Licenced,  
Aug. 3. 1686.   

A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind: IN ANSWER TO A TREATISE OF THE BISHOP of MEAVX's, OF Communion under both Species Lately Translated into English.  
LONDON: Printed for Brabazon Aylmer, at the three Pigeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill. MDCLXXXVII.   

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE of the Publisher.  
THe Translator of the Bishop of Meauxes Book of Communion under both Species, having told us why he made choice of this Author, whom he styles, The Treasury of Wisdom, the Fountain of Eloquence, the Oracle of his Age, and in brief, to speak all in a word, the Great James, formerly Bishop of Condom, now of Meaux: Having thus brought forth this great Champion of the Roman Church, he makes a plain Challenge with him to us of the Church of England, in these words: If this Author write Reason, he deserves to be believed; if otherwise, he deserves to be confuted: By this I perceived he expected that we should be so civil as to take notice of so great a Man as the Bishop of Meaux, or any thing that bears his Name, and not let it pass unregarded by us, after it was for our benefit, as he tell us, made English: and besides, I did not know but some unwary persons among us might believe the reason he writes however bad; and therefore I thought he deserved to be confuted, and aught by no means to go without the civility and compliment of an English Answer. This I doubt not might have been very well spared, had the Publisher been pleased to have gone on a little further with his Work of Translating, and obliged us, who are strangers to the French Tongue, with one of those Answers which are made to de Meauxes Book in that Language, but since he has not thought fit to do that, I must desire him to accept of such Entertainment as our Country will afford him, though it is something hard, that we must not only treat our Friends at home, but have as many Strangers as they please put upon us: But we who cannot Translate so well as others, which is a much easier part than to Writ at ones own charge, must beg leave of our French Adversaries, if we sometimes speak to them in plain English, and the Bishop of Meaux must excuse me if Truth has sometimes made me otherwise answer him, then if I were a Curé in his own Diocese. Whoever has so great an opinion of the Bishop of Meauxes Virtue and Learning, as to take matter of Fact upon his word, which the Translatour's mighty Commendations were designed, no doubt, to beget in his Reader, must believe the Communion in One Kind was the Practice of the Primitive and the Catholic Church, which if it were true, would be a very great, if not sufficient excuse for the Roman. This the Bishop asserts with all the confidence in the World, and this his Book is designed to make out; and whoever will not believe it, must necessarily question either the Learning of this great Man, or else his Sincerity; I shall not dare to do the former, but his late Pastoral Letter has given too much reason to suspect the latter. He that can now tell the World, That there has been no Persecution in France, and that none has suffered violence either in their Persons or their Estates there, for their Religion; may be allowed to say, That the Primitive Church had the Communion but in one Kind, a great while ago: But the one of these matters of Fact deserves more, I think, to be confuted than the other.  
I suppose it was for the sake of the Author that the Translator chose this subject of Communion in One kind, though he says, It is a point peradventure of higher concern than any other now in debate between Papists and Protestants, this being the main Stone of Offence and Rock of Scandal, and it having been always regarded since the Reformation, as a mighty eyesore, and alleged as one sufficient Cause of a voluntary departure and separation from the Pre-existent Church of Rome. When this Pre-existent Church of Rome fell into her Corrupt, Terrestrial, and  State, among other Corruptions, this was one that gave just offence, and was together with many more, the Cause of our separating from it, That it gave the Eucharist but in one kind, contrary to Christ's Institution, and took away the Cup of Christ's precious Blood from the People: But yet this point of highest concern is, in the judgement of the Translator, but a bare Ceremony, and upon the whole matter the difference herein between the Church of England and the Roman, seems to him reducible in great measure to mere Form and Ceremony. If it be, than I hope it may be easily compromized and agreed, for I assure him I am as little as he for making wider Divisions, already too great; nor do I approve of the Spirit of those who tear Christ's seamless Garment for a mere Form and Ceremony; but we who are sometimes thought fit to be called Heretics, and to be Censured and Anathematised as differing in Essential matters from the Church of Rome, at other times are made such good Friends to it, that we differ but very little, and there is nothing but Form and Ceremony between us: But what is to Accommodate this matter, and Reconcile this difference between the two Churches? Why, the Doctrine of the Real Presence, in which, Both Churches, he says, agree, that Christ our Saviour is truly, really, wholly, yea, and substantially present in the Sacrament. This is to close up the difference not only of Communion in one kind, but of the Adoration of the Sacrament, and the Sacrifice of Mass too in the Translatour's judgement: But does the Church of England then agree with the Roman in the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body and Blood in the Sacrament? Does it not expressly say the contrary, namely, That the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here, and that it is against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one 
* Rubric after Office of Communion. . So that though Christ be really present by his Spirit and the real Virtue and Efficacy of his Body and Blood, be given in the Sacrament, yet his natutural Body is by no means present there, either by Transubstantiation or by any other way unintelligible to us, as the Translator would insinuate; so that all those consequences which he or others would willingly draw from the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament, as believed by us, do fall to the ground; and I doubt he or I shall never be so happy as to make up this great breach between the two Churches, however willing we may be to do it; but instead of making a Reconciliation between them, which is impossible as long as the Doctrines of each of them stand as they do; I shall endeavour to defend that Article of the Church of England, which not only Modern novelists, as the Translator calls those who are not for his Real Presence, and his Reconciling way; but the most learned and ancient Protestants who have been either Bishops, Priests, or Deacons in our Church, have owned and subscribed, namely, That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people, for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment, aught to be ministered to all Christian Men 
† Article 30 th'. .   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
The Reader is desired to Correct the small Errata of the Press, without a particular Account of them.   

A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind.  
THE Controversy about the Communion in One Kind, is accounted by a late French Writer upon that Subject, one of the chiefest and most capital Controversies in Christian Religion 
* Cum haec quaestio at Controversia visa sit semper in Religione Christianâ praecipua ac capitalis. Boileau de praecepto divino Commun. sub utrâque specie. p. 217. . I suppose he means, that is, in difference between the Reformed and the Church of Rome; it is indeed such a Case as brings almost all other matters between us to an issue; namely to this Point, Whether the Church may give a Non obstante to the Laws of Christ, and make other Laws contrary to his, by virtue of its own Power and Prerogative? If it may in this case, it may in all others, and therefore it is the more considerable Question, because a great many others depend upon the Resolution of it: When it had been thus determined in the Council of Constance, yet a great many were so dissatisfied, namely, the Bohemians to have the Cup taken from them, that the Council of Basil was forced, upon their importunity, to grant it them again; and at the Council of Trent, it was most earnestly pressed by the Germans and the French, by the Ambassadors of those Nations, and by the Bishops, that the People might have the Cup restored to them. The truth in this cause, and the advantage seems to be so plain on the side of the Reformation, that as it required great Authority to bear it down, so it calls for the greatest Art and Sophistry plausibly to oppose it: One would think the case were so evident, that it were needless to say much for it, and impossible to say any thing considerable against it; but it is some men's excellency to show their skill in a bad cause, and Monsieur de Meaux has chosen that Province, to make an experiment of his extraordinary Wit and Learning, and to let us see how far those will go to perplex and entangle the clearest Truth: He has mixed a great deal of boldness with those as it was necessary for him, when he would pretend that Communion in one kind was the Practice of the Primitive Church, and that it was as effectual as in both, and that the Cup did not belong to the substance of the Institution, but was wholly indifferent to the Sacrament, and might be used or not used as the Church thought fit: How horribly false and erroneous those Pleas of his are, the following Discourse will sufficiently make out; and though he has said as much, and with as much-artifice and subtlety as is possible in this cause, yet there being another Writer later than him 
† Boileau de precepto divino commun. Sub utrâque specie. Paris, 1685.  who denys that there is any Divine Precept for Communion in both kinds, and who hath designedly undertaken the Scripture part of this Controversy, which Monsieur de Meaux has only here and there cunningly interwoven in his Discourse: I resolve to consider and examine it as it lies in both those Authors; and though I have chosen my own method to handle it, which is, First, from Scripture, then from Antiquity, and lastly from the Reasonings and Principles made use of by our Adversaries; yet I shall all along have a particular regard to those two great men, and keep my eye upon them in this Treatise, so as to pass by nothing that is said by either of them, that has any strength or show in it; for my design is to defend the Doctrine of our own Church in this matter, which our Adversaries have thought fit to attaque, and to fall upon, not with their own, but the borrowed forces of the Bishop of Meaux, whose great name and exploits are  famous and renowned; but since we have all Christian Churches in the World, except the Roman, to be our seconds in this Cause, we shall not fear to defend them and ourselves, and so plain a Truth against all the cunning and Sophistry of our Adversaries, though it be never so artificially, and dressed after the French Mode.  
We will begin with Scripture, which ought to be our only Rule, not only in matters of Faith, which should be founded upon nothing less than a Divine Revelation, but in matters of pure positive and arbitrary Institution, as the Sacraments are; for they depend merely upon the will and pleasure, the mind and intention of him that appointed them; and the best, and indeed the only way to know that, is, by recurring to his own Institution; as we know the mind of a Testator by going to his last Will and Testament, and by consulting that, do best find how he has ordered those things that were of his own free and arbitrary disposal. And by this way we shall find, that the Church of Rome by taking away the Cup, has plainly violated the Institution of our blessed Saviour, and deprived the People of a considerable part of that Legacy which he bequeathed to them. Let us lay therefore before us the Institution of our Saviour, as we find it in the three Evangelists, andin St. Paul as he received it of the Lord.  
Matthew 26.26,27,28. 
JESUS took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.  Mark 14.22,23,24. 
JESUS took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave to them and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.  Luke 22.19,20. 
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.  1 Corinthians 11.23,24,25. 
The LORD JESUS, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.   
From all these it evidently appears, that our Saviour appoints the Cup as well as the Bread, and commands that to be drunk as much as the other to be eat: And two of the Evangelists remark that particularly of the Cup, which they do not of the Bread, that they all drank of it, and that Christ said expressly to them, Drink ye all of it: As if the infinite Wisdom of God which foresaw all future events, and all the after-errours that should arise about this Sacrament, had had some especial regard to this very thing, and designed to prevent the abuse and mistake of those who would not have all Christians drink of this Cup, as well as eat of the Bread. What other reason there should be of those particular and remarkable words in St. Matthew and St. Mark, relating to the Cup more than to the Bread; I believe it will be hard to find out, for Christ gave them the Bread just as he did the Cup, and there was no more danger that any of them at that time should omit drinking the one, any more than eating the other; nor did there need any greater caution that we know of, or more particular command in reference to themselves for the one more than the other; and yet no doubt there was some great and peculiar reason for St. Matthew and St. Mark's adding of those words, of which there can be no such probable account given, as their having a respect and relation to after Ages, as many other things in the Scripture have, which was written for the use, not only of the present, but all times of the Church; and if these were spoken to the Apostles only as Priests, as the Roman Sophisters pretend, though without any ground, as we shall show by and by, there cannot then be given any reason for them as yet, for there is no such corruption yet got into any part of the Christian Church, as to forbid the Priests to drink of the Cup; and therefore it cannot be said that this remark or precaution was upon their account, unless the Romanists will think fit to take it to themselves, upon the account of their not allowing their very Priests to Communicate of the Cup, unless when they Minister and Consecrate; and so will have it regard only that other abuse of theirs which is unjustifiable, even upon their own grounds, to wit, That the assistant Priests are not to receive it, though Christ by their own confession said to the Priests who were present, Drink ye all of it: Which is the best way that I know, for them to come off of those words by their own Principles. For to avoid the force of those words, and to elude the plain Command and Institution of our Saviour, about the Cup's being given to all Christians, they say, The Apostles received it only in the capacity of Priests; and that our Saviour's Command, Drink ye all of it, belongs only to Priests, and was given to the Apostles merely as such; nay, Monsieur Boileau says, 
‖ Igitur haec verba S. Matthei, bibete ex hoc omnes & haec S. Marci, & biberant ex illio omnes neminem hominem praeter duodecim Apostoles spectant aut attinent. Boileau de praecepto divino Commun. Sub utrâque specie. p. 188.  that those words in St. Matthew, Drink ye all of it, and in St. Mark, they all drank of it: Respect no man whatsoever, nor belong to no other man but to the twelve Apostles; and Monsieur de Meaux tells us, 
P. 237.  that these words were addressed to the Apostles only who were present, and had their entire accomplishment, when in effect they all drunk of it. Then it seems none but the Apostles themselves, no other Priests have a right or a command to drink of the Cup, but only the Apostles: And this they might say if they pleased, upon as good grounds, and defend with as much reason, as that the Apostles only drank of it as Priests; but I suppose they do not intent to improve this notion so far, but mean only the same with their Brethren who say, that those words concern the Apostles, not only in their own persons, but as Priests, and as bearing the persons of all Christian Priests, in which capacity alone they received the Cup and were commanded by our Saviour to drink of it; whereas they received the Bread as Laymen, and as representing the whole body of private and ordinary Christians. What a sudden change is here in the Apostles! they who sat down as Laymen, and as Laymen took the Bread just before, have their capacity altered in a trice, and are made Priests in a moment: Yes, say they, so they were, at that very time they were made Priests, whilst they were sitting at Table with Christ, and Celebrating this his last Supper; the first and only ordination that ever was, either in the Jewish or Christian Church, in the time of eating and sitting at Table. And they may set up, I dare say, for the first Authors among all the Christian Writers that ever were of this Opinion that is now held by them; That Christ at his last Supper appointed not only one, but two Sacraments; that of Orders as well as that of the Eucharist; and the first without any proper Solemnity for such a purpose, without any outward Action or any Words, one would think, importing any such thing: But they were made Priests, say they, by virtue of those words. Hoc facite, Do this; which Christ spoke to them after he had given them the Bread. This is a very short and a quick form of Ordination; and had it been known to be one sooner, for 'tis a very late discovery, I suppose the Roman Church would have kept to that in the Ordaining Priests, as they do to Hoc est Corpus, in Consecrating the Sacramental Bread: But this short form whereby they will have the Apostles made Priests so suddenly and unexpectedly, happens to be too quick, and to make them Priests a little too soon, which is a very unlucky thing for their purpose; for Christ said those words, Hoc facite, do this; just as he gave them the Bread, and spoke them in one continued sentence, with, Take, eat: this is my body; so that whether he gave the Bread severally to each of them, or they took it as it was upon the table, as it is said, they divided the Cup among themselves; it cannot be supposed, but that those words hoc facite were spoken by Christ, before the Apostles did receive the Bread, or at least before they eaten it; so that it might as fairly be pretended, and as truly, that the Apostles eaten the Bread as Priests, as well as drank the Wine as such; for they were made as much Priests by those words, before they eaten the Bread, as before they drank the Wine: If we do suppose they did receive the Bread into their hands, before those words were pronounced by our Saviour; which is the most that can be, yet they could not eat it before they were. And so this fine and subtle Hypothesis which they have invented to deprive the Laiety of the Cup, will deprive them of the Bread too, and will in its consequence, and by the same train of arguing, tend to take away the whole Sacrament from the People, and make it peculiar to the Priests, as some of the Jewish Sacrifices were, and the People shall not at all partake of the Altar, but it shall be reserved as a peculiar right and privilege of the Priests, to which the Laity ought not to pretend, because the Apostles took the Sacrament only as Priests, and were made Priests fore they either eaten the Bread or drank the Wine; this would make a greater difference and distinction between the Priests and the Laiety, and tend more to preserve the honour and esteem of one above the other. Which is the great reason they themselves give, and no doubt a true one, for their taking away the Cup from the People; and I don't question, but so great a Wit, and so eloquent an Artist in pleading, as the Bishop of Meaux is, who can say a great deal for any cause, be it never so bad, may with as good grounds, and as great a show of reason, justify if he please, the taking away the whole Sacrament from the Laiety as the Cup, and may to this purpose improve and advance this notion of the Apostles, receiving both kinds as Priests, to prove the Laiety have a right to neither, and may take off the necessity of both parts as well as one, by pretending that the real effect and virtue of the Sacrament is received some other way, by the Sacrifice of the Mass, or by Spiritual Manducation, or by some thing else without partaking any of the Symbols, as well as without partaking all of them as Christ has appointed, for if the effect and virtue of the Sacrament depend upon Christ's Institution, than both are necessary, if it may be had without keeping to that, than neither is so, but of this afterwards, when we come to examine his grounds and reasons. I shall make some Reflections upon our Saviour's Institution of this Sacrament, and offer some considerations against these pretences and Sophistries of our Adversaries.  
1. I would ask them whither those words of our Saviour, Do this in remembrance of me, do not belong to all Christians as well as to the Apostles? if they do not, then where is there any command given to Christians for to receive the Sacrament, either in both or in one kind? Where is there any command at all for Christians to Celebrate or come to the Lords Supper? or to observe this Christian Rite, which is the peculiar mark and badge of our Profession, and the most solemn part of Christian Worship? Those words surely contain in them as plain a Command, and as direct an Obligation upon all Christians to perform this Duty to the end of the World, as they did upon the Apostles at that time; or else we must say with the Socinians, That the Sacrament was only a temporary Rite, that belonged only to the Apostles, and was not to continue in the Church, or be observed by all Christians in all Ages: But St. Paul says, 
* 1 Cor. 11.26.  we do hereby show, or declare the Lord's death till he come, by this solemn way of eating Bread broken, and Wine poured out; we are to remember Christ who died for us, and is gone into Heaven, till he come again, when we shall live with him, and enjoy his Presence for ever: Christ has given a command to all Christians to do this, and they are to Do this in remembrance of him; they are as much obliged to this, as the Apostles were; and the command does as much belong to the People, to receive the Sacrament, as to the Apostles, or to their Successors to give it them. The Apostles and Christian Priests are hereby commanded to do their parts, which is, not only to receive, but to dispense and distribute the Sacrament; and the People or Christian Laiety, are commanded to do theirs, which is, to receive it: The Apostles are to do that which Christ did, to Bless the Bread and break it, and give it to be eaten; to bless the Cup, and give it to be drunk by the Communicants; and the Communicants are to eat the Bread and drink the Cup: and if they do not both of them do this that belongs to them, and perform those proper parts of their Duty, which are here commanded them, they are both guilty of an unexcusable disobedience to this plain command of Christ, Do this in remembrance of me. No body ever denied that those words, and this command of Christ, belonged to the Apostles; but to say they belong to them alone, and not to all Christians, is to take away the Command and Obligation which all Christians have to receive the Holy Supper.  
2. This command of Christ, as it obliges all Christians to receive the Sacrament, the Laiety as well as the Clergy, so it obliges them to receive it in both kinds; and as it obliges the Clergy to give the People the Sacrament, so it obliges them to give it in both kinds; for the command of Doing this in remembrance of Christ, belongs as much to one kind as the other; and is as expressly added concerning the Cup, as concerning the Bread; for so it is in St. Paul ‖ beyond all contradiction, and to the unanswerable confusion of our Adversaries, who would pretend it belongs only to the Bread; Bellarmine observing these words in St. Luke, to be added only after the giving of the Bread, for they are in neither of the two other Evangelists, falls into a mighty triumph, and into a most Religious fit of Catholic Devotion, admiring the wonderful Providence of GOD, 
* Mirabilis est providentia Dei in sanctis literis, nam ut non haberent haeretici justam excusationem, sustulit eis omnem tergiversando occasionem: Nam Lucas illud, Hoc facite, posuit post datum Sacramentum. Sub specie panis, post datum autem calicem illud non repetivit, ut intelligeremus jussisse Dominum ut sub specie panis omnibus distribueretur Sacramentum, sub specie autem vini non utrem. Bellarm. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 4. c. 25.  that to take away all Heretical Tergiversation, this should so happen, that it might be plainly understood, that the Wine was not to be given to all, and that this command did not belong to that, but only to the Bread: But this shows how overhasty he was to catch at any thing, though by the plainest mistake in the World, that might help him in his straits, and how over-glad to find any thing that might seem to favour and relieve him in his distressed cause; and how his zeal and forwardness out run, not only his judgement, but even his memory; for if he had but turned to St. Paul, and had but thought of this passage in him, where he adds these very words, Do this in remembrance of me, to the Cup as well as to the Bread, it would have quite spoiled his mighty Observation, and made him ashamed of it, and not have suffered him to be guilty of so horrid a slip. But the Bishop of Meaux espied this, 
† P. 255.  as it is hard to miss it; and what way has he to put by the force of those words, which so undeniably belong to the Cup, as well as the Bread? He says, They import only a conditional order, to do this in remembrance of Christ, as often as one shall do it? and not an order absolute to do it. But does not this conditional order imply an absolute one, to do it often; and virtually forbid the not doing it at all? if he had gone on but to the very next verse, would he not have found that St. Paul gives the same conditional order concerning eating the Bread, as both here and there concerning drinking the Cup? As often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do show forth, or do ye show forth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Lord's death till he come, And do not those words, though spoke conditionally of the Bread, yet absolutely order the eating of it, when we received the Sacrament? if they do, as sure no body will deny, than they as well absolutely order the drinking the Cup too, when we do so, Affirmative precepts, such as this is, oblige us not absolutely at all times, as when ye pray, when ye fast, are only conditional commands; but yet they import an absolute command to perform those duties, and when we do so, to perform them so as Christ has appointed us to do: and thus we have an absolute precept in the Gospel, to receive the Sacrament, which he is very willing we should not have, 
‖ P. 256.  and when we do so, we are to receive it as Christ commanded we should, by eating Bread, and drinking Wine, and doing both those in remembrance of him.  
3. Christ's own Institution, had there been no such particular Commands to Drink, as well as to Eat, and to Do both in remembrance of him; I say, his own Institution of the Sacrament, both by Bread and Wine, should suffice, methinks, to show us what we should do, when we Celebrate the same Sacrament that he did; namely, use both Bread and Wine; and eat and drink it as was done then; if it be the same Sacrament that he celebrated with his Disciples, why do not we celebrate it as he did? why should we not observe his own Institution? but without any order from him, and contrary to what he did, leave out part of it; and that part of it which is as considerable and as remarkable in his Institution, as the other? If from the bare Institution of Christ, all Christians are bound to receive this Sacrament, which surely they are; then from thence they are bound as much to drink the Cup, as to eat the Bread; for both are equally instituted. If the Institution, for of that I speak now, as 'tis in St. Matthew and St. Mark, without the additional command of Do this; if that do not oblige to drink the Cup, neither does it oblige to eat the Bread; for that is no more in the Institution than the other: And if the Church has such a power as to take away the Cup, notwithstanding the Institution, it may have a power to take away the Bread too, notwithstanding the Institution; for the one is as much in the Institution as the other; and if the Cup be not an Essential part of the Sacrament, which is the other thing they say, and which the Bishop of Meaux insists on, which I shall examine afterwards: then neither is the Bread, so far as appears by the Institution, and so neither of them may be necessary, and both of them may be taken away, notwithstanding Christ's own Institution of both. Which, though it be the most presumptuous boldness, and the most horrid Sacrilege that can be, yet shall I say no more to it at present, but what St. Cyprian does upon the like case, of those who would omit the Wine in the Sacrament, and use water instead of it. 
‖ Quod si nec minimademandatis Christi licet solvere, quanto magis tam magna tam grandia tam ad ipsum dominicae passionis & nostrae Redemptionis Sacramentum pertinentia fas non est infringere aut in aliud quam quod divinitùs institutum sit, humanâ institutione mutare? Cyprian ep. 63. ad Caecilium.  But if it be not lawful to lose any one of the least Commands of Christ; how much more is it not lawful to infringe so great and so weighty ones? and such as the very Sacrament of our Lord's Passion, and our Redemption; and to change it by Humane Institution into quite another thing, than what it is by Divine Institution.  
4. The reason added by our Saviour, to his Institution, and Command of, Drink ye all of it; 
* Matth. 26.28.  for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you; as in St. Luke, for many; as in St. Matthew and St. Mark, for the remission of sins: This shows the Cup, not only to have a peculiar use, as well as the Bread, and a particular mystical relation to his Blood shed or poured out; but that it belongs to all those to drink of it, for whom Christ's Blood was shed; who are to have remission of sins by it, and who have a right to the new Covenant which Christ has purchased and established in his Blood; which I suppose, are the Christian Laiety, as well as the Priests; though I do not think with Bellarmine 
† Dispute de Euch. l. 4.  that all Turks and Infidels ought to have the Cup, because Christ's Blood was shed for them too; but I presume, he will not say, they have the same right to it, or interest in it, that Christians have; and yet I own they ought as much to have the Cup, as they ought to turn Christians, that is, they ought to do both: But yet, first I think to become Christians, and be Baptised, before they have ordinarily a right either to Christ's Blood, or to the Sacrament; and it must seem very strange, and grate very much upon all Christian ears, to have it said, that Turks and Infidels have a right to the Cup and Blood of Christ, as well as Christians, from this reason here of our Saviour to his Disciples, concerning which it is, I think, very observable, that to partake of the Sacrificial Blood, and to drink that Sacramentally, which was shed for the expiation of our Sins, is a peculiar and extraordinary privilege allowed to Christians. The Jews were forbid all blood, for this reason given by God himself, 
‖ Levit. 17.10,11.  For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls: The life of the Beast which was given, and accepted by God, for the life of the Offender, that was forfeited by the Law, was supposed to be in the Blood; as 'tis there added, the life of the flesh is in the blood, and therefore the Blood of the Sacrifice was poured out, and so given to God at the Altar; the peculiar virtue and atonement of Christ's Sacrifice is attributed to his Blood, We have redemption through his blood, 
* Eph. 1.7.  We are justified by his blood. 
† Rom. 5.9.  In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, 
‖ Coloss. 1.14.  And without shedding of blood, either under the Law or under the Gospel, there was no remission to be had 
* Heb. 9.22. . Now for Christians to partake and Communicate of that Blood in the Sacrament, which was shed and sacrificed for them, and by which they have atonement and expiation of Sins, this is a peculiar favour, and singular privilege, which Christ has vouchsafed to Christians, and which he takes notice of at his Institution of this Sacrament, Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins. The Author of the Treatise de caenâ Domini, in the Works of St. Cyprian 
‖ Nova est hujus Sacramenti doctrina, & scholae Evangelicae hoc primum Magisterium protalerunt, & doctore Christo primum haec mundo innotuit disciplina, ut biberent sanguinem Christiani, cujus esum legis antiquae auctoritas districtissimè interdicit, Lex quippe esum sanguinis prohibet, Evangelicum praecipit ut bibatur.  has remarked this, as first brought in by Christ, and as a new thing belonging to the Sacrament of the Gospel, That Christians should drink Blood, which the old Law did absolutely forbid, but this, says he, the Gospel commands; and St. chrysostom 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Homil. 18. in 2 Cor.  observes, It is not now as it was formerly, when the Priest eaten of that which the People might not partake of; but now one Body and one Cup is offered to all. So it was it seems in his time, and they had not then learned the way of drinking the Blood, by eating the Body, which now they pretend to do in the Church of Rome; we do, say they, partake of the Blood and the Body both together, for the Blood is in the Body, and necessarily joined with it; but besides, that, this depends upon that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, upon which, this and a great many other things are built, when it is yet too heavy and ruinous to bear its own weight; yet this cannot here do the business, for we are to drink the Blood, and not to eat it, that is, we are to partake of it, as separated from the Body, as shed for us, or else it is not a Sacramental partaking of it; we are to receive Christ's Body as it was a Sacrifice for us, but it was not a Sacrifice but as the Blood was poured out and separated from it, and we cannot any other way partake of the Sacrificial Blood, which is to be drunk by all Christians.  
5. It is a most groundless fancy, and an Opinion perfectly precarious, to suppose the Apostles were made Priests, at our Saviour's Institution of the Sacrament, by those words, Hoc facite, and that they received the Cup only as Priests. None of the Ancients who writ upon this Sacrament, or upon these words of its Institution, ever thought so; nor did it ever enter into the head of any man, till a few late Schoolmen invented this new subtlety, that they might have something to say against the clearest cause, and to shift off, if they could, the plainest Evidence in the World; and though they now generally take up with this Sophistical Evasion, which Monsieur Boileau 
† Creavit & instituit Sacerdotes his verbis hoc facite. p. 189.  insists upon, yet some of the wisest men among them are ashamed of it: Estius owns, that this appears not at all solid, nor agreeable to ancient Interpreters, 
* Nobis parum, solidum videtur nec apud veteres interprete. Dist. 12. §. 11.  and confesses, that Hoc facite, belongs to the common People eating and drinking of this Sacrament, and that St. Paul refers it to them 
‖ Et Paulus 1 Cor. 11. illud facere etiam ad plebem refert edenter, & bibentem de hoc Sacramento, quando ait hoc facite, quotiescunque . Suarez acknowledges, it is not convincing 
† Hoc argumenti genus per se non convincere. Disp. 74. Tom. 3. . And Alfonsus à Castro 
* Contra haeres. Tit. Euch. p. 99  would not make use of it, because he says, it does not appear, whether those words were spoken by Christ before, or after he gave the Eucharist to the Apostles, and he rather thinks after, and that they took it not as Priests 
* Ib. . He was ware of a difficulty, if the Apostles took the Cup only as Priests, and by the right of Priests, at the first Institution, than it would be contrary to that, to have any but Priests receive the Cup: And then, why is it ever given to the Laiety, as it is sometimes by the Pope's favour and concession; if it belong only to Priests, and the Priests only have right to it, from the first Institution, because the Apostles received it only as Priests? But so inconsistent are they to their own Principles, that they do not give the Cup, even to their Priests, unless when they themselves Consecrate and Officiate: None but the Minister Conficiens is to receive that, though never so many other Priests be by, so much at variance are they, between this their pretence, and their own practice, and so do they fight, even with their own shadows; if the Apostles received the Cup as Priests, Why then do not all Priests receive it, as well as the Priest who Consecrates, if only he that Consecrates be to receive it, then by this rule, the Apostles should not have received it at the first Institution, for they did not then Consecrate? Christ was then alone, the Minister Conficiens, and so according to them, he ought only to have received it, and not the Apostles, and yet 'tis most probable that Christ did not himself receive either the Cup, or the Bread, so that if they will keep close to this whimsical Notion of theirs, the Minister Conficiens is not to receive at all, but to Consecrate and give to the other Priests that are present; but further, if the Apostles were made Priests by those words, Hoc facite, which they so earnestly contend, and spend so much Critical learning to show that facere signifies to Sacrifice, than they were twice made Priests at the same time, for those words were said by our Saviour, as St. Paul Witnesses, not only after giving the Bread, but repeated again also after the Cup, so that the Apostles were doubly Consecrated, and the Character of Priests, was twice Imprinted upon them at the same time, which is another difficulty with which they must be encumbered according to their own principles, for though this Opinion be wholly Imaginary, yet like the Nightmare, 'tis a real weight lying upon them, and I shall leave them to sweat under it, and get it off as well as they can.  
