A DEMONSTRATION THAT THE Church of Rome, AND HER COUNCILS HAVE ERRED: BY SHOWING, That the COUNCILS of Constance, Basil, and Trent, have, in all their Decrees touching Communion in one Kind, contradicted the Received Doctrine of the Church of Christ.  
WITH AN APPENDIX, In ANSWER to The XXI. Chapter of the Author of A Papist Misrepresented, and Represented.  
LONDON, Printed by J. Leake, for Awnsham Churchill, at the Black-Swan in Ave-Mary-Lane, MDCLXXXVIII.   

IMPRIMATUR.  
Apr. 11. 1688. Guil. Needham.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
The Contents of the Preface.  
This Discourse plainly overthrows all the Foundations of the Romish Faith, showing 1. That the Romish Councils and the Church of Rome, cannot be the sole authentic Interpreters of Scripture, or the true Judges of Tradition, §. 1. 2ly. That they were not assisted by the Holy Ghost in making this Decree touching Communion in one King, §. 2. 3ly. That the Councils of Constance, Basil, and Trent were not true General Councils, or that such Councils must be subject unto Error, §. 3. 4ly. That there is no Certainty of the Romish Faith by oral Tradition, §. 4. 5ly. That these Councils ridiculously do assert, That they made their Decrees touching Communion in one King consulting the Advantage and Salvation of Christian People, §. 5. 6ly. That the Decrees of the Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil concerning the Superiority of a Genral Council over the Pope, and their Authority to decree matters of Faith without him, must be allowed to be valid, or we can have no Assurance of the Validity and Infallibility of any of their Councils, §. 6.  
BY way of Preface to this Discourse I shall endeavour briefly, and plainly to demonstrate,  
1. That it plainly overthroweth all the Certainty of the Romish Faith, and that if they have made these Definitions and Decrees in opposition to the plain Sense of Scripture, and the Interpretations of it by the Holy Fathers, and to the full Tradition of the Church in former Ages, these their received Councils cannot be by God's Appointment, the Judges of our Controversies, the authentic Interpreters of Scripture, or assisted by the Holy Ghost in making these Decisions, nor can they be Assertors of, or Adherers to primitive Tradition, but rather plain Desertors of it. And,  
First, Whereas they challenge as their undoubted Right, Authority to be the sole authentic Interpreters of the Sense of Scripture, and the true Judges of the Tradition of the Church of Christ. Hence we may learn what excellent Interpreters they are of Scripture and Tradition; For, whereas the Trent Council hath in General defined that it belongeth to the Church alone, 
(a) Sess. 4.  Judicare de vero sensu, & interpretatione Sanctarum Scripturarum, To judge of the true sense and meaning of the Holy Scriptures: And particularly, That being taught by the Holy Spirit, 
(b) Sess. 21. c. 1.  Atque ipsius Ecclesiae judicium & consuetudinem secuta, And following the Judgement and Custom of the Church, she made the forementioned Decrees touching Communion in one Kind.  
Secondly. Whereas the Council of Constance saith, That they made their Decrees concerning the same Matter, 
(c) Sess. 13.  Plurium doctorum tam divini quam humani juris deliberatione praehabitâ, After mature Deliberation had with many Doctors, skilful both in divine and humane Laws. And lastly, whereas the Council of Basil hath declared, That they determined the same Matter, 
(d) Sess. 30.  Post diligentem perscrutationem divinarum Scripturarum sacrorumque Canonum, & doctrinarum à Sanctis patribus, & Doctoribus traditarum, in hac Synodo, longis temporibus habitam; After a diligent Search made, in this Synod, for a long time, of holy Scriptures, of the sacred Canons, and of the Doctrines delivered by the holy Fathers. I say, Whereas they do expressly, and confidently pretend these things; I think it will be evident from this Discourse, That in those Matters they plainly have decreed against the clear and formerly received Sense of Scriptures, against the Doctrines delivered by the Holy Fathers, and by the sacred Canons, and against the Judgement and Custom of the Church of God in former Ages. So that if it belong unto the Church alone to judge of the true Sense and Meaning of the Holy Scriptures, these Councils, and those Churches which have embraced their Interpretations of the Scriptures concerned in this Dispute, could not be the Church Representative or Catholic, but falsely did, and do pretend to these Titles. If it belong unto the Church to teach us what is Tradition, they who assert these things as suitable to the Doctrines delivered by the Holy Fathers, and to the Judgement of the Church, cannot deserve that Title.  
§ 2 Again, Thirdly, Whereas the Trent Council saith, That in making these Decrees she was 
(e) Ipsa Synodus à Spiritu Sancto, qui est Spiritus sapientiae & intellectus, Spiritus consilii & pietatis, edocta. Sess. 21. c. 1. Ibid.  Instructed by the Holy Ghost, who is the Spirit of Wisdom and of Understanding, of Counsel and of Pieyt, whereas the Council of Constance and of Basil, in making their Decrees touching this Article; Declare they were a Holy General Synod, in Spiritu Sancto legitimè congregata, Met rightly together in the holy Ghost: Hence it is evident that, 1. They falsely pretended to the Assistance of the Holy Spirit, who being the spirit of Truth, the Inditer of the Sacred Scripture, would not assist them to determine contrary to the Truth delivered there; and being also the Spirit promised to assist his Church, and guide her true and living Members into all saving Truth, could not assist them to Decree against the Practice, and the Judgement of the Church of Christ for a Thousand years.  
2. Hence also it must follow that these Councils, though, as to these Definitions, they are owned as truly General, by the whole Church of Rome, were not true General Councils, or that true General Councils confirmed by the Pope, and owned by the whole Church of Rome, may err in Matters of Faith, in the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and in their Judgement of Tradition.  
3. And whereas our late Roman Disputants have laid the whole Certainty of their Faith upon the Infallibility of oral Tradition, 
§. 4. Mr. G. & Mr. M.  delivering to them the same Doctrine to day which was delivered yesterday, and so up to the time of our Saviour, it must be as evident they have no Certainty of Roman Faith, as it is evident from this, and other late Treatises, That they have varied from the Tradition of the Church in the Practice of latin Service, the Veneration of Images, and the Substraction of the Cup, and we desire nothing more of the most wavering Persons, than that they would not go over to that Church till they see greater Evidence that they have never varied from what was once taught and delivered in the Church of Christ, than these Discourses offer to evince that they have actually done it.  
§ 5 4. Moreover hence we may learn how excellently these Councils have consulted for the Advantage, and the Salvation of Christian People. The Fathers of the Council of Constance pretend to have made their Decrees in reference to this Matter, 
(f) Sess. 13.  Saluti fidelium providere satagentes, Endeavouring to provide for the Salvation of the Faithful, The Council of Basil preface their Decree against Communion in both Kind's, with a Pretence that they had honestly consulted 
(g) Sess. 30.  Quid circa perceptionem S. Eucharistiae tenendum sit & agendum pro utilitate & salute populi Christiani, What was to be held or done about the receiving of the Eucharist for the Advantage and Salvation of Christian People. The Council of Trent insinuates that she hath established this Custom, because it was only such a Change in Dispensation of this Sacrament as the Church 
(h) Sess. 21. c. 2.  Utilitati suscipientium magis expedire judicaret, Judged most expedient for the Benefit of the Receivers.  
It therefore seems our Lord, and his Apostles, and the whole primitive Church for a Thousand Years, saith their 
(i) Consult. Art 22. p. 981.  Cassander, for a Thousand and two hundred Years, saith 
(k) Rerum liturg. l. 2. c. 18. p. 862.  Cardinal Bona, were wickedly unmindful of the Advantage and Salvation of Christian People, for our Lord instituted, and in compliance with his Institution, his Apostles and the whole Christian Church, for the forementioned Centuries, did minister the Sacrament in both Kind's, till those good Souls, filled with true Zeal for the Salvation of all christian People, Et spiritu pietatis edocti, And taught by the Spirit of true Piety, forbade them to receive the Cup of Life; the Apostles, and all the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church were either so ignorant, or heedless, as that they never thought of making any Laws against Christ's Institution, till the Councils of Basil, Constance and Trent, assisted with the Spirit of Wisdom, Understanding and Counsel, found it expedient so to do, and for the Benefit and Salvation of the Laity, to decree peremptorily that they hereafter never should receive the Cup of Blessing and Salvation, That they should never drink of the Blood of the New Covenant, the Blood of their Redemption, the Blood shed for the Remission of their Sins. They were so ignorant, or so regardless of the Reverence due to the Holy Eucharist, That neither the Perils which might happen to it from the long Beards of the Communicants, or by growing acid, or by being shed, could make them think it fit to alter the Institution of our Lord, or the Practice of the Church. They thought so little of the Scarcity of Wine in some Countries, and of the Aversation that some others had unto the taste or the smell of it, that none of all these weighty Reasons, though they were the same in the First Ages of the Church, as in the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Centuries, could move them, out of Reverence to our Lord 's Institution, to forbid the Practice of it, till these 
(l) Catech. Trid. Part. 2. c. 4. Sect. 66.  Gravissimae Rationes, Most weighty Reasons, being deliberately considered by the Roman Catholic Church, She, to prevent those dreadful Perils, and these Scandals, introduced this new Custom, and confirmed it for a Law in Opposition both to our Saviour's Institution, and to the Practice of the Church in which she had continued for a Thousand Years to the great Damage, and the Hindrance of the Salvation of her People, till these Councils so happily bestirred themselves for their Advantage and Salvation.  
And Thirdly, Whereas these Councils, in framing these Decrees style the Practice of Communicating under one Kind 
(m) Concil. Const. Sess. 13.  Romanae & Universalis Ecclesiae consuetuod approbata, The approved Custom of the Roman and Universal Church, and of the 
(n) Consi. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 2.  Holy Catholic Church, and the Declaration made concerning it at Basil, is called Declaratio Catholicae veritatis, 
(o) Sess. 30.  The Declaration of the Catholic Truth: Not to observe at present how horribly Uncharitable these Councils are, in excluding out of the Catholic Church, and consequently from Salvation, all who had not consented to the Violation of our Lord's Institution, and to the Alteration of the Practice of the Church of Christ, for a whole Thousand Years; That is, not only all who in the West refused to make so bold with our Lord's Institution, but all the Greek and Eastern Churches; I say, not to insist on this, hence it is evident, That the present Practice and Judgement of what they call the Catholic and Universal Church, can be no certain or sufficient Proof of Tradition Apostolical, since in this Matter, she hath both practised and decreed in Opposition to the plain Judgement and Tradition of the Church of Christ for Ten whole Centuries.  
§ 6 To these Considerations, which concern the Definitions of these Councils touching Communion in one Kind, I add these following Remarks touching these Councils, and the Decrees which they confirmed in their Assemblies.  
1. Therefore, touching the Councils of Constance and of Basil, let it be considered, that they constantly declare, That they were Holy Synods, assembled in the Holy Ghost, and representing the Church Catholic. The General Council of 
(p) Sess. 8.14.  Pisa which agreed with them in their Sentiments, and met about the same Affairs ascribes unto itself the same great Titles.  
2. Note that there were present at the Council of Pisa, saith 
(q) Council. To. 7. p. 994.  binius, Three Patriarches, Twenty three Cardinals, Thirty Arch-Bishops, Two hundred and eighty Governors of Monasteries, the Divines, and Legates of the Princes of Europe. There were present at that Council, saith 
(r) Hist. Consil. General. l. 2. c. 1. p. 35.  Richerius, an Hundred and eighty Arch-Bishops and Bishops, Three hundred Governors of Monasteries, an Hundred and twenty Masters in Theology, Three hundred Doctors of the canon and the civil Law, the Legates of Christian Princes, and the Legates and Procurators of all the Universities of Europe.  
At the Council of Constance, saith 
(s) To. 7. p. 1134.  Binius, there were Four Patriarches, Twenty nine Cardinals, Forty seven Arch-Bishops, an Hundred and sixty Bishops, and of Abbots, Provosts, and Priors, and of all sorts of Clerks a very great Number.  
To the Council of Basil, saith the same 
(t) To. 8. p. 525.  Binius, came a very great Multitude of Prelates from the whole Latin World.  
Having premised these things, I ask whether these Councils knew themselves full and entire Representatives of the Church Catholic, and Councils assisted by the Holy Ghost, or they did not? If they did know themselves to be true General Councils, representing the Church Catholic, etc. then they undoubtedly were so. And then why were they represented by the Fifth Lateran Council as schismatical seditious Councils, 
Concilium Constantiense ubi definit Concilium esse supra Papam, reprobatum est in Concilio Florentino & Lateranensi ultimo. Bellar. de Concil. l. 1. c 7. de Concil. partim Reprobatis.  and of no Authority; Why are they styled Concilia Reprobata, Reprobated Councils, by the greatest Part of Roman Catholics, in reference to some of these things which they profess to have decided under this Majestic Character? Why is it yet left free for any Romanist to reject their Authority, and Decrees in many Matters? Moreover, if they were true General Councils representing the whole Church, and assisted by the Holy Ghost, either such Councils must have erred in what they have decreed as matter of Faith, and therefore cannot be Infallible, and then the whole Church Representative, and Councils assisted by the Holy Ghost may err in matters of Faith, or if they did not err, it must be matter of Faith, That a General Council is superior to the Pope. Secondly, That General Councils may infallibly determine matters of Faith without him, yea, against him. Thirdly, That the pertiancious Resisters of this Doctrine were Heretics, and therefore that Eugenius the 4th. Julius the 2d. Leo the 10th. and the 5th. Lateran Council were Heretical.  
If they did not know the Truth of what they thus assert, how shall private Persons be able to discern what such Assemblies, and so many Universities and Churches throughout the World consenting with them, and owning them as such, could not discern? That is, how shall they know when Councils are truly General, when they truly represent the Church Catholic, and they are assisted by the Holy Ghost? Was not this one of their Decrees, That for the future, Quilibet in R. Pontificem eligendus, Every one that was to be chosen Pope should in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost with Heart and Mouth Profess to God Almighty, and to blessed Peter, firmy to believe, and hold, as long as he lived, the holy Catholic Faith, according to the Traditions of the Apostles, the general Councils, and in particular, of the general Councils of Lateran, Lions, Vienna, Constance and Basil, and to keep that Faith to a tittle unchanged, 
(a) Consil. Const. Sess. 39 Basil. Sess. 23.37.  Et usque ad animam & sanguinem confirmare, defensare & praedicare, And to preach, confirm and defend it with their Life and Blood? Did not the following Popes, till after the Time of Eugenius the 4th. make this Profession? Yea, were not the Inquisitors of Heretics obliged by the Council of Constance to inquire of any who lay under Suspicion of Heresy, 
(b) Vtrum credaet, teneat, & asserat, quod quodlibet Concilium Generale, & etiam Constantinense Vniversalem Ecclesiam repraesentet. Item utrum credat, quod illud quod Sacrum Concilium Constantienense Vniversalem Ecclesiam Repraesentans, approbavit & approbat in favorem fidei, & salutem animarum, quod hoc est abuniversis Christi fidelibus approbandum, & tenendum: Et quòd condemnavit & condemnat esse fidei, & bonis moribus contrarium, hoc ab eisdem esse tenendum pro condemnato, credendum, & asserendum. Sess. 45. apud Binium Tom. 7. p. 1124.  Whether he believed, held, and asserted, That every general Council, and particularly that of Constance represents the Universal Church, and whether he believed that what that Council, representing the whole Church, approved in favour of Faith, and the welfare of Souls, was to be approved by all the Faithful, and what it condemned as contrary to Faith and good Manners, was as such to be condemned? And after this Profession of these Popes, this Inquisition made by all concerned to find out, and prosecute Persons suspected of Heresy, could they be doubtful whether these Councils were truly General, or no? Would they condemn Men of Heresy for not believing these Articles, if they themselves did not believe them? What Hppes can private Persons have, that they shall surely know when Councils represent the Church, and are accepted by it, if the Agreement of so many Nations, so many Universities, so many Cardinals, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Divines and Doctors, the Profession of so many Popes, the Practice of so many Inquisitors, do not prove that these Councils were once accepted by the Church.  
Again, Was there any Scripture, or Tradition of the Church which plainly taught the contrary; if not, there can be none now, and so no Man can hve just Cause, from Scripture or Tradition, to doubt the Infallibility of these Councils, That they represented the whole Church, and were assisted by the Holy Ghost, That they were above the Pope, and Representatives of the Church Catholic without Dependence on him. If either plain Scripture, or Tradition contradicted these their Assertions and Determinations, then must these great Assemblies, and all the Universities, Nations, and Churches which owned them as true general Councils, be accounted ignorant of what plain Scripture or Tradition delivered touching a Matter of Faith of so great Import to the Union, the Peace and Reformation of the Church, and why then may not others be ignorant of other Matters plain in Scripture, or Tradition, without Peril? why may we not suppose, or at the least, suspect, That other Councils, less numerous, have been so?  
Again, These Councils of Constance, and Basil have declared and decreed, That 
(a) Concil. Basil. Sess. 2. apud Bin. To. 8. p. 22. Sess. 18. p. 55.  general Councils have Authority immediately from Christ, which every one, of whatsoever State or Dignity, though it be Papal, is obliged to obey in things pertaining to Faith, the Extirpation of the said Schism, and the general Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members. That the Pope himself is bound to stand to the Declaration and Definition of these Councils. Whatsoever Christian, saith the 
(b) Sess. 45.  Council of Constance, refuseth to profess, That he believes, asserts and holds this, he shall be proceeded against, as one suspected of Heresy. This, saith the Council of Basil, is 
(c) Sess. 33. p. 95.  Veritas fidei Catholicae, A Truth belonging to the Catholic Faith, and whosoever pertinaciously resists it, censendus est Haereticus, Is to be deemed an Heretic. It is an Article of Faith which cannot be neglected, say they, Sine interitu salutes, Without the Loss of Salvation. They also decreed, That it was not in the Power of the Pope to dissolve, prorogue, or transfer a general Council to another place, without the Consent of the said Council. And this Decree is also styled 
(a) Ibid. Sess. 33. p. 59 & Sess. 38. p. 101.  An Article of Faith, which he who pertinaciously doth resist is to be deemed an Heretic. They also urge in Confirmation of these Decrees,  
1. That they were established by Martin the Fifth, confirming the Decrees of the Council of Constance, and by Eugenius the Fourth, confirming that of Basil, and particularly that of the Eighth Session, That 
(b) P. 33.  during that Council, there could be no general Council assembled elsewhere, and that if any one presumed to make or erect another Assembly under the Name of a general Council assembled elsewhere, and that if any one presumed to make or erect another Assembly under the Name of a general Council, he would not erect a Council of the Church Catholic, but a Coventicle of Schismatics.  
Secondly. That by Virtue of these Decrees 
(c) Sess. 29. p. 83. p. 101.  Martin the Fifth was chosen Pope, and John the Twenty third, and Benedict the Thirteenth were deposed, and that after the Death of Martin the Fifth, Eugenius the Fourth was chosen Pope by virtue of the same Decrees. So that if they were not valid, these neither could be true Popes, nor the Cardinals, Arch-Bishops, or other Clerks promoted by them could have good Titles to these Promotions.  
Thirdly. That 
(d) Sess. 30. p. 84. v. p. 138, 139, 178.  if the Pope had the Authority over general Councils, which these Decrees denied to belong to him, the Pope might without Resistance, at his Pleasure, corrupt all Christianity, and being accused by a Council of Heresy, or any other Crime, might presently dissolve the Council to escape being judged by them.  
Fourthly. That 
(e) Decret. 5. Concl. p. 117.  no skilful Person ever doubted of this Article, That the Pope was subject to the Judgement of Universal Councils in things which concern the Faith. That 
(f) P. 153, 155, 180.  the Universal Church, and Christian Religion acquiesced in this Article of Faith, Firmiter credens non posse fieri dissolutionem Synodi sine consensu ejus, Firmly believing, that a Dissolution of the Council could not be made without its Consent. 
(g) P. 149.  That it was by all confessed.  
Fifthly. That 
(h) P. 136, 139.  if these Decrees were not to be admitted, it must follow, that all these Councils had actually erred, and that they who were Members of them, were schismatics, and that the Church which judged that they could not be dissolved without their own Consent, hath also erred.  
Now, I say, were these truly Articles of Faith, or not? If they were, why are they not received by the Church of Rome? Yea why are they rejected by the greatest part of 
(o) Concilii Basiliensis nihil est ratum & probatum nisi quaedam dispositiones. Bell. de Concil. l. 1. c. 7.  Romish Doctors? Why were they practically condemned by the Council of Florence assembling in opposition to one of these Articles? And why is not that Council held by the Church of Rome Schismatical, as it must have been, if the  Decrees be true? Why were they dogmatically Condemned in the Fifth Council of Lateran?  
If they were not Articles of Faith, why were they owned as such by so many Councils, so many Nations, so many Universities? Why doth the General Council of Basil so frequently insist upon this plea in defence of them, 
P. 89.  that they were determinations, Vniversae Ecclesiae, of the Universal Church, that they had been declared in many Councils, 
P. 153.  atque per Vniversalem Ecclesiam approhatae, and approved by the Universal Church? That, tota Ecclesia, 
P. 155.  & populus Christianus, the whole Church, and all Christian People had acquiesced in them. That they were Declarations of the Catholic Faith, 
P. 180.  quas universa tenuit Ecclesia, which the Universal Church held. May we not here turn allt he Arguments of the Romanists upon them, by which they do endeavour to show that 'tis in us unreasonable, absurd, and insolent to condemn the Decrees of their supposed General Councils, and of these two in particular, decreeing for the Substraction of the Cup? May we not complain of them in the words of the Council of Basil, that refusing to follow, 
P. 117.  as an infallible Rule, the Doctrine of the Catholic Church in things respecting Faith, judicium proprium in adversum obduratis animis sequi volunt, they choose on the contrary with obdurate minds to follow their Private Judgement? May we not ask them in the words of the same Council, Whether they dare condemn all the Cardinals, Patriarches, Bishops, the Emperor, the Kings, the Princes and others, who by themselves or others were present in this Council; & denique Ecclesiam per orbem dispersam hoc Concilium approbantem, 
P. 149.  and lastly the Church dispersed throughout the World approving this Council? May we not argue thus with them, If those Declarations of Faith and Divine Right, which have so oft and solemnly been made by the Universal Church, and by General Councils declared consistorially to be lawful by the Popes themselves, 
P. 179.  even at the very time that they made them: Si post haec omnia; If, I say, after all these things, these Declarations may be rejected and trampled upon, as being erroneous, must not the whole Church be accused of Error, and the Declarations of General Councils touching matters of Faith be henceforth disbelieved? Yea last may we not conclude with R. H. in a like case, 
(p) Rat. account Disc. 1. ch. 6. §. 59 p. 58.  That if the Decrees of so many Synods, (viz. at Pisa, Constance, Sens, Basil, Bourges) so often weighing the Adversaries Reasons and Evidneces, was not sufficient for settling such a point, at least as to the obedience of future silence and noncontradiction, and as to suffering the Church to enjoy her Peace; what can hereafter be sufficient, or can we ever hope that any Controversy shall be finally determined, or ended by a future Council, if this (of the Superiority of a General Council above a Pope, etc.) is not by these forepast? Can there be any Ground here to question the integrity or lawful proceed of so many Councils all concurring in the same Judgement in this matter? or could there be any new Light in this Point attainable by private Doctors, or by following Councils of the Church of Rome, of which those Councils were not capable or had no notice of, whatsoever R. H. elsewhere speaks of, 
(q) Disc. 1. c. 3. §. 37, 38. p. 26.  A moral certainty, that so many and such persons as meet in their supposed General Councils, could not conspire to falsify the Truth, That 
(r) Disc. 3. §. 44. p. 28.  none can be supposed fit to judge of them, That 
(s) P. 143, 179.  Men vainly pretend to be certain of what such Councils, and a major part of the Church, having the same means of certainty, judge false, or that their private Judgements can have clear Scripture or Tradition, which they could not discern, I say, All these things in this instance do so visibly recoil upon them, that it is needless to insist upon it.  
Lastly, Two things I desire may be considered and attended to in perusing this Discourse.  
The First, is, That though the Ancients alleged here, directly oppose the Doctrines and Determinations of these Councils, and the Practice of the Church of Rome established by them; yet do I not for that Reason only conclude her guilty of Sin and Error in denying the Cup to the Laity, for I am far from holding every thing taught or practised by the Ancients, as certainly true and necessary, and therefore fear not any Retortions of this Nature, from our Adversaries: Had I designed any thing of that Nature, I would more cpiously have insisted on those Arguments from Scripture, whence that conclusion can alone be made, and which I therefore have so briefly touched upon, because I was so happily prevented in that matter by the unanswerable Treatise on this Subject against the Bishop of Meaux, with which I was unwilling to interfere; but finding that the forementioned Bishop had with great confidence appealed for this matter, to the constant practice and to the Principles of the Primitive Church, 
P. 160, 161.  and told us, That the constant Practices of the Primitive Church received with universal approbation from the Origin of Christianity, till the time of the Council of Constance, do invincibly demonstrate, that the Council did but follow the Tradition of All Ages when it defined, That the Communion under one kind was as good and sufficient as under both, with many other things of a like nature, in which he is also followed by the late Writers of the same Communion: And finding also that the once exploded Blackloists were again admitted to plead the infallibility of the Roman Church from practical Tradition, and that this was done upon the strength of these two Propositions:  
1. 
J. S.  That the Church of Rome hath always held close to Tradition, and received still her Doctrine by Tradition from the Father to the Son, from the first to the second, and so to the present Age.  
2. That she could not mistake the sense of Tradition in particular points. In contradiction to these confident Assertions I have here showed, by confronting the Doctrines and Say of the Fathers, to the express Determinations of their Councils.  
1. That the present Church of Rome hath varied in this matter from Antiquity, both in Doctrine and Practice, and that Tradition plainly contradicts all their Assertions and Decrees relating to it: And therefore that all her late Defenders are much mistaken, or, which is worse, would lead others into a known Error, when they undertake to persuade them that the practice of their Church, in denying the Cup to the Laity and to Priests non-conficient, is warranted by Tradition and Primitive Practice, and by the Principles on which they builded that pretended Practice.  
2. That in this particular Point she hath either actually mistaken the Sense of Tradition, or actually devidated from Tradition. And seeing whether she does not differ from or agree with the Primitive Belief, and Practice in this Article, is a matter of Fact, and so may be determined by the Testimony of good Witnesses of what was practised and believed in their Times, and by plain Allegations of matter of Fact, without Infallibility: In plain reason, and from her own avowed Principles it follows, that her Authority in saying she does not differ from the Tradition of the Ancients, and much more in asserting, That she hath always held to it, and therefore could not mistake the Sense of it, can be of no force against plain evidence of Fact to the contrary. If then the difference betwixt the Belief and Practice of the Ancients, and of the present Church of Rome in this matter be evident, as I think I have made it, it must be owned that the present received Tradition of that Church can be no certain Rule of Truth, and no sure Argument that such was the Tradition of the Primitive Church, since in this Controversy she hath actually varied from the Tradition of the Ancients.  
And thus far, 1. and no farther, would I be thought to drive the Argument drawn from the Citations of the Ancients. The Right or Authority claimed by that Church, will be best judged of by other Intrinsic Arguments, which ought to have the greater force when it appears that Prescription is against our Adversaries. Only I cannot but admire why the Trent Council should found their Power of making such a Change in our Lord 's Institution, on those words of the Aposlte, 1 Cor. iv. 1 
(t) Id autem Apostolus non obscure visus est innuisse cum ait, sic nos existimet, etc. Sess. 21. c. 2.  But let a Man account of us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & dispensatores mysteriorum Dei, as Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God. Since in that very place it is immediately added, That of a Steward it is required that he be found Faithful, that is, saith 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Locum.  Chrysostom, that he do not usurp Authority over the things of his Lord, but administer them as a Steward, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for it belongeth to a Steward to administer, or distribute, well to the Family the things committed to his hands. And St. Basil 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Haec ipsis integra custodiat, Tom. 2. de vera ac pia fide p. 385. b.  saith, It is the property of a faithful Minister, whatsoever things are committed to him by his Lord, to distribute them to his fellow Servants, and to preserve them for him, without Adulteration or Deceit, or purely and entirely, saith the Latin.  
2. The Second thing which I desire may be considered, is, That nothing in the following Citations, can be urged against the Church of England, as Erroneous in this Matter. 
Art 6.  For since she professeth to admit nothing as necessary to be believed, but what is either expressed in, or fairly deducible from Scripture, and that it is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly alike: 
Art 34.  How can in reflect upon her, that S. Cyprian, for Example, held it necessary to mix the Wine with Water, or that others have held it necessary to use Unleavened Bread, etc. All that her Sons are in this Case obliged to, is only to give fair and satisfactory Reasons, why these things are not necessary, which they are both able and willing to do; whereas if a disagreement between the present Church of Rome, and the Primitive Christians be once proved against them in any of their Articles, all their fine Pleas for the certainty of their Traditions, 
Mr. M. Quest. of Quest. p. 395, 396, 397.  the Infallibility of their Councils, as proceeding upon Tradition, and meeting only to consult about the Tradition of the Church diffused, and all the Prejudices they advance against the Protestants from the present Tradition of their Church, must be confessedly vain and Sophistical. And the attending to this difference of Principles in each Church, will show how much the Testimonies of the Ancients do affect the one, and how little they concern the other, and so will prevent the Objections of an Unwary, and the Cavils of a captious Reader.   

THE INTRODUCTION. Showing what the Councils of Constance, Basil, and Trent have determined, touching Communion in one kind.  
THOUGH in many other Doctrines, and Practices of the Church of Rome, she contradicteth the plainest Evidence of Scripture and Tradition, as in the bowing down to Images, the Celebration of the Mass in Latin, where it is a Tongue unknown to the Generality of them that hear it; yet in none of them hath she so openly affronted, and defied both the Institutions of the H. Scripture, and the continual Practice, and declaration of the Church of Christ, as in her practice of the Substraction of the Cup from Lay Communicants; and in the Propositions, Assertions, and Decrees, she hath established to excuse that practice.  
In that of Honorary Worship of the Images of Saints, her second Nicene Council doth very frequently, though, say the Fathers met at Frankford 
* Praefat. p. 10. , very impudently, pretend to Apostolical Tradition. The Trent Council usher in their Decree concerning the Honour and Veneration to be imparted to them, with an insinuation, that it is made juxta Catholicae, & Apostolicae Ecclesiae usum, à primaevis Christianae Religionis temporibus receptum 
† Sess. 25. : Accord to the use of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the first Ages of Christianity. But when they come to settle as a Law this Defalcation of the Cup, they do it without any of these colours, or pretences, yea with confessed deviation both from our Saviour's Institution and Tradition, and from the constant practice of the first, and purest Ages of his Church, Declaring, and defining, as the Trent Council doth, That 
(a) Sess. 21. c. 1, 2.  although our Redeemer, and our Lord, in his Last Supper did institute this venerable Sacrament, and deliver it to the Apostles in both species, yet 
(b) Ibid. Can. 2.  if any person say the Holy Catholic Church was not by just causes and reasons moved to give it to the Laity, and Priests not consecrating, in one species only, let him be accursed. And as the Council of Constance doth, That 
* Quod licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie, tamen haec consuetudo, viz. communicandi Laicos, tantummodo sub specie panis habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare. Concil. Constant. Sess. 13.  although in the Primitive Church the Sacrament was received by the Faithful under both species, yet is the Custom of receiving it by Lay-Men, and by Priests not consecrating, to be received as a Law.  
That these Decrees are evidently repugnant to the institution of our Lord and Saviour, and to the practice of the whole Church of Christ, for above a Thousand Years, hath been proved beyond all possibility of contradiction, in a late excellent Treatise, in Answer to a Discourse of Mr. Condom on this Subject. That the same Decrees, and almost every proposition, declaration, and assertion, which have been advanced, and invented by the General Councils of Constance, Basil, and of Trent, in favour of them, are manifestly opposite and repugnant to the received Traditions of the Church of Christ, and to the Sense and the Expressions of the Fathers of the Christian Church, I undertake, by God's Assistance, in the ensuing Pages to demonstrate, by showing,  
First, What these Councils have determined in this matter. And,  
Secondly, What hath, in contradiction to them, been asserted, and declared by the Fathers which flourished in the Church of God.  
Now the Church of Rome hath by the Councils of Constance, Basil and Trent, declared and defined as followeth.  
1. First, 
(c) Sancta Synodus declarat, & docet nullo divino praecepto Laicos & Clericos, non conficientes obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum. Syn. Trid. Sess. 21. c. 1.  That the Laics and Priests, who do not consecrate, are not obliged by divine Precept to receive the Sacrament in both kinds. That 
(d) Et cap. 3.  though Christ, in his Last Supper, instituted this veverable Sacrament under the species of Bread and Wine, yeet do not that institution and delivery, bind all the Faithful, by the Law of Christ, to receive both species; and that they who assert the contrary, speak rashly and presumptuously.  
2. That 
(e) Neque nullo pacto dubitari posse, salva fide, quin illis alterius speciei communio ad salutem sufficiat. Ibid. Et Sess. 13. Can. 3.  it cannot be doubted, without prejudice to the Christian Faith, but that Communion in one kind only is sufficient to Salvation. Whosoever doth affirm the contrary to either of these Declarations, saith the Trent Council, let him be Anathema.  
