. p. ch. 12. p. 150. 160.  age in the cleaventh Council of Toledo Canon XI. He says as much of the eleavent age and of Pope Paschalis II. 
Conc. Tolet. XI. Pasch. II. Ep. 32. ad Pont.  by whom he makes the same thing to be permitted for little infants. He is so far from disapproving these practices that he is careful to defend them, and excuses them himself upon an invincible necessity, as if a parcel of the sacred bread could not be so steeped that a sick person or even an infant might swallow it almost as easily as wine. But the business was that he must find some excuse to hinder us from concluding, from his own observations, that the Church believed she had a full liberty to give one species only, without any prejudice to the integrity of communion.  
Behold what we find tooching the communion of the sick in the tradition of all ages. If some of these practices which I have observed concerning that veneration which was paid to the Eucharist astonish our reformers, and appear new to them, I engage myself, to show them shortly, and in few words, (for it is not difficult) that the original of it is ancient in the Church, or reather that it never had a beginning. But at present (that we may not quit our matter) it is sufficient for me to show them, (only by comparing the customs of the first and last ages) a continual Tradition of communicating the sick ordinarily under the sole species of bread; although the Church always tender to her children, if she had believed both the species necessary, would rather have had them consecrated extraordinarily in the sick persons chamber, 
Capit. Anytonis Basil. Episc. temp. Car. Mag. cap. 14. T. VI Spicil.  as it has been often actually practised, then to deprive them of this succour: on the contrary she would have given them so much the rather to dying persons by how much they had a greater combat to sustain, and at the article of death the most need of their Viaticum.  
Lastly, I do not believe the Gentlemen of the pretended Reformation will raise us here any difficultyes upon the change of the species of which we shall have occasion to speak often in this discourse. Those Cavils with which they fill their books upon this point, regard not our question, but that of the real presence, from whence also, to speak candidly, they ought to have been retrenched long since; it being clear, as I have already remarked, that the Son of God who would not in this Mystery do any miracle, apparent as such to the senses ought not to suffer himself to be obliged to discover in any conjuncture what ever that which he designed expressly to hid from our senses, nor by consequence to change what ordinarily happens to the matter which it has pleased him to make use of to the end he might leave his body and blood to the faithful.  
There is no man of reason who with a little reflection, will not of his own accord enter into the same sentiment, and at the same time grant that these pretended undecencyes, which are borough against us with so much seeming applause, avail only to move the human senses; but in reality they are too much below the Majesty of JESUS-CHRIST, to hinder the course of his dessigns, and the desire he has to unite himself to us in so particular a manner.  
It happens thus so very often in these matters (and especially to our Reformers) to pass from one question to another that I esteem myself obliged to keep them close to our question by this advertisement. The same reason obliges me to desire them not to draw any advantage from the expression of bread and wine which will occur so often, because they know, that even in believing as we do, the change of the substance, it is permitted us to leave the first name to those things that are changed, as well as it was to Moses to learn that a rod which was turned into a serpent, 
Exod. 8.12.  or that water which was become blood, 
Ibid. 21.24.  or the Angel's men because they appeared such, 
Gen. 18.2.26.  not to allege here Saint John, who calls the wine at the marriage of Cana, water made wine. 
John. 2.9.  It is natural to man, that he may facilitate his discourse, to abridge his phrases, and to speak according to the appearances neither is advantage usvally taken from this manner of speech; and I do not believe that any one would object to a Philosopher, who defends the motion of the Earth, that he overthrows his hypothesis when he says that the Sun rises or sets.  
After this sleight digression to which the desire of proceeding with clearness has engaged me, I return to my matter, and to those practices which I have promised to explicate whereby to show in antiquity the communion under one species.    

§ III. Second Custom. Communion of little Infants.  
THE second practice I undertake to prove is that when the Communion was given to little children that were baptised, it was given them in the first ages, yea and ordinarily in all the following under the species of wine only. S. 
Cyp. Tr. de Lapsis.  Cyprien who suffered martyrdom in the third age authorises this practice in his treatise de Lapsis. This great man represents there to us with a gravity worthy of himself, what passed in the Church and in his presence to a little girl to whom had been given a little moistened bread offered to Idols. Her mother who knew nothing of it, omitted not to bring her according to custom into the Church assembly. But God, who would show by a miraculous sign how much they were unworthy of the society of the faithful who had participated of the impure table of Devils, caused an extraordinary agitation and trouble to appear in this child during prayer: as if, (says S. Cyprian) for default of speech she had found herself forced to declare by this means as well as she could, the misfortune she was fallen into. This agitation, which ceased not during the whole time of prayer, augmented at the approaching of the Eucharist, where JESUS-CHRIST was so truly present. For, (as S. Cyprian pursues,) after the accustomed solemnities, the Deacon who presented the holy cup to the faithful being come to the order or rank of this child, JESUS-CHRIST who knows how to make himself be perceived by whom he pleases, caused this infant at that moment to feel a terrible impression of the presence of his Majesty. She turned away her face, says Saint Cyprian, as not able to support so great Majesty; she shuts her mouth, she refused the Chalice. But after they had made her by force swallow some drops of the precious blood, she could not, adds this Father, retain it in those defiled entrails, so great is the power and Majesty of our Lord. It became the body of our Lord to produce no less effects; and Saint Cyprian who represents to us with so much care and zeal together the trouble of this child during all prayer time, not mentioning this extraordinary emotion caused by the Eucharist, but at the approaching and receiving of the consecrated Chalice without speaking one only word of the body, shows sufficiently that, in effect, they did not offer her a nourishment that was inconvenient to her age.  
It is not that they could not, with sufficient facility, make a child swallow a little of the sacred bread by steeping of it, seeing it appears even in this history, that the little girl mentioned here had in this manner taken the bread offered to Idols. But this is so far from hurting us, that on the contrary it lets us see how much they were persuaded that one sole species was sufficient, because there being in deed no impossibility of giving the body to little infants they so easily determinated to give them the blood alone. It sufficed that the solid part was not so convenient to that age: and on the other side as they would have been obliged to steep the sacred bread to the end they might make little children swallow it; so in these ages, where we have seen that they did not so much as dream of mixing the two species, they must have been obliged to take an ordinary liquor before that sacred liquor the blood of our Lord, contrary to the dignity of such a Sacrament which the Church has always believed aught to enter into our bodies before all other nourishment. 
August. Ep. 118. ad Jan.  It was always (I say) believed; and not only in the time of Saint Augustin, 
Ep. 118.  from whom we have borrowed those words we last produced, but in the time of Saint Cyprian himself, as it appears in his letter to Cecilius, 
Ep. 63.  and before S. Cyprian seeing we find mention in Tertullian of the sacred bread which the faithful took in secret before all other nourishment, 
Lib. II. ad ux. 5.  and in a word before them all because they speak of it as of an established custom. This consideration which alone was the reason why they gave the blood only to little children though never so strong in itself, would have been forceless against a divine command. It was therefore most certainly believed that there was not any divine precept of uniting the two species together.  
M. 
Hist. Euch. I. p. ch. 12. p. 145.  de la Roque would gladly say, though he dare not do it in plain terms, that they mixed the body with the blood for infants, and imagines, it might be gathered from the words of Saint Cyprian, though there is not one syllable, as we see, which tends to it. But besides that the discipline of that time did not suffer this mixture, Saint Cyprian speaks only of the blood, It is the blood, says he, that cannot stay in defiled entrails, and the distribution of the sacred Chalice of which alone this infant had participated, is too clearly expressed to leave the least place for that conjecture which M. de la Roque would make. Thus the Example is precise: the custom of giving the Communion to little children under the species of wine only cannot be contested, and that doubt which they would raise in the mind without any ground, shows only the perplexity they are thrown into by the great authority of Saint Cyprian and the Church in his time.  
Certainly M. 
Hist. Euch. I. p. ch. 11. p. 136. ch. 12. p. 150.  de la Roque would have acted with more sincerity, if he had kept himself to that Idee which first presented itself as it were naturally unto him. The first time he had spoke of this passage of Saint Cyprian, he told us that they poured by force into the mouth of the child some of the sacred Chalice; that is without question some drops of the precious blood pure and without any mixture, just as it was presented to the rest of the people who had already received the body. And on the other side we have even now seen that this Minister does not blame the Pope Paschalis the II. who, according to him, permitted little children to communicate under the sole species of wine: so much did his conscience dictate that this practice had no difficulty, in it.  
As for M. du Bourdieu, 
Du Board. I. rép. p. 37. Et repliq. ch. 20. p. 341.  this passage of Saint Cyprian had at the first also produced its effect in his mind; And this passage having been objected to him by a Catholic, this Minister easily accorded in his first answer, that in effect nothing had been given to this child but the consecrated wine alone. He comes of in saying that the ancients who believed the communion absolutely necessary for little infants, gave it them as they could; that it was for this reason Saint Cyprians Deacon believing this child would be damned if it died without the Eucharist, opened by force its mouth, to pour into it a little wine, and that a case of necessity, a particular case cannot have the name of a custom. What efforts are these to elude a thing so clear! Where are those extraordinary reasons this Minister would here imagine to himself? Is there one single word in Saint Cyprian which shows the danger of this infant as the motive of giving it the Communion? Does it not on the contrary appear by the whole discourse, that this blessed Sacrament was given to it only because it was the custom to give it to all children so often as they were brought to the assemblies? Why will M. du Bourdieu divine that this little girl had never communicated? 
Ch. 20. p. 345.  Was she not baptised? Was it not the custom to give the communion together with baptism even to infants? To what purpose is it therefore to speak here of a fear they should have, lest she should be damned for not having received the Eucharist, since they had already given her it in giving her baptism? Is it that they believed also in the ancient Church that it did not suffice to the salvation of a child to have communicated once, and that it should be damned if they dit not reiterate the Communion? What chimaeras do men invent, rather than give place to truth, and confess their errors with sincerity! But to what end do they throw us here upon the question of the necessity of the Eucharist, and upon the error they would have Saint Cyprian to have been incident to in this point? Grant it were true that this holy Martyr and the Church in his time should have believed the Communion absolutely necessary to infants, what advantage would M. du Bourdieu draw from thence? and who does not on the contrary see, that if the two species be essential to Communion, as the Pretended Reformers would have it, the more one shall believe the Communion necessary to little children, the less will he be dispensed with in giving them both these species? M. du Bourdieu foresaw very well this consequence so contrary to his pretensions; and in his second reply he would divine, though Saint Cyprian has said nothing of it, and against the whole connection of his discourse, that this little girl when she was so cruelly and so miraculously tormented after the taking of the Blood, had already received the Body without receiving any prejudice thereby: where is a man when he makes such answers?  
But why do we dispute any longer? There is no better proof, nor better interpreter of a custom then the custom itself, I would say, that there is nothing which demonstrates more that a custom comes from the first ages, then when it is seen to continue successively to the last. This of communicating little children under the sole species of wine, which we find established in the III. age, and in the time of Saint Cyprian, continued always so common that it is found in all after ages. It is found in the V or VI 
Jobius de Verb. incar. lib. III. c. 18. Bibl. Phot. Cod. 222.  age in the book of Jobius, where that learned Religious speaking of the three Sacraments which were given together, in a time when the Christian Religion being established very few others were baptised, no more then at present, but the children of the faithful, speaks thus. They baptise us, says he, after that they anoint us, that is they confirm us, and lastly they give us the precious Blood. He makes no mention of the Body, because it was not given to children. And for this reason he takes great care in the same place to explain how the Blood may be given even before the Body a thing which having no place in the communion of those of riper years, was found only in that which the Faithful had all of them received in receiving the Blood alone in their infancy. So that this custom has already passed from the III. age to the VI it stops not there, we find it even to the last ages, and even at present in the Greek Church. 
Allat. Tract. de cons. utr. Eccles. Anno. de Comm. Orient. Thom. Smith. Ep. de Ecc. Gr. stat. hod. p. 104. 1. ed. Hugo de S. Vict. erudit. Theol. lib. I. c. 10. Bib. PP. Par. de div. Offic.  Allatius a Catholic and Thomas Smith an English Protestant Minister each of them relate it equally after a great number of Authors, and the thing itself has no difficulty.  
It is true M. Smith has varied in his second edition. For they were afraid in England to authorize an example which we make use of to establish communion under one species. M. Smith after having remarked in his Preface the advantage we take from it, 
Praef. 2. edit. init.  thinks he can remove it by two or three very feeble testimonies of modern Grecians who studied in England, or who live there, and whose writings are printed in Protestant towns.  
The last testimony he alleges is that of an Archbishop of Samos whom we have too much seen in this country, to rely much upon his capacity any more than upon his sincerity. He is at present established at London; and M. Smith produces us a letter which he writ to him, wherein he says, that after the baptism of infants, the Priest holding the Chalice where the blood is together with the body of our Saviour reduced into little particles, takes in a little spoon one drop of this blood so mixed, in such sort that some little crumbs of the consecrated bread are found in this spoon, which suffices to make the child participate of the Body of our Lord. M. Smith adds that these crumbs are so little, that they cannot well be perceived because of their smallness, and that they stick to the spoon though never so little dipped into this holy liquor. See here all can be drawn from a Grecian who is entertained at London, and from M. Smith, in favour of the communion under both species given in baptism to children in the Greek Church: That is that they gave them the blood in which the body was mixed, with so little of design to give them the sacred body, that they give them not any part of that which they see swim in the holy liquor, and which they give to them of riper years, as M. Smith himself says. They content themselves to presume that some insensible particle of the consecrated bread sticks to the spoon of the child: see what they call communicating them under both species. In truth had not M. Smith done as well to change nothing in his book; and will not every man of sense believe himself obliged to stand to that which he said ingenuously in his first edition, so much the rather because he sees it conformable to the ancient Tradition which we have exposed?  
And if we find the communion of little children under the sole species of wine in the Greek Church, we find it no less amongst the Latins. It is found, according to M. de la Roque in the Decrees of Pope Paschal II. as we have lately seen, that is to say in the eleventh age. It is found till the XII. age in the same Latin Church; 
Hug. de S. Vict. erud. Tb. l. III. cap. 20.  and Hugo de Sainto Victore, so much praised by S. Bernard, says expressly, that the Blessed Sacrament was not given to little infants in baptism but under the sole species of blood; teaching also afterwards that under each species the body and blood of Christ were both received.  
We find the same doctrine with the same manner of communicating little children in William de Champeaux Bishop of Châlon, 
Ex lib. manuscript. qui dicitur Pancrisis relat. in praef. Saec. 3. Bened. p. 1. num. 75.  intimately conversant with the same Saint Bernard. Father Mabillon Benedictin Monk of the Congregation of Saint Maur, (whose sincerity is not to be called in question any more than his capacity) has found in an ancient manuscript a long passage of this worthy Bishop, (one of the most famous of his age for piety and learning) where he teaches that he who receives one sole species receives JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire, because (adds he) he is not received neither by little and little, nor by parts, but whole and entire under one or two species: from whence it eomes that they give the Chalice alone to infants newly baptised, because they cannot receive the bread; but they do not therefore less receive JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire in the Chalice alone.  
The Ministers confounded by these practices found established without an contradiction in all past ages, fly ordinarily to incident questions, 
Du Board. 1. rép. p. 36. & sec. rép. c. 20.21.  to withdraw us from the principal. They exaggerate the abuse of Communion of little infants, (for so they call it against the authority of all ages;) an abuse which they say was founded upon the great and dangerous error of the absolute necessity of receiving the Eucharist in all ages under pain of eternal damnation, which, according to them, is the error of Saint Cyprian, Saint Augustin, Saint Innocent Pope, Saint Cyril, Saint chrysostom, Saint Cesarius Bishop of Arles, and not only of many of the Fathers, but also of many ages. Oh holy antiquity, and Church of the first ages too boldly condemned by Ministers, without reaping from thence any thing but the pleasure to have made their people believe that the Church could fall into error even in the purest times! For as to the substance what avails this controversy to our subject? The ancient Church believed the Eucharist necessary for little infants? We have already demonstrated that, supposing the two species to have been of the essence of this Sacrament, that belief would have been a new motive to give it them under both. Why therefore give they it them but under one? and what can these Ministers say here, if not to answer us, that the ancient Church added to the error of believing that the communion was absolutely necessary to salvation, that of beleving the communion to have its entire effect under one sole species, and that by making an antiquity so pure to err, they be willing to show themselves visibly in an error.  
We have, God be praised, a doctrine which obliges us not to cast ourselves into such excesses. I could very easily explicate how the Grace of that Sacrament of the Eucharist is in effect necessary to all the faithful; how the Eucharist and its grace is virtually contained in Baptism; which produces in the faithful that sacred right which they there receive to the body and Blood of our Lord, and how it belongs to the Church to regulate the time of exercising this right. I might also show upon these grounds that if some one, as for example that William Bishop of Châlons quoted so faithfully by Father Mabillon seem to have believed the necessity of the Eucharist, yet this opinion was so far from universal, that we find it strongly opposed by other authors of the same time, 
Hug. de S. Vict. lib. I, erud. Theol. c. 20. Hist. Euch. l. p. ch. 11. p. 139. Fulg. Ep. ad Ferr. Diac.  as by Hugo de Santo Victore cited in M. de la Roques book and many others. I could also tell you how these Authors have explicated S. Augustin according to S. Fulgentius, and show with them by express passages, and by the whole doctrine of this Father how far he is from that error they attribute to him. But my design is here to teach what we ought to believe concerning the two species, and not to trouble myself and my readers with these incident questions. Therefore I enter not into them, and without burdning my discourse with an un profitable examen, I shall deliver in few words the faith of the Church.  
The Church did always and does still believe that infants are capable to receive the Eucharist as well as Baptism, and finds no more obstacle, as to communion, in these words of S. Paul, 
1. Cor. 11.22.  Let a man examine himself and so let him eat, than she finds, as to Baptism, in these words of our Saviour, Teach and baptise. 
Mat. 22.19.  But as she knows that the Eucharist cannot be absolutely necessary to their salvation, after they have received a full remission of their sins in Baptism, she believes that it is a matter of discipline to give or not to give the communion at that age.  
Whereupon for good reasons she gave it the space of eleven or twelve hundred years, and for other good reasons she ceased to give it from that time. But the Church which found herself free to communicate or not to communicate children, could never have believed she had liberty to communicate them in a manner contrary to the institution of JESUS-CHRIST, nor would ever have given one only species, if she had believed the two species inseparable by their institution.  
In a word, to disengage our selves at once from these unprofitable disputes: when the Church gave the communion to little infants under the sole species of wine, she either judged this Sacrament necessary to their salvation, or she did not. If she did not think it necessary, why should she press so to give it, as to give it wrong? And if she judged it necessary, it is a new demonstration that she believed the whole effect of the Sacrament included under one sole species.  
And further to show this was her belief, the same Church which gave the Eucharist to little children under the sole species of wine, gave them it when more advanced in years without scruple under the sole species of bread. None is ignorant of the ancient custom of the Church, to give to innocent children that which remained of the Body of our Lord after the communion of the faithful. Some Churches burned these sacred remainders, and such was the custom of the Church of Jerusalem, as Hesychius Priest of that Church relates. 
Hesych. in Levit. lib. II. 68  JESUS-CHRIST is absolutely above all corruption: but human sense demanded that, out of respect to this Sacrament, that should be observed which lest offends the senses; and it was thought much better to burn these sacred remainders, then to see them changed by keeping them after a manner less becoming. That which the Church of Jerusalem consumed by fire, the Church of Constantinople gave to be consummated by little children, looking upon them in that age, where their baptismal grace was entire, as its most holy vessels. 
Evag. lib. IU. c. 35.  Evagrius writes in the VI age that this was the ancient custom of the Church of Constantinople. 
Conc. Matisc. II. c. 2. T. I. Conc. Gall. Hist. Euch. I. P. ch. 16. p. 183.  M. de la Roque takes notice of this custom and shows us the same practice at the same time in France, where a Council ordained that the remainders of the Sacrifice, after Mass was finished, should be given sprinkled with wine Wednesdays and fridays to innocent children, to whom they ordained to fast that they might to receive them. It was without doubt the Body of our Lord which they received as well as the rest of the faithful. 
Ibid.  Evagrius calls these remainders the particles of the immaculate Body of JESUS-CHRIST our God, and thus it is that M. de la Roque translates it. The same Evagrius relates that this communion preserved a Jewish child, which had communicated in this manner with the children of the faithful from a burning furnace whereinto his father had thrown him in hatred of that communion he had received, God being willing to confirm this communion under one species by so illustrious a miracle. None ever dreamt of saying they did amiss in giving the body with out the blood, nor that such a communion was defective. If the custom have been changed, it has been upon other reasons, and after the same manner other things of discipline have been altered without condemning the precedent practice. So that this custom, although it have ceased to be in practice in the Church, remains in Histories and Canons in testimony against the Protestants: The communion of infants is a clear conviction of their error: The youngest sort of infants communicate under the sole species of wine, and the children of a more advanced age under that of bread, both one and the others concurring to make apparent the integrity of communion under one species only.   