6. Whatever be the effects and benefits which we receive by partaking of this Blessed Sacrament, they depend upon the Institution of it, and are not ordinarily to be had without observing of that; I say ordinarily, because Cases of Necessity dispense with positive precepts, as if a sick man cannot swallow the Bread, about which there is a Provision in the Eleventh Council of Toledo, if the natural Infirmity of another's Stomach be such, that he cannot drink Wine, which the French Discipline speaks of, and which Monsieur de Meaux 
† P. 181.  makes an Objection against them, if the place be such that no Wine is to be had or procured, as in Norway where Pope Innocent the Eighth allowed them to Celebrate without Wine; in those extraordinary Cases, God has not so tied the inward Grace to the outward Sign, but that he can give it without it; as if a Catechumen willing and desirous of Baptism, die without it, because he could not have it, yet the Church has always supposed he may have the benefit of it, and so I charitably hope that the Pious and Religious Laiety in the Church of Rome, shall have the benefit of the Blood of Christ, though they are deprived of it in the Sacrament, and through the mere fault of their Governors, and of their Priests, are excluded from it, and forced to violate the Divine Institution, which is all that Calixtus and others which Monsieur de Meaux 
‖ P. 277.  is willing to take advantage of, charitably allow, as not being willing to exclude any one for Salvation, for what he cannot help; but this is no manner of prejudice to the cause that we defend, and no excuse in the World for breaking the Institution of Christ, and altering his positive precept without any necessity, for though God can give the inward Grace, and no doubt, but he will do it in extraordinary Cases without the Sacrament, without either the whole, or any part of it, yet, he will not ordinarily do this, nor is it ordinarily to be had, or to be expected, without keeping to that Institution, by virtue of which, God has annexed, and promised such inward virtues, and benefits to such outward signs, and holy Symbols, and Ceremonies, which he himself has appointed; and therefore, though God, if he had pleased, might have annexed the whole virtue and effect of the Sacrament, to the eating the Bread, or to the drinking the Wine alone, or might have given it without either of them, yet he having by the Institution, appointed both parts of the Sacrament, hath annexed the grace and virtue to both, and not to one only. Monsieur de Meaux, will needs have the whole fruit, and virtue, and essential effect of the Sacrament, to be given by one species, which is the great principle he goes upon, which I shall more fully examine afterwards, but if the virtue and essential effect depend upon the Institution, and it can depend upon nothing else, and if both species be instituted by Christ, as I have shown, than the virtue and effect depends upon both species, and not upon one. Monsieur de Meaux asks. Whether in the very moment, the Body of our Lord is received, all the effects be not likewise received 
* P. 328. ? I answer No, because all that is required in the Institution, is not then received. He farther asks, Whether the blood can add any thing essential? I answer Yes, because that also is in the Institution; if one of the Apostles had stopped our Saviour, when he had given them the Bread, and told them this was his Body, and asked him this very question, I ask, whither he thinks this would have hindered him from going on with the Cup, because they had already received the whole virtue and effect of the Sacrament without that; and nothing essential could be added by that? Christ, it seems by the Institution, did go on to the Cup, after he had given the other species, and to say, he did not give any essential virtue, or efficacy by the Cup, is an unwarrantable boldness, and blasphemous impudence, which may as well deny, that he gave any by the Bread; this is to make the Cup a very empty sign, and naked figure, devoid of all inward virtue and efficacy, and to serve as de Meaux would have it, only for Representation, and a more full and express Signification 
* P. 176. , in which he joins us to the Cup, with those his Adversaries, who have the meanest thoughts of the Sacrament, and indeed, it is to make the Cup wholly superfluous, and unnecessary, as to the conveying or exhibiting any real Virtue, or inward Grace, which is to be received thereby, and as Monsieur de Meaux is forced to own, when he answers that demand, to what purpose then, was the Institution of both species 
‖ P. 179. ? to make it only a more full Image, and Representation of the Sacrifice of Christ, but not to give us any of the virtue or efficacy of it.  
Christ, he says, cannot separate the virtue, or effect, that any other Grace should accompany his blood, than the same in ground and substance which accompanies his body 
† P. 182. , but he can make the whole Virtue and Grace accompany and depend upon both the Sacramental Body, and Sacramental Blood together, and so he has done by his Institution, according to which, the Sacramental Grace is not to be expected ordinarily, without both; but he may deprive those Persons wholly of this, who violate his Institution, and who receive not both species, as he has appointed and commanded tehm; which is a very dreadful consideration, which should make men afraid to dare to alter any such thing as Christ's own Institution, upon which the whole virtue of the Sacraments does depend.  
7. 'Tis from the Institution of the Sacrament, that we know what belongs to the substance of it, and is essential to it, and what is only circumstantial and accidental: I own there were several things, even at the Institution of it by Christ, which were only circumstantials; as the place where, the time when, the number of persons, to whom, the posture in which he gave it; for all these are plainly, and in their own nature, circumstantial matters; so that no body can think it necessary or essential to the Sacrament, that it be Celebrated in an upper Room, at night after Supper, only with twelve persons, and those sitting or lying upon Beds, as the Jews used to do at Meals; for the same thing which Christ bids them do, may be done, the same Sacramental Action performed in another place, at another time, with fewer or more persons, and those otherwise postured or situated; but it cannot be the same Sacrament or same Action, if Bread be not blessed and eaten, if Wine be not blessed and drunken, as they were both then blessed by Christ, and eaten and drunk by his Apostles: The doing of these is not a circumstance, but the very thing itself, and the very substance and essence of the Sacrament; for without these we do not do what Christ did, whereas we may do the very same thing which he did, without any of those circumstances with which he did it: Thus in the other Sacrament of Baptism or washing with water, whether that be done by washing the whole body in immersion, or by washing a part of the Body in sprinkling, is but a circumstance, that is not necessary or essential to Baptism, but to wash with Water, is the very thing in which Baptism consists, and the very substance of the Sacrament which is essential and unalterable; the quantity of Water with which we wash is not, no more is the quantity of Bread and Wine which we eat and drink in the Sacrament but eating Bread and drinking Wine is as essential to the Eucharist, as washing with Water is to Baptism. Monsieur de Meaux betrays the great weakness of his Cause, and his own inability to defend it, when to take off the Argument from the Institution, he says, 
* P. 168.  We do not give the Lord's Supper at Table, or during Supper, as Jesus Christ did, neither do we regard, as necessary, many other things which he observed. And when he recurs to Baptism 
† P. 173.  as if by not using immersion, we did not observe the Institution of that Sacrament, when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so plainly signifies washing with water, without plunging or immerging, as Mark 7.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, except they are washed or baptised when they return from the Market, they eat not, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washings of Pots, and of Cups, Mark 7.4.8. and in the washing of the dead, and divers washings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Jews, Hebrews 9.10. which were without any plunging or immerging, as is sufficiently made out by all Authors, against the Anabaptists: A great man, must be mightily put to his shifts, when he is fain to use such poor cavils, and such little evasions as these, against a plain command, and a clear Institution; where to drink is as evidently commanded, as to eat, and where it is equally commanded to do both; and where it appears that doing both those in remembrance of Christ, make up the very substance and essence of what was done, and commanded by him, in the Institution. The matter of the Sacraments is certainly of the substance of them; Why else might we not Baptise without Water as well as perform the Eucharist without Bread and Wine? This the Schools are unanimously agreed in, and this was the Argument of St. Cyprian, against the Aquarii, who used Water instead of Wine; of Pope Julius against other Heretics, who used Milk; and of Thomas Aquinas, against the Artotyritae, who offered Bread and Cheese together in this Sacrament; they tell them, that 
† Excluduntur per hoc quod Christus, hoc Sacramentum instituit in pane. Aquinas Part 3. Quest. 24.  Christ Instituted this Sacrament in another Element, 
‖ Nulli lac sed panem tantùm & calicem sub hoc Sacramento noscimus dedisse. Julius P. apud Gratian de Consecr.  that he did not give Milk, but Bread and Wine in this Sacrament; and that 
* Admonitos nos scias ut in chalice offerendo Traditio observetur, neque aliquid fiat à nobis quàm quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecerit, nemini fas est ab eo quod Christus Magister & praecepit & gessit humanâ & novellâ institutione decedere.  they ought to observe the Divine Tradition, neither aught any thing to be done, but what was first done by our Lord; for it is not lawful for any by any Humane and Novel Institution, to departed from what Christ our Master commanded and did; and that this was a sufficient confutation of them, that they did not do that which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Author and Teacher of this Sacrifice, both did and Taught 
‖ Non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus Deus noster Sacrificis hujus Auctor & Doctor fecit & docuit. Cypr. Ep. 63. . They all suppose it necessary to use the Elements which Christ used and appointed, and that because of his Institution, by which it plainly appears, what belongs to the Essence and Substance of this Sacrament, to wit, Eating of Bread and drinking Wine blessed, in remembrance of Christ. It must be a very strange thing sure, to make these to be but circumstances in the Sacrament, and to doubt whether they do belong to the substance and essence of it, and to pretend that we cannot know this from the Institution. Monsieur de Meaux, could not have done this in earnest, had he not considered the cause he was to defend, more than the Institution of Christ; in which, no man that will not shut his eyes but must see what belongs to the Essence and Substance of the Sacrament.  
It is no less boldness to say, as Monsieur Boileau 
‖ P. 191.  and others do, though de Meaux was too wise to offer any such thing in all his Book. That Christ himself varied from his own Institution after his Resurrection, and gave the Sacrament to some of the Disciples at Emmaus, under the one Species of Bread. And that the Apostles after his Ascension, and the sending of the Spirit upon them, Celebrated the Eucharist together with the whole Multitude of Believers, only in Bread. It will be very strange if the Apostles, the very first time they gave the Sacrament, should be found to break Christ's Institution and Command about it, which were so very plain; if St. Peter and the rest of those holy men did this, I shall never blame the Church of Rome, nor any of his Successors for doing it afterwards, and if they did it just after they were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and had that in such a Miraclous manner given unto them; I shall conclude, it was not the office of that blessed Spirit to bring all things to their remembrance which Christ had said unto them, as he told them it should be, but to teach them things quite contrary to what he had a little before commanded and appointed them: And it will be more strange if Christ himself, after his Resurrection, should give the Sacrament in another manner than he had done four days before. Let us therefore examine those places from which all these strange things are pretended, and see if any such matter is to be found in them, which I confess, will be very surprising, if they be: As to the first, St. Luke tells us, Chap. 24. That the same day Christ was risen, two of the Disciples, the name of one of which was Cleophas, going to Emmaus, a Village near to Jerusalem; Christ, as they were Communing together about him and his Resurrection, drew near, and went along with them, and discoursed to them about those things, as a person unknown; and going into a House and sitting at meat with them, he took bread and blessed it, and broke, and gave to them, v. 30. Here, say they, Christ gave the Sacrament, and gave it only in Bread, for he took bread and blessed, and broke, and gave to them; which are the very words used at his giving his last Supper: But must Christ always be supposed to give the Sacrament whenever he took bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to others? Then he did so when he filled the five thousand with five Loaves and two Fishes, for than he looked up to heaven and blessed, and broke the loaves, and gave them to others, Mark 6.41. Mat. 14.19. And so he did when he filled four thousand at another time, he took the seven loaves and gave thanks, and broke, and gave to his disciples to set before them, Mark 8.6. Here though he blessed the Bread, and gave thanks, as was always the custom of Pious and Religious Men, at their ordinary meals, and though he broke the Bread, which is a Jewish phrase for distributing and giving it; yet it cannot in the least be pretended, that in any of these places he gave the Sacrament, nor is there any manner of reason to suppose he did so at Emmaus, with these Disciples, but to satisfy them of the truth, of himself and his Resurrection; he took meat with them, as he did afterwards with the Eleven Apostles, and by his behaviour at Table, and by his form of Blessing, which was probably the same he used at other times, and by thus seeing and conversing with him more intimately at Table, they came to understand who it was, and their eyes were opened, and they knew him, or as is v. 35. he was known to them in breaking of bread; that is, in eating with him, not that any thing miraculous or extraordinary was here shown by Christ, or wrought upon them, any more than was to the Apostles afterwards, to whom he shown himself likewise, and took meat with them, to give them full satisfaction, that it was the same person who was Crucified, and who was risen with the same Body he had before; or if they were illuminated, and their eyes opened in an extraordinary manner at that time; yet it was not necessary this should be done by the Sacrament, of all the virtues of which, the opening men's eyes, and curing them of Infidelity, is the least to be ascribed to it, since it is only to be taken by those who do believe, and whose eyes are opened before, though this may sometimes be applied to it, by way of Allegory and allusion, as it is by St. Austin, Theophylact, and others, who make the Pool of Bethesda; and the curing of the Lame and the Leprous by a word, to be as much Sacramental as they do this that is to have some signification or resemblance to Spiritual things: But there is not one Father or ancient Interpreter, who does plainly affirm, that Christ did here give the Sacrament, to those Disciples at Emmaus: The Bread which Christ blessed, was no more truly made a Sacrament thereby, than the House of Cleophas, was dedicated into a Church by Christ's presence and Divine Discourses there; which, yet it might be, according to St. Hierom's words, without any administering of the Sacrament, of which that place quoted out of him, makes no mention: 
Boileau, p. 192.  But if it must be supposed without any Authority, and without any Reason, that Christ did here give the Sacrament, it must also be granted, that he did something more, than is related in that short account, which is there given; he must not only have blessed and broke the bread, and given it to them, but he must have done it with those words, This is my body; which, they say, are always necessary to the true Consecration of this Sacrament: And if he may be supposed to have used those, though they are not mentioned, which is a good argument to prove it was not the Sacrament, but only an ordinary Meal; then we may as well suppose, that at the same time he used Wine too, though that is not mentioned, and though we have no account of any Drink, which yet we cannot but think they had at that Supper let it be what it will: eating together and sitting at meat, includes and supposes drinking too, though there is no particular or express mention of it: As in the  
2. Second place in those several instances, out of the Acts of the Apostles, wherein it is said of the first Converts to Christianity, that they continued in breaking of Bread, and in Prayer 
† Acts 2.42. , and in breaking Bread, from house to house 
‖ Acts 2.46 , and that they came together on the first day of the Week, to break Bread 
* Acts 20.7. , which I am willing to allow, may be meant of the Sacrament, though a great many Learned men, think they belong to the charitable and friendly way of living among those first Christians, who had all things in common, and who came to eat together, at the same time that they came to pray, and contrived these daily meetings, for Worship and Refreshment, in the same house, for greater conveniency: Yet, that they did not drink together, as well as eat, and that by an usual Synecdoche, both those are not included in the Phrase of breaking of Bread, is not to be imagined, Bread was a word, by which, not only amongst the Jews, but all Nations, all manner of food, and nourishment necessary to life, was signified; as being the most considerable part of it, so that we mean this when we pray for our daily Bread, and when we say a man wanteth Bread, and so to break our Bread to the hungry, Isa. 58.7. and by the young children's ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them. Lament. 4.4. the same is imported. To break Bread, was an usual Hebrew expression, for giving all manner of food, as appears by those instances, so that when Bread, which is but one part of food, is expressed; yet the other is included and meant also, as when Christ went into the house of one of the chief Pharises to eat bread, Luke 14.1. we cannot suppose that he had only such a dry Banquet, as not to drink with him too, and when Joseph told the Steward of his house, that he should prepare an entertainment for his brethren, for they are to eat with me at noon, Gen. 43.16. hodie sunt mecum comesturi, as in the vulgar, he did not I suppose, think they were not to drink with him too, and that he was not to provide Wine, as well as other Victuals, neither did Joseph's own Brethren, suspect he would send them away dry and thirsty, when they only heard that they should eat bread there v: 25. Notwithstanding this alone is mentioned, yet they met with plenty of Wine too, as may be seen at the latter end of the Chapter, where in the vulgar Latin it is said, Biberunt & inebriati sunt cum eo.  
The Greeks thought Wine and Drinking so considerable a part of the Feast, that they called the whole, from that one part, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet when they thus drank together at their Entertainments, they did no doubt eat too; though, if we will as strictly insist upon the phrase, and not allow a Synecdoche here, as well as in the Jewish one, of breaking or eating Bread, we must make their Feasts to be all of Liquids', and the other all of Solids: But the phrase is so clear and so usual, that nothing could make men deny its being so, but their being willing to stick to any thing, however weak and little it be, that seems in the least to favour a bad cause, which is forced to call in the help of a Phrase, used in a short History, and that against its usual meaning, to combat with a plain Command and clear Institution; I would only ask these Gentlemen, and Monsi. Boileau, with whom I am especially concerned, whither he does not think the first Christians, when they met together to break Bread, allowing thereby, it was to receive the Sacrament, did not also at the same time feast together at their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & whether those were not joined with the Sacrament, and whethese also are not meant here, and included in their breaking of Bread together? Which I think, he or any one versed in Antiquity, will not deny. And if so, he must either say, that at those Love-feasts they used no Wine or Drink, because none is expressly mentioned here; though it is plain they did in the Church of Corinth, even to excess; or else, that this Jewish phrase of breaking Bread, is to be here taken, as it is in other places, by a Synecdoche, for both eating and drinking together, and that either at the Lord's Table or at any other. But in the  
3. Third place, I have an undeniable Argument to prove, either that this must be so meant, or else that the Sacrament cannot be meant, either in these places or any other, where there is only mention of Bread, without Wine: For it is universally owned by all the Popish Writers, as well as by all others, that to the making a Sacrament, there ought to be both the Species Consecrated, though they are not both given: So that in this, says Boileau, 
† Hoc enim convenit nobis cum Protestantibus, semper debere sacerdotes Eucharistiam conficere sub utraque specie. p. 207.  we agree with the Protestants, that the Priests always ought to Consecrate the Eucharist in both kinds; and Monsieur de Meaux, 
‖ P. 182.  when he pretends, that he finds upon several occasions, in Antiquity, the Body given without the Blood, and the Blood given without the Body; which I shall examine by and by, yet confesses, that never one of them was Consecrated without the other; and it would be Sacrilege, says Valentia, 
* Si enim una species absque alterâ conficiatur, Sacrilegium committitur. De usu Sacram. c. 13.  if one Species were Consecrated without the other; and after they are Consecrated, Bellarmine 
† Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei sumptio necessariaestex parte Sacramenti de Euch. c. 4.  owns, That the sumption of both Species is necessary to the Priests who Consecrate, and that upon the account of its being a Sacrament; as well it seems as both aught to be Consecrated to make it a Sacrifice. Now in all these places of the Disciples at Emmaus, of those in the Acts, of St. Paul at Troas, which is another but too slight to be particularly considered, there is no mention of any thing but breaking Bread, not one word said of any other Species, either as consecrated, or as received by any one: So that if these places do prove any thing for Communion in one kind, they prove as much for Consecration in one kind, and for the sumption of one kind, even by the Priest that consecrates. So that as it was wisely declared in the Council of Trent, 
‖ Soave's History of the Count of Trent. l. 6.  These places, and the reasons from them, must be laid aside, because by them it would be concluded, that it was not Sacrilege to Consecrate one kind without the other; which is contrary to all the Doctors and meaning of the Church, and overthroweth the distinction of the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrifice, and as it is a Sacrament. So that Monsieur Boileau's strongest Argument, is too high charged, and recoils upon himself and his own Church; and his friends are obliged to take it out of his hands, lest he do more harm to them by it, than execution upon his enemy. But he is a bold man, that dare face the mouth of a Cannon, who dare undertake to prove the Communion in one kind, out of the eleventh Chapter of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians; which is such a perfect demonstration against it, that a man must outface the Sun, who offers at any such thing.  
St. Paul, as the best and truest means to correct the abuses got into the Church of Corinth, about the Eucharist, recurs to the Institution which he received from Christ himself, and which he delivered to the Church of Corinth; in which there is so full an account of both the species, and such a command of both, as is sufficient to show the Apostolical practice conformable to the Institution of Christ, and to let us see what Tradition they left in their Churches about it. Had there been any difference between the Priests and the People's receiving the Bread and Wine; St. Paul, who wrote to the Laiety, would no doubt have taken notice of it, and told them their respective duties; but he delivers the Institution to them, just as Christ did to his Apostles; says not a tittle of their not being to receive the Cup, but on the contrary, adds that command to it, which is in none of the Evangelists, Do this in remembrance of me; Gives not the least intimation, that this was given to the Apostles as Priests, or that they were made Priests then; but what is observable, does not so much as mention the Apostles, or take any notice of the persons that were present at the Institution, and to whom the words, Do this, were spoken. So, that so far as appears from him, they might be spoken to other Disciples, to ordinary Laics; nay, to the women who might be present at this first Sacrament, as well as the Apostles; and so must have been made Priests by those words, Hoc facite, as well as they. After the recital of the Institution, in which he observes no difference between the Priests and Laics; he tells the Faithful of the Church of Corinth, that as often as they did eat this Bread and drink this Cup, they shown forth the Lord's death, till he come: So that they who were to show forth Christ's death, as well as the Priests, were to do it both by eating the Bread and drinking the Cup; and, indeed, one of them does not show forth his death so well as both; for it does not show his Blood separated from his Body. He goes on to shew'um the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking, for he all along joins both those Acts, as a phrase, signifying the Communion; and he expressly uses it no less than four times in that Chapter: But in some Copies, say they, instead of and, he uses the particle or, in the 27 v. Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink this cup unworthily: and here Monsieur Boileau would gladly find something for either Eating or Drinking, without doing both; which is such a shift and cavil, as nothing would make a man catch at, but such a desperate cause as has nothing else to be said for it: If the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or, were used in that place instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and, yet he has but little skill either in Greek or Latin Authors, who knows not that it is the commonest thing in both, to use that disjunctive for a copulative; as, to Abraham or his seed, for to Abraham and his seed 
‖ Ro. 4.13. : Of which it were easy to give innumerable instances, both in the Bible and profane History: The Apostle having used the copulative in all other Verses, and all along in this Chapter, and having joined eating and drinking, cannot be supposed here to use a disjunctive, and to separate them; but after all, there are Copies of as great Credit and Authority for the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though I think no such weight bears upon the difference of these particles, as to make it worth our while to examine them; for if the Apostles did disjoin them, it was only to lay a greater Emphasis upon the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking, which though they both go together, yet are both very great Sins; and I see no manner of consequence, that because a man may both eat and drink unworthily, that therefore he should only eat, and not drink at all; or that the Apostles supposed it lawful to eat without drinking, or drink without eating.  
But the Apostolical practice, and the Institution of our Saviour, for Communion in both kinds, though it be very plain and clear in Scripture, and being founded upon so full a Command, and a Divine Institution; I know no Power in the Church to alter it, or vary from it; yet it will be further confirmed, and strengthened by the Universal Practice of the whole Christian Church, and of the purest Ages after the Apostles, and by the general consent of Antiquity, for a thousand years and more after Christ; in which I shall prove the Eucharist was always given to all the Faithful, who came to the public Worship; and to the Communion in both kinds, without any difference made between the Priests and the Laiety, as to this matter, which was a thing never heard of in Antiquity, nor ever so much as mentioned in any Author, till after the Twelfth Century; in which wretched times of Ignorance and Superstition, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being newly brought in, struck men with such horror, and Superstitious Reverence of the sacred Symbols, which they believed to be turned into the very substance of Christ's Body and Blood; that they begun to be afraid of taking that part which was fluid and might be spilt, each drop of which they thought to be the same blood that flowed out of the side of Christ, and the very substantial Blood that was running in his Veins, and now by a miraculous way, was conveyed into the Chalice. Hence at first, they used Pipes and Quills to suck it out of the Cup, and some used intinction or dipping of the Bread in the Wine; and afterwards the same superstition increasing, they came to leave off, and abstain wholly from drinking the Cup; which was reserved only to the more sacred lips of the Priests, who were willing to be hereby distinguished from the more unworthy and profane Laiety. The Council of Constance, first made this a Law, in the Year 1415, which was before a new and superstitious custom, used only in some few places, and got by degrees into some particular Churches of the Latin Communion, (for it never was in any other, nor is to this day) of which we have the first mention in Thomas Aquinas, who lived in the Thirteenth Age, and who speaks of it thus faintly in his time, 
* 
In aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur ut solus sacerdos communicetsanguine, reliqui vero Corpore.  
Comment. in Johan. c. 6. v. 53.   In some Churches it is observed, that only the Priest Communicates of the blood, and others of the Body; 
† In quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur sum. p. 3. q. 80.  In quibusdam & in Aliquibus Ecclesiis; shows that it was then but creeping into a few particular Churches, and very far from being generally observed in the Western Parts. And that it was quite otherwise in the whole Primitive Church, for above a thousand years, who in all their assemblies kept to our Saviour's Institution of both kinds, and never varied from what Christ and his Apostles had commanded and delivered to them; as the Church of Rome now does, I shall fully prove, that so, according to Vincentius Lirinensis his rule, against all manner of Heresies, the truth may be established, First, 
‖ Primo scilicet divinae legis auctoritate, tum deinde Ecclesiae catholic traditione.  by the authority of a divine Law, and then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church; which Tradition being well made out, does more fully explain the Law, and show the necessity of observing it: The Universal practice of the Catholic Church, being a demonstration how they understood it, contrary to the new Sophistry of our Adversaries, and how they always thought themselves obliged by it; And because none are more apt to boast of Tradition, and the name of the Catholic Church upon all accounts, than these men; I shall more largely show, how shamefully they depart from it in this, as they do, indeed, in all other points of Controversy between us; and how they set up the Authority of their own private Church, in opposition to the Universal, as well as to the Laws of Christ, and Practice of the Apostles: Their Communion in one kind is such a demonstration of this, that we need no other to prove this charge upon them; and as I have showed this to be contrary to the Institution, and command of Christ, and the writings of the Apostles, so I shall evidently make it out, to be contrary to the whole Primitive and Catholic Church, in all Ages; and this 

First, From the most ancient Rituals, or the earliest accounts we have, of the manner of celebrating the blessed Eucharist in Christian Churches.  
Secondly, From the most ancient Liturgies.  
Thirdly, From the Testimony and Authority of the Fathers or ancient Writers.  
Fourthly, From some ancient Customs.  
Fifthly, From the Custom still remaining in all Christian Churches of the World, except the Roman.  
Sixthly, From the Confession of the most learned of our Adversaries.    
1. From the most ancient Rituals, or the earliest accounts we have of the manner of celebrating the blessed Eucharist in the Christian Church; The first and most Authentic of which, is in Justin Martyr's second Apology, where he describes the public Worship of Christians upon Sundays, according to its true Primitive Simplicity; and as to the Eucharist which was always a part of it, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Justin Martyr Apolog. 2.  There was brought, he says, Bread and Wine with water (according to the custom, I suppose, of the Greeks and Eastern Countries, who generally drank their Wines so mixed) and these being offered to the chief Minister, he receiving them, giveth Honour and Glory to the Father of all things, through the Name of the Son and the Holy Ghost, and rendereth thanksgiving to him for these things; and having finished his Prayers and giving of Thanks, to which the People that were present join their Amen: The Deacons give to every one that is present, to partake of the blessed Bread, and Wine and Water; and to those that are absent, they carry them. Having discoursed of the nature of this Sacramental food, and shown the Institution and design of it, out of the Gospel, and from the words of our Saviour; he again repeats their manner of Celebrating, in the same words almost which he had used before, and says, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. propè finem.  That the distribution and participation of what is blessed by the Precedent, is made to every one; which every one belongs plainly to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that just goes before. Nothing is more evident, than that all the Elements were given to the People, and to every one of them; and no man, I think, ever had the impudence to question this, or make the least doubt of it, before Monsieur Boileau, who, if ever he read this place, may be ashamed to say as he does, 
‖ Haec Sti. Justini verba perperàm assumuntur ad concludendum verè & castigatè, aetate sancti Martyris Eucharistiam plebi administratam fuisse sub utraque specie. Boileau de praecepto divino Commun. sub utraque specie. p. 215.  That it cannot be truly and strictly concluded from hence, that the Eucharist was Communicated to the People under both kinds, in the Age of this Holy Martyr. And what man of modesty or creticism, besides Monsieur Boileau, would have observed that both the Elements were not then carried to the absent? which Monsieur de Meaux 
* In the example of S. Justinus, the two Species, 'tis true, were carried. p. 112.  owns were, though it is plainly said they carried the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same things that were blessed, and that those who were present did partake of; yet it is not said, that they 
† Non dicit ta conjunctìm vel alternatìm ad absentes perserunt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sed tantummodò ad absentes perserunt. Ib. p. 214.  carried both together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He might as well have pretended that though they carried, yet they carried nothing at all: And they that make such answers to such plain places, had, I am sure, better say nothing at all.  