3. That 
(f) Sancta mater Ecclesia— gravibus & justis causis adducta, hanc consuetudinem sub altera specie communicandi approbavit, & pro lege habendum decrevit, quam reprobare, aut sine Ecclesiae authoritate pro libito mutare non licet. Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. c. 2.  the Church of Christ, for just and weighty reasons, hath approved the Communion of Laics and Priests not consecrating, under one kind only, and hath defined it for a Law, That 
(g) Concilium S. Generale Constantiense in Spirit Sancto legitime congregatum, declarat, decernit & definite, quod licet Christus post coenam instituerit, & suis Discipulis administraverit sub untraque specie panis & vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum— & similiter, quod licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie, tamen haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula &c scandalaest rationabiliter introducta quod a conficientibus sub utraque specie, & a Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur, unde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia, & Sanctis Patribus rationabiliter introducta, & diutissime observata sit, habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare, aut sine Ecclesiae authoritate pro libitu mutare. Concil. Constant. Sess. 13.  although Christ himself did minister this venerable Sacrament to his Disciples in both kinds, the species of Bread and Wine; and though it was so received by the Faithful in the Primitive Church, yet the contrary Custom that the Priests, who do consecrate, should receive in both kinds, and the Laity should receive only the species of Bread, was rationally introduced, and is to be received as a Law, which none must change or reject at his pleasure, without the Authority of the Church.  
4. That to say that it is 
(h) Quapropter dicere hanc consuetudinem aut legem observare sit sacrilegum aut illicitum, censeri debet erroneum, & pertinaciter asserentes oppositum praemissorum tanquam Haeretici arcendi sunt, & graviter puniendi. Ibid.  Sacrilegious, or unlawful to observe this Law or Custo, is to be deemed Erroneous, and they who pertinaciously do so assert, are to be punished, and driven from the Church as Heretics, they acting damnably who endeavour to reprove this custom as Sacrilegious. That 
(i) Quod nullus Presbyter sub poena excommunicationis, communicet populum sub utraque specie panis & vini. Item ipsa Sancta Synodus decernit & declarat super ista materia, ut effectualiter puniant eos contra hoc decretum excedentes, qui communicando populum sub utraque specie panis & vini exhortati fuerint, & sic faciendum esse docuerint, & si ad poenitentiam redire non curaverint, animo indurato, per censuras Ecclesiasticas per eos ut Haeretici sunt coercendi. Ibid.  if any Priest communicates the People under both kinds, he is to be excommunicated, and process is to be directed by the Authority of the General Council of Constance to all Patriarches, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and their Vicars in Spirituals, commanding them under the penalty of Excommunication, that they effectually punish those, who, contrary to this Decree, exhort the People to Communicate in both kinds of Bread and Wine, and take upon them so to minister the Sacrament unto them, and to deal with them as Heretics, if they continue obstinately without Repentance in so doing. Yea the Trent Council hath pronounced an Anathema upon all those 
(k) Si quis dixerit Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam non justis causis & rationibus adductam fuisse ut Laicos, atque etiam Clericos non conficientes, sub panis tantummodo specie communicaret, aut in eo errasse, Anathema sit. Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 2.  who shall say she was not moved by just Causes and Reasons to make this Law, that non-conficient Priests and Laics should communicate in Bread alone, or in that species only, or that she erred in making of that Law.  
5. That 
(l) Insuper declarat, Quamvis Redemptor noster in suprema illa coena hoc Sacramentum in duabus speciebus instituerit, & A postolis tradiderit, tamen fatendum effe etiam sub altera tantum specie totum atque integrum Christum, verumque Sacramentum sumi, ac propterea, quod ad fructum attinet, nulla gratia necessaria ad salutem eos defraudari, qui unam speciem solam accipiunt. Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. Cap. 3. Si quis negaverit in venerabili Sacramento Eucharistiae sub unaquaque specie & sub singulis cujusque speciei partibus, separatione facta, totum Christum contineri, Anathema sit. Sess. 13. Can. 3.  though Christ instituted this Sacrament in both kinds, and so delivered it to his Apostles, yet must it be confessed, that whole, and entire Christ, and a true Sacrament is received under one kind only, and that therefore, as to the benefit of the Sacrament, they are not deprived of any Grace necessary to Salvation, who receive one kind only; yea, that it is most true, that as much is contained under either species, as under both, for whole Christ is under the species of Bread, and under every part of it; under the species of Wine, and every particle of it.  
6. That 
(m) Nullatenus ambigendum est, quod non sub specie panis caro tantum, nec sub specie vini sanguis tantum, sed sub qualibet specie est integer totus Christus. Concil. Bas. Sess. 30. Concil. Constant. Sess. 13. Vinaturalis illius connexionis & concomitantiae, qua partes Christi Domini— inter se copulantur. Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. Cap. 3.  by force of the natural Connexion and Concomitance, which is betwixt the parts of Christ's raised Body, Christ's Body is under the species of Wine, and his Blood under the species of Bread; and so whole Christ under each species, and every particle of them, it being firmly to be believed, and in no wise doubted, that the whole Body and Blood of Christ is contained as well under the species of Bread, as under that of Wine, and not the Flesh only under the species of Bread, nor the Blood only under the species of Wine; and 
(n) Si quis negaverit in Sanctiffimae Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri vere, realiter & substantialiter corpus, & sanguinem, una cum anima & divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ac proinde totum Christum— Anathema sit. Ibid. Can. 1.  this whosoever shall deny, saith the Trent Council, let him be Anathema.  
7. That no man must dare hereafter 
(o) Cunctis Christi fidelibus interdicit, ne posthac de iis aliter vel credere, vel docere, vel praedicare audeant, quam ex his decretis explicatum atque definitum. Conc. Trid. Sess. 21. Cap. 1. Sess. 13. praefat.  to preach, teach or believe otherwise than is by these Decrees explained and defined. These are the Doctrines, Decrees, and Definitions of these Councils, and how extremely opposite they are unto the formerly received Doctrines of the Church of Christ, and to the plain Assertions of the Ancient Fathers, shall be my business in the ensuing Sections to demonstrate.   

CHAP. I. The Contents.  
Showing in opposition to the decrees of the Councils of Constance, Basil and Trent, that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, till the 12th. Century, tanght, that the Laity by divine precept were obliged to receive both species, which is proved from the Testimonies of Justin Martyr, Cent. 2. § 1. Of Cyprian, Gent. 3. § 2. Of Basil, Ambrose, and the Apostolical Constitutions, Cent. 4. § 3. Of chrysostom and St. Austin, Cent. 5. § 4. Of Caesarius Arelatensis, and Procopius Gazaeus, Cent. 6. § 5. Of Isidore Hispalensis, and the Council of Braga, Cent. 7. § 6. Of venerable Bede, Cent. 8. § 7. Of Hincmarus Remensis and Paschasius, Cent. 9 § 8. Of Lanfrank and Anselme, Cent. 11. § 9 Of Paschal, Hugo de Sancto Victore, Arnoldus Carnotensis, St. Bernard, and Rupertus Taitiensis, Cent. 12. § 10. Of Albertus Magnus, Cent. 13. § 11. Five Corollaries from the Doctrine of the Fathers in this Point, § 12.  
FIRST than whereas the Councils of Constance, 
§ 1.  Basil and 
(a) Sancta Synodus declarat & docet nullo divino praecepto Laicos & Clericos non conficientes obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum. Sess. 21. Cap. 1. Concil. Const. Sess. 13.  Trent have declared, defined and determined, That the Faithful Laity and the Clergy that do not consecrate, are not obliged by divine precept to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist in both the species of Bread and Wine. The Fathers do, in opposition to this Doctrine, either expressly, or by plain consequence assert that the Laity, as well as Priests, by divine precept, are obliged to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in both kinds, and that the precept, drink ye all of this, was by our Lord directed, as well to Laymen us to Priests. Justin Martyr, in his Second Apology, relates the practice of the Christians thus, After the Precedent hath given thanks, and all the People said Amen, 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 97.  the Deacons give to every person present to participate of the Bread, Wine and Water, which are blessed, and this food me call the Eucharist, which none but he that believeth our Doctrine, and is Baptised can receive. And to show us that he did not look upon this practice as an arbitrary thing, he adds, That 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 98.  the Blessed Apostles in their Gospels had delivered that Christ commanded them to do so; for, be having taken Bread, and given thanks, is by them declared to have said, Do this in remembrance of me, this is my Body; and also when he had taken the Cup, and given thanks, to have said This is my Blood, and to have given it to them alone. Where note first, that Justin Martyr speaks here of a command of Christ, which cannot possibly relate unto the consecration, but to the participation of the Elements, the command being, Do this, Take, eat, Drink ye all of this. Secondly, he had said before that, only 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 98.  Believers did communicate; this he now proves, because Christ delivered the Elements to them alone, commanding them to partake of them. He therefore clearly speaks of delivering the Bread and Wine to the Communicants: Moreover speaking of the service performed by Christians on the Lord's Day, he saith, Prayers being finished, we offer Bread, 
P. 98.  Wine and Water, and the Precedent gives thanks and Praise, and the People say Amen; and there is made a Distribution of those things which have been consecrated, and every one partakes of them; and then he thus concludes, that 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 99 B.  Christ rising upon this day, appeared, and taught those things which we have now laid before your Eyes, He therefore must have taught, according to Justin Martyr, the distribution of the Bread and Wine to every Communicant. Here then observe to the confusion of the Trent Council, First, That it was the Tradition of the Apostles that Christ commanded, that the Eucharist under both kinds, should be given to every one present at the Sacrament, and that the distribution of those things which were consecrated, so that every one should partake of them, is that which Christ taught. Secondly, That they declared that Christ gave this commandment in his Gospels, whence it is evident, that the Apostles, and all the Christians of their times, and of the times of Justin Martyr, did interpret the Institution of the Sacrament by Christ, as a command, that every faithful Person present should partake both of the consecrated Bread and Cup, and that both should be distributed to them.  
St. Cyprian in his Epistle to Cacilian complains of some, 
§ 2.  who out of Ignorance, or Simplicity, in sanctifying of the Cup of the Lord, and 
(f) In chalice Domini sanctificando & plebi ministrando. Ep. 63. ed. Oxon. p. 148.  in the Ministration of it to the People, did not that which Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, the Author and Teacher of that Sacrifice, did and taught, because they used only Water, and mixed not Wine with it in the Cup they consecrated, and distributed among the People. Where note that this they did not out of any profane Opinion of the Wickedness of drinking Wine, as the Aquarii, and Encratitae, and the Tatiani did, but only out of Ignorance and Simplicity, and therefore he informs us, That they did this only in their morning Sacrifice, that the Heathens might not conclude that they were Christians, and so hale them away to Martyrdom, because they smelled of Wine: And that 
(g) Cum ad coenandum venimus mixtum calicem offerimus. p. 155, 156.  in their evening Sacrifice they offered a Cup mixed, according to Custom. Now against this humane and novel Custom he argues,  
First, From the Custom of 
(h) Quanquam sciam Episcopos plurimos Ecclesiis Dominicis in toto mundo divina dignatione praepositos vangelicae ritatis ac minicae traditionis tenere rationem, nec ab eo quod Christus magifter & praecepit & gessit, humana & novella institutione decedere. Ibid. p. 148.  most Bishops in the Church of Christ; Who, says he, keep to the evangelical Truth, and the Tradition of our Lord, and do not, by any new and humane Institution, recede from that which Christ our Master hath commanded and performed. Whence it is evident, that in the Judgement of St. Cyprian, Christ both commanded, That the Cup mixed with Water should be administered to the People, and did so administer it.  
Secondly. From the Necessity of obeying Christ's Institution, and Command; for saith he, 
(i) Religiosum pariter & necessarium duxi has ad vos literas facere, ut siquis in isto errore adhuc teneatur, veritatis luce perspecta ad radicem atque originem traditionis dominicae revertatur— Quando aliquid Deo inspirante & mandante praecipitur, necesse est domino servus fidelis obtemperet, excusatus a pud omnes quod nihil sibi arroganter assumat qui offensam domini timere compellitur nisi faciat quod jubetur. ib.  I thought it both Religious and Necessary to write these Letters to you, That, if any be yet held under this Error, seeing the Light of the Truth, they may return to the Root and Original of the Tradition of our lord— For when any thing is enjoined by the Inspiration and Command of God, it is necessary that the Faithful Servant should obey his Lord, and he will be excused of all Men, That he arrogantly assumeth nothing to himself, who is compelled to fear the Anger of the Lord, if he do not what he hath commanded. St. Cyprian therefore did believe that Christ required, That the Cup, offered in Remembrance of him, should be mixed with Wine and Water; and being thus offered, should be distributed to the People; and that he who did not so Administer, did arrogantly assume unto himself, and had just Cause to fear the Indignation of his Lord.  
Thirdly, This he proves also from the Exhortation and Command of Wisdom; 
* Prov. ix. 5.  Come, eat of my Bread, and drink of the Wine that I have mingled: Where by mixed Wine, the Cup of the Lord mixed with Wine and Water, is, saith he, prophetically spoken of; adding, That we could not drink the Blood of Christ, had not He first been pressed, and trampled upon; and, 
(k) Nisi Christus calicem prior biberet in quo credentibus propinaret. p. 150.  had not be first drunk the Cup in which he drunk to Believers. Moreover, as Christ, saith he, commanded the Water of eternal Life to be given to Believers in Baptism; so also by the Example of his Mastership, he taught the Cup was to be mingled with Wine and Water: For about the Day of his Passion taking the Cup, He blessed it, and gave to his Disciples; 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.— And the Apostle Paul saith, the Lord Jesus, the same Night in which he was betrayed took Bread, and giving Thanks, he broke it, and said, This is my Body which shall be delivered for you, do this in Remembrance of me; likewise, after Supper, he took the Cup, saying, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood; this do, as oft as you drink it, in Remembrance of me; for as oft as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup, you show th' Lord's Death till he come. Now, saith he, 
(l) Quod si a Domino praecipitur N. B. & ab Apostolo ejus hoc idem confirmatur & traditur, ut quotiescunque biberimus in Commemorationem Domini haec saciamus quod fecit & Dominus, invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatum est, nisi eadem quae dominus secit, nos quoque saciamus. p. 152.  if it be commanded by our Lord, and the same thing be confirmed, and delivered by his Apostle, That as oft as we drink in Commemoration of our Lord, we should do that which our Lord did; we find that is not observed by us which is commanded, unless we do the same things which our Lord did, and mingling the Cup of the Lord after the same manner we recede not from the divine Institution.  
Lastly. If any of our Predecessors, saith he, out of Ignorance, or Simplicity, did not hold, and observe that 
(m)— Quod nos dominus facere exemplo & Magisterio suo docuit, etc. p. 156, 157.  which the Lord taught us to do by his Example, and command; God's Mercy may show Pardon to him, whereas no Pardon will be showed to us, being instructed and admonished to offer, as our Lord did, his Cup mixed with Wine, if we do not so. Wherefore we have directed Letters to all our Colleagues, That the evangelical Command, and the Tradition of our Lord, should be every where observed, and that there should be no receding from that which Christ both taught and did.  
Here then is all that Protestants assert against the Definitions of the Councils of Constance, Basil and Trent, viz.  
1. That our Lord taught both by Example, and command the Ministration of the Cup, or that this was enjoined by Inspiration and Command of God.  
2. That Christ in ministering the Cup drank to Believers, and, That he commanded them to drink it, by saying, Drink ye all of this; and that the same thing is confirmed by the Apostle, saying, This do, as oft as you drink it, in Remembrance of me.  
3. That this evangelical Command, and Tradition of Christ is to be every where observed, and that none should recede from what he did both teach and do, none should recede from the divine Instruction; that it is necessary that the Faithful Servant should obey his Lord, and that he may justly fear his Anger if he do not what he hath commanded.  
Now that St. Cyprian in this Epistle speaks not only of the Consecrution, or Oblation of the Cup, but also of the Distribution of it, and the Participation of it by the People, is evident beyond all Contradiction. For,  
1. He expressly speaks of sanctifying the Lords Cup, and utinistring it to the People. N. B. and of the Blood of the Lord 
(n) Epoto Sanguine Domint p. 153.  drank off by them; and of the Cup which in the Psalmist? Phrase, inebriates the Drinkers of it.  
2. He adds, that some perhaps might plead in favour of that Practice, he condemns, That they used only Water, lest their Persecutors, perceiving that they smelled of Wine in the Morning, might hence conclude, they had received the Sacrament, and gather thence that they were Christians; which could by no means be objected, if he argued only for the Consecration of Wine, and not for the Participation of it by Believers also, seeing they could not smell of that which they did not partake of.  
3. 
P. 155.  He saith, That if the fear of smelling of Wine should keep Men from doing what Christ did, and commanded to be done in commemoration of himself, the Brother hood would be withdrawn from the Passion of Christ in the times of Persecution, whilst they thus learned to be ashamed of his Blood in the Oblations: Whereas, if it belonged not to them to drink of the Blood of the Oblation, jure communications, by right of participation, as St. Cyorian says it did, if they were not obliged to drink of it in remembrance of him, this consequence must be infirm.  
4. Whereas they who did celebrate this Sacrifice with Bread and Water consecrated in the Morning Sacrifice, thought this a good excuse, that in the Evening Sacrifice they used Wine mixed with Water. St. Cyprian saith, 
P. 136.  That this excuse is not sufficient; partly, because the People could not be all invited to the Evening Sacrifice; partly, because in every Sacrifice me make mention of Christ's Passion, and so must do no other thing in any Sacrifice than what Christ did; which Reasons can carry no weight in them, but upon supposition of an obligation on the People to communicate of the consecrated Wine and Water.  
Lastly, He adds, That if the blush to drink the Blood of Christ, 
Ibid.  we cannot be prepared to pour out our Blood for Christ; which not the Priest alone, but all the People must be prepared to do; it therefore is extremely evident, that here St. Cyprian discourseth not only of the Priest's obligation to consecrate Wine mixed with Water, but also of the People's obligation to partake of the Cup so consecrated.  
In the Apostolical Constitutions the Apostles are introduced, 
§ 3.  giving this order, 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. 2. c. 57  When the Sacrifice is offered, let every order of Believers receive by themselves of the Lord's Body, and of his precious Blood. The Title of which Constitution is. What every one of the Clergy and Laity ought to do in the Assembly. In the Sacramental Thanksgiving they speak thus, We give thee thanks O Father for Christ's precious Blood shed for our sakes, and for his precious Body, 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. c. 25.  the Antitypes of which me now celebrate, be having commanded us to show forth his Death. This Prayer all the Faithful make, and all that are Baptised are the persons who are thus to show forth his Death. In the Prayer after the divine Oblation, they say thus, 
(q) Lib. 2. cap. 13.  Let the Bishop Communicate, than the Priests, Deacons, etc. Amongst the Women, the Deaconnesses, Virgins and Windows, than the Children, than all the People in their Order; and the Priest, let him tender the Oblation, saying, The Body of Christ, and let the Receiver say, Amen; the Deason, let him hold the Cup, and giving it, say, The Blood of Christ, the Cup of Life, and he that drinketh it let him say, Amen. And in the close of these Prescriptions are these words, 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. c. 15.  These things we the Apostles have commanded you Bishops, Priests, and Deacons to observe, touching the Mystical Service.  
St. Basil is an express assertor of the same Doctrine; for he spends a whole Chapter to prove that he who is regenerated by Baptism, 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 1. l. 1. de Bapt. c. 3.  ought afterwards to be nourished by the participation of the divine Mysteries in the plural, not by one of them only, and 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 580.  how this should be done, Christ, saith he, hath taught us, saying, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you have no Life in you. He that eateth my Flesh, and drinks my Blood, hath eternal Life, etc. And at the close of the Gospels it is written, that Jesus taking Bread, and giving thanks, brake, and gave it to his Disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my Body broken for you, this do in remembrance of me; and taking the Cup, and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this, etc. The Apostle also doth attest these things, saying, I received from the Lord that which I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, in the Night in which he was betrayed, took Bread, and giving thanks, broke it, and said, This is my Body broken for you, do this in remembrance of me: Likewise after Supper, he took the Cup, saying, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, do this in remembrance of me; for as of: as you shall not this Bread, and drink this Cup, you show forth the Lord's Death till he come. 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 581.  What therefore do these words profit us? That eating and drinking we might be always mindful of him who died for us, and risen again. Which words are as full a confutation of the Roman Doctrine, as can be desired by any Protestant.  
For they expressly teach, that every Baptised person 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moral. Reg. 21. Tom. 2. p. 431.  is bound to partake of both the Mysteries, of the Bread and of the Cup, that our Lord hath taught him how he should be nourished by these mysteries, even by eating Sacramentally of his Flesh, and drinking Sacramentally his Blood.  
That the words of the Institution of this Supper mentioned in the Gospels, and in particular those words, Drink ye all of this, belong to all Believers, even as much as the forementioned words, He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood, hath eternal Life, etc. they being here introduced to prove, that all Believers ought to be nourished by the holy Mysteries; that therefore,  
3. Do this; in both these Places is not a Command directed to the Apostles to Sacrifice Christ's Body and his Blood; but to Believers to eat and drink them. And,  
4. That we are to remember and show forth Christ's Death, not only by eating, but by drinking also.  
St. Ambrose speaking of these Sacraments, as he, and many of the Ancients call the consecrated Bread and Wine, informs us, that Christ speaks of them in the Song of Songs, saying, 
(y) Edite inquit fratres mei & inebrianimi. De Sacram l. 5. c. 3. quoties enim bibis, remissionem accipis peccatorum & inebriaris in Spiritu. ibid.  Eat my Brethren, and be inebriated; for as oft as thou drinkest, thou receivest Remission of Sins, and art inebriated with the Spirit. And the same Ambrose elsewhere saith, If as oft as this Blood is poured out, it is poured out for the Remission of Sins, 
(z) Debeo illum semper accipere, ut semper mihi peccata dimittantur. l. 4. c. 6.  I ought always to receive it, that my Sins may always be remitted. In which Words he not only asserts, That Christ's Blood poured out, aught to be received; which cannot be done, by receiving it only by Concomitance with the Body, but also that our Lord commands his Brethren not to eat only of these Mysteries, but to be inebriated, and saith, That we are thus inebriated by drinking.  
St. Chrysostom is copious on this Subject; for, saith he, 
§ 4.  many things conduce to christian Love, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matt. Hom. 32. p 223.  one Table is offered to all; the same Drink is given to all, and not only so, but it is given out of one Cup: For the Father being willing to induce us to love one another, ordered this, making us to drink out of one Cup, which is an Instance of intense Love: So that the Sacrament of the Cup, according to St. Chrysostom, was of the Institution of the Father; and he thus ordered Matters for the Advancement of his great Commandment of Christian Love. In his Twenty seventh Homily upon the First Epistle to the Corinthians, he saith, That as Christ said over the Bread, and over the Cup, do this in Remembrance of me; 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 421.  revealing to us the Cause of giving us this Mystery: So doth St. Paul here say, As often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup, you show the Lord's Death. Christ therefore did command the drinking of this Cup, and did it for a Cause which will remain to the World's End, and equally concern all Christians, viz. The Remembrance and Annunciation of his Death. And in his Fifteenth Homily upon the First of Timothy he brings in Christ thus speaking to the Laity, as well as Clergy, I have united, I have joined you to my slf; 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 316.  I have said eat me, drink me: And whether Christ, or the Trent Council should be obeyed in this Matter, it is not hard to judge, especially if we consider, That in the Judgement of St. Chrysostom, Christ did not only institute, but command these things to be done. His Words are these: As chief we remember those Words which we last hear from our departing Friends, and are wont to say, by way of Admonition to their Heirs, if they dare to transgress their Commands, consider this is the last Voice which your Father uttered, and till his last Breath he required these things. Even so Paul being willing hence to render his Discourse formidable: Remember, saith he, that he gave this his last Mystery, and in that very Night in which he was to be slain for us, 
(d) In Cor. 1. Hom. 27. pag. 421.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he commanded these things.  
St. Austin doth sufficiently inform us of the same thing by ask of this Question; When our Lord saith, Exceept ye ear my Flesh and drink my Blood, you shall have no Life in you; how is it that the People are so much reslrained from the Blood of the Sacrifices which were offered for Sins? If by those Sacrifices this one Sacrifice was signified, 
(e) Ab hujus Sacrificii sanguine sumendo in alimentum, non solum nemo prohibetur, sed ad bibendum omnes exhortantur, qui volunt habere vitam. qu. 57 in Levit.  from taking of the Blood of which Sacrifice, not only no Man is restrained, but All Men are exhorted to drink it, who will have Life, for surely such an Exhortation must be equivalent to a Command.  
§ 5 It is worth the Enquiry, saith 
(f) In Levit. p. 327.  Procopius Gazaeus, how it comes to pass, That when in the Law the eating of Blood is forbidden. Now Christ commandeth us to eat his Blood.  
§ 6 Isidore Hispalensis, saith, in Allusion to the Words of Wisdom, That Christ, the Wisdom of God, hath built him an House, the Church, in which he hath slain the Sacrifices of his Body, in which he hath mingled the Wine of his Blood in the Cup of the divine Sacrament; and prepared his Table, that is, the Altar of the Lord, when sending forth his Servants the Apostles, and Teachers to the Foolish, that is, to all Nations that knew not the true God, he saith unto them, 
(g) Dixit, eye venite, comedite panem meum & bibite vinum quod miscui vobis, id est Sancti corporis escam sumite, & poculum sanguinis sacri percipite. De Gent. vocat. cap. 26.  Come, eat my Bread, and drink my Wine which I have mingled, that is, take ye the Meat of my sacred Body, and receive the Cup of my sacred Blood. His Command therefore, according to Isidore, was by his Apostles sent to all Nations, and to the Foolish among them to drink the Cup of his sacred Blood.  
The Council held at Braga in the same Century, speaking of those who delivered to the People a piece of Bread dipped in the Wine for the whole Communion, confutes this Practice, by recurring, not only to the Custom of the Church, but also to the Doctrine of the Gospel, and the Command of Christ; for, say they, 
(h) Quidam in Sacrificiis Domini— Eucharistam vino madidam pro complemento communionis credunt populis porrigendam— Quod quam sit Evangelicae & Apostolicae Doctrinae contrarium non difficile ab ipso fonte veritatis probabitur a quo ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum Mysteria processerunt.— Seorsim enim panis, seorsim & calicis commemoratio memoratur. Concil. To. 6. p. 563.  how Repugnant this Practice is to the Doctrine of the Gospel, and Custom of the Church, may easily be proved from the Fountain of Truth, who gave the Cup by itself, saying, Drink ye all of this, as he took the Bread by itself, saying, Take, eat, etc. Hence than we learn, That the Fountain of Truth commanded, and the Doctrine of the Gospel requireth; That all the People should receive the Cup; and that they should receive it ordinarily apart from the Bread.  
Regino quotes from venerable Bede these Words, 
(i) Postquam infirmus sacra Unctione fuerit delibutus, statim corpore & sanguine Domini recreandus est, ut de cujus vita temporali desperatur, vivificari in anima vita aeterna mereatur, ait enim Dominus, qui manducat, etc. Proinde Sancti Canones praecipiunt ut nulli fideli in extremis posito Communio denegetur. De Eccles. Disc. l. 1. c. 119. p. 77.  § 7 When the infirm Person hath been anointed, he presently is to be refreshed with the Body and Blood of our Lord, that he may deserve to be quickened with Life Eternal in his Soul, when his corporal Life is despaired of; for our Lord saith, He that eats my Flesh, and drinks my Blood, hath eternal Life; and unless you eat— you shall have no Life in you: And hence the sacred Canons command that the Communion should be denied to none of the Faithful in the Close of this Life. Where we learn, 1. What was then understood by the Word Communion, viz. the receiving of both Species, the Body and the Blood, and how these Species were to be received, viz. The Flesh was to be eaten, and the Blood to be drunk. 2. Why they were to be both received, viz. Because of our Lords Say, John vi. And 3ly. We also learn, for Confutation of Mr. Condom's first pretended Practice of the Church, That the Sick were to receive the Body and the Blood, and that the Canons of the Church required that they should not be withheld from them.  
Zacharias Chrysopolitanus, citys from the same Bede these Words, 
(k) Hinc est quod ait, Bibite ex hoc omnes & ore & cord, ut sitis participes passionis meae. Monotess. p. 306.  Hence it is that he saith, Drink ye all of this, both with the Heart and with the Mouth, that ye may be Partakers of my Passion.  
§ 8 Paschasius Rathertus saith, It is Christ alone who breaketh this Bread, and distributeth it to Believers by the Hands of his Ministers, 
(l) Similiter & calicem porrigit eis dicens, accipite & hibite ex hoc omnes tam ministri quam reliqui credentes. cap. 15.  saying, Take ye, and drink ye all of this, as well Ministers as the rest of the Faithful: This is the Blood of the new and everlasting Testament. Cassander informs us, That the Gloss called expositio quadruplicis Missae, expounds the Words thus, 
(m) Ex hoc scilicet Calice sanguinis omnes scilicet sine personarum acceptione. De Com. sub utraque specie, p. 1043.  Drink ye of this Cup of Blood, All without exception of Persons. Hincmarus Remensis, having cited the same Words, adds 
(n) Tom. 2. p. 90.  Haec dixit & dicit, This he said then, and this he saith now. All plainly contradicting the R. Gloss (and Mr. Condom's Exposition) That these Words, Drink ye all of this, were only spoken to, and concerned only the Apostles.  
Lanfranck, 
§ 9  Archbishop of Canterbury, speaks thus to Berengarius; If thou couldst with Christian Caution understand these things which ought to be understood literally, and spiritually, 
(o) Proculdubio crederes quod universalis Ecclesia credit, praedicares quod Apostolica Doctrina in tota mandi latitudine praedicandum instituit, carnem scilicet & sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi & ore, & corpore, & ore cordis, hoc est, corporaliter, & spiritualiter manducari & bibi.— De Sacr. Euch. f. 131, 132.  thou wouldst without doubt believe that which the universal Church believes; thou wouldst publish what the Doctrine of the Apostles hath appointed to be published through the World, viz. That the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is to be eaten and drunken, both by the Mouth and Body, and by the Mouth of the Heart; that is, both bodily and spiritually. And Anselm his Successor in the same See, saith, We ought to eat and drink this Sacrament two ways, 
(p) o'er cordis & ore Corporis. Com. in 1 Cor. 11.  with the Mouth of the Heart, and of the Body. The doing both these things, the drinking of the Blood of Jesus with our Mouths, is that which ought to be done, that which the Doctrine of the Apostles hath appointed to be published.  
Pope Paschal writes to Pontius, Abbot of Clun, 
§. 10.  thus; 
(q) Scribens ad Caecilium B. Cyprianus ait, quando aliquid Deo inspirante, & mandante praecipitur, necesse est domino servus fidelis obtemperet, excusatus apud omnes quod nihil sibi arroganter assumat, ne aliud fiat a nobis quam quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecit, igitur in sumendo corpore & sanguine Domini, juxta eundem Cyprianum, Dominicatraditio servetur, necab eo quod Christus Magister & praecepit, & gessit humana, & novella institutione, discedatur; novimus enim per se panem, per se vinum ab ipso Domino traditum, quem morem sic semper in Sancta Ecclesia conservandum docemus atque praecipimus, praeterquam in parvulis, & omnino infirmis qui panem absorbere non possunt. Ep. 32. De non porrigenda Communione intincta. Concil. Tom. 10. p. 656.  Cyprian writing to Caecilius saith, When any thing is required by the Inspiration, and command of God, it is necessary that the faithful Servant should obey his lord— Therefore in taking the Body and Blood of our Lord, according to the same Cyprian, let the Tradition of the Lord be observed, nor let that be departed from by any humane and novel Institution which Christ our Master commanded and did. He therefore owned the taking of the Cup apart from the Bread, to be a Command of Christ, which no new Institution of Men could alter. Our Lord Jesus, saith 
(r) Lib. 2 de Sacram. Part. 8. Fol. 395.  Hugo de Sancto Victore, instituted the Sacrament of the Body and the Blood of Christ, and commanded that they should afterwards do the same thing in remembrance of himself. 
(s) In Johan. Cap. 6.  Rupertus Tuitiensis informs us, That our Lord prescribing the whole manner of eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood, saith, 
* Vid Theoph. 〈◊〉 Matth. c. 26. p. 162.  Do this in remembrance of me.  
Arnoldus Carnotensis delivers the same Doctrine most expressly: For, faith he, 
(t) 
Scholae Evangelicae hoc primum magisterium protulerunt.  
