The First Part: The Practise and Judgement of the Church from the First Ages

A division of this discourse into two parts.

This Question concerning the two Species, whatever is said thereof by those of the Pretended Reformed Religion, hath but an apparent difficulty, which may be solved by the constant and perpetuall practise of the Church, and by Principles assented unto by the Pretended Reformers themselves.

I shall then in this discourse lay open. 1. This Practise of the Church; 2. These Principles on which this Practise is grounded.

Thus the businesse will be cleared; for on the one side wee shall see the constant matter of Fact; and on the other side, the assured causes of it.

The First Part. The Practise and judgement of the Church from the first ages.

§ I. An Explication of this Practise.

The Practise of the Church from the Primitive times is, that Communicants received under one or both kinds, without ever imagining there wanted any thing to the integrity of Communion, when they received under one alone.

It was never so much as thought on, that the Grace annexed to the Body of our Lord was any other then that which was annexed to his Blood. He gave his Body before he gave his Blood; and it may be further concluded from the words of S. Lukc, and S. Paul,¹ that he gave his Body during the supper, and his Blood after supper, in such sort that there was a considerable interval between the two actions. Did he then suspend the effect, which his body was to produce, untill such time as the Apostles had received the Blood? or did they so soon as they had received the Body at the same instant receive also the Grace which accompanied it, that is to say, that of being incorporated to Jesus Christ, and nourished by his substance? Undoubtedly the later. So that the receiving of the Blood is not necessary for the Grace of the Sacrament, nor for the ground of the Mystery: The substance is there whol and entiere under one sole Species; and neither dos each of the Species, nor both togeather containe other then the same ground of sanctification and of Grace.

S.² Paul manifestly supposeth this Doctrine when he writes, that Hee who eateth this Bread or drinketh the Chalice of our Lord unworthily, is guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord: From whence he leaveth us to draw this consequence, that if in receiving the one or the other unworthily wee profane them both, in receiving either of the two worthily wee participate of the Grace of both.

To this there can be no other reply, but by saying, as the Protestants also do, that the disjunctive particle or which the Apostle makes use of in the first part of the Text, hath the force of the conjunctive, and of which he serveth himselfe in the second. This is the only answer M.³ Jurieux affords to this passage, in the treatise he lately published upon the subject of the Eucharist; and he calls our Argument a ridiculous cavill, but without ground. For though he had made it out, that these particles are sometimes taken the one for the other, yet here, where S. Paul useth them both so manifestly with designe, in placing or in the first part of his discourse, and reserving and for the second, wee must of necessity acknowledge, that by so remarkable a distinction he would render us attentive to some important truth; and the truth which he would here teach us is, that if after having taken worthily the consecrated Bread, wee should so forgett the Grace received, afterwards to take the sacred liquor with a criminall intention, wee should be guilly not only of the blood of our Lord but also of his Body. A truth which can have no other ground then what wee lay dowen (viz) that both the one and the other part of this Sacrament have the same foundation of Grace, in such a manner as that wee cannot profane one without profaning both; nor also receive either of the two devoutly, without partaking of the sanctity and vertue both of the one and the other.

'Tis also for this reason, that from the beginning of Christianity the faithfull beleeved, that after what manner soever they communicated, whether under one or both species, the Communion had alwayes the same efficacy of vertue.

§ II. Four authentick Customes to shew the judgement of the Primitive Church.

Four authentick customes of the Primitive Church demonstrate this Truth. These customs will appeare so constant, and the oppositions made against them so contradictory and vaine, that I dare avouch an expresse acknowledgement of them would not render them more indisputable.

First Custome. Communion of the sick.

I Finde then the custome of receiving under one kind or Species in the Communion of the sick; in the Communion of infants; in domestick Communions formerly in practise when the Faithfull carryed the Eucharist home to communicate in their own houses; and lastly (a thing which will much surprize our Reformers) in the publick and solemne Communions of the Church.

These important and decisive Points have, I confesse, been frequently handled; yet peradventure all the vaine subtilities of the Ministers have not been sufficiently examined. God by his Grace assist us to performe this in such a manner that not only antiquity may be illustrated but that truth also may be come manifest and triumphant.

The first practise I insist upon, is that the sick were usually communicated under the Species of Bread alone. The Species of wine could not be either so long or so easily reserved, being too subject to alteration, and JESUS CHRIST would not that any thing should appeare to the sense in this mystery of Faith contrary to the ordinary course of nature. It was also too subject to be spilt, especially when it was to be carryed to many persons in places far distant, and with very little conveniency during the times of persecution. The Church therefore would at once, both facilitate the Communion of the sick, and avoid the danger of this effusion, which was never beheld without horror in all ages, as hereafter shall appeare.

The example of Serapion recorded in the Ecclesiasticall History,⁴ makes cleare what was practised in regard to the sick. He was in pennance: but as the law required that the Eucharist should be given to Penitents when they were in danger of death, Serapion perceiving himselfe in this state, sent to demande this holy Viaticum. The Priest, who could not carry it himselfe, gave to a young man a small parcell of the Eucharist which he ordered him to Moisten and so convey into the mouth of the old man. The youth being retourned home moistned the parcell of the Eucharist and at the same time infused it into the mouth of Serapion, who having by degrees swallowed it, presently gave up the Ghost. Although it appeares by this relation, that the Priest sent only to his penitent that part of the Sacrament which was solid, in that he ordained only the young man, whom he sent, to moisten it in some liquor before he gave it to the sick person, yet the good old man never complained that any thing was wanting: on the contrary, having thus communicated he departed in peace: and God who myraculously preserved him untill he had been partaker of this Grace, enfranchised him immediately after he had received. S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria, who lived in the third age of the Church, writ this history in a letter cited at large by Eusebius of Caesaraea, and he writ it to a renowned Bishop, mentioning this passage as a thing then usuall, by which it is demonstrative that it was received and authorized, and moreover so holy that God was pleased to confirme it by a visible effect of his Grace.