Next to Justin Martyr, St. Cyril of Jerusalem gives us the fullest account of the manner of Celebrating the blessed Eucharist, in his Mystagogic Catechisms, they are called; wherein having discoursed of all the Christian Mysteries, to those who were newly Baptised, and so fit and capable to be instructed in them, he comes at last to the highest Christian Mystery, that of the Lord's Supper; and in his fifth Catechism largely describes the performance of it, with a great many more particular Ceremonies and Forms of Prayer, than were used before: And having told his young Christians, in the foregoing Homily 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril. Catech. Mystag. 4. , That in the Species of Bread, is given the Body of Christ, and in the Species of Wine, his Blood; that so by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, he may become one body and one blood with him; he bids him come with firm Faith and great Devotion; and tells him how he should receive the Holy Bread very particularly, and directs him to the very posture of his Hands and Fingers; and afterwards, he as particularly, order him how, and in what manner, he should come to receive the Cup 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. Catech. 5.  of the Lord's Blood, not stretching out his hands, but bending, and in the posture of worship and adoration, and whilst the moisture is upon his lips 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. , he bids him take it with his finger and touch his eyes and forehead, and other parts, and so sanctify them: However superstitious that was, for I cannot but think this use of the Sacrament to be so, as well as many others, that were yet very ancient; it is plain that the newly baptised Christians did then receive the Eucharist in both kinds, and were commanded 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib.  to come to receive the Cup, and to drink of the Wine, as well as to partake of the Bread.  
To St. Cyril, who lived towards the latter end of the fourth Century, I shall join the Apostolic Constitutions, as they are called, which I suppose, not to be ancienter; and in these in one place 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Constit. Apostol. l. 2. c. 57 , The Sacrifice or Eucharist, is ordered to be celebrated; the People standing and praying silently, and after the oblation, every order, (to wit, of young and aged, of men and women, into which they were ranged before at their Religious Assemblies, as appears in that Chapter) severally and by themselves, take the body and blood of Christ; and when the women do it in their order, they are to have their heads covered 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. ; So that 'tis plain all orders, both of Men and Women, were to receive both the Body and Blood; In another place 
† L. 8. c. 13.  where is a more perfect account of the Eucharistic solemnity, and of the Prayers and Ceremonies used in it; at the latter end he describes the order, in which they Communicated, first the Bishops, than the Presbyters and Deacons, and other Inferior Orders, than the Religious Women, the Deaconesses, the Virgins, the Widows and their Children; and after that, the whole People with great Reverence, and without any tumult or noise; The Bishop gives the Bread saying. The Body of Christ, and he that receives it, says Amen: The Deacon gives the Cup, and says, The Blood of Christ, the Cup of Life; and he that drinks it, says Amen. And when they have all Communicated, both men and women, the Deacons take the remainders and carry them into the Pastophory or Vestry.  
St. Dennis the Areopagite, I put after all these, because I doubt not, but that the Book under his name, was later than any of them; there is this passage of Celebrating the Eucharist, in those Books of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, the Priest praying that all, who partake of the Sacrament, may do it worthily, The Bread which was covered and whole, he uncovers and divides into many parts, and the one Cup he divides to all 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dyonies. Eccles. Hierar. c. 3. p. 103. ; and afterwards, he speaks particularly of the Priests first taking himself that which he gave to others 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. , and mentions nothing else taken by him, than what the others do partake of.  
I shall to these add, the famous Ordo Romanus, which de Meaux calls the ancient Ceremonial of the Roman Church, neither the time, nor the Author of it is certainly known; it concerns not me to inquire whether it belong to the Eighth or the Eleventh Age, which is upon other accounts a dispute between the Reformed, and Roman Divines; I suppose it to be made at several times, and to have had several Additions made to it by several Popes, one after another; for all Missals and Eucharistic forms were at first very short, and afterwards increased by further compositions: Pope Gregory, who had the greatest hand in it, speaks of one Scholasticus, who composed the Prayer to be said over the Oblation 
†  precem quam Scholasticus composuerat, super oblationem diceremus. Greg. l. 7. ep. 64.  before him; who that Scholasticus was, Strabo and Berno, and the other Writers upon the Ordo Romanus, have owned themselves ignorant, and other Learned men have anxiously enquired; the Learned Colomesius thinks it as clear as the light that this was Pope Gelasius 
‖ Ex quo meridianâ luce clariùs patet quis fuerit Scholasticus ille Gregorio M. l. 7. ep. 64. laudatus. Colomesius in Paralipom. ad Chartophyl. Eccles. verb. Gelasius. : But whoever were the Authors of it, and whensoever it was composed, as we now have it, it is sufficient to my purpose, that the Communion is there distributed in both kinds; and the manner of it is thus prescribed; 
* Deinde venit Archidiaconus cum calice ad cornu altaris— & refuso parum in calicem de scypho inter manus acolyti accedunt primùm Episcopi ad sedem ut commmunicent de manu Pontificis secundum ordinem; sed & Presbyteri omnes ascendunt ut communicent, ad altar. Episcopus autem primus accipit calicem de manu Archidiaconi & stat in cornu altaris ut confirmet sequentes ordines; Deinde Archidiacono accepto de manu illis ealice, refundit in scypho & tradit calicem subdiacano regionario, qui tradit ei pugillarem cum quo comfirmet populum— Quos dum confirmaverit— Postea Episcopi communicant populum & post eos Diaconi confirmant,— Presbyteri jussu Pontificis communicant populum, & ipsi vicissim comfirmant, nam mox ut Pontifex caeperit communicare populum— psallunt usque dum communicato omni populo etiam in parte mulierum. Ordo Romanus p. 6. Edit. Hittorp. Paris.  Then cometh the  with the Cup at the side of the Altar,— and pouring a little into the Chalice out of the Flagon, in the hands of the Acolyte, the Bishop's first come to their Seat, that they may Communicate from the hand of the Pope, according to their order; and the Presbyters also ascend to the Altar, that they may Communicate: the Bishop first takes the Cup from the hand of the , and stands at the side of the Altar, that he may confirm the following orders; then the  taking the Chalice from his hand, pours it again into the Flagon, and gives the Cup to the regionary Sub-deacon, who gives him a hollow Pipe, with which he may confirm the people,— Whom, when he hath confirmed,— afterwards the Bishops communicate the people, and after them the Deacons confirm them;— the Priests by the command of the Pope, communicate the people, and they also confirm them: for as soon as the Pope gins to communicate the people, the Antiphone gins, and they sing till all the people have communicated, even on the women's side. However Rome has thought fit of late to departed from their own Ordo Romanus; yet there is a very remarkable story of one of their own Popes, Pope Martin the Fifth, who, after the Council of Constance, did in a solemn Office at Easter, Communicate the people in both kinds, according to the Roman Order; which was not so altered and changed at that time, as it was afterwards: Cassander in his Consultatio 
† Martinus Sanctus etiam post tempora Constantiensis synodi in solenni Paschae officio, juxta praescriptum ordinis Romani universum populum corpore & sanguine D ●. communicasse legitur. Consult. de Com. subutr. , and Lindanus in his Panoplia 
‖ Martinus ipse P R 5. utramque legitur Romae administrasse speciem, quod non de Diacono, Pontificis Administro accipiendum est sed ut populo. Lindan. Panoplia. l. 4. c. 56. , are both positive Witnesses for this matter of Fact, which is not only considerable in itself, but a clear Argument of the late change and alteration, both of the old Roman Practice, and the old Roman Order.  
2. The most ancient Liturgies that are described, and Celebrate the Communion in both kinds: So That 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  under the name of St. Peter, represents all the people, as partaking of the divine, pure, heavenly, quickening, tremendous Mysteries; and this Prayer or Thanksgiving is used for them all, 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lyturg. Petr. in Biblioth. Patr.  Blessed be God who has vouchsafed us to partake of his immaculate Body, and his most precious Blood. That under the name of St. James, after the Prayer of the Priest, that the holy Spirit coming and sanctifying the Elements, would make them become the Body and Blood of Christ, that they may be effectual to all that receive them for remission of Sins 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lytur. Jacob. Ib.  (which word all, supposes more than the Priest who Consecrates) represents the Deacons, after the communion of the Clergy, as taking up both the Patens and the Chalices to give to the people 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. ; and after they had received of both, the Deacons and the People both give thanks to Christ, because he has vouchsafed them to partake of his Body and of his Blood 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. . The Lyturgy which bears the name of St. Mark, describes the Priest as praying for all those who were to communicate, that they might be worthy to receive of those good things which were set before them, the immaculate Body, and the precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus christ 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lyturg. Marci. Ib. ; and using these words in his Prayer of Consecration over the Elements, That they may become available to all those who partake of them to Faith, Sobriety 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. , and Christian Virtues: Which had been very improper, if none but himself had been to partake of them: So that whatever Antiquity, and whatever Authority, may be allowed to those Liturgies, who go under the names of those Apostolic Saints, the advantage of them is wholly for the Communion in one kind. And those Churches who used these Liturgies, and so probably ascribed these Names to them, as Jerusalem, that of St. James, Alexandria, that of St. Mark; these must be acknowledged to have given the Communion in both kinds, as anciently and as certainly as it can be proved, or may be supposed that they used these Liturgies: But to come to the more Authentic Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, which are now used in the Greek Churches, though both the time and the Authors of these may be very questionable; yet with all their present Additions and Interpolations, there is a manifest proof in both of them, for the Communion in both kinds: In the former, the Priest thus prays for himself and all the Communicants, that we all, who partake of one Bread, and one Cup, may be united together into the Communion of one holy Spirit, and that none of us may be partakers of the Body or Blood of Christ, to judgement or condemnation 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lyturg. Basil. ; so that it was plain he did not communicate of the Bread or Cup alone, nor was alone partaker of the Body or Blood of Christ; in another Prayer he mentions the people expressly, and begs of Christ that he would vouchsafe, by his great power, to give unto them his pure Blood, and by them, that is, by the Priests, to all the People 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. . And as the Priest thus prays for the People, and for others before the Communion, so he offers up a Thanksgiving for them afterwards in these words: We give thee thanks, O Lord our God, for the participation of thy holy, pure, and heavenly Mysteries, which thou hast given us, to the benefit, sanctification, and health, both of our Souls and Bodies: Do thou, O Lord of all things, grant unto us, that this may be the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ to our sincere Faith 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. . In the liturgy of St. Chrysostom, the Priest having prayed God to make this Bread the precious Body of Christ 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lyturg. Chrysost. Savil. Edit. Tom. 6. ; which is an expression the Church of Rome will by no means allow, and that which is in the Cup, his Blood 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. ; that so they may become to those who partake of them, for the cleansing of the Soul, the remission of Sins 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. , and the like: And having used that Prayer, Vouchsafe to give us this pure Body and Blood, and by us to all the people. He gives the Deacons both the Bread and Wine, and uses particular expressions at the giving of each, As this hath touched thy Lips, and will take away thy Sins, and purge away thy Wickedness 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. : and then afterwards the Deacon having the Cup, speaks to the people to draw nigh in the fear of God, and in Charity 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. : And though there is no particular description of their Communion, as there is of the Deacons, yet this is only an Argument that it was the same; and had it been different, no doubt, there would have been an account of it: but after all, the Priest makes a general Thanksgiving, in the name of all, Blessing God, that he has vouchsafed us this day his heavenly and immortal Mysteries 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. p. 1003. . To confirm this observation of the Communion in both kinds, from the Lyturgy of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom; Cassander in his Liturgies tells us, 
* Lyturgia Aethiopum sententia orationum & ordine actionis fere cum Graecorum Chrysost. & Basilii Lyturgiis convenit. Lyturg. per G. Cassand.  That the liturgy of the Aethiopians agrees with these two, both in the prayers, and the orders of the performance; and in this the people, as he informs us, pray towards the conclusion, That God would bless them who have received the sacred Body and the precious Blood 
† Populus sub finem, benedic nos Domine servos tuos qui sanctum corpus & pretiosum sanguinem sumpsimus. Benedictus sit qui dedit sanctum corpus & pretiosum sanguinem. Gratia sit Domino qui dedit nobis corpus suum sanctum & pretiosum sanguinem suum. Ib. ; and blessed be God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Blood. And again, Thanks be to God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Blood. As to the Liturgies of the Latins, which they call Missals, they have received such Additions and Corrections at Rome, as was necessary to make them suit with the present Opinions and Practices of that Church; but yet we have many of those which have escaped that usage, and which contain the Communion in both kinds, as appears by the Codices Sacramentorum, published at Rome by Thomasius, where the Gelasian Form, that is older than the Gregorian, speaks of the Priests communicating alike with the sacred Orders, and with all the People 
‖ Post haec Communicate sacerdes cum ordinibus sacris cum omni populo. P. 199. , without any difference, and all along mentions both the Symbols, by the words, Sacramenta, Mysteria, Dona, in the plural number; and concludes with this Prayer, That as many as have taken the Body and Blood of Christ, may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace 
*  quotquot ex hâc altaris partici patione sacrosanctum silii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti & gratiâ repleamur. p. 198. . The three other are lately published by Mabillon, and were used very anciently in the Gallican Church, before that Nation had received the Roman Office; in all which also, there are plain evidences for the Communion in both kinds; in the old Gothic one, after the Lord's Prayer follows this, 
† Libera nos à malo Domine Christ Jesus, Corpus tuum pro nobis crucifixum edimus & sanguinem sanctum tuum bibimus; fiat nobis corpus sanctum tuum ad salutem, & sanguis sanctas tuus in remissionem peccatorum hìc & in aeternùm Missale Gothico-Gallicanum apud Mabillon de Lyturg. Gallic. p. 300.  Deliver us from evil, O Lord Jesus Christ, we have eaten thy Body crucified for us, we have drunk thy holy Blood, which was shed for us: Let thy sacred Body be unto us for Salvation, and thy sacred Blood for the remission of Sins, here and for ever. And in the Missa Dominicalis, after the Communion, there is this Prayer, Thy body, O Lord, which we have taken, and thy Cup which we have drunk, let it stick in our entrails 
‖ Corpus tuum Domine quod accepimus, & calicem tuum quem potavimus haereat visceribus nostris. Ib. p. 297. . An expression used now in the Canon Missae. In the Missale Francorum, which is but short, the Sacramenta and Mysteria, and Sacrosancta Mysteria, are used in the plural, which may denote the two parts of the Sacrament; but in the old Gallican Missal, it is as plain as can be in the Collect after the Eucharist, We have taken from the holy Altars, the body and blood of Christ, our Lord and our God: Let us pray that we being always filled with Faith, may hunger and thirst after Righteousness 
* Sumsimus ex sacris altaribus Christi Domini & Dei nostri corpus & sanguinem— oremus ut semper nobis fide plenis esurire detur ac sitire justitiam. Ib. p. 331. . And in another Collect, after the Communion upon Easter day, We beseech thee, O Lord, that this wholesome food and sacred drink, may bring up thy Servants 
† Quaesumus Domine famulos tuos salutaris cibus & sacer potus instituat. Ib. p. 366. . There are several old Missals produced by Menardus, at the end of his Notes on Gregory's Sacramentary, which are supposed to be written about the Tenth and the Eleventh Century; and though the Doctrine of Transubstantiation creeping in, in those dark and ignorant times, made them begin to have a superstitious fear of spilling the Wine, and so brought them, in order to prevent that, to mix the two Elements together; yet they never gave the one without the other, as appears in all those Masses. The Sacramentary of St. Gregory is alone a sufficient Authority for Communion in both kinds, in which the Priest who Celebrates, prays, that as many as shall take the sacred Body and Blood of thy Son, may be filled with all heavenly blessings 
‖ Quotquot ex hâc altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti repleamur. Gregor. Sacram. ; and we who take the Communion of this holy Bread and Cup, are made one body of Christ 
* Ipsi qui sumimus Communionem hujus sancti panis & calicis, unum Christi corpus efficimur. Ib. . So that the Body and Blood of Christ were plainly to be taken, by more than himself, and were so by all the Faithful, who were thereby to be made the Body of Christ; so we are fed with his flesh, we are strengthened by his blood 
† Cujus cane pascimur, reboramur & sanguine. Ib. . Thou hast refreshed us with the body and blood of thy Son 
‖ Corpore & sanguine fi two tui nos resecisti. Ib. ; and we beseech thee that we may be numbered amongst his members, whose body and blood we do Communicate 
* Quaesumus, ut inter ejus membra numeremur cujus corpori communicamus & sanguini. Ib. . I have before considered the Ordo Romanus, as an ancient Ritual of the Latin Church; and both that and the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, which are the most ancient Writings, at lest next to Gelasius, that give us an account of these things in the Roman Church, do bear witness to the custom of giving the Cup in the Communion, as well as the Bread; which Cassander also observes 
† Quem morem sanguinis Domini porrigendi & antiqua Sacramentaria B. Gregorii & libellus Ordinis Romani apertè testantur. Cassand. Consult. de commun. sub utrâque. , who had as great skill as any man in these matters, but yet had not seen the Gelasian Sacramentary, since published out of the Queen of Sweden's Library, which is a further confirmation of this.  
3. As to the Testimony of the Fathers or ancient Writers, some of those have been already given upon the two former heads; I shall add several others to them, who bear witness to the Communion in both kinds: Ignatius in one of his Epistles says, One Bread is broken to all, one Cup is distributed to all 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph. . And here I cannot but admire the Confidence and Folly of Monsieur Boileau 
* De solitario pane mentionem facit Ignatius. Boileau de precept. Divin. Commun. sub utrâque. p. 216. , who brings this very passage, One Bread is broken for them all, as a proof that it was only the Bread that was given, and leaves out what is immediately added, One Cup is distributed to all; which not only confutes, but shames him. 
† Quomodo dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire, & non percipere vitam, quae à corpore Domini & sanguine alitur. Iren. l. 4. c. 34.  Irenaeus says, The flesh is fed by the body and blood of Christ, and that of the Cup and the Bread, the substance of our flesh is increased and consists 
‖ Quando ergo mixtus calix & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christ, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia; quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei, qui est vitae aeterna, quae sanguine & corpore Christi nutritur, & membrum ejus? Id. l. 5. c. 2. ; And from hence, he there proves the Resurrection of the Body, against those Heretics that denied it, because the body is nourished by the blood and body of Christ, and is made a member of him. He must mean this of the Bodies of all Christians, unless the Resurrection of the Body belong only to the Priests, as well as the Cup. Tertullian upon the Resurrection, says the same with Irenaeus, Our flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ 
* Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur. Tertul. de Resur. carnis. : And in his Book to his Wife, he speaks of her taking the Cup, in two several places 
† 
De cujus manu desiderabit? dè cujus poculo participabit? Id. ad uxor. l. 2. c. 6.  
De cibo, de poculo invadere, desiderare in ment habere. Id. c. 4.  . Upon one of which, a very learned Critic of the Roman Church, who owns those places to belong to the Communion, has made this observation to our hands, At that time the Supper of the Lord was Celebrated in both Species 
‖ Sub utrâque specie illo tempore canvivium Domini celebratur, quod tantâ aviditate arripiebatur ut illud invadere, desiderare, in ment habere. De la Cerda Not. in locum. p. 634. ; Even to Women it seems, who, I suppose, were no Priests. Origen upon the Book of Numbers, says, We drink the blood of Christ Sacramentally in the Eucharist, as well as Spiritually, by believing his Doctrine 
* Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi non solùm Sacramentorum ritu se & cum sermones ejus recipimus. Quis est iste populus qui in usu habet sanguinem bibere? Origent. homil. 16. in Num. : When he had before asked, What people drink of Blood? St. Cyprian admonishes Christians to prepare themselves for the hardest encounters, as the Soldiers of Christ, Considering that for this very purpose, they every day drink the Cup of Christ's Blood, that so they may also shed their blood for Christ. 
Gravior nunc & ferocior pugna imminet ad quam parare debent milites Christi, considerantes idcirco se quotidiè calicem sanguinis Christi bibere, ut possint & ipsi propter Christum sanguinem fundere. Ep. 58. ad plebem Thiberitanam. Edit. Oxon.  And he pleads for giving the Communion to the lapsed, upon this very account, to arm and fortify them for farther trials and persecutions; How can we teach or provoke them to shed their blood for the confession of Christ, if we deny them the Blood of Christ 
‖ Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confession nominis sanguinem suum fundere, si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus? aut quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idoneos facimus, si non eos prius ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure communionis admittimus? Ep. 57 ad Cornel. ? Or how can we make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdom, if we do not first admit them to drink the Cup of the Lord, in the Church, by the right of Communion? The excellent Epistle 
* Ep. 63. Caecilio fratri.  of that Holy Martyr, against those, who out of a principle of abstaining wholly from Wine, or lest they should by the smell of Wine, which they had drunk in the Morning-Sacrifices, discover themselves to be Christians, used Water in the Eucharist instead of Wine, 

Simili modo & calicem,— quod si & à Domino praecipitur, & ab Apostolo ejus hoc idem confirmatur & traditur— hoc faciamus quod fecit & Dominus; invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatum nisi eadem quae Dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus & calicem Dom. pari ratione miscentes à divino Magisterio non recedamus. Ib.  
Quod nos obandire & facere oportet, quod Christus fecit & faciendum esse mandavit. Ib.   is so full a demonstration that the Wine ought always to be taken in the Sacrament, and that Christ's Institution and Command could not otherwise be observed; that there needs no other Arguments, but what that great Man there uses, to show the necessity of Christians Communicating in both the Species of Bread and Wine; 

Quare si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemus attendere, quod alius ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid, qui ante omnes est, Christus prior fecerit. Ib.  
Quomodo autem de creaturâ vitis notum vinum cum Christo in regno patris bibemus, si in sacraficio Dei Patris & Christi vinum non offerimus, nec calicem Domini dominicâ traditione miscemus? Ib.   Christ, says he, gave the Cup, and we are to do that which Christ did, and aught by no means to departed from what was commanded by Christ, and delivered by the Apostles, upon any custom or pretence whatsoever. How shall we drink, says he, of the fruit of the Vine with Christ, in the Kingdom of his Father, if we do not now offer the Wine in the Sacrifice, and mingle the Cup of the Lord as he delivered it to us. And that this Wine was drunk by all Christians, is plain from that fear which some had, lest by their drinking it in the morning, they should smell of it 
* Nisi in sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis veretur, ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi. Ib. p. 155. , and so discover themselves to the Heathens: It was than it seems a mark to know Christians by, That they did smell of the blood of Christ: which if they had done as the Papists now do, they need not have been afraid of. But to proceed to others, who, though they speak less of this than St. Cyprian, yet speak plainly of Christians taking the Blood as well as the Body: Athanasius speaking of the Cup, says, It belongs to the Priests of right, to give this to the People 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apolog 2. . St. Basil in one of his Epistles says, It is good and profitable to Communicate every day of the Body and Blood of Christ 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ep. ad Caesar. : And speaking of the peculiar Virtues of Christians, asks, What is proper to those that eat the Bread and drink the Cup of the Lord 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. Moral. ? denoting that to belong to all Christians. St. Chrysostom in his Oratorian manner, speaks of Christians, as being all Died and Purpled with the Blood of Christ 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De Sacerdot. l. 3. : And thus compares all Christians in general with the Israelites, As thou eatest the Body of Christ, so did they Manna; as thou drinkest the Blood of Christ, so did they Water out of the Rock 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. Homil. 23. in 1 Cor. . And in another place he expressly observes, what I have taken notice of before, That 'tis not now as under the Jewish Law, where the Priest partook of several things from the Altar, which the People did not: There is no difference between the Priest and the People, when we come to receive the Holy Mysteries; for one Body and one Cup is offered to all 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. in Homil. 18. in 2 Cor. . St Hierom says, The Priests serve the Eucharist, and divide the Blood of the Lord among the People 
* Sacerdotes Eucharisticae serviunt, & sanguinem Domini populis ejus dividunt. Hieron. in Sophon. c. 2. . And upon occasion, speaks of some lose and vicious Women, who yet would not abstain from the blood of Christ 
‖ Ebrietati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt, Absit ut ego me à Christi sanguine abstineam. Id. Ep. ad Eustoch. . So that this, it is plain, was taken by the Women. St. Austin to the newly Baptised Christians, says, That in all their trials and their time of being Catechumen, they did approve themselves, that they might eat the Lord's Body, and drink the Cup 
*  cum seipsos probaverint, tunc de mensâ Domini manducent, & de chalice bibant. August. de fide & Oper. . And speaking of the prohibition of Blood to the Jews, because it was offered in Sacrifice; but from taking the Blood of the Sacrifice of our Lord, no one, says he, is not only forbidden, but all are exhorted to drink of it, who will have Life 
† Ab hujus sacrificii sanguine in alimeatum sumendo non so 'em nemo prohibetur, sed ad bibendum omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam. Id. in Levit. qu. 57 . I might easily bring down the like clear authorities of ancient Writers much lower, even to the times of the very Schoolmen, who are the first that ever mention any thing about the Communion in one kind: But that I may not over-load myself or my Reader, I shall only offer one or two more of much later date, but yet more considerable, to our Adversaries at least, because they believed Transubstantiation, but had not it seems improved it into that consequence, which Superstition afterwards did, of Communicating in one kind: Paschasius Ratbertus, Abbot of Corbey, was the very Parent of Transubstantiation, and the first founder of that Doctrine, in the Ninth Century; yet in the same Book, in which he broaches that new Opinion, he fully and plainly asserts the old Practice of the Communion in both kinds, The Priest, says he, consecrates by the power of Christ, and performs the part of Christ, between God and the People; he offers their Prayers and Oblations to God, and what he hath obtained of God, he renders to them, by the body and blood of Christ, which he distributes to every one of them 
‖ Caeterum sacerdos quia vices Christi visibili specie inter Deum & populum agere videtur, infert per manûs Angeli vota populi ad Deum & refert, Vota quidem offered & munera, refert autem imperata per Corpus & sanguinem & distribuit singulis. Paschas. de Corpore & sanguine Domini. c. 12. . Those Singuli must be the People, whose Prayers the Priest offered, and to whom he distributed the Blood as well as the Body of Christ; and to show further, that the Blood was given in the Sacrament, not to the Priest only, but to the People, he most expressly says, That when Christ gives the Sacrament by the hands of the Ministers, he says also by them, Take, and drink ye all of this; as well Ministers as all the rest that believe, This is the cup of my blood of the new and everlasting testament 
* Et ideo hic solus est qui frangit hunc panem, & per manus ministrorum distribuit credentibus, dicens, Accipite & bibete ex hoc omnes tam Ministri quam & reliqui credentes, hic est calix sanguinis mei novi & aeterni testamenti. Ib. c. 15. . Then which words there could nothing have been said, that does more directly destroy the late pretence of our Adversaries, of the Cup's being given, and belonging only to the Priests, or Ministers, and not to all the Faithful, or the Reliqui Credentes: But he still goes further, as to this matter, and makes the partaking of the Blood to be necessary to Salvation in another Chapter, It is manifest, says he, 
† Constat igitur & liquet omnibus quòd in hâc mortali vitâ sine cibo & potu non vivitur, sic itaque ad illam aeternam non pervenitur, nisi duobus istis ad immortalitatem nutriatur. Ib. c. 19  that in this mortal life we cannot live without meat and drink, so therefore, likewise can we not come to eternal life, unless we are spiritually nourished with those two unto Immortality: and speaks of the Cup in the very next words. To him I shall add Algerus, a very zealous defender of Paschasius his Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and as hearty agreeing with him in the practice and necessity of Communicating in both kinds, Because, says he, we live by meat and drink, that we can want neither, therefore Christ would have them both in his Sacrament 
‖ Vnde etiam quia potu & cibo ita vivimus ut alterutro carere nequeamus, utrumque in Sacramento suo esse voluit. Algerus de Sacramento l. 2. c. 5. : And as he redeemed both our body and our soul, by his body and blood; so, he argues, 
* Nos qui corpore & animâ perieramus, corpus per corpus, & animam per animam, Christus redimens,— simul corpus & sanguis sumitur à fidelibus— ut sumpto corpore & animâ Christi totus homo vivificetur. Ib. c. 8.  we ought to partake both of his body and of his blood, that our whole man may be quickened by both. Then he quotes St. Austin and Gelasius, for the taking of both Species, 
† Vnde ut ait Augustinus nec caro sine sanguine, nec sanguis sine carne jure communicatur. Item Gelasius Majorico & Joanni Episcopis; Comperimus quòd quidam sumptâ tantùm corporis portione à calice sacri cruoris abstineant, qui proculdubiò aut integra Sacramenta accipiant aut ab Integris arceantur, quiae divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire. Ib. c. 8.  From whence, as St. Austin says, neither the flesh is rightly Communicated without the blood, nor the blood without the flesh. So also Gelasius to Majoricus and John Bishops, We find that some taking only the part of the body, abstain from the Cup of the holy blood; who ought unquestionably either to take the whole Sacrament, or to be kept wholly from it; because the division of one and the same Sacrament, cannot be without grand Sacrilege. He that had this Belief, and these Arguments for it, could not but be a great enemy to the Mutilated and Sacrilegious Communion in one kind, however great a friend he was to Transustantiation; and his authority and his words, are the more remarkable, because he lived in the Twelfth Century, which makes him, as a great many others then were, which I could produce, and undeniable Evidence, that that corruption was not brought into the Latin Church, till the next Age; against which, we have the full testimony of both ancient and later Writers.  