Lex quippe esum sanguinis prohibet, Evangelium praecipit ut bibatur.   the Doctrine of the Sacrament is new, and the evangelical Schools first brought forth this Command. This Discipline was first made known unto the World by Christ our Teacher, That Christians should drink Blood, the Use of which the old Law did forbid; for the old Law forbids the eating Blood, the Gospel commands it should be drunk: In which Commands the Christian Religion ought chief to discern this, That the Blood of Beasts, in all things differing from the Blood of Christ, hath only the Effect of temporal Vivification, and cannot profit to eternal Life; 
* Bibimus autem de sanguine, Christo ipso jubente. Inter opera Cypr. adscript. p. 41.  but we drink of the Blood by his Command, being made Partakers of eternal Life with him, and by him. Christ himself is the Butler, who hath reached forth this Cup, and taught that we should not only outwardly be dashed with this Blood, but inwardly, by the powerful Aspersion of it, should be fortified in our Souls. Petrus Cluniacensis, in the same Age speaks thus, 
(u) Cum Christus imperet N. B. dicens, Hoc facite, hoc plane, non aliud, hoc idem quod accipitis ad comedendum, quod sumitis ad bibendum, corpus scilicet meum & fanguinem, hoc inquam facite in meam commemorationem, quid ultra certe quaeritis?— Quia quod fecit eos facere praecepit, quod eis distribuit hoc eos aliis distribuere voluit. Ed. Erasm. f. 209.  Christ commands, do this, not another thing; this which you have received to eat, which you take to drink, viz. My Body and Blood; this, say I, do in memory of me.— That which he did, he commanded them to do; That which he distributed to them, he would have them distribute to others. Christ, saith St. Bernard, the Day before his Passion, prescribed to his Disciples the Form of this Sacrament. He gave Efficacy to it, i. e. 
(x) Hujus Sacramenti formam praescripsit, efficaciam exhibuit, i. e. fieri praecepit. De Caena Dom. c. qui incipit, Panem Angel. f. 320. b.  He commanded it to be done. The Prescription of the Form was under Bread and Wine; note the Order: First he washes his Disciples Feet, then, going back to the Table, He ordains the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood; giving the Bread apart, and the Wine apart, saying thus of the Bread, Take and eat, this is my Body; and of the Wine thus, Drink ye all of this. And again, 
* De Sacramento quidem Corporis & fanguinis sui nemo est qui nesciat hanc quoque tantam & tam singularem alimoniam ea primum die exhibitam, ea die commendatam, & mandatam deinceps frequentari. Serm. 3. in ramis Palm. fol. 30. b.  Concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, there is no Man who knoweth not, that upon that Day, That great and singular Nourishment was first exhibited, on that Day commended, and commanded henceforth to be frequented.  

(y) Hoc dicimus, Quod postquam Christus exhibuit corpus suum sub specie panis, tunc etiam postea exhibuit sanguinem suum sub specie vini, & utrumque Sacramentaliter esse celebrandum praecepit in Ecclesia per statuta Apostolica, & ideo Ecclesia instructa actione Christi, utrumque celebrat, divisim conficiendo corpus sub specie panis, & divisim conficiendo sanguinem sub specie vini, quod autem duo haec exhibuerit & celebranda instituerit Christus patet, Matth. 27.— Ex omnibus iftis accipitur quod Christus sub una specie panis corpus suum tradidit, sub altera specie vini tradidit sanguinem, & sic servandum instituit, & cum Christi actio sit nostra instructio, pro certo haec duo nobis servanda esse praecepit, & ideo sub una specie corpus, & sub alia tradimus sanguinem, Sum. de Sacr. Euch. Dist. 3. tr. 2. c. 5.  Albertus Magnus teacheth, 
§. 11.  That after Christ had exhibited his Body under the Species of Bread, he afterwards exhibited his Blood under the Species of Wine, and by the Apostolical Statutes commanded both to be sacramentally celebrated in the Church; and having proved from the Evangelists St. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, That Christ celebrated both apart.— From all these things, saith he, 'tis known or understood, that Christ, under one Species of Bread, delivered his Body, and under the other Species of Wine, his Blood, and so appointed it to be observed; and since Christ's Action is our Instruction, Pro certo haec duo nobis servanda esse praecepit, He commanded these Two things most certainly to be observed, and therefore under One Species we deliver the Body, and under the other the Blood. Where we see the Practice of the Church was then to deliver both Species, and that the Command of Christ was then conceived to be their Motive so to do, according to that saying of Durantus, 
(z) In primitiva Ecclesia omnes qui celebrationi Missarum intererant singulis diebus communicare solebant, eo quod Apostoli omnes de calice bibebant, Domino dicente, Bibite ex hoc omnes, Rat. l. 4. c. 53.  In the primitive Church all that heard Mass, used to communicate, because the Apostles all drank of the Cup, the Lord saying, Drink ye all of this.  
Here then, 
§. 12.  besides what hath already been observed from these Passages, we farther learn;  
1. That every Order of Believers ought to receive of the Lords Body, and of his precious Blood apart; That they ought to drink this Cup with the Mouth of the Body.  
2. That the Tradition of our Lord is to be observed, and not departed from, by reason of any humane and novel Institution.  
3. That the Apostles commanded these things to be observed, that the Doctrine of the Gospel, and the Custom of the Church require the Cup should be received apart, 
Interim autem dum ab eo in hoc mundo peregrinamur, Corpore & sanguine ejus in via pascimur, sicut Apostolis suis hoc Mysterium in coena ultima ante mortem suam tradidit, & nobis sequentibus frequentandum per eos mandavit. Guitm. de. Sacram. lib. 3. fol. 91. b.  that this the universal Church believes, and the Doctrine of the Apostles hath appointed this to be published throughout the world, that the Blood of our Lord Jesus is to be drunk by the mouth of the Body, that the Gospel commands it should be drunk, that the Apostolical Statutes commanded both to be celebrated in the Church, that God himself ordered that we should all drink out of one Cup, and that this is required by the inspiration and command of God; that Christ said, Eat me, Drink me, that he exhorted all Men to drink of his Blood; that he sent forth his Apostles and Teachers, to invite them to drink of the Wine that he had mingled, and to receive the Cup of his sacred Blood; that he commanded these things, that he so appointed it to be observed, and that we drink of the blood of Christ by his command.  
4. That the command, Drink ye all of this, was by Christ directed as well unto the People as the Ministers, to all without exception, that what Christ did he commanded his followers to do, what he distributed to them, he would have them distribute to others, and that in the Primitive Church all communicated, because Christ said to his Apostles, Drink ye all of this.  
5. That by receiving of both kinds, they shown forth Christ's Death, and this is as much as any Protestant hath said, or needs to say.   

CHAP. II.  
The Contents. Whereas these Councils take upon them to Decree this Sacrament shall be celebrated otherwise, than by their own confession it was instituted by Christ, The Fathers in the general assert, That this Mystery ought not to be celebrated otherwise than it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles, §. 1. When some delivered the Bread dipped in the consecrated Cup as a complete Communion, they condemned this practice as varying from the Institution and from the practice of the Church, §. 2. They condemned the offering on the Altar, other things besides Bread, Wine and Water for the same Reasons, §. 3. They condemned the using Wine not mixed with Water on the same account, §. 4. They condemned the celebration of this Mystery in consecrated Bread and Water only from the same grounds, §. 5. Inferences against Communion in one kind from the premises, §. 6.  
SEcondly, 
Sess. 13. Sess. 21. c. 3.  whereas the Councils of Constance and of Trent confess, That Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament under both species, and so delivered it to his Apostles, and that the Primitive Church did practise suitably unto this Institution, and yet deny that there lies any Obligation on Christians from this Institution, or this practice to administer it, or to receive it in both kinds, 
Sess. 21. cap. 2.  asserting they have power as dispensatores Mysteriorum Dei, Dispenser's of the Mysteries of God, to make this change in the Administration of this Sacrament, whereas, I say, these are the bold Assertions of the forementioned Councils; in opposition to them the Say of the Fathers are very clear and pregnant, in which they plainly show they thought themselves, and all that bore the Name of Christians, obliged to observe the Institution of the Sacrament, which by the Confessions of the Councils of Trent and Constance, was in both kinds, and in the distribution of it, to do as Christ the Author of it did, viz. to give both species apart to the Communicants, which came to be partakers of this Holy Sacrament. And,  
§ 1 1. The Author which passeth under the Name of Ambrose, in his Comment on these words, He that eateth this Bread, or drinks this Cup unworthily, etc. saith thus, 
(a) Indignum dicit esse domino qui aliter mysterium celebrat quam ab eo traditum est, non enim potest devotus esse qui aliter praesumit quam datum est ab Authore. In locum.  He pronounces him unworthy of the Lord, who otherwise doth celebrate this Mystery than it was delivered by him; for he cannot be devout who presumes to do it otherwise, than it was given by the Author. And this good Rule in after-Ages was approved of, and even transcribed by the Ritualists, and by the Commentators on the same place, 
(b) Indign dicit, i. e, ordine non observato, viz. qui aliter Mysterium illud celebrat vel sumit quam traditum est a sanctis patribus. Haym. in locum, p. 130.  He eats unworthily, saith Haymo, that is, not observing order, who either celebrates, or takes that Mystery otherwise than it was delivered by the Holy Fathers. St. Anselm in his Comment on the same Chapter saith, That " St. Paul reproved the Corinthians because they did not well observe what he had delivered, touching this matter, he having delivered to them what the Lord delivered to him, and therefore that which they ought to retain reverently and inviolably; adding, That 
(c) Qui aliter mysterium celebrat quam a Christo traditum est. Ibid.  he eats and drinks unworthily, who either celebrates or receives that Mystery otherwise than it was delivered by our Lord. The Gloss citys the same words from Ambrose, Aquinas from the Gloss. He is unworthy, saith Hugo, who celebrates the Mystery otherwise than by Christ it was delivered. And he, saith Lyra, is unworthy, 
(d) Qui non observat ritum a Christo institutum. Ibid.  who observes not the Custom instituted by Christ. Gregory the Third condemns the placing Two or Three Cups upon the Altar at once, as being not agreeable to the practice of our Lord. For, saith he 
(e) In missarum solenniis observandum est quod dominus noster Jesus Christus Sanctis suis distribuit discipulis, accepit enim calicem & dedit eye, dicens, Hic est calix Novi Testamenti in meo sanguine, hoc facite quotiescunque sumitis. Ep. ad Bonifacium.  In the Solemnities of the Mass that is to be observed which our Lord Jesus gave to his Disciples, for he took the Cup, and gave it to them saying, This is the Cup of the New Testament in my Blood, this do as often as you take it. And 
(f) De Inftit. Cler. l. 1. c. 31.  Rabanus Maurus saith, It is not lawful to offer any other thing in the Sacraments, than that which our Lord himself appointed, and by his Example taught us to do.  
§ 2 2dly. Some in the Church did frequently attempt the alteration of Christ's Institution by giving to the People the Bread dipped in the sacred Blood for a Complete Communion, but against these Innovators in the Fourth Century, Pope Julius opposed himself, laying down this for his Rule, That it was by no means lawful for any to recede from our Lord's Institution, Practice and Example. His Words are these, 
(g) Audivimus enim quosdam Schismatica ambitione detentos, contra divinos ordines & Apostolicas institutiones,— intinctam Eucharistiam populis pro complemento Communionis porrigere.— Quod quam fit Evangelicae & Apostolicae doctrinae contrarium, & consuetudini Ecclesiasticae adversum, non difficile ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur, a quo ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum mysteria processerunt.— Ubi Apostolis corpus suum commendavit & sanguinem, seorsum enim panis, & seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur. Concil. Tom. 2. p. 525, 526.  We have heard that some persons, being guilty of Schismatical Ambition, do, against the divine Orders, and Apostolical Institution, deliver to the People the Eucharist dipped in the Blood for an entire Communion. How contrary these things are to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine, and opposite to the Ecclesiastical Custom, it is not hard to prove from the Fountain of Truth, from whom the Institution of these Sacramental Mysteries proceeded, for they have no Testimony from the Gospel for this, where Christ commended his Body and Blood to his Disciples, for there is recorded the commendation of his Body and Blood apart. The Council of 
(h) Eadem habet Concil. Bracarense. Tom. 6. p. 562, 563.  Braga in the Seventh Centary in the very same words condemns this Practice, blaming them, who, for the whole Communion delivered to the People a piece of Bread dipped in the Consecrated Wine, Which Custom how contrary, say they, it is to the Doctrine of the Gospel, and the Practice of the Church, we may learn from the Fountain of Truth, who gave the Cup by itself, saying, Drink ye all of this; as he took the Bread by itself, saying, Take, eat, etc. 
(i) Ut populus plene possit communicare. cap. 19  Micrologus saith, It is not Authentic that some dip the Body of Christ, and distribute it so dipped for a full Communion, for the Roman Order contradicts it, for in the day of Preparation it commands, that the Wine not consecrated, should be consecrated by the Lord's Prayer, and the mixture of the Lord's Body with the Blood, that the People may fully Communicate, which would be a superfluous Command, if the Lord's Body dipped in the Cup the day before, and preserved, would suffice to Communicate the People with: And therefore Pope Julius 
* Julius quoque Papa seorsim panem & seorsim calicem, juxta dominicam Institutionem sumenda docet. Idem ibid.  writing to the Bishops of Egypt, doth wholly forbid this Intinction, and teacheth, that the Bread and the Cup should be both taken apart, according to our Lord's Institution. Humbertus in his Disputation against the Greeks, saith thus, That you are wont to take the Holy Bread of life eternal in a Spoon dipped in the Cup, what can you offer for it? 
(k) Neque enim ipse Dominus panem in Caiice vini intrivit, & sic Apostolis dedit, sed sicut Sancta Romana Ecclesia usque nunc observat, panem integrum benedixit, & fractum fingulis particulatim distribuit, dicens, Accipite & comedite, hoc est corpus meum; quibus, postquam coenatus est, calicem porrexit, dicens, Bibite ex eo omnes. Quam Reverendam Angelis & hominibus institutionem prima scilicet Ecclefia usque ad haec moderna tempora, sicut ab Apostolis recepit, fideliter retinuit.— Apud Baron. Tom. 11. p. 971.  for our Lord did not thus dip Bread in the Cup of Wine, and so give it to his Apostles, saying, Take and eat this in a Spoon, This is my Body; but as the Roman Church even to this day observes, he blessed the whole Bread, and distributed it, being broken, to every one apart, saying, Take and eat, This is my Body, to whom he also after Supper reached forth the Cup, saying, Drink ye all of this, which Institution to be revered by Men and Angels, Holy Zion, the first Church, even to this Day, as it received from the Apostles, so doth it faithfully retain it. And then having cited a long passage from the Church of Jerusalem, he adds, Hence is it clearer than the light, that the holy Church of Jerusalem did of old observe the same Rite of the divine Sacrifice which the holy Roman Church ceaseth not hitherto to observe; for we lay upon the Holy Altars thin Cakes of Flour prepared, whole and sound, and Communicate with the People of them, being after consecration broken, and then we are made to drink of the Cup of Wine, and liquid Blood, for we find Bread sopped was delivered by Christ to none but the Traitor Judas, to signify that he was to betray him. Again, he having said, That Christ delivered the Bread and Wine apart, and that the Church of Christ religiously observed his Institution, adds, That 
(l) Nec potest fieri ut quilibet convenientius aut verius commendare praevaluisset Sacrosanctum Mysterium fidei, quam ipse qui tradidit seipsum pro nobis oblationem.— Ibid. p. 974.  it could not be that any one should prevail to commend this Holy Mystery of Faith more conveniently, or truly, than he who delivered himself an Oblation, and a Sacrifice of a Sweet Odour to God for us, the immaculate Lamb of God, who taketh away the Sins of the World, to whom the most perfect knowledge of any Man being compared, is the highest Ignorance. In the Year of our Lord 1118. Pope Paschal the Second, writes an Epistle to Pontius, Abbot of Clun, after this wise: 
(m) Ep. 32. de non porrigenda. Communione intincta. Concil. Tom. 10. p. 656.  Blessed Cyprian writing to Caecilian saith, That when any thing is required by God's Inspiration and Command, it is necessary that the faithful Servant should obey his Lord, and he will be excused of all Men, that he assumeth nothing arrogantly to himself, nor may any other thing be done by us, than what our Lord first did for us. Therefore in taking the Body and the Blood of Christ, according to the same St. Cyprian, Let the tradition of our Lord be kept, nor let us recede by any humane and novel Institution from that which our Lord both commanded and did; for we know that the Bread was delivered by our Lord apart, and the Wine apart, which Custom we teach, and require to be observed perpetually in the Church, excepting only in the Case of Infants and Infirm Persons, who cannot receive the Bread. Hildebert, Bishop of Man's, doth vehemently reprove the Custom of giving the Bread sopped, used in this or some other Monastery; for, writing to the Abbot of some Monastery, he saith, It is judicial obstinacy to prefer Custom before Truth: And having proved this from the words of St. Cyprian and St. Austin, he proceeds thus; This, Brother, I have therefore spoken, that being roused up, thou mayst awake, and see that 
(n) Traditioni Sacramentorum Altaris quae in vestro celebris est Monasterio nec Evangelia consonant nec decreta concordant: In eo enim consuetudinis est Eucharistiam nulli nisi intinctam dari, quod nec ex Dominica Institutione, nec ex Sanctionibus Authenticis reperiatur assumptum.— Epist. 64.  neither the Gospels nor Decrees agree with that distribution of the Sacrament of the Altar, which is practised in your Monastery; for there the Custom is to give the Sacrament to none, but in Bread steeped in the Wine, which is neither found to be taken from our Lord's Institution, nor from Authentic Sanctions: If you consult St. Matthew, Mark and Luke, you will find the Bread to have been delivered apart, and the Wine apart, for we read not that Christ gave Bread sopped to any but that Disciple, whom he thereby shown to be the betrayer of his Master. 
(o) Eucharistia intincta non debet dari populo pro supplemento Communionis. Sent. l. 4. Dist. 11. Lit. f.  The Eucharist, saith Lombard, ought not to be given to any Body sopped for a Supplement of the Communion, for we read of no sopped Bread given to any one, but Judas. Lastly, a Council held at London, A. D. 1175. 
(p) Inhibemus ne quis quasi pro complemento Communionis intinctam alicui tradat Eucharistiam, nam intinctum panem aliis Christum praebuisse non legimus, excepto illo tantum Discipulo quem intincta buccella Magistri proditorem ostenderit. Apud Binium, Tom. 7. Part 2. p. 642.  forbids any person to deliver the Eucharistical Bread dipped in Wine for a complete Communion, for, say they, we read not that our Lord gave the Bread sopped to any, but to that Disciple whom he thereby declared to be the Disciple that was to betray him.  
Now hence, saith 
(q) De utraque specie, p. 1027.  Cassander, it appears, That they who received the Custom of dipping the Bread into the consecrated Cup, did believe that both kinds were by all means to be used for an entire and full Communion: For, wherefore did they dip the Bread in the Mystical Cup of our Lord's Blood, if one species by itself would have sufficed for a full and lawful Communion? And seeing they who administered the Bread dipped in the consecrated Cup, did this because they conceived it necessary that both kinds should be received at least together; and they who reprehended this Custom, did therefore reprehend it, because they held that both kinds were to be received apart, according to our Lord's Institution, and the constant Custom of the Church: It is evident, hat all did then agree, that both kinds were to be received, and that it was not lawful to receive under the species of Bread alone.  
3ly. 
§ 3.  Others attempted to vary from the Institution of our Lord, and from the practice of the Apostles, and the succeeding Ages of the Church, by offering on the Altar or communion-Table not only Bread and Wine, but also Milk and Honey, etc. which thing the Ancient Fathers and Councils do with one voice condemn, as being contrary to the Institution of our Lord. The Title of the Third Canon of the Apostles runs thus That nothing is to be offered in the Sacrifice, besides that which our Lord appointed; and in the body of the Canon, the offering Milk or Honey is condemned, as being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, besides the Constitution of our Lord touching the Sacrifice, and the Bishop or Presbyter who doth this is to be deposed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as doing besides the Constitution of the Lord. Our Lord, saith Zonaras upon this Canon, delivering to his Apostles the celebration of this unbloody Sacrifice to be performed in Bread and Wine, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For this cause the Apostles forbade any other thing to be brought to the Sacrifice. The Church of 
(r) Can. 37.  Africa made a Canon to the same effect, viz. That it is not lawful to offer any thing in the Sacraments, besides Bread and Wine, mixed with Water, and the reason there assigned is, That nothing else is to be offered, quèm quod ipse Dominus tradidit, than that which our Lord himself delivered. This Canon is cited and confirmed in the Fifth General Council held in 
(s) Can. 32.  Trullo, for the same Reason, That, in this Sacrament things ought to be performed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according as our Lord himself delivered. Pope Julius in the Fourth, and the Council of Braga in the Seventh Century, say not as the Canons of the Eastern Church, that some offered Milk besides Bread and Wine, but that they offered, lac pro vino, Milk for Wine; this practice they condemn in these words; 
(t) Cum enim Magister veritatis verum salutis nostrae Sacrificium suis commendaret discipulis, nulli lac, sed panem tantum & Calicem sub hoc Sacramento cognoscimus dedisse, legitur enim in Evangelica veritate, accepit Jesus panem & Calicem, etc. cesset ergo lac sacrificando offerri, quia manifestum & evidens exemplum veritatis Evangelicae illuxit, quod praeter panem & vinum, aliud offerri non liceat, Concil. To. 2. p. 525, 526. Concil. Brac. To. 6. p. 564.  When the Master of Truth would commend to his Disciples the true Sacrifice of our Salvation, he gave to none Milk, but only Bread and Wine in the Sacrament; let therefore Milk cease to be offered, because the manifest and evident example of Evangelical Truth hath shined forth, that, besides Bread and Wine, nothing else may be offered. And again, Henceforth it shall be lawful to none to offer any thing else in the divine Sacrifices, but according to the Sentence of the Ancient Councils, Bread and Wine only mixed with Water. 
(u) Lib. de rebus Eccles. cap. 18.  Strabo informs us, That though the use of the Sacraments was delivered by Christ, and from the Apostles and Apostolical Men, was diffused throughout the whole Catholic Church, yet we. understand from the Apostolical Canons, that, in the first Ages, some were wont to offer other Oblations, who therefore by the third of their Canons are to be deposed, as doing contra Constitutionem Domini, against the Constitution of our Lord. And these Decrees we find in 
(x) Decret. part 2. c. 18.  Ivo, and in 
(y) Decret. part 3. de consecr. dist. 2. c. 4, 5.  Gratian, and do thence learn, that they continued to be Authentic in their Days.  
Now here let it be noted, that all these Fathers, and Councils who condemn intinction, and the oblation of other things upon the Altar besides Bread, Wine and Water, give this as a sufficient reason for so doing, That these things were not agreeable unto that institution which was to be revered by Men and Angels, from which it was by no means lawful to departed, and to which Christians were obliged to adhere; and surely they who so Religiously condemned, and strenuously opposed themselves against the Custom of iminction, and of offering Milk and Honey, because of the Repugnancy which these things bore unto the manner of, and the Rule observed in our Lord's Institution of this Sacrament, would have been filled with holy indignation, had they known of any who wholly did withhold from, or deny the Cup unto the People. Sure they who taught that to do these things against the Divine Orders and Apostolical Constitution, was to be guilty of a manifest Error, and of Schismatical Ambition, could not have passed a milder Censure on the substraction of the Cup from all the Laity. They who declared, that to do these things was to act contrary to the Evangelical Doctrine, and Ecclesiastical Custom or the Practice of the Church, would have declared with a greater zeal against the defalcation of that Cup, of which our Lord said in the Institution, Drink ye all of this, of which all the Apostles drank, and which was, in compliance with this Institution and this Example, confessedly received by all Christians in the first Ages of the Church. They who would not allow intinction to be sufficient for a complete and full Communion of the People, or for a Supplement of the Communion, would much less have allowed that the Communion was entire and full, when nothing but the Bread was given to them. They who declared that nothing could be offered to justify this variation from our Lord's Institution, could much less think that any thing would justify this greater variation from it. They who affirm it could not be that any one should commend this Mystery of Faith more conveniently, or truly, than that Jesus, to whom the most perfect knowledge of any Man being compared, is the highest ignorance; and that the Tradition of our Lord is to be kept, and not receded from on the account of any humane, or novel Institution, could not imagine the Councils either of Trent or Constance could have any power given by the Author of that Institution, to make a Law for the omitting one part of it, with a 
(z) Concil. Const. Sess. 13.  non obstante to our Lord's Institution, and to the practice of the Church. They, lastly, who assert, It is judicial obstinacy to prefer Custom before Truth, must have abhorred that plea for half Communion used by the Council of Constance, that it was a Custom reasonably introduced by the Church, and by the Holy Fathers, and had been long observed, and therefore was to be retained as a Law.  
Again, They who condemn the offering Milk and Honey on the Altar, as being besides the Institution of our Lord, and for this reason do forbid and punish it, would more assuredly have condemned and punished that defalcation of the Cup, which is confessedly contrary to the Institution. They who took care that in this matter things should be done, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the lord delivered them, would never have allowed that this Sacrament should be administered otherwise than he had Instituted it to be received. And lastly, they who argued, That nothing else was to be offered, because nothing else was mentioned in the Gospel, would never have endured that what was mentioned in the Gospel, as offered and distributed to all, should not only be omitted, but forbidden, under the severest Penalties.  
§ 4 4ly. Some varied from the practice of the Church from the beginning, used with respect to the Cup, and that Two Ways.  
1. By using in this Sacrament Wine not mixed with Water; this neglect the Ancient Fathers and Councils do with one voice condemn, as varying from the Institution of our Lord, and from the practice of the Church, and solemnly decree that in conformity to both, the Wine they offered and distributed, should be continually mixed with Water. The Constitutions of St. clemens say, That 
(a) L. 8. c. 12. P. 351.  our Lord mixed the Cup with Wine and Water, and sanctifying it, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, and that therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to his Order or Institution, they offered to him this Bread and this Cup. And this they did, saith Cotelerius, against Two Heresies, that of the Monophysites and the Armenians, who used only Wine in the Mysteries. The 
(b) Can. 37.  African Council saith, that nothing is to be offered in the Sacraments but Bread, & merum aqua mixtum, and Wine mixed with Water, as our Lord delivered. Pope Julius saith, That 
(c) Calix dominicus juxta Canonum praecepta vino & aqua permixtus debet offerri— non enim potest Calix domini esse aqua sola, aut vinum solum, nisi utrumque misceatur. Apud Ivon. Decret. part. 2. c. xi.  the Cup of our Lord, according to the commands of the Canons, aught to be offered with Wine mixed with Water, and that the Cup of the Lord cannot be Wine or Water alone, but that both must be mixed. The Councils of 
(d) Concil. Wormatense apud eundem, Cap. 12. & Concil. To. 2. p. 526.  Worms and 
(e) Calix dominicus juxta quod quidam Doctor edisserit, vino & aqua permixtus debet offerri. Concil. Brac. 4. Concil. To. 6. p. 563.  Braga, condemn the neglect of mixing Water, in the very words of Pope Julius. The General Council held in Trullo saith the same thing, condemning the Armenians who celebrated the Eucharist with Wine not mixed with Water, as acting against the Tradition of the Apostles, and Decreeing, That the Bishop or the Priest who did thus celebrate the Mysteries should be deposed, 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can. 32.  as imperfectly showing forth the Mystery, and innovating in things delivered. Isidore saith, That Wine alone cannot be offered in the Sacrifice of the Cup, and that 
(g) Quando autem miscetur utrumque, tunc spirituale Sacrificium perficitur. Lib. 1. c. 18.  the spiritual Sacrifice is then perfected when they are both mixed. This mixture some of them held necessary, because our Saviour's side being pierced with a Lance, not only Blood, but Water also issued thence, for which cause, saith 
(h) In Can. 32. Concil. Trull.  Zonarus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it was necessarily determined by the Church, that in the holy Mysteries Wine should be mixed with Water. That Wine and Water ought thus to be mixed, saith 
(i)— Quia utrumque ex latere ejus in sua passione profluxisse legitur. Apud Ivon. decret. Part. 2. c. 15.  Pope Alexander, We have received from the Fathers, and even reason teacheth, because both flowed from our Saviour's Side in his Passion. 
(k) ¹ Cap. de celebr. Miss. p. 88 c. 10. ² L. 1. c. 10. ³ C. 10.  
1 Cap. de celebr. Miss. p. 88 c. 10.  Alcuin, 
2 L. 1. c. 19  Rabanus Maurus, and 
3 C. 10.  Micrologus, assign the same reason; others following St. Cyprian give this mystical Reason of this mixture, That in 
(l) Videmus populum in aqua intelligi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi, ergo— si vinum tantum quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis, si vero aqua sit sola, plebs incipit esse sine Christo. Julius' Concil. Tom. 2. p. 526.  Scripture Water signifies the People, the Wine shows the Blood of Christ, and therefore, if Wine alone be offered, the Blood of Christ will be without the People, if only Water, the People will be without Christ: So Pope Julius, the Councils of 
(m) Concil. Brac. Concil. tom. 6. p. 563.  Braga and Worms; but, others say, this must be done in compliance with our Lord's Institution, and the Practice of the Church, that we may do the same thing which our Lord did 
(n) Amalar. de Eccles. office. l. 3. c. 24.  & a Magisterio divino non recedamus, and may not recede from his Command.  
§ 5 2. Others used Water without Wine in Celebration of those Mysteries, and that not out of aversation to Wine (which was the cause why the Aquarii, the Encratites and the Manichaeans did refuse to drink it in the Sacrament,) for in the Evening-Sacrifice they freely drank it, but to avoid being discovered to be Christians by smelling of it in the Morning. Now against these persons St. Cyprian argues from the institution of the Sacrament by Christ, and from his practice in the Oblation and the distribution of it. 
(o) Admonitos autem nos scias, ut in chalice offerenda dominica traditio servetur, neque aliud fiat a nobis, quam quod pro nobis dominus prior fecerit. Cyp. Ep. 63. p. 48.  For know, saith he, that we are admonished to observe the Tradition of the Lord, in offering the Cup, and that nothing else may be done by us, than that which our Lord did first for us. Now Cyprian before had said, That in offering the Cup, and ministering it to the People, our Lord had used Water mixed with Wine. Again he adds, if Jesus Christ be the Highpriest of God the Father, and first offered himself a Sacrifice to the Father, and commanded this to be done in commemoration of himself; 
(p) Utique ille Sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur.— p. 155.  surely that Priest truly officiates in Christ's stead, who imitates that which Christ did, and offers a full and true Sacrifice to God the Father, if so he doth begin to offer as he saw Christ did offer.— And again, 
(q) Exponere enim justificationes & Testamentum Domini, & non hoc idem facere quod fecerit Dominus, quid aliud est quam sermones ejus abjicere, & disciplinam Dominicam contemnere. p. 157.  To declare the Statutes, and take the Testaments of the Lord into our Mouths, and not to do the same thing which our Lord did, what other thing is it than to reject his Words, and to contemn the Lord's Discipline? And whereas some pleaded a Custom for offering only Water, he saith, 
(r)— Si in Sacrificio quod Christus obtulerit, non nisi Christus sequendus est, utique id nos obaudire, & sacere oportet quod Christus fecit, & quod faciendum esse mandavit!— Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem. p. 154, 155.  We must inquire whom the Authors of this Custom followed, for if in the Sacrifice which Christ offered, Christ alone is to be followed, surely that we ought to obey, and do which Christ did and commanded to be done; for we must not follow the Custom of Man, but the Truth of God. Lastly, Because we make mention of his Passion in all our Sacrifices, we ought to do nothing but what he did, for the Scripture saith, As often as you cat this Bread, and drink this Cup, you show the Lord's Death till he come; 
(s)— Quotiescunque ergo calicem in commemorationem passionis ejus offerimus, id quod constat Dominum fecisse faciamus. p. 156.  wherefore as oft as we offer up the Cup in commemoration of our Lord, and of his Passion, we ought to do that which it is manifest he did. Now here let it be noted.  
That from the Third to the Twelfth Century, this Discourse of Cyprian is cited, and approved by all the Doctors of the Western Church, by Pope Julius, 
Ubi supra.  by the Councils of Braga and Worms, by Isidore, by Alcuin, Rabanus Maurus, Walafridus Strabo, by Micrologus, Amalarius, by Ivo and Gratian; and particularly that Amalarius having cited these Words, " We find that it is not observed by us which is commanded, unless we do the same things which Christ did, and mixing the Cup after the same manner recede not from the divine Institution.) He adds, That 
(t) Quamvis hoc ille de comixtione vini & aquae conclusisset, tamen de tota Institutione Dominica intelligere possumus adimplendum, in quo suum mandatum est, & Apostolorum observatio. De Ecclesiast. Offic. l. 3. c. 24.  though Cyprian concluded this only of the mixture of Wine and Water, yet may we understand it as a thing to be fulfilled in the whole Institution of the Lord, in which is his command, and the Apostles observation of it.  
§ 6 Now surely they who thought themselves obliged to mix Water with their Wine, because it was according to our Saviour's Institution, and doing of this Action as our Lord delivered it, and was according to the Canons and Practice of the Church, must also think themselves obliged for the very same reasons to Minister the Cup unto the People present at their Sacraments, and say unto them as our Saviour did, Drink ye all of this.  
They who believed they were by no means to recede from our Lord's Institution in this matter, could never think it fit to recede from it in the delivery of the Cup.  