§ iv Third Custom. Domestic Communion.  
THE third practice is that the faithful, after having communicated in the Church and in the holy assembly, carried with them the Eucharist to communicate every day in their houses. The species of wine could not be given them, because it could not be conserved, especially in so little a quantity as that which is made use of in the holy Mystyres; and it is certain also that it was given them under the species of bread only. 
Tert. de Orat. c. 14.  Tertullian who mentions this custom in his book the Oratione, speaks only of taking and keeping the Body of our Lord; and in an other place he speaks of the Bread which Christians eat fasting in secret, 
Lib. 11. ad ux. 5.  without any other addition. Saint Cyprian lets us see the same practice in his treatise de Lapsis. This custom which begun during the persecutions, and whilst Ecclesiastical meetings were not free, did not cease nevertheless to continue for other reasons during the peace of the Church. We learn from Saint Basile that the Solitaryes or Hermit's communicated after no other manner in the deserts where there was no Priests. 
Bas. Ep. 289.  And it is certain moreover that these wonderful men not coming to the Church but at most on principal solemnities, could not possibly have conserved the species of wine. There is likewise no mention in Saint Basil but of that which was put into the hand to be carried to the mouth, that is to say of consecrated Bread, and this is that which they had the liberty to reserve, as the same Father expresses: to which he adds, that it is indifferent to receive in the hand one or many morsels, making use of a word which can constantly signify no other but a parcelle or portion of some solid thing; and this makes Aubertin also understand it only of the sacred Bread. 
Aub. lib. 11. p. 442.  And although Saint Basil makes it clear aswell by these terms, as by the whole connection of his discourse, that the faithful in these occasions took and reserved the body only, yet he concludes that their communion was no less holy nor less perfect in their houses then in the Church. 
I. Part. c. 14. p. 173. Hier. ad Param.  He says also that this custom was universal throughout Egypt even to Alexandria. M. de la Roque concludes very well from a passage of S. Hierome, that it was also at Rome, where without going always to the Church, the Faithful received every day the Body of our Lord at home; to which this Father adds: Is it not the same JESUS-CHRIST which we receive in the house and in the Church? To show that one of these communions is no less entire nor less perfect than the other. The same M. 
Hist. Euch. I. part. c. 15. p. 176.  de la Roque grants that the Christians of the first ages sent the Eucharist one to another in token of communion, as in effect it appears by a letter of Saint Ireneus that it was sent from Rome even to Asia, 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. V c. 24.  and moreover that they carried it with them in their voyages by sea, 
Hist. Euch. I. p. ch. 14. p. 174.  and by land: which confirms the use of that species which alone could be carried, and which alone could be conserved so long time inso little quantity. Witness Satyrus brother to Saint Ambrose, 
Amb. de ob. frat. Sat. T. 4.  who, as this Saint relates, though only a Catechumen, obtained of the faithful by the fervour of his faith this divine Sacrament, wrapped it in a linen cloth, and having tied it about his neek, threw himself into the sea with this precious pledge, by which he was also saved. I need not mention the other passages where this custom is established, 
I. Part. c. 12. p. 159. c. 14. p. 172. & seq.  seeing M. de la Roque acknowledges it and dispenses with us as to the proof of it. 
Joan. Mosch. Prat. Spir. T. XIII. Bib. PP. p. 1089.  We find even in the passages which he quotes in what manner the holy oblation was carried, and it appears that it was in a little coffer, or in a very clean linen. He finds some foot steps of this custom in the time of Saint Hormisdas Pope, that is in the beginning of VI age; and it is true that under this Pope a false report of a persecution being spread abroad in Thessalonia, 
Inter Ep. Horm. Papae, post ep. 62. Sugg. Germ. etc. & post Ep. 67. Ind. Joan. Episc. T. V Conc.  the Eucharist was distributed to all the faithful by baskets full for a long time. Those who distributed it are not blamed for giving it in this manner, but for having maliciously frighted the people by the rumour of an imaginary persecution.  
In short we must not look upon this manner of communicating at home as an abuse, under pretence that this practice was not continued: for in matters of discipline only, as this is, the Church has reasons to forbid at one time, what she permits at another. It is in the time of persecutions, that is in the most holy times, that these customs have been for the most part in practice, so the Communion under one species is authorised by the constant practice of the best of times, and by the exemple of all the Martyrs. It is moreover certain that at this time they communicated oftener under the sole species of bread, then under both species, seeing it was an establissed custom to communicate every day in their houses under that species only, whereas they could not receive both species but in Church assemblies, which Were not so frequent; and no body ever suspected, during so many ages, that either of these ways of communicating was defective or more imperfect than the other. Those who know, with how much respect they treated holy things in these days, will not find it an irreverence to put the Communion into the hands of the faithful, no more then to permit them to carry it to their particular houses, where it is certain, to our shame, that there was more veneration than there is at present in our Churches.  
We know likewise the extreme care Christians took to keep this precious depositum of the body of our Lord, and above all to hid it from profane hands. We see in the acts of the Martyrs of Nicomedia that when the Magistrates visited the chamber where S. Domna lived with the Eunuch Indeses who served her, 
Act Mart. Nicom. ap. Bar. an. 293.  they found only a Cross, the book of the Acts of the Apostles, two mats spread upon the bare ground, which were the beds of these Martyrs, an earthen censer, a lamp, a little box of wood where they placed the holy Oblation they received. They found not the holy Oblation which they had been careful to consummate. It belongs to the Protestants to tell us what these Martyrs did with this Cross and this censer. Catholics are not in pain about them, and they are over joyed to see amongst the utensils of these Saints, together with the simplicity of the primitive times, the marks of their religion, and of the honour they rendered to the Eucharist. But that which makes for our purpose is that we manifestly see in this history how the Eucharist was kept, and what care they took not to let it fall into the hands of infidels. God himself assisted some times, and the Acts of Saint Tharsicius an Acolyte show that this holy Martyr being met by Pagans whilst he carried the Sacraments of the Body of our Lord, would never discover what he carried, and was killed with sticks and stones; after which these infidels searching him they neither found in his hands, nor in his  any parcels of the Sacraments of JESUS-CHRIST, God himself having provided for the safely of these heavenly gifts. Those who are acquainted with the stile of these times, acknowledge it in these acts, where it is spoke of the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST, and of the Sacraments of his Body. They made use of this word Sacrament indifferently either in the plural or singular number in speaking of the Eucharist, sometimes to express the perfect unity, and sometime to make it appear that there was in one sole Sacrament and in one sole mystery (for these terms are equivolent) yea and in each particle of this adorable Sacrament, many Sacraments and many mysteries together.  
This keeping of the Eucharist under the sole species of bread in particular houses, confirms what ought to be believed of the keeping of it in the Church, or the Bishop's houses for the use of the sick; and such practices which sustain one another so well put the doctrine of the Church out of all dispute.  
All that the Ministers answer hereto, serves only to discover their encumbrance.  
They all accuse (with one accord) this custom of profanation and abuse even after they had established it as universal for many ages, 
Hist. Euch. I. P. ch. 11. pag. 159. ch. 14. p. 175. Board. rep. ch. 19  and what is yet more strange during the purest times of Christianity. This answer refutes itself; and it will be an easy matter to grant it, seeing the whole consists in this to know whether all the Martyrs were profane persons, or whether the Ministers who accuse them be not temerarious.  
Calixtus and M. 
Calixt. n. 11. Board. rép. ch. 19 Conc. Caesaraug. C. III. Conc. Tol. I. C. XIV. T. II. Conc.  du Bourdieu who exactly follows him mention two Canons of the Church of Spain, one of the Council of Saragoza, and the other of the first Council of Toledo, where those who do not swallow the Eucharist received from the hands of the Bishop are expelled as sacrilegious and excommunicated persons.  
M. 
Hist. Euch. I. P. ch. 14. p. 174.  de la Roque answers them that he does not believe this Canon of Saragoza was made to abolish the custom of carrying away the Eucharist and keeping of it. And he says the same afterwards of the first Council of Toledo; which he proves from the eleaventh Canon of the eleventh Council held at the same place. 
Conc. Tol. XI. C. XI. T. VI Conc.   
And though the opinions of M. de la Roque were not to be relied upon, it is sufficiently clear that these two Councils held in the iv age or there about, could not have detested as a sacrilege a custom which all the Fathers show us to have been common in those times, as we have proved by the acknowledgement even of the Ministers themselves.  
In fine these Councils speak not of those who receiving in the Church a part of the consecrated bread reserve another part for domestic communion; but of those who receiving the communion from the hands of the Bishop swallow none at all of it. Behold what these Councils forbidden and it is not difficult to guess at the motives of this their prohibition, seeing the I. Council of Toledo (which in the XIII. Canon so severely blames those who affected in assisting at the Church never to communicate there;) when it condemns in the following Canon, as sacrilegious persons those who swallow not the communion after they have received it from the hand of the Priest, makes it known sufficiently by this connection that its intention was to condemn another manner of avoiding the communion so much the worse because it shown either a sacrilegious hipocricy or too visible an aversion to this holy mystery.  
These unfortunate people who so obstinately avoided the communion were the Priscillianistes, heretics of those times and places, who mixed themselves ordinarily with the faithful. But if they will not grant this to have been the motive of that Canon, they cannot at least deny but there are other evil motives not to swallow the Eucharist which might be condemned in these Councils. A man may refrain from the Eucharist out of superstition, he may reserve it to abuse it, he may reject it out of infidelity; and the XI. Council of Toledo informs us that it was such a sacrilege which the first condemned. These or the like abuses taken notice on in certain places might have given occasion to local prohibitions, which brought no prejudice to the customs of other countries: and it is certain moreover that what is practised in one place as well as in one time with reverence, may be so badly practised in another time and place, that it shall be rejected as sacrilegious. Therefore in what manner soever a man will take these Canons, they do not in any sort authorize the error, of them who would make the practices of the holy Martyrs and of the whole ancient Church pass for an abuse, and who can find no other answer to an invincible argument but in condemning their proceed.  
M. du Bourdieu endeavours to come of by an other evasion no less impertinent. He would have it be believed that the faithful communicated under both species in these domestic communions and reserved them both: 
Rep. ch. 18.  for which he brings after Calixtus four testimonies, 
Just. apol. 2.  that of Saint Justinus who says that after consecration in the Church the Deacons carried the two species to them that were absent; That of S. Gregory the great, 
Greg. Dial. III. c. 136.  who relates that in a voyage from Rome to Constantinople and in a great tempest the faithful received the Body and the Blood; that of Amphilochius, who tells us in the life of S. 
I. vit.  Basile that a Jew jayning himself to the faithful in their assembly, carried away to is house some of the remainders of the Body and Blood; and lastly that of Saint Gregory of Nazianzen who relates of his sister Saint Gorgonia that she mixed with her tears what she had gathered of the species or symbols of the Body and Blood, 
Naz.  he ought to have translated it of the Body or the Blood, as it is in the text and not of the Body and the Blood as he has done thereby to insinuate that both the one and the other were reserved together.  
Of these four examples the two first are manifestly nothing to our subject.  
We have already remarked with M. de la Roque that in the example of Saint Justinus the two species 'tis true were carried, but presently after they had been consecrated, by which it does not appear that they kept them, which is precisely our question.  
To show that in the passage mentioned by Saint Gregory the faithful had kept the two species in their vessel from Rome to Constantinople, it ought before to have been certain that there was no Priest in this vessel who could celebrate, or that Maximian of whom Saint Gregory speaks in this place, was none, though he was the Superieur of a Monastery. This great Pope says nothing of these circumstances, and leaves us the liberty to supply them by other reasons, of which the principal is drawn from that impossibility already so often remarked of keeping so little quantity of consecrated wine so long a time.  
What M. du Bourdieu says here that they durst not have celebrated in a ship shows that he searches only to cavil, without so much as considering that even at present we celebrate in all sort of places when there is a reason for it.  
So that of these four examples behold two of them already useless. The two others, with the passages of Baronius and the learned Aubespinus Bishop of Orleans with which they defend them, may very well prove that the blood was not refused to the faithful to carry with them if they required it (for upon what account should they also refuse it, and believe that the Sacred Body with which they trusted them was more precious than the Blood?) but can never prove that they could keep it any long time, since that nature itself opposed it, nor that it was the custom to do it, the Church being so well persuaded the communion was equal under one or both species, that the least difficulty made them determine to give it either in the one or the other kind. We see also in that passage of Saint Gregory of Nazianzen that the does not say that his sister watered the Body and the Blood with her tears, as if it had been certain she had the one and the other, but the Body or the Blood, to show that he did not know which of the two she had in her keeping it being ordinary to reserve the body only.  
What serves it therefore to cavil as a constant practice? Truth ought always at the last to come to light? And M. de la Roque, he who of all the Ministers has examined this matter with most exactness, ingeniously confesses that the faithful carried home the bread of the Eucharist to take it when they would, 
Hist. Euch. I. P. ch. 12. p. 159.  saving himself as well as he can from the consequence by the remark he makes that this abusive and particular custom cannot prejudice the general practice, and that even those who carried the Eucharist home dit not probably do it till after they had eaten a part in the assembly, and participated of the Chalice of our Lord.  
Calixtus brings himself of with the same answer almost. 
Disp. num. 10.  At the beginning of the treatise he has given us about communion in both kinds he had candidly owned that some reserved the sacred bread to eat it either in their houses or on a journey; and after having related many passages, amongst others that of S. Basil which suffers no evasion, he had concluded, that it was certain from these passages that some moved by a religious affection towards the Eucharist, carried away with them a part of the consecrated bread or of the holy symbol. There is no body who reading these passages even in Calixtus himself does not see that these whom he calls so slyly some, are the whole Church: and when he adds that this custom was tolerated some time, this which he calls some time, is as much as to say four or five hundred years, and that in the time of the greatest purity; and this which he calls tolerated is no other than universally received in these beautiful ages of the Church, no body ever attempting either to blame them, or to say that this communion was unsufficient.  
In the sequel of his dispute Calixtus chafes, and labours to prove by the examples already refuted, that this communion might be made under the two species. But he returns at last to the solution which he at first had given, that the faithful, who communicated under the sole species of bread in their houses had received the species of wine in the Church, and that there is no example that they ever communicated publicly under one species for a thousand or cleaven hundred years. As if it did not suffice to convince him that communion under one species had been declared perfect and sufficient; or that it was permitted to communicate contrary to the order of JESUS-CHRIST, and to divide his mystery in the house rather than in the Church; or lastly that this parcelle of sacred Bread which was taken in private in the house was not given at the Church it self, and by the hands of the Pastors for that use.  
Behold the vain Cavils by which these Ministers think to elude a manifest truth: but I will not leave them in their error as to public communion; and although it suffice to have for us this communion taken in private with the approbation of the whole Church, we shall presently see, that communion under one species was no less free in solemn assemblies then in the house.   

§ V Fourth Custom.  
Communion at the Church and in the ordinary Office.  
I Place therefore as the fourth practice, that in the Church itself and in the assemblies of Christians it was free for them to receive either both species or one only. The Manicheans abhorred wine which they believed was created by the Devil. The same Manicheans denied that the son of God had shed his Blood for our redemption, believing that his Passion was nothing but an illusion and a fantastical appearance. These two reasons gave an aversion from the precious Blood of our Lord which was received in the mysteries under the species of wine: And as, to hid themselves the better, says Saint Leo, and to spread more easily their venom, they mixed themselves with Catholics even to communicate with them, so they received the Body of our Lord only, avoiding to drink the Blood by which we were redeemed. This fraudulent proceeding of theirs could hardly be discovered because Catholics themselves did not all of them communicate under both species. At the last it was taken notice of that these Heretics dit it out of affectation: in so much that the Holy Pope S. Leo the Great would that those who were known as such by this mark, should be expelled the Church; and Saint Gelasius his disciple and successor was obliged to forbid expressly to communiacte any other ways then under both species: a sign 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.  
This practice is of the V 
I. Part. ch. 11. p. 144.  age. M. de la Roque and others relate it together with the judgement of these two Popes, and take their advantage from it. But on the contrary this practice shows clearly that there was need of a particular reason to oblige the faithful to a necessity of communicating under both species, and that the thing was indifferently practised both ways before: otherwise the Manicheans would immediately have too much exposed themselves, and could not have expected to be suffered.  
But if it had been freely permitted, say the Ministers, to communicate under the sole species of bread when they would, the Manicheans could not have been distinguished by this mark: as if there were no difference betwixt a liberty to receive one or both species, and a perpetual affectation of these Heretics obstinately to refuse the consecrated wine. What an effect of prejudice is this not to observe wilfully a thing so manifest!  
'tis true that this liberty being allowed, there must have been time and a particular vigilance to discern these heretics from amongst the faithful. And this was also the reason of the long continuance of their deceit, and that which caused a necessity at last, in the time of Saint Gelasius, of making an express ordre to take equally the body and the blood, under pain of being deprived of them both.  
M. 
Ibid. p. 283.  du Bourdieu conceals here from us with a great deal of artifice the motive inducing this Pope to make that prohibition. See here the words of the Decree. 
Qui proculdubio (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur adstringi) aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integra arceantur. Gel. ibid.  We have discovered that some persons in taking the sacred Body only, abstain from the holy Chalice, which persons truly, (because they seem to adhere to I know not what superstition) let them either take the Sacrament under both species, or let them be entirely deprived of the one and the other. This particle because of Pope Galasius, which shows manifestly that the superstitious abstinence of these Heretics was the particular reason why he obliged them to both species, is left out by this Minister; for see what he makes this Pope say: I know not what superstition they are addicted to: either let them receive the entire Sacraments, or let them be deprived of the entire Sacraments.  
He durst not let that particle appear in his translation by which this Pope shows expressly that his prohibition had a particular motive, for fear it might be too easily concluded against him, that there was nothing in itself more free then to communicate without receiving the Blood, since that there was need of reasons and a particular occasion to oblige the doing of it.  
There is likewise another crafty artifice, but very feeble in the translation of this Minister. For instead of what the Pope says (as I have above translated it) Which persons truly, 
Nescioqua superstitione decentur adstringi.  becanse they seem to adhere to I know not what superstition, that is to say indefinitely, as is manifest, to some certain superstition, which he will not vouchsafe to express; 
Du Board. ibid. p. 283.  this Minister makes him say both precisely and more strongly: I know not what superstition they are addicted to, to the end he might conclude a little after that this did not concern the Manicheans, whose errors, says he, this learned Bishop was not ignorant of, nor of those which were in vogue in his time.  
Calixtus had endeavoured before him to distinguish the practice of Heretics mentioned by Saint Leo from this prohibited by Saint Gelasius, thereby to hinder any one from believing that the Decree of this last Pope in favour of the two species was to be regarded as in relation to the errors of the Manicheans. What does this pitiful refuge avail him? Seeing that it appears clearly by the terms of this Decree, that it had a particular motive, what does it import us whether it were the Manicheans error, or some other such like superstition? And is not this always sufficient to let us see, (take it which way you will) that it was necessary the Church should have some particular reasons to oblige them to both species?  
But as to the whole it cannot be doubted but this superstition of which Saint Gelasius speaks here was that of the Manicheans, seeing that Anastasius the Bibliothecarian says expressly in the life of this Pope, 
Vit. Gel. T. IU. Conc.  that he discovered the Manicheans at Rome, that he sent them into exile, and that he caused their books to be burnt before the Saint mary Church. We do not in effect see what other superstition besides that of the Manicheans could have inspired a horror to wine and that of the Blood of our Lord. On the other side it is manifest that these Heretics had unheard of artifices to insinuate themselves secretly amongst the faithful, and that there was in their prodigious discourses such an efficacy of error, that it was a most difficult thing to efface wholly those impressions they left in the mind. None therefore can doubt but that these superstitious people of whom Saint Gelasius speaks, were the hidden remainders of those Manicheans that Saint Leo his predecessor had discovered thirty or forty years before; and whereat Saint Gelasius has said they are addicted to I know not what superstition, it is not that he did know very well their errors, but he speaks this out of contempt, or rather, because this obscure sect changed itself into a thousand shapes, so that what remained of this poison was not always known, or it was not always thought convenient to explicate it to the people.  
But behold the last refuge of these Ministers. They maintain we are in the wrong in searching a particular reason of the Ordinance of Saint Gelasius, since he establishes it manifestly upon the nature of the Mystery. Let us once more therefore relate the words of this Pope already cited, and let us add thereto their whole consequence. We have discovered, says he, that some persons take only the sacred Body, and abstain from the sacred Blood, which persons truly (because they seem to adhere to I know not what superstition) let them take both parts or let them be deprived of both, because the division of one and the same mystery cannot be done without a great sacrilege.  
To understand aright the consequence of these words, we find that the division which he accuses of sacrilege was that same grounded upon the above mentioned superstition where the Blood of our Lord consecrated under the species of wine was regarded as an object of aversion. Indeed it is a deviding of the mystery to believe that there is one part of it which JESUS-CHRIST did not institute, and which ought to be rejected as abominable. But to believe that JESUS-CHRIST has equally instituted both parts, and not withstanding to take but one, not out of contempt to the other (God forbidden) but because we believe that the virtue of both is received in either, and that in them both there is but one sole foundation of Grace: if this be to divide the mystery, the primitive Church dividid it when they communicated the sick, little children, and generally all the faithful in their houses under one sole species. But as we cannot have such an opinion of the ancient Church we must of necessity avouch that to divide this mystery some thing more must be believed and practised then that which is believed and practised by all Catholics.   