The most able and ingenuous Protestants Willingly acknowledge there is no mention made,⁵ but of the consecrated Bread in this passage. M. Smith a Protestant Minister of the Church of England accordeth hereunto in a learned and judicious Treatise which he writ some yeares since; and he owneth at the same time, that there was nothing reserved but the consecrated Bread in Domestick communions, which he regards as the source of that reserve which was made for the sick.

But M.⁶ de la Roque a famous Minister who has writ an history of the Eucharist, and M.⁷ du Bourdieu a Minister at Montpellier, who has lately dedicated to M. Claude a treatise concerning the taking away of the Cupp, approved by the same M. Claude, & by another of his brethren, have not the same sincerity. These would willingly persuade us that this Penitent received the holy Sacrament under both kinds, and that the two species were mixed togeather, as it was often practised, but a long time after these primitive ages, and as it is still practised in the East at the ordinary communions of the faithfull. But besides, that this mixture of the two species, so expressly seperated in the Gospel, is but a late invention and appeares no sooner then in the VII. age, where it appeares even then only to be forbidden, as wee shall see hereafter; the words of S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria wil not beare the interpretation of these gentlemen, sayng the Priest, of whom he there speakes, doth not command to mingle the two species, but to moisten that which he gives, that is to say without doubt the solid part, which having been kept severall dayes for the vse of the sick according to the perpetual custome of the Church, stood need of being moistned in some liquor that it might enter the parched throat of an agonizing man.

The same reason makes the Fathers of the III. Council of Carthage, to which S.⁸ Augustin subscribed, say, that the Eucharist must be infused into the mouth of a dying man: infundi ori ejus Eucharistiam. This word infused, infundi, dos not denote the blood alone, as it might be imagined; for from what has been said out of Eusebius and the history of Serapion wee find, that although the consecrated bread and the solid part of the Blessed Sacrament were only given, yet they expressed it by infusion when they gave it steeped in any liquor for its more easy reception only. And Rufinus, who writ in the time of the III.⁹ Council of Carthage, in his translation of Eusebius expresses Serapions communion no other wise then the Council, saying that they caused a little of the Eucharist to be infused into his mouth: Parum Eucharistiae infusum jussit seni praeberi. The which demonstrates the custome of these primitive times, and explicates what was meant by this infusion of the Eucharist.

It is the interest of Truth only which obliges me to make this remarke, seing in the substance it imports little to our subject, wheather the body or the blood alone were given to the sick, and that in short it is still to communicate under one species alone. For as to the distribution of the two species mixed togeather, I feare not that any one who is sincere (if never so little read in antiquity) should imagine it to have beene in use in these primitive times, during which it appeares not upon any account that so much as the Idea was had of it. The History of Serapion makes it sufficiently appeare, that the consecrated bread alone was carryed from the Preist to the sick; and that it was in the sick mans house they moistned it, to the end he might swallow it with more ease; and that they were so far from the thought of mingling it with the blood, that they mad use of another liquor to steepe it in a common liquor taken at the house of the sick. In fine, this distribution of the body and blood mixed togeather begins not to appeare till the VII.¹⁰ age in the Council of Brague, where it is moreover forbidden by an expresse Canon. From whence it is easy to comprehend how much a coustume, which at first appeares only in the VII. age in a Canon which disapproves it, is short not only of the third age, and the time of S. Denis of Alexandria, but likewise of the fourth and that of the third Council of Carthage, (viz) three or four hundred yeares.

Wee shall see, in another place, hwo much difficulty was made to admit of the establishment of this mixture even in the X. and XI. age especially in the Latine Church; and this will serve as a new argument to demonstrate how little it was thought of in the primitive times, and in the III. Council of Carthage: from whence may be undoubtfully gathered that the Communion which was there ordained for the sick was, without doubt, under one species, and moreover, like that of Serapions, under the species of bread only.

Neither will there be any difficulty to acknowledge this when we reflect upon the manner how S. Ambrose communicated at his death in the same age. Wee have the life of this Great man writ at the intreaty of S. Augustin and dedicated to him by Paulinus S. Ambroses Deacon and Secretary (whom Erasmus improperly confounds with the great Saint Paulinus Bishop of Nole) in which he relates that S. Honoratus the famous Bishop of Verceil, who was come to assist this Saint at his death, heard this voice three times during the silence of the night. Rise, stay not, he is going to dye. He went down, presented him the body of our Lord, and the Saint had no sooner received it but he gave up the ghost. Who dos not see that this great Saint is represented to us, as one for whom God took care that he should dye in a state where nothing more could be desired, seeing he had just received the body of his Lord? And at the same time who would not beleeve, that he had communicated aright in receiving after the same manner that Saint Ambrose did in dying; after the same manner that Saint Honoratus gave it; after the same manner it was writ to Saint Augustin; and after the same manner the whole Church saw it, without finding therein any thing of new or extraordinary.

The subtility of the Protestants is at a losse about this passage.¹¹ The famous George Calixte, the most able amongst the Lutherans of our times, and he who has writ the most learnedly upon the two species against us, sustaines, that Saint Ambrose received in both kinds; and for an answer to Paulinus, who relates only, that the body was given him which he had no sooner received but he gave up the Ghost; this subtile Minister has recourse to a Grammaticall figure called Synecdoche which puts the part for the whole, without ever so much as offering to bring us one example of such a kind of speech in a like occasion. Oh strange effect of a prejudicate opinion! Wee see in the Communion of Serapion an assured example of one only species, where the restriction of the figure Synecdoche cannot have the least admittance, seeing Saint Denis of Alexandria expresses so precisely, that the bread and solid part alone was given. Wee finde the same language and the same thing in the Council of Carthage, and wee see at the same time Saint Ambroses communion, in which there is no mention of any thing but the body. Nay further (for I may well here presuppose what I shall presently demonstrate) all ages shew us nothing but the body alone reserved for the ordinary communion of the sick: and yet this consequence must not be allowed, and a Synecdoche without aledging one example must be preferred to so many examples that are received. What blindnesse, or rather what cavill is this!