They who decreed the Deposition of those Bishops or Priests, who did neglect this mixture, as imperfectly showing forth this Mystery, would more assuredly have for that reason, deposed those who rob the People of the Cup; for since, according to St. Paul, 
1 Cor. xi. 26.  we show forth the Lord's Death, by eating of this Bread, and drinking of this Cup: It clearly follows, that if he who gives Wine without Water does but imperfectly show forth the Mystery to them who do receive it, he that neither gives consecrated Wine nor Water, must do it more imperfectly.  
They who declared against the offering of Water only as a thing unlawful, because all Christians were obliged to observe the Tradition of the Lord, offering the Cup, and ministering it to the People; and to imitate what Christ did, unless they would be thought contemners of Christ's discipline, must also think themselves obliged to observe the same Tradition and Example, in ministering the Cup, and Censure in like manner those who do it not.  
They who teach, that not the Custom of Man, but the Truth of God was to be followed, could never have approved of the plea from Custom, used by the Church of Rome, for defalcation of the Cup.  
And lastly, they who looked upon the Institution as a Command, and all these say of St. Cyprian, as Rules to be fulfilled, and followed in the whole institution of our Lord, must also think it a Command to minister the Cup unto the People; and that those Rules of Cyprian did bind them so to do. I therefore shall conclude this Chapter with that saying of Algerus 
* Quis audet excipere, quod ipse non excepit, aut quis audit prohibere quod ipse in Sacramento suo non prohibuit; sed ipse faciens, nos hoc ipsum facere praecepit, cum dicit, Hoc facite, convenienter subaudiatur, quod Ego; quis aeque competenter subaudire audeat, sed non de hoc unde ego, item si mutandum est fermentato azymum, mutetur etiam quolibet alio liquore vinum, si enim vinum recipitur, cur azymum refutetur, cum sicut ex azymo, sic ex vino Christus vetus pascha finierit, & novum inchoaverit, & utrumque nobis in Sacramento suo aeque celebrandum tradiderit? Algerus de Sacram. Euch. lib. 2. c. 10. fol. 84. b. 85. a. , In the case of unleavened Bread. Who dares except what Christ excepted not, or forbidden what he in his Sacraments did not forbid, but doing it himself, commanded us to do the same thing, when he saith, do this, we are conveniently to understand this which I do, but who dares also to understand this, but do it not of that which I do it? Moreover, if Unleavened Bread be to be changed for Leavened, let the Wine also be changed for any other liquor; for as our Lord Christ finished the Old Passover, and began the New with Unleavened Bread so did he also do it with Wine, and delivered both to us to be equally celebrated in this Sacrament.   

CHAP. III. The Contents.  
In opposition to the Decree of the Trent Council, asserting that they who receive in one kind only are not deprived of any Grace necessary to Salvation: The Fathers declare, 1. That it is necessary to partake of the Cup, in order to our Union to Christ, §. 1. For the Remission of Sins, §. 2. For the obtainment of Eternal Life, §. 3. An inference from this last Particular, to show the falsehood of one Anathema pronounced by the Trent Council, §. 4.  
IT is sure some prejudice against this Novel Doctrine, and Practice of the Church of Rome, some ground to scruple and suspect the lawfulness of the substraction of the Cup, that it bears such a manifest repugnance to our Lord's institution, and to that Repetition of it which St. Paul delivered as a thing carefully to be observed; a Tradition to be retained by the Church of Corinth; and by attendance to which all their miscarriages, in reference to the Celebration of that Mystery, were to be corrected: That all the Fathers of the Church above a Thousand Years conceived themselves obliged, by virtue of this Institution, to Minister both species to the People. That they on all occasions risen up with such an holy Zeal against those persons who in lesser matters presumed to vary from this Institution, condemned all humane Institutions which receded from it, and punished all Offenders in this kind. But such hath been the Providence of God in reference to this Affair, such the discourses of the Ancients, with respect unto this subject, that there is scarcely any other Position advanced by these Councils in favour of this Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, which they do not directly overthrow, or in plain words condemn, almost as fully as any Protestant can do. For,  
Thirdly, 
Sess. 21. cap. 3. Sess. 13. Can. 3.  Whereas it is defined by the Trent Council, that they are not deprived of any Grace necessary to Salvation, who receive one kind only; and that it cannot be doubted, without prejudice to the Christian Faith, but that Communion in one kind only is sufficient to Salvation. The Fathers do, in opposition to these. Assertions, plainly and frequently declare, That it is necessary to Salvation for Christians in the general, to drink Christi's Blood in the Sacrament. This will be evident,  
1. From these Expressions, in which the Fathers do declare it necessary, not only to partake of the Bread, but also of the Cup, in order to that Union with Christ which sure is necessary to Salvation; and this they generally gather from those words of Christ, 
Joh. vi. 56.  He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. The Doctrine of blessed Paul, saith Cyril of Jerusalem, is sufficient to aford us full satisfaction touching the Holy Mysteries, of which being made partakers, we become of the same body and blood with Christ; for so he saith, that our Lord Jesus, taking Bread, and giving Thanks, he broke, and gave it to his Disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my Body; and taking the Cup, and giving Thanks, he said, Take, and drink, for this is my Blood; for in the type of Bread, the Body, and in the type of Wine, the Blood is given to thee: 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Catech. Myst. 4. p. 237.  That partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, thou mayst be of one Body and Blood with him, for so we are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bearers of Christ; his Body and Blood being received into our members. 
(b) Haecaccepta & hausta, id efficiunt, ut & nos in Christo, & Christus in nobis sit. De Trin. l. 8. p. 166.  Those things being taken and drank, saith Hilary, produce this effect, that Christ is in us, and we in Christ; and how natural this Unity is, he himself tēacheth, saying, He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Cyril of Alexandria on these words saith, That 
(c) In Joh 6.56.  our Lord here shows the great profitableness of this work; for, as if one join Wax to Wax, he will see one part within the other; so, he that receives the Flesh of our Saviour Christ, and drinks his Blood, is, as he saith, found one with him. So mixed with and in him, that he is found in Christ, and Christ again in him. Oecumenius upon these words, The Cup of Blessing, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? saith thus, You know what I say, 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ed. Gr. p. 444.  for his Blood knits us to Christ as Members to the Head, by the participation of it. This Meat and Drink, saith Rabanus Maurus, signifies the eternal society of the Head and Members: He that drinketh, saith he, my Blood, and eateth my Flesh, dwelleth in me, etc. 
(e) Necesse habemus sumere corpus & sanguinem ejus, ut in ipso maneamus & ejus corporis membra simus. De inst. cler. l. 1. cap. 31.  wherefore 'tis necessary that we should take the Body and Blood of Christ, that we may dwell in him, and be his Members. Whosoever worthily eateth the Body and the Blood of Christ, shows that he is in God, and God in him. And we, saith 
(f) Lib. 2. f. 55. b.  Guitmund, who take the Communion of this Holy Bread and Cup, are made one Body with Christ. Theophylact upon the Tenth to the Corinthians, adds, That which he saith is this, That which is in the Cup is that which flowed from his side, and 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ad v. 16.  by participation of it we communicate with, that is, we are united to Christ: That Men might not only learn by words, saith 
(h) Ed. Erasm. p. 217.  Petrus Cluniacensis, that they cannot live unless they be joined and united to Christ after the manner of carnal Food and Life, they receive the Body of Christ, and drink the Blood of Christ. We, saith 
(i) Et nos Jesa Christo & Jesus Christus nobis unitate foederatur inenarrabili, etc. De coena Domini, f. 320. b.  St. Bernard, by the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, are joined in an ineffable Unity to Christ, and Christ to us, as he said, He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood, abidethin me, and I in him.  
§ 2 2. This will be further evident from those Expressions in which they say, That the receiving of the Cup is necessary for the Remission of Sins, for without this Remission there is no Salvation. When thou receivest, saith St. Ambrose, What saith the Apostle to thee? As often as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we show forth the Lord's Death; if we show forth his Death, we show forth the Remission of Sins; and 
(k) Si quotiescunque effunditur sanguis in remissionem peccatorum funditur, debeo illum semper accipere, ut semper mihi peccata dimittantur, qui semper pecco, semper debeo habere medicinam. De Sacr. l. 4. c. 6. l. 5. cap. 3.  if as often as this Blood is poured forth, it is done for the Remission of Sins, I ought always to receive it, that my Sins may always be forgiven, for as oft as thou drinkest thou receivest Remission of Sins. Now this Passage being cited, and approved by many others in the following Ages, and extant in the 
(l) Dist. 2. c. 14. Can. de consecrat.  Canon Law, it will be needless to cite more Authors to this purpose, only let it be noted, that to receive the Blood shed for the Remission of our Sins, is to drink of it, saith. St. Ambrose, and well he might, no other way of receiving the Blood, shed for the Remission of Sins, being then known, than that of drinking the Sacramental Cup.  
§ 3 3. They do expressly teach, That the Sacramental eating and drinking is ordinarily necessary to eternal Life. 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 42.  Without any doubting or shamefaced fear, eat Christ's Body, and drink his Blood, saith Nazianzen, if thou desirest Life. Gregory Nyssen condemns Eunomius for asserting, That the Mystical Symbols did not confirm our Piety; But we, saith he, who have learned from the Holy Scriptures, That unless a Man be born again of Water, etc. and that he who eats my Flesh, and drinks my Blood shall live for ever: 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tom. 2. contr. Eunom. p. 704.  We believe that our Salvation is corroborated by the Mystical Rites and Symbols. 
(o) In Levit. qu. 47.  This Blood all Men are exhorted to drink who would have Life, saith St. Austin. Charles the Great confuting the vain Imaginations of the Second Nicene Council, and comparing the sacred Blood with Images, speaks thus, 
(p) L. de Imag. 2. c. 27.  Seeing without the participation of this Blood no Man can be saved, whereas all Orthodox Persons may be saved without the observation of Images, It is manifest, that they are by no Man of a sound Mind, to be compared or equalled to so great a Mystery. Alcuin, the Master of Charles the Great saith, We must know that it is not lawful to offer the Cup of the Lord's Blood unmixed with Water; for Wine was in the Mystery of our Redemption, when Christ said, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine; and the Water with Blood, flowing from his side, shown the Wine pressed out of the true Vine of his Flesh with Water; 
(q) Haec enim sunt Sacramenta Ecclesiae sine quibus ad vitam non intratur. De Celeb. Miss. p. 88  for these are the Sacraments of the Church, without which we cannot enter into Life. 
(r) De Officiis Eccles. l. 3. c. 26.  Amalarius saith the same. And our Lord, saith 
(s) De Instit. Cler. l. 1. c. 31.  Rabanus Maurus, having pronounced concerning his Body and Blood, that his Flesh is Meat indeed, and his Blood Drink indeed; and that he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath Eternal Life; he therefore hath not that Life who eateth not that Bread, and drinketh not that Blood; for although Men, who are not in his Body by Faith, may have that Life in this World which is Temporal, they can never have that Eternal Life which is promised to the Saints.  
Christ, saith 
(t) Fol. 216. b.  Petrus Cluniacensis, gives his Flesh and Blood to be eaten and drunken, that as it is discerned that without carnal Meat and drink, none can pass through this temporal Life; so it may be believed that without this spiritual Meat and Drink, none can obtain eternal Life; for how could he better commend himself to the World to be the Life of Men, than by Example of those things in which Man's Life consists? and therefore the Wisdom of God decreed to give his Flesh to Men to eat, and his Blood to drink in the species of those things; when he saith, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, etc. we learn by hearing, that he is Eternal Life; but when he saith, except you eat my Flesh, etc. we learn by eating, that he is the Eternal Life of Men. That Men therefore might not only learn by Words, but more familiarly by Deeds, that they cannot Live, except they be united to him, they take the Body, they drink the Blood, in the likeness of Food, not given by, or taken from any other but Christ; to show this, he signified that he would give to all Men his Flesh to eat, and his Blood to drink.  
And, truly, if any Doctrine can deserve to be suspected, as new, strange, and incongruous to the Analogy of Faith, it must be this, That the Cup of Life, the Cup of Blessing which we bless, the Cup of Salvation, which we take according to our Lord's own Institution, and which we drink of Worthily, is not needful to confer Life, Salvation, or spiritual Blessing on the worthy Receiver of it. That in all the Liturgies of the Ancient Church, they should pray constantly, that they who worthily Received this Cup, might be filled thereby with all spiritual Benediction, and heavenly Grace; that in their Discourses on this Subject, they should exhort the People, after they had received the Bread, to drink this Cup for their Sanctification, for the remission of Sins, for the obtaining Life; and tell them it was necessary to be drunk of, for all the ends here mentioned, and yet believe it was not needful to confer Grace, and spiritualy Blessings on them.  
And 4ly, This they do generally prove from the Fifth Century, by that known passage of our Lord, Except you eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man, you have no Life in you. 
(u) Tom. 1. p. 580. Tom. 2. p. 431.  St. Basil is express unto this purpose, saying, That the Baptised person ought to be nourished with the food of Eternal Life; and that the communication of the Body and Blood of Christ is necessary to Eternal Life: And proving both from these words, Verily I say unto you, except you eat, etc. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life. St. Chrysostom upon this Text, speaks thus, Because they had said before, it was impossible to eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood. 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tom. 2. p. 748.  He here shows, not only that it is not impossible, but that it is very necessary; and therefore introduceth these words, He that eateth my flesh, etc. He continually speaks of the Mysteries, showing the necessity of the thing, and that it always aught to be done. Against the Pelagians, saith P. Gelasius, 
(y) Dominus Jesus (contra Pelagianos) coelefti voce pronunciat, Qui non manducaverit, etc. Ubi utique neminem videmus exemptum, nec ausus est aliquis dicere parvulum sine hoc Sacramento salutari ad aeternam vitam posse produci— Ep. univ. Episc. per Nicaenum. Concil. Tom. 4. p. 1177, 1178.  our Lord pronounceth that he who eateth not the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drinks his Blood, hath no Life in him; where we see none exempt, nor dares any say, that an Infant can obtain Eternal Life without this Sacrament— It is not only said, Except a Man be born again of Water, etc. but unelss, He eat— and drink, etc. and that this is spoken of Eternal Life none can doubt; because many who receive not this Sacrament, have this present Life. St. Austin Asserts above Twenty times, the absolute necessity that Infants should partake of Christ's Body, and drink his Blood, by reason of these words 
(z) Omnino & parvulorum salvator est Christus, omnino nisi ab illo redimantur peribunt, quum sine carne ejus & sanguine vitam habere non possunt, hoc sensit, hoc credidit, hoc didicit, hoc docuit Joannes. Tom. 7. l. 1. contra Jul. Pelag. ed. Frob. p. 949.  Christ, saith he, is altogether the Saviour of Infants, and unless they be redeemed by him, they will utterly perish, seeing without his Flesh and Blood they cannot have Life. This St. John thought and believed, learned and taught. And again, 
(a) An dicente Christo, Si non manducaveritis, etc. dicturus fueram parvulum habiturum vitam qui sine isto Sacramento finiisset hanc vitam. Ibid. l. 3. c. 1. p 991. d. 992. a.  when Christ saith, Unless you eat his Flesh and drink his Blood you have no life in you, can I say the Child can have Life, who ends his Life without that Sacrament? And a third time, He having said, Unless you eat, etc. and he that eats my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life: 
(b) Quo igitur vitam regni coelorum promittitis parvulis non renatis ex aqua & spiritu Sancto, non cibatis carne neque potatis sanguine Christi? Where the Marginal Note is, Eucharistia parvulis sub utraque specie. Tom. 7. contr. Pelag. Hypognost. c. 5. p. 1405. b. c.  How is it that you (Pelagians) promise the Kingdom of Heaven to Children not born of Water and the Spirit, not fed with the Flesh of Christ, nor having drunk of his Blood which was shed for the Remission of their Sins? Behold, he that is not Baptised, and he that is deprived of the Vital Cup and Bread, is divided from the Kingdom of Heaven. And of what Sacrament he conceives our Saviour to have spoken in these words, he more expressly tells us, saying, 
(c) Dominum audiamus non quidem hoc de Sacramento sancti lavacri dicentem, sed de Sacra mento sacrae mensae suae, quo nemo nisi rite baptizatus accedit, Nisi manducaveritis, etc. Tom. 7. l. de peccat. Meritis & Remiss. c. 19 p. 666.  Let us hear our Lord speaking, not of the Sacrament of Baptism, N. B. but of the Sacrament of his Holy Table, to which none comes who is not rightly Baptised, Except you eat— and drink, etc. What do we farther seek for? Dares any Body say, this Sentence belongeth not to Children, or that they can have Life in themselves, without the Participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ? But he that saith this, doth not attend, that if that Sentence comprehends not all, so that they cannot have Life without the Body and the Blood of Christ, those of Riper Years are not obliged to regard it: And to refer you to the 
(d) Vide Dallaeum de Cult. Latin. l. 5. cap. 3.  Margin for the rest, his Conclusion is this, 
(e) Siergo, ut tot, & tanta divina testimonia concinant, nec salus, nec vita aeterna fine baptismo & corpore & sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est, frustra fine his promittitur parvulis. Lib. 1. de peccat. Meritis & Remiss. c. 24. p. 670.  If then so many divine Testimonies accord in saying, That neither Salvation nor Life eternal is by any to be hoped for, without Baptism, and the Body and the Blood of our Lord, they art in vain promised to Children without them. Now here it is to be admired, that Men of Sense and of Integrity, should say, St. Austin speaks all this of such a participation of the Flesh and Blood of Christ, as may be had in Baptism, when he not only speaks in divers of these places first of the Sacrament of Baptism, and after of the Supper of the Lord, but sometimes of this Sacrament by way of distinction from that of Baptism, sometimes of the Sacrament of the Lord's Table, and of that eating and drinking of Christ's Body and Blood, quod per corpus geritur, which is done by the Body. And when this Text from the Fifth to the Twelfth Century, was by the Fathers still interpreted of the Lord's Supper, and Children were admitted to that Sacrament, and to the drinking of the Cup on that account. Isidore Peleusiota in the same Age extolling the Sacerdotal Order, saith, That by their means we are regenerated, 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 2. Ep. 52.  and made partakers of the divine Mysteries, without which no Man can attain the Heavenly rewards, as is apparent from the Heavenly Oracles, now saying, That unless a Man be born again, etc. and anon, Unless we eat, etc. we have no life in us: Which Argument he seems to have borrowed from St. Chrysostom, who saith, 
(g) Hom. 3. de Sacerd. tom. 6. p. 16. l. 38.  If none can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven who is not born again of Water, etc. If he that doth not eat the Flesh of the Lord, and drink his Blood, is deprived of Eternal Life, and all these things are not otherwise communicated, but by the Hands of the Priest, who can, without these Men avoid the Fire of Hell, or enjoy the Crowns laid up in Heaven? Amphilochius saith, 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Vit. Basil. c. 17. p. 221.  It is impossible that any one should be saved, unless he be regenerated by Baptism, and made partaker of the Lifegiving Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ. 
(i) De Ecclesiast. Officiis, l. 1. de Sacrificio, c. 18.  Isidore Hispalensis citys, and approves that passage of 
(k) Timendum est ne dum qui abstentus seperatur a Christi corpore procul remaneat a salute, comminante ipso vel dicente, Nisi ederitis carnem filii hominis & biberitis sanguinem ejus, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Et Raban. Maur. de institut. Cler. l. 1. c. 31.  St. Cyprian, in his Treatise on the Lord's Prayer, It is to be feared, lest any one, being long separated from the Body of Christ, should be far from Salvation; Christ having said, Unless you eat, etc. Hincmarus Remensis saith, That Christ spoke those words of his Body and Blood inviting his Servants to his Table, that 
l Locutus est nobis de corpore & sanguine suo, commendans talem escam, & talem potum, Nisi manducaveritis, etc. haec sunt Sacramenta Ecclesiae sine quibus ad vitam quae vera vita est non intratur. Tom. 2. p. 92.  this, and Baptism are the Sacraments of the Church, without which we cannot enter into true Life. 
(m) Habet vitam aeternam; hanc ergo non habet qui istum panem non manducat, nec istum sanguinem bibit, nam temporalem vitam sine illo habere homines possunt, aeternam vero omnino non possunt. August. Tract. 26. in Joh. p. 229. Since isto cibo & potu. Raban. M. de instit. Cler. l. 1.31.  Rabanus speaks thus, The Truth saith, My Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed.— Men may have temporal Life without this Meat and Drink, eternal they can never have. Which Words he borrowed from St. Austin's Comment on the Sixth of John. Regino citys this passage from the Capitulars of Charles the Great, That 
(n) De Eccl. discipl. l. 1. can. 195.  great discretion is to be used as to the Receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ, for care is to be taken, lest being deferred too long, it tend to the Destruction of the Soul, our Lord having said, Unless you eat, etc. 
(o) Quasi quodam jurejurando protestatur dicens, Amen. Amen, etc. Apud Baron. Tom. 11. p. 1007.  Humbert in his Disputation against the Greeks, saith, That Christ testified with an Oath, that without this refection, that Life which is Christ cannot be had, saying, Verily I say unto you, except, etc. The Flesh is taken by itself, saith Lanfranck, and the Blood by itself, not without a certain Mystery, though in another Sense whole Christ is said to be eaten, viz. By spiritual desire of eternal Life, and Meditation of his Passion; 
(p) Utraque comestio necessaria, utraque fructuosa, altera indiget alterius, ut boni aliquid operetur— hinc in Evangelio legitur nisi manducaveritis, etc. De Sacr. Euch. p. 126, 127.  both these Comestions are necessary— for hence it is read in the Gospel, that unless we eat, etc. 
(q) Comment. in 6. Joh.  Rupertus Tuitiensis saith, That least any Man should think he hath recovered by Faith alone, the Life of his Body and Soul, without the visible meat and drink of the Body and Blood of Christ, and consequently needs not the Sacrament, Christ repeats the same thing again touching the eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood; by this undoubtedly testifying that he doth not truly believe, whosoever despiseth to eat and to drink; for although thou be a Faithful Man, and profess thyself to be a Catholic, if thou refusest to eat of this visible Meat and Drink, even by this, that thou presumest that this Meat and Drink is not necessary to thee, thou cuttest thyself off from the Society of the Members of Christ, which is the Church.  
§ 4 Now if that sense which the constant interpretation of the Fathers hath put upon these words, from the Fifth to the Twelfth Century be owned by Romanists, the consequence is unavoidable, that it is necessary to Salvation to receive the Sacrament under both kinds, for they who do receive the Body only, may be said well to eat the Flesh of Christ, because they take something by way of Meat, but they cannot be said to drink his Blood, as here our Lord requireth them to do, since they take nothing by way of drink. The privation of Life is here connected with the neglect of Drinking, as much as with the neglect of Eating; since therefore eating the drinking are distinct Actions, he cannot properly be said to drink, who only eats, and therefore must neglect what, by the Father's descants on these Words, is necessary to life eternal. Moreover, since on this sole account they constantly did minister the Cup to little Children, as Roman Catholics confess, they ministered both the Bread and Cup to Children capable of receiving both, as the Church History attests; it follows that they held it necessary to Salvation in conformity to these Say of our Lord recorded by St. John, that both should be received by all Christians capable of taking both Species. And therefore in condemning this Doctrine, 
Sess. 21. can. 4.  and that with an Anathema, the Fathers of the Trent Council must have virtually Anathematised the whole Church of Christ for Nine whole Centuries, and by renouncing of this Interpretation so generally received, the Doctors of the Roman Church must at least seem to us to violate that Oath, 
Jaramentum professionis fidei a Pio 4. editum.  which they have taken, never to interpret or own any sense of Scripture, Nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum, but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.   

CHAP. IU. The Contents.  
In opposition to that Determination of the Trent Council, That a true or an entire Sacrament is taken under either Species. The Fathers and the Schoolmen do expressly say the contrary, viz. Epiphanius, §. 1. The Council held in Trullo, P. Julius, P. Gelasius, the Council of Braga, §. 2. Paschasius Corbeiensis, Algerus and St. Bernard, §. 3. Alexander Halensis, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Albertus Magnus, Durantus, Petrus de Palude, Gulielmus de monte Laudano, Lyra, Carthusianns, Andreas Frisius, §. 4. The Inferences from these Say, § 5.  
WHereas the Trent Council asserts, 
Sess. 21. cap. 3. l. 4. de Sacr. Ench. c. 22. s. utraque.  That a true Sacrament is taken under either Species, that is, as Bellarmine Interprets it, An entire Sacrament; nothing is more repugnant to the plain Judgement of Antiquity than these Assertions. And though the silence of all Antiquity in this matter is a full demonstration that they held no such Doctrine, seeing no reason can be given why they, had they embraced this Doctrine, which is frequently inculcated by all the Roman Doctors, who writ upon this Subject, should never say with the like plainness, as they so often do, That an entire Sacrament is given under one Species only, or any thing to that effect; or give themselves the trouble to Answer that Enquiry which so disturbs the Roman Doctors, and which they see themselves so much concerned to Answer; viz. Why then did our dear Lord himself distribute and institute this Sacrament to be received under both kinds? I say, though this be a sufficient prejudice against that Assertion of the Council of Trent; and though it will more fully be confuted by an impartial Reflection on what we have Discoursed, of the constant Declaration of the Church, that to give the consecrated Bread dipped in the Cup was not to give a complete Sacrament, with many things of the like nature; yet shall I wave all these Advantages at present, and show from the plain Say, both of the Ancients, the Writers of the middle, and chief of the latter Ages, or the Doctrine of the Schools, that they conceived the Reception of both Species by persons capable, was requisite to the integrity of this Sacrament.  
§ 1 Epiphanius speaking of the Encratites, saith, That in this Mystery they use only Water, and wholly do abstain from Wine; the censure which he passeth on them for so doing, is this, That having the Form, they deny the Power of Godliness; 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Haer. 47. §. 3. Pag. 401.  for whosoever, saith he, doth omit one part of a work, by the omission of that one part, doth really omit the whole. The Inference he maketh from that Rule is this, That the Mysteries they celebrate by Water only, are really no Mysteries, but only false Mysteries in imitation of the true, in which they are convinced by the Right words of our Saviour, saying, I will not henceforth drink of the Fruit of the Vine.  
§ 2 The General Council held in Truillo being informed that the Armenians did celebrate the Mysteries in pure Wine not mixed with Water, declares that the did 
(b) Can. 32.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imperfectly show forth the Mystery. Now let it be observed from St. Paul, that it is not by offering only, but by partaking of this Bread, and drinking of this Cup, that we do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, show forth the Lord's Death, and then it clearly follows, that if he who distributes Wine without Water, imperfectly shows forth the Mystery, he that gives neither Wine nor Water must do it more imperfectly. When some in the Diocese of Squillaci out of some unknown Superstition, would have taken the Bread without the Cup, 
(c) Apud Ivon. decret. part 2. c. 89.  Gelasius decrees, that they should either take the entire Sacrament, or be entirely driven from it; he therefore evidently determined, that taking of one Species only was not taking an entire Sacrament. In the Fourth Century, 
(d) See cap. 2.  § 2 Pope Julius, in the Seventh Council of Braga, in the Eleventh Micrologus, in the Twelfth Peter Lombard, do with one voice deny that the Bread dipped in the consecrated Wine can be administered, pro complemento Communionis, for an entire or complete Communion, and therefore much less could they think that the Communion was entire when ministered only in dry Bread.  
The great Sticklers for Transubstantiation aver the same thing. 
Sect;. 3.  Paschasius Corbeiensis saith, That 
(e) De Corp. & Sang. Dom. c. 11.  therefore we are fed with, and made to drink of these two only in the way, that our whole Man, which consists of two Substances, integrè reparetur, may be entirely repaired, both therefore were, in his judgement, needful to an entire reparation of the whole Man. Algerus in Answer to this Question, Why the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated rather in Bread, Wine and Water, than in any other kinds of Bodies? saith, That because we so live by Bread and drink, that we can want neither of them, 
(f) Utrumque in Sacramento suo esse voluit. De Sacr. Euch. l. 2. c. 5.  our Lord would have both be in his Sacrament, lest if either of them should be wanting, as by this imperfect sign of Life, he should seem to be represented not as full, but as imperfect Life. And a little after he saith, This is done proptr commodiorem aptitudinem Sacrametalis perfectionis, for the more commodious representation of the Sacramental perfection. The Species of Bread and Wine is propounded, saith 
(g) De coena Domini f. 321. b.  St. Bernard, that it might be taught, that there is a full and perfect refection in taking the Body and the Blood of Christ; a full refection of Meat and Drink, the principal Substances of Meat and Drink being Bread and Wine.  
§ 4 But above all the Schoolmen do declare against this Doctrine of the Trent Council. 
(h) In iv. sent. q. 40. membr. 3. Art 2. & q. 53. membr. 1.  Alexander of Hales saith, That whole Christ is not under either Species Sacramentally, but the Flesh only under the Species of Bread, the Blood under the Species of Wine only; for to the perfection of the Sacrament is required a representation according to the Institution, but in one kind the matter of the Sacrament is not entirely and perfectly; I say there is not a perfect Sacrament, as to the Sacramental Perfection of it. 
(i) Sum. part. 3. q. 76. Art 2. Adu. Gent. l. 4. c. 61. & in 1. Cor. c. 11.  Aquinas saith, That though Christ is contained under both Species, yet is it convenient to the use of this Sacrament, that the Body of Christ should be delivered apart for Food to the Faithful, and his Blood for Drink; both, saith he, is of the perfection of this Sacrament, for the perfection of refection, for the representation of Christ's Passion, and for the effecting of the Salvation both of Soul and Body. 1. For its perfection; for it being a Spiritual Refection, it ought to have spiritual Meat and spiritual Drink, for corporal Refection is not perfected without both these: And as he elsewhere saith, because spiritual effects are done under the likeness of visible, it was fit that this spiritual nourishment should be delivered to us under the Species of those things which Men do ordinarily use for corporal nourishment; and therefore this Sacrament is delivered to us under the Species of Bread and Wine. 2. For the signification of it; for it is a memorial of the Lord's Passion, whereby his Blood was separated from his Body; and therefore in this Sacrament the Blood is offered by itself. And elsewhere, Because the Completion of our Salvation was made by the Passion and Death of Christ, by which is Blood was separated from his Flesh; separatim nobis traditur Sacramentum corporis ejus sub specie panis, & sanguis sub specie vini; the Sacrament of his Body is delivered N. B. to us apart under the Species of Bread, and the Blood under the Species of Wine, that so in this Sacrament might be the memory and representation of our Lord's Passion. 3. For the healthful Effect of it; for the Body is offered to show that it is of force to save the Body, and the Blood is offered to show that it is of force to save the Soul; for the Soul is in the Blood. 
(k) In 4. Sent. dist. 8. q. 2. & dist. 11. q. 2.  Bonaventure saith, That, as to the signification, both Species are of the integrity of this Sacrament, because the matter of the Sacrament is expressed in neither of them by itself, but in both together, which appears thus; Here Christ is signified as Meat, perfectly refreshing them that eat him Sacramentally and Spiritually; but a perfect Refection is not in Bread alone or Wine alone, but in both; he therefore is signified as perfectly refreshing not in one Species only but in both. And again, This Sacrament, though it contains two Signs, and two Words, yet because a perfect Sign ordained for one thing, sc. the Union of the Body Mystical, results from them, therefore the Sacrament is one; and the reason of this Integrity and Ordination comes from Nature, for neither is Bread nor Wine apart fully Refectory, but both, and one full Refection in nature comes from both, and so they are disposed to signify one Refection; but this is completed by the Divine Institution, which by one Institution hath appointed these two Signs to signify one perfect Refection, and so it is one Sacrament on the account of nature and of Divine Institution.  

(l) In 4. Sent. dist. 8. Art 13.  Albertus Magnus lays down this general Rule, The Sacrament of the Church causeth nothing in Grace which it doth not signify in Similitude, and that the Sacraments of the New Law are the cause of nothing of which they bear not a sensible Image; and thence infers, That the Union of the Mystical Body is not perfectly caused, and signified but by a double Sign; and therefore by virtue of the Sacrament we ought to have both. And in his Comment upon the Sixth of John, he saith, That as in the Flesh is received what is vivifying, and restorative of the spiritual and divine Life lost in us, so by the Blood is received the Aspersion, and cleansing of our inward parts. And making the enquiry, why, to that manducation Spiritual Drink was necessary to be added, he answers, it is so, because Meat cannot be without Drink. In his Comment on 
(m) c. 22. f. 321.  St. Luke; Some, saith he, more curious than devout, inquire to what end was the Sacrament of the Blood instituted after the Sacrament of the Body, since the Body of Christ is not without the Blood, nor the Blood without the Body? But to this we say, that though these are as to their nature undivided, yet have they different Effects; for one by Christ is ordained to incorporate, the Blood for the washing away of Sins: whence it is said, That without shedding of Blood there is no Remission: And that which they say that the Body is not without the Blood is true; but yet by virtue of the Sacrament, the Sacramental Body is not in the Blood, nor the Sacramental Blood in the Body: That therefore we might have a Supper Sacramentally perfect, it was necessary that it should be instituted, that the Body and Blood should be Sacramentally had; this therefore is the cause and manner of the Institution; so our King and Priest saves us out of the Flour and out of the Winepress. 