§ VI The Mass of Holy Friday, and that of the Presanctifyed.  
THE ancient Church was so far from believing that to give this Mystery under one sole species was to divide it, that she had certain solemn days in which she distributed nothing but the sacred Body of our Lord in the Church, and to all the assistants. Such was the Office of Good Friday in the Latin Church; and such was the Office of the Greek Church every day in Lent, except Saturday and Sunday.  
To begin with the Latin Church, we find in the Ordo Romanus, 
Bib. PP. Var. T. de div. Off.  in Alcuinus, or in that ancient author whose explication of that book we have under his name, in Amalarius, in Abbot Rupert, in Hugo de Sainto Victore what we practise even to this very day, that they dit not consecrate upon Good Friday, but that they reserved for communion the Body of our Lord consecrated the day before, and that they received it upon Good Friday in unconsecrated wine. It is expressly remarked in all these places that the Body only was reserved without reserving the Blood, the reason of which is (says Hugo de Sainto Victore,) 
Hug. de S. Vict. erud. Theol. l. III. c. 20.  that the Body and the Blood are received under each species, and that the species of wine cannot be kept with security. This last reason we find in one of the editions of Amalarius, which is no less his then the others, this Author having frequently reviewd his book, several of which, so reviewed, have been preserved to our days. Such was likewise the practice of Ionas Bishop of Orleans, and of many other Authors; and without troubling ourselves with these criticisms, the matter of fact is that Amalarius after divers mystical reasons which he brings for this custom according to the example of other Authors, concludes that it may be said yet more sincerely that the consecrated wine is not reserved, because it is more subject to alteration then the bread. Which confirms in short all what we have shown tooching the communion of the sick under the sole species of bread, and shows very well that the Eucharist which was constantly kept for them during many days according to the spirit of the Church, could not be kept for them under the species of wine, since they fear even that change which might, happen to it from one day to the next, that is from Thursday to Good Friday.  
I might here take notice that the Church endeavours not only to avoid the corruption of the species which change the nature, and the necessary matter of the Sacrament, but also every change which makes the least alteration in them, being desirous out of respect to this Sacrament, that all there should be pure and , and that the least even sensible disrelish should not be suffered in a Mystery where JESUS-CHRIST was to be the banquet. But these remarkes being little necessary to our subject are for another place; and it suffises us to see here, that they reserved at that time, as we do to this very day do, nothing but the sacred Body for the service upon Good Friday.  
Nevertheless it is certain by all the Authors and by all the passages we have lately quoted, that the Priest, the whole Clergy, and all the people communicated this holy day, and by consequence communicated under one species only. This custom appears principally in the Gallican Church, since most of these Authors were of it, so that it ought to find a particular veneration amongst us: but it would be too visable in abusing one's self to say, that a custom so firmly established in the VIII. age had no higher a beginning. We find not the original; wherefore if that opinion, which believes communion under one species to be sacrilegious, should be admitted, we must say that the primitive Church had purposely made choice of Good Friday, the day of our Blessed Saviour's death, on which she might profane a Mystery instituted in memory of it. They communicated after the same manner upon Easter Eve seeing that on the one side it is certain by all Authors that Good Friday and Easter Eve were days of communion for all the people, and on the other side it is no less constant that they did not Sacrifice during these two days; A thing which occasions that even at this day we have no proper Mass in our Missel for Easter Eve. So that they communicated under the sole species of Bread kept from Holy Thursday; and if we will believe our Reformers they prepared themselves for a Paschal communion by two sacrilegious ones.  
The Monks of Clugny, as holy as they were, did no better than others; and the book of their customs, once already cited in this discourse, shows that six hundred years since, they did not communicate at that holy time but under one sole species.  
These practices let us see sufficiently the universal custom of the Latin Church. But the Greeks go yet further: They do not consecrate upon fasting days to the end they may not mix the joy and solemnity of the Sacrifice with the sorrowfulness of a fast. From whence it is that in the time of Lent they do not consecrate but upon Sundays, and on saturdays upon which they fast not. Upon other days they offer the Sacrament reserved on those two solemn days, which they call the imperfect Mass, or the Mass of the Presanctified, because the Eucharist which they offer in these days had been consecrated and sanctified in the two precedent days, and in the Mass they call perfect.  
The antiquity of this observance cannot be contested, being it appears in the VI age in the Councile in Trullo: 
Conc. Trull. c. 52.  where we see the foundation of it from the iv age in the Council of Laodicea, 
Conc. Laod. c. 49.91.  and there is nothing more remarkable amongst the Greeks then this Mass of the Presanctified.  
If we would at present know what it is they offered there, we have no more to do then to read in their Euchologes and in Bibliotheca Patrum the ancient Liturgies of the Presanctified; 
Euch. Goat. Bibl. PP. Paris. T. TWO  and we shall there see that they reserved nothing but the sacred Bread: It is the sacred Bread which they carry from the Sacristy, it is the sacred Bread which they elevate, which they adore, and which they incense, it is the sacred Bread which they mix without saying any prayer with unconsecrated wine and water, and which in fine they distribute to the people. In so much that all the Lent, that most holy time of the year, they communicated five days of the week under the sole species of Bread.  
I know not why some of the Latins have undertaken to blame this custom of the Greeks which neither the Popes nor Councils ever reprehended; and on the contrary the Latin Church having followed this custom upon Good Friday, it is manifest that this Office, with the manner of communicating practised in it, is consecrated by the tradition of both Churches.  
What is here most remarkable is that though it be so apparent that the Greeks receive not any thing upon these days but the Body of our Lord, yet they change nothin in their ordinary formularyes. The sacred gifts are always named in the plural, and they speak no less there in their prayers of the Body and the Blood: so steadfastly is it imprinted in the minds of Christians that they cannot receive one of the species without receiving at the same time not only the virtue, but the substance also both of the one and the other.  
It is true the modern Greeks explain themselves other ways, and appear not, for the most part, very favourable to communion under one species: but it is in this the force of truth appears the greater, since that in despite of them, their own customs, their own Liturgies, their own Traditions pronounce sentence against them.  
But is it not true will some say that they put some drops of the precious Blood in form of a Cross upon the parcels of the sacred Body which they reserve for the following days, and for the Office of Presanctified? It is true they do it for the most part; but it is true at the same time, that this custom is new amongst them, and that in the substance to examine it entirely, it concludes nothing against us.  
It concludes nothing against us, because, besides that two or three drops of consecrated wine cannot be preserved any long time, the Greeks' take care, immediately after they have dropped them upon the consecrated bread, to dry it upon a chafendish and to reduce it to powder, for it is in that manner they keep it as well for the sick as for the Office of the Presanctified: A certain sign that the authors of this Tradition had not in prospect by this mixture the Communion under both species, which they would have given in another manner if they had believed them necessary; but indeed the expression of some mystery, such as might be the Resurrection of our Lord, which all Liturgyes both Greek and Latin figured by the mixture of the Body and the Blood in the Chalice, because the death of our Lord arriving by the effusion of his Blood, this mixture of his Body and his Blood is very proper to represent how this man-God took life again.  
I should be ashamed to mention here all the vain subtilityes of the modern Greeks, and the false arguments they make about the wine, and about its more gross and more substantial parts, which remain after the solid bodies with which wine may be mixed bacome dried: from whence they conclude that a like effect is produced in the species of consecrated wine, and therefore that the Blood of our Lord may remain in the sacred Bread even after it has been upon the chafendish, and is entirely dry. By these wise reasonings the Lees and the Tartar orsalt would still be wine and a lawful matter for the Eucharist. Must we thus argued concerning the mysteries of JESUS-CHRIST? It was wine, as properly called so, that is a liquid and flowing wine which JESUS-CHRIST instituted for the matter of his Sacrament. It is a liquor which he has given us to represent to our eyes his Blood which was shed; and the simplicity of the Gospel will not suffer these subtilityes of the modern Grecians.  
It must also be acknowledged they arrived to this but of very late, and moreover that the custom of putting these drops of consecrated Wine upon the Bread of the Eucharist was not established amongst them but since their schism. The Patriarch Michael Cerularius, who may be called the true author of this schism, writes notwithstanding in a book which he composed in defence of the Office of the Presanctified, That the sacred Breads, 
Synodic. seu Pand. Guill. Bevereg. Oxon. 1672. Not. in Can. 52. Conc.  which are believed to be, and which are in effect, the quickening Body of our Lord must be kept for this sacrifice, 
Trull. T. II. p. 156. Leo All. Ep. ad Nihus.  without sprinkling one drop of the precious Blood upon them. And we find notes upon the Councils by a famous Canonist who was one of the Clergy belonging to the Church of Constantinople, in which he expressly takes notice, that according to the doctrine of Blessed John (Patriarch of Constantinople) The precious Blood must not be sprinkled upon the Presanctified which they would reserve, 
Harmenop. Ep. Can. sect. 2. Tit. 6.  and this, said he, is the practice of our Church. So that, let the modern Grecians say what they please, their tradition is expressly against this mixture; and according to their own authors, and their own proper tradition there remains not so much as a pretence to defend the necessity of the two species in the Presanctified mysteries.  
For can any one so much as conceive what Patriarch Michael in the work by us newly cited says, That the wine in which they mix the Body reserved, is changed into the precious Blood by this mixing, without so much as prononcing upon the wine, as appears by the Euchologes, and by Michael's own confession, any one of the mystic and sanctifying prayers, that is to say without prononcing the words of consecration, be they what they will (for it is not to our purpose to dispute here of them:) A prodigious and unheard of opinion; that a Sacrament can be made without words, contrary to the authority of the Scripture, and the constant tradition of all Churches, which neither the Grecians nor any body else ever called in question.  
By how much therefore we ought to reverence the ancient traditions of the Grecians, which descend to them from their fathers, and from those times whilst they were united to us; by so much ought we to despise those errors into which they are fall'n in the following ages, weakened and blinded by schism. I need not here relate them, because the Protestants themselves do nor deny but that they are great, and I should recede too far from my subject: But I will only say, to do justice to the modern Grecians, that they do not all hold this gross opinion of michael's, and that it is not an universal opinion amongst them that the wine is changed into the Blood by this mixture of the Body notwithstanding that Scripture and Tradition assign a particular benediction by words as well to it as to the Body.  
We are much less to believe that the Latins who exposed to us but even now the Office of Good Friday could be fallen into this error, since they explicate themselves quite contrary in express words; and to the end we may omit nothing, we must again in few words propose their sentiments.  
It is true then that we find in the Ordo Romanus and in this Office of Good Friday that the unconsecrated wine is sanctified by the sanctified bread which is mixed with it. The same is found in the books of Alcuinus and Amalarius upon the Divine Office. 
Alc. de Diu. Off. Amal. lib. r. de Diu. Off. Bib. PP. de Diu. Off.  But upon the least reflection made of the doctrine they teach in these same books, it will be granted, that 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 Blood; but a sanctification of another nature, and of a much inferior order: such as that is of which Saint Bernard speaks when he says that the Wine mixed with the consecrated Host, 
Bern. Ep. 69. p. 92.  although it be not consecrated by that solemn and particular consecration which changes it into the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST, becomes notwithstanding sacred by tooching the sacred Body of our Lord, yet of a quite different manner from that consecration which, according to this Saint, is made by the words taken out of the Gospel.  
That it is of this imperfect and inferior sort of consecration which these Authors we explicate do here speak, will be acknowledged an undeniable truth, if we find that these Authors, and in the same's places, say there cannot be made a true consecration of the Blood of our Lord but by words, and by the words even of JESUS-CHRIST himself.  
Alcuinus is express herein, when explicating the Canon of the Mass as we have it to this day when he comes to the place where we prononce the sacramental words which are those of JESUS-CHRIST himself, This is my Body, this is my Blood, he says, these are the words by which they consecrated the Bread and the Chalice in the beginning, by which they are consecrated at present, and by which they shall be consecrated eternally, because JESUS-CHRIST prononcing again his own words by the Priests renders his holy Body and his sacred Blood present by a celestial bcnediction. 
Amal. l. III. 24. ibid.  And Amalarius, upon the same part of the Canon says no less clearly, that it is in this place and by the pronunciation of these words, that the nature of the Bread and Wine is changed into the nature of the Body and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST; 
Lib. I. 12.  and he had said before in particular concerning the consecration of the Chalice, that a simple liquor was changed by the benediction of the Priest into the Sacrament of the Blood of our Lord: which shows how far he and Alcuinus were from believing that the only mixing them without any words could produce this effect. When therefore they say that the pure wine is sanctified by the mixture of the Body of JESUS-CHRIST, it appears sufficiently their meaning is, that by tooching the Holy of Holyes this wine ceases to be profane, and becomes some thing of holy: but that it should become the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST; and that it should be changed into his Blood without prononcing the words of JESUS-CHRIST upon it, is an error inconsistent with their doctrine.  
All those who have writ of the Divine Office, and of that of the Mass use the same language these two Authors do.  
Isaac Bishop of Langres their contemporary, 
Isaac Linguet. Specil. T. ●. p. 151.  in his explication of the Canon and place where they consecrate, says that the Priest having thetherto done what he could; to the end he may then do something more wonderful, borrows the words of JESUS-CHRIST himself, that is to say these words, This is my Body: Powerful words, says he, to which the Lord gives his virtue, according to the expression of the Psalmist; words which have allvayes their effect, because the Word who is the power of God says and does all at a time: in so much that there is here made by these words contrary to all human reason a new nourishment for a new man, a new JESUS borne of the spirit, an Host come down from heaven, and the rest, which makes nothing to our subject, this being but too sufficient to show that this great Bishop has placed consecration in the words of our Saviour.  
Remigius Bishop of Auxerre, in the book which he composed of the Mass towards the end of the ninth age, is visibly of the same judgement with Alcuinus, seeing he has done nothing but transcribe word for word all that part of his book where this matter is treated of.  
Hildebertus' Bishop of Man's, 
Hildeb eod. T. Bibl. PP.  and afterwards of Tours, famous for his piety as well as for his eloquence, and learning, and commended even by the Protestants themselves, because of the praises he has given to Bengarius; yet after he was returned, or pretended to be returned from his errors, affirms in express words that the Priest consecrates not by his own words, but by those of JESUS-CHRIST; that then under the sign of the cross and the words, the nature becomes changed; that the Bread honours the Altar by becoming the Body, and the Wine by becoming Blood: which obliges the Priest to elevate at that time the Bread and the wine, thereby to show that by consecration they are elevated to some thing of a higher nature than what they were.  
The Abbot Rupertus says the same thing, 
Rup. de Diu. Off. l. II. c. 9 & lib. V c. 20. Hug. de S. Vict. erud. Theol. l. III. c. 20.  and after him Hugo de Sainto Victore. We find all these books collected in the Bibliotheca of Patrum, in that tome which bears the title de Divinis Officiis.  
This Tradition is so constant especially in the Latin Church, that it cannot be imagined the contrary could be found in the Ordo Romanus, nor that it could have entered into the thoughts of Alcuinus and Amalarius, though they had not explicated themselves so clearly as we have seen they have. But this Tradition came from a higher source. These many fore cited French Authors as were preceded by a Bishop of the Gallican Church, 
Euseb. Gailic. sive Euch. T. 6. Max. Bib. P P. hom. V de Pasch.  who said in the V age, that the creatures placed upon the holy Altars, and blessed by the celestiallwords, ceased to be the substance of Bread and Wine, and became the Body and Blood of our Lord; and Saint Ambrose before him understood by these celestial words, 
Amb. de init. c. 9  the proper words of JESUS-CHRIST, This is my Body, this is my Blood, adding, that the consecration as well of the Body as of the Blood, was made by the words of our Lord. And the Author of the book of Sacraments, be he whom he will Saint Ambrose or some other near unto his time, 
Amb. lib. IU. Sac. c. 5.  who imitates him troughout who ever he be well known in antiquity, speaks after the same manner; and all the Fathers of the same time keep the like conformity in their language; and before them all Saint Ireneus laughed that ordinary bread is made the Eucharist by the invocation of God which it receives over it; 
Iren. IU. 34.  and Saint Justin, 
Just. ap. 2.  whom he often citys, said before him that the Eucharist was made by the prayer of the word which comes from JESUS-CHRIST, and that it was by this word, that the ordinary food which usvally, by being changed, nourisheth our flesh and our blood, became the Body and the Blood of that JESUS-CHRIST incarnated for us: and before all the Fathers, the Apostle Saint Paul clearly remarked the particular benediction of the Chalice, 
1. Cor. 10.16.  when he said, the Chalice of benediction which we bless. And to go to the very original JESUS-CHRIST consecrates the Wine in saying, This is my Blood, as he had consecrated the Bread in saying, This is my Body: in such sort 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 with the Body: from whence it follows that it was under the Bread alone that our Fathers communicated upon Good Friday.   

§ VII. The sentiments and the practice of the last ages, grounded upon the sentiments and practice of the primitive Church.  
THUS many constant practices of the primitive Church, thus many different circumstances, whereby it appears in particular and in public, and always with an universal approbation, and according to the established law, that she gave the Communion under one species, so many ages before the Council of Constance, and from the origine of Christianity till the time of this Council, do invincibly demonstrate that this Council did but follow the Tradition of all ages, when it defined that the Communion under one kind was as good and sufficient as under both, and that, in which manner soever they took it, they neither contradicted the institution of JESUS-CHRIST, nor deprived themselves of the fruit of this Sacrament.  
In matters of this nature the Church has always believed she might change her laws according to the conjuncture of times and occurrences; and upon this account, after having left the Communion under one or both species as indifferent; after having obliged to both species for particular reasons, she has for other reasons reduced the faithful to one sole species, being ready to give both when the exigence of the Church shall require it, as it appears by the Decrees of the Council of Trent  
This Council, after having decided that Communion under both species was not necessary, 
Sess. 21. post Canon.  proposes to itself to treat of two points. The first, whether it were convenient to grant the Cup to some countries; and the second upon what conditions it might be granted.  
They had an example of this concession in the Council of Basile, where the Cup was granted to the Bohemians, upon condition they should acknowledge that JESUS-CHRIST was received wholly and entirely under each of the two species, and that the reception of both the one and the other was not necessary.  
It was therefore doubted a long time at Trent whether they should not grant the same thing to those of Germany and France who demanded it, in hopes thereby more easily to reduce the Lutherans and the Calvinists. In fine the Council judged it most expedient, for many important reasons, to remit the matter to the Pope, 
Sess. 22. in fine.  to the end he might do herein according as his prudence should dictate what might be the most advantageous to Christianity, and the most convenient for the salvation of such as should make this demand.  
In consequence to this Decree, and according to the example of Paul the III. his successor Pius the iv at the instance of the Emperor Ferdinand and some other Princes of Germany, by his Breifs of the first of September 1563. scent a permission to some Bishops to render the Cup to the Germans upon the conditions set down in these Breifs conformable to those of Basile, if they found it profitable to the salvation of souls. This was put in execution at Vienna in Austria, and in some other places. But it appeared presently that their minds were to much exasperated to receive any profit from this remedy. The Lutheran Ministers sought nothing but an occasion to cry in the ears of the people, that the Church herself acknowledged she had been deceived, whilst she had believed that the substance of the Sacrament was received entirely under one sole species: a thing manifestly contrary to that declaration she exacted; but passion makes prevaricated persons under take and belecve any thing. So that they ceased to make use of that concession which the Pope had given with prudence, and which it may be at another time in better dispositions would have had a better effect.  
The Church which ought in all things to hold the balance equal, ought neither to make that appear as indifferent, which is essential, nor that as essential which is not so, and ought not to change her discipline but for an evident advantage to all her children; and it is from this prudent dispensation whence all the changes are come which we have remarked in the administration of one or both species.    

THE SECOND PART. Principles upon which are established the judgement and practice of the Church: of which principles the Pretended Reformers make use as well as we.  
SUCH hath been the practice of the Church. The Principles upon which this practice is founded are no less certain than the practice has been constant.  
To the end that nothing of difficulty may remain in this matter, I will not allege any one Principle that the Reformers can call in question.  

§ I. First Principle.  
There is nothing indispensable in the Sacraments, but that which is of their substance or essential to them.  
THE first Principle I establish is, that in the administration of Sacraments we are obliged to do not all that which JESUS-CHRIST hath done, but only that which is essential to them.  
This principle is without contest. The Pretended Reformers do not immerge or dipp their infants in the water of Baptism, as JESUS-CHRIST was immerged or dipped in the river of Jourdan when Saint John baptised him, neither do they give the Lords Supper at table or during Supper, as JESUS-CHRIST did; neither do they regard as necessary many other things which he observed.  
But must especially it imports us to consider the ceremonies of Baptism, which may serve for a ground to many things in this matter.  
To baptise signifies to dip or immerge, and herein the whole world agree.  
This ceremony is drawn from the purifications of the Jews; and as the most perfect purification did consist in a total immerging or dipping in water, JESUS-CHRIST who come to sanctify and accomplish the ancient ceremonies, was willing to choose this as the most significative and the most plane, to express the remission of sins, and the regeneration of a new man.  
The Baptism of Saint John, which served as a preparative to this of JESUS-CHRIST was performed by dipping or immerging.  
That prodigious multitude of people who flocked to this Baptism, 
Math. 3.5.6. Luk. 3.3. John. 3.23.  caused Saint John to make choice of the borders of Jordan, and amongst those borders, of the country of Anon near to Salim, because there was much water there, and a great facility to immerge or dipp the men who came to consecrate themselves to Penance by this holy ceremony.  
When JESUS-CHRIST came to Saint John to the end that by receiving Baptism he might elevate it to a more wonderful effect, 
Mat. 3.16. Mark. 1.10.  the Scriptures say that he ascended out of the waters of Jordan to denote that he had been wholly and entirely immerged, or dipped.  
It does not appear in the Acts of the Apostles that the three thousand, and five thousand who were converted at the first Sermons of Saint Peter were baptised after any other manner: and the great number of these converts is no proof that they were baptised by sprinkling, as some would conjecture. For, besides that nothing obliges us to affirm they were all baptised upon the same day, it is certain that Saint John Baptist who baptised no less than they, since all Judea flocked to him, did notwithstanding baptise them by immersion or dipping, and his example has showed us that to baptise a great number of man they were accustomed to make choice of a place where there was much water: to which we may further add that the baths and purifications of the ancients, and principally those of the Jews rendered this ceremony facile and familiar in this time.  
In fine we read not in the Scriptures of any other manner of baptising, and we can show by the acts of Councils, and by ancient Rituells that for thirteen hundred years the whole Church baptised after this manner as much as it was possible.  
The very word also which is used in the Rituells to express the action of Godfathers and Godmothers when they say that they elevate the child from the font of Baptism, shows sufficiently that it was the custom to immerge or dipp them in it. Though these truths be without dispute, yet neither we nor the pretended Reformers regard the Anabaptists who hold that this immersion is essential and no ways to be dispensed with, and neither the one nor the other of us have any difficulty to change this plunging (if I may call it so) of the whole body, into a mere sprinkling or a pouring upon some part of the body.  
No other reason can be given for this change, but that this immersion or dipping is not essential to Baptism; and the pretended Reformers agreeing herein, the first principle we have laid must be also without contest.   