If these Gentlemen would act sincerely and not study how to evade rather, then to instruct, they would see that it dos not suffise to alledge at random the figure Synecdoche, and to say that it is ordinary, by the use of this figure, to expresse the whole by its part. All things are eluded by these meanes, and nothing of certain is left in speech. A man must come to the matter proposed in particular, and to the place under debate. He must examin, for example, weather the figure he would apply to this relation of Paulinus, be found in any other of the like nature, and weather it agree in particular to that of this Historian. Calixt dos nothing of all this because all this would only have served to confound him.

And at the very first sight it is cleare and certain the figure of which he speakes is not one of those which are common in ordinary speech, as when wee say to eat togeather, to expresse the whole feast, and to drink as wel as to eat, or as the Hebrews mentioned bread alone to expresse in generall the whole nourishment. It is not the custome of Ecclesiasticall language, nor in common use to name the body alone to expresse the body and the blood, seing on the contrary we may finde passages in every page of the fathers, where the distribution of the body and blood is related in expressely naming the one and the other; and it may be for certain held that this is the ordinary practice.

But without tiring our selves unprofitabley in the search of those passages where the Fathers may have mentioned the one without the other, nor the particular reasons which might have obliged them to it; I will say (sticking to the Examples debated of in this place) that I have never seen any relation, where in recounting the distribution of the body and the blood, they have expressed only one of the two.

And if I have not observed any example of this, neither has Calixte remarked any such more then I; And what ought to make any one beleeve that there is none, is that a man, so carefull as he has been to heap togeather all he can against us, has not beene able to finde any.

I finde also M.¹² du Bourdieu (who has writ since him, and read him so well that he followes him almost throughout, and therefore ought to have supplyed his defects) tells us, not upon occasion of Paulinus and Saint Ambrose but upon occasion of Tertullien, that if this Father in speaking of Domestick Communion (of which wee shall also treat in its proper place) has mentioned nothing but the body and consecrated bread, without naming the blood or the wine, it is that he expresses the whole by the part, and that there is nothing more common in books and ordinary in humain language. But I find not, that in the matter wee treat of, and in the relation which is made of the distribution of the Eucharist, he has found in the Fathers, any more then Calixte, one single example of an expression, which according to him should be so common.

Behold two Ministers in the same perplexity Calixtes finds the body alone mentioned in the communion of the sick, and M. du Bourdieu the same in domestick communion. Wee are not astonished at it: wee beleeve that the body alone was given in both these Communions: These Ministers will beleeve nothing of it: both of them bring the figure Synecdoche where by to save themselves: both of them are equally destitute of Examples in the like cases: What therefore remaines but to conclude, that their Synecdoche is but imaginary, and that in particular, if Saint Paulinus speake only of the body in the Communion of Saint Ambrose, it is in effect that Saint Ambrose did receive nothing but the body only, according to custome? If he tell us that this great man expired immediately after having received, wee must not here search after subtilityes, nor fancy to our selves a figure: It is the simple truth and matter of fact which makes him thus plainly relate what passed.

But to the end wee may compleat the conviction of these Ministers, supposing that their Synecdoche is as common in such like cases as it is rare or rather unheard of: let us se whether it agree with the passage in question, and with the History of Saint Ambrose. Paulinus sayes, S. Honoratus being gone to repose during the silence of the night, a voice from heaven advertised him that his sick man was going to expire; that he immediately went down, presented him with the body of our Lord, and that the Saint give up the Ghost presently after having received it. How comes it to pass that he did not rather say that he dyed immediately after having received the pretious blood, if the thing hapned really so? Were it as ordinary as Calixtus would have it, to expresse only the body, to signify the receiving of the body and the blood, by this figure, which puts the part for the whole: it is as naturall also, for the same reason and by the same figure, the blood alone should be sometimes made use of to expresse the receiving under both the one and the other species. But if ever this should have hapned, it ought to have been cheefly upon the occasion of this Communion of Saint Ambrose and of the relation which Paulinus has left us of it. For since he would shew the receiving of the Eucharist so immediately fallowed by the death of the Saint, and would represent this great man dying as another Moyses in the embraces of his Lord; If he intended to abridge his discourse, he should have done it in abridging and shuning in the relation of that part or action wherein this Holy Bishop terminated his life, that is to say in the reception of the blood, which is alwayes the last; and the rather because this supposed the other, and it would have beene in effect immediatly after this, that the Saint rendred up his blessed soule to God. Nothing would have so much struck the senses; nothing would have been so strongly printed in the memory; nothing would have presented it selfe sooner to the thoughts and nothing by consequence would have run more naturally in discourse. If therefore no mention of the blood be found in this historian, it is indeed because Saint Ambrose did not receive it.

Calixtus foresaw verry well,¹³ that the recitate of Paulinus would forme this idea naturally in the readers mindes, and it is thereupon that he adds, it may verry well be that they carryed to the Saint the pretious blood togeather with the body as equally necessary, but that Saint Ambrose had not the time to receave it being prevented by death: Oh unhappy refuge in a desperate cause! If Paulinus had this idea; instead of representing us his holy Bishop as a man who by a speciall care of the Divine Providence dyed with all the helps which a Christian could wish for, he would on the contrary by some word have denoted, that notwithstanding this heavenly advertissement, and the extreame diligence of S. Honoratus, a sodain death had deprived this sick Saint of the blood of his Master and of so essentiall at part of the Sacrament. But they had not these Ideas in those times, and the Saints beleeved they gave and received all, in the body only.