(n) Rat. l. 4. c. 54. f. 126.  Durantus saith, That the Church instituted the Sacrament to be taken after the consecration of both Species, to show, that he who receives the Host only, receives not the whole Sacrament Sacramentally: For although the Blood be in the consecrated Host, yet is it not Sacramentally there, because the Bread signifies the Body not the Blood, the Wine signifies the Blood, not the Body; wherefore because the Sacrament under one kind is not complete according to the Sign, the Sacrament ought to be complete before the Priest use it. And again, 
(o) Ibid. c. 4●. f. 106.  Although, under the Form of Bread, the Blood may be taken with the Body, and under the Form of Wine, the Body may be taken with the Blood; yet, according to Innocent the Third, neither the Blood under the Form of Bread, nor the Body under te Form of Wine is drunk and eaten, because as neither Blood is eaten nor the Body drunk, so neither under the Form of Bread is drunk, or eaten under the Form of Wine.  
Cassunder informs us of 
(p) De come. sub utraque specie, p. 1034.  Petrus de Palude, that he asserted, That the matter of the Sacrament ought to be double, viz. the matter of Bread and Drink; because the effect of the Sacrament ought to be perfectly represented by the matter, in a way agreeable to natural things, because the Sacraments effect what they do figure, but the effect of the Sacrament is full Refection of the Soul, and therefore the matter representing this, aught to do it by perfect Refection of the Body, which only is by Meat and Drink. 
(q) Lyturg. p. 77.  Guilielmus de monte Landano, as he there citys him, adds, That he who receives the Body, receives the whole Truth, but not the whole Sacrament; and therefore in many places they Communicate with Bread and Wine, that is, with a whole Sacrament. The 
(r) De commu. sub utraque specie, ibid.  Dean of Louvain, as he citys him, saith, That with respect to the Sacrament, and the perfection of it, it is more convenient that the Communion should be made under both kinds, for this is more consonant to the Institution and integrity of it, to corporal Refection, to the Example of Christ, and the Primitive Church. And again, He freely confesseth that the Laity communicating under one kind only, receive not a full Sacrament, which consists of two Parts. This Sacrament, saith 
(s) In 1 ad Cor. c. xi.  Lyra, is given under the double Species of Bread and Wine, that thereby spiritual Refection may perfectly be showed forth, and because it is a memorial of Christ's Passion, in which the Blood was separated from the Body. And again, Utrumque est de perfectione huju Sacramenti, both is expressed perfectly the Passion of Christ semblably, of which this Sacrament is the memorial. 2dly. Because both signify nourishment perfectly. Though the Body and Blood of Christ, saith, 
(t) In 1 ad Cor. c. xi.  Carthusian, are called Sacraments in the plural, yet speaking formally of their perfect and integral Unity, they are but one Sacrament; for they are ordained to one end and complete act, viz. to the spiritual Refection of the Soul, in which spiritual Meat and spiritual Drink is required.  
The eating, saith 
(u) L. 4. de emend. Christianae Reipub. cap. 19  Andrea's Frisius, is named separately and the drinking separately by his Wisdom, to which all humane Wisdom concerning the inseparability of living Blood from living Flesh ought to give place; for here we are are not to dispute from humane reason, but to have respect to the will of Christ, which instituted, convivium non mancum, not a maimed Banquet, but added drink to the meat. If any of these Doctors do elsewhere contradict their own Assertions, for that I am not much concerned, it being natural, and almost unavoidable, for Men who maintain things contradictory to common reason, to say one thing when they discourse according to the innate Notions of common reason, and another thing when they serve the Hypothesis to which they are enslaved; it sufficeth me to make these plain Inferences from what they have discoursed.  
§ 5 1. If both Species are to be delivered to represent Christ, not as imperfect but as perfect Life, to teach us that there is a perfect and full Refection in this Sacrament, to show that Christ redeemed the whole Man, and that there may be in this Sacrament a representation according to the Institution, than we who do thus represent, thus teach, thus act, according to the Institution must be blameless, if the Institution hath appointed both these Species to signify one perfect Refection, they act not suitably to their appointment who use but one. If the Bread signifies the Body, not the Blood; the Wine the Blood, and not the Body; and if the Sacrament under one kind be not complete according to the Sign, then, seeing every Sacrament is Sacrae rei signum, a sign of something sacred, this Sacrament can never be complete, when it is administered only in one of the appointed signs, because a sacred thing appointed to be signified must then be wanting: If whole Christ be no under either Species Sacramental, if the Sacramental Body be not in the Blood, nor the Sacramental Blood in the Body; If he who receives the Body only, receive not the whole Sacrament Sacramentally, than they who administer the Body only, do not administer the whole Sacrament Sacramentally, nor, as is requisite to the Sacramental Perfection of the Ordinance. If both Species were given for an entire reparation of the whole Man, to be Food to the Faithful, and to avail to the Safety and Salvation both of Soul and Body; then must they deprive the Laity of their Food, and their entire reparation, and hinder the Safety and Salvation of their Souls and Bodies, who deprive them of one Species: If the Species of Wine is to be received for the remembrance of that Redemption which was made by the Effusion of blood, for the memory and representation of Christ's Passion, that by it we may receive the Aspersion and cleansing of our inward Parts; then must they hinder the showing forth of our Lord's Death, and the purification of the Laity, who rob them of the Cup: If by virtue of the Sacrament we ought to have both Species, to have spiritual Meat and spiritual Drink, if the matter of the Sacrament ought to be double, and it is necessary to a Supper Sacramentally perfect, that the Body and Blood should both Sacramentally be had; then they who do not permit the People to have both, do not what they ought. And Lastly, If this be more consonant to the institution, to the integrity of the Sacrament, to the Example of Christ, and of the Primitive Church; sure they must act more consonantly to the Institution, and the Example of their Lord, the Practice of the Primitive Church, and the Integrity of the Sacrament, who give both Species, than they who do deprive the Laity of one, though, at the same time, they do act less consonantly to the Decrees and Constitutions of the Church of Rome.   

CHAP. V.  
The Contents. In opposition to the Council of Constance, condemning them as Heretics who pertinaciously assert, That it is Sacrilegious to observe the Law of Communion in one kind; this Practice is declared to be Sacrilegious by P. Leo, §. 1. by P. Gelasius, §. 2. The Evasions of the Roman Catholics fully refuted. Ibid. This is farther proved from the Say of the Fathers, compared with the Descriptions which the Schoolmen give of Sacrilege, §. 3. And from the Schoolmen, §. 4.  
WHereas the Council of Constance, 
Sess. 13.  approved by the Church of Rome, declares it Erroneous to assert, That it is Sacrilegious to observe the Law or Custom of Communicating the Priests that do not consecrate, and the Laity, in one kind only, and commands that they who pertinaciously so assert, shall be driven away from the Communion of Christians, as Heretics, and be grievously punished by the Diocesans of the place, or their Officials, or the Inquisitors of Heretical pravity; this mutilation of the Sacrament, hath by the Doctors of the Ancient Church been adjudged Sacrilege, and they who only did receive the Bread, but did not partake of the Cup, have been pronounced Sacrilegious, and as such, are commanded to be expelled from the Society of Christians.  
§ 1 Thus Leo, speaking of the Manichees, saith, 
(a) Comque ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audent interesse Mysteriis, ita in Sacramentorum Communione fe temperant, ut interdum, quo tutius lateant, ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurite omnino declinant, quod ideo vestram volumus scire sanctitatem, ut vobis hujusmodi homines & his manisestentur indiciis, & quorum deprehensa fuerit sacrilega simulatio, notati, & proditi, a sanctorum societate sacerdotali authoritate pelantur. Serm. 4. in quadrag. c. 5. Ed. Quesnel. p. 271.  They avoid the Sacrament of humane Salvation, and believe not that our Lord Christ was truly born, truly suffered, was buried, and raised again in true Flesh of our Nature; and when, to conceal their Infidelity, they dare to be present at our Mysteries, they so behave themselves in the Communion of the Sacrament, that sometimes, lest they should not possibly lie hid, they take Christ's Body with their unworthy Mouths, but they wholly decline drinking the Blood of our Redemption, which therefore we make known to your Holiness, that such Men may be known to you by these Tokens, and that, by the Sacerdotal Authority, they may be expelled from the Communion of Saints, whose Sacrilegious Simulation is thus found out; for blessed Paul hath well admonished the Church of God of such Men, saying, We beseech you Brethren, that you mark them who cause Divisions and Offences contrary to the Doctrine which you have received, and avoid them.  
Where evident it is that the Practice of the Manichees in Receiving of the Body of the Lord in the Christian Mysteries, that so they might dissemble their Infidelity, is called Simulation, and their declining to drink the Blood of our Redemption, is that which made this Simulation to be Sacrilegious. 2dly. Here it is also evident, that in St. Leo's days, to eat the Body of our Lord, or to receive it, and to drink his Blood, were looked upon as two distinct things, one of which might be done without the other, the Body being taken when the Blood of our Redemption was not, which wholly overthrows the Doctrine of Concomitance, on which this Sacrilege is founded. 3ly. Observe that Leo would have such persons expelled from the Communion of Saints for this Sacrilegious Simulation. That 4ly. He makes the declining of the Cup at any time, a mark sufficient to discern these Sacrilegious Persons, and a cause sufficient for their Exclusion from the Communion of Saints; whereas had others at any time been permitted in the Church-Assemblies to Communicate in Bread alone, for any other Reason, this mark had been no certain indication of a Manichee to Priest or People, since being caught, they might pretend that they had formerly received the Cup, but now abstained for some special cause approved by the Church. The Faithful therefore must have then generally Communicated at all times, or else the Manichees could not be certainly discovered by one Dry Communion.  
Moreover Pope Gelasius did by a Law condemn this half Communion, as a great Sacrilege. 
(b) Non esse sumendum Corpus Domini sine Calais. Gelasius Majorico & Johanni Episcopis, apud Ivon. decret. part. 2. cap. 8, 9 Comperimus quod quidam in eadem Regione sumpta tantum Corporis Sacri portione, a Calais Sacri cruoris abstineant, qui proculdubio (quoniam nescio quâ superstitione docentur obstringi) aut integra Sacramenta accipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius & ejusdem Mysteril sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire.  We have found, saith he, that some in the same Country having taken only a portion of the Holy Body, abstain from the Cup of the Holy Blood, who (because I know not by what Superstition they are said to be bound) ought, without doubt, to receive the entire Mysteries, or to be driven from both; for the division of one and the self same Mystery, cannot happen without great Sacrilege. Where note, 1. That this Law respecteth not Priests only; for as 
(c) Ad A. D. 496. Sect. 20.  Baronius observes, This is no mention in the Law of the Priest Sacrificing, or of any other of that Order; whence, saith he, it is evident that what is generally spoken here, ought not to be restrained to them. Moreover, Cassander doth assure us, That in his Old Manuscript, this was the Title of this Decree, That 
(d) Quod nulli liceat absque sanguinis participatione solius carnis Communionem percipere. P. 19 p. 1106.  it was not lawful for any one N. B. to Receive the Communion of the Flesh, without partaking of the Blood. In Ivo the Title of it runs thus, That the Body of our Lords is not to be taken without the Cup. 
(e) Excommunicari illos praecipit quicunque sumpto corpore dominico a calicis participatione se abstinerent. Name (ut ipse in eodem decreto asserit) hujusmodi Sacramentorum divisio sine grandi Sacrilegio provenire non poterit. Microl. Cap. 19  Micrologus saith, That P. Gelasius commanded that they should be Excommunicated, quicunque, whosoever they were, that having taken the Body of our Lord, abstained from the Cup. 
(f) Prop. 23. p. 579.  Radulphus de Rivo transcribes the very words of Micrologus, and both of them give the same reason of this precept, viz. For as he in the same Decree asserts, such a division of the Sacraments cannot come to pass without great Sacrilege. Now from these Testimonies it is evident, 1. That from the Tenth to the Fourteenth Century, it was esteemed an unlawful and Sacrilegious thing, for any that were capable of both, to receive the Bread without partaking of the Cup. Yea Sacrilege is by them declared to be inseparable from such a divisio of this Mystery: It therefore must according to the judgement of Pope Gelasius, and of the following Ages who approved of his Decree, be inseparable from the constant practice of the Church of Rome, since te times of the Council of Constance. 2. Whereas the R. Doctors say this Decree was made against the Manichees, who held Wine in abomination, and therefore did refuse the Cup; and so concerns them only who refuse upon a like account, to drink of it: It is observable, that neither Gelasius himself, nor any who have since that time took notice of this Law, have told us that it was peculiarly made against the Manichees, who abstained from drinking of the Cup for the formantioned reason; but they without Exception declare that by this Law it was not lawful for any one to receive the Flesh without the Cup, and that whosoever did so, was by virtue of it to be Excommunicated. And hence 
(g) L. 2. c. 8.  Algerus in the Twelfth Century citys this Decree to prove that the Bread is separately to be consecrated into the Flesh, and the Wine into the Blood of Christ, and that both are to be received by the Faithful. And they had reason to speak thus generally of it, for that this Law of P. Gelasius was not directed against the Manichean Heresy, may be made evident from numerous considerations: For (1.) had this Pope made this Law against the Manichees, there can be no reason imagined why he, as well as Leo, should not mention them. 2ly. That Expression in the body of this Law, that he knew not by what Superstition they were bound up, cannot filty be applied to the Manichees, for it was, doubtless, a matter well known to Gelasius, why the Manichees refused the Cup, and not unto Gelasius only, but to all the People. For Leo, who preceded him, had taken care that not only 
(h) Omnia quae tam in Scriptures, quam in occultis traditionibus suis habent profana vel turpia, ut nosset populus quid refugeret aut vitaret, oculis Christianae plebis certa manifestatione probavimus. Decret. Leonis P. c. 6. Collect. à Dionysio exiguo, apud Justel. p. 224.  All the profane and filthy things which were in their Writings, but also that the things contained in their secret Traditions, should be manifested to the Eyes of Christians, that the People might know what they are to avoid, and fly from. 3ly. The very word Superstition shows that Gelasius did not intent the Manichees; for superstition intimates a design of Reverence and Veneration of the Sacrament, although misplaced, and not well designed, whereas the Manichees in their refusal of the Cup, were acted by the grossest Heresy; they refused Wine as being unclean, and the Gall of the Devil; and as P. Leo saith, condemned the Creature, in Creatoris injuriam, to the reproach of the Creator. 4ly. Gelasius speaks only of those persons who were then within the Country of Squillaci, and in the Diocese committed by him to Majoricus and John, whereas it is uncertain whether one Manichees was ever there, and is most certain they did abound elsewhere. Nor, 5ly. can these words, Let them receive the entire Sacraments, or be excluded from them, be reasonably applied to the Manichees; for none, who know the 
* Vide Concil. Laod. can. 6. & 33.  Discipline of Ancient times, can think that the Abettors of so gross an Heresy as that of Manes, which held, 
(i) Aug. ad quod vult Deus, c. 46.  That there were two first Causes, one Good, the other Evil; which denied the Worship of the God of the Old Testament, denied the Resurrection, and the Virgin birth of our dear Lord, and worshipped the Sun as God, could be admitted to the participation of the Holy Sacraments, without a previous condemnation of those prodigious Errors, and a public Penance; much less that they could be admitted with such freedom by that Gelasius who declares, That 
(k) Cum nullo prorsus eorum participare debetis, mensae dominicae puritatem, quam majores nostri semper ab haeretica magnopere servarunt pollutione discretam. Caus. 24. qu. 2. c. nec quisquam.  Christians might not partake of the purity of the Lord's Table with an Heretic; which Table our Ancestors have always abundantly kept severed from all Heretical Pollution; and who succeeded that Leo who compelled the Manichees, before they were admitted to the Communion of Christians, to do public Penance; and by a public Profession, and Subscription in the Church, to condemn the Manichean Heresy.  
Now the Confutation of this pretence, that Pope Gelasius made this Decree against the Manichees, is a full confutation of all that Romanists do offer to elude the force of it against them; for than it follows, that this Decree cannot reasonably be restrained to them who regarded the species of Wine as an object of aversion, or who abstained from the Cup out of an horror of Wine, or of the blood of our Lord: For all these descants evidently do relate unto the Doctrine of the Manichees, and therefore they are all confuted by the refutation of that vain pretence, That P. Gelasius made this Law against the Manichees.  
And whereas others tell us, that these were laws then made to restrain the liberty the Church before had granted to receive in public in one kind; this, as it is said without any shadow of proof, so it is fully confuted by the very words of the Decrees of these Two Popes. Leo objects against the Manichees, that by avoiding of the Cup, they declined the drinking of the Blood of their Redemption. Now can it be supposed that he knew then of any liberty the Church had granted to the Faithful to decline the drinking the Blood of their Redemption; that is, of doing the very thing for which he so severely doth condemn the Manichees. Gelasius decrees touching them of Squillaci, That they shall either take the Sacraments entire, or be entirely driven from them; plainly insinuating, that they who received not the Cup, received not an entire Sacrament; and could the Faithful in those times receive the Sacrament so, that in the judgement of so great a Pope it was imperfectly received by them?  
Moreover, that this practice must in the judgement of the Holy Fathers be Sacrilegious, will farther be made evident from the comparing of their Sentiments, touching the distribution, and receiving of the Cup by all the Faithful, with those descriptions which the Schoolmen given of Sacrilege. For,  
1. Sacrilege, saith 
(l) Medul. Theol. l. 3. Tr. 1. de primo praecepto Dec. c. 2. Dub. 2.  Busenbaum, is the violation of a thing holy, that is dedicated to divine Worship; and to violate what is holy, is (saith 
(m) In 22. Disp. 6. q. 15. punct. 1.  Gregorius de Valentiâ) nothing else, but to do something repugnant to that Worship to which a thing is designed: Wherefore if the reception of the Cup by the Laity was designed for their showing forth the Lord's Death, and the remembrance of his Passion, it must be Sacrilege to rob them of it; because it is the violation of a thing dedicated to Divine Worship, and the doing that which is repugnant to that Worship to which the Cup was designed. Now the Fathers frequently tell us, after St. Paul, That we are to eat this Bread, and drink this Cup to show forth the Lord's Death. 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Moral. c. 3. p. 432.  We ought, saith Basil, to eat the Body, and drink the Blood of Christ, in remembrance of our Lord's Obedience to the Death; and this he proves from our Lord's institution, Luke xxij. and from St. Paul's rehearsal of it, 1 Cor. xi. 
(o) Quoniam morte domini liberati sumus, hujus rei memores in edendo & potando carnem & sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus. In 1 Cor. xi. p. 170.  Because we are delivered by the death of the Lord, being mindful of this thing, saith St. Ambrose we signify it by eating and drinking of the things that are offered. 
(p) Glaphyr. l. 2.  The Communicating of his holy Plesh, and the Cup of his holy Blood, hath in it a Confession of Christ's Death, by the participating of these things in this world, we commemorate Christ's Death, saith Cyril of Alexandria. When the Host is broken, saith 
(q) Apud Grat. dist. 2. c. de consecr. Lanfranc. de Sacr. Ench. p. 124.  St. Austin, whilst the Blood is poured out of the Cup into the Mouth of the Faithful, what other thing is showed forth, but the offering of our Lord's Body on the Cross, and the Effusion of his Blood out of his Side? Christ in this Mystery, saith P. Gregory, is offered again for us, 
(r) Ibi Christi Corpus sumitur ejus caro in populi salutem partitur, ejus sanguis non jam in manus infidelium, sed in os fidelium funditur. Dial. l. 4. cap. 58.  for his Body is there taken, hsi Flesh is parcell'd out for the Salvation of the People, his Blood is not given into the hands of Infidels, but poured into the Mouths of the Faithful. 
(s) Quem cum bibimus, quid aliud quam mortem domini annunciamus. De Corp. & sang. Dom. cap. 21.  When we drink out of this Cup, saith Paschasius, what do we else but declare the Lord's Death? This do, saith 
(t) In 1 Cor. xi.  Anselm, that is, drink this Cup in remembrance of me, as oft as you drink it, that you may never drink it without the Memory of my Passion, but may have in mind that I suffered Death for you. Therefore, saith the Apostle, our Lord said, This should be done in commemoration of him, for as oft as you shall eat this Bread of Life, and shall-drink this Cup of eternal Salvation, you shall show forth, that is, shall represent, the Death Christ suffered for us till he comes to Judgement. 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In 1 Cor. xi. v. 25.  By the Cup thou dost celebrate the commemoration of our Lord's Death, saith Theophylact. 
(x) L. 2. cap. 8.  Algerus in answer to this Question, Why the Bread is consecrated into the Flesh, and the Wine into the Blood apart? saith, This was done because the Custom prevailed in the Church from Christ himself, who consecrated, and gave his Blood, not for division of the Substance, but for distinction of the Figure, that whilst the Bread is grinded by the Teeth, it might signify Christ's Body broken in his Passion; and whilst the Wine is poured into the Mouth of the Faithful, it might signify Christ's Blood shed from his Side: nor is the Body and Blood said to be apart, as if the Body were without the Blood, or the blood divided from the Body; but it is so said in memory of his Passion, because in the Sacrament we ought to show forth the Death of Christ. When the Bread of the Lord, that is, the Body of the Lord is eaten, saith 
(y) De Sacra. edit. Erasm. fol. 212.  Petrus Cluniacensis; when the Cup of the Lord, that is, the Blood of the Lord is drunk, the Death of the Lord is showed forth, that is, it is then represented. What he did, saith 
(z) Comment. in vi. Joh.  Rupertus, that we well know we do in Commemoration of his Death, viz. Eat his Flesh and to drink his Blood.  
And surely when two things are equally designed, and set apart by Christ for the commemoration of his Passion, when they are equally apt, and proper to show forth, and bring to our remembrance the thing they were designed to signify, when Christ and his Apostles do command both should be done in prosecution of that end, when the Fathers do, with one voice, declare, without the least disparity, distinction or limitation, that both concur unto that end: And lastly, when one naturally doth import, and show the breaking of Christ's Body on the Cross; the other doth as naturally signify, show forth, and bring to our remembrance his Blood shed, and separated from his Body, and in both these consists the Passion of our Lord, to say, our Saviour's Passion is wholly and entirely represented by the Reception of one of the two Species only, is to reflect unworthily upon the Wisdom of our Lord's Institution of them both, and his command to do both in order to the showing forth his Death, and evidently to contradict the plain Assertions, and the concurring Judgement of the Church of Christ, that by drinking, and receiving into our Mouths this Cup, this Blood, we do, and aught to declare, signify, represent, commemorate and show forth Christ's Death.  
Secondly, Christians, saith 
(a) L. 2. q. 99 Art 1.  thomas Aquinas, are sanctified by the Sacraments of Christ, and therefore what is done to the injury of Christian People, pertinet ad irreverentiam rei sacrae unde rationabiliter Sacrilegium dicitur, is Sacrilege, because it appertaineth to the irreverence of a sacred thing. To Sacrilege, saith 
(b) Q. 99 p. 1146.  Becamus, is referred, omnis injuria, omnisque abusio Sacramentorum, all injury, and abuse of the Sacraments; and this is evident even from the drift of the Commandment, Thou shalt not steal, for that for bids, in reference to temporal concerns; omne nocumentum quod homini injustè infertur in rebus exterioribus; All hurt done to them in external Things: In reference to spirituals it therefore must for bid all spiritual hurt, or injury Men suffer by the detaining of things spiritual from them. Now surely if Christians can be hurt orinjured, they must be so when they by others are deprived of the means of Grace and of Sanctification, and spiritual Blessings: Now of these, say the fathers, Christians are deprived as oft as they are thus deprived of the Cup of Blessing. For, they constantly affirm, That the eating of the Bread and drinking of the Cup, did tend to the Sanctification both of Soul and Body. 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 151.  The Temperature of both the drink and the word, saith Clemens of Alexandria, is called the Eucharist, of which they who by Faith are made partakers, are sanctified in Body and Soul. In the New Covenant, saith Cyril of Jerusalem, there is the Heavenly Bread, and the Cup of Salvation sanctifying the Soul and Body. 
(d) Catech. Mystag. 5. p. 245.  Come to the Cup, and receiving of the Blood of Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be thou sanctified. Who can express, saith 
(e) Et Sacrosanctum vivifici corporis & sanguinis sui Mysterium Membris suis tribuere, quibus corpus suum, quod est Ecclesia, pascitur. In Psal. vi. poenit.  Gregory, the greatness of that Mercy by which Mankind was redeemed with the Effusion of Christ's precious Blood; and, The sacred Mystery of his Lifegiving Body and Blood, was given to his Members, by which the Church, his Body, is fed and made to drink, is washed and sanctified. The supper substantial Bread, and the Cup consecrated by solemn Benediction, 
(f) Ad totius hominis vitam salutemque proficit. Apud Cypr. p. 39, 40.  doth profit to the Life, and the Salvation of the whole Man, saith Arnoldus Carnotensis, the Bread is Meat, the Blood is Life, the Bread for fitness of Nourishment, the Blood for efficacy of giving Life.  
Moreover this is written with a Sunbeam in the Church's Liturgies in which they call the Cup, received after the Body, 
(g) Const. Clem. l. 8. c. 13. Lit. S Petri, p. 26. Lit. Greg. p. 22. Marc. p. 46.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Cup of Life; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Cup of everlasting Salvation. In which they declare that Christ Blessing the Cup, 
(h) Lit. Chrysost. p. 1001.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and filling it with the Holy Ghost, said, Drink ye all of this, and said it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the fullness of the Holy Spirit; that it was the Blood of the New Testament shed for many, 
(i) Lit. St. Marc. p. 47.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and distributed for the Remission of Sins; in which they order the Deacon when he hath received it, to say, This hath touched my Lips, and will take away mine iniquities, and purge away my Sin; and in which they lastly pray, That 
(k) Lit. Clem. Petri Marc. Chrysost. Basil. Gregor.  they who received it might be filled with all spiritual Benediction, and heavenly Grace, and might receive it for Sanctification, and Renovation of Soul, of Spirit, and of Body, for the communication of eternal Life, for the Remissionof Sins, that they might be confirmed in Piety, filled with the Holy Ghost, made worthy of Christ, and obtain everlasting Life.  
§ 4 This, lastly, even the Schoolmen do confess, that it cannot, without immodesty be doubted, that Christians do receive the increase of Grace, by the participation of this Cup. It is not to be denied, saith 
(l) Apud Cassand. de utraque specie, p. 1032.  Armachanus, but firmly to be asserted, that the Sacramental Sumption of the Body and Blood of our Saviour much profits the Faithful to the increase of Spiritual Life. The 
(m) Ibid.  Dean of Louvain gives these Reasons why the Communion under both kinds should be more Fruitful, and confer more Grace; 1. That there is one effect of Meat, and another of Drink; for Drink allays Thirst, and Meat Hunger. 2. That under both Species the Eucharist is truly a Sacrament, nor is Christ less efficacious by his Blood under the Species of Wine, than by his Body under the Species of Bread; nor can the drinking of Christ's Blood be unprofitable, if it be lawfully and worthily received. 3. Because the Species of Wine is a Sacrament, and all Sacraments, according to the common rule, confer Grace ex opere operato. The draught of Blood hath its proper spiritual effect, to allay spiritual Thirst, or to confirm and augment the Grace received in the Communion of the Body. And though Christ be under both Species, he operates only according to their signification and uses, under one the Body, under the other the Blood as his Instrument; and since the Sacraments confer the Grace they signify, when the signification is more complete, the Grace must be so. 
(n) In 3. D. Thom. disp. 215. cap. 2.  Vasquez saith thus, The Opinion of them who say more Fruit of Grace is received from both Species of this Sacrament than from one, probabilior mihil semper visa est, seemed always more probable to me; and therefore that they who take the Cup receive an increase of Grace. And 
(o) Tom. 3. in 3. D. Thom. disp. 63. §. 6.  Suarez informs us, That it was the Opinion of many Catholics, that more Grace was given by both Species, than by one only, and that Grave Men said, That most of the Fathers of the Trent Council held that Opinion, and that therefore the Council said warily, That the Faithful, by Communicating under one Species, were not defrauded of any Grace necessary to Salvation. And truly, whosoever saith, That no Grace is received by the due participation of the Cup, doth plainly make our Saviour's Institution of it a thing indifferent, and the receiving of the Cup, after the Body, to be the receiving of a thing of no spiritual or good effect; which to affirm of the worthy receiving of the sacred Blood of Christ is horrendum dictu, and somewhat like the counting of the Blood of the Covenant an unholy thing.   

CHAP. VI The Contents.  
In opposition to the Decrees of these Councils Damning and Excommunicating all who say, That this Law of Communicating the Laity under one kind is Erroneous and Unlawful. The Fathers have declared that it is Erroneous and Unlawful to subtract the Cup. This is proved from St. Cyprian, from the complaint of the Prosbyters of Edessa, against Iba their Bishop, §. 1. From the Council of Braga, Paschasius, and Algerus, § 2. In opposition to the Council of Constance, decreeing them to be Excommunicated who exhort the People to Communicate under both species: The Fathers do exhort all People so to do, §. 3. Whereas the Councils of Constance and Basil say, That the Custom of Communicating in one kind was observed for a long time in the Church, the contrary is plainly showed from History, §. 4.  
§ 1 WHereas the Church of Rome in her Councils of Constance, 
Const. Sess. 13. Basil.— 30. Trid. Sess. 21. c. 2.  Basil and Trent, declares this practice of ministering the Communion in one kind to the  persons, is to be received as a Law, and Damns and Excommunicates all those who say this Novel Constitution of theirs, is either Erroneous or Unlawful; The Fathers have declared expressly, or by immediate and clear Consequence, That it is Erroneous, Unlawful, and of evil consequence to Religion to subtract the Cup, or one part of the Sacrament from Believers. If any Man be in that Error, saith 
(a) Ep. 63. p. 148.  St. Cyprian, (viz. That it is not necessary to offer and distribute to the People Wine mixed with Water) let him return to the Original of our Lord's Tradition; adding, 
(b) P. 157.  That to contemn his Admonition, and to persist in his old Error, would be to incur the displeasure of the Lord. And having said that Christ both by his Practice, and his Precept, taught the oblation and distribution of Wine mixed with Water to the People; he adds, 
(c) Caeterum omnis Religionis & veritatis disciplina subvertitur, nisi id quod spiritualiter praecipitur fideliter observatur. P. 155.  That the whole discipline of Religion and Truth is subverted, unless that which is spiritually commanded, be faithfully observed. The Presbyters of Edessa accuse Iba their Bishop before the Council of Chalcedon on this wise; That in his Church, whilst the memory of the Martyrs was Celebrated, there wanted Wine for the Sacrifice of the Altar, to be sanctified, and distributed to the people, there being but little, and that bad and muddy, just newly pressed out of the Grape; so that they who were deputed to Minister were forced to buy Six Quarts out of the Tavern, which also was bad, and not sufficient; 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Chalced. Tom. 3. Concil. apud Bin. p. 382.  so that they called to them who distributed the holy Body to desist, because the Blood was wanting. Whence we learn,  
1. That though it be now no fault in the Church of Rome to provide no Consecrated Blood to be distributed to the people, it was then thought Crime sufficient to accuse a Bishop of before a General Council.  
2. That then it was not deemed lawful to Communicate the people under the species of Bread alone; for if so, there would have been no need of running to the Tavern to fetch Wine, and much less for desisting from distributing the Consecrated Bread unto the People, because they had not Consecrated Wine to minister to them afterwards. This sure must manifestly show, that it was then esteemed unlawful to minister to the people one species of the Eucharist without the other.  
§ 2 The Council of Braga saith, 
(e) Relatus est in concione nostrorum omnium Error manifestus, quidam enim Eucharistiam vino madidam pro complemento Communionis credunt populis porrigendam. Concil. Tom. 6. p. 561.  It is a manifest Error to deliver to the people the Consecrated Bread dipped in the Chalice for a Compliment of the Communion, as being not agreeable to the Institution; and surely for the same reason it must be a more manifest Error to give them the Consecrated Bread alone, for a complete Communion; it being more dissonant from the Institution to give only one part, than to give both only in another manner than was appointed by the Institution. The Blood is well joined to the Flesh, saith Paschasius, because 
(f)— Nec caro sine sanguine, uti nec sanguis sine carne jure communicatur, etc. Cap. 19 Bis.  neither the Flesh without the Blood, nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly communicated; for the whole Man, which consists of Two Substances is redeemed, and therefore fed together both with Flesh and Blood. Algerus, in answer to the Question, Why Bread by itself is Consecrated into the Flesh of Christ, and the Wine into his Blood, saith, That therefore the Blood, and Flesh are seen apart in the Sacrament, that because Christ died for redeeming our Body by his Body, and our Soul by his Soul, when we had perished both in Body and Soul, it might be signified, that his Body and Soul were in Death divided. 