4. It appears by some ancient Customs, that Christians were so far from receiving the Sacrament only in one kind, that they used extraordinary care and contrivance to receive it in both kinds: From hence it was that they used intinction, or dipping of the Bread in the Wine, which was very early, as appears by the Decree of Pope Julius, who forbade it in the Third Century 
‖ Illud vero quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt Eucharistiam populis, nec hoc prolatum ex Evangelio testimonium recipit, ubi Apostolis corpus suum & sanguinem commendavit, seorsùm enim panis & seorsùm calicis commendatio memoratur. Julius Papa Episcopis per Aegypt apud Gratian. decret. de Consecr. 3 Parson dist. 2. . It is probable that it was thus given to the Sick, as in the instance of Serapion, and to Infants, in the time of St. Cyprian, which we shall have occasion to consider afterwards: In the Council of Braga, in the seventh Age 
* Concil. Bracarense. , this Custom, which it seems continued, was prohibited in the very words almost of Pope Julius; so that some learned men mistake the one for the other: Afterwards in the Council of Clermont, as it is given by Baronius, The Twenty Eighth Canon forbids any to Communicate of the Altar, unless he take the body separately, and the blood also separately, unless through necessity, and with caution 
† Ne quis communicet de altari nisi corpus separatìm & sanguinem similitèr sumit, nisi per necessitatem & per cautelam. Canon's Concilii Claramont. apud Baron Annal. An. 1094. §. 25. . This Intinction was generally forbid, unless in some cases, as of the Sick, and the like; to whom the Council of Tours 
‖ Quae sacra oblatio intincta esse debet in sanguine Christi ut veracitèr Presbyter possit dicere infirmo, Corpus & sanguis Domini proficiat tibi. Apud Burchard. l. 5. c. 9 & Cassand. Dialog. p. 5.  commands that the Sacrament be thus given, Steeped and dipped, and that for a most considerable reason, That the Priest might truly say to the person, to whom he gave it, the body and blood of Christ, be profitable to thee for remission of Sins. This it seems, could not have been truly said to them, unless they had some way or other given them both kinds: That this Intinction was also in use in private Monasteries, appears from several Manuscripts produced by Menardus 
* Not. in Gregor. Sacrament ; and it is notorious, that the whole Greek Churches do use it to this day in the Communion, not only of the Sick and Infants, but of all Laics; I am not concerned to defend or justify this Custom, nor to say any thing more about it, but only to observe this plain inference from it, That they who thus used Intinction or the mixing and steeping of the Elements together, did hereby plainly declare, that it was necessary to give the Sacrament in both kinds, and not in one: I might make also the same remark upon the several Heretical Customs of using Water or Milk instead of Wine, as it appears in St. Cyprian and Pope Julius, to have been the manner of some, who though they were very , and justly censured for so doing; yet they hereby confessed, that there ought to be two species given in the Sacrament, a liquid one, as well as a solid: The Romanists and the Manichees, are the only Christians that ever thought otherwise. When the Doctrine of Transubstantiation began to creep into the Church, in the time of Berengarius, and some Christians were thereupon possessed with a greater fear of spilling the Blood of Christ; they did not however at first leave drinking the Cup for that reason, but they brought in another custom to prevent spilling; which was, to fasten little Pipes or Quills to the Chalices they then used, and through them to suck the consecrated Wine: This appears in the order of Celebrating Mass by the Pope, taken out of several Books of the Ordo Romanus, in Cassander's Lyturgics, The Arch-deaconreceives of the Regionary Sub-deacon a Pugillaris, with which he confirms the people 
† Archidiaconus accepto à Subdiacono regionario pugillari cum quo confirmet populum. Cassander Lyturg. in ordine celebrat. Miss. per Romanos celebrante pontifice : Cassander in his Notes upon the word Pugillaris, says, They were Pipes or Canes, with which the Sacramental Blood was sucked out of the Chalice 
‖ Fistulae seu cannae quibus sanguis è Dominico chalice exugebatur. Ib. . And he says, he had seen several of these in his time: So that in those times when the fear of effusion was greater than it was in the time of the Apostles and Primitive Christians, who yet had as much reverence, no doubt, for the Sacrament as any after-Ages, they were so unwilling to be deprived of the precious Blood of their Saviour in the Sacrament, that though their superstition made them contrive new ways to receive it, yet they could not be contented to be wholly without it: But  
5. The custom still remaining in all other Churches of the Christian World, except the Roman, of Communicating in both kinds, is a demonstration of its Apostolical and Primitive Practice, and of an Universal and Uninterrupted Tradition for it; we see plainly where this Practice was broke, and this Tradition violated, in the Roman Church, after above 1200 years, till which time it bears witness against itself, and condemns its own late Innovation, which is contrary not only to all former Ages, but to the present practice of all other Christian Churches. I need not produce witnesses to prove this, the matter of Fact is plain and undeniable, and none of their Writers can, or do pretend the contrary as to public and general Communion concerning any Christians, except those few that they have lately brought over by their well-known Arts, to submit to the Roman Church, as the Maronites and the Indians of St. Thomas: All the other vast number of Christians over all the World, the Greeks, the Muscovites, the Russians, the Aethiopians, the Armenians, the Assyrians, the Nestorians, the Georgians, and others do all administer the Eucharist to the people in both kinds: There is some little difference indeed among them in the manner of doing it; as some of them take the two Species mingled together in a Spoon, as the Greeks and Muscovites; others dip the Bread in the Wine, as the Armenians; but they all agree in this, that they always receive both the Species of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, and never give the one without the other. Cassander has collected several of their Rites and Orders in their public Liturgies, as of the Syrians, the Aethiopians, the Armenians, the Abyssins' in the Kingdom of Prester John; of whom he says, That as many as Communicate of the Body, Communicate of the Blood also 
* 
Quotquot communicant de corpore, totidem communicant etiam de sangine. Casand. Lyturg.  
Reliquis omnibus nationibus Christiani nominis, ut Graecis, Ruthenis, Armeniis, Aethiopibus priscum institutum porrigendi populo sanguinis in hunc usque diem retinentibus. Id. Dialog.  . But we need not call in any other Churches to vouch for the universal and primitive practice of the Communion in both kinds: We have in the last place  
6. The most learned of our Adversaries, who cannot but confess this, and therefore are forced to take other measures to defend themselves and their cause; namely, by the Authority of the present Church, and not by the Tradition or Practice of the Primitive, as de Meaux vainly attempts to do; which they freely give up and acknowledge to be contrary to the Communion, as it is now practised in one kind. Cassander has fully and plainly declared his mind in a particular Treatise on this Subject, among his Works printed at Paris, and in his Dialogue which was put out by Calixtus, not being among his other Works; in his Consultation, and in his Lyturgics; Concerning the administration, says he, of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, it is sufficiently known, that the Universal Church of Christ to this very day, and the Western or Roman, for above a thousand years after Christ, did exhibit both the Species of Bread and Wine, to all the members of the Church of Christ, especially in the solemn and ordinary dispensation of this Sacrament; which appears from innumerable testimonies, both of ancient Greek and Latin Writers 
† De administratione sacrosancti Sacramenti Eucharistiae satis compertum est, universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem; Occidentalem vero seu Romanam mille ampliùs à Christo annis in solenni presertim & ordinariâ hujus sacramenti dispensatione utramque panis & vini speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christi membris exhibuisse, id quod ex innumeris veterum scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum testimoniis manifestum est. Cassandris Consultatio de utràque specie Sacramenti. . In his Dialogue speaking against those who pretended that the use of either one or both kinds was indifferent, and who endeavoured to make this out by the Authority and Practice of the Primitive Church; which is the way which the Meaux takes, he thus seriously and hearty gives his judgement, I have searched, says he, 
‖ Equidem haud oscitanter & veteris Ecclesiae consuetudinem perscrutatus sum, & attento aequoque animo, eorum scripta, qui hoe argumentum tractarunt, legisse & rationes quibus indifferentem eum morem probare nituntur, expendisse prositeor; neque tamen firmam ullam demonstrationem, quae non apertissime reselli possit, reperire hactenus potui, quamvis id vehementèr exoptassem; quin multae & firmissimae rationes suppetunt, quae contrarium evincunt. G. Cassand. Dialog. apud Calixt. p. 6.  and that not slightly, the Custom of the ancient Church, and, I profess, I have read the Writings of those who have handled this argument with an attended and impartial mind, and have weighed the reasons by which they endeavour to prove this indifferent Custom; but neither could I yet find any firm proof, which could not be most plainly refuted, although I most earnestly desired it; but there remain many, and those the most strong Reasons which do evince the contrary. And because de Meaux pretends that there are some instances of public Communion in the Church in one kind, I will add one other testimony of that great man, who after the strictest search and enquiry into every thing in Antiquity, that could be brought to colour any such thing, thus determines, Wherefore I do not think that it can be shown that for a whole thousand years and more, that this most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist was ever administered from the Lord's Table, in the holy Communion, to the faithful people in any part of the Catholic Church, otherwise than under both the Symbols of Bread and Wine 
* Quare nec puto demonstrari totis mille amplius annis in ullâ Cathoticae Ecclesiae parte Sacrosanctum hoc Eucharistiae Sacramentum alitèr in sacrâ synaxi è mensâ Dominicâ fideli populo, quam sub utroque panis & vini symbolo, administratum fuisse. Id. de Sac. Com. sub utraque specie. p. 1027. . Wicelius, another Divine of great learning and judgement, agrees fully with Cassander, It is confessed that the holy Sumption from the Ecclesiastic Altar, was equally common to all Christians for Salvation, through all the times of the New Testament 
† Et in consesso sumptionem sanctam de altari Ecclesiaftico aequè omnibus Christianis communem extitisse ad salutem per omnia novi testamenti tempora. Vicel. via Reg. tit. de utr. Specie. , by which he means of the Christian Church, as appears by what immediately follows, It is a little obliterated, indeed, among us of the Western Church, and separated from a promiscuous use for some reasons, but not wholly blotted out and destroyed 
* Obliteratam quidem paulisper apud nos Occidentales, & ab usu promiscuo semotam suas ob causas, at non deletam omninò atque exstinctam. Ib. . For it was then granted to some, as to the Bohemians; Of this thing, that is of the Holy Sumption common to all Christians, Since we are 
† Ejusce rei cum nube quodam certissimorum testium septi sumus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amplectimur omni excluso dubio. Ib.  encompassed with a cloud of most certain witnesses, we embrace this as a most sure thing without any doubt. And therefore in his Account of Abuses, he reckons that of the Communion in one kind 
‖ Id. Elench. abus. : But lest these two men, though their learning and credit be unquestionable, should be thought through their great temper and moderation, to have yielded more in this cause than others of that Communion, I shall show that the same has been done by others, who cannot be suspected to have granted more than the mere force of Truth extorted from them; Thomas Aquinas who was the first man that proposed that question to be disputed, Whether it were lawful to take the Body of Christ without the Blood 
* Vtrum liceat sumere corpus Christi sine sauguine. Th. Aquin. Sum. pars 3 qu. 80. art. 12. ? And who first tells us, That it was the use of many Churches so to do 
† Multarum Ecclesiarum usus in quibus populo communicanti datur corpus Christi sumendum, non autem sanguis. Ib. , though Bonaventure his contemporary, who died the same year, mentions nothing of it; he in his Comment upon the Sixth of St. John, where he says, It was observed, not in many but in some Churches, that for fear of effusion, the Priest alone Communicated of the Blood, and the rest of the Body 
‖ Propter periculum effusionis in aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur ut solus sacerdos communicet sanguine, reliqui vero corpore. Id. in Johan. 6. , freely owns, that according to the custom of the ancient Church, all persons as they communicated of the Body, so they communicated also of the Blood 
* Dicendum, quod secundum antiquae Ecclesiae consuetudinem, omnes sicut communicabant corpori, it a communicabant & sanguini. Ib. ; and this he adds, is as yet also observed in some Churches 
† Quod etiam adhuc in aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur. Ib. . Which shows that this half-Communion was not universally brought into the Latin Church in the thirteenth Century. Salmeron the Jesuit says, We ingenuously and openly confess (which ingenuity it were to be wished, Monsieur de Meaux had had) that it was the general custom to communicate the Laics under both species 
‖ Ingenui & aperti confitemur morem generalem extitisse communicandi etiam Laicos sub utraque spetie. Salmeron. Tract. 35. . Cardinal Bona, upon this subject owns, 
* Certum quippe est omnes passim Clericos & Laicos viros & mulieres sub utraque specie sacra mysteria antiquitùs sumsisse cum solenni eorum celebrationi aderant,— consentiunt omnes tam Catholici quam sectarii nec eam negare potest qui vel levissimâ rerum Ecclesiasticarum notitiâ imbutus sit, semper enim & Vbique ab Ecclesiae primordiis usque ad seculum duodecimum sub specie panis & vini communicarunt fideles. Bona rer. Lyturg. l. 2. c. 18.  That it is certain that Clergymen  and Laics, men and women did anciently receive the holy Mysteries under both kinds, when they were present at the solemn Celebration of them: In this, says he, all, both Catholics and Sectaries agree, neither can any one deny it, who is endued with the least knowledge of the Ecclesiastical Affairs; for at all times, and in all places, from the first beginnings of the Church, even to the twelfth Age, the faithful communicated under the species of Bread and Wine. Nay, Bellarmine himself owns, that both Christ instituted under both species, and that the ancient Church ministered under both species; but the multitude increasing, this was found more and more inconvenient and so by degrees the custom of both kinds ceased 
† Nam Christus inftituit quidem sub duplici specie Ecclesia autem vetus ministrabat sub duplici specie, crescente autem multitudine magìs & magìs apparuit incommodum & sic paulatim desiit usus sub utrâque Bellarm. l. 4. c. 4. de Euch. . But when did it cease? not so soon as Christians grew very numerous, for that they were long before this was practised, in the most flourishing Ages of Christianity, but after the new Doctrine of Transubstantiation made them grow superstitious, and afraid to spill that liquor, which they were taught to believe, was the very substantial and natural Blood of Christ. It is plain from Thomas Aquinas that it was not wholly ceased in the thirteenth Century, and Valentia owns 
‖ De legit. usu Euch. c. 10.  that it was but a little before the Council of Constance. It was not so much by the command of the Bishops, as by the practice and use of the people; it was first disused, says Costor, in his Enchiridion, where he owns that in 
* Estque bot diligentèr notandum alterius speciei Communionem non tam Episcoporum mandato quam populi usu & facto introductam. p 415.  the time of Cyprian the people received both species 
† Quia suô, i. e. Cypriani tempore populus utramque speciem sumebat. Ib. p. 421. . But when the Bishops took advantage of that superstition they had taught the people, and made this new Custom of theirs a Law of the Church; yet in that very Council which first commanded the Communion in one kind, It was owned that it used to be received of the Faithful in both, in the Primitive Church 
‖ Licet in primitiuâ Ecclesiâ bujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utrâque specie, tamen haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula & scandala, est rationabilitèr introducta. Concil. Constant. Sess. 13. , but to prevent some scandals and dangers, which the Primitive Church it seems never thought of, nor took care to avoid, as the people themselves now did, the Council declares this custom to be fitly brought in, and so decrees it to be observed under the penalty of Excommunication. The Council of Trent also acknowledges, though as spairingly as may be, that in the beginnings of Christian Religion, the use of both kinds was not infrequent or unusual 
* Licet ab initio Christianae Religionis non insrequens utriusque speciei usus fuisset, tamen progressu temporis, latissimè jam mutatâ illâ consuetudine de gravibus & justis causis adducta, banc consuetudinem sub alterâ specie communicandi approbavit. Sess. 5. Canone 2. de Doctr. ; why truly, that which was constant was not infrequent, but in the progress of time, 'twas a pretty long progress from the beginning of Christianity to the Thirteenth Century, that custom being very widely changed, for great and just causes, such as the laymen's dipping their Beards in the Wine, when in the Primitive times, I suppose, they had no Beards, it approved the custom of Communicating in one kind, though contrary to the custom of the whole Primitive Church for above a thousand years; who must yet have had the same reasons to have done it, if they had been such great and just ones; for there can be no other reason given now, but what would have been as good five hundred or a thousand years before; but they having altered the Doctrine of the Primitive Church; this was a just reason to alter the practice. I might add several other confessions of their own learned men, for the Primitive Practice of Communion in both kinds, as Albaspinaeus, de la Cerda, and many others, but it might be tedious to my Reader as well as myself; I will conclude with one whom Monsieur de Meaux is very well acquainted with, and whom he knows to be as great a Master in Antiquity and all Learning, as any the French Church now has; and I will beg leave to put the same words to Monsieur de Meaux, that he does to Monsieur Arnaud, 
Negabitne hunc Eucharisticae sub utraque specie Communionis usum Apostolis temporibas fuisse? Multisque inde saeculi apud Ecclesiam perseverasse? Atqui hoc negare vel inficiari non potest, nisi vel in ultimâ indoctorum, vel certé in primâ imprudentium hominum classe censeri velit. Petay. de paenit. pub. c. 5.  Will any one deny this use of the Eucharistic Communion to have been in both kinds, in the times of the Apostles? And that it continued in the Church many Ages after? No man can deny or question this, unless he be willing to be reckoned either in the last rank of unlearned, or in the first of imprudent men.  
And now having given so full a proof that the Communion in both kinds, was the Practice of the Primitive Church, which I have done so largely, because Monsieur de Meaux has the face to deny this, and to attempt to prove the contrary; it will be very strange if after so many Affirmative Evidences, who all unanimously and positively declare that the Communion was always in both kinds, there should be any Negative Testimonies produced to the contrary, who shall fully contradict these, and depose that it was very often the custom of the Church to Communicate but in one. Monsieur de Meaux has made it his business to do this, and brings several instances out of Antiquity to show, that the Communion was very frequently given in the Primitive Church but in one kind, as in the Communion of the Sick, the Communion of Infants, Domestic Communion, and which, as he tells us, is very surprising, the Public Communion in the Church. If he can but make out one of these customs, to wit, the latter, that of Public Communion in the Church, it will be much more considerable than all his other; for if they should prove true, namely, that in particular and extraordinary cases of necessity, to which we know all positive precepts are to give way; the Communion was given but in one kind to those who were uncapable to receive both, as to sick Persons and Children, or that in times of Persecution Christians did carry home only the Bread with them, that so they might eat it in private, when they could not so conveniently carry home the Wine; What will this signify to the justifying the Constant and Public Communions in one kind, when there are no such particular or extraordinary reasons for it, and the establishing this by a Law, as a standing and necessary Practice to be observed by the whole Church? The doing this, is as if the Jews, because whilst they were in the Wilderness they could not so well observe the Precept of Circumcision, and so were at that time for a particular reason excused from it, should ever after have omitted it as unnecessary, and have thought fit at last to forbid it by a Law of their Sanhedrim: This sure had been making too bold with a positive Precept, although there might be a particular case or instance wherein it was not so exactly to be observed: Every Christian is obliged to have and to read the Word of God, notwithstanding that there may be instances of some who are Dumb or Blind, who are uncapable and so excused from those otherwise necessary duties, as the Sick and the Captives, and the Deaf are, from coming to Public Prayers and Public Worship; and where there are the like particular exceptions, and as particular reasons for not receiving the Sacrament in both kinds, as in the Sick, and Infants, who cannot swallow the Bread, the Abstemii, who naturally abhor Wine and the like, there without any derogating to the general Law of Christ, they may be dispensed withal by virtue of that necessity, which takes away the obligation of all positive Laws; but it will not at all follow from hence, that the Law does not oblige in all other cases. If Monsieur de Meaux therefore could prove, as he offers to do, but upon what false, or at least dubious grounds, I shall consider by and by, that the Sick and Infants who could not swallow the Bread did receive only the Wine; and that in the times of Persecution when they could not come so often to the public Communion, that they communicated at home only of that Bread which they could carry away and keep safely by them, when they could not so well either keep or carry away the Wine; this will by no means justify the single Communion to all persons, and at all other times, when there is no such particular necessity or extraordinary reason for it: Though they might in those cases hope for the benefit of the Sacrament, and not doubt but that God would bestow it upon them, though they received but in one kind, when they could not receive both, yet there is not the same reason to expect it at other times when we may, and so are obliged to both; as the Jews whilst in the Wilderness might hope to enjoy all the benefits of Circumcision, and being in Covenant with God, though they did not then observe the Law and Institution of that Sacrament, but this they could not expect, but would certainly have forfeited, if they did not punctually observe it afterwards as it was commanded them.  
And as for the two instances he brings of Public Communion in the Church in one kind, as on Good-Friday in the Latin Church, and all Lent in the Mass of the Presanctified, in the Greek, were those true, as I shall show they are not, but that both Species were used in both those Communions, yet they being such Communions as were particular to those days, and remarkably different from the Communions at all other times of the year, would plainly prove, that the ordinary and usual Communions upon all other other days, and at all other times, were constantly in both kinds in the Latin and Greek Church: If they were not, why are these picked out by him as single Instances of Communions in one kind? By this he plainly acknowledges, that these differed from the stated and constant Communions, and so confesses that those were in both kinds: And though he ventures to say, that in the ordinary Office the Church received either both species, or one only; yet this is so wholly without any shadow of proof, that I wonder he would expose the credit of his learning, or his honesty upon so notorious a falsehood, that has not the least Fig-leave to cover its shame; for as to the decrees of Pope Leo and Gelasius, against Communicating in one kind, to make these an Argument for it, is a piece of such refined art and skill, as no body but de Meaux could have found out or made use of; but because the strength of his Book lies upon the truth of these Instances of his, though I think that be already shaken, yet I shall take it down to the very foundation, and show how weak that is, and how unable to bear what he would build upon it.  

Communion of Sick.  The first Custom he alleges of Communion in one kind, is that of the Sick; the two examples he gives of this, are Serapion and St. Ambrose, neither of which are sufficient to his purpose; As to the first, we have the account of it in an Epistle of St. Dennis of Alexandria, in the History of Eusebius 
* L. 6. c. 44. : He was in the state of Penance, having lapsed in a former persecution, and at his death desired the Eucharist to be given as a token of Peace and Communion with the Church; which was a favour thought fit to be then granted to Penitents; to this purpose he sent for the Priest, but he being sick, and it being in the nighttime, upon consideration of his extremity and nearness to death, for he had lain three days speechless and senseless before he came to himself, and had desired this; the Priest, rather than he should want this comfort, sent him by the young man who came to him, a small parcel of the Eucharist, bidding him moisten it, and so put it into the mouth of the old man; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib.  which he did, and so he immediately gave up the Ghost: Now here, says de Meaux 
† P. 11. , although it appears from this relation, that the Priest sent 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. But how does it appear from this relation that he sent only the Bread, or what was solid; does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a little of the Sacrament, which is the thing he is said to send, signify only Bread or the solid part? or does it not rather signify a little of both the Species which make the Sacrament; as it plainly does in Justin Martyr, who speaking of that Sacramental Food under both kinds, says, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called by us the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
‖ Apolog. 2. ; And why might not he give him a little Wine as well as a little Bread? and why may we not suppose that the liquor he was to moisten the Bread in was the Wine? And not as Valesius, without any grounds, puts in his Translation Water: I believe it is a thing strange and unheard of in Antiquity, to mix the Eucharistic Bread with mere Water, and so take it infused in Water without any Wine: Monsieur de Meaux who says the Custom of mixing the two species together, was not in use till after-Ages (not in public I own, but in private it might) will be more hard put to it to show the custom of mixing the Species of Bread with Water; and this was so mixed with some liquor, that it was rather fluid than solid, and so was said to be infused or poured into his mouth 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. . That the Wine was used to be carried to the sick as well as the Bread, is plain from Justin Martyr, if those who were absent from the Public Communion, were, as it is probable, the sick, for to them the Deacons carried the very same that they gave to those that were present, without any manner of difference 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Justin Martyr. Apolog. 2. , as is plain from that forequoted place in his second Apology. And St. Hierom relates of Exuperius, Bisnop of Tholouse, that he carried the Body of our Lord in a Basket, and the Blood in a Vessel of Glass 
‖ Qui corpus Domini canistre vimineo, sanguinem portat in vitro. Ep. add Rustic. Monach. , after he had sold the rich Utensils and Plate of the Church to relieve the Poor and redeem Captives: And the Council of Tours thought the Wine so necessary as well as the Bread, that it commands, that the Bread be always dipped in the Cup, that so the Priest may truly say the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ avail unto thee for the remission of Sins, and to eternal Life. This Cassander 
* Ego sane demonstare possum etiam infirmis plenum corporis & sanguinis Sacramentum dispensatum, certè in promtu est Capitulum Turonensis Concilii quod ab Ivone, Reginone & Burchardo anducitur, quo jubetur ut Eucharistia quae in viaticum è vitâ excedentium reservatur intincta sit in Calicem D ●. ut Presbyter veraciter possit dicere, Corpus & sanguis D ni. nostri Jesu Christi prosit tibi in vitam aeternam. Cassand. Dialog. apud Calixt. p. 5.  produces as a demonstration that the Communion of the Sick used to be in both kinds; and the reason which is there given for this, is so considerable, that it plainly shows that both Species were necessary to make it a true Sacrament, and that neither the Body and Blood of Christ, nor the virtue and benefit of them could be given without both: and this forces the Meaux to confess 
† p. 52. , after all his shifts and artifices, that in effect, it is true that in some sense, to be able to call it the Body and the Blood, the two Species must be given. And further, from hence also the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation and Concomitancy grounded upon it, whereby they suppose the Body and Blood of Christ to be in either of the Species, is wholly overthrown and destroyed; but this by the by: as to Serapion, it is strange that the Priest should not rather have sent him the Wine alone, if he had intended him but one Species, that being more fit to be received, and more proper to enter the parched throat of an agonizing man, as de Meaux speaks, than the Bread, however moistened, and therefore it was provided both by the Cannons of some Councils 
‖ Concil. Carthag. 4. Toled. 11.  and the Decrees of some Popes 
* Paschal. 2. Vrban. 2. , that in cases of extraordinary necessity (which dispense with positive Precepts) the sick and dying who could not swallow the Bread, might Communicate only with the Wine; but to give them only Bread as de Meaux would have it in both his Instances of Serapion and St. Ambrose, who were both a dying, and not to give them the more proper Species of Wine, was very strange, if they had designed them but one only Species without the other: But I pass to consider St. Ambrose by itself, Paulinus who wrote his Life, relates this of his Death, That Honoratus Bishop of Verceills, being to visit him in the night whilst he was at his repose, he heard this Voice three times, Rise, stay not, he is a dying: He went down and gave him the Body of our Lord, and the Saint had no sooner received it, but he gave up the Ghost. So that it seems he died and received only one kind; but who can help that, if he did, if he died before he could receive the other, as it is probable from the History he did: If the Roman Priests did like Honoratus give only the Bread to those, who when they have received it die before they can take the Cup; this would be a very justifiable excuse, and needs no great Authority to defend it; but if they will undertake to prove that St. Ambrose had time enough to have received the Cup as well as the Bread before he died, which they must merely by supposing some thing more than is in the History; then by the very same way I will prove that he did receive the Cup, and that that by a Syneckdoche is to be understood as well as the Bread, by the Body of Christ which he is there said to receive: And I am sure I have a better argument for this than they can have against it, or than these two Instances of Serapion and St. Ambrose are for the custom of Communicating the Sick in one kind, and that is a full proof of a contrary custom for their Communicating in both: I confess I cannot produce any very ancient testimonies for this, because in the first Ages the faithful who used to receive the Communion very frequently in public, it being in its self and its own nature a true part of public Worship, did seldom or never take it upon their Death beds in private 
† Vide Dallaeum de Cult. l. 4. c. 3. ; and therefore they who give us an account of the death of several very pious and devout Christians, as Athanasius of St. Antony, Gregory Nazianzen of Athanasius, of his own Father, and of his Sister Gorgonia, yet they never mention any thing of their receiving the Sacrament at their deaths; no more does Eusebius 
‖ De vitâ Constant. l. 3. c. 46.  in his History of the Death of Helena, the most zealous Mother of Constantine; but so soon as Christians came to receive the Sacrament as the most comfortable Viaticum at their deaths, which was not till after-Ages, then by whatever instances it appears that they received it at all, it appears also, that they received it in both kinds; and it is plain, that among the numerous examples of this nature, which are to be found in Bede and Surius, and the Writers of the Saints Lives, there is not one to be produced to the contrary; else no doubt the learned Bishop of Meaux, who picks up every thing that seems to make for his purpose, and who was fain to content himself with those two insignificant ones of Serapion and St. Ambrose, would not have omitted them. I shall mention some few in opposition to those two of his, of those who according to St. Austine's advice, 
* Quoties aliqua infirmitas supervenerit, Corpus & sanguinem Christi ille qui aegrotat, accipiat. Sermo. 215 de Tempore.  When they were sick, did partake both of the Body and of the Blood of Christ, contrary to what they would have Paulinus report of St. Ambrose to St. Austin himself, that he did only receive the Body: And the first shall be that of Valentinus of Pavia, in the fifth Century, 
† Ante obitum propriis manibus accepit corporis & sanginis Domini Sacramentum. Surius August. 4.  who before his death took with his own hands the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. The second, that of Elpidius, as it is in the next Century reported by Gregory the Great 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gregorii Dialog. 616. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , That calling his Brethren, and standing in the midst of them, he took the Body and the Blood of the Lord, and continuing in prayer, gave up the Ghost: And he mentions this no less than of three others in the same Dialogues, and in his Office for Visiting the Infirm, after Prayers and other things, then says he, 
* Deinde communicet eum corpore & sanguine Domini. Gregor. Sacram. Visit. infirm.  Let the Priest Communicate him with the Body and Blood of Christ. In the same Age the Writer of St. Vedastus' his Life, says, 
† Sacrosancto Corporis & sanguinis Domini Viatico confirmatus obiit. Alcuin in vit. Vedast.  He died, being confirmed with the most sacred Viaticum of the Body and Blood of Christ. And the same also of Richarius, very near in the same words; Isidore, the famous Bishop of Sevil, Received with a profound sigh the Body and Blood of the Lord, and died presently after 
‖ Corpus & sanguinem Domini cum prosundo gemitu suscepit. Redemptus de obit. Isidor. : And to go down no lower than the next Age, Bede then reports of Ceadda, a British Bishop, That he fortified his departure with the perception of the Body and Blood of our Lord seven days before 
* Obitum suum Dominici Corporis & sanguinis perceptione septimo ante mortem die munivit. Bed. Hist. Angl. l. 4. : And the same of St. Cuthbert, Who received from him the most wholesome Sacraments of Christ's Body and Blood 
† Acceptis à me Sacramentis salutaribus Dominici Corporis & Sanguinis. Id. in vit. Cuthberti. . And thus did that glorious Prince Charles the Great, make his pious exit, Commanding his most familiar Priest Hiltibald, to come unto him and give him the Sacraments of the Lord's Body and Blood 
‖ Jussit familiarissimum Pontisicem suum Hiltibaldum venire ad se ut ei Sacramenta Dominici Corporis & Sanguinis tribueret. Eginhard vit. Caroli Mag. . And the same universal Custom and Practice I might bring down to all those other Ages that succeed, till a new Doctrine of the Sacrament brought in a new Practice by degrees; but I cannot omit one in the Eleventh Age, though it has a Legendary Miracle joined with it; 'tis an account Damianus 
* Presbyterum quendam Cumanae Ecclesie Eucharistium detulisse aegroto, illum mox cum in Ecclesiam rediens aliquantulum Dominici sanguinis comperisset remansisse in chalice— Peri Damian. Opusc.  gives of a Priest, Who had carried the Eucharist to a sick person, and by negligence brought back, and left in the Cup a little of the Blood of the Lord: So that it is plain, nowithstanding the fear either of keeping or spilling, they carried the Wine with them to the sick as well as the Bread, and Communicated them with both: And now if we add to these the Decree of Pope Paschal the Second, forbidding to mix the Sacramental Elements, but to give them separately and distinctly, unless to young Children and to the Sick (which exception makes it unquestionable, that both were then given to the Sick) and the  Canon of the Council of Tours, which is in Burchard, Ivo, and Regino, commanding the Bread to be dipped in the Wine, that the Priest may truly say to the sick, The Body and Blood of Christ be profitable to thee; these being all laid together, make it clear beyond all contradiction, that the Communion of the Sick was not, as de Meaux pretends, in one kind, but in both: and as a parting blow upon this point, I shall only offer that observation of their own learned Menardus 
† Cum communicate infirmus quem vis morbi non ad tantam virium imbecillitatem adduxit dicitur utrâque formâ Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat te in vitam aeternam, sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi redimat te in vitam aeternam, quae distinctam sumptionem indicant; at dumb communicate infirmus qui ingravari caeperit, unica tantum formula recitatur in hunc modum Corpus & Sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Menard. notae in Greg. Sacram. p. 379, 380. , from an ancient Mass, in his Notes upon the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, that in case the sick person was in a condition to receive the Elements separately, than this form was used, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep thee to eternal Life; The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thee to eternal Life; which, says he, shows a distinct Sumption: If he was in such weakness and extremity as to have them given mixed, than it was said, The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul to Eternal Life: which as well shows a Sumption of both the Elements, though in a different manner, according to the different state of the sick person.  