Thus the two answers of Calixtus are equally vaine. In like manner M. du Bourdieu his great follower has not dared to expresse eather the one or the other, and in that perplexitay whereinto so pecise testimony had thrown him he endeavours to save himselfe by answering only that.¹⁴ Saint Ambrose received the communion as he could; not dreaming that he had immediately before said they had given the two species to Serapion, and that, if it had been the custome, it would not have been more difficult to give them to Saint Ambrose. Moreover if they had beleived them inseparable as these Ministers with all those of their religon pretend, it is cleare that they would raither have resolved to give neither of the two, then to give only one. Thus all the answers of these Ministers are turned against themselves, and M. du Bourdieu cannot fight against us without fighting against himselfe.

He has notwithstanding found another expedient to weaken the authority of this passage, and is not afraid, in so knowing an age as this is, to write that before this example of Saint Ambrose there is not any tract to be found of the Communion of the sick in any words of the ansients.¹⁵ The testimony of Saint Justin, who in his second Apologie sayes they carryed the Eucharist to those that were absent touches him not:¹⁶ For Saint Justin, sayes he, has not expressely specifyed the sick; as if their sicknesse had been a sufficient cause to deprive them of this common consolation, and not raither a new motive to give it them. But what becomes of the example of Serapion? Is it not clearly enough said that he was sick, and dying? Tis true: but the reason was, because he was one of those who had sacrifised to Idols, and one that was ranked amongst the penitents. He must have been an Idolator to merit to receive the Eucharist in dying, and the faithfull who during the whole course of their lives have never been excluded from the participation of this Sacrament by any crime, must be excluded at their death, when they have the most need of such a succour. And thus a man amuses himselfe, and thinks he has done a learned exploit when he heaps togeather, as this Minister does, the examples of dyinh persons where there is no mention made of communion; without reflectinh that in these descriptions wee often omit that which is most common, and that probably wees hould not have known by this testimony of Paulinus that his Bishop had communicated, if this writer had not intended to shew us the particular care which God tooke to procure him this grace.

But is this Minister ignorant that in these occasions one only positive testimony renverses the whole fabrik of these negative arguments, which they build with so much industry upon nothing? and is it possible he should not lee that the example alone of Saint Ambrose shews us an established custome, seeing that so soon as Saint Honoratus knew this great man was dying, he understood, without having need that the Eucharist should be mentioned to him, that it was time to carry it to this sick Saint? No matter: The Ministers would have one to doubt of this custome, to the end they may give some resemblance of singularity and novelty to a communion, which was but too clearly given to a Saint, and by a Saint, under one species. And what shall wee say to Calixtus who seems to be astonished that wee dare count Saint Ambrose amongst those who communicated under one species¹⁷ in dying? Is it not effect an unheard of baldnesse to say this after a grave Historian who had been an eye witnesse of what he writes, and who sent his history to Saint Augustin, after having writ it at his intreaty? But the businesse is they must be able to say they have answered; and when they are at a non plus it is then the most confidence must be showen.

In a word, we finde in Paulinus nothing but the common customes of the Church which every where makes no mention but of the body, when it mentions that which was kept for the sick.¹⁸ The second Council of Tours celebrated in the yeare 567. ordaines that the body of our Lord should be placed upon the Altar, not in the rank of the Images, non in imaginario ordine, but under the figure of the Crosse, sed sub Crucis titulo.

By the way it may be noted that there were Images placed in the Churches, and that there was a Crosse during these primitive ages: it was under this figure of the Crosse they reserved the body of our Lord, and the body only; for this reason peradventure it is, that Gregory of Tours at the same tyme this Council was held, tells us of certaine Vessalls or Tabernacles in forme of Towers,¹⁹ wherin the Box or Pix containing or Lord's Body, was reserved, and which were placed on the Altar in tyme of Sacrifice; without doubt in Order to the Adoration of the Sacrament soe reserved.

By the Ordinance of Hincmarus the famous Archibishop of Reims who lived in the 1 x. age,²⁰ there ought to be a box where the holy oblation for the Viaticum of the sick should be decently conserved: both the box and the word it selfe of holy oblation shew sufficiently to those who understand Ecclesiasticall language,²¹ that only the body was there meant which was ordinarily expressed by this name, or by that of Communion, or simply by that of the Eucharist. The blood was expressed either by its naturall name, or by that of the Chalice.

Wee finde in the same times a Decree of Leo the IV.²² where after having spoke of the body and blood for the ordinary communion of the faithfull, when he treats of the sick he speaks only of the box, where the Body of our Lord was kept for their Viaticum.

This Ordinance is repeated in the following age by the famous Rathierus Bishop of Verone; and some time after, under King Robert,²³ a Council held at Orleans speakes of the ashes of an infant that was burnt, which some abominable heriticks hept with as much veneration as Christian piety observes in the custome of keeping the body of our Lord for the Viaticum of the sick. Wee finde here also the body and the blood expressed in the Ordinary communion of the Faithfull, and the body only for that of the sick.

To all these authorityes wee must joyne here that of the Ordo Romanus,²⁴ which is not little, seing it is the antient Ceremoniall of the Roman Church cited and explicated by authors eight or nine hundred yeares since. Wee see there in two places the consecrated bread divided into three parts, the one to be distributed to the people, the other to be put into the Chalice, not for the communion of the people, but for the Priest alone, after he had taken the consecrated bread separately, as wee do at this present, and the third to be reserved upon the Altar. It was this they kept for the sick, which was for that reason called the dying peoples part,²⁵ as the Micrologist an author of the eleventh age sayes, and was consecrated in honour of the buriall of JESUS-CHRIST, as the two other parts represented his conversation upon Earth and his resurrection. Those who have read the antient interpreters of the Ecclesiasticall Ceremonyes understand this language and the mystery of these holy Ceremonyes.