(g)— Unde ut ait Augustinus, nec caro sine sanguine, nec sanguis sine carne jure communicatur. De Sacr. Euch. l. 2. c. 8.  And therefore Austin saith, That neither the Flesh without the Blood, nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly Communicated. In a word; this Constitution, thus established for a Law, makes it a Sin to obey and comply with the Institution of our Lord, by reason of the Laws of Men; and whether this be not Erroneous, let any reasonable person judge from this Consideration:  
Had our Lord instituted this Sacrament to be Received under the Species of Bread alone, and had he so distributed the same to his Disciples, none, coming after Christ could have thought it lawful to have added Consecrated Wine, and to have distributed it after the Bread: Therefore by parity of Reason, Christ having instituted the Eucharist, in both the Species of Bread and Wine, and so distributed it, no man can rightly think it fawful to Give the Sacrament in Bread alone to persons capable of both Species. For confirmation of this Argument, let it be considered, that the Trent Council declares this power was always in the Church, That in the dispensation of the Sacraments, 
(h) Sess. 21. c. 2.  Salva illorum substantia, ea statueret, vel mutaret; That retaining their substance, she may appoint or change those things which she doth judge expedient for the profit of the Receivers. If therefore when the Cup was instituted by Christ to be Received, she may change so far the Institution as to make a Law, it shall not be received by the Laity; if it had not been Instituted, why might she not appoint it should have been received by them?  
§ 3 3. Whereas the Church of Rome, by the Authority of her Councils 
(i) Concil. Const. Sess. 13.  commands, That they be Excommunicated, Who, contrary to her Decree, Exhort the People to Communicate under both Species of Bread and Wine, and who do take upon them so to administer the Sacrament unto the People; and doth require, that they be treated as Heretics, if they persist without Repentance in so doing. The Fathers did not only thus administer the Sacrament in public, for a thousand Years together, but also did exhort all Christians so to do. 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cat. Myst. 5. p. 245.  After the Communion of the Body of Christ, come to the Cup, saith Cyril of Jerusalem. The Priest, saith 
(l) Eccles. Hier. c. 3.  Dionysius the Areopagite, showing the Consecrated Gifts, comes himself to partake of them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and exhorts others so to do. The Gifts he shown them were the Bread, and Cup apart, of these he therefore did exhort them to Communicate, after the usual manner; that is, apart. From taking of the Blood of this Sacrifice, saith 
(m) Q. 57 in Levit.  Austin, not only no Man is restrained, but All Men are exhorted to drink it, who will have life. And again, They who have not eaten, and have not drunk, let them, being invited, make haste to these Banquets: 
(n) Accedite ad carnem domini, accedite ad sanguinem domini. Serm. 46. de verbo dom. cap. 4.  Come to the Flesh of the Lord, come to the Blood of the Lord. The Deacon, saith the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, bowing, takes the Cup with reverence, and lifting it up he shows it to the People, saying, 
(o) Tom. 6. p. 1003.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Come to it with the Fear and Love of God. In the Ancient Synodal form of Admonition used in the West, we find one Admonition to the 
(p) Omnes fideles ad Communionem corporis & fanguinis domini accedere admonete. Apud Baluz. p. 605. Ad Communionem corporis domini nostri Jesu Christi invitate. 16. Not. in Reg. p. 609, & p. 613.  Priest to call upon all the Faithful to come to the participation of the body and the Blood of Christ. Whereas in the Two New Admonitions transcribed by Baluzius from the R. Pontifical, the injunction is only to invite them to the Communion of the Body of Christ; which alteration seems to be occasioned by the change of the Custom of the Romish Church in this particular. The Jews drank of the Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ: 
(q) Et tu hibe ut te Christus sequatur. De Sacr. l. 5. cap. 1.  Drink thou also, saith the spurious Ambrose, that Christ may follow thee. The Jews came to Crucify him, saith Hincmarus of Rheims, 
(r) Tom. 2. p. 94.  Let us come to him, ut corpus & sanguinem ejus accipiamus, That we may receive his Body and Blood. 
(s) Sume vinum de torculari crucis expressum. De tribus capitib.  Take the Wine pressed out of the Fat of the Cross, saith Fulbertus of Chartres. St. Paul doth in the like manner say, Let a Man examine himself, and so let him eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup. And a greater than St. Paul saith, Drink ye all of this (for whom this Blood was shed) for this is my Blood of the New Testament, shed for many for the Remission of Sins.  
§ 4 Lastly, Whereas the Councils of Constance and Basil to give the better colour to their absurd Decrees, say, That this Custom of Communicating under one kind only, was, ab Ecclesia diutissimè observata, observed for a long time in the Church, before they had assembled to make this Custom binding by their Laws and Sanctions, it is matter of Surprise, that two such great and numerous Assemblies should with such confidence assert these things, since, as Lindanus saith, 
(t) Quod per occidentem fuerit populo utraque administrata Species in proximum fere usque Constantiensis Synodi Saeculum haud Prolixa opus est demonstratione. Panopl. l. 4. sub finem.  There needs no long demonstration to prove that both kinds were administered in the West almost till the times of the Council of Constance.  
Was it thus in the Eleventh Century in which Lanfranck saith, That 
(u) Sanguis ejus de Calice fidelium ore potatur. De Sacr. Euch. f. 126. a.  the Blood poured out of the Chalice, is taken by the Mouth, and poured into Mouth of the Faithful? In which Pope Paschal made a Decree, That the Body and Blood of the Lord should be received apart, and that 
(x) Sic semper in Sancta Ecclesia conservandum docemus.  this Custom should always be observed in the Church, except in the case of Infants and infirm Persons, not able to swallow down the Bread: In which 
(y) Apud Baron. Tom. 11. p. 971.  Humbertus declares, That in the Roman Church the Sacrament was ministered in both kinds apart: 
(z) Rer. Liturg. l. 2. c. 18. p. 862.  Why then is Cardinal Bona so positive in his Assertion, that always and every where, from the beginning of the Church to the Twelfth Century, the Faithful Communicated under the Species of Bread and Wine? Was it so in the Twelfth Century, when 
(a) L. 2. c. 8.  Algerus saith, That both the Body and the Blood were taken by the Faithful, and that neither the Flesh without the Blood, nor the Blood without the Flesh are rightly Communicated? 
(b) Apud Cyp. p. 41.  Arnoldus Carnotensis, That we Christians drink of the Blood by his Command. 
(c) P. 217.  Petrus Cluniacensis, That they took the Body and drank the Blood in likeness of Food. Why then doth 
(d) L. 4. dist. 11. Lit. f.  Peter Lombard put the Question, Quare sub duplice specie sumitur, why is the Sacrament taken in both kinds?  
Was it thus in the Thirteenth Century, when the 
(e) Apud Chesn. f. 5. Franc. p. 840.  Deam of Meaux with his Monks administered the body and the blood of Christ, to the Soldiers of Charles King of Sicily; when 
(f) Contra Gentiles l. 4. c. 61. Provide in quibusdam Eccelsiis observatur ut populo sumendus sanguis non detur. In 3.— part. qu. 80. Ar. 12.  Thomas Aquinas saith, That the Sacrament of the Body is delivered to us apart, under the Species of Bread, and the blood under the Species of Wine; and elsewhere confesseth, That this custom of Communicating under both kinds, was still observed in some Churches: When a Council held at 
(g)— Solis enim celebrantibus, sanguinem sub specie vini consecrati sumere in hujusmodi minoribus Eeclesiis est concessum. Concil. Tom. 11. Part. 1. p. 1159.  Lambeth A. D. 1281. saith, That only the Celebrators in lesser Churches were permitted to drink the blood under the Species of consecrated Wine, clearly insinuating, That in some Churches all drank of it; when lastly 
(h) Sum. de Sacram. Euch. didst 3. Tr. 2. c. 5.  Albertus Magnus saith, That under one Species we deliver the Body, under the other the Blood.  
Was it thus in the Fourteenth Century, when, saith Nicolaus 
(i) In 1 Cor. 11.  Lyra, the Sacrament is given under the double Species of Bread and Wine; when 
(k) Vid. Cassand. de utraque specie, p. 1036.  Petrus de Palude, expressly saith, That in his Age it was the Custom in many Churches to communicate under both Species. And 
(l) Id. Liturg. p. 77.  Guilielmus de monte Laudano, That in many places they communicated with Bread and Wine, that is, with an entire Sacrament.  
Was it thus in the beginning of the Fifteenth Century, that very Century in which the Council of Constance forbade both Species? Why then doth 
(m) Calixt. de Com. sub utraque specie, p. 110.  Fervendus Bishop of Lucca say, That in many Churches or Monasteries, either by Privilege or Custom, not the Conficient only, but others did communicate under both Species? And why doth Francis King of France declare, A. D. 1535. That 
(n) Patrum memoria (dicebat) distributum fuisse per Galliam quibuslibet integram coenam, non quidem in medio Templo, sed in Sacellis, hocillum a nonnullis accepisse Grandi aetate, qui ritum istum in Galliis fuisse confirment ante centum & viginti annos. Sleidar. Comment. l. p. p. 243. Cassand, de utraquc Specie, p. 1037.  in the Memory of his Ancestors the entire Supper was throughout France distributed to whosoever would have it, not indeed in the middle of the Temple, but in the Chapels, and that he received this from some Ancient Men, who affirmed that it was not 120. Years since the Custom was so in France. Now take 120 Years from 1535, and there remains 1415, which is the very Year in which the Council of Constance debarred the Laity of the Cup. And what is now become of those many Ages in which the People Communicated not, but in that manner, that is, under one Species only? And what just matter of admiration is it that Men of Learning should with such confidence assert what may so plainly be disproved? And that even General Councils should be so little to be credited in what they do so confidently say, and lay as the Foundation of their Definitions and Decrees?   

CHAP. VII.  
The Contents. The Doctrine of Concomitance is confuted (1.) from the words of the Institution, §. 1. 2dly. From Reason, viz. (1.) Because, according to this Doctrine, the depriving of the Laity of the Cup must be depriving them of whole Christ and all his Benefits, §. 2. 2dly. Because Christ's Institution, according to this Doctrine, must be the Institution of a thing directly contrary to the Law of Moses, §. 3. Concomitance frees not the Romanist from the Imputation of an half Sacrament, though it doth from the Imputation of giving half Christ, §. 4. It is contrary to the received Customs of the Church of Christ, u.g. (1.) to the Custom of putting a piece of the consecrated Bread into the Cup, and saying, Fiat commixtio Corporis & sanguinis Domini. 2dly. To the Custom of mixing the Bread and Wine when they communicated Infants, or persons extremely sick, and so not able to swallow the Bread dry, that they might truly say, The Body and the Blood of Christ profit thee, etc. 3dly. To their constant Custom of speaking of the Body and the Blood of Christ as two Sacraments. 4ly. To that distinct effect they attribute unto the several Species. 5ly. To their saying that the Body is given under the one, the Blood under the other Species. 6ly. To the Decrees of Leo and Gelasius, §. 5. Mr. Condom's vain attempt to prove Concomitance considered, and found to be a farther Evidence, that the Church of Christ for a Thousand Years knew nothing of it, §. 6.  
MOreover the better to conceal this Sacrilegious Defalcation of the Cup, 
Concil. Const. Sess. 13. Basil. Sess. 30. Trid. Sess. 43. cap. 3.  these Councils jointly have determined, That by force of that natural Connexion and Concomitance, which is betwixt the parts of Christ's raised Body, Christ's Body is entire under the Species of Wine, and his Blood under the Species of Bread, it being firmly to be believed, and in no wise doubted, that the whole Body and Blood of Christ is contained as well under the Species of Bread, as under that of Wine, and not the Flesh only under the Species of Bread, nor the Blood only under the Species of Wine: This whosoever shall deny, let him be Anathema, saith the Trent Council; whosoever being learned will not declare upon Oath that he believeth, and asserts this Doctrine of Concomitance, he must suffer as an 
(a) Sess. 13. can. 1. Partinaciter dicentes oppositum tanquam haeresin sunt arcendi & puniendi. Sess. 45. apud Bin. Tom. 7. p. 1124.  Heretic, saith the Council of Constance: And yet this Doctrine which cannot be denied without incurring an Anathema, nor disbelieved without the Crime of Heresy, is in itself absurd, and plainly contrary to Scripture and to Reason, and that it was unquestionably unknown to all the Ancient Fathers, and the whole Church of Christ, is very easy to demonstrate.  
That this Doctrine is absurd, that it doth not expound, but rather doth expose our Saviour's Institution to the derision of Men of Reason and Consideration, will be evident from these following Arguments: For,  
§ 1 1. This Novelty apparently destroys the energy of the words used in the Institution of this Sacred Ordinance, in which our Lord, when he had given his Body broken to his own Disciples, and they had actually received it, saith of the following Cup, Drink ye all of this, 
Matth. xxvi. 27, 28.  for this is the blood of the New-Testament shed for you. Whereas if he knew any thing of this Concomitance, he must know also they had received this blood of the New-Testament already, and therefore might have spared his Cup and Reason both. This do as oft as you drink it came too late, for they had done what he commanded, in effect, before he bid them do it. 
Sess. 13. c. 3.  Tantundem sub alterutrâ specie atque sub utraque continetur, as much is contained under either Species as under both, saith the Trent Council, i. e. whole and entire Christ, his Body, Blood, his Soul, and his Divinity, and so as much as is delivered in, and as much Grace conveyed by the Reception of one Species as both. For, I suppose, that by participation of Christ in this entire manner, we have entirely the Grace of the Sacrament. Why therefore did our Lord institute the other Species so perfectly unnecessary to convey any thing of Christ, or of his Grace unto us? Why did he bless the Cup, and blessing said, with like Solemnity, and with express injunction, Drink ye all of this? Or why did he permit his Church for a whole Thousand Years to give his Members, a thing which might be oft of a pernicious influence to them who did receive it unworthily, but could be of no spiritual advantage to them who did receive it worthily; since after we have taken worthily the consecrated Body, we have taken as much as when we have received the Blood also?  
Mr. Condom sets down this as their Principle, 
Treat. of Communion in both Kind's, p. 327.  That he who hath received the Bread of Life, has no need of receiving the sacred Blood, seeing he has received, together with the Bread of Life, the whole Substance of the Sacrament, and together with that Substance, the whole essential virtue of the Eucharist. Now from this Principle it follows with the clearest evidence, that it was needless for our Saviour to have said to his Disciples, after they had received the Bread of Life, Drink ye all of this Cup. That his Institution of the Cup to be received after the Bread of Life, was a needless Institution, that the Church was employed in a needless Action for a Thousand Years, when she distributed the Cup to all Believers. That when our Saviour said, Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood of the New-Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins, he gave a needless reason of a needless Action, exhorting them to do what they had wholly done already, to the end here assigned by him of the drinking of it. And can that Principle be true which casts such horrid Imputations on the Commands, the Institution, and the Reason of that Institution assigned by our Blessed Lord, and on the constant Practice of the whole Church of Christ.  
And indeed this new Capricio of Concomitance cannot well be thought of by a Roman Doctor, but presently this Question stairs him in the Face, To what purpose then was the Institution of both Species? they being conscious to themselves that the very natural, and obvious Conclusion from it would be this, That our Lord's Institution of both Species was to no purpose; they therefore have invented a new Reason of the necessity of Consecrating both the Species apart, 
Mr. Condom, ibid. p. 179, 180.  viz. That the Separation once made upon the Cross of our Lord's Body and Blood, might never cease to appear on the Holy Table. Now is it not wonderful, that Christ should establish a continual representation of the separation of his Blood from his Body by Species, which he commands us to believe, contain his Body and his Blood united. What a pretty Mystery do these Men make of the sacred Institution of our Lord. Bread and Wine never cease to appear unto our Senses, and yet we must not believe this Appearance, but by Faith believe there is no such thing; the same Faith teacheth me, that our Lord's Body and Blood are united there, and yet I must believe our Lord designed the continual representation of them there as separate, where Faith informs me there is no such thing.  
Secondly, This Doctrine of Concomitance seems even to ridicule our Saviour's words, and make them run to this effect; I say unto you, This is my Body broken, not by way of representation only, but substantially so; and yet I know my Body neither is substantially broken in this Sacrament, nor can it ever be so. I bid you take this Cup, and to encourage you to do so, I say, This is my Blood shed, or separated from my Body, and yet I know that there is always in this Sacrament such a Concomitance, as renders it impossible my Blood should be thus separated as I say it is. But notwithstanding I institute a Mystery, which by some broken Accidents of Bread annihilated, or some few colours or bare Species of Wine, without a subject, shall give some faint resemblance of my Body broken, and my Blood shed for you: This is my broken Body; that is, under these broken Accidents of Bread lieth my Body whole, and united to my Blood, and therefore not my Body broken for you. This is my Blood, shed for you; that is, under this empty show of Wine lieth my Blood united to my Body, and so my Blood not shed; and whether hoc est corpus, thus interpreted, doth not make Nonsense of the words, let the considerate Reader judge.  
§ 2 Thirdly, If there be such a necessary Concomitance in the Sacrament, then must each part of the Sacrament exhibit whole and entire Christ, with all his Benefits, and consequently the depriving the Laity of one part, or Species of the Sacrament, must be the depriving them of whole Christ, and all his benefits. Now then in doing this, either they are deprived of some spiritual Benefit, or not; if the first, then must the Romanists be Sacrilegious, because they do deprive the people of some spiritual Benefit from those sacred Mysteries they formerly received, and that agreeably unto the Institution of our Lord, and the common practice of the Church for a Thousand Years. If the receiving of the Chalice worthily be of any advantage to Souls, than he, who does not receive it, is a loser; and he by whom they are deprived of this spiritual Good must be a Sacrilegious person. If it be said that no spiritual Benefit can accrue to them by drinking of the Cup, then must it be asserted that albeit a Man receive entire Christ worthily, yet may he never be the better for it, and what is this but to esteem the Blood of the Covenant thus received an unholy thing.  
§ 3 Fourthly, had our Lord taught Concomitance, his Institution of this Sacrament had been the Institution of a thing directly contrary to the Law of Moses, viz. The eating of Flesh with the Blood, and then it must have ministered offence to the Apostles, and the first Jewish Converts, who were all strict observers of that Law. Since then we do not find that the Apostles, the Jewish Converts, or even the Sects of Nazeranes and Ebionites did ever scruple the receiving of the Sacrament on this account, we may presume our Saviour taught no such Concomitance.  
§ 4 To conclude, should we admit of this imagination, it would not free the Romanists from the Imputation of an half Sacrament, though it would from delivering of half Christ. For seeing a Sacrament is an outward visible sign, it follows evidently, he who hath but half of the outward visible signs, hath but half of the Sacrament, and consequently an half Sacrament. He that receives only the Bread, receives only the Sacrament of the Body, and not the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ, and so receives not an entire Sacrament.  
§ 5 That the Fathers of the Church till the Tenth Century knew and believed nothing of this Doctrine of Concomitance, as it is evident from many of their Testimonies cited in this Discourse, so may it fully be evinced from the received Customs of the Church of Christ.  
And, First, this may be proved from that received Custom mentioned in all the Liturgies, both of the Eastern and the Western Churches, which was to by't or break a piece of the consecrated Bread, and putting it into the Cup, to say these words, 
(b) Fiat commixtio & consecratio corporis & Sanguinis Domini nostri. Ordo Rom. apud Cassandr. p. 112, 119.  Let there be made a mixture, and a consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. For though 
(c) Durant. de rit. Eccl. l. 2. c. 52.  Durantus and 
(d) Bona rerum Liturg. l. 2. c. 16. p. 814.  Bona do, in conformity to the New Doctrine of Transubstantiation, carefully remark that the Priest doth not thus speak as if those things were then united, which before were separated, and that they made no mixture of our Lord's Body and his Blood, according to their real essences, but only according to their Sacramental Species, yet do the Liturgies refuse this Subterfuge, and their Expositors sufficiently confute this uncouth Gloss, for they do never speak of a Commixtion of the Sacramental Species, but always of the Body and Blood of Christ. They pray that this Commixtion and Consecration may avail to their 
(e) In vitam aeternam. Ord. Rom.  eternal Salvation, which cannot be expected from the Sacramental Species, but only from the real Body and the Blood. Albinus Flaccus doth inform us, That this Commixtion is made 
(f) Ut calix Domini totam plenltudinem contineat Sacramenti. Cap. de celebr. Miss. p. 93.  that the Cup of the Lord may contain the whole fullness of the Sacrament, as it were by the Copulation of the same Mystery. This is not done in vain, saith 
(g) De Eccles. Offic. l. 3. c. 3.  Amalarius, for corporal Life consists of Flesh and Blood, whilst these two continue in Man his Spirit or Life continues. In that Office is shown that the blood shed for our Souls, and the flesh dead for our Body, return to their proper Substance, and that the New Man (Christ) is made lively by the quickening Spirit; that he who died for us, and risen again, can die no more. 
(h) Per particulam oblata immissaes in calicem ostendit Christi corpus quod jam resurrexit a mortuis. De inst. Cleric c. ult.  Rabanus Maurus in like manner saith, That the particle consecrated, thus put into the Chalice, shows that the Body of Christ is now risen from the Dead. 
(i) Ad designandam corporis & animae conjunctionem, in resurrectione Christi. cap. 17.  Micrologus saith, That this mixture is made to signify the Conjunction of the Soul and Body of Christ in the Resurrection, and that the particle put into the Chalice signifies the Body of our Lord risen from the dead. Now they who say this mixture was made that the Cup might contain the fullness of the Sacrament, did not believe that the Cup before contained the Sacrament completely, as it must do, if it contained the Body before. And they who say, That this is done to show that the Body of Christ is now alive, and risen from the dead, and that this mixture therefore showeth this, because it joineth, or uniteth Flesh and Blood, did not believe they were before united by Concomitance. And as our Lord by consecrating the Wine, after he had distributed the Bread, and bidding them all drink thereof, because it was the Blood of the New Testament, declared sufficiently, that he did not conceive that his Disciples had received already that same Blood he Consecrated that they might receive it. Even so these Christians, who mixed the Consecrated particle of our Lord's Body with his Blood, that so the Union of both, in which our Saviour's Life consisted, might be represented, sufficiently declare, they did not think his Flesh and Blood were by Concomitance before united.  
Secondly, This will be farther evident from that known Custom of the Church which was to mix the Bread and Wine, that so when they Communicated Infants, or infirm persons who could not swallow down the Bread alone, they might truly say, The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, profit thee to Life Eternal; for that this Decree of the Council of Tours, That the Sacred Oblation given to such persons should be dipped in the Blood of Christ, that so the Priest, who gave it to them, might truly say to the infirm Person, The Body and Blood of Christ profit thee, etc. was observed in the Church from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century, we learn from 
(k) Quae sacra oblatio intincta debet esse in sanguine Christi ut veraciter possit Presbyter dicere infirmo, corpus & sanguis domini proficiat tibi, etc. Regino de Eccles. Discipl. l. 1. cap. 70. Proficiat tibi in remissionem peccatorum & vitam aeternam, Jvo Decret. part. 2. cap. 19 Burch. l. 5. c. 9  Regino, Ivo and Burchardus, who all make mention of this Canon, as a Law which was observed in their times. That this practice was used though not with Approbation, in the Fourth Century, even in the Administration of this Sacrament in public, is evident from the Condemnation of it, by 
(l) Concil. Tom. 2. p. 528.  P. Julius, A. D. 336. in these words, We have heard that some, possessed with a Schismatical Ambition, do deliver to the people the Eucharist dipped for a complete Communion; which thing, how contrary it is to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine, and how repugnant to the Custom of the Church, it is not hard to prove, from the Fountain of Truth, from whom proceeded the appointment of the Mysteries of the Sacrament. For this they have not received from the Gospel, where Christ commended his Body and his blood to his Disciples, for there the commendation of the Bread apart, and of the Cup apart, is rehearsed; nor do we read, that Christ gave Bread dipped to any but to that Disciple whom he would show to be the betrayer of his Master by the sop dipped. This, saith 
(m) Cap. 19  Micrologus, is the prohibition of Julius, the Thirty fourth Pope, writing to the Bishops of Egypt.  
Thirdly, This will be farther evident from this Consideration, That the Fathers do certainly speak of the Consecrated Bread and Wine, as of Two Sacraments; and that as really distinct as are the Sacraments of Baptism and Chrism. This we may learn from all those numerous passages in which they are still styled by the Fathers of the Western Church, Sacramenta, Mysteria, Sacramenta Coelestia, divina Mysteria: The Sacraments, and Mysteries (in the Plural), the heavenly Sacraments, and divine Mysteries: and by the Eastern Fathers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The Holy Gifts, the divine Mysteries, the Holy Sacraments, etc. Thus do the Greeks speak of them to this very day; thus did the celebrated Writers of the West speak and write of them till the Eleventh Century, when Transubstantiation began to be established, and with it the Doctrine of Concomitance. The Sacraments, saith 
(n) Sunt autem Sacramenta Baptismum & chrisma, corpus & sanguis. Orig. l. 6. c. 19 Raban. M. de Inst. Cler. l. 1. c. 24. Pasch. cap. 9  Isidore Hispalensis, are Baptism and Chrism, the Body and the Blood of Christ, which are therefore called Sacraments, because under the veil of Corporeal things, the divine Virtue doth more secretly work the Salvation of those Sacraments. Which words are borrowed from Pope Gregory, and are repeated by Paschasius, only with this addition, These are the Sacraments of the Church of Christ. Rabanus Maurus hath the same words; and having discoursed of Baptism and Chrism, he proceeds thus, Because we above discoursed, as much as God enabled us, of Two Sacraments, Baptism and Chrism, 
(o) De Inst. Cler. l. 1. c. 31.  superest ut de reliquis duobus, id est, Corpore & Sanguine Domini diligentius investigemus, It remains that we discoi see of the Two other Sacraments, viz. The Body and the Blood of Christ. Whence first we learn that then the Sacraments were not accounted Seven, as they are now at Rome; but only Four, or rather Two, Chrism being held as one with Baptism, and the Body and Blood of Christ being, as to the Species in which it was to be celebrated, double; which Species were therefore called Sacraments by Gregory, saith 
(p) In 4. Sent. dist. 12. Art 2. q. 2.  Bonaventure, yet are they but one Sacrament by virtue of the Institution, and end for which both are designed, viz. The Union of the body Mystical. Now they who do so often speak of both these Species as Sacraments, the Sacraments of the Church, and as Two Sacraments, because they have their distinct operations towards the health or the Salvation of those who worthily Receive them, and both conduced to the Union of the Mystical Body of the Lord, could not imagine, that by virtue of that Concomitance, of which they never speak one word of syllable, the virtue of both Species was contained in, and was entirely conveyed by one alone. For they must be supposed to hold the Cup a Sacrament of our Lord's Institution, and therefore not superfluous; that it was Sacrae rei Signum: a Sign of a thing Sacred, which did convey the Grace it signified, and operated to the Salvation of those who worthily Received it, after they had received the Body, and which conduced unto the Union of the Body Mystical, to their head Christ Jesus. They lastly must conceive, that to deprive Christ's Members of the Cup, was to deprive them of one Sacrament.  
And, Fourthly, this appears from those say of the Fathers which attribute a distinct effect unto the several species; 
(q) Caro salvatoris pro salute corporis, sanguis vero pro anima nostra effusus est. In 1 Cor. xi. p. 270.  The Flesh of Christ was delivered, saith St. Ambrose, for the Salvation of the Body; and the Blood was poured out for our Souls, etc. 
(r) Haym. in 1 Cor. xi. p. 129. Anselm. ibid.  Haymo and Anselm use the same words with a little variation; saying, That we receive the Sacraments for safety of the Body and Soul; for the Flesh was offered for the Salvation of the Body, and the Blood shed for our Souls, that both our substances might receive the inheritance of Eternal Life. 
(s) L. 4. dist. 11. Quare sub duplici specie.  Peter Lombard, 
(t) Decret. p. 2. c. 7.  Ivo Carnotensis, 
(u) Tom. 5. c. 6.  Hugo de Sancto Victore, and 
(x) Sum. Theol. part 3. num. 29. Art 9  Alexander of Hales cite the very words of Ambrose, to prove the same thing.  
And, Fifthly, This will be farther evident from those Fathers who assert, That the Body is given under the one, the Blood under the other Species: This Cyril of Jerusalem informs those whom he Catechised, That 
(y) Catech. Myst. 4. p. 237.  in the Species of Bread is given the Body of Christ, and in the Species of Wine his Blood. The 
(z) Lit. Chrysost. Tom. 6. p. 998.  Liturgies do in like manner pray, That God would make this Bread the precious body of Christ, and that which is in the Cup the precious blood of Christ. 
(a) F. 11, 12.  Lanfrank informs us, That sumitur quidem caro per se, & sanguis per se, The Flesh is taken by itself, and the Blood by itself, the Flesh under the form of Bread, and the Blood under the form of Wine. They therefore seem not even in his days to have been acquainted with the new Doctrine of Concomitance.  
Sixthly, This is apparent from the Decrees of Leo and Gelasius concerning those who in their time abstained from the Cup. For of the Manichees 
(b) Serm. 4. in quadrages. cap. 5.  P. Leo saith, That they indeed received the Body of Christ, but they declined, haurire sanguinem Redemptionis nostrae, to drink the Blood of our Redemption; he therefore thought that they could not drink the Blood, according to our Saviour's Institution, who received not the Cup. 
(c) Apud Ivon. decr. part. 2. cap. 89.  Gelasius saith, That the declining of the Cup was the dividing of one and the same Mystery, which could not truly be affirmed, if by taking of the Bread alone an entire Sacrament, and whole Christ, Body and Blood were taken and received. He also adds, Let them either take the whole Sacrament, or be driven from the whole, clearly intimating, that by receiving the Bread only they received not the whole.  
But it is needless to proceed in confutation of this vain imagination, for had it ever entered into the Heads of the Renowned Fathers of the Church, they would not so unanimously have said, the Cup was necessary to be received for the remembrance of our Lord's Death and Passion, for the procuring of our union to Christ, for the Remission of Sins, for the increase of Grace, for the Sanctification and Salvation both of Soul and Body; they would not have concluded the Sacrament was imperfect when it was not received; nor would they with such Passion have exhorted those who had received the Body to come and be partakers of the Cup; or styled it, as in their Liturgies they always do, the Cup of Life, Redemption and Salvation, as we have seen they did.  
§ 6 Mr. Condom nevertheless thus Triumphs over us; Gentlemen open your own Books, open Aubertine, 
P. 356.  the most learned Defender of your Doctrine, you will find there, in almost every Page, passages taken from St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, the two Cyrils, and from many others, where you may read, That in receiving the sacred Body of our Lord, they received his Person itself; seeing they received, say they, the King in their Hands, they receive Jesus Christ, and the Word of God; they received his Flesh as living, not as the Flesh of a mere Man, but as the Flesh of God; is not this to receive the Divinity together with the Humanity of the Son of God? and, in a word, his entire Person; after this what would you call Concomitancy?  
Answ. What is all this to the purpose? Is this the manner of speaking used by the Romanists since the New Doctrine of Transubstantiation was invented, and since the Sacrilegious Defalcation of the Cup? Do they express Concomitance by saying, You receive Jesus Christ, the King, the Word of God, the living Flesh of God? Is it not this they carefully and frequently inculcate, that under that one Species alone, which is distributed to them, they receive Jesus Christ whole and entire? Doth not the Council of Constance thus express it, That 
(d) Sess. 13. vide Basil. Sess. 30. Council Tom. 12. p. 601.  it is firmly to be believed, and no way to be doubted, that the whole Body and Blood is truly contained both under the Species of Bread, and likewise under the Species of Wine? Doth not the 
(e) Sess. 13. cap. 3. & can. 1  Trent Council say, That by virtue of this Concomitance, the Body is under the Species of Wine, and the Blood under the Species of Bread, Anathematising them who teach the contrary; and that under one Species is contained a true Sacrament? Are not the Romanists still endeavouring to possess the People with these Sentiments, That in receiving one Species alone they lose nothing, since by Concomitancy they receive both the Body and the Blood? Is it not this which the 
(f) Sess. 13. cap. 3.  Trent Council is so concerned to teach, that as much is contained under either Species as under both? Let therefore Mr. Condom, if he believes the Fathers held Concomitancy, show out of all their Writings any thing of this Nature, which may convince us that they did assert it, or let him rest assured, that what the Romanists, since the Twelfth Century 
(g) Attendant insuper Sacerdotes quod cum Communionem sacram porrigant simplicibus, solicit eos instruant sub panis specie simul eis dari corpus & sanguinem Domini.— Concil. Lambeth. A.D. 1281. Concil. Tom. 11. part. 1. p. 1159.  have been continually inculcating, and obtruding upon others, what filleth all their Books, and their Discourses on this Subject, but never was once mentioned by any Christian Writer for a Thousand Years, though they were equally concerned, and had all the same reason, if they believed Concomitancy; yea, and the same occasion, if they had generally practised the half Communion; so to do, is but a Novelty invented by the Romish Doctors only to serve a cause, and justify the Defalcation of the Cup. When the Doctors of that Church would in their suppositious Treatises make the Ancients speak in this new Dialect, they do not mince the matter thus, but make them speak exactly in their Roman Language. Thus in that Epistle falsely said to be writ by Isidore Hispalensis to Redemptus, they introduce him speaking thus, 
(h) Cum praedictorum fuerit consecratio, non, ut quidam putant indocti, sub panis specie, sola caro Christi, & in Calais tantummodo sumitur sanguis, sed in utroque Deus & homo in corpore glorificato totus & integer Christus, integer Christus in chalice, panis vivus qui de coelo descendit totus est in utroque. Epist. Isidori ad Redemptum, p. 696.  When the consecration of the Elements is made, there is under the Species of Bread not the Flesh of Christ only, and in the Chalice not his Blood only, as some unskilful persons think, but in both there is God and Man, whole and entire Christ in his Glorified Body, whole Christ in the Cup, the living Bread who came down from Heaven is entire and whole in both. Here is plain dealing, only the Language and other unquestionable circumstances, as 
(i) De Eucharist. p. 902.  Aubertine well notes, demonstrate, that the Author could not write before the middle of the Eleventh Century, because the Controversy betwixt the Greeks and Latins touching unleavened Bread, which gave occasion to that Discourse, began not till the year 1053.   