Communion of Infants.  The Communion of Infants is the next custom alleged by this Author; it was a very ancient, and almost universal practice of the Church, to give the Eucharist to little Children as soon as they were Baptised, thinking it to be as necessary to their Salvation as Baptism, and that they were as capable of the one as the other; and therefore the Council of Trent, which has condemned all those who say the Eucharist is necessary for Infants, has herein determined against the general sense and practice of the Church, and put no less men than St. Austin and Innocent, a Pope of their own, notwithstanding his Infallibility, who were notoriously of this Opinion, under an Anathema; which, how they can reconcile with their other principles of following Tradition, and of the Church's Infallibility in all Ages, I shall leave to them to consider and make out if they can: But as to our present question, when the Communion was thus given to Infants, I utterly deny that it was only in one kind; I cannot indeed produce so many proofs that it was in both, as in the Sick, because there was not so much occasion in any History to make mention of the one as the other; but that which was the very ground and foundation of this Practice of Communicating Infants, and the reason why they thought it necessary to their Salvation, namely, those words of our Saviour, John 6.53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you: these do suppose an equal necessity to drink the Blood as to eat the Flesh, and to do both as well as one: And hence St. Austin who denys, as he says, all Catholics do with him, That Infants can have Life without partaking of the Eucharist, expresses it in such words as suppose plainly their partaking of both kinds, viz. 
* Parvulos sine cibo carnis Christi & sanguinis potu vitam non habituros— sine participatione corporis & sanguinis Domini. Ep. 106.  Their distinct eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ; as other Authors also do, who mention this very thing in relation to Infants 
† Non cibatis carne neque potatis sanguine Christi Hipogn. l. 5. Corporis Dominici edulio ac sanguinis haustu satiatos. Liber Catoh. magni de Imag. c. 27. ; and Pope Paschal the Second, who in the eleventh Century, allows the mixing the two species for Infants, by this means appoints them to take both, and supposes it an original custom to do so; and if we had nothing else, yet the remaining custom in the Greek and Eastern, and in all Churches that still continue the Communion of Infants, to Communicate them in both kinds, is as full an evidence of this as can be expected: And de Meaux has not been able to offer any one example to the contrary, but that poor one out of St. Cyprian, which if it proves any thing, it proves that the whole Christian Assembly received only the Cup in their public and solemn Meetings, as well as the Infant he mentions; which he is not so hardy as to venture to say, nor dare any one that understands any thing of St. Cyprian's time; but the Story he would improve to his purpose is this: 
‖ Cyprian de Lapsis. p. 132. Edit Oxon.  A Child who had been carried by its Nurse to an Idol Temple, and had there tasted of a little Bread and Wine that was Sacrificed, this was afterwards brought by its Mother, who knew nothing of this matter, to the Christian Assembly, and there it discovered the strange misfortune had befallen to it; For all the time of the Prayers it was in great trouble and uneasiness, it cried and tossed and was impatient, as if it had been in a fit and an agony, and seemed to confess that by its actions, which it could not by words; thus it continued whilst the Solemn Offices were performed, and towards the end of them, when the Deacon bringing the Cup about to all the rest, at last came to that, it turned away its face and kept its lips close, and would not receive it, but the Deacon poured in a little into its mouth against its will, which it quickly brought up again, not being able to retain what was so holy and sacred in its impure and polluted stomach: This was a miraculous and extraordinary warning to others not to partake with any part of the Idol Worship or Offerings, which they were in that time greatly tempted to; and for this purpose St. Cyprian relates the thing of his own knowledge, he being an eye-Witness of it: But Monsieur de Meaux would have this serve to show, that the Child had the Cup only given to it, there being no mention of the Bread, and therefore that it received but in one kind, and consequently that it was the custom for Infants to receive but in one kind in St. Cyprian's time; if so, than it was the custom also for all Christians in their Religious Assemblies to receive only in one kind; for St. Cyprian mentions nothing at all of the Bread in this place given to the rest, any more than to the Child; and if de Meaux or any one that pretends to any thing of Learning, will assert this, That in St. Cyprian's time Christians in the public Communion received but one Species, and that this Species was that of Wine; I'll willingly give them this instance of the Child, and take them up upon the other, where I am sure I have all the learned men that ever read St. Cyprian, or understand any thing of Antiquity, on my side: But why does not St. Cyprian mention any thing of the Bread, if that were then given to the Child or others? Because he had no reason to do it in this short relation, which was not to give an account of all that was then done by the Christians in their Religious Offices, but only of this accident which happened to the Child at that time, it being his business in that Discourse to deter men from joining in the Pagan Idolatry, from the terrible Judgements of God upon several who had done this; and after this remarkable instance of the Child, he relates another of a man who had received the Bread in the Sacrament 
* Sacrisicio à sacerdote cetebrato, partem cum caeteris ausus est latenter accipere, sanctum Domini edere & contrectare non potuit, cinerem ferre se apertis manibus invenit. Cyp. Ib. de Laps.  (so that they received that, it seems, as well as the Wine) which was as miraculously turned into Ashes. But why was not the Child as much disturbed at the receiving the Bread, if that was given it, as at the receiving the Wine? Why so it was, during the whole time of being there at the Prayers, and at the whole Solemnity it was under the same trouble, agitation, and discomposure, but most remarkably at the end and conclusion of all when it had taken the whole Sacrament.  
If the other Christians received the other part of the Sacrament, though it be not mentioned so might this child; and as, I think, none will from hence attempt to show that all Christians were then deprived of the Bread, so it is plain, they all had the Cup, and that the Children as well as the Adult, did then partake of both, appears from the same Treatise of St. Cyprian de Lapsis, where he represents the Children who were thus carried to partake of the Idol Offerings, as blaming their Parents for it, and making this Vindication for themselves, 
† Nos nihil secimus nec derelicto cibo & poculo Domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus— Perdidit nos aliena perfidia. Cyprs de Laps.  We have not left the Meat nor the Cup of the Lord, nor gone of ourselves to the profane Banquets, but another's perfidiousness has destroyed us. So that they were then to partake not only of the Cup, but of the Meat of the Lord.  
Monsieur de Meaux was in a great straight sure for some other instances of the Communion of Children in one kind, when he brings in 
‖ P. 91, 92, 94.  the Schoolboys at Constantinople, who according to Evagrius 
* Hist. l. 4. , had the remainders of the Bread that was left at the Communion given to them; which custom he finds also in a French Council 
† Mascon. ; Were these Boys true Communicants for all that? were not the Elements given them, as they were sometimes to the Poor, who were not present at the Office, merely that they might consume them, that so they might not be undecently kept or carried away? As for the same reason it was the custom to burn them in the Church of Jerusalem 
‖ Hesych. in Levit. l. 2. c. 8. , and as it is now with us in the Church of England, for the Communicants to eat them before they go out of the Church: If we should have some remainders of consecrated Bread which we might call the particles of Christ's Body, as Evagrius there does, would the eating of them be an argument that we had a custom to Communicate in one kind; and yet Monsieur de Meauxes Wit and Eloquence must be laid out on such ridiculous things as these, to show what Customs there remain in History in testimony against the Protestants, 
P. 94.  and how the Communion of some Infants under the sole Species of Wine, and some under that of Bread, is a clear conviction of their error. It would be to little other purpose, but to tyre myself and my Reader to follow that great man through all his little Arguments and Authorities of this Nature, and especially into the dark and blind paths of later Ages, when Superstition and Ignorance lead men out of the way, both of Scripture and Antiquity, which are the good old Paths that we are resolved to walk in. His French Answerers, I hear, have pursued him through all these, and driven him out of every private skulking-hole he would make to himself: I am rather for meeting him in the open Field, and for engaging his main strength, and most considerable arguments and objections; and I seriously profess, though I never met with any Book written so shrewdly and cunningly, with so much Art and Eloquence, upon a subject that I thought could hardly bear it, though it stood in need of it above any other; yet there is not any thing of strength in it, that I have not fairly considered, and I hope fully answered.  

Of Domestic Communion.  The third Custom is the Domestic Communion, when after the Christians had received the Sacrament in their public Meetings, they carried it also home with them to receive it alone in their private Houses; this must be allowed also to be very ancient, being mentioned both by Tertullian 
* 
Accepto corpore Domini & Reservato de orat. Cap. ult.  
Nesciat maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gusts. Ad Uxor. l. 2.   and St. Cyprian 
† Cum quaedam arcam suam, in quâ Domini sanctum suit. De Laps. , and the reason of it was, that in those times of Persecution when they could not come so frequently to the public Communions, and yet stood in need of the greatest aids and supports, they might not want the benefit and comfort of what was so precious to them; but though there might be great zeal and piety in this practice, yet I cannot wholly excuse it from superstition, nor think it to be any thing less than an abuse of the Sacrament; and the same opinion the Church quickly had of it, and therefore universally forbade it 
‖ Concil. Caesar Augustan. ; and as Petavius says, 
* De paenit. publs. l. 1. c. 7.  It would be now a very punishable action, and accounted a great profanation of the Sacrament. Howe-ever angry Monsieur de Meaux is with the Protestants for calling it so 
† P. 105. , undoubtedly the Eucharist was not intended by our Saviour for any such private use, but to be a public part of Christian Worship, and a solemn Commemoration of his Death and Passion: And I know not how to call this a true or perfect Communion, unless as it was a part of the same Communion that was in the Church; as the sending a person part of the entertainment at a common Feast or Banquet, is a making him partaker of the same Feast, though he be not present at the Table, but eats it by himself; however, let it be allowed to be never so true a Communion, yet I know no advantage that can be made of it, to the purpose of Communion in one kind, unless it can be made appear, that after the Faithful had communicated of both kinds in the Church, that they only reserved and carried home one Species to be received in their private Houses: How improbable is this, if it be granted that they received both in public, which is not denied; why should not they be as desirous to partake of both at home, as they were in the Church? Upon what account, as de Meaux says, 
‖ P. 114.  should they refuse them both? And believe that the the sacred Body with which they trusted them, was more precious than the Blood? He is forced to own, That the Blood was not refused to the Faithful to carry with them, when they required it 
* P. 113. . And why they should not desire that as well as the other, I cannot imagine; the only argument he has against it, is that they could not keep it any long time: But could not they keep it so long as till the next public Communion? could they not conserve the Wine in little Vessels to that purpose, as well as the Bread? Does Nature itself, as he pretends, more oppose the one than the other? when we find by experience that Wine will keep much longer without corruption than Bread; What a vain cavil is it therefore, which gins and runs through his whole Book, to make us believe, that the Christians so often communicated under the species of Bread alone, because the species of Wine could not be either so long or so easily reserved, being too subject to alteration; and Jesus Christ would not that any thing should appear to the sense in this Mystery of Faith, contrary to the ordinary course of Nature 
† P. 9 . But it is matter of fact we have now to do with, and that must be made out, not by slight surmises, but by good testimony; and whether the Christians when this custom of Domestic Communion was in use among them, did not reserve and carry home both kinds, the Wine as well as the Bread, let us now examine: Monsieur de Meaux has not one Authority that proves any thing more, than that they used to reserve the Sacrament or Body of Christ, which by a Synecdoche is a common phrase in Ecclesiastical Writers for the whole Eucharist, and is used by Tertullian and St. Cyprian, where the two Species were unquestionably used, as in the Public Communion; St. Basil who speaks of the Communion of Hermits, and who is produced as an evidence by de Meaux, that they communicated in the Deserts, advises them expressly to partake of the Body and of the Blood of Christ 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. Ep. ●…. ; and when those Solitaries had the Communion brought to them, that it was in both kinds, appears from their own Cardinal Bona 
* Rerum Lyturg. l. 2. c. 18. , in the relation of Zozimus, an Abbot of a Monastery, his carrying in a Vessel a portion of the sacred Body and Blood of Christ, to one Mary of Egypt who had lived forty seven years in the Wilderness. That those who communicated at home had both kinds sent to them, appears evidently from Justin Martyr 
† Apolog. 2. , and de Meaux owns from him, That the two species 'tis true, were carried 
‖ P. 112. ; but this, says he, was presently after they had been consecrated. Not till the Public Communion was over, and then also the Faithful carried away what they reserved; but it does not appear that they kept them; nor does it appear to the contrary, but they might have kept them if they had pleased.  
He who wrote the Life of St. Basil, by the name of Amphilochius, reports the story of a Jew, who being got secretly among the Christians at the time of Communion, communicated with them, and took the Sacrament first of the Body, and then of the Blood; and then took and carried away with him 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Amphiloch. vit. Basil. c. 7.  some part of each of the Elements, and shown them to his Wife, to confirm the truth of what he had done. Monsieur de Meaux has made no objection to the credit of this Writer; and no doubt had it not been usual for Christians to carry away both the Elements, the Writer of that Life, let him be who he will, had not told so improbable a Story.  
Gregory Nazianzen 
† Orat. 11.  relates of his Sister Gorgonia, That what her hands had treasured up of the Antitypes of the precious Body or Blood of Christ, that she mingled with her tears, and anointed herself withal. So that it seems her hands treasured up both the Species or Antitypes, as he calls them; and it is a mighty subtlety to say, She did not treasure them up both together, when she certainly treasured up both.  
But if we had no such instances as these, there are two such unanswerable Authorities against de Meaux his Opinion, That the faithful carried home only the Bread, and communicated but in one kind, as are enough to make him give up this part of the Cause, and those are the famous Albaspinaeus, Bishop of Orleans, and Cardinal Baronius, two men whose skill in Antiquity is enough to weigh down whatever can be said by the Meaux, or any other, and whose words will go farther in the Church of Rome than most men's; and they are both positive, that not only the Bread, but that the Wine also was reserved and carried home by Christians in their Domestic Communions; Upon what account can they prove, says Albaspinaeus 
‖ Sed quo tandem pacto probare poterunt Laicis Eucharistiam sub specie panis domum portare licuisse, sub vini non licuisse. Albaspin. Observat. 4. l. 1. , that it was lawful for Laics to carry home the Eucharist under the Species of Bread, and not under the Species of Wine? Consider, says Baronius 
* Hic Lector considera quàm procul abborreant à Patrum Traditione usuque Ecclesiae Catholicae qui nostro tempore Heretici negant, asservandam esse Sacratissimam Eucharistiam quam videmus non sub specie panis tantum sed sub specie vini olim consuevisse recondi. Baron. Annal. an. 404. n. 32.  to his Reader, how the Heretics of our time differ from the Tradition of the Fathers, and the Custom of the Catholic Church, who deny that the Eucharist is to be reserved, when we see it used to be kept, not only in the Species of Bread, but in the Species of Wine. And that he meant this of private reservation as well as in the Church, he goes on further, to prove this keeping of both Species by the Authority of Gregory the Great, who gives an account in his Dialogues of one Maximianus a Monk, and others his Companions, who being in a great Storm and Tempest at Sea, and in great danger of their Lives, they took the Sacrament which they had carried with them, and in both kinds received the Body and Blood of their Redeemer 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Dialog. Graecè. l. 3. c. 36. : But to this says Monsieur de Meaux, To show the faithful had kept the two Species in their Vessel from Rome to Constantinople, it ought before to have been certain that there was no Priest in this Vessel, or that Maximian, of whom St. Gregory speaks in this place, was none, though he was the Superior of a Monastery. But Gregory speaks not a word of any Priest being there, and Maximian might be no Priest, though he were Superior of a Monastery, for they and the Monks were often no Priests; but if a Priest had been there, it had been unlawful for him, according to the Principles of the Roman Church, to have Consecrated the Eucharist in such a Tempest, in an unconsecrated place, and at Sea; where according to Cassander 
‖ Lyturgic. c. 34. Haec Missa sicca, i. e. sine consecratione & communicatione, etiam navalis seu nautica dicitur, eò quòd in loco fluctuante & vacillante ut in mari & fluminibus, quibus in locis plenam missam celebrandam non putant. In libello ordinis Missae secundum usum Romanae Ecclesiae. , they are not permitted to use Consecration, nor to have the full Mass, but only what he calls the Missa sicca, and the Missa Navalis: and it is plain Baronius, with whose Authority I am now urging the Meaux, is of the mind that the faithful did carry the two Species in their Vessel, for he says so expressly in so many words 
* In Navi portasse Navigantes Christi Corpus & Sanguinem. Baron. Annal. an. 404. n. 32. : There is no getting off the plain and evident Authority of these two great men for receiving the Eucharist in both kinds; Monsieur de Meaux, though he heaves a little, yet cannot but sink under it, and it makes him confess, That these passages may very well prove that the Blood was not refused to the faithful to carry with them, if they required it, but can never prove that they could keep it any long time, since that Nature itself opposes it. So that if Nature be not against keeping the Wine, Custom and Authority it seems are for it; and I dare say, that Nature will suffer the Wine to be kept as long as the Bread; however, they who are such friends to Miracles, and have them so ready at every turn, especially in the Sacrament, have no reason methinks to be so afraid of Nature.  

Of Public Communion in the Church.  Monsieur de Meaux passes next to the Public Communion in the Church; And if he can prove that to have been in one kind, he has gained his main point, however unsuccessfully he has come off with the rest; though we see all his other pretences are too weak to be defended, and we have destroyed, I think, all his outworks, yet if he can but maintain this great fort, he saves the Capitol, and preserves the Romish Cause: He has used, I confess, all imaginable stratagems to do it, and has endeavoured to make up his want of strength, with subtlety and intrigue. He will not pretend it was a constant custom to have the Public Communion in one kind, but that it was free for Christians to receive either both Species, or one only, in the Church itself, and in their solemn Assemblies; and that they did this on some particular days and occasions, as in the Latin Church on Good-Friday, and almost all Lent in the Greek. Now though we have made it out, that the whole Catholic Church did generally in their Public Communions use both kinds, yet if they left it free to Christians to receive one or both as they pleased, or to receive sometimes both, and sometimes one, this if it can be proved, will show that they thought Communion in one might be lawful and sufficient, and that it was not necessary to be in both: Let us therefore see what evidence there is for any such thing, for it looks very strangely, that the Church in all its Liturgies, in all the accounts of celebrating the Communion, should always use both kinds to all that partook of the Sacrament, and yet leave it free to Christians to receive it in one if they pleased, and that on some few days they should give the same Sacrament in a quite different manner than they used at all other times; this if it be true, must be very odd and unaccountable, and unless there be very full and evident proof of it, we may certainly conclude it to be false: What cloud of witnesses than does the Meaux bring to justify this, what names of credit and authority does he produce for it? Why, not one, not so much as a single testimony against the universal suffrage of the whole Church, and of the most learned of our Adversaries, who all agree in this truth, That the Public Communion was in both kinds for above a thousand years: Is there any one Writer in all the Ten, nay, Twelve Centuries, who plainly contradicts it? any one between the Apostles and Thomas Aquinas, who says, it was the Custom of the Catholic Church or any part of it, to Communicate only in one kind? Nay, can the Meaux show any particular persons, or any sort of Christians that ever were in the World before the thirteenth Age, that were against both kinds, and received only in one, except the Manichees, a sort of vile and abominable Heretics, who are the only Instances in Antiquity for Communion in one kind: These men believing Christ not to have really shed his Blood, but only in phantasm and appearance, would not take the Sacrament of his Blood, and by the same reason neither should they have taken that of his Body; and thinking Wine not to be the Creature of God, the Father of Christ, but of the Devil, or some evil Principle or bad Spirit, and so calling it the Gall of the Dragon; they had a general abhorrence from it, and so would not receive it in the Sacrament: Pope Leo heard that several of these were at Rome, and that to cover their infidelity, and skulk more securely, 
Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis, ita in Sacramentorum Communione se temperant, ut interdum tutiùs lateant ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt, Sanguinem autem Redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant, Quod ideo vestram volumus scire sanctitatem ut vobis bujusmodi homines & his manifestentur indiciis, & quorum deprehensa fuerit sacrilega simulatio, notati & proditi, à sanctorum societate sacerdotali auctoritate pellantur. Leo Sermo 4 de Quadrag.  they came to the public Assemblies, and werè present at the very Sacrament; but yet they did so order themselves at the Communion, that so they might the more safely hid themselves, and be undiscovered: They take with their unworthy mouth the Body of Christ, but they refused to drink his Blood; this he gave notice of to his Roman Congregation, that so these men might be made manifest to them by these marks and tokens, that their sacrilegious disimulation being apprehended, they might be marked and discovered, and so expelled or excommunicated from the society of the Faithful, by the Priestly Authority. Now how can all this, which shows plainly, that the Communion at Rome was in both kinds, be turned to the advantage of Communion in one; this requires the slight and the dexterity of Monsieur de Meaux, and 'tis one of the most artificial fetches that ever were; It is the only argument which he has to prove that the Public Communion was not in both kinds; This remark upon the words of Pope Leo, and upon the Decree of Gelasius, which is much of the like nature; This fraudulent design, says he, of the Manichees, could hardly be discovered, because Catholics themselves did not all of them Communicate under both Species. But how knows he that? That is the question that is not to be begged, but proved; and 'tis a strange way of proving it by no other medium but only supposing it, and that very groundlessly and unreasonably: Is this poor weak supposition to bear the weight of that bold assertion which contradicts all manner of Evidence and Authority, that the Public Communion in the Church was in one kind? If it had been so, and Catholics had not all of them Communicated under both Species, the Manichees would not have been discovered at all, for they would have done the same the Catholics did, and to all outward appearance been as good Catholics as they; they might have kept their Opinion and Heresy to themselves, and that it seems they intended to dissemble and keep private; but as to their Practice it would have been but the same with others, and so they could not have been found out or discovered by that; But it was taken notice of at the last, says the Meaux, that these Heretics did it out of affectation, insomuch that the holy Pope, St. Leo the Great, would that those who were known as such by this mark, should be expelled the Church. How does it appear that their affectation was taken notice of? or that they did it out of that? does Pope Leo say any thing of this? but only points at their Practice without so much as intimating their reason; Was their affectation the mark by which the Pope would have them known? As de Meaux slighly, but not honestly, makes him speak, by putting those words of his, as relating to his own that went before, whereas in Leo they relate not to the doing it outof affectation, for he speaks not a word of that, but merely to the not drinking the Blood; This was the only mark by which they were known as such; by these indicia, these marks and tokens of not drinking the Blood, they were to be known, and discovered, and made manifest, according to the words of St. Leo, by their visible Practice, not by their Opinion or their Affectation; and for this they were to be expelled the Society of Christians, because they refused to drink the Blood of our Redemption, without regard to their private or particular reasons, which St. Leo takes no notice of: These cunning and dissembling Heretics to cover their dissimulation and infidelity, and hid themselves the better, which was it seems their main end and design, might take the Cup, but yet not drink of it nor taste the least drop of Wine; and for this cause there must have been time and a particular vigilance to discern these Heretics from amongst the Faithful, and not because there was a general liberty to receive one or both Species; as the Meaux pretends, That liberty is a very strange thing which has no manner of evidence for it, which Pope Leo says nothing of, but the quite contrary, namely, that the Body and Blood were both received in the Communion; and which if it had been allowed, as it would have bred infinite confusion in the Church, so the Manichees might have made use of it to their wicked purpose, of receiving only in one kind. The continuance of this fraud and dissimulation, either in the Manichees or some other Heretics and superstitious Christians, for it does not appear who they were caused a necessity at last in the time of Pope Gelasius, to make an express Order and Decree against the sacrilegious dividing of the Sacrament, and the taking of one Species without the other: And let us now come to consider that, as it is in Gratian's Decree, 
Comperimus autem quod quidam sumptâ tantummodò corporis sacri portione à calice Sacrati cruoris abstineant, qui proculdubiò (quoniam nescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi) aut integra Sacramenta percipia●… aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire. Gratian. decret. 3. pars dist. 2.  We find, says he, that some taking only a portion of the Body, abstain from the Cup of the holy Blood, which persons (because they seem to adhere to I know not what superstition) let them either take the Sacraments entirely, or else be wholly kept from them, because the division of one and the same Mystery cannot be without great Sacrilege. Can any thing be more plain or more full than this against mangling and dividing the blessed Sacrament, and against taking it in one kind? is it possible to put by such a home-thrust against it as this is? and will it not require great art to turn this into an argument for Communion in one kind, which is so directly against it? Surely the substance of words and arguments must be annihilated and transubstantiated into quite another thing, before this can be done: Let us see another trial of Monsieur de Meauxes skill, Gelasius, says he, was obliged to forbid expressly to Communicate 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 mean of deceiving. Was it then free till the time of Pope Gelasius, to receive either in one or both kinds? does any such thing appear in the whole Christian Church? or is there any instance of any one Public Communion without both kinds? is a Decree of a Church-Governour upon a particular occasion against particular Heretics and superstitious Persons new risen up, and persuant to a general Law of Christianity, and the Custom of the whole Church? is that a sign the thing was free before? Then it was free for Christians not to come to the Sacrament at all, before such and such Councils and Bishops commanded them to come at such times: Then it was free for the Priests who ministered, to receive but in one kind, before this Decree of Gelasius, for 'tis to those it is referred in Gratian, where the title of it is, The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ, without the Blood 
† Corpus Christi fine ejus sanguine sacerdos non debet accipere. Ib. . Though there is no mention of the Priest in the Decree, neither was there in the title in the ancient MSS Copies, as Cassander assures us 
‖ Ep. 19 ; and it seems plainly to concern neither the Priest nor the Faithful, who by a constant and universal custom received in both kinds, but only those superstitious persons who were then at Rome, and, for I know not what reason, refused the Cup; and though there was a particular reason to make this Decree against them, yet there needed no reason to make a Decree for the Faithful, who always Communicated in both kinds, and it is plain from hence, did so in the time of Gelasius.  