§ II. Second Principle.  
To know the substance or essence of a Sacrament, we must regard the essential effect.  
THE second principle 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.  
Thus, though the words of JESUS-CHRIST, Baptism, signify immerge or dipp, as has been already said yet it was believed that the effect of the Sacrament was not restrained to the quantity of the water: so that Baptism by infusion and sprinkling or by immersion or dipping appearing in substance to have the same effect, both the one and the other manner is judged vallid.  
But (as we have said) not essential effect of the Body distinct from that of the Blood can be found in the Eucharist: so that the Grace both of the one and the other in the ground and in substance can be no other but the same.  
It is nothing to the purpose to say, that the representation of the death of our Lord is more exactly expressed in the two species; I grant it, in like manner the representation of new birth of the faithful is more exactly expressed by immersion or dipping, then by mere infusion or sprinkling. For the faithful being dipped or plunged in the water of Baptism is buried with JESUS-CHRIST, 
Rom. 6.4. Coloss. 2.12.  according to the expression of the Apostle; and the same faithful coming out of the waters, comes out of the Grave with his Saviour, and represents more perfectly the mystery of JESUS-CHRIST that regenerated him.  
Immersion by which water is applied to the whole body and to all its parts, does also more perfectly signify that a man is fully and entirely washed from his spots. And yet Baptism given by immersion or plunging is of no more value than Baptism given by mere infusion and upon one only part: it suffises that the expression of the mystery of JESUS-CHRIST and of the effect of Grace be found in substance in the Sacrament, and that an ultimate exactness of representation is not there requisite.  
Thus, in the Eucharist, the signification of the death of our Lord being found in substance when the Body delivered for us in given to us, and an expression of the Grace of the Sacrament being also found when under the species of Bread the image of our spiritual nourishment is administered unto us, the Blood which does nothing but add to it a more express signification, is not there absolutely necessary.  
This is what is manifestly proved by the very words of our Lord and the reflection of Saint Paul, when relating these words, 
1. Cor. 11.25.26.  Do this in remembrance of me, he immediately after concludes, that so often as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup we show forth the death of our Lord. Thus, according to the interpretation of the Disciple, the Master's intention is that when he ordains we should be mindful of him, we should be mindful of his death. To the end therefore we may rightly understand whether the remembrance of this death consists in the sole participation of the whole mystery, or in the participation of either of its parts, we need but consider that our Saviour does not expect till the whole mystery be ended and the whole Eucharist received in both its parts, before he says, 
Ibid. 24.25.  Do this in remembrance of me. Saint Paul remarked that at each part he expressly ordained this remembrance. For after having said, Eat, This is my Body, do this in remembrance of me, in giving the Blood he again repeats, As often as you shall drink this, do it in remembrance of me; declaring unto us by this repetition that we show forth his death in the participation of each kind. From whence it follows that when Saint Paul concludes from these words, that in eating the Body, and drinking the Blood we show forth the death of the Lord, we must understand that this death is not only shown forth by taking the whole, but also by taking either part, and the rather because it is otherwise apparent that in this mystical separation which JESUS-CHRIST has signified by his words, the Body separated from the Blood, and the Blood separated from the Body have the same effect to show forth the violent death of our Lord. So that if there be a more distinct expression in receiving the whole, 
Representation more pressing.  it does not cease nevertheless to be true, that by the reception of either part his death is wholly and entire represented, and the whole Grace applied to us.  
But if any here demand, to what purpose then was the institution of both species, and this more lively represention of the death of our Lord which we have here remarked, it is that they will not reflect of one quality of the Eucharist, well known to the ancients though rejected by our Reformers. All the ancients believed that the Eucharist was not only a nourishment but also a sacrifice, and that it was offered to God in consecrating of it before it was given to the people: which is the cause why the table of our Lord, so termed by Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians, 
1. Cor. 10.21. Heb. 13.10.  is called Altar by the same Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is not our business here neither to establish nor explain this sacrifice the nature of which may be seen in our Treatise of the Exposition, 
Exp. art. 14.  and I shall only say, because my subject requires it, that JESUS-CHRIST has made this sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist in the most perfect representation of the sacrifice on the Cross that could be imagined. Whereupon it is that he said expressly, This is my Body, and This is my Blood, renewing mystically by these words, as by a spiritual sword, together with all the wounds he received in his Body the total effusion of his Blood; and although this Body and this Blood once separated aught to be eternally reunited in his Resurrection to make a perfect man perfectly living, he would notwithstanding that this separation once made upon the Cross should never cease to appear in the mystery of the holy table. It is in this mystical separation that he would have the essence of the sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist to make it a perfect image or representation of the sacrifice of the Cross: to the end that as this later sacrifice consits in the actual separation of the Body and Blood, this likewise which is the perfect image of it should consist also in this representative and mystical separation. But whether JESUS-CHRIST has separated his Body and his Blood either really upon the Cross, or mystically upon the Altars, yet can he not separate the virtue, nor effect that any other Grace shall accompany his Blood shed then that same in the ground and in substance which accompanies his Body immolated: which is the cause that this so lively and so strong a resemblane or expression, necessary to the sacrifice, is no more so in the reception of the Eucharist, it being every whit as impossible to separate in the application the effect of his Blood from that of his Body, as it is easy and natural to represent to the eyes of the faithful the actual separation of the one from the other. For this reason it is that we have found upon so many occasions in antiquity the Body given without the Blood, and the Blood given without the Body, but never one of them consecrated without the other. Our Forefathers were persuaded that the faithful would be deprived of some thing too precious if the two species were not consecrated in which JESUS-CHRIST had made together with the perfect representation of his death the essence of the sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist; but that nothing essential was taken from them in giving them but one, because one only contains the virtue of both, and the mind once preoccupayed by the death of our Lord in the consecration of the two species, receives nothing from the Altar where they were consecrated which does not conserve this figure of death, and the character of a victim: in so much that whether we eat, or whether we drink, or whether we do both together, we always apply the same death, and receive always the same Grace in substance.  
Neither must so much stress be put upon the eating and drinking, seeing that eating and drinking spiritually, is apparently the same thing, and that both the one and the other is to believe. Let it be then that we eat, or that we drink according to the body, we both eat and drink together according to the spirit if we believe, and we receive the whole effect of the Sacrament.   

§ III. That the Pretended Reformers do agree with us in this principle, and can have no other foundation of their discipline.  
An Examen of the doctrine of M. Jurieux in his book entilled, Le Préservatif, etc.  
BUT without any further dispute, I would only ask the Ministers of the Pretended Reformed Religion whether they do not believe, when they have received the bread of the Lords Supper with a firm faith, they have received the Grace which does fully incorporate us to JESUS-CHRIST, and the entire fruit of his sacrifice? What will then the species of wine add there unto, if not a more full expression of the same mystery?  
Furthermore, they believe they receive not only the figure but the proper substance of JESUS-CHRIST. Whether it be by Faith or otherwise, is not to our present purpose. Do they receive it whole and entire, or do they only receive one half of it when the Bread of the Lords Supper is given to them? JESUS-CHRIST is he divided? And if they receive the substance of JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire, let them tell us whether the essence of the Sacrament can be wanting to them?  
And it can be no other than this reason that as persuaded them they could give the bread alone to those who could not drink wine. This is express in the VII art. of the XII. chapter of their discipline, which is that concerning the Supper.  
This argument proposed at first by the great Cardinal Richelieu entangled very much the Pretended Reformers. I have endeavoured in my Exposition to solve some of the answers they give thereto, 
Exp. art. XVII.  and I have carefully related what their Synods have regulated in confirmation of that article of their discipline. The matter is left without contest: those who have writ against me have all of them with one accord acknowledged it as public and notorious; but they do not likewise agree in the manner of answering it.  
All were not satisfied with the common answer, which only consists in saying that those mentioned in the article of their discipline are excused from taking the wine by their incapacity of drinking it, and that it is a particular case which must not be drawn into a consequence; for on the contrary they saw very well that this particular case ought to be decided by general principles. If the intention of JESUS-CHRIST were that the two species should be inseparable: if the essence or substance of the Sacrament consist in the union of the one and the other: since essenses are indivisible, it is not the Sacrament which these receive, it is a mere human invention, and has not its foundation in the Gospel.  
They were forced therefore at last, but with extreme pain, and after infinite turn and wind, to say that in this case he who receives only the Bread does not receive the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST.  
M. Jurieux who writ the last against my Exposition in his book entitled, Le Préservatif, 
Préservatif, art. XIII. p. 262. & suiv.  after having seen the answers of all the others, and after having given himself much trouble sometimes in being angry at M. de Condom, who amuses himself (says he) like a petty Missioner in things of so low a nature and in these old kind of cavils, sometimes in putting as much stress as he can upon this impossibility so often repeated; at last concludes that the party mentioned to whom the Bread alone is given, 
p. 264.  to speak properly does not take with the mouth the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST, because this Sacrament is composed of two parts, and he receives but one: 
Exam. de l'Euch. Tr. 6. sect. 7.  this he likewise confirms in the last book he set forth.  
This is what the Pretended Reformers durst nost (that I know of) hitherto affirm. Verily a Communion which is not a Sacrament is a strange mystery; and the Pretended Reformers, who are at last obliged to acknowledge it, would do as well to grant the consequence we draw from their discipline, seeing they can find no other way to untie this knot, but by a prodigy never heard of in the Church.  
But the doctrine of this Author appears yet more strange when considered with all its circumstances. 
Préservatif, p. 266. 267.  According to him, the Church presents in this case the true Sacrament; but nevertheless, what is received is not the true Sacrament, or raither, it is not a true Sacrament as to the sign, but it is a true Sacrament as to the thing signified, because the faithful receive JESUS-CHRIST signified by the Sacrament, and receive as many Graces as those who communicate under the Sacrament itself, because the Sacrament is presented to him whole and entire, because he receives it with heart and affection, and because the sole insuperable impossibility hinders him to communicate under the sign.  
What do these subtilityes avail him? He might conclude from his arguments, that the faithful who cannot, according to his principles, receive the true Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST seeing he cannot receive an essential part, is excused by his inability from the obligation to receive at all, and that the desire he has to receive the Sacrament supplies the effect. But that upon this account we should be obliged to separate that which is inseparable by its institution, and to give a man a Sacrament which he cannot receive, or rather to give him solemnly that which being not the true Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST, can be nothing else but mere bread, is to invent a new mystery in Christian Religion, and to deceive in the face of the Church à Christian who believes he receives that which in reality he does not.  
Behold nevertheless the last refuge of our Reformers: behold what he has writ who writ against me the last of any, whose book is so much spread by the Protestants through France, Holland, and other parts in divers languages, with a magnificent Preface, as the most efficacious antidote the new Reform could invent against this Exposition so often attaqued. He has found out by his way of improving and refining of others, this new absurdity, that what is received amongst them with so much solemnity when they cannot drink wine, is not the Sacrament of our Lord, and that it is by consequence a mere invention of human with'lt, which a Church who says she is founded upon the pure word of God, is not afraid to establish without so much as finding one syllable of it in that word.  
To conclude, JESUS-CHRIST has not made a particular law for those we here speak of. Man could not dispense with them in an express precept of our Lord, nor allow them any thing he did not institute. Wherefore either nothing must be given them, or if one species be given them, it must be believed, that by the institution of our Lord this single species contains the whole essence of the Sacrament, and that the receiving of the other can add nothing but what is accidental to it.   

§. iv The third Principle. The law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual Practice.  
An exposition of this Principle by the example of the civil law.  
BUT to come to our third Principle, which alone carries along with it the decision of this question. This is it. To know what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of the Sacraments, we must consult the practice and sentiment of the Church.  
Let us speak more generally: In all practical matters we must always regard, what has been understood and practised by the Church, and as herein consists the true spirit of the law.  
I writ this for an intelligent and clearsighted Judge, who is sensible, that to understand an Ordnance, and to discern the meaning of it aright, he must know after what manner it was always understood and practised: otherwise since every man argues after his own fashion, the law would become arbitrary. The rule than is to examine how it has been understood and how practised: in following which a man shall not be deceived.  
God to honour his Church, and to oblige particular persons to her holy decisions, would that this rule should have place in his law, as it has in human laws; and the true manner to understand this holy law is to consider in what manner it has always been understood and observed in the Church.  
The reason of this is that there appears in this interpretation and perpetual practice a Tradition which cannot come but from God himself, according to this doctrine of the Fathers, that what is seen always and in all places of the Church cannot come but from the Apostles who learned it from JESUS-CHRIST, and from that Spirit of truth which he has given for a teacher.  
And for fear any one should be deceived by the different significations of the word Tradition, I declare that the Tradition I allege here as a necessary interpreter of the law of God, is an unwritten doctrine procedeng from God himself, and conserved in the judgement and practice of the universal Church.  
I have no need here to prove this Tradition; and what follows will make it appear that our Reformers are forced to acknowledge it at least in this matter. But it will not be amiss to remove in few words the false ideas which they ordinarily apply to this word of Tradition.  
They tell us that the authority which we give to Tradition, subjects the Scripture to the thoughts of men, and declares it imperfect.  
They are palpably deceived. Scripture and Tradition make together but one and the same body of doctrine revealed by God; and so far is it that the obligation of interpreting Scripture by Tradition subjects the Scripture to the thoughts of men, that there is nothing can give it more preeminence above them.  
When particular persons are permitted, as it is amongst our Pretended Reformers, to interpret Scripture every one according to his own fancy, there is liberty necessarily given to arbitrary interpretations, and in effect scripture is subjected to the thoughts of men, who interpret it each one according to his own mode: but when every one in particular is obliged to receive it in the sense the Church doth receive and always hath received it, there is nothing elevates the authority of Scripture more, nor renders it more independent of all particular opinions.  
A man is never more assured to understand aright the spirit and sense of the law, then when he understands it as it has always been understood since its first establishment. Never does a man honour more the Lawgiver, the mind is never more captivated under the authority of the law, nor more restrained to its true sense, never are particular lights and false glosses more excluded.  
Thus when our Fore Fathers in all their Councils, in all their Books, in all their Decrees obliged themselves by an indispensable law to understand the Holy Scriptures as it has been always understood; they were so far from believing that by this means they submitted it to human fancies, that on the contrary they believed there was no surer means to exclude them.  
The Holy-Ghost who dictated the Scripture, and deposited it in the hands of the Church, gave her an understanding of it from the beginning and in all ages: in so much that the sense thereof, which has always appeared in the Church, is as well inspired as the Scripture itself.  
The Scripture is not imperfect because it has need of such an interpretation. It belonged to the majesty of Scripture to be concise in its words, profound in its sense, and full of a wisdom which always appeared so much the more impenetrable by how much the more it was penetrated into. It was with these characters of the divinity that the Holy-Ghost was pleased to invest it. It ought to be meditated on to be understood; and that which the Church has always understood thereof by meditating upon it, aught to be received as a law.  
So that that which is not writ is no less venerable than that which is, whilst both of them come by the same way. Each one corresponds to the upholding of the other, seeing that Scripture is the necessary groundwork of Tradition, and Tradition the infallible interpreter of Scripture.  
If I should affirm that the whole Scripture ought to be interpreted after this manner, I should affirm a truth which the Church has always acknowledged: but I should recede from the matter in question. I reduce myself to things of practice, and principally to what is of ceremony. I maintain that we cannot distinguish what is essential and indispensable from what is left to the liberty of the Church, but by examining Tradition and constant practice.  
This is what I undertake to prove by Scripture itself, by all antiquity, and to the end that nothing may be wanting in point of proof, by the plain confession of our very adversaries.  
Under the name of ceremony I do here comprehend the Sacraments which are in effect facred signs and ceremonies divinely instituted to signify and confer Grace.  
Experience shows that what belongs to ceremony cannot be well explained, but by the received manner of practising it.  
By this our question is decided. In the sacred ceremony of the Lords Supper we have seen that the Church has always believed she gave the whole substance and applied the whole virtue of the Sacrament, in giving only one sole species. Behold what has been always practised; behold what ought to stand for a law.  
This rule is not rejected by the Pretended Reformers. We have even now seen that if they had not believed that the judgement of the Church and her interpretation stand for a law, they would never have divided the supper in favour of those who drink no wine, nor given a decision which is not in the Gospel.  
But it is not in this only that they have followed the interpretation of a Church. We shall shortly see many other points, where they cannot avoid having recourse to this rule we propose.  
I establish therefore without hesitation this general proposition, and I advance as the constant practice, acknowledged by the ancient and modern Jews, by the Christians in all ages, and by the Pretended Reformers themselves, that the ceremonial laws of both the old and new Testament cannot be understood but by practice, and that without this means it is impossible to comprehend the true spirit of the law.   

§ V A proof from the observances of the old Testament.  
THE matter is more surprising in the old Testament, where every thing was circumstanced and particularised with so much care: yet notwithstanding it is certain that a law written with so much exactness stood in need of Tradition and the interpretation of the Synagogue to be well understood.  
The law of the Sabaoth alone fournisheth many examples of this.  
Every one knows how strict was the observance of this sacred rest, 
Exod. 16.23.35.3.  in which it was forbid under pain of death, to prepare their diet or so much as to light their fire. In a word the law forbidden so precisely all manner of work, that many durst scarce move on this holy day. At least it was certain that none could either undertake or continue a journey; and we know what happened to the army of Antiochus Sidetes, 
Joseph. Ant. 13.16.  when this Prince stopped his march in favour of John Hyrcanus and the Jews during two days on which their law obliged them to a rest equal to that of the Sabaoth. In this strict obligation to remain in rest Tradition and custom alone had explicated how far one might go without violating the tranquillity requisite during these holy days. From hence comes that manner of speech mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, from such a place to such a place, is a Sabaoth day's journey. 
Act. 1.12.  This Tradition was established in the time of our Saviour, neither did he nor his Apostles who mentioned it ever reprehend it.  
The exactitude of this rest did not hinder but that it was permitted to untie a beast and lead it to drink, 
Luk. 13.15.14.5.  or to pull it out if fallen into a ditch. Our Lord who alleges these examples as public and notorious to the Jews, does not only not blame them, but further authorises them, though the law had said nothing concerning them, and that these actions seemed to be comprehended under the general prohibition.  
It must not be imagined that these observances were of little or no importance in a law so severe, and where it was necessary to take care even to an ïota and the least title, the least prevarication drawing down most terrible pains and an inevitable malediction upon the transgressors.  
But behold a thing which appears yet more important in the time of the Maccabees a question was proposed whether it was permitted to defend one's life upon the Sabaoth day; 
1. Mach. 2.32.38.40.41. 2. Mach. 15.1.2. etc.  and the Jews suffered themselves to be killed, till such times as the Synagogue had interpreted and declared that self defence was permitted, though the law had not excepted that action.  
In permitting self defence, they dit not permit an onsett, what advantage soever might thereby arrive to the public, and the Synagogue durst never go so far.  
But after the Synagogue had permitted self defence there remained yet one scruple; 
Joseph. Ant. 14.8.  (viz) whether it were permitted to repair a breach upon the Sabaoth. For although it had been decided that they might defend their lives when they were immediately attaqued, yet they doubted whether that permission extended to those occasions where the attaque was not so immediate. The Jews besieged in Jerusalem durst not extend the dispensation so far, and let themselves be taken by Pompey. The scruple appeared a little to nice, and I bring this Example to show how many cases might happen in which the law had not provided, and where the declaration of the Synagogue was necessary to the quiet of there consciences.  
It was an indispensable law to observe the new Moons to the end they might celebrate a Feast which the law ordained precisely upon that day, and might also calculate exactly the other days which had their particular observances. There were no Ephemerideses regulated in those first times and besides the Jews never trusted to any thing of that nature, and not being willing to expose themselves to the errors of calculation, they found no other security then to cause some persons to observe upon the highest mountains when the Moon should appear. Neither the manner of observing this, nor of coming and declaring this to the Council, nor that of publishing the new Moon, and the beginning of the Festival were expressed in the law. Tradition had provided for these; and the same Tradition had decided that what was requisite in order to the observation and declaration of the new Moon was not contrary to the law of the Sabaoth.  
I will not speak of the sacrifices, 
Levit. 2 4.8. Num. 28.9.  nor of the other ceremoneyes which were performed upon the Sabaoth day according to the law, because the law having regulated them, we might say it had made an exception in this point: but there are many other things which were to be done on the Sabaoth day in cases which the law had not regulated.  
When the Passover fell upon the first day of the week, which is our Sunday, there were divers things to be done for the preparation of the Paschall sacrifice. The victim was to be chosen, it was to be examined by the Priests if it had the qualification requisite, it was to be led to the Temple and to the Altar, to be immolated at the hour prefixed. All these things with many others were done upon the vigil of the Passeover. The levained bread was likewise to be cast away, which according to the precise terms of the law, 
Exod. 12.15.  ought not to be found throughout all Israel, when the day of the Passeover begun. The law might have regulated that these things should be done upon the Friday, when the Passeover fell upon Sunday; or otherwise dispense with the observance of the Sabaoth to accomplish them. It would not do it: Tradition alone authorised the Priests to do their functions; and we may say in these cases, as well as in those which our Blessed Saviour has noted, 
Math. 12.5.  that the Priests violate the Sabaoth in the Temple, and are without reproach.  
And does he not also approve what David did, 
Ibid. 4.  when pressed with hunger he eat the Bread of proposition contrary to the law, 
1. Kings. 21.4.  and followed the interpretation of the High Priest Achimelec, though it were not where written.  
The Passeover and all the Feasts of the Israelites as well as their Sabbaths begun in the evening and at the time of Vespres according to the express disposition of the law: but though the true time of Vespres be the setting of the Sun, yet the Vespres were not taken so precisely amongst the Jews. The law nevertheless had not determined it, and custom alone had regulated that Vespres or the evening should begin presently after midday, and when the Sun begun to decline.  
Neither could it also be determined by the precise terms of the law what was that time betwixt the two Vespres, which is ordained for the Passeover in the Hebrew text of Exodus, 
Exod. 12.6.  and Tradition alone had explicated that it was all that time which was comprehended betwixt the declining of the Sun, and its setting.  
It cannot be denied but that all these things were of an absolute necessity for the observation of the law; and if it appear that the law would not foresee them, it ought to be concluded that it would leave the explication of them to custom.  
The same thing may be said of divers other ceremonies, which, according to the terms of the law, concurred precisely at the same time, neither was it possible to perform them together. For example, the law ordained an evening sacrifice which ought to be offered every day, and this was that they called the Tamid or the perpetual sacrifice. There was that of the Sabaoth, and that also of the Passeover which were all to be performed at the same hour; in such sort that upon Easter day, according to the prescript of the law, these three sacrifices concurred together: There was nevertheless but one only Altar for the sacrifices, and it was neither permitted nor possible to offer all these sacrifices at the same time. Nor did they know how or where to begin; and in so strict an observance as the law exacted in all rigour, they might have fallen into an unavoidable labarinth, if custom had not explicated that the more ordinary sacrifice ought to be offered first. So that they were not afraid to anticipate the perpetual sacrifice to give place to that of the Sabaoth, and that also of the Sabaoth to give place to the Passeover.  
If we stick to the precise terms of the law of Moses, 
Deut. 7.1.2.3.  we find no marriage with strangers forbidden but only those which were contracted with the daughters of the seven Nations so often detested in the Scripture. 
Ibid. 2. Ibid. 4.  It was these abominable Nations which were to be exterminated without mercy. It was the daughters of these Nations who should seduce the Israelites, and allure them to the worship of false Gods; and it was for this reason that the law forbidden to marry them. There was nothing of this kind said, neither of the daughters of the Moabites and Ammonites, nor of those of the Egyptians, and so far was marriage from being forbidden with the daughters of the Moabites, 
Ruch. 4.  that Booz is praised by the whole Council and by all the people for marrying Ruth who was of that Country. Behold what we find in the law, and nevertheless we find that in the time of Esdras it was a thing established amongst the Jews to number the Egyptians, 
1. Esd. 9 ●. 10.19. 2. Esd. 18.1.2. etc.  the daughters of the Ammonites and Moabites, and in a word of all strangers in the same rank with the Chananites: in so much that they broke all the marriages contracted with these women as abominable. From whence comes this, if not that since Salomons time a long experience having taught the Israelites that the Egyptians and other strangers did no less seduce them then the Chananites, they believed they ought equally to exclude them all, not so much by the letter and  terms, as by the spirit of the law; which they also interpreted contrary to the precedent practice in respect of the Moabites, the Synagogue always believing herself to have received from God himself a right to give decisions, according to occurring necessities?  
I do not believe that any one will persuade himself that they observed according to the letter and in all sorts of cases, 
Exod. 21.24.28. Leu. 24.19.20. Don't. 19.21.  that severe law of Talionis so often repeated in the Books of Moses. For even to regard these terms only eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, bruise for bruise, wound for wound, nothing does appear to establish a more perfect and a more just compensation; yet nothing is in reality further from it, if we weigh the circumstances, and nothing in fine would have been more unequal than such an equality: nor indeed is it always possible to give to a malefactor a wound altogether proportionable to that he had given his brother. Practise taught the Jews that the true design of the law was to make them sensible there ought to be a reasonable compensation, profitable both to particulars and to the public, which as it consists not in a precise point, nor in a certain measure, the same practise determined it by a just estimation.  
It would not be hard to allege many other Traditions of the ancient people as much approved of as these. The ablest writers of the new reform do grand it. When therefore they would destroy all unwritten Traditions in general (under pretence of the words of our Lord where he condemns those Traditions which were contrary to the terms or to the sense and intent of the law, 
Math. 15.3. Mark. 7.7. etc.  and in short those which had not a sufficiently solid foundation) there is no sincerity in their discourses: and all men of sense will agree that there was lawful traditions though not written, without which the practice itself of the law was impossible; in so much that it cannot be denied but that they obliged in conscience.  
Will the Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformed Religion permit me to mention in this place the Tradition of prayer for the dead? This prayer is manifest by the Book of Maccabees: 
2. Mach. 11.43.46.  neither need we here enter into dispute with these Gentlemen whether this Book be canonical or no, seeing it suffices as to this point that it was certainly writ before the Gospel. This custom remains to this day amongst the Jews, and the tradition of it my be asserted by these words of Saint Paul: 
1. Cor. 15.29.  What shall they do else who are baptised, that is to say purified and mortified for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? JESUS-CHRIST and his Apostles had found amongst the Jews this Tradition of praying for the dead without reprehending them for it; on the contrary it passed immediately from the Judaical to the Christian Church, and Protestants who have writ books where they show this Tradition was establised in the primitive times of Christianity, could yet never show the beginning of it. Notwithstanding it is certain there was nothing of it in the law. It came to the Jews by the same way which handed to them so many other unviolable Traditions.  
But if a law which descends to so minute particulars, and which is (as I may say) wholly literal, stood in need, that it might be rightly understood according to its true sense, of being interpreted by the practice and declarations of the Synagogue, how much more need have we in the law of the Gospel where there is a greater liberty in the observances, and where the practices are less circumstanced.  
A hundred examples will manifest the truth of what I say. I will draw them from the very practices of the Pretended Reformers themselves, and I will not stick at the same time to relate together with them (as a thing which will decide the matter) what passed for current in the ancient Church, because I cannot imagine that these Gentlemen can with sincerity reject it.   