The Author of the life of Saint Basile observes likewise, that this great man separated the consecrated bread into three parts the third of which he hung over the Altar in a Dove of Gold he had caused to be made.²⁶ This third part of the consecrated bread which he ordered to be placed there, was manifestly that which was reserved for the sick, and these Doves of gold to hang over the Altars are antient in the Greeke Church, as it appeares by a Council of Constantinople held by Mennas under the Empire of Justinien.²⁷ Wee see likewise these Doves amongst the Latins, neere the same time: all our Authors make mention of them; and the will of Perpetuus Bishp of Tours remarkes amongst the vessells and instruments made use of in the Sacrifice,²⁸ a Dove of silver wherein to keepe the Blessed Sacrament, ad repositorium.

Furthermore, without tying my selfe to the name of Amphilochius S. Basils Contemporary, to whom the life of this Saint is attributed, I will admit that the passage taken out of this life proves only for that time in which this History was writ, let who will be the author of it. Let them say moreover if they will, that this Author attributes to S. Basil the practise of those times in which this life was composed; yet is it enough in either case to confirme what is otherwise certain, that the custome of reserving the species of Bread only for the sick, is of great antiquity in the Greeke Church, seing that the life of Saint Basil is found already translated into Latin in the time of Charles the bald,²⁹ and cited by Eneas Bishop of Paris renowned in these times for his piety and learning, who moreover quotes the very place in this life where mention is made of these Doves, and of the Sacrament of our Lord kept therein and hung over the Altar.

Hereunto may be reduced those Ciboriums mentioned amongst the presents which Charlemagne gave to the Roman Church;³⁰ and all antiquity is full of the like examples.

And to the end the Tradition of the first and last ages may appeare conformable to each other, as wee have seen in the first ages, in the history of Serapion, and in the Council of Carthage, that in communicating the sick under the species of bread only, they moistned it in some liqueur: so does the same custome appeare in after ages.

Wee see this above six hundred yeares since in the antient customs of Clugny,³¹ collected at that time out of most antient memorials by S. Udalricus a Monke of this Order,³² and the Minister de la Roque in his history of the Eucharist cites this booke without any reproche. It is remarked in this booke that the infirme Religious received the body only, which was given to them steeped in unconsecrated wine. There wee finde also a cupp in which it was steeped, and thus it was the Religious of the most famous and most holy Monastery in the world communicated their sick. By this wee may judge of the custome of the rest of the Church.³³ In fine wee find every where mention of this cupp which was carryed for the communion of the sick,³⁴ but which was made use of only to give them the consecrated bread moistned in common wine to facilitate the passage of this heavenly food.

The Greeks also retained this tradition as well as the Latins; and as their inviolable custome is not to Consecrate the Eucharist for the sick but upon holy Thursday only, they mixe the species of bread, wholy dryed during so long a time, either with water or unconsecrated wine. As for consecrated wine it is manifest it could not be kept so long especially in those hot countryes, so that their custome of consecrating for the sick only one day in the yeare, obliged them to communicate them under one only species, that is under that of bread which they could keepe without difficulty their Sacrifice in leavened bread keeping better them ours in unleavened, especially after the drying wee lately mentioned.

It is true (for wee will dissemble nothing) that at present they make a Crosse with the pretious bloods upon the consecrated bread which they reserve for the sick. But besides that this is not to give the blood of our Lord to drink as it is expressed in the Gospell, nor to marke the seperation of the body and the blood, which alone perswades our Reformers of the necessity of the two species: It abundantly appeares that at the yeares end nothing remains of one or two drops of the pretious blood which they put upon the heavenly bread, and that there is nothing left for the sick but one only species. To which wee must add, that after all, this custome of the Greeks to mixe a little of the blood with the sacred Body (concerning which wee see nothing in their antient Fathers or Canons) is new amongst them; and wee shall finde some occasion to make this more clearely appeare in the following discourse.

Those who deny every thing, may deny these observances of the Greeke Church; but they do not therefore cease to be indubitable, and no one can deny it without a wonderfull insincerity, if he be never so little read in the Euchologes of the Greeks, or instructed concerning their rights.

And as for the Latin Church,³⁵ the Councils are full of necessary precautions for the conserving of the Body of our Lord, the carrying it with respect and a convenient decorum, and to cause a due adoration to be rendred to it by the people. They speake likewise of the box and linnen in which it was kept, and of the care which the Priests ought to have to renew the Hosts every eight dayes, and to consummate the old ones before they drunke the holy cup. They ordaine likewise how those Hosts, which had been kept too long, should be burnt, and the ashes reserved under the Altar, without so much as ever speaking, amongst so many observances, either of vialls to conserve the pretious Blood in, or of any precautions for the keeping of it, although it be given us under a species much more capable of alteration.

Wee may aledge also upon the same account a Canon, which all the Ministers object against us: It is a Canon of the Council of Tours, which wee finde not in the volumes of the Councils,³⁶ but in Burchard and Yvo of Chartres collectors of the Canons of the eleaventh age. This Canon as well, as others sayes, that the holy oblation which is kept for the sick, that is the species of bread as appeares by what followes, ought to be renewed every eight dayes: but id adds, which wee finde no where else in the West, that it must be dipped in the blood to the end it may be said truly that the body and blood is given.

If this Canon gave us any difficulty,³⁷ wee might say with Aubertin, what is very true, that Burchard and Yvo of Charters collected many things togeather without choice or judgement, and that they give us many peices as antient which are not such. But to act in every thing which sincerity, it may be said, that this Canon so exactly transcribed by these Authors is not false, as also that it is none of those which were admitted, since wee see nothing like it in all the others.

Moreover this Canon which does not appeare but in above named collections for certain was not made any long time before, and the sole mixing of the body and blood shews sufficiently how far short it is of the first antiquity. But let it be in what time it will, it is apparent that before it was made it was the custome to name the body and blood even in giving the body only, and this by the naturall union of the substance and the Grace both of the one and the other. Wee see neverthelesse that this Council had some scrupule concerning this matter, and beleeved that in expressing the two species, they ought both of them to be given in some manner. In effect, it is true, that in some sence, to be able to call it the body and the blood the two species must be given, because the naturall dessine of this expression is to denote that which each of them containes in vertue of the Institution. But it will be granted me that to mix them in this manner, and let them dry for eight dayes togeather was but a very weake meanes to conserve the two species; and how ever it be this part of the Canon which containes a custome so particular, cannot be a prejudice to so many decrees, where wee see not only nothing resembling it, but moreover quite the contrary.