The motive inducing this Pope to make this Decree was, because he found that some did not receive the Blood as well as the Body; and the reason why they did not, was some either Manichean or other Superstition; so that this Decree, I own, was occasioned by them, and particularly relates to them, and shows that they herein differed from the Faithful, not only in their superstition, but in the practice too; but to say that he forbade this practice only in respect of such a Superstition going along with it, and that he did not forbid the Practice itself, which was the effect of it, is so notoriously false, that the Decree relates wholly to the Practice, and as to the Superstition it does not inform us what it was, or wherein it consisted; no doubt it must be some Superstition or other, that hinders any from taking the Cup, the superstitious fear of spilling Christ's Blood, or the superstitious belief that one Species contains both the Body and Blood together, and so conveys the whole virtue of both; which is truly Superstition, as having no foundation in Scripture, or in the Institution of Christ, which gives the Sacrament its whole virtue, and and annexs it not to one but to both Species. And whatever the Superstition be, Gelasius declares it is Sacrilege to divide the Mystery, or to take one Species without the other; the reason which he gives against taking one kind, is general and absolute, because the Mystery cannot be divided without Sacrilege; so that however our Adversaries may assoil themselves from the Superstition in Gelasius, they can never get off from the Sacrilege: How wide these conjectures from Pope Leo and Gelasius are from the mark, which the Meaux aims at, I shall let him see from one of his own Communion, whose knowledge and judgement in antiquity was no way inferior to his own, and his honesty much greater; who thus sums up that matter against one that would have strained and perverted it to the same use that de Meaux does: 
Conjectura vero quam adfert ex Leonis Sermone & Gelasii decreto prorsus contrarium evincit, nam ex iis manifestè constat, horum Pontificum temporibus Communionem non nisi in utrâque specie in Ecclesiâ usitatam fuisse; Quomodo enim Manichaei hâc notâ deprehenderentur, quod ingredientes Ecclesiam, percepto cum reliquis corpore Domini à sanguine Redemptionis abstinerent nisi calix Dominici sanguinis distributus fuisset & quomodo superstitionis convincerentur qui sumptâ Dominici corporis portione, à calice sacrati cruoris abstinerent nisi calix ille sacrati cruoris omnibus 〈◊〉 Ecclesiâ fuisset oblatus? non igitar ut quidam existimant novo decreto utriusque speciei usum hi sanctissimi Pontifices edixerunt sed eos qui solennem hunc & receptum calicis sumendi morem neglexerunt, ille ut heresis Manichaeae affines notandos & evitandoes, bic ad usitatatam integri Sacramenti perceptionem compellendos aut ab omni prorsus Communione arcendos censuit, Nam Catholicis novo decreto non opus erat qui receptam integra Sacramenta percipiendi consuetudinem religiosè servabant. Cassand. de Com. sub utrâque p. 1026.  The Conjecture, says he, which he makes from the Sermon of Pope Leo, and the Decrees of Gelasius, does wholly evince the contrary to what he pretends, for from them it manifestly appears, that in the time of these two Popes, the Communion was only used in both kinds; for how should the Manichees be known by this mark, that when they came to the Churches, they abstained from the Blood of our Redemption, after they had with others, taken the Body of the Lord; unless the Cup of the Lord had been distributed? and how should they be convicted of Superstition, who took a portion of the Lord's Body, and abstained from the Cup, unless the Cup of his sacred Blood had been offered to all in the Church? These holy Popes did not therefore, as some imagine, appoint the use of both Species by a new Decree, but those who neglected this solemn and received custom of taking the Cup; one of these Popes would have them avoided and marked as those, who were akin to the Manichean Heresy; the other would have them compelled to the accustomed perception of the entire Sacrament, or else to be wholly kept from all Communion, for there was need of no new Decree for the Catholics who did Religiously observe the received custom of taking the Sacrament entirely, that is, in both kinds.  
There needs much better Arguments to prove the Public Communion in the Church to have been ever in one kind, than such improbable Guesses and forced Conjectures, whereby plain and full evidences are racked and tortured to get that out of them, which is contrary to their whole testimony, sense, and meaning. Let us inquire then, whether any particular instances can be given as matters of fact, which will make it appear, that the Church ever used only one kind in its Public Communions; this de Meaux attempts to show in the last place, and as the strongest evidence he can rally up for his otherwise vanquished cause: He brings both the Latin and Greek Church to his assistance, though the latter he owns, appears not for the most part, very favourable to Communion under one Species, but yet this manner of Communicating is practised however, and consecrated too by the Tradition of both Churches: If it be but practised in both Churches, this will go a great way to make it a Practice of the Catholic Church; though neither of those Churches singly, nor both of them together, do make the Catholic: But let us see how this is practised in those two great, though particular Churches, Why in the Office of Good-Friday, in the Latin Church, and the Office of the Greek Church every day in Lent, except Saturday and Sunday; at those times it seems, these two Churches have the Communion only in one kind, as appears by their public Offices; if they have it so at those times, at other times then, I suppose, they have it in both, or else how come those particular times, and those particular Offices, to be singled out and remarked as distinct and different from all the rest; then generally and for the most part the Public Communion is to be in both kinds, according to the Tradition of both those Churches; and then surely this Tradition which is thus consecrated by both the Churches, is violated by the Roman: 
Of the Mass on Good-Friday in the Roman Church.  But the Priest himself who officiates, takes but in one kind, in the Missa Parasceves, as they call it, or the Mass on Good-Friday, as appears by the Office; this custom than will show that the Priest himself, or the Minister Conficiens, may receive only in one kind in the Public Communion, as well as the People, which I think they ordinarily think unlawful, and call it Sacrilege if he should ordinarily do so; and if I remember, Bellarmine himself says, 
* Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti, nam quia Sacramentum sub duplici specie institutum est, utraque species necessariò ab aliquibus sumenda est. Bellarm. de Euchar. c. 4. c. 23.  The Sumption of both Species is necessary for the Priest, who officiates, as it is a Sacrament as well as a Sacrifice; for since the Sacrament was Instituted under both kinds, it is necessary that both kinds be taken by somebody, to make it a Sacrament. This Communion then of the Priest in one kind, must be no Sacrament, and the Missa Parasceves, must be a very imperfect one, and I think themselves are pleased so to call it, it must be but equivocally called a Mass, as Cardinal de Bona phrases it 
† Missam illam non nisi aequivocè ita dici. Bona rer. Lyturg. l. 1. c. 15. ; and consequently such an unusual, and extraordinary, and imperfect Communion as this, will be no good precedent, nor an instance of any weight and authority to justify the practice of Public Communion in one kind: But after all, perhaps there may be a great mistake, and this Mass on Good-Friday, though it be very different from all others, yet may not be a Communion in one kind, but in both; and so may that in the Greek Church, in the Lyturgy of the Presanctified, which is used on most days in Lent; and then we may relieve the Church of Rome from the difficulty of the Priests Communicating but in one kind, and vindicate both the Churches in great measure, from being guilty of such an irregular practice, contrary to the general practice of the whole Church, and to the institution of Christ; this cannot to this day be laid to the Greek Church, who never uses the Communion in one kind, neither privately nor publicly, nor could it be charged upon the Roman till long after this particular Mass on Good-Friday was used in it, which it is plain it was in the eleventh Age, from the Ordo Romanus, Amulatius, Alcuinus, Rupertus Tuiriensis, and others; but there is no manner of proof that the Public Communion in one kind was brought into the Church of Rome till the thirteenth Century, when it came by degrees into some particular Churches, as Thomas Aquinas informs us, and was afterwards established by a general Decree in the Council of Constance: The Mass therefore on Good-Friday, though it was a singular and different Office from all others, they not thinking it fit, for I know not what reasons, to make a formal Consecration of Christ's Body on the same day he died, but to Celebrate the Communion with what was thus consecrated the day before, yet it was not wholly in the one species of Bread, but in that of Wine too, as is plain from the Office itself, and from those Authors who have wrote upon it: 
Corpus Domini quod pridiè remansit ponentes in patenam & Subdiaconus teneat calicem cum vino non consecrato, & alter Subdiaconus patenam cum corpore Domini— quibus tenentibus accipit unus Presbyter prior patenam, & alter calicem & defertur super altare nudatum. Ordo Romanus, p. 75. ex Edit. Hittorp.  The Bread which was Consecrated the day before, was brought by the Sub Deacon, and a Calais of unconsecrated Wine by another Sub-Deacon; and the Priest sets them both together upon the Altar; then after some Prayers, and particularly the Lord's Prayer, he takes the consecrated Bread 
‖ Sumit de Sanctâ & ponit in calicem, Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sactificatum panem & communicant omnes cum silentio. Ib.  and puts into the Calais, and so the unconsecrated Wine is sanctified by the sanctified Bread; and then they all Communicate with silence: They Communicated with the Bread and the Wine thus mixed together, and so their Communion this day was not in one kind: But this Wine, says de Meaux, was not truly Consecrated, this Sanctification of the unconsecrated Wine, by the mixture of the Body of our Lord, cannot be that true Consecration by which the Wine is changed into the Blood: I cannot tell whether it be such a Consecration that does that in his sense, but it may be as true a Sacramental Consecration of the Elements for all that, not only by virtue of the mixture and by way of contact, as some explain it 
* Allter in Romano Ordine legitur ut contactu Dominici corporis integra fiat Communio. Cassand. de Com. sub utr. p. 1027. Concil. Araus. primum. , but by the solemnity of the action, and by all the Religious circumstances that attend it, and especially by those Prayers and Thanksgivings which were then used; as in Micrologus, 'tis clearly and plainly expressed, 
† Vinum non consecratum cum Dominicâ Oratione & Dominici Corporis immissione jubet consecrare. Microlog. de Ecclesiast. Observe. c. 19 in Edit. Hittorp. p. 742.  that the Wine is Consecrated with the Lord's Prayer, and the Immission of the Lord's Body. And why will not de Meaux allow, that a true Consecration may be made by those words and prayers, as well as by those formal words, This is my Body; when it is made out beyond all contradiction, both by Dallee and Albertinus, that the Primitive Church did not Consecrate by those words, but by a Prayer, and their own St. Gregory says, 
‖ Apostolos solâ Dominicâ prece praemissâ consecrasse & Sacramenta distribnisse. Greg. l. 7. Ep. 63. ad Syr.  That the Apostles Consecrated the Sacrament only with the Lord's Prayer: Which was used here and particularly observed to be so by Micrologus, as that whereby the Wine was consecrated; so that all Monsieur de Meauxes labour is vain, to show that the Consecration could not be without words; And that it cannot enter into the mind of a man of sense, that it could ever be believed in the Church, the Wine was consecrated without words, by the sole mixture of the Body: The Consecration might be made without those very formal words now used in the Roman Missal, as it was by Prayer in the Primitive Church; Walafridus Strabo, observes concerning this very Office on Good-Friday, that it was agreeable to the more ancient and simple way of the Communion of the first Christians, which was performed only with the use of the Lord's Prayer, and some commemoration of Christ's Passion 
* Et relatio majorum est ita primis temporibus Missas fieri solitas, sicut modo in Parasceve Paschae communicationem facere solemus, i. e. prâmissâ Oratione Dominicâ & sicut ipse Dominus noster praecepit, commemoratione passionis ejus adhibita. Walagrid. Strabo de rebus Eccles. c. 22. p. 680. Edit. Hittorp. , and yet he did not question but the Consecration was truly made by that simple manner; and it did so far enter into the minds of the men of sense, that were in those times, that they all did believe that the Wine was truly consecrated this way; for so says expressly the Ordo Romanus, the ancient Ceremonial, as he calls it, of that Church; the Wine is sanctified and there is no difference between that and consecrated, that I know of, and it is plain they both mean the same thing there, for it calls the consecrated Body, the sanctified Body 
† Sanctificatur vinum non consecratumper sanctificatum panem. , and I know not what Sanctification of another nature that can be, which is not Consecration, or Sanctifing it to a holy and Sacramental use; indeed this may not so well agree with the Doctrine and Opinion of Transubstantiation, which requires the powerful and almighty words of, This is my Body; this is my Blood, to be pronounced over the Elements, to convert them into Christ's natural Flesh and Blood; but it agrees as well with the true notion of the Sacrament, and the Primitive Christians no doubt had as truly the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, though they used not those words of Consecration, which the Latins now do; and the Latins had them both as truly in the Missa Parascues, in which as Strabo says, they used the old simple manner of Communion, as much as on any other days: De Meaux must either deny that Consecration of the Elements may be truly performed by that simple and ancient way, which will be to deny the Apostolic and first Ages to have had any true Consecration, or else he must own this to be a true one; The Roman Order says, not only the Wine is Consecrated, which it does in more places than one, but that it is fully and wholly Consecrated, so that the people may be confirmed by it 
‖  ex eadem sacro vase confirmetur populus quia vinum etiam non consecratum sed sanguine Domini commixtum sanctificatur per omnem modum. Ord. Rom. ; a phrase often used in Ecclesiastical Writers for partaking of the Cup and entire Sacrament; Amalarius thinks this to be so true a Consecration, that he says 
* Qui juxta ordinem libelli per commixtionem panis & vini consecrat vinum, non observat traditionem Ecclesiae de quâ dicit Innocentius, isto biduo Sacramenta penitùs non celebrari. Amalar. Fortunat. de Eccles. Offic. l. 1. c. 15. Edit. Hittorp. , He who according to the order of that Book, Consecrates the Wine by the commixtion of the Bread and Wine, does not observe the Tradition of the Church, of which Innocent speaks, that on these two days (Friday and Saturday before Easter) no Sacraments at all should be Celebrated: So that he complains of it, because such a Consecration is used on that day. The Author of the Book of Divine Offices, under the name of Alcuinus 
† De hâc autem Communicatione utrum debeat fieri suprà relatum est— Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem. Alcuini. lib. de Off. div. p. 253. Ib. , makes a question whether there ought to be such a Communion? but says expressly that the unconsecrated Wine is sanctified by the sanctified Bread. Micrologus says the same, in the place produced before, that it is Consecrated by Prayer as well as mixture with the Body; and he gives this as a reason against Intinction in that Chapter 
‖ C. 19 In parascene vinum non consecratum cum Doninicâ oratione & Dominici corporis immissione jubet consecrare, ut populus plenè possit communicare; quod utique superfluo praeciperet, si intinctum Dominicum à priore die corpus servaretur, & ita intinctum populo ad Communicandum sufficere videretur. , that the Wine is Consecrated on that day, so that the people might fully Communicate; to show that it would not have been sufficient, as he thinks, to have had the Bread dipped in the Wine the day before and so kept; and I suppose, he was of de Meauxes mind, that the Wine was not so fit to be kept for fear of that change which might happen to it, even from one day to the next; but he is so far from Communion in one kind, that in that very Chapter against Intinction, he mentions Pope Julius his Decree 
* Julius Papa bujusmodi intinctionem penitus prohibet, & seorsùm panem & seorsùm calicem juxta Dominicam institutionem, sumenda docet.  which forbids that, and commands the Bread to be given by itself, and the Wine by itself, according to Christ's Institution; and likewise the Decree of Gelasius 
† Vnde & beatus Gelasius excommunicari illos praecepit, quicunque sumpto corpore Dominico, à calicis participatione se abstinerent, nam & ipse in eodem decreto asserit, bujusmodi Sacramentorum divisio sine grandi sacrilegio provenire non potest. Ib. Microlog.  in these words: He commanded those to be Excommunicated who taking the Lord's Body abstained from the participation of the Cup: And he asserts, says he, in the same Decree, that this division of the Sacraments could not be without great Sacrilege. So that this man could not be a favourer of Communion in one kind, or an asserter that the Good Friday Communion was such. When ever this Communion came into the Latin Church, for it was not ancient to have any Communion on those two days on which Christ died and was buried, yet it will by no means serve the purpose of de Meaux for Communion in the Church in one kind, for it is plain, this Communion was in both; and it was the belief of the Church, and of all those who writ upon the Roman Order, except Hugo de St. Victore who is very late and no older than the twelfth Century, when Corruptions were come to a great height, that the Communion on that day was full and entire, as well with the Bread which was reserved the day before, as with the Wine which was truly Consecrated on that, and held to be so by the opinion of them all.  

Of the Office of the Presanctified in the Greek Church.  The Lyturgy of the Presanctified in the Greek Church, will afford as little assistance, if not much less, to de Meauxes Opinion of Public Communion in one kind, than the Missa Parasceves we see has done in the Latin; the Greeks do not think fit solemnly to Consecrate the Eucharist, which is a Religious Feast of Joy, upon those days which they appoint to Fasting, Mortification, and Sadness, and therefore during the whole time of Lent they Consecrate only upon Saturdays and Sundays, on which they do not fast, and all the other five days of the Week they receive the Communion in those Elements which are Consecrated upon those two days, which they therefore call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Presanctified: The antiquity of this observation cannot be contested, as de Meaux says, seeing it appears, not in the sixth Age, as he would have it, but in the seventh, whereas the beginning of the Latin Office on Good-Friday is very uncertain, and there is no evidence for it, till towards the ninth Century: In a Council held under Justinian, in the Hall of the Imperial Palace at Constantinople, called therefore in Trullo, An. 686 there is a Canon which commands that on all days of Lent, except Saturday and Sunday, and the day of the Annunciation, the Communion be made of the Presanctified; there was long before a Canon in the Council of Laodicea, which forbade any Oblation to be made in Lent but upon those days, viz. The Sabbath and the Lord's Day, but that says nothing of the Presanctified, nor of any Communion on the other days; but let it be as ancient as they please, although it be a peculiar Office, which is neither in the Lyturgy of St. Basil, or St. Chrysostom, but is to be found by itself in the Bibliotheca Patrum, where it is translated by Genebrardus, it is most abominably false that it was only the Bread which they reserved, or which they distributed in those days to the People; for they pour some of the consecrated Wine upon the consecrated Bread, which they reserve on those days, and make the form of the Cross with it upon the Bread; as appears from the Rubric in the Greek Euchologion 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Eucholog. : And whatever any private men may pretend to the contrary, as Michael Cerularius, or Leo Allatius, a Latinized Greek, this can with no manner of reason prejudice or confront the public Ritual of a Church, which as it in no instance practices Communion in one kind, but to prevent that, uses often the mixture of the two Species, where never so little of each is sufficient to justify the use of both; so by this custom of dropping some of the consecrated Wine upon the reserved Bread, it shows both its judgement and its care never to have the Communion wholly in one kind: But to take off this custom of theirs of dropping some Wine upon the Bread which they reserved for this Communion, de Meaux says, That immediately after they have dropped it, they dry the Bread upon a Chafendish, and reduce it to Powder, and in that manner keep it, as well for the Sick, as for the Office of the Presanctified. So that no part of the fluid Wine can remain in the Bread thus dried and powdered; however this is, for I must take it upon de Meauxes credit, finding nothing like it in this Office of the Greeks, yet to a man that believes Transubstantiation, and thinks the most minute particle of the Species of Wine or Bread contains in a miraculous manner the whole substance of Christ's Body and Blood, this difficulty methinks might in some measure be salved, however small parts of the Wine may be supposed to remain in the crumbs of Bread; and as the Greeks when they mix the Wine and the Bread together for the Sick and Infants, yet believe that they give both the Species, however small the margaritae or crumbs be which are in the Wine, so they do the same as to the presanctified Bread, however few unexhaled particles of Wine remain in it: But Monsieur de Meaux knows very well, and acknowledges that the Greeks do further provide against a mere dry Communion in this Office, by mixing this sacred Bread with more Wine and Water at the time of the Communion; and then, as I proved, in the case of the Latin Office on Good Friday, that the unconsecrated Wine was consecrated by this mixture and by the Prayers and Thanksgivings that were used at that Solemnity; so by this way as well as by the first mixture of some drops of Wine with the Bread, the Communion in both kinds will be secured in the Greek Church, in their Office of the Presanctified; and to put it out of all doubt, that this is such a Communion, let us but look into their Office, and we shall find there it plainly is so: Behold, say the Faithful, in their Prayer before the Communion, the immaculate Body and the quickening Blood of Christ, are here to be set before us on this mystical Table 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. : And the Priest in his low Prayer, Begs of Christ that he would vouchsafe to communicate to them his immaculate Body and sacred Blood, and by them to the whole People 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. : Then after he has Communicated, He returns God thanks for the Communion of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. So that it is most remarkable, as de Meaux says, that the Greeks change nothing in this Office, from their ordinary Formularies; the sacred Gifts are always named in the plural, and they speak no less there in their Prayers of the Body and the Blood: Is it to be imagined they could do this, if they received not any thing upon these days but the Body of our Lord? would they not then as the Church of Rome has done, change in this Office from their ordinary Formularies; but so steadfastly is it; says he, imprinted in the minds of Christians, that they cannot receive one of the Species without receiving at the same time, not only the virtue but also the substance of one and the other. So firmly is it imprinted upon the minds of those Christians, that they ought not to receive one Species alone without the other, contrary to the plain Institution of Christ, that they take all care not to do it, either in this or any other Office, lest they should lose the whole virtue, and substance, and benefit of them: If in spite of the opinions of the Greeks themselves, which the Meaux owns are of another mind, and in spite of their publie Rubric, their Rituals and Missals, they must be understood to celebrate the Communion in their Churches in one kind; then so far as I know, de Meaux may as confidently impose upon us and all the World, and bear us down by dint of Impudence, that both the Greek Church and all the Christian Churches that ever were in the World, had always the Public Communion in one kind, notwithstanding all their Offices and all their Liturgies speak to the contrary.  
And now having so fully shown the universal consent and constant and perpetual Practice of the Church for Communion in both kinds, and having answered all the Instances by which the Meaux vainly endeavours to overthrow that: I have, I hope, in some measure performed what was the subject of de Meauxes Prayer at the beginning of his Treatise, That not only Antiquity may be illustrated, but that Truth also may become manifest and triumphant 
† P. 9 . And I have hereby wholly taken away the main strength, and the very foundation of his Book, for that lies in those several customs and pretended matters of fact which he brings to justify the Church's practice for single Communion; and if these be all false and mistaken, as upon examination they appear to be, than his principles upon which he found'st this wrong practice, if they are not false and erroneous, yet they are useless and insignificant, for they do not prove, but only suppose the Church's practice; and if the practice be not true, as it is plain it is not, then what signify those principles which are wholly grounded upon a wrong supposal, and are only designed to make out that which never was? Those principles are like framing an Hypothesis to give an account of the reason of some strange and extraordinary thing, which thing upon enquiry, proves false and mistaken, and so they are but like the Virtuoso's solution of a Phoenominon, which, notwithstanding all his Philosophic fancy and fine Hypothesis, never was in Nature. Monsieur de Meaux must better prove to us the Practice of the Church for Communion in one kind, than he has yet done, before he establishes such Principles, by which such a Practice may be made out; for whatever the Principles be, as long as the Practice is false, the Principles will not make it true. And since I have so largely proved that Communion in both kinds, was the Practice of the Primitive and the whole Catholic Church for above Twelve hundred years, and have disproved all the instances of the Meaux to the contrary, so that no manner of question can be made of the truth of this matter of fact, unless where, as de Meaux says, Passion makes prevaricated persons undertake and believe any thing 
* P. 164. : I have sufficiently answered that part of de Meauxes Book, wherein the strength of the whole lies, and that which is the ground and foundation of all the rest being destroyed, the other falls of its self; I might therefore spare myself the trouble of Examining the Principles which the Meaux lays down, as the Reasons of the Church's practice; for if the Practice of the Church be against him, the reasons of that Practice will be so too, and I may turn those upon him as I have done the other: His third Principle, which is the most considerable, and which alone, he says, carries along with it, the decision of this question 
† P. 194. , namely, That the Law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual Practice, this is wholly for us, who are assured that we have the constant and perpetual Practice of the Church for so many Ages for the Communion in both kinds, and therefore though the Law of Christ, which is so clear in itself, that it needs nothing to explain it, be the main thing upon which the decision of this matter depends, yet the Tradition and Practice of the Church is a farther confirmation of the Law to us, and we shall be willing to join with de Meaux in whatever he can say for Tradition, provided it be so certain and general and authentic, as we have proved it to be for Communion in both kinds, and provided that it do not destroy a plain Law of Christ, nor make void the Commandment of God, which we can never believe that an universal Tradition of the Catholic Church ever will do: What a vain and empty flourish some are used to make with a name of Tradition and the Church: I have shown in this question of the Communion in one kind, in the managing of which, I have, as de Meaux speaks, Attacked our enemies in their own Fortress 
‖ P. 254. , and taken this Goliath weapon out of their hands; and though the disarming the Meaux of that, in which his whole strength lies, is entirely to overcome him; yet since some of the reasons he lays down to justify his pretended Tradition, may without that, considered merely by themselves, carry a seeming plausibleness, if not real strength in them to defend the Communion in one kind from those apparent difficulties under which, as he owns, it labours, and which he would willingly take off from it: I shall in the last place consider all those principles and arguments from Reason which are laid down by him to this purpose.  
His first principle is this: That in the administration of the Sacraments we are obliged to do not all that which Jesus Christ hath done, but only that which is essential to them. This we allow, and this principle, as he says, Is without contest: No Church, nor no Christians, did ever think themselves obliged to all those circumstances with which Christ celebrated the blessed Eucharist at its first Institution; and as to Baptism, Christ himself did not perform, but only command that Sacrament: I cannot think that Monsieur Jurieux should propose this for a rule, as de Meaux charges him 
* P. 349. , To do universally all that Jesus Christ did, in such sort, that we should regard all circumstances he observed, as being of absolute necessity. What to do it only at night, and after supper, and in an upper room, and the like? This could never enter into any man's head of common understanding, much less into so learned a man's as Monsieur Jurieux. They who are so zealous for unleavened Bread, because Christ probably used it (for there are disputes about it) at his Paschal Supper, though if he did it was only by accident, yet do not think fit to inquire what was the particular sort of Wine which he blessed and gave his Disciples, nor think themselves obliged to celebrate only in that, which yet they might do with as much reason; and though the putting Water into the Wine, which was very ancient, and used very likely by the Jews and others in those hot Countries, is not remarked in the first Institution; yet I know none that make any great scruple at it: As to the posture of receiving, which has been the most controverted, yet the stiffest Contenders in that, have not thought it necessary to keep exactly to the same in which Christ gave and the Apostles received at first, which was discumbency; if these circumstances indeed had been commanded, as a great many of the like nature were very precisely to the Jews in their eating the Passover, than they ought to have been observed in obedience to the Divine Law; but the Command of Christ, Do this; does not in the least extend to these, but only to the Sacramental Action of blessing Bread and eating it, blessing Wine and drinking it in remembrance of Christ: For that was the thing which Christ did, and which he commanded them to do; and the very same thing may be done with quite other circumstances than those with which he did it, with other words, for we know not what were the words with which Christ blessed the Bread or the Wine; with other company, more or less than twelve men, in another posture then that of lying, and in another place and time, and the like; he that does not plainly see those to be circumstances, and cannot easily distinguish them from the thing itself which Christ did and commanded to be done, must not know what it is to eat and to drink, unless it be with his own family, in such a room of his own house, and at such an hour of the day; 'tis certainly as easy to know what Christ instituted, and what he commanded, as to know this, and consequently what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament without which it would not be such a Sacrament as Christ celebrated and appointed, as to know what it is to eat and to drink: and yet Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to make this the great difficulty, 
P. 239, 257, 349.  To know what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament, and what does not, and to distinguish what is essential in it, from what is not. And by this means he endeavours to darken what is as clear as the light, and so to avoid the plainest Institution and the clearest Command: The Institution, says he, does not suffice, since the question always returns to know what appertains to the essence of the Institution, Jesus Christ not having distinguished them. Jesus Christ instituted this Sacrament in the evening, at the beginning of the night in which he was to be delivered, it was at this time he would leave us his Body given for us: Does the time or the hour then belong to the Institution? does this appertain to the essence of it? and is it not as plainly and evidently a circumstance, as night or noon is a circumstance to eating and drinking? Does the command of Christ, Do this, belong to that or to the other circumstances of doing it, when the same thing, the same Sacramental action may be done without them? is not this a plain rule to make a distinction between the act itself, and the circumstances of performing it? Because there were a great many things done by Jesus Christ in this Mystery, which we do not believe ourselves obliged to do: such as being in an upper Room, lying upon a Bed, and the like, which are not properly things done by Christ, so much as circumstances of doing it; for the thing done, was taking Bread and Wine, and blessing and distributing them; does therefore Christ's command Do this, belong no more to eating and drinking, than it does to those other things, or rather circumstances with which he performed those? is drinking as much a circumstance as doing it after supper, if it be, ear-ring may be so too? Monsieur de Meaux is ashamed to say this, but yet 'tis what he aims at; for else the Cup will necessarily appear to belong to the Sacrament as an essential, and consequently an indispensible part of it; and this may be plainly known to be so from the words of Christ and from Scripture, without the help of Tradition; though that also, as I have shown, does fully agree with those, but they are so plain as not to need it in this case: Eating and drinking are so plainly the essential part of the Sacrament, and so clearly distinguished from the other circumstances in Scripture, that St. Paul always speaks of those without any regard to the other: The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? the Cup of Blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ 
* 1 Cor. 10.16. ? For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come 
† 1 Cor. 11.26,27,28,29. . Whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily: Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup, for he that eateth and drinketh— So that he must be wilfully blind who cannot see from Scripture what is essential to this Sacrament, from what is not: But Monsieur de Meaux thinks to find more advantage in the other Sacrament of Baptism, and therefore he chief insists upon that under this head, and his design is to make out that immersion or plunging under Water, is meant and signified by the word Baptise, in which, he tells us, the whole World agree 
‖ P. 168.  and that this is the only manner of Baptising we read of in the Scriptures, and that he can show by the Acts of Councils, and by ancient Rituals that for thirteen hundred years the whole Church Baptised after this manner, as much as it was possible 
* P. 171. . If it be so, than it seems there is not only Scripture but Tradition for it, which is the great principle he takes so much pains to establish; And what then shall we have to say to the Anabaptists, to whom the Meaux seems to have given up that cause, that he may defend 〈◊〉 other of Communion in one kind, for his aim in all this is to make immersion as essential to Baptism, as eating and drinking to the Lord's Supper? and if Scripture and Tradition be both so fully for it, I know not what can be against it; but de Meaux knows some Gentlemen who answer things as best pleases them; 
P. 299.  the present difficulty transports them, and being pressed by the objection, they say at that moment what seems most to disentangle them from it, without much reflecting whether it agree, I do not say, with truth, but with their own thoughts. The Institution of the Eucharist in Bread and Wine, and the command to do this, which belonged to both eating and drinking, lay very heavy upon him, and to ease himself of those which he could not do if it were always necessary to observe what Christ instituted and commanded, he was willing to make Baptism by dipping to be as much commanded and instituted as this, though it be not now observed as necessary either by those of the Church of Rome, or the Reformed; and besides his arguments to prove that from Scripture, he makes an universal Tradition of the Church, which he pretends all along in his Book, is against Communion in both kinds, and which is the great thing he goes upon, yet to be for this sort of Baptism no less than 1300 years: So that neither the law in Scripture, nor Tradition, as it explains that law, is always, it seems, to be observed, which is the thing ought openly to be said for Communion in one kind: The Cause itself demands this, and we must not expect that an error can be defended after a consequent manner 
‖ Ib. . But is Scripture and Tradition both for Baptism by immersion? Surely not; the word Baptise, in which the command is given, signifies only to wash in general, and not to plung all over, as I have already shown in this Treatise 
† P. 21. , and as all Writers against the Anabaptists do sufficiently make out, to whom I shall refer the Reader for further satisfaction in that Controversy, which it is not my business to consider at present; and so much is de Meaux out about Tradition being so wholly and universally for Baptism by immersion, that Tertullian plainly speaks of it by intinction 
‖ Omne praeterea cunctationis & tergiversationis erga p●…nitentiam viti●… praesum●… intiuctionis importat. Tertul. de paenit. Cap. 6.  and by sprinkling 
* Quis enim tibi tam insidae paenitentiae viro aspergivem unam cujuslibet aquae comm odabit? Ib. ; reprehending those who presumed upon pardon to be obtained by Baptism without repentance: and S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Magnus, determines, That the form of Baptism by aspersion, is as good and valid as by immersion, and confirms this by several examples and instances of the Jewish Purifications 
† Aspergam super vos aquam mundam— Ezech. 36.25. non erit mundus quoniam aqua aspersionis non est super eum sparsa Num. 19.19. Aqua aspersionis purificatio est Num. 19.9. unde apparet aspersionem quoque aquae, instar salutaris lavacri obtinere. Cypr. Ep. 96. Edit. Oxon. , which were only by sprinkling. It is not the manner of washing, nor the quantity, or the sort of Water, but only washing with Water, which is essential to Baptism, and unalterable; and so it is not the sort of Bread, or Wine, or the manner of receiving them, that is essential to the Eucharist, but the receiving both of them is, because they are both commanded and instituted, and both of them are the matter of that Sacrament, as much as Water is of Baptism; in a word, without those we cannot do what Christ did and commanded to be done, though we may without the other circumstances with which he did them, which I think is a very plain way to distinguish the one from the other, though de Meaux is so unwilling to see it.  