APPENDIX.  
CHAP. VIII.  
The Contents. The Assertions of J. L. touching Communion in one kind, §. 1. Against whom it is proved, (1.) That Christ's Institution of the Sacrament is virtually a Command, obliging all the Faithful, as much as in them lieth to receive both kinds, which is proved by Three Reasons, §. 2. 2dly. That it appears not from the words of our Saviour, Joh. vi. that Christ left that Practice indifferent; where by many Arguments it is proved, That nothing in that Chapter relates to the Sacramental eating of the Eucharist, §. 3. 3dly. That this appears not from the Practice of our Lord or his Disciples, §. 4. 4ly. That it was the Custom of the Church for a Thousand Years to give the Sacrament to the Sick in both kinds, §. 5. And in like manner to Infants capable of receiving both, §. 6. 5ly. That neither Leo nor Gelasius gave any precept to the Church touching this matter, §. 7.  
§. 1 BY way of Appendix to this Treatise, I shall consider what the Author of a Papist misrepresented and represented hath discoursed upon this Subject, Chap. 21. where he asserts, " That the Papist truly represented, believes, That he is obliged to obey all the Commands of Christ, and that neither his Church, nor any other Power upon Earth can limit, altar or annul any precept of Divine Institution, contrary to the intention of the Lawgiver. Neither is the denial of the Cup to the Laity a practice any way opposite to this his Belief; he being taught, that though Christ Instituted the blessed Sacrament under both kinds, and so delivered it to his Apostles, who only were then present, and whom he had made Priests just before; yet he gave no command, that it should be so received by all the Faithful, but left this indifferent; as is evident from his own Words, where he attributes the obtaining Life everlasting, (the end of the Institution) sometimes to the receiving under both kinds, sometimes under one; as when he says, If any Man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever. He that eateth me, even he shall live by me. He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever, (Joh. vi. 51, 57, 58.) And a curious Reader may find as many Texts for thus receiving under one kind, as for the other. And St. Augustin who was so far of this Opinion, that he says, That Christ himself administered the Sacrament to some of his Disciples under one kind only, viz. to those two going to Emaus, (Luc. c. last. 30.) and that the Apostles afterwards did often practise the like, when they assembled to break Bread, (Acts two. etc.) which place he and many other Fathers explicate of the Sacrament, (Aug. l. 49. de Cons. Evang.) And this was the Custom of the Primitive Christians, to give it under one kind to Children, the Sick used so to carry it with them, is attested by all ancient Writers, and modern Historians. Nay he finds that this was the practice of the Church, to communicate under one kind only, or else under both, as every one thought good, especially in all Private Communions, for the first Four hundred years after Christ; and that the first precept of receiving under both kinds was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo I. in the Year 443, and confirmed by Pope Gelasius in 490. Not for correcting any Abuse that had crept into the Church, but for the discovering the Manichees, who being of Opinion that Christ had no true Blood, and that Wine was the Gall of the Devil, used to lurk among the Christians, and receiving under the form of Bread only, as the rest did, remained undistinguished, till by this obligation of all receiving the Cup (which they judged unlawful and abominable) they were all detected. And now, if a thing till that time indifferent, was for these motives determined by an Ecclesiastical Precept, and so observed for many hundred Years, without scrupling or questioning the Authority; why should he doubt to submit to the same Authority, when upon different motives and circumstances, they issue forth another Precept? Which Harangue contains these two Assertions.  

I. That Christ gave no Command that the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be received in both kinds by the Faithful.  
II. That he left this indifferent; and that this appears, 

1. From his own words, Joh. vi.  
2. From his own practice, and from the practice of his own Disciples administering the Sacrament to the Faithful in Bread alone.  
3. From the Custom of the Primitive Church, who gave it to the Sick, to Infants, to Men in a Journey to carry with them, in one kind only.  
4. Because it was a thing indifferently practised, even in the Church till Leo the First, in the Year 443, upon occasion of the Manichees; and for Conviction of them, commanded the Receiving in both kinds; and Pope Gelasius, A. D. 490. confirmed that Precept.     
In Opposition to which Assertions, I dogmatically affirm,  
First, " That Christ's Institution of this Sacrament is virtually a Command, which lays an Obligation on all the Faithful, as much as in them lieth, to receive both kinds.  
Secondly, " That it doth not appear either from the words of our Saviour, Joh. vi. or from the practice of himself, or his Disciples, that he left this practice indifferent.  
Thirdly, " That it was the Custom of the Church for a Thousand Years together, to give the Sacrament to the Sick, and to Infants capable of Receiving it in both kinds.  
Fourthly, " That neither Leo, nor Gelasius gave any new Precept to the Church touching this matter. And,  
§ 2 First, That Christ's Institution of this Sacrament is virtually a Command, obliging all the Faithful, as much as in them lieth, to receive both kinds, will be apparent from these following Arguments:  
1. That our Lord said in the Institution of this Sacrament, Drink ye All of this. For whereas Romanists pretend, That Christ said only, Drink ye all of this, to them, to whom he said, when speaking of the Bread, Do this; and that those words were only spoken to his Apostles, whom he then made Priests. To this I answer, That we have clear and convincing Evidence that these words, Drink ye all of this, are to be applied to others besides the Apostles: As V Gr. 1. From Christ's Institution, whence I argue thus, Christ Instituted not other Supper, than that which he administered to his Disciples; if then he did not institute that for all Believers capable, they have no right to any part of it, by virtue of Christ's Institution; it can be unto them no Sacrament, for whom it was not instituted by Christ, since, by the definition of the 
Sess. 7. c. 1.  Trent Council, the Sacraments of the New Testament were all instituted by him; they can expect no blessing from it, since that depends upon Christ's Ordinance; nay they must be esteemed Sacrilegious Usurpers, as laying claim to that Sacrament which never by Christ's Institution did belong unto them. If Christ did Institute that Sacrament for all Believers capable, that is, to be a standing Ordinance by which, as his Disciples then did, so all Believers capable, should afterwards eat of what he called his Body, and drink of what he called his Blood, than did he Institute it to be received of all that were fitted for, and capable to receive it, and in it said unto them, Drink ye all of this.  
2. This appears farther from the Reason annexed to the Receiving of the Sacrament by Christ's Apostles; for since that Reason equally concerns all Believers capable, and fitted to Receive it, the Institution must concern them all. Now the reason why Christ said to his Apostles, Take, and eat what I have broken, is by himself declared to be this; because it was his Body broken, or his Body given for them; take it, saith Christ, this is my Body given for you; this therefore being the Reason why they were to take, and eat, and this Reason concerning all Believers capable, and fitted to receive it, as much as the Apostles, and succeeding Priests, the Institution, or command to take and eat must equally concern them. This Argument transferred unto the Cup runs thus: The Reason of the Participating of the Cup, viz. because it is the Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for the Remission of Sins, doth concern Laics as well as Priests, his Blood being equally shed for both; therefore the Command, Drink ye all of this, to which the Reason is annexed, concerns them also. Again, another Reason why Christ said to his Apostles, Eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, was, that by so doing they might remember his death, his Body broken, and his blood shed for them, saith St. Luke, and show it forth till his second coming, saith St. Paul Now this, as St. Paul clearly shows in his discourse to the Corinthians, and all the World believes, as well concerneth all Believers as it doth Priests; and therefore the drinking of the Cup, by which, as well as eating of the Bread, this Commemoration is by our Lord's Institution to be made, must equally concern them.  
A Second Argument to prove that Laymen, by virtue of Christ's Institution, have a right to, and are obliged to Receive this Cup of Blessing, is taken from these words of the Evangelist St. Mark, 
Chap. xiv. 23.  And taking the Cup, giving thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it; For here the Evangelist informs us, That All the Apostles drank of this Cup, and I presume, they did it, because our Saviour gave it to them for that end, for to what other end it should be given them the Roman Doctors have not yet informed us. Now hence it follows, that Laymen also have a right to be partakers of the Cup; for the Apostles were then Laymen; they being afterwards made Priests by our Lord's saying, 
Joh. xx. 22.  after his Resurrection, As my Father hath sent me, so send I you, receive the Holy Ghost. For as our Saviour saith, 
Joh. seven. 39  The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not glorified, or risen from the dead. I know the Roman Doctors, 
Syn. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 1.  and J. L. from the Trent Council teach, That the Apostles were made Priests when Christ said, Do this: and that then he gave them the Chalice, as Representatives of the Clergy, not of the People. But,  
1. Let it be considered how unlikely it is, that Christ should at one time institute Two Sacraments, as they esteem them, viz. that of Ordination, and the Eucharist, and yet speak nothing of the Use or the Reason, or the Benefit or the Necessity of one of them, nor tell them that he did so, nor explicate the Mystery, nor distinguish the Rite, or the Words, (though the nature of these Sacraments, being so extremely different, required these things) but that he should leave all this to be supposed by the most improbable construction in the World.  
2. If the Apostles were made Priests by, Hoc facite, Do this, spoken before the Institution of the Chalice, then must Judas also be made a Priest by Christ; for that he also did receive the Sacrament, is extremely evident from these words of Luke, 
Luk. xxij. 20, 21.  This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood— but behold the Hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table. And,  
3. If the Apostles were made Priests by our Lord's saying, Do this, than were they doubly Consecrated, and the Character of Priests was twice imprinted on them, which contradicts the common tenet of all Christians, that the Sacrament of Orders is not to be reiterated; and the peculiar Tenet of the Church of Rome, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 9  That Sacraments which impress a Character must not be reiterated. The reason of the Consequence is plain, because, as the Apostle witnesses, our Lord said, 
1 Cor. xi. 24, 25.  Do this, both after the giving of the Bread, and after the giving of the Cup.  
4. Had the Apostles been made Priests by our Lord's speaking of these words to them, yet being not Conficients, they had no right to receive it as Priests, more than the Laity; for the  Councils have determined, That Clerks being not Conficients, are by no Divine Right obliged to Receive under both Species. There being then no difference betwixt them and the Laity, in reference to this matter, since All the Apostles drank of this Cup, why should not the Laity do so too?  
A Third Argument to prove that Laymen, by virtue of Christ's Institution, are obliged to receive the Cup of Blessing, is taken from the Recapitulation of our Lord's Institution by St. Paul, who doth expressly teach us, That our Lord Jesus, 
1 Cor. xi. 25.  in the same Night in which he was betrayed, took the Cup, saying, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me. Now in the Three Evangelists no such words are expressly to be found; nor any thing like them spoken at the distribution of the Cup, unless these words, Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood of the New Testament, that is shed for many, for the Remission of Sins, be of like import with the words of St. Paul Since therefore the Apostle doth expressly teach, That our Lord used these words at his last Supper, and that he received them from the Lord, as words which he had spoken, than what remains, but they virtually are the same with those recorded by St. Matthew; and then they must also be a Command obliging all to drink of this Cup, as being the Memorial of the Blood of the New Testament shed for them, and therefore to be drunk by all, in the remembrance of the Blood shed for them, as often as they did present themselves to Celebrate that Holy Mystery. I say, obliging all that are capable, when they present themselves before God, to Celebrate the memory of his precious Death, and his Blood shed for their Redemption, to drink of that Cup, which is the Memorial and Symbol of his Blood shed for them. For sure, the means which Christ appointed for such an end, aught to be used by all who are obliged to pursue that end: Since therefore all Christians are obliged Sacramentally to remember, That Christ shed his Blood for them, and by that Blood shed, confirmed the New Covenant to them; and since Christ hath appointed the drinking of this Cup and this alone, to be the memorial of his Blood shed, all Christians, capable of doing so, must be obliged, when they do Sacramentally Commemorate these Mercies, to drink of this Cup. And this demonstratively follows from the ensuing words, Verse. 26 Do this, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me; for as often as you eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, you show the Lord's death till he come; for they do manifest, that as well by drinking of the Cup, as eating of the Bread the Lord's Death is showed, and that until his second coming, both these things are to be done in order to that end: And since these words are not the words of Christ, but of St. Paul, who speaks here of the whole Church of Corinth; the words preceding, Do this, as oft as you shall drink it, in remembrance of me, must belong also to all the Members of that Church, because of the connective Particle which joins the 25th and 26th Verses, and makes it necessary that the same persons should be spoken to in the words. This do, etc. and in the following words, For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup. And if this was the Duty of the whole Church of Corinth, it must be equally the Duty of the whole Church of Christ, there being no peculiar reason why the Church of Corinth should be obliged to drink this Cup, in order to these ends, more than all other Christian Churches.  
And when our Lord hath taken so great Care to tell us, That the Bread is his broken Body, and therefore is to be eaten in remembrance of him, i. e. of his Body broken; that the Cup is the New-Tastament in his Blood, and therefore is to be drank in remembrance of his Blood shed for us: When his Apostle doth as distinctly say, 
1 Cor. x. 16.  The Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ, the Cup which we bless is the Communion of the Blood; and neither of them have hinted in the least, that the Cup is the Communion of his Body, or the Bread of his Blood, but by a particular and separate institution, distribution, and signification ascribed to them, have strogly insinuated the contrary; for men, after all this to say one of these Species will suffice, for the Bread is as well the blood shed as the broken Body, and the participation of it is the Communion of the Blood of Christ, and that by the partaking of it, we do as well remember and show forth the shedding of his Blood upon the Cross, as by the partaking of the Cup, is to my apprehension an affront offered to our dear Lord, and to the Wisdom of the Holy Ghost.  
In Answer to these Arguments, some of the Roman Doctors are pleased to say, that this Discourse of the Apostle imports only a conditional Order to do this in Remembrance of Jesus Christ, as often as one shall do it, and not an order absolutely to do it.  
To this I Answer, 1st. He who not only doth command us at the celebration of the Sacrament, to remember his Blood shed, but also Institutes a sign for the memorial of it, and doth command us to use this sign, because it is appointed to be the memorial of it; commands us when we receive the Sacrament, to receive that sign, for he who wills the end, must will the means which he hath instituted for the accomplishing that end; but this doth Christ, for he institutes a Cup of Wine to represent his Blood shed; he saith, Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood shed, this I command you to do in remembrance of me: He therefore doth command us when we receive the Sacrament to receive this sign, which, in his Institution of this Sacrament, he appointed as the means of this remembrance.  
2dly. He who commands us to drink this Cup, as oft as we drink it in remembrance of him, because we do by drinking of it show forth the Lords Death till he come, commands us to do it as oft as we receive the Sacrament, seeing as oft as we receive the Sacrament, we show forth the Lord's Death; but Christ, saith the Apostle, did lay upon us this command for this very Reason, saying, Do this, as oft as you shall drink it, in nomembrance of me, for as often as you shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup, you show forth the Lord's Death till he come.  
3dly. Where there is parity of Reason, there the command may very well be deemed of equal latitude and extent, for ratio legis est lex, where there is equal reason to command, there may we reasonably suppose the will of the Lawgiver to be equal in commanding, but there is equal reason why our Lord should absolutely command the drinking of the Cup in remembrance of his Blood shed, as why he absolutely should say, touching the eating of the Bread, Do this in remembrance of me, the one being as much the Symbol of his Blood shed, as is the other of his broken Body, and the one showing forth his Death as much as doth the other; we therefore have no cause to doubt, but that he equally intended the doing both in order to this end.  
§ 3 Second, That it doth not appear either from the words of our Saviour, Joh. vi. or from the practice of himself or his Disciples, that he left this practice indifferent, will be made evident from an impartial consideration both of our Saviour's words and of his practice, and first to clear up the true meaning of our Lord's Discourse in the Sixth Chapter of St. John; Let it be observed,  
First, That our Lord's mystical Expressions of labouring for the Meat that doth not perish, of eating the true Bread from Heaven, are by himself plainly expounded to import only the believing on him, or the embracing of him as their Prophet and their Saviour; for when he had exhorted them to labour for the meat that did not perish, he tells them, v. 29. That this was to believe on him that God had sent; when he had told them, v. 35. That he was the Bread from Heaven, he immediately adds, He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. Having said, that he was he Bread which cometh down from Heaven, and giveth. Life unto the World, v. 33. He confirms this Expression, v. 40. by these words, This is the Will of my Father, that every one that seethe the Son, and believeth on him should have eternal Life. And again, v. 47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting Life, I am that Bread of Life.  
Secondly, Observe, that nothing was more common among the Eastern Nations, than to express the Actions of believing, embracing, and obeying the words of Wisdom, 
Vide Leight. Hor. Hebr. in Joh. p. 112, 113.  or harkening to her Councils and Instructions, by eating and by drinking of them: Thus Wisdom cryeth in the Streets, saith Solomon, Come eat of my Bread, and drink of my Wine that I have mingled; 
Prov. ix. 5.  that is, Go in the way of understanding, v. 6. Eat you that which is good, and let your Soul delight itself in Fatness; that is, 
Isa. lv. 2.  Incline your Ear, hear, and your Soul shall live. And by the Son of Syrach Wisdom is introduced speaking thus, They that eat me shall yet be hungry, and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty, Ecclus. xxiv. 21. i. e. He that obeys me, v. 22. Hence Philo the Jew informs us, That, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
In Joh. vi. v. 51.  to eat is a Symbol of Spiritual nourishment. Add to this that of Mr. Leightfoot, That the Talmudists make frequent mention of eating the Messiah, and thereby understand only their being made partakers of his Benefits: And that of Clemens of Alexandria, upon that passage of St. Paul, I have fed you with Milk, 
Strom. l. 5. p. 579.  and not with strong Meat, viz. Milk is the rudiments of Faith, or the Doctrines of the Catechism, the first nourishment of the Soul, strong meat, a comtemplation which makes us to discern the divine power and essence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; these, Contemplations, are the Flesh and Blood of the Word; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the meat and drink of the divine Word is the knowledge of the divine Essence.  
Thirdly, Observe that from these Metaphors our Lord proceeds to that contained in these words objected by the Roman Doctors, v. 51. The Bread which I will give is my Flesh, which I will give for the Life of the World; that is, It is my Body which I will give up unto death, that by it the world may have life, which is a greater Benefit exceedingly than that which you received from that Manna which Moses gave you in the Wilderness, or from that meat with which I did so lately fill your Bodies. The Jews taking these words in a gross sense, as if our Lord had promised to give his real Flesh to be swallowed down their Throats, and eaten by them as they had eaten Bread the day before, and as their fore- Fathers had eaten Manna in the Wilderness, exclaimed against him, as promising a thing absurd, inhuman and impossible, saying, How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat? to this our Saviour Answers, v. 53. in words still more expressive of his violent and bloody Death for the salvation of Mankind; viz. Except you eat my Flesh, and drink my Blood, etc. Now these words are by some conceived to import thus much, Unless you with the Mouth of your Bodies do eat my real and corporeal Flesh, and drink my proper Blood, you cannot have eternal Life.  
Having premised these Observations, I shall now proceed to show both from this Chapter, and from other Reasons, that our Lord spoke not here of oral and corporeal eating of his natural Flesh, and drinking of his proper Blood, but only of doing of these things spiritually; and that not only in the celebration of that Sacrament which by our Lord was Instituted for the remembrance of his Death and Passion, but generally believing that by his Death and Passion he became the Saviour of the World, and purchased Pardon and Salvation for all that hearty believed in him, and would sincerely yield Obedience to his precepts. And,  
1. Against the gross, and for the spiritual Interpretation of these words I argue from the 51. v. thus, The Flesh which Christ here promised to give for the Life of the World, is the same with the Bread of God that cometh down from Heaven, and giveth Life unto the World, v. 33. for so we learn expressly from these words; I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven, if any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever; and the Bread which I will give is my Flesh, that I will give for the Life of the World. And again, having said, He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life, v. 54. and he that eateth me shall live by me, v. 57 he adds immediately, This is the Bread which came down from Heaven— and he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever. Now our Lord hath expressly taught us, that the eating of this Bread of Life imported only our believing on him, v. 35. as hath already been made evident from our second Observation; therefore the eating of his Flesh doth certainly import the same spiritual Action. Moreover we are only to eat of Christ as Flesh, in that importance of the Phrase in which we are to eat of Christ as Bread, for as Christ saith, he will give Flesh to eat, so doth he say, he will give Bread to eat; as he saith, He that eateth of my Flesh shall live for ever, so he saith He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever; but none can say that Christ was or could properly be Bread, or eaten by the Mouth as such, wherefore he being only figuratively and spiritually Bread, could only figuratively and spiritually be eaten as Bread; if therefore in the same importance only we are to eat his Flesh, that also is to be eaten in a spiritual Sense.  
2. From these words, v. 52. How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat? 'tis evident the Jews conceived that our Lord promised to give them his proper Flesh to eat, and swallow down their Throats, as they had done the Bread with which he fed them. And it on all hands is agreed, that they mistook the sense of Christ's words, and fancied such a meaning of them as he did not intent; but had our Lord intended the corporeal eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood, 'tis certain that it must be swallowed down their Throats, as properly as was the Bread which they had eaten; and therefore no Man who maintaineth this corporeal eating of Christ's Flesh to be intended here, can, suitably to his Opinion, say, That they imposed a false sense upon our Saviour's words, since from this sense it does inevitably follow, that Christ intended that his humane Flesh should properly be eaten; and their words signify no more. Add to this one Consideration, which shows what apprehensions the Fathers of the first Three Centuries had of this eating of the Flesh of Christ, viz. when 'twas objected to them by the Heathens that they did eat Man's Flesh, they constantly in their Apologies reject the accusation as the vilest calumny, and as a most abominable thing sufficient to discover that the Author of such an institution must be some wicked Damon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; We Christians, saith 
Apol. 2. p. 70. 1. 50.  Justin Martyr, do not own the eating of humane flesh, it is an infamous thing, and falsely is reported of us: This is, saith 
Ad Authol. l. 3. p. 119, 126.  Theophilus, the most wicked and inhuman of all Crimes objected to us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that we partake of humane flesh, it is not possible we should be guilty of so vile a thing. Amongst us there is no eating of Man's flesh, saith 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Contr. Graec. p. 162.  Tatian, you are false witnesses who say this of us. No Man, saith 
Legat. p. 38.  Athenagoras, who is not mad, can charge us with this thing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for we may not eat humane flesh. It is the Calumny of the Devil, saith 
P. 32.  Minutius. You may be ashamed to object it to us Christians, saith 
Apol. cap. 9  Tertullian; whereas had they received this as an Article of Christian Faith, that they did daily eat the Flesh of the Man Christ, and thought that this Discourse not only taught, but even obliged them so to do, I know not with what Truth or what Sincerity they could, without all limitation or exception, not only have denied, but even detested the doing so.  
But that which puts it without dubt, that Christians in the Primitive Ages had no apprehension, that Christ by this Discourse had taught them, that his proper flesh and Blood was to be eaten in the Sacrament, is the memorable History of Sanctus and Blandina, two Christian Martyrs, written by Iraenene Bishop of Lions, and preserved to us in 
In 1 Pet. two. 12. p. 149. g. a.  Oecumenius thus, That the Heathens having apprehended the Servants of Christians Catechised, and using force with them, that from them they might learn something secret; the Servants having nothing to say that might be pleasing to their Tormentors, in as much as they had heard from their Masters, that the Holy Sacrament was the Body and Blood of Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; they thinking that it had indeed been flesh and blood, told this to the Inquisitors, who apprehending, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if the Christians had done that very thing, gave notice of it to other Heathens, and they endeavoured by torments to force the May tyrs, Sanctus and Blandina, to confess it, to whom Blandina readily and boldly answered, saying, How should they endure these things who so fast as not to enjoy lawful Flesh. This, I say, is a clear indication, that the Ancient Christians did not believe that in this Sacrament they did eat Christ's proper flesh and blood, or that our Lord did here require them to do so; for if they had thus thought, how could Irenaeus have represented it as a plain mistake, both in these Servants and these Heathens, to think the Sacrament was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, really Christ's flesh and blood; and that the Christians by receiving of it did really eat Flesh and Blood? How could he have introduced Blandina refuting this Imagination, had it been the Sentiment of the then Church of Christ, since by so doing, she must have rejected one great Article of Christian Faith? How, lastly, could Oecumenius have inserted these words into his Commentary, without endeavouring to sweeten, and explain, and reconcile them to the Doctrine of the proper Manducation of Christ's Flesh and Blood.  
Again, since that this Doctrine came into the world, that is, since it was broached first by Paschasius in the Ninth Century, the Assertors of it give two Reasons why, though we corporally eat that very Flesh which suffered on the Cross, and drink that very Blood which was then shed corporeally, yet is that Flesh and Blood concealed from our outward Senses under the shape of Bread and Wine. The first is this, 
C. 13. Al. 36.   ridiculum nullum fiat Paganis quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus, that we might not be ridiculous to the Pagans, by eating humane Flesh, and drinking the Blood of a slain Man; for this, saith he, would make our Religion execrable, and cause them to condemn the Christians as the vilest of Men: And again, should the shape of Flesh appear, it would be 
C. 37.  Perfidis execratio, execrable to the Heathens. 'Tis thus concealed, saith 
Alger. l. 2. c. 3. f. 15. b.  Algerus, Ne infidelibus pateat, & eorum Blasphemiis vilescat, Lest it should appear to Infidels, and lie open to their Blasphemies, and lest they should judge us inhuman and cruel, as being eaters and drinkers of humane Flesh and Blood. Secondly, Lest christian's perceiving things raw and bloody, should be filled with horror, saith 
P. 133. b.  Lanfrank, lest if the Faithful should perceive the Colour and the taste of Flesh and Blood, humana pietas abhorreret, humane piety should abhor the Action, saith 
L. 2. c. 3.  Algerus. Should it appear thus, saith 
P. 224.  Hugo Lingonenesis, Rarius in terris esset qui hoc non abhorreret, There would be scarce a Man on Earth that would not abhor it. It would, saith 
P. 215. h.  Petrus Cluniacensis, Fidem laedere, vel ad scandalum quorumlibet possit corda movere, Be prejudicial to the Faith, and scandalise the Minds of all Men. The profit of the receiving the Sacrament would be hindered, saith 
Impediretur perceptionis ejus commoditas pro humani corporis comedendi horrore injecto. L. 1. c. 7. l. 1. c. 16.  algerus, by the horror of eating humane flesh, quoniam Christum vorari dentibus fas non est, for it is not lawful to devour Christ with the Teeth. Now let us in the fear of God consider, whether that Sense of Scripture is to be received, which makes that certainly to be believed by the eye of Faith, which if it were perceived by the Eye of Sense, would render our Religion Ridiculous, and execrable to the Pagan World; which, did we see ourselves but ready to perform what actually we do, we should utterly abhor to do, and should be horribly scandalised at our own Actions, which did Men see us do, they could not but esteem us cruel and inhuman: Since that the Heathens have understood this is become an Article of Christian Faith, do they not open their Mouths in Blasphemies against us, as freely as if they saw us eat and drink Glorist's flesh and blood corporeally? Did not 
Apud Dionys. Carth. in Sent. 4. Dist. 10. Art 1.  Averro declare in the 12th. Century, He found no Sect more foolish than the Christians, because they eaten the very God they worshipped? Doth not 
Apud Hotting. Hist. Eccl. Saec. 16. Part. 2. p. 160.  Achmed Ben Edris say, We use Christ worse than did the Jews, because it is more Savage to eat his flesh and drink his blood, than only to procure his Death? Do not the 
Monsieur la Boulay Voyag. part. 1. c. 10. p. 21.  Mahometans point at us, saying, There goes a God-eater? And doth not then this their Doctrine render their Religion as plainly Execrable and Ridiculous to the Heathen world, as if they saw them eat of humane flesh and drink of humane blood?  
3. The 53. v. affords two further Arguments in Refutation of the corporeal sense of these Expressions, 1. That it follows plainly from it, that the Thief upon the Cross, and all the pious and believing Jews who heard these words, and died before our Saviour's Passion, 
Joh. vi. 4.  must of necessity be damned, for our Lord saith with an asseveration to them, Except you eat the flesh, etc. now this was said at least above a Year before our Saviour's Passion, and so before the Institution of that Sacrament, in which alone his flesh could be corporally eaten; and therefore had it been intended of corporeal and sacramental eating, it was impossible that any person of those Hearers could be saved, who died in the ensuing year. 2. These words interpreted in the corporeal Sense do plainly and inevitably infer, That they who do deprive the Laity all their whole lives of drinking of this blood, expose them to inevitable damnation, Christ having said, Except you drink the Blood of the Son of Man, you have no Life in you; for though eating and drinking being taken figuratively, do signify the same thing, viz. believing in a crucified Saviour; yet being taken properly, they cannot be reputed the same thing: For albeit they who receive the body only, may be well said to eat the flesh of Christ, because they take something by way of Meat into their Mouths, yet cannot they be said to drink his blood, if they take nothing into their Mouths by way of Drink: Since therefore eating and drinking are two distinct Actions, so that he cannot properly be said to drink, who only eats, since the privation of Life is here connected with not drinking of Christ's Blood, as much as with not eating of his flesh, according to the corporeal Interpretation pretation of these words, he must certainly be deprived of the Life here promised, who doth not receive the Cup; because he is deprived of drinking of the Blood of Christ.  
4. From Vers. 54, 56. the Argument runs thus, whoseover eateth the Flesh, and drinketh the Blood of Christ in the sense here spoken of, abideth in Christ, and Christ in him; and therefore is a true and living Member of Christ's Body, and he shall have Eternal Life, and be partaker of an happy Resurrection, and so no person can be either wicked here, or deprived of Everlasting Life hereafter, who in this sense here mentioned eats of the Flesh, and drinketh of the Blood of Christ. Now this is very true of eating Spiritually, and by Faith, as it imports believing on Christ; for Verse. 40 This, saith Christ, is the Will of him that sent me, That every one who believeth on the Son may hve Everelasting Life; and I will raise him up at the lat Day: but then of Sacramental eating of Christ's Flesh, it is as false; for this was eaten by a Judas, and continually is eaten by Millions who are both wicked here, and will be damned hereafter; this therefore cannot be the import of our Saviour's words: and here observe, 1. That our Lord speaks in the general, whosoever eats. 2. That he speaks thus, not by way of Promise, which might be conditional, but by way of plain Assertion, and declaration of a thing most certain. And, 3. That the Text shows the eating mentioned here, can never be performed unprofitably, no not without the greatest benefit; for 'tis opposed to the eating of Manna in the Wilderness, on this account, that whereas that gave only Temporal Life, this would assuredly confer Eternal; whereas that was not able to preserve from Temporal, this would preserve from Death Eternal.  
5. Moreover, Vers. 61, & 62. our Lord speaks thus, Doth this offend you, what if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before: i e. are you offended that I thus speak of giving you my Fleh to eat; do you look on this Expression now as so absurd and unintelligible, what then will you think of it, when this Body shall be removed hence to Heaven? i. e. HOw will you then be scandalised, and think it still more difficult, and more impossible to apprehend how you should eat my Flesh and drink my Blood, provided you go on to understand my words in the gross carnal Sense. For Athanasius 
In illud Evang. Quicunque dixerit, P. 979.  saith well, That Christ here mentioneth his ascent into Heaven, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That he might divert them from the corporeal sense; and therefore argued thus, "  it will be hen impossible that you should corporally eat my Flesh, when it is so far removed from you; by this you may discern, I speak of a spiritul eating of it. Whence by the way we learn, That Christ thought his Ascension into Heaven sufficient demonstration to the Jews, his Flesh could not be eaten upon Earth; and why it should not be so to the Christian I am yet to learn.  
6. The 63. Vers. affords us a more plain and certain Exposition of our Saviour's meaning in the precedent words; for thus they run, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the Flesh profiteth nothing; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. de ecclesiaftic. Theolog. l. 3. c. 12.  The words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life: For the import of these words is to this effect; unto that eating and drinking, of which in this Discourse I have still spoken, I have annexed the Promise of Life, saying expressly, He that eateth me shall live by me; he shall by me be quickened: Now all Men know, That 'tis the Spirit in them that gives them Life, and when that Spirit is taken from them, the Flesh cannot live, or minister to the continuance of their Life; by which similitude you may plainly learn, I spoke not of my real Flesh, when I told you, that by eating it, you should have Life, but of my Word and Doctrine, that of my Passion more especially; for my words which I speak to you, they are Spirit, and they are Life; i.e. if you will hearken to them, they will make you live Spiritually here, Eternally hereafter, and by so doing will be Life: yea, where they are embraced, they are that to the new Man, which is the Spirit to the Flesh; they give him Life, Activity, and Motion, and therefore they are Spirit. Had our Lord said, it is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing, therefore the Flesh which I will give, shall be still joined to my Divinity, and by the virtue of it give you Life, he had said somewhat like the sense which others put upon this Text; but saying only, The words which I speak unto you, they are Spirit, we cannot doubt but he speaks of eating and of drinking of his words spiritually.  