That which is most certain is that this Canon makes it appeare they did not beleeve the holy liquor could with ease be conserved in its proper species, and that their endeavours were cheefely to conserve the consecrated bread. As to the other part which regards the mixture, what wee have said tooching the Grecians may be applyed here; and all the subtility of the Ministers cannot hinder but it will alwayes be certain by this Cannon, that they never beleeved themselves bound either to make the person communicating drink, or to give him the blood seperated from the body, to denote the violent death of our Lord, or lastly to give him in effect any liquor at all seing after eight dayes, it is sufficiently cleare there remained nothing of the oblation but the drye and solid part. So that this Canon so much boasted of by the Ministers without concluding any thing against us, serves only to shew that liberty which the Churches thought them selves to have in the administration of the sacred species of the Eucharist.

After all these remarks wee have made, it must passe for constant and undeniable, that neither the Greeks nor the Latins ever believed, that all that is writt in the Gospell tooching the communion under two species, was essentiall and expressely commanded; and that, on the contrary, it was allwayes believed even from the first ages that one sole species was sufficient for a true communion seing that the custome was to keepe nothing for, nor give nothing to the sick, but one only.

It serves for nothing to object, that the two species were frequently carryed to the sick, and more over in generall that they were carryed to those that were absent. Saint Justin,³⁸ I owne is expresse in this matter: But why do they alledge to us these passages which serve for nothing? It is one thing to say, as Saint Justin does, that the two species of the Sacrament were carryed at the same time (as M. de la Roque speaks) it was celebrated in the Church:³⁹ and another thing, to say they could reserve them so long a time as was necessary for the sick, and that it was the custome to do so, especially in a time when persecution permitted not frequent Ecclesiasticall assemblyes.⁴⁰ The same thing must be said of Saint Exuperius Bishop of Toulouze, of whom Saint Hierome writ, that after he had sold all the rich vessells of the Church to redeeme captives and solace the poor, he carryed the Body of our Lord in a basket, and the Blood in a vessell of glasse. He carryed them sayes S. Hierome, but he does not say he kept them, which is our question: And I acknowledge that when there was any sick persons to be communicated, in those circumstances where they could commodiously receive both the species without being at all changed, they made no difficulty in it. But it is no lesse certain, by the common deposition of so many testimonys, that where as the species of wine could not be kept with ease, the ordinary communion of the sick, like that of Serapion and Saint Ambrose, was under the sole species of bread.

In effect,⁴¹ wee read in the life of Louis the VI. called the Grosse, written by Sugerus Abbot of Saint Denis, that in the last sicknesse of this Prince the Body and Blood of our Lord was carryed to him, but wee see there also that this faithfull Historien thought himselfe obliged to render the reason of it, and to advertise, that it was as they came from saying Masse, and that they carryed it devoutly in procession to his chamher: which ought to make us understand in what manner it was used out of these conjunctures.

But that which putts the thing out of all doubt is, that in substance M. de la Roque agrees with us as to the matter of fact in debate. There is no more difficulty to communicate the sick under the sole species of bread, then under that of wine only, a practise which this curious observer shews us in the VII.⁴² age in the cleaventh Council of Toledo Canon XI. He sayes as much of the eleavent age and of Pope Paschalis II.⁴³ by whom he makes the same thing to be permitted for little infants. Hee is so far from disapproving these practises that he is carefull to defend them, and excuses them himselfe upon an invincible necessity, as if a parcel of the sacred bread could not be so steeped that a sick person or even an infant might swallow it almost as easily as wine. But the businesse was that he must finde some excuse to hinder us from concluding, from his own observations, that the Church believed she had a full liberty to give one species only, without any prejudice to the integrety of communion.

Behold what wee finde tooching the communion of the sick in the tradition of all ages. If some of these practises which I have observed concerning that veneration which was payed to the Eucharist astonish owr reformers, and appeare new to them, I engage my selfe, to shew them shortly, and in few words, (for it is not difficult) that the originall of it is antient in the Church, or reather that it never had a beginning. But at present (that wee may not quit our matter) it is sufficient for me to shew them, (only by comparing the customes of the first and last ages) a continuall Tradition of communicating the sick ordinarily under the sole species of bread; although the Church alwayes tender to her children, if she had beleeved both the species necessary, would rather have had them consecrated extraordinarily in the sick persons chamber,⁴⁴ as it has been often actually practised, then to deprive them of this succour: on the contrary she would have given them so much the rather to dying persons by how much they had a greater combate to sustain, and at the article of death the most need of their Viaticum.

Lastly, I do not believe the Gentlemen of the pretended Reformation will raise us here any difficultyes upon the change of the species of which wee shall have occasion to speake often in this discourse. Those Cavils with which they fill their books upon this point, regard not our question, but that of the reall presence, from whence also, to speake candidly, they ought to have been retrenched long since; it being cleare, as I have already remarked, that the Son of God who would not in this Mystery do any myracle, apparent as such to the senses ought not to suffer himselfe to be obliged to discover in any conjuncture what ever that which he designed expressely to hide from our senses, nor by consequence to change what ordinarily happens to the matter which it has pleased him to make use of to the end he might leave his body and blood to the faithfull.

There is no man of reason who with a little reflection, will not of his own accord enter into the same sentiment, and at the same time grant that these pretended undecencyes, which are brough against us with so much seeming applause, avail only to moove the humain senses; but in reality they are too much below the Majesty of JESUS-CHRIST, to hinder the course of his dessigns, and the desire he has to unite himselfe to us in so particular a manner.