§ VI A proof from the observances of the New Testament.  
THE institution of the Sabaoth day preceded the law of Moses and had its ground from the creation; and nevertheless these Gentlemen dispense as well as we with that observance without any other foundation then that of Tradition and the practice of the Church, which cannot be dirived from other then divine authority.  
The allegation that the first day of the week consecrated by the Resurrection of JESUS-CHRIST, 
Act. 20.7. 1. Cor. 16.2.  is mentioned in the writings of the Apostles as a day of assembly for Christians, and that it is also called in the Revelations, 
Apoc. 1.10.  the day of the Lord, or Sunday. Is vain for besides that there is no mention made in the New Testament of that rest annexed to the Sunday, it is moreover manifest that the addition of a new day dit not suffice to take away the solemnity of the old, nor to make us change the Precepts of the Decalogue together with human Tradition.  
The prohibition of eating Blood, and that of eating the flesh of strangled creatures was given to all the children of No before the establishment of legal observances, from which we are freed by the Gospel, and the Apostles have confirmed it in the Council of Jerusalem in joining it to two unchangeable observances, of which the one is the prohibition to participate of sacrifices to Idols, and the other the condemnation of the sin of fornication. But because the Church always believed that this law though observed during many ages was not essential to Christianity, the Pretended Reformers as well as we dispense with themselves about it, though the Scriptures have not where derogated from so precise and so solemn a decision of the Apostles expressly registered in their Acts by Saint Luke.  
But to show how necessary it is to know the Tradition and practice of the Church in what regards the Sacraments, let us consider what is practised in the Sacrament of Baptism, and that of the Eucharist, which are the two Sacraments our adversaries acknowledge with one accord.  
It is to the Apostles, that is to the heads of the flock, 
Math. 28.19.  that JESUS-CHRIST gave the charge of administering Baptism: 
Tertull. de Bapt. Concil. Illid. c. 38. etc.  notwithstanding the whole Church has understood, not only that Priests, but Deacons also yea even all the faithful, in cases of necessity, were the Ministers of this Sacrament.  
Tradition alone has interpreted that Baptism (which JESUS-CHRIST committed only into the hands of his Church and of his Apostles) could be validly administered by Heretics, and out of the communion of the truly faithful.  
In the XI. chapter of the Discipline of the Pretended Reformers, and first article, it is said that Baptism administered by him who has no vocation at all is wholly nul; 
Discip. c. XI. art. 1. & observ.  and the observations drawn from the Synods declare, that to the validity of this Sacrament it suffises that these Ministers have an outwardly seeming vocation, such as is that of Curates, Priests, and Religious men in the Roman Church who are permitted to preach. Where do they find in Scripture that this outwardly seeming vocation can confer a power which JESUS-CHRIST has given only to those whom he himself did effectively call.  
JESUS-CHRIST said, Baptise, that is immerge or dipp, as we have often remarked. We have also related that he was baptised according to this form; that the Apostles followed it, and that it was continued in the Church till the XII and XIII. ages; and notwithstanding Baptism by infusion or sprinkling is admitted without difficulty by the sole authority of the Church.  
JESUS-CHRIST said, 
Math. 28.19. Mark. 16.15.16.  Teach and baptise; and again, He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved. The Church has interpreted by the sole authority of Tradition and practice that the instruction and faith which JESUS-CHRIST had united to Baptism, might be separated in order to little infants.  
These words, 
Discip. c. XI. art. VI Observe. p. 166.  Teach and baptise, did a long time perplex our Reformers, and occasioned them to say till the year 1614 that it was not lawful to baptise with out a precedent or an immediately subsequent sermon. This is what was decided in the Synod of Tonneins conformably to all the precedent Synods. But in the Synod of Castres' in 1626. they begun to relax as to this point, and it was resolved not to press the observance of the regulation of Tonneins. Lastly in the Synod of Charinton in 1631. (in which they admitted the Lutherans to the Supper) it was declared, that preaching before or after Baptism, appertains not to the essence of it, but to discipline of which the Church has power to dispose. So that what they had believed and practised so long, as prescribed by JESUS-CHRIST himself, was changed; and without any testimony of Scripture they declared that it was a thing concerning which the Church might ordain as she pleased.  
As for little infants, the Pretended Reformers say very well that their Baptism is founded upon Scripture, but they cite no express passage, and they argue from farfetched, not to say doubtful yea and even false consequences.  
It is certain that all the proofs they can draw from Scripture upon this subject have no force, and that they themselves destroy those that might have any.  
That which might have force to establish the Baptism of little infants, 
1. Tim. 4.10.  is that on the one side it is written JESUS-CHRIST is the Saviour of all, 
Math. 19.14.  and that he himself has said, Suffer little children to come unto me; and on the other, that he has prononced none can come unto him, nor have any part in him, if he do not receive Baptism, conformable to these words: 
John. 3.3.5.  If you be not borne again of water and the Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of God. But these passages have no force according to the doctrine of our Reformers, since they believe it as of faith that Baptism is not necessary to the salvation of infants.  
Nothing affords them more difficulty in their Discipline, 
Discip. c. XI. art. VI Observe.  then to see every day that anxiety of Parents of their communion to have their little children baptised when they are sick or in danger of death. This piety of the parents is called in their Synods, an infirmity. It is a weakness to fear least the children of the faithful should die without receiving Baptism. One Synod went so far as to permit them to baptise their children extraordinarily in evident danger of death. 
Ibid.  But the following Synod reprehended this weakness; and these strong in faith effaced that clause where they testified some regard to that danger; because it gives some ouverture to the opinion of the necessity of Baptism.  
Thus the proofs drawn from the necessity of Baptism to oblige the giving of it to little infants, are destroyed by our Reformers. Let us see those they substitute in their place, such as are inserted in their Catechism, in their Confession of faith, 
Cat. Dim 50. Conf. de Foy art. 35. Form d'administrer le Bapt.  and in their prayers. That is that the children of the Faithful are borne in alliance, conformable to this promise: I shall be thy God, and the God of thy seed to a thousand generations. From whence they conclude that the virtue and substance of Baptism appertaining to little children, they should do them an injury to deny them the sign which is inferior.  
By the like reason they will find themselves obliged to give them the Supper together with Baptism; for those who are in the alliance, are incorporated to JESUS-CHRIST: the little children of the Faithful are in the alliance; they are therefore incorporated to JESUS-CHRIST; and having by this means (according to them) the virtue and substance of the Supper, it ought to be said as of Baptism, that the sign cannot be refused them without injury.  
The Anabaptists maintain that these words, let a man try himselve and so let him eat, have no greater force to exact years of discretion to receive the Supper, than these, he that shall believe and shall be baptised, have to exact them in Baptism.  
The consequence drawn amongst the new Reformers from the alliance of the ancient people and from Circumcision moves them not. The alliance of the ancient people (say they) was contracted by birth because it was carnal; and upon this account the seal was printed in the flesh by Circumcision immediately after birth. But in the new alliance, it does not suffice to be borne, we must be newborn to enter into it: and as the two alliances have nothing of resemblance, there is nothing say they to be concluded from one sign to another, so that the comparaison which they make of Circumcision with Baptism is void and of no effect.  
Experience has shown that all the attempts of our Reformers whereby to confound the Anabaptist from Scripture, has been weak and feeble. So that at the last they are obliged to plead practice. We find in their Discipline at the end of the XI. chapter, the form of receiving persons of a more advanced age in't their Communion, where they make the Anabaptist who is converted acknowledge that the Baptism of little infants has its foundation in Scripture and in the perpetual practice of the Church.  
When the Pretended Reformers believe they have the express word of God it is not their custom to ground themselves upon the perpetual practice of the Church. But here where the Scripture furnisheth them with nothing whereby to stop the mouths of Anabaptists, they were necessitated to support themselves else where, and at the same time to acknowledge that in these matters the perpetual practice of these Church is of an unviolable authority.  
Let us come now to the Eucharist. The Pretended Reformers boast they have found in these words, Drink ye all of it, 
Math. 26.27.  an express command for all the faithful to participate of the cup. But if we tell them that these words were addressed to the Apostles only who were present, and had their entire accomplishment when in effect they all drunk of it, as Saint Mark says, 
Mark. 14.23.  What refuge will they find in Scripture? Where can they find that these words of JESUS-CHRIST, Drink ye all of it, are to be applied to any others then to those to whom the same JESUS-CHRIST said, Do this? 
Luk. 22.19.  But these words, Do this, regard only the Ministers of the Eucharist, who alone can do what JESUS-CHRIST did, that is to say consecrate and distribute the Eucharist as well as receive it. By what therefore will they prove that these other words, Drink ye all of it, have a further extent? But if they say that some words of our Lord regard all the faithful, and others the Ministers only, what rule will they find us in Scripture whereby to distinguish which appertain to the one and which to the others, seeing JESUS-CHRIST speaks every where after the same manner, and without distinction? But in fine let it be as it will, say some of them, these words of JESUS-CHRIST. Do this, addressed to the Holy Apostles, and in them to all Pastors, decide the question, seeing that in saying to them, Do this, he ordains them to do all that he did, by consequence to distribute all that he distributed; and in a word to cause to be done by all succeeding ages what JESUS-CHRIST had caused them to do. This is in effect the most plausible thing they can say; But they are nothing the wiser, when we show them so many things done by JESUS-CHRIST in this mystery, which they do not believe themselves obliged to do. For what rule have they to make the distinction? And since that JESUS-CHRIST comprehends all he did under this same word, Do this, without explicating himself any further, what other thing remains, except Tradition, to distinguish what is essential from what is not? This argument is without answer, and will appear so much the more to be so, by how much we shall more exactly descended to particulars.  
JESUS-CHRIST instituted this Sacrament in the evening, at the beginning of the night in which he was to be delivered. 
1. Cor. 11.23.  It was at this time he would leave us his Body given for us: 
Luk. 22.19.  To consecrate at that same hour would be to render the memory of his passion more lively, and with all to represent that JESUS-CHRIST was to die at the last hour, that is to say, in the last period of times. Notwithstanding none believe these words, Do this, bind us to an hour so full of mysteries.  
The Church has made a law to take that fasting which JESUS-CHRIST gave after Supper.  
If we regard Scripture only, and the words of JESUS-CHRIST which are asserted in it, the Pretended Reformers will never have any thing of certain as to what relates to the Minister of the Eucharist. The Anabaptists and other such like sects, believe each Faithful may give this Sacrament in his family without necessity of another Minister. The Pretended Reformers can never convince them by Scripture only. They cannot prove against them that these words, Do this, were addressed to the Apostles only, if these, Drink ye all of it, prononced in the following part of the same discourse, and with as little distinction, were addressed to all the faithful, as they tell us every day. And on the other side it will be answered that the Apostles to whom JESUS-CHRIST said, Do this, assisted at his holy Table as simple communicants, and not as persons consecrating nor distributing or as Ministers: from whence it may be concluded that these words do not confer upon them any Ministry in particular. And in short it could not be decided but by the help of Tradition that this Sacrament had any Ministers specially established by the Son of God, or that these Ministers ought to be those to whom he has committed the charge of preaching his word.  
This is that which made Tertullian say in his book De corona militis, 
De cor. mil. c. 3.  that we learn from unwritten Tradition only, that the Eucharist ought not to be received but from the hands of Ecclesiastical superiors, 
Et omnibus mandatum à Domino.  although the commission to give it (if we regard precisely the words of JESUS-CHRIST) was addressed to all the faithful.  
The same Tradition which declares the Pastors of the Church sole Ministers of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, teaches us that the second order of these Ministers, that is to say, the Priests have part in this honour, although JESUS-CHRIST said not, Do this, but to the Apostles only, who were the heads of his flock.  
We do not read that our Lord gave his Body or his Blood to each of his Disciples; but only that in breaking the Bread he said to them, Take and eat; and as for the Cup, it is likely that having placed it in the midst of them he ordained them to partake of it one after the other. The Synod of Privas, one of the Pretended Reformation, 
Disc c. XII. art. IX.  mentioned in the IX. Article of the XII. chapter of their Discipline, says, that our Lord permitted the Apostle to distribute the Bread and the Cup one to the other, and from hand, to hand; But though JESUS-CHRIST did do it after this manner, constant practice has interpreted that the consecrated Bread and Wine should be given to the faithful by the Ministers of the Church.  
Conformably to the example of our Lord and the Apostles some of the Pretended Reformers would have Communicants to give the Cup to one another; 
Syn. de Privas, ibid. Syn. de Saint Maixent. Disc. c. XII. Observat. aprés l'art. XIV.  and it is certain this Ceremony was a solemn sign of union. But the Synods of the Pretended Reformers did not judge it necessary to follow herein what they acknowledged to have been practised by JESUS-CHRIST and his Apostles in the institution of the Supper, and on the contrary they attribute to the Pastors only the distribution of the Cup, as well as of the Bread.  
All Antiquity allows to Deacons the distribution of the Cup, 
Conc. Carth. IU. c. 38. etc.  though neither JESUS-CHRIST nor his Apostles ordained any thing of this nature that appears in Scripture: None ever opposed it, and the Pretended Reformers approve this practice in some of their Synods quoted amongst the observations upon the IX. 
Disc. c. XII. Observe. sur l'art. IX.  article of the chapter concerning the Supper.  
They have since that changed this practice, 
Ibid.  and attributed to the sole Pastors the distribution of the Eucharist, yea even that of the Cup to the exclusion of Deacons, and Elders themselves though they seem amongst them to represent the second order of the Ministers of the Church, that is that of Priests, who have always constantly offered and distributed not only the Sacred Chalice, but moreover the whole entire Eucharist.  
Our Pretended Reformers did not at first arrive to this decision. 
Ibid. Observe. p. 184. & seq.  Their first Synods said that the Ministers only should administer the Coupp as far as it might be done. This restriction continued under two and twenty successive national Synods, evento that of alais which was held in our days in 1620. There they ordained that these words, as far as it might be done, should be expunged, and the administration of the Cup was reserved to the Ministers alone. Till that time the Elders and the Deacons also had upon occasion administered the Eucharist, and principally the Cup. 
Ibid. p. 186.  The Church of Geneva form by Calvin had this practice, and it was but in the year 1623. that they there resolved to conform themselves to the sentiment of those of France. This business did not pass without contradiction in the Provinces. The reason of the Synod of Alais, as it is inserted in the discipline, is that it appartained only to the lawfully established Pastors to distribute this Sacrament: a Maxim which visibly regards Doctrine, and which by consequence (according to the Principles of the new Reformation) ought to be found expressly in Scripture; from whence it follows that all the Synods and Pretended Reformed Churches until that of Alais did grossly err against the institution of JESUS-CHRIST. Or if they answer us that these words were not very clear (as these variations seem sufficiently to show;) they ought to acknewledge with us, that to understand these words a man is obliged to have recourse to the interpretation of the Church, and to that Tradition which subjects us to her.  
To be assembled together at the same Table is a sign of society and Communion which JESUS-CHRIST would have to appear in the institution of his Sacrament, for he was at Table with his Apostles. 
Ibid. Observe. aprés l'art. XIV. p. 189.  Some Churches of the Pretended Reformers to imitate this example, and to do all that our Lord had done ranged the Communicants by table-fulls. The Synod of Saint Maixent cited in the same place rejects this observance.  
What was there seemingly more opposite to what had been practised at the institution, than the custom of carrying away with them the Communion, and of receiving it in private? We have seen notwithstanding that this was practised in the primitive times of martyrdom not to say any thing here of the following ages.  
There appears nothing in Scripture of the reserving (as it should be) the Eucharist for the use of the sick: nevertheless we find it practised from the very original of Christianity.  
Those who mixed the two species, and took them both together appeared as much estranged from the terms and design of the institution as those who received under one only. These two articles have had their approbation in the Church, and the practice of mixing, which displeases our Pretended Reformers the least, is that which we find the most forbidden.  
It is prohibited in the VII. 
Conc. Brac. IU. T. VI Conc. c. 2.  age in the FOUR Council of Brague. It is prohibited in the XI. 
Conc. Clarom. C.  age in the Council of Clermont where Pope Urbanus the II. was in person with about two hundred Bishops, and by Pope Paschalis the II. The Council of Clermont excepts the cases of necessity and precaution. 
Ep. 32.  Pope Paschalis excepts the Communion of infants and of the sick. This Communion which the West permitted not but with these reservations, was infine established there for some time; and moreover is become from six or seven hundred years the ordinary Communion of the whole East without being regarded as a matter of schism.  
The most important thing in the Sacraments is the words which give efficacy to the action. JESUS-CHRIST has not expressly prescribed any for the Eucharist in his Gospel, nor the Apostles in their Epistles. JESUS-CHRIST in saying, Do this, only insinuated that they should repete his proper words by which the bread and wine were changed. But that which has determined us invincibly to this sense is Tradition. Tradition has also regulated those prayers which ought to be joined to the words of JESUS-CHRIST; and it is upon this account Saint Basil in his book of the Holy-Ghost places amongst unwritten Traditions, 
Basil. de Sp. S. 27.  the words of invocation which are made use of in consecration, or to render it word for word, when the Eucharist is shown.  
By the VIII. article of the XII. chapter of the Discipline of the Pretended Reformers, it is left indifferent to the Pastors to use the accustomed words in the distribution of the Supper. The article is of the Synods of Saintefoy, and of Figeac in the years 1578. and 1579. And in effect it appears in the Synod of Privas held in the year 1612. 
Ibid. Observe. sur l'art. IX. p. 185.  that in the Church of Geneva the Deacons do not speak, no nor even the Ministers in the distribution. So that the Sacrament, according to the doctrine of our Reformers, consisting only in the usage of it, it follows that they acknowledge a Sacrament which subsists without words. In the same Synod of Privas, 
Ibid.  the Deacons who give the Cup are forbidden to speak, because JESUS-CHRIST spoke alone; and the Church of Mets is exhorted to conform in this to the example of JESUS-CHRIST without nevertheless using any violence.  
The example of JESUS-CHRIST does not therefore make a law, according to this Synod; and according to other Synods it is freely permitted to separate in the celebration of this Sacrament, the words which are indeed the soul of the Sacraments, as the example of Baptism may make apparent, not to allege here the harmonious consent of the whole Christian world, and of all ages.  
We see by these decisions that what JESUS-CHRIST did dos not appear to be a law to the Pretended Reformers. A distinction must be made betwixt that which is essential and that which is not so. JESUS-CHRIST dit not do it himself, he only spoke in general, Do this. It belongs therefore to the Church to do it, and her constant practice ought to be an unviolable law.  
But in fine to attach our Ministers in their own fortress, seeing they place the stress of their argument for the most part in these words, Do this: let us see when JESUS-CHRIST pronounced them.  
He dit not pronounce them until after he had said, Take, 
Luk. 22.19.  eat, this is my Body. For it is then that Saint Luke alone makes him add, Do this in memory of me; this Evangelist not mentioning that he said the like after the Chalice.  
It is true Saint Paul mentions, that after the consecration of the Chalice, JESUS-CHRIST said, 
1. Cor. 11.23.  Do this in remembrance of me so often as you shall drink. But after all, this discourse of our Saviour, to take it in rigour and in its precise terms, imports only a conditional ordre, to do this in remembrance of JESUS-CHRIST as often as one shall do it, and not an order absolutely to do it: the which I could prove by Protestant interpreters, if the thing were not of itself too clear to need a proof.  
And thus the words, Do this, would be found absolutely applied to these words only, Take, eat, and the Protestants would lose their cause.  
But if they say, as some of theirs do, that these words attributed to the reception of the Body, Do this in remembrance of me. have the same force as these which are said after the Chalice, As often as you shall drink do it in remembrance of me, the one as well as the other ordaining only to do it in remembrance: and not absolutely their cause will be but the worse, because on that account there will not remain in the whole Gospel any absolute precept (contrary to their doctrine) to receive either of the species much less both.  
It serves them for nothing to answer that the institution of JESUS-CHRIST suffices them, seeing the question always returns to know what appertains to the essence of the institution, JESUS-CHRIST not having distinguished it, and all the foregoing examples demonstrating invincibly that it cannot be learnt but from Tradition.  
If they add, that in all cases they cannot be deceived in doing what is written, and what JESUS-CHRIST did: this is with a seeming reason to leave the difficulty untouched, because on the one side they have seen so many things which ought to be observed though they be not regulated in Scripture; and on the other part they see also so great a number of those that are written and done by JESUS-CHRIST, which are not observed amongst themselves, without finding any thing in Scripture which can assure them they are less important than others.  
So that without the assistance of Tradition we should not know how to consecrate, how to give, how to receive, nor in a word how to celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist, no more than that of Baptism; and this discussion may aid us to understand with how much reason Saint Basil said, that in rejecting unwritten Tradition the Gospel itself is attached and Preaching is reduced to mere words, 
Basil. de Sp. S. cap. 27.  the meaning of which is not intelligible.  
In effect all the answers and all the reasonings of these Ministers do manifestly produce nothing but new difficultyes, and the sole means to disentangle themselves, is to search, as we do, the essence of our Lord's institution, and the right understanding of his commands in the Tradition and practice of the Church.  
If therefore she has always believed the grace of the Eucharist was not restrained to both species; if she has believed that Communion under one or both species was a saving Communion; if the Pretended Reformers have followed this sentiment in a certain case not mentioned in the Gospel, that is to say, in regard of those who drink no wine: what difficulty can be found in a thing regulated by such certain principles and by so constant a practice?   