The second principle of de Meaux is, That to distinguish what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of a Sacrament; we must regard the essential effect of that Sacrament. But must we regard nothing else? must we not regard the outward part as well as the inward? and does not that appertain to the substance of a Sacrament as well as the other? I confess the word substance which the Meaux uses, is equivocal and ambiguous, for it may signify either the outward part of it as 'tis a sacred sign or symbol, and so the matter and form does appertain to the substance oressence of it, or it may signify the inward grace and virtue, which is also of the substance of the Sacrament as 'tis the thing signified, and it is not only one but both of these that do appertain to the substance of the Sacrament, or to speak more clearly and plainly, that make it a Sacrament: If the Meaux understands nothing else by the substance of the Sacrament but the essential effect of it, than his words are confused and run together, and he had as good have put it thus: That to distinguish what appertains or does not appertain to the essential effect of the Sacrament, we must regard the essential effect of the Sacrament: Which though it had not been sense, yet he had better told us his meaning by it; but surely there is something else that does plainly belong to the substance of the Sacrament, besides the essential effect; 'tis strange that the Meaux, the Treasury of Wisdom, the Fountain of Eloquence, the Oracle of his Age, as he is styled by the Translator, but who like the Oracles of old, too often doubles and equivocates, that so great a man should not either understand or consider the plain nature of a Sacrament, so as to account the external and visible part to belong to the essence or substance of it, as well as the internal or the essential effect: Does not every Catechism tell us that the Sacrament is made up of these two parts, of the Res Terrena and Caelestis, as Irenaeus 
* L. 4.  calls it; the Esca Corporalis and Spiritualis, as St. Ambrose 
† De Mist. ; the Sacramentum or outward Sign, and Res Sacramenti, as St. Austin 
‖ De Consec. didst 2. ; and must we not have regard to both these, without which we destroy the very nature of a Sacrament, as well as to one? The very essence or substance, if de Meaux pleases, of the Sacrament of Baptism lies in the outward washing the body with Water, in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost, which is the outward form of it, without which it was declared null, as well as in the cleansing the Soul, and we must regard the one as well as the other, though St. Peter tells us, 
1 Pet. 3.21  It is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, whereby baptism saveth us, but the answer of a good conscience towards God. Yet still we are to observe the outward ceremony, and may know by another way, namely, from the Institution, that that does appertain to the substance of it; else with the Quakers and Socinians, we may leave off all Sacraments, and all the positive and outward ceremonies of Christianity, and only regard the essential effect and invisible grace of them, which they also pretend to have without the visible sign: As washing with water does appertain to the substance of Baptism, so does eating Bread and drinking Wine appertain to the substance of the Eucharist; and we must regard those which are the true matter of this Sacrament as well as the essential effect of it; else how were the Aquarii that used Water, and others that used Milk, reproved so severely by St. Cyprian and Pope Julius, if the keeping to the outward Elements which Christ has instituted and appointed, be not as well to be regarded as the inward and essential effect? and if these do not appertain to the substance of the Sacrament, and could not be easily known and distinguished from the other circumstances of the Sacrament, by other means than by regard to the essential effect, which they might hope to partake of without them: DeMeaux is so wholly taken up with the essential Effect, and entire Fruit, and the inseparable Grace of the Sacrament, with which words he hopes to blind and amuse his Reader, and therefore he drops them almost in half the Pages of his Book, that he takes not due care, nor is much concerned about the outward and visible part of the Sacrament, which he knows is so grossly violated, and shamefully mangled, and mutilated in his Church, and yet this is so considerable, that 'tis not a true Sacrament without it; and Gelasius plainly calls the dividing of the outward part of the Sacrament the dividing of the Mystery; and to be plain with him, and to give the kill blow to his cause, and to all the artifical slights with which he fences and defends it, and as he speaks, For once to stop the mouth of these Cavillers, I shall lay down this principle, that the essential effect or inward substance of the Sacrament is not ordinarily to be received or partaken, without receiving and partaking the external part or the outward substance of it, which is instituted and appointed by Christ: And by this plain principle which I have made use of before, and shall further strengthen and confirm, all that he says about receiving the Grace, and Virtue, and essential Effect of the Sacrament by one kind, will be quite taken off and destroyed; but because this is the great Plea, and the fundamental reasoning which he  uses in his Book, I shall therefore fully consider it under these two Questions: 

1. Whether the same Grace, Virtue, and Benefit do not belong to one Species, or be not given by one Species which is by both?  
2. Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood, by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy, do not contain and give whole Christ, and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament?    
I. Whether the same Grace, Virtue, and Benefit be not given by one Species as by both? This de Meaux  asserts, and 'tis the foundation he all along goes upon; but is it not strange presumption when God has been pleased to appoint such a Religious Rite and Sacramental Action to be performed in such a manner, with a promise of such graces and benefits to those who perform it aright, to think he will grant the same benefits to those who perform it otherwise than he has appointed, and to venture to make a change and alteration from what he positively ordered, and yet think to partake of the same benefits another way, without any such outward means, and without any Sacraments at all, for they are wholly in his own free disposal; and he is not tied to any outward means, nor to such particular means as the Sacraments are; but since he has thought fit to make them the ordinary means of conveying those benefits to us, we cannot ordinarily hope for the one without the other; thus we cannot expect the virtue and benefit of Baptism without the outward ceremony of washing, and without observing that in such a way as Christ has appointed, i. e. washing with Water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; neither can we receive the inward grace and virtue of the Eucharist without taking that Sacrament as Christ hath appointed and commanded it, for all Sacraments would lose their worth and value, their esteem and reverence, and would not be necessary to be observed according to the Divine Institution, if without the observance of that we had any just grounds to hope for the virtue and benefits of them; there is therefore all the reason in the World to fear that God to preserve the integrity of his own Institution, and the force and authority of his own Laws, will deny the inward Grace and Virtue of the Sacrament to those who wilfully violate and transgress the outward observance of it in such a way as he has appointed: Has not Christ annexed the inward Grace and Virtue of the Sacrament to the outward Sign? If he have, and we do not receive the outward Sign as he has appointed, how can we then hope to receive the inward Grace? What is it that makes such an outward sign or ceremony as a Sacrament, be a means of conveying such spiritual Grace and Virtue, and exibiting such inward benefits to our minds? It is not any physical power, or natural virtue which they have in themselves; it is not the washing with a little Water can cleanse the Soul, or the eating a little Bread and drinking a little Wine, can nourish and strengthen it, but it is the Divine Power of Christ, who by his Institution has given such a spiritual and inward virtue to such outward signs and visible actions, and made these the means and instruments of conveying and exhibiting such grace and virtue and real benefits to us; all the power and efficacy they have to do this is owing purely to the Divine Institution, and wholly depends upon that; if therefore we do not observe the Institution, how can we expect the benefit that comes wholly from that, and if Christ by the Institution has annexed the grace, and virtue, and benefit of the Sacrament to both kinds, which he has plainly done by instituting of both; how can we then hope to receive it by one contrary to the Institution? and how can we be assured that we lose nothing, and are deprived of nothing by taking one only, and that this is as good and sufficient as taking of both? There is nothing appears from the will and pleasure of him that instituted both, upon which the whole virtue of them does entirely depend, from whence we can gather any such thing, it rather appears from thence that both are necessary, because bothare instituted; de Meaux therefore does not fetch it from thence, but from the nature of the thing itself, from the inseperableness of that grace which is given in the Sacrament, and from the impossibility in the thing to have it otherwise: Christ, says he, cannot separate the virtue of the Sacrament, nor effect that any other grace should accompany his Blood shed, than that same in the ground and substance which accompanies his Body immolated 
† P. 182. . But Christ can annex the virtue of the Sacrament to the whole Sacrament, and not to any part of it, and he can effect that the grace of his Body and Blood should accompany or belong to both the eating his Body and drinking his Blood, and not to the doing one of these without the other, contrary to his command and institution; although the grace be inseparable, so that the grace annexed to the Body be no other than that which is annexed to the Blood 
‖ P. 3. ; yet this grace may not be given till both the Body and Blood are received, as Bellarmine expressly says, it may not in the case of the Priests taking both kinds till the whole sumption of both Species is performed and finished 
* Posset etiam dici Eucharistiam sub specie panis non conferre gratiam nisi totâ sumptione Eucharistiae absolutâ, & quia cum sumitur utraque species non censetur absoluta sumptio nisi cum sumta est utraque species, ideò Eucharistiam sub specie panis conferre quidem gratiam sed non ante sumptionem alterius speciei. Bellarm. de Sacram. Euch. l. 4. c. 23. ; and if it may not be so in the case of the Priest, why not also in all other Communicants, unless Christ have made and declared it otherwise, which he has not? what will it then signify if, as de Meaux says, It be impossible to separate in the application the effect of Christ's Blood from that of his Body 
† P. 182. : If the effect of these be not applied till they are both received, and there be no application of the effect, as we cannot be assured there is without the receiving of both: But did Christ then, says he, suspend the effect which his Body was to produce, until such time as the Apostles had received the Blood, in the first institution of this Sacrament, and in the internal between their taking the Bread and the Cup? I answer, they did not receive the grace of the Sacrament till they had received the whole Sacrament, because the grace and effect was annexed to the whole and not to any part of it; and therefore the effect may not only be suspended till the whole is taken, but even utterly lost without receiving the whole. It is a little too nice and curious to inquire what are the precise moments in which we receive this grace of the Sacrament, or any other ordinance as well as what is the particular manner in which we do receive it, as whether all at once or by part, or whether the effect be given in such a minute, or suspended till the next? In return to de Meauxes question, I might as well ask him whether the effect of the Body is given when 'tis just put into the mouth? or when the species is chewed there? or when it is swallowed down and comes into the stomach? or whether it be suspended till all this is done? So in Baptism which he will needs have to be commanded by Christ, and anciently practised by immersion; Was the grace of it given when part of the body was dipped, or the whole immerged? and then, whether when the body was under water, or when it was raised out of it? and when this was performed by Trine Immersion, as 'tis commanded in the Apostolic Canons 
† Canon. 50. , was the effect of it suspended till the last immersion was over? so in the Jews eating of their Sacrifices whereby they were made partakers of the Altar, and had the virtue of those applied to them, as we by feeding on the Christian Sacrifice do partake of the virtue of that, Was this done by the first bit they eaten of them? or was the half the virtue applied when they had eaten half? or was the whole suspended till the whole was eaten? By these questions I hope de Meaux may see the vain subtlety and folly of his own, which he thinks is so much to the purpose, and does the business of proving the effect of the Sacrament to be given by one Species either before or without the other; when the effect depends, besides other things, upon the whole action, and the whole performance, and the receiving of both of them. When there is a conveyance of a thing by some visible ceremony which consists of several parts and several actions; as suppose the conveying an Estate by Deed, there is to be the setting of a Hand, and the putting of a Seal, and the delivery of it, and something given and received, as Livery and Seizing, and the like; all those things which the Law requires to be done as a form of passing and transferring of a right from one and receiving it by another; these are all to be done before the thing is truly, and legally, and rightly conveyed: The Sacraments he knows are outward tokens, and visible pledges, and solemn rites and ceremonies of Christ's conveying and our receiving his Body and Blood, and all the effects and benesits of them, and till all that the Law of Christ appoints to be done in them according to his command and institution, be truly and fully performed; we do not ordinarily receive, nor can we pretend a right to those things which they are designed to convey to us; which I think is a plain illustration of the thing, and takes off all the vain and nice subtleties of the Meaux about this matter; but yet I shall offer something further concerning it.  
First, The Grace of the Sacrament which God has annexed to both, and not to one Species, though it be not to be separated so that one Species should have a peculiar and distinct virtue proper to that, which does not belong to both of them, (as there were not two distinct virtues in the Sacrifice and the pouring out the Blood of the Sacrifice but one expiatory virtue by the Sacrifice whose Blood was poured out) yet this Grace is given in different measures and degrees, so that however confidently the Meaux determines, 
P. 179, 184.  
P. 7. 5. 161.  That the whole Grace and the entire Fruit of the Sacrament is received by one Species as well as both, and that one has always the same efficacy of virtue that both, so that we lose nothing by taking one Species only, but that Communion under one is as good and sufficient as under both: Yet this is contrary to the opinion of the learned men even of his own Church; Vasquez expressly declares the contrary, Their opinion, says he, seemed always more probable to me, who say, that there is greater fruit of grace received from both kinds than from one only, and therefore that they who take the Cup do attain a new increase of Grace 
* Probabilior sententia mihi semper visa est eorum qui dicunt majorem frugem gratiae ex utrâque specie hujus Sacramenti, quàm ex alterâ tantùm percipi, ac proinde eos qui calicem sumunt, novum augmentum gratiae consequi. Vasquez in Tert. disp. 215. c. 2. : And he citys several other Writers of the Roman Communion as agreeing with him in this, and even one of their own Popes, Clement the sixth, who granting the Communion of both kinds to one of our English Kings, does it with this particular reason set down in his Bull, That it might be for the augmentation of Grace 
†  ad Gratiae augmentum sub utrâque specie communicaret. Ib. . Alexander Alensis said the same before Vasquez, namely, That the Sumption under both kinds, which was that which our Lord delivered, was more complete and more efficacious 
‖ Sumptio sub utrâque specie, quem modam samendi tradidit Dominus, est majoris efficaciae & complementi. Alexand. Alens. in 4 sent. quest. 53. ; and although he defends and asserts that the Sumption under one is sufficient, yet that under both, he acknowledges, is of greater merit 
* Licet ill a sumtio, quae est in accipien do sub unâ specie sufficiat, illa tamen quae est sub duabus est majoris meriti. Ib. . Suarez tells us. This was the opinion of many Catholics, That there was more Grace given by both Species than by one alone; and grave men, says he, relate that this was held by most of the Fathers, who were present in the Council of Trent, and therefore that Council speaks very cautiously, and only says that the Faithful by communicating only in one kind, are deprived of no Grace necessary to Salvation 
† Fuit multorum Catholicorum opinio, plus gratiae dari per duas species quam per unam tantùm, Quam viri graves referunt tenuisse plures ex Patribus qui Concilio Tridentino affuerunt, & ideo idem Concilium cautè dixisse, fideles eo quòd communicent sub unâ tantùm specie, nullâ Gratiâ ad salutem necessariâ defraudari. Suarez Tom. 3. in Tert. Disp. 63. . So that it seems they may by their own tacit confession be deprived of some grace that is very useful and beneficial to a Christian, or of some degree of that Sacramental Grace which is given by both Species and not by one: If it were no more than this, which themselves own, yet 'tis pity sure that Christians should be deprived of that; but they can never assure Christians that they are not deprived of all, even of that which is necessary to Salvation. So far as the Grace of the Sacrament is so, because this necessary Grace is annexed not to one kind but to both, and the taking the species of Wine is as necessary to receive that by Christ's Institution, as the species of Bread, for no reason can be imagined why the one should give only the necessary Grace, and the other only the additional. Men must make too bold with the Grace of God, and the Grace of the Sacrament, who think to give it as they please, and to part and divide it as they think fit by their presumptuous and ungrounded fancies, and do not wholly depend upon his will and pleasure for the receiving of it, and that way and manner which he himself has appointed. Others there are who though they defend the Communion in one kind, yet speak very doubtingly about that question, Whether more spiritual fruit or more grace be not received by both than by one: Salmeron says, It is a difficult question, because we have nothing from the Ancients whereby we can decide it 
‖ Dissicilis sane quaestio propterea quod ex antiquis quicquam vix habemus unde possimus eam decidere. Salmer. de Euch. ; no truly the question and the reason of it, which is their practice, is too late and novel to have any thing produced for it out of Antiquity: So that those Doctors who speak of this matter, have had various opinions about it 
*  propterea Doctores qui de hac reloqunti sunt in varias iverint sententias. Ib. . Some saw there was no reason for it, and that it was perfectly precarious and ungrounded, but others thought it necessary to defend their Communion in one kind: Bellarmine himself owns that this is not so certain, for divers have different sentiments concerning it; neither does the Council openly define it 
† Haec propositio non est adeo certa— de hâc enim variè sentiunt Theologi neque Concilium eam apertè definire videtur. Bellar. de Euch. . But de Meaux has done it very positively and definitively, contrary to many learned men in his own Church, and without any warrant from the Council of Trent or any other.  
Secondly, To make the whole Grace, and Virtue, and entire Fruit of the Sacrament to be given by one Species, is to render the other wholly useless and superfluous as to the conveying any real virtue or benefit to him that receives it. When the Priest has taken the Species of Bread, and has by that fully received the whole Grace and entire Fruit of the Sacrament, what can he further receive by the Cup, and what benefit can he have by it? De Meaux will by no means have the effect of the Body suspended till the Blood is received 
‖ P. 3. ; though Bellarmine is willing it should 
* De Euch. l. 4. c. 23. : But if it be so to the Priests, why may it not likewise to the people? and if the Priests receive any benefit by the Cup, which they would not have without it, why may not the people also? For they have not yet declared, that I know of, that the Priest is to receive more grace by the Sacrament than the people: What a mere empty Cup must the Priest then receive, void of all grace and virtue, after he has taken the Species of Bread which has before given him the whole and entire fruit and grace of the Sacrament, to which the Cup can add nothing at all? It must be then as utterly fruitless to him, as the Wine of ablution is to the Laiety, and if it be so inconsiderable, they need not, methinks, be so afraid of the Laymen spilling it or dipping their Beards and Whiskers in it; but it is still the very natural and true Blood of Christ; if it be so, 'tis strange that it should have no true and essential virtue belonging to it, surely Christ's Blood is never without that, nor ought any to have so mean and low an opinion of it.  
Why did Christ give the Cup to the Apostles, as part of the Sacrament, if they had received the whole grace and virtue of the Sacrament before? and if so soon as they had received his Body, at the same instant they received the whole grace that accompanied that, and his Blood too? Christ if he did not suspend the effect of the Blood till it was taken, must have prevented it, and given it before it was. Christ no doubt might have given the whole grace and effect of the Sacrament by one Species, if he had pleased; but if he had done that, he would not have given the other, nor should we have had two Species Instituted by him, if he had restrained the effect of those two to one only: When Christ has appointed two and gave two himself, for men to come and argue that one alone may give the whole good of both, because the Grace of both is the same, and inseparable from either, and because Christ did not suspend the effect of one till he gave the other, and that 'tis impossible he should separate the effect of his Blood from that of his Body; this is to argue at all adventures against what is known, from what is secret and uncertain, against the plain will of Christ from his power, and against what he has done from what he might do, and is to set up a precarious and ungrounded Hypothesis of our own, from the nature of the thing, when the thing itself is purely arbitrary and positive, and depends wholly upon Christ's will and pleasure. If Christ himself has appointed two Species in the Sacrament to convey the whole and entire virtue of the Sacrament to worthy receivers, as he seems plainly to have done by instituting both, and giving both to his Apostles, and commanding both; how groundless and arrogant is it in any to say, That one is sufficient to give this, and that both are not necessary to this end; without knowing any thing further of Christ's will about it; and when they believe as de Meaux does, 
† P. 130.  That Jesus Christ has equally instituted both parts; Yet notwithstanding to make one unnecessary to the giving any real virtue and benefit, and to dare to affirm as de Meaux does, 
‖ P. 4.  That the receiving the Blood is not necessary for the grace of the Sacrament, or the ground of the Mystery.  
Let me then ask what it is necessary for, and why it was equally instituted with the other? De Meaux gives not a plain answer to that, but tells us, That the Eucharist has another quality, namely, that of a Sacrifice 
* P. 179. ; and for this reason, both Species are always consecrated, that so they may be offered to God, and a more lively representation may be made of Christ's death. But this is no answer to the question, for I do not ask why they are necessary as the Eucharist is a Sacrifice, which it is not in a proper sense, though it be not my business to show that here, but as it is a Sacrament; Why did Christ institute both Species in the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament? and why did he give both Species to his Apostles? He did not give these to them as a Sacrifice, for as such, if it were so, it was to be only offered up to God; but he gave both the Species to his Disciples; and why did he do this, if the whole grace and virtue of the Sacrament was given by one? and why does the Priest receive both as well as offer both to God? He does not receive them as a Sacrifice, but as a Sacrament: And why is the Sumption of both necessary to him, as the Eucharist is a Sacrament; which Bellarmine says it is, upon that very account 
† Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti. Bellarm. de Euch. c. 4. ; If the taking of one be sufficient to convey the whole grace and virtue of both, and the other be not necessary for this end? All these questions will return upon de Meaux though the Eucharist were a Sacrifice; and as to that I shall only ask him this question, Whether Christ did as truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood as a Sacrifice to God when he instituted this Sacrament, as he did upon the Cross? If he did, and therefore two Species were necessary, (though if his Body and Blood be both together in one, that might be sufficient) why needed he then to have afterwards offered up himself upon the Cross, when he had as truly offered up his Body and Blood before in the Eucharist?  
If two Species are necessary to make a full representation of Christ's death, and to preserve a perfect image of his Sacrifice upon the Cross, and by the mystical separation of his Body and Blood in the Eucharist, to represent how they were really separated at his death; why are they not then necessary as de Meaux says, They are not to the ground of the Mystery: Is not the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament, designed to do all this, and to be such a Remembrance of Christ, and a showing forth the Lord's death till he come; as the Scripture speaks? And do not they in great measure destroy this, by giving the Sacrament in one kind, without this mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood; and without preserving such a sacramental Representation of it as Christ has appointed? But says de Meaux, The ultimate exactness of representation is not requisite 
‖ P. 175. . This I confess, for then the eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of a man, as some Heretics did of an Infant, might more exactly represent than Bread and Wine; but such a representation as Christ himself has appointed and commanded, this is requisite: and when he can prove that Christ has commanded Immersion in Baptism to represent the cleansing of the Soul, as he has done taking Bread broken and Wine poured out in the Eucharist, to represent his Death, I will own that to be requisite in answer to his §. 11. There aught to be also an expression of the grace of the Sacrament, which is not found in one Species alone, for that is not a full expression of our perfect nourishment both by meat and drink; and if the Sacraments only exhibit what they represent, which is an Axiom of the Schoolmen; then as one kind represents our spiritual nourishment imperfectly, so it exhibits it imperfectly; but however, if the whole grace and virtue of the Sacrament be given by one Species, the other must be wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the inward effect, and so at most it must be but a mere significant sign, void of all grace, as de Meaux indeed makes it, though the name of a sign, as applied to the Sacrament, is so hard to go down with them at other times, when he says of the species of Wine, That the whole fruit of the Sacrament is given without it, and that this can add nothing thereunto, but only a more full expression of the same Mystery 
* P. 185. .  
II. The second question I proposed to consider, was, Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy, do not contain and give whole Christ, and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament? This de Meaux and all of them plead, That each Species contains Jesus Christ whole and entire 
† P. 306. §. 9 ; so that we have in his Flesh his Blood, and in his Blood his Flesh, and in either of the two his Person whole and entire, and in both the one and the other his blessed Soul with his Divinity, whole and entire, so that there is in either of the Species the whole substance of the Sacrament, and together with that substance the whole essential virtue of the Eucharist 
‖ P. 327. , according to these Principles of the Roman Church. I am not here to dispute against those, nor to show the falseness and unreasonableness of that which is the ground of them, and which if it be false destroys all the rest, I mean Transubstantiation, whereby they suppose the Bread to be turned into the very natural Body of Christ, with Flesh, Bones, Nerves, and all other parts belonging to it, and the Wine to be turned into the very natural substance of his Blood; and since this Flesh is not a dead Flesh, it must have the Blood joined with it, and even the very Soul and Divinity of Christ, which is always Hypostatically united to it, and so does necessarily accompany it; and the Body with Christ's Soul and Divinity, must thus likewise ever accompany his Blood: To which prodigious Doctrine of theirs as it relates to the Communion in one kind, I have these things to say:  
1. It does so confound the two Species, and make them to be one and the same thing, that it renders the distinct consecration of them to be not only impertinent but senseless; For to what purpose, or with what sense can the words of Consecration be said over the Bread, This is my Body? and those again over the Wine, This is my Blood: If upon the saying of them by the Priest the Bread does immediately become both the Body and Blood of Christ, and the Wine both his Blood and his Body too; this is to make the Bread become the same thing with the Wine, and the Wine the same thing with the Bread, and to make only the same thing twice over, and to do that again with one form of words which was done before with another; for upon repeating the words, This is my Body, Christ's Body and Blood are both of them immediately and truly present; and when they are so, what need is there of the other form, This is my Blood, to make the same thing present again, which was truly present before? It matters not at all in this case, whether they be present by virtue of the consecration, or by virtue of Concomitancy, for if they be truly present once, what need they be present again, if they become the same thing after the first form of Consecration which they do after the second? why do they become the same thing twice? or what need is there of another form of words to make the Wine become that which the Bread was before? they hold it indeed to be Sacrilege not to consecrate both the Species, but I cannot see according to this principle of theirs, why the consecrating of one Species should not be sufficient, when upon the consecration of that, it immediately becomes both Christ's Body and Blood; and what reason is there for making the same Body and Blood over again by another consecration? They might if they pleased say over the Bread alone, Hoc est Corpus meum, & hoc est sanguis meus; This is my Body, and this is my Blood: for they believe it is so upon the saying those words, Hoc est Corpus meum; This is my Body. And if it be so as soon as the words are pronounced, they may as truly affirm it to be both as one: What does it signify to say, they are both present by Concomitancy? does not Concomitancy always go along with the Consecration? is there any space between the Consecration and the Concomitancy? is not the one as quick and sudden as the other? and can it be said over the Species of Bread, This is my Body, before it can be as truly said, This is my Blood? why therefore may not they be both said together? Nay, it may be as truly said by virtue of this Doctrine not only, This is my Body and Blood, but this is my Soul and my Divinity; for though they will not say it is made all those, yet it becomes all those, and truly is all those by this Concomitancy upon the Consecration, and it may be said to be all those as soon as it is consecrated, and at the same time that those words are spoke.  