It happens thus so very often in these matters (and especially to our Reformers) to passe from one question to another that I esteeme my selfe obliged to keepe them close to our question by this advertisement. The same reason obliges me to desire them not to draw any advantage from the expression of bread and wine which will occurre so often, because they know, that even in believing as wee do, the change of the substance, it is permitted us to leave the first name to those things that are changed, as well as it was to Moyses to learne that a rod which was turned into a serpent,⁴⁵ or that water which was become blood,⁴⁶ or the Angels men becaus they appeared such,⁴⁷ not to alledge here Saint John, who cals the wine at the marriage of Cana, water made wine.⁴⁸ It is naturall to man, that he may facilitate his discourse, to abridge his phrases, and to speake according to the appearances neither is advantage usvally taken from this manner of speech; and I do not beleeve that any one would object to a Philosopher, who defends the motion of the Earth, that he overthrows his hypothesis when he sayes that the Sun rises or setts.

After this sleight digression to which the desire of procceding with clearenesse has engaged me, I retourne to my matter, and to those practises which I have promised to explicate whereby to shew in antiquity the communion under one species.

§ III. Second Custome. Communion of little Infants.

The second practise I undertake to prove is that when the Communion was given to little children that were baptised, it was given them in the first ages, yea and ordinarily in all the following under the species of wine only. S.⁴⁹ Cyprien who suffered martyrdome in the third age authorises this practise in his treatise de Lapsis. This great man represents there to us with a gravity worthy of himselfe, what passed in the Church and in his presence to a little girle to whom had been given a little moistned bread offred to Idols. Her mother who knew nothing of it, omitted not to bring her according to custome into the Church assembly. But God, who would shew by a miraculous signe how much they were unworthy of the society of the faithfull who had participated of the impure table of Divells, caused an extraordinary agitation and trouble to appeare in this childe during prayer: as if, (sayes S. Cyprian) for default of speach she had found her selfe forced to declare by this meanes as well as she could, the misfortune she was fallen into. This agitation, which ceased not during the whole time of prayer, augmented at the approching of the Eucharist, where JESUS-CHRIST was so truly present. For, (as S. Cyprian pursues,) after the accustomed solemnityes, the Deacon who presented the holy cup to the faithfull being come to the order or ranke of this child, JESUS-CHRIST who knows how to make himselfe be perceived by whom he pleases, caused this infant at that moment to feele a terrible impression of the presence of his Majesty. She turned away her face, sayes Saint Cyprian, as not able to support so great Majesty; she shuts her mouth, she refused the Chalice. But after they had made her by force swallow some drops of the pretious blood, she could not, adds this Father, retaine it in those defiled entrals, so great is the power and Majesty of our Lord. It became the body of our Lord to produce no lesse effects; and Saint Cyprian who represents to us with so much care and zeale togeather the trouble of this child during all prayer time, not mentioning this extraordinary emotion caused by the Eucharist, but at the approaching and receiving of the consecrated Chalice without speaking one only word of the body, shews sufficiently that, in effect, they did not offer her a nourishment that was inconvenient to her age.

It is not that they could not, with sufficient facility, make a childe swallow a little of the sacred bread by steeping of it, seing it appears even in this history, that the little girle mentioned here had in this manner taken the bread offered to Idols. But this is so far from hurting us, that on the contrary it lets us see how much they were persuaded that one sole species was sufficient, because there being in deed no impossibility of giving the body to little infants they so easily determinated to give them the blood alone. It suffised that the sollid part was not so convenient to that age: and on the other side as they would have been obliged to steepe the sacred bread to the end they might make little children swallow it; so in these ages, where wee have seen that they did not so much as dreame of mixing the two species, they must have been obliged to take an ordinary liquor before that sacred liquor the blood of our Lord, contrary to the dignity of such a Sacrament which the Church has alwayes believed ought to enter into our bodyes before all other nourishment.⁵⁰ It was alwayes (I say) believed; and not only in the time of Saint Augustin,⁵¹ from whom wee have borrowed those words wee last produced, but in the time of Saint Cyprian himselfe, as it appeares in his letter to Cecilius,⁵² and before S. Cyprian seing wee finde mention in Tertullian of the sacred bread which the faithfull tooke in secret before all other nourishement,⁵³ and in a word before them all because they speake of it as of an established custome. This consideration which alone was the reason why they gave the blood only to little children though never so strong in it selfe, would have beene forcelesse against a divine command. It was therefore most certainly believed that there was not any divine precept of uniting the two species togeather.

M.⁵⁴ de la Roque would gladly say, though he dare not do it in plain tearmes, that they mixed the body with the blood for infants, and imagines, it might be gathered from the words of Saint Cyprian, though there is not one syllable, as wee see, which tends to it. But besides that the discipline of that time did not suffer this mixture, Saint Cyprian speakes only of the blood, It is the blood, says he, that cannot stay in defiled entrals, and the distribution of the sacred Chalice of which alone this infant had participated, is too clearly expressed to leave the least place for that conjecture which M. de la Roque would make. Thus the Example is precise: the custome of giving the Communion to little children under the species of wine only cannot be contested, and that doubt which they would raise in the minde without any ground, shews only the perplexity they are thrown into by the great authority of Saint Cyprian and the Church in his time.

Certainly M.⁵⁵ de la Roque would have acted with more sincerity, if he had kept himselfe to that Idee which first presented it selfe as it were naturally unto him. The first time he had spoke of this passage of Saint Cyprian, he told us that they powred by force into the mouth of the child some of the sacred Chalice; that is without question some drops of the pretious blood pure and without any mixture, just as it was presented to the rest of the people who had already received the body. And on the other side wee have even now seen that this Minister does not blame the Pope Paschalis the II. who, according to him, permitted little children to communicate under the sole species of wine: so much did his conscience dictate that this practise had no difficulty, in it.