§ VII. Communion under one Species was established without contradiction.  
WE see also that Communion under one species was established without noise, without contradiction, without complaint, in the same manner as Baptism was established with bare sprinkling, and other innocent customs.  
The fear they had to spill our Saviour's Blood in the midst of a multitude which approached to Communion with much confusion, was the reason why the faithful being always persuaded that one sole species was sufficient, insensibly accustomed themselves to receive in effect but one only.  
There was so great difficulty not to spill this precious Blood in those Churches where there were but few Ministers; and where there was a numerous Congregation the precautions which were necessary in distributing of it rendered the service so long especially on great solemnities, and in great assemblies, that for that reason they easily brought themselves to the usage of one sole species.  
In the conference held at Constantinople in the year 1054. under Pope Leo the IX. 
Disp. Humb. Card. apud Bar. app. T. XI.  between the Latins and the Greeks, Cardinal Humbert Bishop of Sylva candida produced a custom of the Church of Jerusalem, attested by a passage of an ancient Patriarch of this Church. This custom was to communicate all the people under the species of bread solely and separately, without mingling it with the other according to the practice of the rest of the east. There it is expressly noted that they reserved what was remaining of the consecrated Bread of the Eucharist for the Communion of the day following, without giving there the least intimation of the sacred Chalice; and this custom was so ancient in that Church that it was attributed to the Apostles, I am willing to acknowledged that those of Jerusalem were mistaken in that point, seeing there are none but those customs that are as well universal as immemorial which according to the rule of the Church, aught to be referred to that original. Nevertheless by this means we see the antiquity of that custom. It was received in the holy city, and throughout the Province that depended upon it, as the Cardinal affirmed. Nicetas Pretoratus his Antagonist does not in the least contradict him: The whole world resorted to Jerusalem, and went with a holy zeal to communicate in those parts where the Mysteries of our salvation were accomplished. It was with out doubt the vast multitude of communicants which made the custom to communicate under one species be embraced: not one person complained of it; and Cardinal Humbert who appeared concerned at the mixture, says not a word concerning the Communion under one species.  
There are many other reasons which induce us to think, that the usage of one sole species began on great festivals, by reason of the multitude of Communicants; and however it was, it is certain the people without the least reluctancy conformed to that manner of communicateing, grounded on the ancient faith which they had embraced (viz) that they received under one sole, and under both the species, the same substance of the Sacrament, and the same effect of grace.  
The most certain mark that a custom is held as free, is when it is changed without any trouble, so when they defisted either to administer the Communion to little infants, or to baptise them by immersion, not one person was disturbed at it: just so they brought themselves to communicate under one species; and for many ages the people communicated not but in that manner, when the Bohemians bethought themselves to say that it was ill done.  
I do not find that Wiclef their chief Leader as rash as he was, did yet condemn that custom of the Church: at least it is certain, there is nothing to be seen of it neither in the letters of Gregory the eleveinth, 
Tom. XI. Conc.  nor in the two Councils held at London by William of Courtenay, and by Thomas Arundel Archbishops of Cantorbury, nor in the Council at Oxford, celebrated by the same Thomas under Gregory the XII. nor in the Council at Rome under John the XXIII. 
Tom. XII. Conc.  nor in the third Council of London under the same Pope, nor in the Council of Constance, nor finally in all the Councils, and all the Decrees, where the condemnation of that Arch-Heritick and the Catalogus of his errors are registered: by which it appears, that either he did not insist upon that point, or that there was no great stir made about it.  
Calixtus agrees with Aeneas Silvius an Author near those times, 
N. 24.25. an author about those times.  who writ this History, that the first who moved that Question was one named Peter Dresde Schoolmaster of Prague, and he made use against us of the authority of that Passage in S. John: If ye eat not the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink not his Blood you shall have no life in you. This Passage miss Jacobel de Misne who caused the whole Church of Bohemia, towards the end of the XIV. age to revolt. He was followed by John Hus in the beginning of the XV. age so that the contest between us about the two species has no higher an original.  
Moreover it must be remorked that John Hus did not presume at first to say that Communion under both species was necessary: 
Ibid.  It sufficed him that they should grant it was permitted and expedient to give it; but he ditermined not the necessity of it: so certain and established a thing it was, there was no such necessity.  
When any change of essential customs is made, the spirit of Tradition always living in the Church, is never wanting to make an opposition. The Ministers withal there great reasonings, find yet very great difficulty to accustom their people to see their children die without Baptism, and in despite of the opinion they have infused into them, that Baptism is not necessary to salvation, they are not able to divert the trouble so funest an event produces in them, nor scarce restrain the Fathers who absolutely require their children should be Baptised in that necessity, according to ancient custom. I myself have observed it by experience, and the same may be seen by what I have cited out of their Synods: so true it is that a custom which an immemorial and universal tradition hath imprinted in their minds as necessary hath an irrissistable power; and so far are men from being able to extinguish such a sentiment in the whole Church, that it is very dificult even to extinguish it amongst those who with a deliberate resolution contradict it. If there fore the Communion under one sole species hath passed without contradiction, and without noise, it is, as we have said, that all Christians from the infancy of Christianity were nourished in that faith; that the same virtue was diffused in either of the two species, and that nothing of the substance was lost when but one of them only was received.  
It was not needful to use any extraordinary effort to make the faithful enter into this sentiment. The Communion of infants, the Communion of the sick, domestic Communion, the custom to communicate under one or both species indiferently in the Church it self, and in holy assemblies, and in fine those other things we have seen, had naturally inspired all the faithful with this sentiment from the first ages of the Church.  
So when John of Pick ham Archbishop of Cantorbury in the XIII. 
Conc. Lameth. C. I. T. XI. Conc.  age with so much care caused his people to be taught, that under that one sole species they had distributed to them, they received JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire, it past without the  difficulty, and not one person in the least contradicted it.  
It would be cavilling to say that this great care makes it appear, they met with some opposition in it, because we have already seen that William Archbishop of Chalons, and Hugo de Sainto Victore, (not to ascend any higher at present) had constantly taught above a hundred years before him, the same doctrine, not one finding in it any thing either new or strange: so much naturally does it take an impression in the mind. We see in all times and in all places the Pastoral charity careful to prevent even the least thoughts which ignorance might chance to let fall into the minds of men. And in fine it is de facto certain, that there was neither complaint nor contradiction upon this article during many ages.  
I do also positively aver that not one of those who believed the real presence ever ingenuously called in doubt this integrity, that I may so say, of the person of JESUS-CHRIST under each species, seeing it would have been to give a dead body, to give a body without blood and without soul, the very thoughts of which strikes a horror.  
From whence it comes that in believing the real presence, one is carried to believe the full sufficiency of communion under one species. We see also that Luther was naturally induced to this opinion, and a good while after he had made a public revolt from the Church, it is certain that he had the matter still as indifferent, or at least of small importance, highly censuring Carlostadius, who had, contrary to his advice established Communion under both kinds, and who seemed, 
Ep. Luth. add Casp. Guttol. Tom. II. Ep. 56.  said he, to place the whole reform in these things of nothing.  
He also uttered these insolent words in the Treatise which he published in 1523. upon the formula of the Mass: If a Council ordained or permitted the two species, we would in contempt of that Council receive but one of them, or we would neither take the one or the other, and curse those whoreceive bothin virtue of that Ordinance: words which show clearly that when both he and those of his party are of late so obstinately zealous for the two species, it is rather out of a spirit of contradiction than any solid reason.  
In effect he approved the same year the common places of Melancton, where he puts amongst things indifferent Communion under one or both species. In 1528. 
Visit. Sax. T. VI Ihen.  in his visitation of Saxony he left them expressy the liberty to receive but one only, and persisted still in that opinion in 1533. fiveteen years after he had erected himself as a Reformer.  
The whole Lutheran party supposes that nothing either essential or necessary to salvation is lost, when one doth not communicate under both species, seeing that in the Apology of the Confession of Ausbourge (a treatise as authentic with that party, as the Confession of Ausbourge itself, and equally subscribed to by all those who embraced it) it is expressly set down, 
Apol. Aug. Cons.  That the Church is worthy of excuse for not having received but one sole species, when she could not have both. But the case is quite otherwise in regard to the authors of this injustice. What a notion of the Church is this which they represent to us before Luther's time as forced to receive but half of the Sacrament by the fault of her Pastors! as if the Pastors themselves were not by the institution of JESUS CHRIST, a part of the Church. But in fine it appears from hence (by the concession of the Lutherans) that what destroyed the Church, according to them, was not absolutely essential, seeing it can never be excusable nor tolerable to receive the Sacraments, upon what account soever contrary to the essence of their institution, and that the right administration of the Sacraments is no less essential to the Church, than the pure preaching the word of God.  
Calixtus who relates carefully all these passages, 
N. 199.  excuses Luther, and the first authors of the Reformation, upon this account that having undertaken (see here a memorable acknowledgement, and a worthy beginning of the Reformation) upon this account (says Calixtus) that the first authors having undertaken it (the Reformation) rather by the violence of others then by any voluntary motive, that is to say rather out of a spirit of contradiction, than out of a sincere love of truth, they could not at first discover the necessity of the precept to communicate under both kinds, nor reject that custom, behold what Calixtus saith, and he sees not how much himself over throws the evidence he attributed to this precept in makieng it apparently unknown to the first authors of that new Reformation, and by those whom they believed chosen from God for this work. Can not they have perceived a thing, which Calixtus finds so clear? or has not Calixtus overdone it, when he gives us that for so clear and manifest which is not at all perceived by such Doctors?  
But to say no more of them, Calixtus himself, that very Calixtus who has writ so much against the Communion under one kind, in the end of the same treatise where he hath opposed it so much, is so far from treating of it as a matter where on salvation depends that he declares, 
De Communione sub utraque n. 200. & jud. n. 76.  he does not exclude from the number of the truly Faithful our ancestors who communicated under one kind above five hundred years since, and that which is much more remarkable now those who communicate so at this very day seeing they candoe no better, and concludes in general that whatever we think or what ewer we practise concerning the Sacrament, cannot put any obstacle to our salvation, nor a warrantable matter of separation, because the reception of this Sacrament is not of essential obligation. Whether this principle of Calixtus be true and the consequence rightly drawn from it is not our present dispute. It is sufficient fore that this zealous defender of the two kinds is forced at last to grant, that a man may be le saved in that Church where there is but one kind only received: by which he is obliged to aknowlegd, either that a man may obtain salvation out of the true Church, which certainly he will not grant, or, which he will mentaine as little, that the true Church may remainsuch, and yet want a sacrament, or, which is more natural, and what we also in effect do affirm, that Communion under both kinds is not essential to the Sacrament of that Eucharist.  
Behold whether these great disputes against Communion under one kind tend. And after having exercised all his subtlety he is comes at last by all these efforts to acknowledge tacitly that which he had endeavoured to oppose by such studied and elaborate treatises.   

§ VIII. A refutation of the History concerning the taking away of the Cup written by M. Jurieux.  
IN the last Treatise that M. Jurieux published, he proposes to himself the making an abridgement to the history of taking away the Cup, 
Exam. de l'Euch. 6. Traité. 5. Sect.  where although he gives us for indisputable all that he is there pleased to impose it will be easy for us to dectet almost as many falsityes as he has mentioned matters of fact.  
He proposes nothing new upon the Gospels and the Epistles of Saint Paul concerning which we have sufficiently spoken. From the Apostles times he passes to the following ages, where he shows without difficulty, that the use of the two species was ordinary. But he soon perceived that he brought nothing against us if he said nothing else: for he knows very well we mentain that at the same time the two species, were in practice they were not believed so necessary but that they communicated as often and as publicly under one only, without any one's complaint. To take away this our defence, and to say something concluding, it did not suffice to assure us that the use of the two species was frequent but he ought also to assure us that it was regarded a indispensable, and that they never communicated after any other manner. M. Jurieux found that he ought to say this: he has said it in effect; but he has not so much as offered to prove it, so much did he despair of succeeding in it. Only by a bold, and vehement affirmation, he thought he might supply the defect of a proof which he wanted: It is (say he) a thing notoriously known, and that as no need of proof, 'tis a matter not in the least questioned. These affirmative manner of speeches impose upon men: the Pretended Reformers believe a Minister upon his word, and cannot imagine he dares venture to avouch any thing as not contested when de facto it is. Nevertheless the truth, is that there is not any thing not only more contested, but also more false than that which M. Jurieux gives us here as for indisputable as equally confessed by both parties.  
But let us consider his words as they lie with what follows. This is (says he) an affair which is not contested. During the space of above a thousand years, none in the Church, had ever undertaken to celebrate this Sacrament, and communicate the Faithful otherwise then the Lord had commanded it, that is to say under both species; except when to communicate the sick with more facility, some undertook to moisten the bread in the wine, and to make them receive both the one and the other kind at the same time.  
The proposition and the exception are neither the one nor the other made with sincerity.  
The proposition is, that during the space of above a thousand years none had ever undertaken to celebrate this Sacrament, nor to give it otherwise then under both species. He confounds at the very first two very different things, to celebrate this Sacrament and to give it. None ever celebrated it but under both species; we grant it, and we have shown a reason for it drawn from the nature of a Sacrifice: but that none ever gave the two species, is what we dispute; and good ordre, not to say sincerity, dit not permit that these two things should be equally joined together as indisputable.  
But that which seems most intolerable, is that it should be asserted that during the space of above a thousand years the Communion was never given but under both species, and that this also should be a thing notorious and public, a thing which needs no proof, a thing which is not contested.  
We ought to regard public faith, and not to abuse these weighty expressions. M. Jurieux knows in his own conscience that we deny all he here says: the sole titles of the articles of the first part of this discourse show clearly enough how many occasions there are where we uphold that Communion was given under one kind: I am not the first that have said it (God forbidden) and I do nothing but explicate what all other Catholics have said before me.  
But can any thing be less sincere, then to bring here no exception from ordinary communions but only that of the sick, and with all to find there no difference but in this that they then mixed the two species together: seeing M. Jurieux would relate nothing but what is not contested by Catholics, he ought to speak after another manner. He knows very well we maintain that the Communion of the sick consisted not in giving them the two species mixed, but in giving them ordinarily the sole species of bread. He knows very well what our Authors say upon the Communion of Serapion, upon that of Saint Ambrose, upon others which I have remarked; and that in a word we say the ordinary manner of communicating the sick was to communicate them under one sole species. It is already to much to dare to deny a matter of fact so well established: but to advance this boldness to such a height as to say the contrary is not contested, is what I know not how M. Jurieux could resolve upon.  
But what is it he would be at, when he affirms, as a thing not contested by us, that during the space of above a thousand years the Communion was never given otherwise then under both species, except in the Communion of the sick where both the species were given mixed together. What a strange kind of exception is this, Both species were always given, except when they gave them both mixed together. M. Jurieux would willingly have said much better than he did. But in affirming, as he does, that during the space of above a thousand years they never gave the Communion but under both species, he saw very well that he ought at least to except the communion of the sick. He would have done it had he proceeded candidly, but at the same time he foresaw by this exception alone he lost the fruit of so universal a proposition; and otherwise, there was not any likelihood the ancient Church sent dying persons to the Tribunal of JESUS-CHRIST after a Communion received contrary to his command. So that he durst not say what naturally occurred, and fell into a manifest labarynth.  
In fine, wherefore speaks he only of the Communion of the sick? Whence comes it that in this relation he has said nothing of the Communion of infants, and domestic Communion, both which he knows very well we allege as given under one species only. Why does he dissemble what our Authors have maintained, what I have proved after them by the Decrees of Saint Leo and Saint Gelasius; that it was free to communicate under one or both species, I say in the Church itself, and at the public Sacrifice? Was M. Jurieux ignorant of these things to say nothing of the rest? Was he ignorant of the Office of Good Friday, and of the Communion then and there under one sole species? A man so learned as he, did he not know what was writ concerning this by Amalarius and Authors of the VIII. and IX. ages, whom we have quoted? To know these things and to affirm as an indispautable practice, that during the space of above a thousand years the Communion was never given but under both species: is it not manifestly to be trey the truth, and defile his own conscience?  
The other Authors of his Communion who have writ against us act with more sincerity. Calixtus, M. du Bourdieu and the others endeavour to answer those objections we make. M. Jurieux follows another method, and contents himself to say boldly, That during the space of above a thousand years none ever undertook to communicate the faithful otherwise then under both species, and that this matter is not contested. This is the shortest way; and the surest to deceive the simple. But we must believe that those who love their salvation, will open their eyes and not suffer themselves to be any longer imposed on.  
M. Jurieux has but one only remaining refuge: to wit, that these Communions so frequent in the ancient Church under one species were not the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST, any more than the Communion which is given in their Churches in bread alone to those who drink no wine. In answering after this manner, he would have answered according to his principles, I confess: but after all I maintain he had not the boldness to make use of this answer, nor to impute to the ancient Church this monstrous practice where a Sacrament is given which is in reality no Sacrament, but an human invention in Communion.  
Nevertheless in a history such as he had promised it was his business to have always related these considerable matters of fact. He says not one word of them in his narrative I wonder not at it, for he could not have spoken of so many important practices, without showing that there was at the least a great contestation betwixt them and us; and it pleased him to say, that it is a thing which has no need of proof, and is not contested.  
It is true that in another place in answering objections, he speaks a word or two of domestic Communion. But he comes of in answering that it is not certain whether those who carried away with them the Eucharist after this manner, 
Ibid. Sect. VII. 483. 484.  carried not also the wine, and that this later is much more likely. It is not certain: this last is much more apparent. Certainly a man thus positive as he is diffides very much of his cause when he speaks at this rate; but at least, seeing he doubts, he ought not to say that it is a matter without contestation, that no body ever undertook during above a thousand years to communicate the Faithful otherwise then under both species. Behold even in the first ages of the Church an infinite number of Communions that he himself durst not affirm to have been under both species. It was an abuse, says he. What then? the practice was to be related; the question concerning the abuse would come after, and we should then see whether or no it were fit to condemn so many Martyrs, so many other Saints, and the whole primitive Church which practised this domestic Communion.  
M. Jurieux cuts of the discourse with too much confidence: Is there the least sincerity (says he) to draw a proof from a practice opposed to that of the Apostles, which is condemned at present, and which would pass in the Church of Rome for the worst of crimes?  
Was it not his business here again to make the world believe that we condemn together with him and his the practice of so many Saints as contrary to that of the Apostles? But we are far from such horrible temerity. M. Jurieux knows it very well; and a man who boasts thus much of sincerity, aught to have so much of it as to take notice that the Church (as I have shown elsewhere) does not condemn all the practices she changes; and that the Holy-Ghost who guides her, makes her not only condemn ill practices, but also to quit good ones, and forbidden them severely, when they are abused.  
I believe the falsity of this History which M. Jurieux gives us of the first ages of the Church for a eleven hundred or a thousand years appears sufficiently: what he says of following times is no less contrary to truth.  
I have no need to speak of the manner how he relates the establishment of the real presence and Transubstantiation during the X. age: that is not to our present subject, 
Sect. V p. 469.  and otherwise nothing obliges us to refute what he advances without proof. But that which is to be remarked is, that he regards Communion under one kind as a thing which was not introduced but by presupposing Transubstantiation. All in good time: when therefore it shall henceforth appear (as we have invincibly shown) that Communion under one species was practised even in the first ages of the Church, and in the times of the Martyrs, it can be no more doubted but that Transubstantiation was also at that time establised; and M. Jurieux himself will be obliged to grant this consequence. But let us return to what follows in his History.  
He shows us there Communion under one species, as a thing first thought of in the eleaventh age, after the real presence and Transubstantiation had been well established: For than they perceived (says he) that under a crumb of bread, 
Ibid. 470.  as well as under every drop of wine, the whole Flesh and all the Blood of our Lord were included. What happened upon it? Let us hear: This false reason prevailed in such a manner over the institution of our Lord, and over the practice of the whole ancient Church, that the custom of communicating under the sole species of Bread was insensibly established in the XII. and XIII. ages. It was insensibly established; so much the better for us. What I have said then is true, that the people reduced themselves without contradiction and without difficulty to the sole species of Bread, so well were they prepared by the Communion of the sick, by that of infants, by that which was received at home, by that which was practised in the Church itself, and finally by all those practices we have seen, to acknowledge a true and perfect Communion under one species.  
This is an untoward and troublesome business for our Reformers: They have great reason indeed to boast of these insensible changes where in they put the whole stress of their cause; they never yet produced, neither will they ever produce one example of such a change in essential matters. That indifferent matters should be insensibly changed and without contradiction, is no such great wonder: but (as we have said) the faith of the people, and those practices which are believed essential to Religion are not so easily changed. For than Tradition, the ancient belief, custom itself, and the Holy Ghost who animates the Body of the Church oppose themselves to his novelly. When therefore a change is made without difficulty, and without being perceived, it is a sign the matter was never believed to be so necessary.  
M. Jurieux saw this consequence; 
Ibid.  and after having said that the custom of communicating under the sole species of bread was establised insensibly in the XII. and XIII. age, he adds immediately after: It was not however without resistance; the people could not suffer without great impatience that they should take from them half of JESUS-CHRIST; they murmured in all parts. He had said a little before that this change, (very different from those which are made after an insensible manner, without opposition, and without noise) was on the contrary made with great noise and splendour. These Gentlemen answer things as best pleases them: 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 cause itself demands this, and we must not expect that an error can be defended after a consequent manner. This is the state in which M. Jurieux found himself. This custom, says he, that is to say this of communicating under one kind, was insensibly established; nothing can be more quiet and tranquil. It was not nevertheless without resistance, without noise, without the greatest impatience, without murmuring on all sides; behold a grand commotion. Truth made him candidly speak the first, and the adhesion to his cause made him say the other. In effect nothing can be found of these universal murmurs, of these extreme impatiences, of these resistances of the people; and this induceth to the establising an insensible change. On the other side it must not be said that a practice which is represented so strange, so unheard of, so evidently sacrilegious, was established without repugnance, and without taking any notice of it. To avoid this inconvenience a resistance must be imagined, and, if none can be found, invented.  
But furthermore what could be the subject of these universal murmur? M. Jurieux has told us his thoughts of them: but in this point he coheares as little with himself as in all the rest. That which caused these murmur, is (says he) that the people suffered with the greatest impatience that they should be deprived of one half of JESUS-CHRIST. Has he forgot what he even now said, that the real presence had made them see that under each crumb of bread the whole Flesh and all the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST were contained? 
Ibid. p. 469.  Does he reflect upon what he is presently about to say, that if the doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the real presence be true, 
Sect. VI p. 480.  it is true also that the bread contains the Flesh and the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST? Where then was this half of JESUS-CHRIST taken away, which the people suffered (according to him) with the highest impatience? If a man will have them make complaints, let him at least afford them matter conformable to their sentiments, and such as carries a face of probability.  
But in reality there was none. Nor does M. Jurieux show us any in the Authors of that time. The first contradiction is that which gave occasion to the decision of the Councile of Constance in the year 1415. It begun in Bohemia (as we have seen) about the end of the XIV. age: and, if according to the relation of M. Jurieux, the custom of communicating under one sole species begun in the XI. age, if they do not begin to complain, and that in Bohemia only, but towards the end of the XIV. age; by the acknowledgement of this Minister, three hundred whole years should be passed, before a change so strange, so bold, if we believe him, so visibly opposite to the institution of JESUS CHRIST and to all precedent practices, should have made any noise. Believe it that will: for my part I am sensible, that to believe it, all remorse of conscience must be stifled.  
M. Jurieux must without doubt have some of them, to fee himself forced by the badness of his cause to disguise truth so many ways in an historical relation, that is, in a kind of discourse which above all others requires candour and sincerity.  
He does not so much as state the question sincerely. 
V Sect. p. 464.  The state of the question (says he) is very easy to comprehend. he will then I hope declare it clearly and distinctly. Let us see. It is granted (adds he) that when they communicate the faithful, as well the people as the Clergy, they are obliged to give them the Bread to eat: but they pretend it is not the same as to the Cup. He will not so much as dream that we believe Communion equally vallid and perfect under either of the two species. But being willing by the very state of the question to have it understood that we believe more perfection or more necessity in that of the Bread then in the other, or that JESUS-CHRIST is not equally in them both: he would thereby render us manifestly ridiculous. But he knows very well that we are far from these phancyes; and it may be seen in this Treatise, that we believe the Communion given to little children during so many ages under the sole species of wine, as good and vallid as that which was given in so many other occurrences under the sole species of Bread. So that M. Jurieux states the question wrong. He gins his dispute concerning the two species upon that question so stated: He continues it by a history where we have seen he advances as many falsityes as facts. Behold here the man whom our Reformers look upon at present every where as the strongest defendor of their cause.   