7. Our Saviour having said unto the Twelve, Will ye also go away? St. Peter Answers, To whom should we go? Thou hast the words of eternal Life, and we believe thou art that Christ the Son of the living God. Where, (1.) observe, that Peter here doth as it were repeat the words of Christ; My words are Life, saith Christ; Thou hast the words of Life eternal, saith St. Peter; whereas, if he had understood our Saviour, to have spoken here of Oral Manducation, his Answer would in all probability have been to this effect, Whatsoever appearance there may be of inhumanity, absurdness, and impossibility in eating of thy natural Flesh, and drinking of thy Blood; yet we believe it, because thou hast said it, who art Truth itself, and who art able to make good thy words; we therefore hearing nothing of this tendance from him, we may conclude, that he knew nothing of this import of them. And, 2. observe, that he thought it sufficient to say, We believe thou art the Christ, which if our Lord spoke here of Oral Manducation, was nothing to the purpose, but if he only spoke of spiritual eating of him, was the very thing which was designed by our Lord in this Discourse, and which he spoke of in those words, which so much offended others. We therefore conclude with Clemens of Alexandria, That 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Paedag. lib. 1. cap. 6. pag. 100 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. ibid. pag. 104, 105.  when our Lord said, Eat my Flesh and drink my Blood, he allegorically meant the drinking of Faith, and of the Promises, and that our Lord is by way of Allegory to those that believe in him, Meat, Flesh, and Nourishment, and Bread, and Blood. With Tertullian, That 
De Resur. Carn. cap. 36, 37.  our Lord all along urged his intent by Allegory, calling his word flesh, as being to be hungered after, that we might have Life; auditu devorandus, ruminandus intellectu, & fide digerendus, to be devoured by the Ear, ruminated upon by the mind, and by Faith digested. With Origen, That 
Bibere autem dicimur sanguinem ejus verusest citanquam mundo 73.  we are said to drink his Blood, when we receive his words, in which Life consists, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed, because he feedeth all Mankind with the flesh and blood of his word, as with pure meat and drink. With 
Ubi supra.  Eusebius, That his Words andDoctrines are Flesh and Blood. With Arhanasius, That 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tom. 1. pag. 979.  the words which Christ spoke were not carnal but spiritual; for how many could his Body have sufficed for Meat, that it should be made the Food of the whole World. With St. Austin 
Tract. 25. in. Johan. Tom. 9 p. 218. & Tract. 26. p. 223   quid paras dentes, & ventrem, crede & manducasti, credere enim in eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum, why providest thou Teeth and a Belly, believe, and thou hast eaten, for to believe in him, is to eat the living Bread. And lastly with 
Licet & in Myfterio possit intelligi, tamen verius Corpus Chrifti, & sanguis ejus sermo scripturarum est. In Psal. 147. fol. 94. a.  St. Jerom, In the truest Sense, the Body and the Blood of Christ is the Word and Doctrine of the Scripture: Caro Christi & sanguis ejus in auribus nostris infunditur, the flesh and blood of Christ is poured into our Ears. We say in the Language of Origen, 
Hom. 7. in Levit. ibid.  Si filii estis Ecclesiae,— agnoscite quia figurae sunt,— si enim sedundum literam sequaris; If you are Sons of the Church, own these things to be Figures, for if you follow the Letter, this very saying, Except you eat the Flesh, is a kill Letter: In the words of 
Ubi supra.  Eusebius pronounced in the name of Christ, do not think that I speak of that Flesh with which I am compassed, as if you must eat of that, neither imagine that I command you to drink of my sensible and bodily Blood, but understand well, that the words that I have spoken to you, they are Spirit and Life; for, as St. Austin saith, touching the Exposition of Scripture Phrases, 
De Doctrine. Chriftiana li. 3. cap. 16.  If the saying be preceptive, either forbidding a wicked Action, or commanding that which is good, it is no figurative Speech, but if it seems to command any wickedness, or to forbid what is profitable and good, it is figurative. This saying, Except you eat, etc. seems to command a wicked thing, it is therefore a figure, enjoining us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord, and sweetly and profitably to remember that his Flesh was wounded and Crucified for us.  
2. 
§ 4. Luc. xxiv. 30.  I should proeed Secondly to show, That it doth not appear from the practice of Christ himself in breaking Bread, and giving it unto Two Disciples at Emaus; nor from the practice of this Disciples, 
Acts ij. 42.  who are said to have continued in breaking of Bread, and who were gathered together to break Bread; 
Acts xx. 7.  that both our Lord and his Disciples communicated in one ikind only: But these Pretensions have been so fully answered by a late excellent Discourse of Communion in one kind, in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux from Pag. 22 to 28, that it is superfluous further to insist upon them, especially seeing the Author of the 
Li 6. pag. 486.  History of the Trent Council hath informed us, that 'twas the Judgement of some of the Fathers there, That all these places must be laid aside as impertinent to this matter, or insufficient to prove that for which they are produced, because had they concerned the Eucharist, they must have been Instances, not only of taking, but also of consecrating the Holy Sacrament in one kind, and so by them it would be concluded that it was not sacrilege to consecrate one kind without the other; which, say they, is contrary to all the Doctors, and the meaning of the Church, and overthroweth the distinction of the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrifice, and as it is a Sacrament.  
3. Waving this therefore, I proceed Thirdly to show, 
§ 5.  that it was the Custom of the Church to give the Sacrament to the Sick, and to Infants capable of receiving of it, in both kinds. And,  
1. Whereas J.L. doth with true Romish confidence affirm, That all ancient Writers do attest, that it was the custom to give this Sacrament under one kind to the Sick; the contrary is extremely evident, not only by the instances collected by the learned 
De Cultu Lat. l. 5. c. 11. p. 641, 642.  Dally, of Sick Persons who communicated in both kinds from the 4th. to the 10th. Century, but also from the Canons of the whole Church of Christ; for in the third Century St. Cyprian, and the Presbyters of Rome inform us, That they had agreed that 
Si urgere exitus ceperit. Ep. 18. Si premi infirmitate aliqua & periculo coeperint. Ep. 19 si de Saeculo excederint. Ep. 20. item Ep. 30, 31.  if the lapsed Penitents were endangered by sickness, and they were nigh to Death's door, they should be admitted to the peace of the Church, and that they should be relieved in the thing which they desired. How was it that they did relieve the infirm when death approached? even the same way that they did the strong, 
Ep. 57  Protectione sanguinis, & corporis Christi, With the protection of the Body and the Blood of Christ, faith Cyprian. What was it that they desired, and some of them invaded? St. Cyprian informs us that it was 
Ep. 31.  Sanctum Domini, The Holy of the Lord; it was the Eucha rist, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ; which St. Cyprian shows plainly, by saying it ought not to be given to them till they had done penance, confessed and received imposition of hands, because it is written, 
Ep. 16.  He that eats the Bread or drinks the Cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. What was it that they endeavoured to extort? St. Cyprian saith, It was 
Vis infertur corpori ejus & sanguini, De Lapsis, p. 128.  the Body and the Blood of Christ, being angry with, and even threatening the Priests, that they did not 
Quod non statim Domini corpus inquinatis manibus accipiat, aut ore polluto Domini sanguinem bibat.  presently receive the Body of Christ into their defiled Hands, or drink the Blood of the Lord with their polluted Mouth. What was it that Trophimus a lapsed Priest was admitted to? St. Cyprian saith, It was 
Ut Laicus communicet, Ep. 55.  Lay-Communion. Now what that was, 
Haec erat tunc temporis cummunio Laica cujus adeo participes Euchariftica Sacramenta, Speciem inquam utramque panis & vini sumebant.  Rigaltius upon the place informs us, saying, That it was the participation of both Species, but as a Layman, not in the Order of Priests, to which having once lapsed, he was not by the Discipline of those Times to be again admitted, and this was the Law established by the Councils of those Times in Rome, Africa, and many other places, touching the receiving of Penitents. This, saith 
Hoc est, apud Cyprianum lapsis pacem dari, Hoc est, ad communionem corporis & sanguinis Domini admitti. Not in Can. 11. Concil. Tolet. undecimi.  Garsias Loaisa is that which Cyprian styles, affording them the peace of the Church, even the giving them admission to the Body and the Blood of Christ. According to this Law which generally obtained, Dionysius of Alexandria lest it in command to his Preshyter, that if any of the Penitents who were about to departed this Life, should ask is, and chief, if they had before been Supplicatns for it, 
Hist. Eccl. l. 6. cap. 44. Vide Not. in locum.  they should participate of the Divine Gifes, and so be sent out of the World. This is that 
O 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can. 13.  old Canonical Law, confirmed by the first Nicene Council, that if any one (who had not finished his time of Penance) was about to die, he shouldnot be deprived, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of his last and most necessary Viaticum; that is, say Zonaras and Balfanon, he should not be deprived, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the participation of the consecrated Gifts: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; of the participation of the Divine Mysteries, saith 
Con. Oxon. Tom 2. p. 180.  Matthew Blastares. This is that Law of the Fathers of which 
Epist. Canon. p. 121.  Gregorius Nyssen speaks, when he saith, That the Philanthropy of the Fathers took care, that if any departed this Life, having not finished his Penance, he should, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, participate of the consecrated Gifts, that he might not be sent out of the World without his Viaticum.  
The same we learn from the 6th Canon of the Council of Ancyra, which commands, If these Penitents be in danger of Death, they shall then be permitted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Come to full Communion; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; to the Communion of the Holy Gift, saith Zonaras: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; To the participation of the Divine Sacraments, saith Balsamon. From the 73 Canon of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  St. Basil, which Decrees, That he who denies Christ (in times of Peace) shall be a Penitent all his Life, and only be admitted to the participation of the Sacraments at his Death; and from the Second Canon of Gregorius Nyssen, which Decrees in like manner, That such a one shall be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deprived of the Mystical Sacraments till he comes to die, and only then partake of them.  
Now albeit those Canons speak chief of such persons as were in a state of Penitence, yet since, as 
Not. in Can. 11. Con. Tolet undec.  Garfia Loaisa notes, it was looked upon by the Ancients as an Argument of eternal Life, and an heavenly Gift granted to those who were going to their eternal Rest, to be worthily refreshed, pabulo Corporis & Sanguinis Domini, with the Food of the Body and the Blood of our Lord, which therefore was fitly called their Viaticum. And since it cannot be imagined, that the Faithful should at the close of their Life be excluded from what was granted to the Penitents, these Canons must convince us, that it was a standing and universal Custom of the whole Church of Christ, confirmed as such by the first Nicene Council, to give the Sacrament in both kinds to dying Persons. And though we cannot doubt that a Custom established by so many Canons, continued to be observed in the Church, had we no other Evidence of its continuance to future Ages, yet in this case we find great evidence of the continuance of this Custom for a Thousand Years. For the 11th. Council of Toledo saith, That 
Solet humaze naturze infirmitas, in ipso mortis exitu praegravata, tanto siccitatis pondere deprimi, ut nullis ciborum illationibus refici, sed vix tandem illati delectetur poculi gratia suftentari, quod etiam in multorum exitu vidimus, qui optatum suis votis S. Communionis expetentes Viaticum, collatam sibi a Sacerdote Eucharistiam rejecerunt, non quod infidelitate hoc agerent, sed quod, praeter Dominici Calicis haustum, traditam sibi non possunt Eucharistiam deglutire.— Quicunque ergo fidelis inevitabili qualibet infirmitate coactus, Eucharistiam perceptam rejecerit, in nullo Ecclesiae damnationi subjaceat. Concil. Tom. 6. pag. 552.  the infirmity of humane nature was often at the time of Death depressed with such a weight of drought that they could scarce receive the Cup, that they had seen this in the exit of many, who desired the wished for Viaticum of the Holy Communion, have cast out of their Mouths the Eucharist given to them by the Priest, not out of infidelity, but because they could swallow nothing besides a draught of the sacred Cup. Whence they Decree. That whosoever of the Faithful, by an inevitable infirmity being compelled to do it, casts out of his Mouth the sacred Eucharist, shall be subject to no penalty for so doing. Whence we learn, 1st. That dying Persons than desired this Viaticum inboth kinds. sdly. That the Priests accordingly did attempt to give it them in both kinds. 3dly. That it was culpable then not to receive both, except in cases of necessity unavoidable.  
3. This will be farther evident from the very Forms of Communicating the Sick, used in the Ancient Liturgies of the Church, and from the Canons which concern this Affair. For, after the Unction of the infirm Person, it was the Custom to give him the Communion, and that he received in both kinds, is evident from the words of the Priest, who ministered the Sacrament; viz. 
Corpus & sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam zeternam. Amen.  The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul to Life eternal: And from the following Prayer, viz. 
Domine Sancte Pater Omnipotens aeterne Deus, te fideliter deprecamur ut accipienti huic fratri nostro famulo tuo Sacro-sanctum Corpus & sanguinem Jesu Christi filii tui Domini noftri tum Corporis & animae sit salus. Ex Theodori Poeniten. p. 326.  Father omnipotent, eternal God, we faithfully pray thee that the Holy Body and Blood of our Lord received by our Brother, thy Servant, may tend to the Salvation of his Body and Soul. 
Apud Larroq. Hist. Euch. p. 135, 136.  Hugh Menard tells us from a Manuscript of St. Remy of Rheims, That when the sacrament was ministered to such as were not extreme ill, it was said unto them separately, the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you to life everlasting, the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ransom you to Life everlasting, which words make a separate and distinct reception. But as for those who were at the point of Death, these two Expressions were joined together, The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul unto everlasting Life, because there was given to the Sick Person in a Spoon the Body of our Lord steeped in the Holy Blood. The reason of this steeping we learn from the 
Quae sacra oblatio intincta debet esse in sanguine Christi, ut veraciter Presbyter possit dicere infirmo, corpus & sanguis Domini proficiat tibi in vitam aeternam. De Discip. Eccles. l. 1. can. 70.  Canon of the Council of Tours, cited by Regino, That every Priest shall have his Pyx or Vessel worthy of so great a Sacrament, where the Body of our Lord shall be carefully reserved for the Viaticum of the Sick, and that this sacred Oblation ought to be steeped in the Blood of Christ, that the Priest may truly say to the Infirm, The Body and the Blood of our Lord profit thee to Life eternal, and for the Remission of Sins.  
Now this practice, and the reason of the practice here assigned and approved of, do expressly show their Faith was this, That the Priest could not name them both without a Lie, unless he gave both; and that they who enjoined that what Christ had instituted to be received separately, should rather be received together, than that either Species should not be received at all, did think both Species necessary to a full and entire Communion, as it hath been well noted by Cassander. For to what purpose should hey so carefully require this intinction, if they had then believed that there was nothing wanting to the Grace, or the integrity of the Communion, when they received under one Species alone?  
And though this be abundantly sufficient to show what was the practice of the Church till the 12th Century, yet it is easy to produce farther evidence of this matter. A Synod held in the Region of Ticinum, and therefore styled Synodus Regio Ticinensis, thus Decrees, That 
Si is qui infirmatur publicae poenitentiae mancipatus est, non potest hujus myfterii consequi medicinam, nisi prius reconciliatione percepta communionem corporis & sanguinis. Christi meruerit. Concil. Tom. 8. p. 64.  if who is infirm is in a state of Penance, he cannot have the benefit of this Mystery, viz. of Sacred Unction, unless being first reconciled, he be worthy of the Communion of the Body and the Blood of Christ. And mongst the things which visibly and wholesomly are done in the Church, 
In perceptione corporis & sanguinis ejus— infirmis Viaticum dari. L. 1. de Sacr. Euch. cap. 7. fol. 18. b.  Algerus mentioneth the giving the Body and Blood of our Lord for the Viaticum of the Sick, In the 13th Century 
L. 3. contr. Albing. cap. 7.  Lucas Pishop of Tuy informs us of an Heretic, who being Sick was admonished by his Host to send for a Priest, and discourse with him as a Penitent, that he might receive from him, Sanctissimum Sacramentum corporis & fanguinis Domini, the most holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Now all these Instances do plainly show, that it was far from being a received and authorized Custom of the Church, to Communicate the Sick under the Species of Bread alone, or to give nothing to them, but one Species only.  
On the contrary, it is extremely evident from all the Canons of the Church produced, touching the case of Penitents and others, that it was a thing established by the highest Authority of the whole Church of Christ, that both the holy Mysteries should be exhibited to the infirm and dying Person. And seeing the Ancients looked upon it as so great a benefit to dying Persons, to be refreshed with the food of the Body and the Blood of Christ, since they took so much care to give the Bread steeped in the consecrated Wine to them, who, through infirmity of Body, could not sallow it down dry, and to minister each Species apart to them who were not extreme ill; since, as 
De Discipl. eccles. l. 1. c. 195.  Regino doth inform us, they determined, that great care was to be taken, lest the doing this being deferred too long, it should prove to the destruction of the Soul, our Lord having said, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you shall have no life in you. I say, from all these things it is extremely evident, that it was a receied, and in subjects capable, was deemed a necessary thing to communicate the infirm and dying person under both Species of Bread and Wine.  
Moreover, 
§ 6.  that Children also, if capable of doing so, received in both kinds, will be evident against the precarious Assertion of J.L. 1. From the clear Testimony of St. Cyprian in his Book De Lapsis, for there he introduceth the Children who by their Parents were carried to eat things offered to Idols, or to offer to them, thus pleading of their Cause to God, 
Nos nihil fecimus, nec derelicto cibo & poculo Domini, ad profana contagia sponte properavimus, perdidit nos aliena perfidia, parents senfimus parricidas, p. 125.  We have done nothing, nor did we of our own accords, leaving the Meat and Cup of the Lord, hasten to these profane contagious Solemnities, our Parents were our Parricides. Where he affords us a plain demonstration, that they then ordinarily received both the Elements; for had they not, as many as were capable, received the Bread, as well as the Cup, why doth he introduce them purging themselves from the neglect of both? Why doth he make them, with as much care, to plead, We did not leave the meat, as we left not the Cup of the Lord?  
Having thus shown the custom of this Age, I shall consider what is, from St. Cyprian, suggested to the contrary, viz. that he relates, That the solemnities being ended, the Deacon who presented the Holy Cup to the Faithful, being to give it to a Child, 
Pag. 67.  she turned away her face, as not able to support so great Majesty; she shut her Mouth, and refused the Chalice, and when the Deacon had forced some of it into her Mouth, she could not retain it in those defiled Entrails, so great was the power and Majesty of our Lord. Whence it is argued, that she received the Cup only. Now to give a clear and satisfactory Answer to this Objection, it will be necessary to reflect a little upon the Customs of these times, as V Gr.  
1. The business of the Deacon, which was not to administer the Bread, but when the Priest or Bishop had administered that, to follow with the Cup. So the Apostolical Constitutions order, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. 8. c. 13.  Let the Bishop give the Oblation, saying, The Body of Christ— And the Deacon let him hold the Cup, and giving it, let him say, The Blood of Christ, the Cup of Life. and accordingly here, this happened, faith St. Cyprian, 
Ubi Calicem Diaconus offere praesentibus coepit. P. 132.  When the Deacon began to distribute the Cup to them that were present; and is it then to be admired, that here is no mention made of the Body? if hence it follows, That no Body was distributed to this Child, it also follows, that no Body was given to the rest of the Faithful then present; for there is no more mention made of the Body given to them, than of the Body given to the Child. Nor could S. Cyprian regularly speak of it, when discoursing of the Deacon, who then ministered the Cup only.  
2. Note Secondly, That the Children received in the Rank of the Women; so the same Constitutions, speaking of that order in which the Encharist was to be received, saith, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  Amongst the Women let the Diaconesses, the Virgins, and the Widows Receive, and then the Children; and this was doubtless ordered so, that the Women might take care of their Children, and assist them in Receiving; 
Ibid.  accordingly, this Child comes in the Arms of its Mother, and when she had Received, Locus ejus advenit, Came the time for the Child to Receive too.  
3. Note thirdly, That the Bread was not then put into the Mouth, as it is now in the R. Church, but it was given into the Hand of the Receiver, to eat at leisure of it, whilst the Bishop or Priest went on distributing, as is acknowledged by the learned 
Vid Dallaeum de cult. lat. l. 5. c. 2.  Doctors of the Church of Rome, and proved by innumerable Testimonies of the Ancients, Now it is not to be conceived that they who had a reverence for the Holy Sacrament would put it into the Hands of little Children, who might let it fall, or throw it away, or that the Priest should stay till he could make the Child eat, or swallow it down, but rather, that he should give it to the Mother, from whose Hands the Child more likely would receive it, and who could better chew it for, and put it down his Throat. This being so, the Bread might be given to the Mother for the Child to eat at leisure, and the Priest take no notice of her refusal to receive it; but then, because the Cup was by the Deacon to be received again into his hands to be distributed to otehrs', he must stay till the Child had participated, and so he must endeavour to make it drink of it. And this, I verily believe, is the whole Truth touching this instance; which therefore is no proof at all, that both the Symbols were not offered, or distributed to this Child, but only that she had not eaten of the Bread given to her Mother for her use, before the Deacon followed with the Cup. Nor can this reasonably be questioned, if we consider how constantly the Tradition of the Church informs us in all the following Centuries, that Children received in both kinds: For,  
To omit the passage in the Apostolic Constitutions, where they are reckoned amongst those who received the Eucharist; when without any distinction or exception, the Bishop separately gave the Bread, and the Deacon the Cup to all. Dionysius in the Fourth Century informs us, That 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Phot. c. 177. Eccles. Hier. c. 7. p. 360, 361.  little Children did partake of the most holy Symbols of the divine Communion. And Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia, expressly notes, That 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  they gave to Infants the Communion of the immaculate Body for the Remission of Sins, where 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 400.  Photius adds, That he invented many absurd things, that he might solve the question of those that asked, Why do Children partake of the Holy Mysteries? in the plural, and that he might have found out better Solutions of that question, and given better accounts of that Custom than he did; he therefore Synecdochically spoke of the Receiving both these Mysteries. The passages of St. Austin in the fifth Century are very numerous, in which he both asserts it as an universal Practice, that little Children did partake of the Body and the Blood of Christ, and also saith, that without eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood, they could not have eternal Life. But having produced these already, I only add his Testimony that 
Innocentius P. sine Baptismo Christi & sine participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi vitam non habere parvulos dicit, Contra duas Ep. Pelag. l. 2. c. 4.  Pope Innocent the First declared, That Infants could not have Life without the participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ.  
To proceed now in farther confirmation of our Assertion, " There is no better proof, nor better interpreter of a Custom, than the Custom itself, nothing which more demonsrates that a Custom comes from the first Ages, than when it is seen to continue successively to the last: This of communicating little Children, not under the Species of Wine only, but of Bread also, or of both, is evidently such; for, in the 6th. Century 
De glor. Martyr. l. c. 10.  Gregory of Tours makes mention of a Jewish Child coming with other Children to the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood. In the 7th. Century the 
Concil. Tom. 6. p. 552.  11th. Council of Toledo, excuses those from censure, qui Eucharistiam receptam in tempore infantiae rejecerunt, who in their Infancy have cast out the Bread received into their Mouths. In the 8th. Century we are informed by Charles the Great, that this was then the general Custom of the Church of God; for, against the Doctrine of the Second Nicene Council, and of the Roman Church pronouncing Anathema to those who did not worship Images, he and his Council of 300 Bishops argue thus, that then Infants 
Car. Mag. de Imaginib. l. 2. c. 27.  Baptismatis unda loti, & corporis dominici edulio & sanguinis haustu satiati, pereunt; Infants who have been Baptised, and have received the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood must perish. In the 9th. Century we are told by 
Apud Menardum Not. in Greg. Sacr. p. 107.  Jesse Bishop of Amiens, That the Infant was confirmed by the Body and Blood of Christ, that he might be his Member. By 
Corpore & sanguine Dominico omne praecedens Sacramentm in eo confirmatur, quia haec ideo accipere debet, etc. De Inslit. Cleric. l. 1. cap. 29.  Rabanus Maurus, who saith, That the precedent Sacrament of Baptism is confirmed in the Baptised Porson by the Body and Blood of our Lord; for he therefore ought to receive these things, that he may be his Member who died, and rose again for us, and may deserve to have God dwelling in him: For he who is Truth itself saith, He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood abides in me, and I in him, and also, Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you shall have no Life in you. By 
De Ord. Baptiz. c. 18.  Theodulph Bishop of Orleans, That when any one is new born by Water and the Spirit, he is nourished with the body of our Lord, and drinks his Blood. By the old 
Statim autem confirmetur infans & communicetur ab Episcopo ita dicente, Corpus & Sanguis Domini, etc. Baluz. Not. in Reg. p. 551.  Roman Pontisicial, which saith, That the Infant being Baptised, he is presently confirmed and communicated by the Bishop, saying, The Body and the Blood of Christ, etc. In the 10th. Century we are informed of the continuance of the same Custom from a Pontificial written about the year 980, saith Baluzius, where it is commanded, 
Statim enim confirmari oportet Chrismate, & poftea communicari, & si Episcopus deest, communicetur 2 Presbytero dicante, Corpus Domini Jesu Christi custodiat te in vitam aeternam. Bal. not. in Reg. p. 552.  That the Baptised Infant should presently be Confirmed and Communicated by the Bishop, or in his absence by the Priest, saying, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep thee in Life eternal. In the 14th. Century we find the same Custom in 
Ne lactentur antequam communicent. De Sabb. Pasch. p. 64.  Alcuin from the very same words, which, saith he, were then used at the Communicating of the Infant after Baptism. And in the Three and thirtieth Epistle of Lanfranck we find these words, 
Credimus enim generaliter expedire omnes omnibus aetatibus tam viventes quam morientes dominici corporis & sanguinis perceptionese munire. Apud Baluz. ibid. p. 657.  We believe that it is generally very expedient for all Persons, of all Ages, living and dying, to arm themselves with the Reception of our Lord's body and his blood. Whence, faith 
Nor. ad librum Sacram, p. 298.  Baluzius, we gather, That in his time is was the Custom to give to Children the Communion of the Lord's Body and his Blood. And Hugh Menard, doth ingenuously confess, That the Custom of giving the body of Christ to Children, continued till the time of Paschal the Second, and that they gave it to them then dipped in the Wine, by reason of the wekness of their Age.  
That this was the Opinion of the Greek Church even almost to our present Age, we learn from 
L. 3. de S. Euch. cap 40.  Arcadius, whose words are these, They judge the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be required of necessity to Salvation, both to Adult and Infants, so teach Simeon Thessalonicensis, Nicholaus Cabasilas, and Gabriel Philadelphiensis, who all say, that the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Communion is therefore necessary, because the Lord hath said, If you do not eat my Flesh and drink my Blood, you have no life in you. We Baptise Infants, saith 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. cum Virtum. E. 1. c. 9 p. 85.  Jeremiah their Patriarch, and afterwards we give them the Communion; for, according to St. Basil, he that is regenerated, wants still spiritual Food; and our Lord hath said, Unless you eat, etc. 
Eccl. ord. c. 9 p. 98.  Metrophanes Critopulus adds, That their Infants are Baptised, and that then they afterwards partake as oft as their Parents will, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of both Species, at the Lord's Table, The Georgians, Circassians, and Mengrelians are of the same Religion with the Greek Church in all things, and therefore must be sof the same Opinion in this Matter. The Armenians minister the sacrament of the Eucharist to Infants in both kinds. So do the Habassines, saith 
Viagg. de Aethiop. c. 22.  Alvarez, and the Maronites, saith 
P. 178.  Brierwood.  
And here let it be noted, that not the latter Grecians only, but the Ancient Fathers did generally hold that this was necessary to be done, by virtue of that Precept, Except you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood, you shall have no Life in you, from whence it is extremely evident, that neither in the Fifth Age, when Infants were by virtue of this Text admitted to the Sacrament; nor in the following Ages of the Church, could it be an established Custom, to give to Children the Cup only.  
Lastly, That neither Leo nor Gelasius gave any new Precept to the Church touching this Matter, 
§. 7. Chap. 5. §. 2.  is partly evident from what hath been already said, nor are there any Footsteps of this new imaginary Law to be found in their Decrees: For the words of Leo only command, That when the sacrilegious dissembling of the Manichees was discovered, they should be driven by the Priest's Authority from the Society of the Saints. And the words of Gelasius do only say, That they, who, in the Region of Squillaci, were bound up by a Superstition unknown to him, from receiving the Cup, should either receive the whole sacrament, or be kept back from the whole. Where now, I pray you, is any appearance of this new pretended Law, or First Ecclesiastical Precept, That all the Faithful should from henceforth be obliged to receive under both Species, unless those words of Gelasius import, that the Receiving of the Bread without the Cup is not Receiving an entire Sacrament; or, unless his following Reason, That the division of one and the same Mystery cannot happen without Sacrilege, be a general Rule concerning all the Faithful?  
But to dispute no longer in a case so plain, both Leo and Gelasius sufficiently inform us of the practice of their times; for Leo doth not only say, That 
De pass. domini Serm. 14. p. 284.  participatio Corporis & sanguinis Christi, this participation of the Body and Blood of Christ is that by which the New Creature is fed and inebriated, from the Lord himself, That 
Ep. 46. c. 2. p. 518.  in the Church of God, in the Mystical distribution of the spiritual Nourishment, the Body and the Blood of Christ is taken: But adds, That 
Ser. Sancto de jejun. Sept. mensis Ser. 89.  the Lord saying, Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you shall have no Life in you; we ought so to communicate of this Holy Table, as not to doubt of the Truth of the Body and Blood of Christ. Gelasius also saith, 
Disp. de duabus naturis. Christi Bib. patrum. Tom. 4. p. 432.  That the Sacraments we take of the Body and Blood of Christ are a Divine Thing, whence by them we are made partakers of a Divine Nature, and yet the Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine doth not cease to be, or to remain, and in this Decree, that the taking of both Species is the taking of one and the selfsame Mystery, which therefore is not celebrated by taking of one Species only, and that the not receiving of the Cup, when the Bread hath been taken, is the dividing of one and the selfsame Mystery, or the destroying of its Unity; so that he argues against this practice from a Reason essential to the Mystery, and which respects the Unity thereof, which, by the practice of receiving in one kind only, is destroyed.  
Having thus demonstrated that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church till the 12th. Century taught, 
Cap. 1.  That the Laity by divine Precept were obliged to receive both kinds, when they were capable of doing so. 
Cap. 2.6.  That they condemned all variation from the matter of the Institution, and the Doctrine of Concomitance. 
Cap. 3.5.  That they conceived the Receiving of the Cup by the Laity was requisite to their showing forth the Lord's Death, their Union to Christ, the increase of Grace, the Remission of their Sins, the Sanctification and Salvation of their Souls and Bodies; and lastly, 
Cap. 4.  for their receiving an entire Communion. That they constantly exhorted the People, having received the Bread, to take the Cup also, 
Cap. 6.5.  declaring that it was Unlawful, Erroneous, and even Sacrilegious to receive the one without the other, if they were capable of receiving both; and having fully answered and confuted all that J.L. hath offered to the contrary, 
Cap. 8.  I shall conclude in these words of Mr. Condom on this subject a little varied; viz. Thus many constant practices of the Primitive Church, 
P. 160.  thus many different Circumstances, whereby it appears in particular and in public, and always with an universal approbation, and according to the established Law, that she gave the Communion under [both] Species, so many Ages before the Council of Constance, and from the origin of Christianity, till the time of this Council, do invincibly demonstrate, that this Council did [thwart] the Tradition of all Ages, 
P. 161.  when it defined that the Communion under one kind was as good and sufficient as under both, and that in which manner soever they took it, they neither contradicted the Institution of Jesus Christ, nor deprived themselves of the Fruit of this Sacrament.  
In his Second Part, 
P. 194.  Sect. 4th. he lays down this as a principle which alone carries along with it the decision of this Question. 
P. 195.  viz. That in all practical Matters we must always regard what has been understood and practised by the Church. 
P. 196.  That the true means to understand God's Holy Law, is to consider in what manner it has been always understood and observed in the Church. Since there appears in this Interpretation and perpetual Practice, a Tradition which cannot come but from God himself, 
P. 200.  and that Sense thereof which hath always appeared in the Church is as well inspired as the Scripture itself. Now by this, as he well saith, 
P. 203.  our Question is decided, for in the sacred Ceremony of the Lord's Supper, we have seen that the Church hath always believed and taught for a Thousand years and upwards, that the Laity by divine Precept, and for the ends forementioned, were obliged to receive both Species, that the Fathers exhorted them to do so, and did, both by express Declarations, and by many Customs and determinations, sufficiently condemn the contrary Practice, when any Heretics or Superstitious Persons did decline the Cup. That they did generally so Interpret our Saviour's Institution, that it as well concerned the Laity as Clergy, and with one voice asserted it was not lawful to vary from it, or celebrate the Mystery otherwise than it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles, and practised in the Primitive Church. Behold what has been always practised, behold what ought to stand for a Law, in opposition to all the Definitions of the Councils of Constance, Basil, Trent, and all their Non obstante 's to our Lord's Institution, and to the Practice of the Primitive Church.  
FINIS