There being a distinct Consecration of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, if Christ's Body and Blood be really present there by virtue of the words of Consecration, yet they ought to be as distinctly present as they are distinctly consecrated, that is, the Body present in the species of Bread, and the Blood in the species of Wine, for else they are not present according to the Consecration; so that this Concomitancy by which they are present together, does quite spoil the Consecration by which they are present asunder, and so confounds the two Species as to make them become both the same thing after they are consecrated, and renders the consecration of one of them to be without either use or sense.  
2. It makes the distinct Sumption of both the Species to be vain and unnecessary to any persons, to the Priests or to any others to whom the Pope has sometimes granted them, and even to the Apostles and all the first Christians who received both; for if the one contains the very same thing with the other, and gives the very same thing, what need is there of having or of taking both, that is, of taking the very same thing twice over at the same time? If one Species contain Jesus Christ whole and entire, his Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, and all these are given by one Species, what can be desired more as de Meaux says. Then Jesus Christ himself? and what then can the other Species give but the same thing? is Jesus Christ with whole Humanity and Divinity to be thus taken over and over, and to be taken twice at the same time? if he be, why not several times more, and if he were so, this might be done by taking several times the same Species, since one Species contains the same as both, even the whole substance, and the whole essential effect of the Sacrament, and the very person of Jesus Christ himself. This does so alter the nature of the Sacrament by which we have a continual nourishment conveyed to our Souls, and receive the Grace and Spirit of Christ by fresh and daily recruits, and in several measures and degrees every time we Communicate, that it makes it not only to no purpose for any person to take more than one Species at once, but to take the Sacrament more than once all his whole life, for what need he desire more, who has received together with the humanity of Jesus Christ, his Divinity also whole and entire 
† P. 314. , and if he has received that once, there is no reason for receiving it again, for this as it renders the Grace and Substance of the Sacrament Indivisible, as de Meaux often pleads, so it renders it Infinite, to which nothing can be ever added by receiving it never so often; and if we thus make this Sacrament to give the very Body and Blood of Christ, and so the whole and entire Person of Christ, and his whole Humanity and his whole Divinity, instead of giving the spiritual Graces and Virtues of Christ's Body and Blood, we then make every Communicant to receive all that by one single Communion which he can ever receive by never so many thousands, and we make all persons to receive this alike, however different the preparations and dispositions of their minds are, and even the most wicked and vile wretches must receive, not only Christ's Body and Blood, but even his Soul, and his Divinity, and his whole and entire Person; for though the spiritual graces and virtues may be given in different measures and degrees, and in different proportions according to the capacity of the receiver, yet the Humanity and Divinity of Christ, which is whole and entire in each Species, never can.  
Thirdly, If Christ's Body and Blood were thus always joined together in the Sacrament, and were both contained in one Species, yet this would not be a true Sacramental reception of them, for to make that, they ought to be taken as separate and divided from one another, his Body from his Blood, and his Blood from his Body, and not as conjoined or mixed together; this was the way and manner which Christ himself appointed, and this is the only way by which we can be said to eat his Body and to drink his Blood: and as they own they ought to be thus consecrated, so they ought also to be thus received, for I cannot understand why they might not be as well consecrated together as received together, and why it would not be as true a Sacrament with such a Consecration as with such a Sumption; nay, I think the Consecration this way would have more sense in it than the Sumption, for it is nothing so odd and strange to suppose the Bread to be turned into the Body and Blood of Christ, as to suppose that by eating that we both eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ; to make eating and drinking the same thing, or to say we drink by eating, and eat by drinking, are very unaccountable and unintelligible expressions, so that Concomitancy does wholly confound those two Sacramental Phrases and Sacramental Actions: But is it not enough, says de Meaux 
‖ P. 323. , for a Christian to receive Jesus Christ? is it not a Sacrament where Jesus Christ is pleased to be in person? But Jesus Christ is not received in the Sacrament in any other manner but by receiving his Body and Blood, nor is it his Person he bids us receive, but his Body and Blood, and the way by which we are to receive them is by eating the one and drinking the other, and we cannot be properly said to do that, or to receive Christ or his Body and Blood Sacramentally, but this way: Though the Body and Blood of Christ, therefore should be both in one Species and both received by one Species, yet this would not be the eating the Body and the drinking the Blood, for as one of their own Popes, Innocent the Third, says, and Durandus from him, Neither is the Blood drunk under the Species of Bread, nor the Body eaten under the Species of Wine, for as the Blood is not eaten nor the Body drank, so neither is drunk under the Species of Bread nor eat under the Species of Wine 
* Nec sanguis sub specie panis nec Corpus sub specie vini bibitur aut comeditur, quia sicut nec sanguis comeditur nec Corpus bibitur ita neutrum sub species panis bibitur aut sub specie vini comeditur. Durand. Rational. l. 4. c. 42. . And therefore though they should be both received according to them by one Species, yet they would not be both eat and drank, that is received Sacramentally; eating and drinking are distinct things, and both belong to the Sacrament; and though eating and drinking spiritually be as de Meaux says, The same thing 
† P. 184. , and both the one and the other is to believe: Yet eating and drinking Sacramentally are not, but are to be two distinct outward actions that are to go along in the Sacrament with our inward Faith.  
This Doctrine of Concomitancy and of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ together in that gross manner which is believed in the Roman Church, does quite spoil the Sacramental reception of Christ's Body and Blood, for according to that, they can never be received separate and apart, no not by the two Species, but they must be always received together in either of them; so that though by the Institution the Species of Bread seems particularly to contain, or rather give the Body, and the Species of Wine the Blood, and as St. Paul says 
‖ 1 Cor. 10.16. , The bread which we bless, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? and the cup which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? Yet hereby either of them is made the Communion of both, and it is made impossible to receive them asunder, as Christ instituted and appointed and as is plainly implied by eating and drinking, and seems to be the very nature of a Sacramental reception: But  
Fourthly, This Concomitancy makes us to receive Christ's Body and Blood not as sacrificed and shed for us upon the Cross, but as they are now living and both joined together in Heaven, whereas Christ's Body and Blood is given in the Sacrament, not as in the state of life and glory, but as under the state of death, for so he tells us, This is my body which is given for you, that is, to God as a Sacrifice and Oblation, and, This is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins. So that we are to take Christ's Body in the Sacrament as it was crucified for us and offered up upon the Cross, and his Blood as it was shed and poured out, not as joined with his Body, but as separated from it: the Virtue of Christ's Body and Blood cometh from his Death and from its being a Sacrifice which was slain, and whose Blood was poured out for to make expiation for our Sins, and as such we are to take Christ's Body and Blood, that is, the virtue and benefits of them in the Sacrament, for as de Meaux says, 
* P. 311.  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 neither will it have that virtue in the Sacrament if the Body be not taken as broken and sacrificed, and the Blood as shed or poured out, and both as separated from one another: De Meaux owns, We ought to have our living Victim under an image of Death, otherwise we should not be enlivened 
† P. 312. . I do not well understand the meaning of a living Victim, for though Christ who was our Victim is alive, yet he was a Victim only as he died; so that a living Victim is perhaps as improper a phrase as a dead Animal. If we are to receive Christ then in the Sacrament as a Victim or Sacrifice, we are to receive him not as living but as dead; I would not have de Meaux or any else mistake me, as if I asserted that we received a dead Body, a dead flesh, a carcase as he calls it 
‖ P. 309.  in the Sacrament, for he knows we do not believe that we receive any real flesh, or any proper natural Body at all, but only the mystical or sacramental Body of Christ, or to speak plainer, the true and real Virtue of Christ's Body and Blood offered for us, and we are not only to have this under an image of death, that is, to have the two Species set before us to look upon, but we are to receive it under this image, and to eat the Body as broken, and the Blood as poured out, and so to partake of Christ's death in the very partaking of the Sacrament; the Meaux speaks very well, when he says, 
* P. 312.  The Virtue of Christ's Body and his Blood coming from his Death, he would conserve the image of his Death when he gave us them in his holy Supper, and by so lively a representation keep us always in mind to the cause of our Salvation, that is to say, the Sacrifice of the Cross. But how is this image of his Death conserved in his holy Supper, if Christ be there given not as dead but living, Concomitancy does rather mind us of Christ's Resurrection when his Body was made alive again and reunited to his Soul and to his Divinity, than of his death when it was divided and separated from them; and it makes us not to partake of Christ's Body as crucified upon the Cross, but as glorified in Heaven; as it is so indeed Christ's body cannot be divided from his blood, and his whole humanity, soul, and body are always united with his Divinity, but we do not take it as such in the Sacrament, but as his body was sacrificed, and flain, and wounded, and his blood as shed and separated from it.  
They who can think of a crucified Saviour, may think of receiving him thus in the Sacrament without horror; de Meaux owns, That this mystical separation of Christ's body and blood ought to be in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice 
† P. 180, 181. : And why not then as it is a Sacrament? is there any more horror to have Christ's body thus consecrated, then thus eaten and received? The words of consecration, he says, do renew mystically, as by a spiritual Sword, together with all the wounds he received in his body, the total effusion of his blood 
‖ Ib. . Why may we not then receive Christ's body as thus wounded, and his blood as thus poured out, in this mystical Table? and why must Concomitancy join those together which Consecration has thus separated and divided? Christ's body and blood we say aught to be thus mystically separated in the Sacramental reception of them, and so ought to be taken separately and distinctly; they own they ought to be thus mystically separated in the consecration, though how that consists with Concomitancy is hard to understand, but whatever they have to say against the separating them in the Reception, may be as well said against their separating them in the Consecration; 
P. 310.  Is Christ then divided? is his body then despoiled of blood? and blood actually separated from the body? aught Christ to die often, and often to shed his blood? A thing unworthy the glorious state of his Resurrection, where he ought to conserve eternally humane nature as entire as he had at first assumed it. Why do they then make this separation of his body and blood when they consecrate it? if that be only mystical and representative, so is it in our reception much better, for we do not pretend to receive Christ's natural body and blood, as they do to consecrate them, but only his mystical body and blood, which is always to conserve this figure of Death, and the character of a Victim, not only when it is consecrated, but when it is eaten and drunk, which it cannot otherwise be. 'Tis this error of receiving Christ's natural body in the Sacrament which has led men into all those dark Mazes and Labyrinths wherein they have bewildered and entangled themselves in this matter, and so by applying all the properties of Christ's natural body to his mystical body in the Sacrament, they have run themselves into endless difficulties, and destroyed the very notion as well as the nature of the Sacrament.  
The third Principle of Monsieur de Meaux is this: That the Law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual practice. But cannot then a Law of God be so plain and clear as to be very well known and understood by all those to whom it is given, without being thus explained? Surely so wise a Lawgiver as our blessed Saviour, would not give a Law to all Christians that was not easy to be understood by them; it cannot be said without great reflection upon his infinite Wisdom, that his Laws are so obscure and dark as they are delivered by himself, and as they are necessary to be observed by us, that we cannot know the meaning of them without a further explication: If constant and perpetual practice be necessary to explain the Law, how could they know it or understand it to whom it was first given, and who were first to observe it before there was any such practice to explain it by? This practice must begin some where, and the Law of Christ must be known to those who begun it, antecedent to their own practice: There may be great danger if we make Practice to be the Rule of the Law, and not the Law the Rule of Practice, and God's Laws may be very fairly explained away, if they are lest wholly to the mercy of men to explain them: For thus it was the Pharisees who were the great men of old for Tradition, did thereby reject and lay aside the Commandment of God by making Tradition explain it contrary to its true sense and meaning. This Principle therefore of Monsieur de Meauxes must not be admitted without some caution, and though we are well assured of constant and perpetual practice for Communion in one kind, yet the Law of Christ is so clear as not to need that to explain it, and we may know what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of the Sacraments from the Law itself, and from the divine Institution of them, as I have all along shown in this Treatise.  
It would have been a great reflection upon the Church, if its Practice had not agreed with the Law of Christ, though so plain and express a Law ought neither to lose its force nor its meaning by any subsequent practice; I have so great a regard and honour for the Catholic Church, that I do not believe it can be guilty of any Practice so contrary to the Law of Christ, as Communion in one kind; and I have therefore fully shown, that its Practice has always agreed with this Law, in opposition to de Meaux, who falsely reproaches the Church with a practice contrary to it; his design was to destroy the Law of Christ by the Practice of the Church; mine is to defend the Practice of the Church as agreeable to, and founded upon the Law of Christ, but the Law of Christ ought to take place, and is antecedent both to the Church's Practice and the Church's Authority: As to Tradition, which was the main thing which the Meaux appealed to, I have joined issue with him in that point, and must leave it to those who are able to judge which of us have given in the better evidence, and I do not doubt but we may venture the Cause upon the strength of that; but there is another more considerable plea, which is prior to Tradition, and which as the Meaux owns, 
† P. 201.  Is the necessary ground work of it, and that is Scripture, or the Command and Institution of Christ contained in Scripture, which is so plain and manifest, that it may be very well understood by all without the help of Tradition; I do not therefore make any manner of exceptions to Tradition in this case, only I would set it in its right place, and not found the Law of Christ upon Tradition, but Tradition upon the Law of Christ, and I am willing to admit it as far as de Meaux pleases, with this reasonable Proviso, That it does not interpret us out of a plain Law, nor make void any Command of God that may be known without it; I have therefore prevented the Meaux in all he brings for Tradition and the Practice of the Church, unless he will lay so great stress upon that, as to make it null, and supersede a divine Law; nor am I at all concerned in all the instances he brings for it out of the Old and New Testament 
‖ §. V §. VI , unless he can bring one to prove that either the Jewish Synagogue or the Christian Church did ever make void a Divine Law by a contrary Practice and Tradition of their own; I can never allow any Church to have a power and Authority to do this, and I am willing to allow it all Authority that is kept within those bounds. It was boldly and openly done indeed by the Council of Constance, when it owned, That Christ instituted the Sacrament and administered it to his Disciples under both kinds 
* Licet Christus post caenam instituerit & suis Discipulis administraverit subutrâque specie panis & vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum— Et similitèr quòd licet in primitiuâ Ecclesiâ hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur à ●idelibus sub utrâque specie. Concil. Constant. Sess. 11.  and that the faithful received it under both kinds in the Primitive Church: Yet to command it under one by its own power and authority, and by its own Prerogative to give a Non obstante to Christ's Institution; this was done like those that had a sufficient plenitude of power, and were resolved to let the World see they had so, and that Christ's own Institution was to give way to it; they had not then found out the more sly and shifting subtleties that Christ gave the Cup to his Disciples only as Priests, and made them Priests just after the giving them the Bread; this was a late invention found out since that Council, by some more timorous and wary Sophisters who were afraid of setting up the Church's Power against a Divine Institution; neither did they then offer to justify the Communion in one kind by the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church, as de Meaux and others have done since, but they plainly gave up this, and only made a late Custom, which was afterwards introduced, to become a Law by virtue of their present Power, notwithstanding the Institution of Christ and the Practice of the Primitive Church to the contrary: Here the Case truly lies, though de Meaux is willing to go off from it, there must be a power in the Church to void a Divine Institution, and to null a Law of Christ, which can be no other than an Antichristian power in the strictest sense, which may by the same reason take away all the positive Laws of Christianity, or else Communion in one kind is not to be maintained; and this power must be in a particular present Church, in opposition to the Primitive and the Universal, or else this Communion is not to be maintained in the Church of Rome: De Meaux must be driven to defend that post which he seems to have quitted and deserted, or else he can never defend this half-Communion, which is contrary, as I have proved, and as the Council of Constance owns, to the Institution of Christ, and to the Practice of the Primitive Church. The new Out-work he has raised from Tradition, in which he puts all the forces of his Book, and the main strength of his Cause; this I have not beat down or destroyed, but taken from him; and his cause can never hold out upon his own principles of Tradition and the Practice of the Church, which is a very strong battery against it, as I have largely shown; so that all that he says for Tradition is in vain, and to no purpose, since this Tradition he pleads for is utterly against him, and if it were never so much for him, yet no Tradition can take away a Divine Law.  
He seems to own, and I think he dare not expressly deny, that what is essential to the Sacraments, or belongs to the substance of them cannot be taken away by Tradition or the Power of the Church, but he utterly destroys this by making only Tradition and the Practice of the Church to determine what is thus essential to the Sacraments, for if nothing be essential but what is made so by them, and may be known by them, than they have a power to make or to alter even the very essentials of the Sacraments, which are hereby made wholly to depend upon the Church and Tradition: We are willing to own that nothing is unalterable in the Sacraments, but what is essential to them, and that all other indifferent things belonging to them, may be altered by the Church, or by Tradition; but then we say that what is essential is fixed and known by the Institution, and by a Divine Law, antecedent to Tradition; and if it were not so, then there were nothing essential in the Sacraments at all, but all would be indifferent, and all would depend upon Tradition and the Church's Power; and then to what purpose is it to say, That the Church has power only in the Accidentals, and may alter whatever is not essential, or belongs not to the substance of the Sacraments; this only shows that they are ashamed to speak out, and they dare not but grant with one hand, that which they are forced to take away with another; they dare not openly say, That the Church has power over the essentials of the Sacraments; but yet they say, That there are no essentials but what are made and declared to be so by the Church: So the straight they are in obliges them in effect to revoke their own concessions, and Truth makes them say that which their Cause forces them to unsay again, and they are put upon those things in their own necessary defence, which amount in the whole to a contradiction.  
If the Bishop of Meaux can show us that any Divine Institution was ever altered by the Jewish or Christian Church, or any Law of God relating to Practice and Ceremony was ever taken away by a contrary Practice and Tradition, than he says something to the purpose, of Communion in one kind, but if the many Instances which he brings for Tradition out of the Old and New Testament, do none of them do this, they are then useless and insufficient, they fall short of what they ought to prove, and come not up to the question in hand, but are wholly vain and insignificant, and to show they are so, I shall reduce them to these following heads:  
1. They chief relate to the Church's Power in appointing and determining several things which are left indifferent and undetermined by the Law of God; and here we acknowledge the Church to have a proper Power, and that it may oblige even in Conscience to many things, to which we are not obliged by the Law of God; and may determine many things for the sake of Peace and Uniformity in Divine Worship, which are not so precisely determined by God himself. Thus the Jewish Church might settle the time of Vespers, on which their Sabbaths and Feasts were to begin, the evening being to them the beginning of the next day; so they might appoint also the manner of observing the new Moons; thus they might also settle the times of the Three Sacrifices, the Daily, the Sabbatical, and the Paschal, when they were all to be offered the same day upon one Altar; and determine which of them should be offered first, though God himself had not determined it: But could they take away any one of these Sacrifices which God had commanded, upon a pretence that the other were sufficient without it? could they have neglected either the New Moons or the Evening-Oblations which God had appointed, because they might appoint what God had not done, namely, the manner of observing them? because they could regulate several things relating to the Law, and necessary to the observance of it, which God had not determined; could they therefore void the Law itself, or transgress and violate it in any of those things which God had particularly appointed? Thus the Christian Church may order many things relating to Divine Worship, and even to the Sacraments themselves, which no Law of Christ has ordered or determined, as the time, the place, the outward form and manner of administering them; and yet these as de Meaux says, Are absolutely necessary for the observation of the Divine Law; which cannot be observed without some of those circumstances; thus as to Baptism it may appoint it to be performed by sprinkling or dipping, because neither of those are commanded by the word Baptise, but only washing with Water, as I have shown before against de Meaux, but to do this in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is absolutely necessary, because this is commanded, though whether with that form, I baptise thee, or Be thou baptised; which is used in the Greek Church, is indifferent. Thus as to the Eucharist, the Church may command it to be taken kneeling or standing, which was an ancient posture of receiving it; it may use such a form of words in the consecrating the Elements, and in blessing the Bread and Wine, or another, for it is plain, one was not always used, and St. Gregory tells us, That the Apostles consecrated only with Lord's Prayer 
† Epist. 63. ad Syr. . It may use such a sort of Bread and Wine, or another, for no particular sort is commanded; but it is necessary to bless and to give both, because both are instituted, and both are commanded; and the Ministers, who are the Stewards of the Mysteries of God 
‖ 1 Cor. 4.1. , these alone have the ordinary power of blessing and distributing them to the people, but they may do this by the hands of the Deacons, or by suffering the people to take them and divide them among themselves: Such things as these which the Meaux offers to us as great difficulties, are only indifferent things left undetermined by the Divine Law, in which the Church has a power to appoint what it thinks most proper for decency, and order, and edification, and thus the greatest knots with which he designed to entangle us are easily resolved and untied, and yet not any one of the Divine Laws are in the least loosened or dissolved. One of the greatest things he urges for the necessity of Tradition and the Practice of the Church, is the Baptism of Infants, for which he says we can produce nothing from Scripture, but must be forced to resolve it wholly into Tradition; as to that I am not willing to begin another Controversy with him here, and therefore shall only send him to Bellarmine for his satisfaction, who proves Infant Baptism from Scripture 
* Bellarmin. de Sacram. Baptismi. c. 8, 9  as well as from Tradition, and says, It may be clearly gathered from Scripture itself 
† Tamen id & colligitur satis apertè ex Scriptures. . But if it were not, does it follow because the Church may make a Law which is not contained in Scripture, that therefore it may break a Law which is? and because it may appoint some things which God has left indifferent, that therefore it may forbid what he has absolutely commanded.  
2. Other instances produced by the Meaux, relate not only to matters Ecclesiastical, but to those that were Civil, or at least mixed, and so belonging to the Power of the Magistrate, as the Lex Talionis, and the prohibition of Marriage with the Moabites and Ammonites: The Civil Magistrate was to see all possible Justice done by the one, according to God's own command; and it was a commendable act in him to prevent all mischief that might have come by the other, though this was done without a Divine Precept, by a general Power vested in the Magistrate, or a particular and immediate direction, perhaps given by God to Esdras and Nehemiah: But how these can any way serve de Meaux, I cannot imagine, in the present Controversy, unless he would prove the Magistrate not bound to execute the Lex Talionis at all, or that the Jews might have dispensed with the Law in Deuteronomy, which forbade Marriages with the Canaanites, because upon the same ground and reason they forbade those also with the Ammonites and Moabites afterwards.  
3. Some cases he mentions were excused upon the account of necessity, which when it is notorious and unavoidable, dispenses with a positive Law. Thus David's eating the Shewbread, which it was not lawful but for the Priests ordinarily to eat, is approyed by our Saviour, Matth. 12.4. not upon the account of Tradition, or the judgement of the Highpriest, but the extreme hunger which he and his Companions were then pressed with, and which made it lawful for them them to eat of the hallowed Bread, when there was no other to be procured: But did this make it lawful afterwards for the Highpriest or the Sanhedrim to have made the holy Bread always common to others when there was no such necessity? Thus if some Christians lived in a Country where it was impossible to have any Wine, this might excuse them from taking the Cup, but does this justify the making a general Law to take away the Cup when there is no such necessity for it? and the same may be said of many other like instances.  
4. In other cases when a Law was founded upon a particular reason, the ceasing of that made the Law to cease, which was wholly grounded upon it, as in the prohibition of eating Blood, and things strangled, and Meats offered to Idols, this being to avoid giving any scandal to the Jews at that time, when the reason of it ceased, so did the Law; and it is not so much Tradition which makes it void, as those general say of Christ and the Apostle, that nothing which enters in at the mouth defiles the man; and that whatever is sold in the shambles may be eat, without ask any question for conscience sake.  
As to the Jews defending themselves upon the Sabbath, on which they were commanded so strictly to rest, it was both necessity and the reason of the Law which made this justifiable, and not any Tradition or any sentence of the Sanhedrim; and our Saviour when he blames their superstitious observance of the Sabbath, does not reprove them for keeping it as it was commanded, or otherwise than Tradition had explained it, but contrary to the true reason and meaning of it, and to the true mind and will of the Lawgiver.  
As to the Christians changing the Sabbath into the first Day of the Week, this was not done by Tradition, but by the Apostolical Authority; and whatever obligation there may be antecedent to the Law of Moses for observing one day in seven, it can neither be proved that the Jews observed exactly the Seventh day from the Creation, much less that the Christians are under any such obligation now, or I may add, if they were, that Tradition would excuse them from a Divine Law.  
All the instances which Monsieur de Meaux heaps up, are very short of proving that, and though I have examined every one of them, except that pretended Jewish Tradition of Praying for the Dead, which is both false and to no purpose, yet it was not because there was any strength in them to the maintaining his sinking Cause, but that I might take away every slender prop by which he endeavours in vain to keep it up, and drive him out of every little hole in which he strives with so much labour to Earth himself, when after all his turn and wind he finds he must be run down.  
If any instance could be found by the Meaux or others, of any Tradition, or any Practice of a Church contrary to a Divine Institution, and to a plain Law of God, they would deserve no other answer to be returned to it, but what Christ gave to the Pharisees in the like case: Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition 
‖ Mat. 15.3. ? Our Saviour did not put the matter upon this issue, Whether the Tradition by which they explained the Law, so as to make it of none effect, was truly ancient and authentic, and derived to them from their forefather's; but he thought it sufficient to tell them that it made void, and was contrary to a Divine Law.  
There is no Tradition, nor no Church, which has ever broke so plain a Law, and so shamefully violated a Divine Institution, as that which has set up Communion in One Kind: the true reason why it did so was not Tradition, no, that was not so much as pretended at first for the doing of it, but only some imaginary dangers and inconveniencies, which brought in a new custom contrary to ancient Tradition: These were the only things insisted on in its defence at first, the danger of spilling the Wine, and the difficulty of getting it in some places, and the undecency of Laymens' dipping their Beards in it: These were the mighty reasons. which Gerson brought of old against the Heresy, as he calls it, of Communicating in both Kind's 
† Tractatus Magistri Johannis de Gerson contra haeresin de communionae Laicorum sub utraque specie. ; as if it were a new Heresy to believe that Wine might be spilt, or that men wore Beards, or as if the Sacrament were appointed only for those Countries where there were Vines growing. De Meaux was very sensible of the weakness and folly of those pretences, though they are the pericula and the scandala meant by the Council of Constance, and therefore he takes very little notice of them, and indeed he has quite taken away all their arguments against the particular use of the Wine, because he all along pleads for either of the Species, and owns it to be indifferent which of them so ever is used in the Sacrament: But I have shown that both of them are necessary to make a true Sacrament, because both are commanded, and both instituted, and both of them equally belong to the matter of the Sacrament, and so to the essence of it, and both are ordinarily necessary to the receiving the inward Grace and Virtue of the Sacrament, because that is annexed to both by the Institution, and cannot warrantably be expected without both.  
To conclude therefore, Communion in One Kind is both contrary to the Institution and to the Command of Christ, and to the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church grounded upon that Command, and is no less in itself than a sacrilegious dividing and mangling of the most sacred Mystery of Christianity, a destroying the very Nature of the Sacrament, which is to represent the Death of Christ, and his Blood separated from his Body; a lessening the signification and reception of our complete and entire spiritual Nourishment, whereby we are Sacramentally to eat Christ's Body and drink his Blood; an unjust depriving the People of that most precious Legacy which Christ left to all of them, to wit, His Sacrificial Blood which was shed for us, and which it is the peculiar privilege of Christians thus mystically to partake of; and lastly, a robbing them of that Grace, and Virtue, and Benefit of the Sacrament which belongs not to any part, but to the whole of it, and cannot ordinarily be received without both kinds: O that God would therefore put it into the hearts of those who are most concerned, not to do so much injury to Christians and to Christianity; and not to suffer any longer that Divine Majesty, which is the great Foundation of all Spiritual Grace and Life, to be tainted and poisoned with so many corruptions as we find it is above all other parts of Christianity! And O that that blessed Sacrament which was designed by Christ to be the very Bond of Peace, and the Cement of Unity among all Christians, and to make them all one Bread and one Body, may not by the perverseness of men and the craft of the Devil, be made a means to divide and separate them from each other, and to break that Unity and Charity which it ought to preserve!  
FINIS.   

A CATALOGUE of some Discourses sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pigeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill.  

1. A Persuasive to an Ingenuous Trial of Opinions in Religion.  
2. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of the Protestants from the Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England.  
3. A Discourse about the Charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papists ask us the Question, Where was our Religion before Luther?  
4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith, being an Answer to Three Questions. I. How far we must depend on the Authority of the Church for the true Sense of Scripture. II. Whether a vissible Succession from Christ to this day makes a Church, which has this vissible Succession an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture; and whether no Church which has not this visible Succession, can teach the true Sense of Scripture. III. Whether the Church of England can make out such a visible Succession?  
5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in matters of Faith; with Respect especially to the Romish pretence of the Necessity of such a one as is Infallible.  
6. A Discourse about Tradition; showing what is meant by it, and what Tradition is to be Received, and what Tradition is to be Rejected.  
7. A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholic Church, maintained in the Church of England.  
8. A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation, with Respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome. In two Parts.  
9 A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship: or, a Scripture-Proof of the Unlawfulness of giving any Religious Worship to any other Being besides the one Supreme God.  
10. A Discourse against Transubstantiation.  
11. A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host, as it is Taught and Practised in the Church of Rome. Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject, and to Monsieur Bocleau's late Book de Adoratione Eucharistiae. Paris, 1685.  
12. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints.  
13. A Discourse concerning the Devotions of the Church of Rome.  
14. A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue.  
15. A Discourse concerning Auricular Confession, as it is Prescribed by the Council of Trent, and Practised in the Church of Rome. With a Postscript on occasion of a Book lately printed in France, called, Historia Confessionis Auricularis.  
16. A Discourse concerning the Worship of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints; with an Account of the Beginnings and Rise of it amongst Christians: In Answer to Monsieur de Meauxes Appeal to the Fourth Age in his Exposition, and his Pastoral Letter.  
17. A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind, in Answer to the Bishop of Meauxes Treatise of Communion under both Species. Lately Translated into English.