§. IX. A reflection upon concomitancy, and upon the doctrine of the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel.  
IF we add to the proofs of those practices which we have drawn from the most pure and holy source of antiquity, and to those solid maxims we have established by the consent of the Pretended Reformers; if we add I say to all these, what we have already said, but which it may be has not been sufficiently weighed, that the real presence being supposed, it cannot be denied but that each species contains JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire: Communion under one species will remain undoubted, there being nothing more unreasonable then to make the grace of a Sacrament, where JESUS-CHRIST has wouchsafed to be present, nor to depend of JESUS-CHRIST himself, but of the species under which he is hidden.  
These Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformation must permit us here to explicate more fully this concomitancy, so much attaqued by their disputes; and seeing they have let pass the real presence as a doctrine which has no venom in it, they ought not henceforth to have such an aversion from what is but a manifest consequence of it.  
M. Jurieux has acknowleged it in the places heretofore mentioned. 
Exam. p. 480.  If (says he) the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the real presence were true, it is true that the Bread would contain the Flesh and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST. So that concomitancy is an effect of the real presence, and the Pretended Reformers do not deny us this consequence.  
Let them then at present presuppose this real presence, seeing they suffer it in their brethren the Lutherans, and let them consider with us the necessary consequences: they will see that our Lord could not give us his Body and his Blood perpetually separated, nor give us either the one or the other without giving us his person whole and entire in either of the two.  
Verily when he said, Take, eat, this is my Body, and by those words gave us the flesh of his sacrifice to eat, he know very well he did not give us the flesh of a pure man, but that he gave us a flesh united to the divinity, and in a word the flesh of God and man both together. The same must be said of his Blood, which would not be the price of our salvation, if it were not the Blood of God; Blood which the Divine Word had appropriated to himself after a most particular manner by making himself man, conformable to these words of Saint Paul: 
Heb. 11.14.17.  Because his servants are composed of flesh and blood; he who ought in all things to be like unto them, would partake both of the one and the other.  
But if he would not give us in his Sacrament a flesh purely human, he would much less give us in it a flesh without a soul, a dead flesh, a carcase, or by the same reason a flesh despoiled of blood, and blood actually separated from the body: otherwise he ought to die often, and often to shed his Blood, a thing unworthy the glorious state of his Resurrection, where he ought to conserve eternally human nature as entire as he had at first assumed it. So that he knew very well that we should have in his flesh his Blood, that in his Blood we should have his flesh, and that we should have in both the one and the other his blessed soul with his divinity whole and entire, without which his flesh would not be quickening, nor his Blood full of spirit and grace.  
Why then in giving us such great treasures, his holy soul his divinity, all that he is; why I say did he only name his Body, and his Blood, if it were not to make us understand it is by that infirmity, which he would have common with us, we must arrive to his strength? And why has he in his word distinguished this Body and this Blood, which he would not effectually separate but during that little time he was in the sepulchre, if it be not to make us also understand this Body and this Blood, with which he nourisheth and quickeneth us would not have the virtue, 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 that the virtue of this Body and this Blood coming from his death, he would conserve the image of this 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.  
According to this doctrine, we ought to have our living victim under an image of death; otherwise we should not be enlivened. JESUS-CHRIST tells us also at his holy table: I am living but I have been dead; 
Apoc. 1.11.  and living in effect I bear only upon we the image of that death which I have endured. It is also thereby that I enliven, because by the figure of my death once suffered, I introduce those who believe, to that life which I possess eternally.  
Thus the Lamb who is before the Throne as dead, 
Apoc. 5.6.  or rather, as slain, does not cease to be living, for he is slanding; and he sends throughout the world the seven Spirits of God, and he takes the book and opens it, and he fills heaven and earth with joy and with grace.  
Our Reformers will not, or it may be cannot yet understand so high a mystery, for it enters not into the hearts but of those who are prepared by a purified Faith: But if they cannot understand it, they may at least understand very well, that we cannot believe a real presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST without admitting all the other things we have even now explicated; and these things thus explicated is what we call concomitancy.  
But as soon as concomitancy is supposed, and that we have acknowledged JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire under each species, it is very easy to understand in what the virtue of this Sacrament consists. 
John. VI 64. Cur. lib. IU. in Joh. c. 34. ja. Anath. XI. Conc. Eph. p. I. T. III. Conc.  The flesh profiteth nothing; and if we understand it as Saint Cyrille, whose sense was followed by the whole Council of Ephesus, it profiteth nothing to believe it alone, to believe it the flesh of a pure man: but to believe it the flesh of God a flesh full of divinity, and by consequence, of spirit and of life; it profiteth very much, without doubt, because in this state it is full of an infinite virtue, and in it we receive together with the entire humanity of JESUS-CHRIST, his divinity also whole and entire, and the very source or fountain of graces.  
For this reason it is the Son of God, who knew what he would place in his mystery, knew also very well how to make us understand in what he would place the virtue of it. What he has said in Saint John must therefore be no more objected: 
John. 6.54.  If you eat not the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink not his Blood, you shall not have life in you. The manifest meaning of these words is there is no life for those who separate themselves from the one and the other: for indeed, it is not the eating and drinking, but the receiving of JESUS-CHRIST, that gives life. JESUS-CHRIST says himself, and as it is excellently remarked by the Council of Trent, 
Sess. XXI. c. 1.  too injustly calumniated by our adversaries: He who said, 
John. 6.54.  IF YOU EAT NOT THE FLESCH OF THE SON OF MAN, AND DRINK NOT HIS BLOOD, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU, has also said: 
Ibid. 52.  IF ANY ONE EAT OF THIS BREAD, HE SHALL HAVE LIFE EVERLASTING. And he who said, 
Ibid. 55.  HE WHO EATS MY FLESH, AND DRINKS MY BLOOD, HAS ETERNAL LIFE, 
Ibid. 52.  has said also: THE BREAD WHICH I WILL GIVE IS MY FLESH WHICH I WILL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. And lastly he who said. 
Ibid. 57  HE THAT EATS MY FLESH, AND DRINKS MY BLOOD, REMAINS IN ME AND I IN HIM, has also said: HE WHO EATS THIS BREAD, 
Ibid. 59  SHALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE; and again: 
Ibid. 58.  HE THAT EATS ME LIVES FOR ME, AND SHALL LIVE BY ME. By which he obliges us, not to the eating and drinking at his holy Table, or to the species which contain his Body and his Blood, but to his  substance, which is there communicated to us, and together with it grace and life.  
So that this passage of Saint John from whence, as we have said, Jacobel took occasion to revolt and all Bohemia to rise in rebellion, becomes a proof for us. The Pretended Reformers themselves would undertake to defend us, if we would, against this passage so much boasted of by Jacobel, seeing they own with a common consent, this passage is not to be understood of the Eucharist. Calvin has said it, 
Cal. Inst. IV. etc. Aub. lib. I. de Sacr. Euch. c. 30. etc.  Aubertin has said it, every one says it, and M. du Bourdieu says it also in his Treatise so often cited. 
Repl. ch. VI p. 201.  But without taking any advantage from their acknowledgements, we on the contrary with all antiquity maintain that a passage where the Flesh and Blood as well as eating and drinking are so often and so clearly distinguished, cannot be understood merely of a communion where eating and drinking is the same thing, such as is a spiritual Communion, and by faith. It belongs therefore to them, and not to us, to defend themselves from the authority of this passage, where the business being to explicate the virtue and the fruit of the Eucharist, it appears that the Son of God places them not in eating and drinking, nor in the manner of receiving his Body and his Blood, but in the foundation and in the substance of both the one and the other. Whereupon the ancient Fathers, for example Saint Cyprian, he who most certainly gave nothing but the Blood alone to little infants, as we have seen so precisely in his Treatise De lapsis, 
Test. ad Quir. III. 25.20.  does not omit to say in the same Treatise, that the parents who led their children to the sacrifices of Idols deprived them of the Body and Blood of our Lord: and teaches also in another place that they actually fulfil and accomplish in those who have life, and by consequence in infants, by giving them nothing but the Blood, all that which is intended by these words: If you eat not my Flesh and drink not my Blood, you shall not have life in you. 
Aug. Ep. 23.  Saint Augustin says often the same thing, though he had seen and examined in one of his Epistles, that passage of Saint Cyprian where he speaks of the Communion of infants by Blood alone, without finding any thing extraordinary in this manner of communion; and that it is not to be doubted but the African Church, where Saint Augustin was Bishop, had retained the Tradition which Saint Cyprian so great a Martyr Bishop of Carthage, and Primate of Africa had left behind him. The foundation of this is that the Body and Blood inseparably accompany each other, for although the species which contain particularly the one or the other in virtue of the institution are taken separately, their substance can be no more separated than their virtue and their grace: in so much that infants in drinking only the Blood, do not only receive the essential fruit of the Eucharist, but also the whole substance of this Sacrament, and in a word an actual and perfect Communion.  
All these things show sufficiently the reason we have to believe that Communion under one or both species contains, together with the substance of this Sacrament the whole effect essential to it. The practice of all ages which have explained it in this manner, has its reason grounded both in the foundation of the mystery, and in the words themselves of JESUS-CHRIST; and never was any custom established upon more solid foundations, nor upon a more constant practice.   

§ X. Some objections solved by the precedent Doctrine.  
I Do not wonder that our Reformers, who acknowledge nothing but bare signs in the bread and wine of their Supper, endeavour by all means to have them both: but I am astonished that they will not understand, that in placing, as we do, JESUS-CHRIST entirely under each of these sacred Symbols, we can content ourselves with one of the two.  
M. 
Exam. Tr. VI Sect. 6. p. 480. 481.  Jurieux objects against us, that the real presence being supposed, the Body and the Blood would in reality be received under the Bread alone, but that yet this would not suffice, because, 'tis true, this would be to receive the Blood, but not the Sacrament of the Blood: this would be to receive JESUS-CHRIST wholly, entirely, really, but not sacramentally as they call it. Is it possible that a man should believe it is not enough for a Christian to receive entire JESUS-CHRIST? Is it not a Sacrament where JESUS-CHRIST is pleased to be in person thereby to bring with himself all his graces, to place the virtue of this Sacrament in the signs with which he is vailed rather than in his proper person which he gives us wholly and entirely; Is not this (I say) contrary to what he himself has said with his own mouth, 
John. 6.57.58.  he who eats of this Bread shall have eternal life, (and), he who eats me shall live for me, and by me, as I myself live for my Father and by my Father?  
But if M. Jurieux maintain in despite of these words, that it does not suffice to have JESUS-CHRIST if we have not in the Sacrament of his Body and his Blood the perfect image of his death; as he does nothing in that but repete an objection already cleared, so I send him to the answers I have given to this argument, and to the undeniable examples I have set down, to show that by the avouched confession of his Churches, when the substance of the Sacrament is received, the ultimate perfection of its signification is no more necessary. But if this principle be true even in those very Sacraments were JESUS-CHRIST is not really and substantially contained as in that of Baptism: how much the rather is it certain in the Eucharist, where JESUS-CHRIST is present in his person, and what is it he can desire more, who possesses him entirely?  
But in fine, will some say, there must not be such arguing upon express words.  it is your sentiment that the VI chapter of Saint John ought to be understood of the Eucharist, you cannot dispense with yourselves in the practice of it as to the letter, and to give the Blood to drink as well as the Body to eat, seeing JESUS-CHRIST has equally prononced both of the one and of the other, If you eat not my Body and drink not my Blood, you shall have no life in you.  
Let us once stop the mouths of these obstinate and contentious spirits, who will not understand these words of JESUS-CHRIST by their whole connexion. I demand of them whence it comes they do not by these words believe Communion absolutely necessary for the salvation of all men, yea even of little infants newly baptised. If nothing must be explicated let us give to them the Communion as well as to others, and if it must be explicated, let us explicate all by the same rule. I say by the same rule, because the same principle and the same authoritè from which we learn that Communion in general is not necessary to the salvation of those who have received Baptism, teach us that the particular Communion of the Blood is not necessary to those who have been already partakers of the Body.  
The principle which shows us that the Communion is not necessary to the salvation of little infants baptised, is that they have already received the remission of sins, and a new life in Baptism, because they have been thereby regenerated and sanctified: in so much that if they should perish for want of being communicated they would perish in the state of innocence and grace. The same principle shows also, that he who has received the Bread of life, has no need of receiving the sacred Blood, seeing, as we have frequently demonstrated, he has received together with the Bread of life the whole substance of the Sacrament, and together with that fubstance the whole essential virtue of the Eucharist.  
The substance of the Eucharist is JESUS-CHRIST himself: The virtue of the Eucharist is to nourish the soul, to conserve therein that new life it has received in Baptism, to confirm the union with JESUS-CHRIST, and to replenish even our bodies with sanctity and life: I ask whether in the very moment the Body of our Lord is received, all these effect be not likewise received, and whether the Blood can add thereunto any thing essential.  
Behold what regards the principle: let us come now to what regards the authority.  
The authority which persuades us that Communion is not so necessary to the salvation of little infants as Baptism, is the authority of the Church. It is in effect this authority which carries with it in the Tradition of all ages, the true meaning of the Scripture; and as this authority has taught us that he who is baptised wants not any thing necessary to salvation, so does it also teach us that he who receives one sole species, wants none of those effects which the Eucharist ought to produce in us: From hence in the very primitive times they communicated either under one or under both species, without believing they hazarded any thing of that grace which they ought to receive in the Sacrament.  
Wherefore, though it be writ, If you do not eat my Body and drink my Blood, 
John. 6.54.  you shall have no life in you; it is also writ after the same manner, 
John. 3.8.  If a man be not regenerated of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God: The Church hath not understoud an equal necessity in these two Sentences: on the contrary she always understood that Baptism which gives life is more necessary than the Eucharist which conserveses it. But as nourishment follows birth, if the Church had not known herself taught by God, she durst not any longtime refuse to Christians regenerated by Baptism that nourishment which JESUS-CHRIST has prepared for them in the Eucharist. For neither JESUS-CHRIST nor the Apostles have ordained any thing left by writing concerning it. The Church than has learned by another way, but always equally certain, what she can give or take away without doing any injury to her children, and they have nothing to do but to rely upon her faith.  
Let not our adversaries think they can avoid the force of this argument, under pretence that they do not understand these two passages of the Gospel as we do. I know very well they do neither understand of Baptism with water this passage where it is said, If you be not regenerated or borne again of water and the Holy Spirit, nor of the eating and drinking of the Eucharist this other where it is writ, If you eat not and drink not: so that they find themselves no more obliged by these passages to give the Eucharist than Baptism to little infants. But without pressing too close upon these passages, let us make them only this demand. This precept, Eat you this, and drink you all of it, which you think is so universal, does it comprehend little children that are baptised? If it comprehend all Christians, what words of Scripture exclude little children? Are they not Christians? Woust we give the victory to the Anabaptists who say they are not, and condemn all antiquity which has acknowledged them as such? But why do you except them from so general a precept without any authority of Scripture? In a word, upon what foundation has your Discipline made this precise law, 
Discip. ch. 12. art. 2.  Children under twelve years old, shall not be admitted to the Supper: but for those above that age it shall be left to the discretion of the Ministers, 
1. Cor. 11.28.  etc. Your children are they not Christians before that age? Do you reject them till that age, because Saint Paul has said: Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat? But we have already seen that it is no less precisely written, 
Math. 21. Mark. 16. Act. 2.38.  Teach and baptise; he that shall believe, and be baptised; do penance and receive Baptism: And if your Catechism interpret that it ought to be only in regard of such as are capable, 
Dim. 50.  why shall we not say as much of the proof recommended by the Apostle? Be it as it will, the Apostle does not decide which is the age proper for this probation. One is at the age of reason before he is twelve years old, one may before this age both sin and practise virtue: why do you dispense with your children in a divine precept whereof they are capable? If you say that JESUS-CHRIST has remitted that to the Church, show me that permission in Scripture; or believe with us that all that which is necessary to the understanding and practise the Gospel is not written, and that we must rely upon the authority of the Church.   

§ XI. A reflection upon the manner how the Pretended Reformers make use of Scripture.  
SAINT Basile advertises us that those who despise unwritten Traditions do at the same time despise the Scriptures themselves which they boast to follow in all things. 
Basil. de Sp. S. c. 27.  This misfortune has arrived to the Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformed Religion: They speak to us of nothing but of Scripture and boast they have established all the practices of their Church upon this rule. Notwithstanding they easily dispense with many important practices which we read in express terms in Scripture.  
They have taken away the Extreame-Unction so expressly ordained in the Epistle of Saint James, 
James 5. 1●.15.  though this Apostle has annexed to it so clear a promise of the remission of sins.  
They neglect the imposition of hands practised by the Apostles towards all the faithful in giving the Holy Ghost, and as if this divine Spirit ought not to descend otherwise then visibly, they despise the ceremony by which he was given because he is now no more given after this visible manner.  
They have no greater esteem for the imposition of hands, 
Discip. ch. 1. art. s. & Observe.  by which the Ministers were ordained. For although they do ordinarily practise it, they declare in their Discipline they do not believe it essential, and that one might dispense with a practice so clearly set down in Scripture. 
Poit. 1560. Par. 1565.  Two national Synods have decided there was no necessity of making use of it; and nevertheless one of these Synods adds, they ought to make it their business to conform to one another in this ceremony, because it is expedient for edification, conformable to the custom of the Apostles, and to the practice of the ancient Church. So that the custom of the Apostles manifestly written and in so many places in the words of God, is no more a law to them then the practice of the ancient Church: to believe one's self obliged to this custom is a superstition reprehended in their discipline, 
Ch. 1. art. 8.  such false ideas do they frame to themselves of Religion and christian liberty.  
But why do we speak here of particular articles? The whole state of their Church is visibly contrary to the word of God.  
I do here with them term the state of the Church the society of Pastors and people which we see there established: 
Conf. de Foy art. 31.  this is that which is called the state of the Church in their confession of Faith, and they there declare that this state is founded upon the extraordinary vocation of their first Reformers. In virtue of this article of their Confession of Faith, one of their national Synods has decided, that when the question shall be concerning the vocation of their Pastors who have reform the Church, or concerning the establishment of the authority they had to reform and to teach, it must be referred, according to the XXXI. article of the Confession of Faith, to an extraordinary vocation by which God interiorly pushed them on to their ministry: yet in the mean time they neither prove by any miracle that God did push them interiorly to their ministry, neither do they prove, (which is yet more essential) by any text of Scripture that such a vocation should ever have place in the Church: from whence it follows that their Pastors have no authority to preach, according to these words of Saint Paul, 
Rom. 10.15.  How shall they preach unless they be sent, and that the whole state of their Church is without foundation.  
They flatter themselves with this vain thought, that JESUS-CHRIST has left a power to the Church to give herself a form, and to establish Pastors when the succession is interrupted; this is what M. Jurieux and M. Claude endeavour to prove without finding any thing that ressembles it in Scripture, seeing on the Contrary JESUS-CHRIST has said, As my Father sent me, 
John. 20.25.  so send I you, and Saint Paul an Apostle by JESUS-CHRIST did establish Titus so as that he might afterwards establish others, 
Gal. 1.1. etc.  
Tit. 1.5.  in such sort that the mission came wholly from JESUS-CHRIST sent from God. Behold what we find in Scripture; and what they would say at present of the authority of the people is but a mere illusion.  
The same error induces the Ministers to say the Church has the liberty to fraime Ecclesiastical government as she thinks fit; to take away or retain Episcopacy; to make Ancients and Deacons for a time, 
Ch. 3. des Anciens & Diacres. art. 6.7. & Observe.  that is to say, send them back at pleasure to a common secular life after having consecrated them to God; to give them power to decide what concerns doctrine together with the Pastors in equality of suffrages, that is to say, to admit them without being Pastors (for they are not so upon any account in the new reform) to a function the most essential to Postorall authority: all which we find in their discipline and in their Synods, without so much as one sole text of Scripture, to second them either in these or in the power itself which they vainly attribute to themselves of disposing all things according to their own fancy.  
In these matters and in many others which I could remark, they have not only no holy Scripture for them, as they are obliged: but moreover they dispense with themselves to follow it, without having neither any reason or Tradition to support them. On the contrary Tradition has always received both Extreame-Unction and the imposition of hands, (as well that which is given to all the faithful, as that which is made use of for the consecration of the Ministers of the Church, and the successive mission of her Pastors) and likewise those other things which our Reformers have despised. In this their licence is excessive; but it ought at least to render them more equitable towards us, whilst in the administration of the Sacraments the we receive for a legitimate interpreter of Scripture constant Tradition and universal practice of the Church.   

§ XII. Occurring difficultyes: vain subtilityes of the Calvinists, and of M. Jurieux: the judgement of antiquity concerning concomitancy: reverence exhibited to JESUS-CHRIST in the Eucharist: the doctrine of this Treatise confirmed.  
We should here have finish this discourse, if charity which urges us to procure the salvation of these Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformed Religion, did not oblige us to remove some scruples, which the perusal of these practices, I have related, may perchance have raised in their minds.  
It is incessantly inculcated by the Ministers, that this concomitancy, upon which we establish the validity of Communion under one species, is a mystery unknown to the ancient Church, where none ever mentioned as a matter of faith that together with the Body of our Lord, his Blood, his Soul and his Divinity were necessarily received. They add that this doctrine of concomitancy being, according to us, a necessary sequel of the real presence, it may be believed that this real presence was unhnown where they know not this concomitancy.  
The Ministers retort upon us those precautions we allege in our own behalf. We do not find, say they, in the ancient Church any of these precautions now established in these later ages for keeping the Eucharist, for exciting the people to adore it, for hindering lest it should be let fall upon that ground. This fear (add they) was no impediment for so many ages to the giving the Communion in botk kinds to all the people; and these new precautions serve for nothing but to let us see they have a different opinion of the Eucharist from that of the primitive times.  
For a conclusion they tell us, that we have given ourselves an useless trouble in proving with so much pains it is free to communicate under one or boath species, seeing all that can arise from this proof is that at last we must leave the choice to the people, and not restrain a liberty which JESUS-CHRIST himself has given them.  
But to begin with this objection which seems the most plausible: who on the other side does not see more clear than the day that it is in the power of the Church to make choice of one part in things which are free, and that when she has chosen that, it ought not to be permitted to contemn her decrees? 
Ep. ad Jan. lib. de Bapt. etc.  Saint Augustin has very often affirmed, it is an insupportable folly not to follow what has been regulated by a general Council or by the universal custom of the Church. But if our Reformers be not disposed to believe Saint Augustin in this; will they themselves allow that any one of theirs who, under pretence that Baptism was so long given by immersion, should doubt with the Anabaptists of the validity of his Baptism, and should be so obstinate as either to make himself be rebaptised, or at the least to make his children be baptised according to the ancient practice? But if he should require the Communion should be given his son but yet an infant under pretence, that it was given to little children during a thousand years, would they esteem themselves obliged to condescend to his desire? On the contrary would they not treat such an one and all like him, as unquiet and turbulent spirits who trouble the peace of the Church? Would they not tell them with the Apostre: If any one amongst you be contentious, 
1. Cor. 11.16.  we and the Church of God have not this custom; and, if they have never so little ingenuity, would they not find in this sole passage enough to make them submit to the authority of the customs of the Church? Nay further, it is certain that the ancient Church, although she baptised little infants which were presented to her, yet did not always with the outmost rigour oblige their parents to present them at that age, upon condition they baptised them when in danger; and the Ecclesiastical history lets us see many Catecumen of a more advanced age without the Church having forced them to be sooner baptised. The Pretended Reformers who believe not the necessity of Baptism, and cannot produce any divine precept which obliges it to be given to infants, are much more free in this matter. 
Discip. ch. XI. de Bapt. art. XVI. & Observat.  This freedom has it hindered the severe regulations of their Discipline, which obliges parents under the pain of the most rigourouse censures to present their little children to be baptised? Let them grant with us that the Church can make laws in indifferent matters; and if they acknowledge from so many examples that Communion under one or both species is of this kind, let them cease to cavil with us, and to give themselves an useless trouble about this matter.  
But it may be they would say, that in these practices I have related, those who communicated sometimes under one species, communicated also sometimes under the other; which suffices in the whole to accomplish the precept of our Lord: as if our Lord would at the same time inspire us with a firm faith that we lose nothing by takind one species only, and yet oblige us under pain of damnation to receive them both; a cavil so manifest that it does not merit to be refuted.  
We must therefore at length examine once again what is essential to the Eucharist, and prescribe ourselves a rule to understand it aright. This is what these Gentlemen will never do, if they come not back to our principles and to the authority of Tradition. M. 
Exam. T. VI sect. s. p. 465.  Jurieux goes too far when he proposes for a rule according to the principles of his Religion, to do universally all that JESUS-CHRIST did, in such sort that we should regard all circumstances he observed, at being of absolute necessity. These are his own words. He alleges to this purpose the ancient Passeover of the Jews, where after having cut the throat of a lamb in the morning, 
Ibid. Sect. 6.474.475.  another was to have his throat cut in the evening, to be roasted, to be eaten with bitter herbs, to be consumed the same night, and nothing of it to be reserved till the following day. He represents the necessity of all these ceremonies, and not only the substance but all the circumstances. This word of JESUS-CHRIST, Do this, makes him conclude the same of the Eucharist. So that we should be restrained, according to his principles, to all that JESUS-CHRIST did, and not only to bread and wine, but moreover to the hour, and to the whole manner of receiving it; 
Sup. 2. p. art. VI p. 296.  and the rather because (as we have seen) every one had its reason, and mystery, as well as that which Moses ordained concerning the ancient Passeover. Nevertheless how many things have we remarked which neither these Ministers nor we observe? 
Ibid.  But behold one which I omitted, and which may in this place give great light.  
Amongst other things which our Lord observed in the last Supper, one of those which the Calvinists believe as most necessary, is the breaking of the bread. The Lutherans are of a contrary opinion, and make use of round breads which they break not. This is a matter of great contest betwixt these Gentlemen. The Calvinists lay much stress upon this that the Evangelists and Saint Paul do of one common accord write that the same night JESUS CHRIST was delivered to the Jews, 
1. Cor. 11.24.  he took bread, blessed it, brook it, and gave it. They insiste much upon this breaking of the bread, which according to them represents that the Boby of our Lord was broken for us upon the Cross, and remark with great care that Saint Paul, after having said that JESUS broke bread, 
1. Cor. 11.24.  makes him say according to the Greek text, This is my Body broken for you; to show, as they pretend, the reference this Bread broken has to the Body immolated. So that this breaking appears to them necessary to the mystery; and this is it which makes those of Heidelberg say in their Catechism much esteemed by those of their party, 
Catech. Heid. qu. 75.  that as truly as they see the bread of the Supper broken to be given to them, so truly has JESUS-CHRIST been offered and broken for us.  
There was a proposal made for an accord or union with the Lutherans, 
Colloq. Cassel an. 1661.  and a conference was held for this about twenty years since, that is in the year 1661. The Calvinists of Marpourg hereupon found quickly a distinction, and in the declaration which they gave to the Lutherans of Rintell, they said, that the breaking appertained not to the essense but only to the integrity of the Sacrament, as being necessary because of the example and command of JESUS-CHRIST: so that the Lutherans ceased not to have, without this breaking of the Bread, the substance of the Supper, and thus they might mutually tolerate one another. The Calvinists have not been, that I know of, reprehended by any of theirs, and the union which was made had on their side its entire effect: in so much that they cannot hereafter insist upon the words of the institution seeing one may by their own acknowledgement have the substance of the Supper without entirely subjecting himself to the institution, example and express command of our Lord. What would they say if we should make use of such an answer? But as all is permitted to the Lutherans so all is insupportable amongst Catholics.  
The other objections carry no greater weight and are as easily solved.  
The concomitancy upon which the Roman Church grounds Communion under one species is not (say you) found in antiquity. First what I have drawn from the ancient Church to establish this Communion, is matter of fact; and if Communion under one species suppose concomitancy together with the reality, it follows from thence that both the one and the other were believed in antiquity where Communion under one kind was so frequent. Secondly, Gentlemen, open your own books, open Aubertin the most learnest defender of your doctrine: 
Aub. lib. III. p. 431. 485. 505. 539. 570. etc.  you will find there in almost every page passages taken from Saint Ambrose, 
Amb. lib. I. in Luc. Cyr. Hieros. Cat. 5. mist. Greg. Nyss. orat. Cathec. Cyr. Alex. lib iv in Joan. c. 3. 4. Chrys. hom. 51.83. in Mat. lib. 3. de Sacerd. 4. etc.  from Saint chrysostom, from the two cyril's and from many others, where you may read that in receiving the sacred Body of our Lord they received his person itself, seeing they received (say they) the King in their hands: they received JESUS-CHRIST and the Word of God; they received his Flesh as living; not as the flesh of a mere man, but as the Flesh of a God. Is not this to receive the Divinity together with the Humanity of the Son of God, and in a word his entire person? After this what would you call concomitancy.  
As for those precautions used least the Eucharist should be let fall upon the ground, there needs only a little fincerity to acknowledge they are as ancient as the Church herself. Aubertin will show you them in Origines: 
Orig. in Exod. hom. 13.  
Cyr. Hier. Cat 5. mist. Aug. 50. homil. 26. Aub. lib. II. p. 431. 432. etc.  in S. Cyrill of Jerusalem, and in Saint Augustin not to mention others. You will see in these holy Doctors (expressions strange to the ear of Reformere viz) that to let full the least particles of the Eucharist, is as if one should let fall gold and precious stones, is as if one should prejudice even his own limbs; is as if one should let slip the word of God which is annonced to us, and wilfully lose this seed of life, or rather the eternal truth it brings us.  
There needs no more to confound M. Jurieux. 
Exam. T. VI sect. 5. p. 469.  At that time, says he, that is to say in the eleaventh age when, according to him, Transubstantiation was established, they begun to think of the consequences of Transubstantiation. When men were persuaded that the Body of our Lord was contained whole and entire under each little drop of wine they were seized with a fear lest it should be spilt. If then this fear of effusion seized also our Forefathers from the primitive ages of the Church, than did they already believe Transubstantiation and all its consequences. M. Jurieux goes on: They trembled to think the adorable Body of our Lord should lie upon the ground amongst dust and dirt, without a possibility of taking it up. If the Fathers have trembled to think of it as well as they, than had they according to him the same belief. He is never weary of shewin us this fear of effusion as a necessary consequence of the belief of the real presence. 
Ibid. Sect. 7.  This reason (says he) that is to say that which is drawn from the fear of effusion, may be proper for them, that is to say for the Catholics: but it is of no account to us who do not acknowledge that the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour are really contained under Bread and Wine. You see, Gentlemen; your Ministers would fear, as well as we, this spilling or effusion, if they believed the same real presence: the Fathers then once more believed it seeing they had, as it is manifest, the same fear and apprehension.  
It is in vain that M. Jurieux scoffs at this fear. 
Ibid. 469.  In an age (says he) when men were not as they are at present ashamed to carry upon their faces the character or mark of their sex, they dipped a great beard into the sacred Cup, and carried back with them a multitute of Bodies of JESUS-CHRIST which hang at each hair. This gave them horror, and I find they had reason. This fine fancy pleased him. 
P. 485.  I am in pain (says he in another place) to conceive how the Faithful of the ancient Church dit not tremble to see so many Bodies of JESUS-CHRIST hang at all the hares of a great beard after receiving the sacred Cup. How came it they had not an horror to see this beard wiped with a handkerchief, and the Body of our Lord put into the pocket of some seaman or soldier? As if a seaman or soldier were less considerable in the eyes of God than other men. If this unseasonable buffoon had remarked in the ancient Fathers with what decency and respect they approached to the Eucharist; if he would have regarded in Saint Cyrill after what manner the faithful at this time tasted the sacred Cup, 
Cyr. Hier. Gat. 5. mist.  and how they were so far from suffering one drop of it to be lost that with respect they touched that moistness which remained upon their lips to apply it to their eyes, and the other organs of the senses which they believed to be sanctified thereby: he would have found it a thing more worthy himself to have candidly set forth this act of piety, than to make his party laugh by the ridiculous description we have now heard. But these seoffers may do their worst, their railleries can do no more injury to the Eucharist, than those of others did to the Trinity, and to the Incarnation of the Son of God; and the majesty of these mysteries cannot be debased by such discourses.  
M. Jurieux reprefents us as men who fear least there should arrive some offensive accident to the Body and Blood of our Lord. I do not perceive (says he) that he is better placed upon a white cloth then in the dust; and seeing we can behold him without horror in the mouth and stomach, we ought not to be astonished to see him upon the pavement. In effect to speak humanly and according to the flesh, the pavement is perhaps a place as much or more proper than our stomaches; and to speak according to faith, the glorious state of JESUS CHRIST at present does equally elevate him above all: but respect and decency will have it, that as far as lies in us, we should place him, where himself would be. It is man that he seeks, and he is so far from having on abhorrance from our flesh, seeing he created it, seeing he redeemed it, seeing he vallues it, that he willingly approaches to sanctify it. What ever has a relation to this use, honours him, because it has a dependence upon that glorious quality of Saviour of man kind. We do, as much as lies in us, endeavour to hinder whatever may derogate from the veneration due to the Body and Blood of our Master; and without fearing any accident should happen prejudicial to JESUS-CHRIST, we avoid whatever might show in us the least want of respect. But if our precautions cannot prevent all, we know that JESUS-CHRIST, who is sufficiently guarded by his own Majesty, is contented with our zeal, and cannot be debased by any place. A man may railly if he will at this doctrine: but we are so far from blushing at it, that we blush for those who do not remember that those railleries they make use of against our precautions reflect upon the Holy Fathers no less cautious than we. If it was fitting to augment them these later ages, it is not that the Eucharist hath been more honoured then in the first; but raither that piety being relaxed it was necessary it should be excited by more efficacious means: in such sort that these new and needful precautions; in denoting our respects, make it appear there has been some negligence in our conduct.  
For myself, I easily believe that amidst the order, the silence, the gravity of ancient Ecclesiastical assemblies, it seldom or never arrived, that the Blood of our Lord was spilt: it was only in the tumult and confusion of these last ages, that these scandals frequently arriving caused the people to desire to receive that species only which they saw less exposed to the like inconveniencies; so much the rather because in receiving it alone, they knew they lost nothing, seeing they possessed him whole and entire who was the sole object of their love.  
Nevertheless I will not deny but that after Berengarius had rejected, (in despite of the Church of his time and the Tradition of all the Fathers) the real presence of JESUS-CHRIST in this Sacrament, the belief of this mystery was (as I may say) enlivened or animated, and that the piety of the faithful, offended by this heresy, sought how to signalise itself by new testimonies. I acknowledge in this the spirit of the Church, which did not adore JESUS-CHRIST nor the Holy Ghost with such illustrious testimonies till after heretics had denied their divinity. The mystery of the Eucharist ought to be in equal proportion with the rest, and Berengarius his heresy must not serve the Church less than that of Arius and Macedonius.  
As to what concerns adoration, 
Cyr. Hier. Cat. mist. 5. Amb. lib. III. de Spir. S. c. 12. Aug. Tr. in Ps. 98. Theodor. Dial. II. Chrys. lib. VI de Sacerd. Aug lib. II. p. 432. 803. 822. Hist. Euch. 3. p. ch. 4. p. 341. & seq.  what necessity is there that I should speak of it after so many passages of the Fathers, cited even by Aubertin, and since him by M. de la Roque in his history of the Eucharist? Do not we see in these passages the Eucharist adored, or rather JESUS-CHRIST adored in the Eucharist, and adored by the Angels themselves whom Saint chrysostom represents to us as bowing before JESUS-CHRIST in this mystery, and rendering him the same respects which the Emperor's Guards rendered to their Master.  
It is true, 
Hist. Euch. III. p. ch. 4 p. 541. & seqq.  these Minister's answer, that this adoration of the Eucharist is not a souveraine adoration rendered to the Divinity, but an inferior adoration rendered to the sacred Symbols.  
But can they show us the like adoration rendered to the water of Baptism? 
Chrys. lib. VI de Sacerd. etc. Theod. loc. cit. etc. sup.  What can be answered to those Passages where it appears the adoration rendered here is like to that which is rendered to the King when present? that this adoration is rendered to the mysteries, as being in effect what they were believed to be, as being the Flesh of JESUS-CHRIST God and man? These Passages of the Ancients are formal, and till such times as our Reformers have comprehended them so far as to be convinced of it, they will at least see this inferior worship, upon which they make so many cavils; they will see a worship distinguished from the supreme worship; yet nevertheless a religious one, seeing it makes a part of the divine service, and of the reception thus of the Holy Sacraments. By justifying themselves so so concerning the Eucharist, they take from themselves all ways or means of accusing us in relation to Relics, Images, and the veneration of Saints. So true it is that their Church and Religion ressembles a ruinous structure, which cannot, as I may say, be covered on one side, without being exposed on the other, and can never exhibit that perfect integrity, and proportion of parts which compose the beauty and solidity of a building.