As for M. du Bourdieu,⁵⁶ this passage of Saint Cyprian had at the first also produced its effect in his minde; And this passage having been objected to him by a Catholique, this Minister easily accorded in his first answer, that in effect nothing had been given to this childe but the consecrated wine alone. He comes of in saying that the antients who beleeved the communion absolutely necessary for little infants, gave it them as they could; that it was for this reason Saint Cyprians Deacon beleeving this childe would be damned if it dyed without the Eucharist, opened by force its mouth, to poure into it a little wine, and that a case of necessity, a particular case cannot have the name of a custome. What efforts are these to elude a thing so cleare! Where are those extraordinary reasons this Minister would here imagine to himselfe? Is there one single word in Saint Cyprian which shewes the danger of this infant as the motive of giving it the Communion? Dos it not on the contrary appeare by the whole discourse, that this blessed Sacrament was given to it only because it was the custome to give it to all children so often as they were brought to the assemblyes? Why will M. du Bourdieu divine that this little girle had never communicated?⁵⁷ Was she not baptised? Was it not the custome to give the communion togeather with baptisme even to infants? To what purpose is it therefore to speake here of a feare they should have, least she should be damned for not having received the Eucharist, since they had already given her it in giving her baptisme? Is it that they believed also in the antient Church that it did not suffise to the salvation of a child to have communicated once, and that it should be damned if they dit not reiterate the Communion? What chymeras do men invent, rather then give place to truth, and confesse their errors with sincerity! But to what end do they throw us here upon the question of the necessity of the Eucharist, and upon the errour they would have Saint Cyprian to have been incident to in this point? Grant it were true that this holy Martyr and the Church in his time should have believed the Communion absolutely necessary to infants, what advantage would M. du Bourdieu draw from thence? and who dos not on the contrary see, that if the two species be essentiall to Communion, as the Pretended Reformers would have it, the more one shall believe the Communion necessary to little children, the lesse will he be dispenced with in giving them both these species? M. du Bourdieu foresaw verry well this consequence so contrary to his pretentions; and in his second reply he would divine, though Saint Cyprian has sayd nothing of it, and against the whole connection of his discourse, that this little girle when she was so cruelly and so miraculously tormented after the taking of the Blood, had already received the Body without receiving any prejudice thereby: where is a man when he makes such answers?

But why do wee dispute any longer? There is no better proofe, nor better interpreter of a custome then the custome it selfe, I would say, that there is nothing which demonstrates more that a custome comes from the first ages, then when it is seen to continue successively to the last. This of communicating little children under the sole species of wine, which wee finde established in the III. age, and in the time of Saint Cyprian, continued alwayes so common that it is found in all after ages. It is found in the V. or VI.⁵⁸ age in the book of Jobius, where that learned Religious speaking of the three Sacraments which were given togeather, in a time when the Christian Religion being established very few others were baptised, no more then at present, but the children of the faithfull, speakes thus. They baptise us, sayes he, after that they anoint us, that is they confirme us, and lastly they give us the pretious Blood. He makes no mention of the Body, becaus it was not given to children. And for this reason he takes great care in the same place to explaine how the Blood may be given even before the Body a thing which having no place in the communion of those of riper yeares, was found only in that which the Faithfull had all of them received in receiving the Blood alone in their infancy. So that this custome has already passed from the III. age to the VI. it stops not there, wee finde it even to the last ages, and even at present in the Greeke Church.⁵⁹ Allatius a Catholick and Thomas Smith an English Protestant Minister each of them relate it equally after a great number of Authors, and the thing it selfe has no difficulty.

It is true M. Smith has varyed in his second edition. For they were afraid in England to authorise an example which wee make use of to establish communion under one species. M. Smith after having remarked in his Preface the advantage wee take from it,⁶⁰ thinks he can remove it by two or three very feeble testimonyes of moderne Grecians who studyed in England, or who live there, and whose writings are printed in Protestant towns.

The last testimony he alledges is that of an Archbishop of Samos whom wee have too much seen in this country, to rely much upon his capacity any more then upon his sincerity. He is at present established at London; and M. Smith produces us a letter which he writ to him, wherein he sayes, that after the baptisme of infants, the Priest holding the Chalice where the blood is togeather with the body of our Saviour reduced into little particles, takes in a little spoon one drop of this blood so mixed, in such sort that some little crums of the consecrated bread are found in this spoon, which suffices to make the child participate of the Body of our Lord. M. Smith adds that these crums are so little, that they cannot well be perceived because of their smalnesse, and that they stick to the spoon though never so little dipt into this holy liquor. See here all can be drawn from a Grecian who is entertained at London, and from M. Smith, in favour of the communion under both species given in baptisme to children in the Greeke Church: That is that they gave them the blood in which the body was mixed, with so little of designe to give them the sacred body, that they give them not any part of that which they see swimme in the holy liquor, and which they give to them of riper yeares, as M. Smith himselfe sayes. They content themselves to presume that some insensible particle of the consecrated bread sticks to the spoon of the childe: see what they call communicating them under both species. In truth had not M. Smith done as well to change nothing in his booke; and will not every man of sense believe himselfe obliged to stand to that which he said ingenuously in his first edition, so much the rather because he sees it conformable to the antient Tradition which wee have exposed?

And if wee finde the communion of little children under the sole species of wine in the Greeke Church, wee finde it no lesse amongst the Latins. It is found, according to M. de la Roque in the Decrees of Pope Paschal II. as wee have lately seene, that is to say in the eleventh age. It is found till the XII. age in the same Latin Church;⁶¹ and Hugo de Sainto Victore, so much praysed by S. Bernard, sayes expressely, that the Blessed Sacrament was not given to little infants in baptisme but under the sole species of blood; teaching also afterwards that under each species the body and blood of Christ were both received.

Wee finde the same doctrine with the same manner of communicating little children in William de Champeaux Bishop of Châlon,⁶² intimately conversant with the same Saint Bernard. Father Mabillon Benedictin Monke of the Congregation of Saint Maur, (whose sincerity is not to be called in question any more then his capacity) has found in an antient manuscript a long passage of this worthy Bishop, (one of the most famous of his age for piety and learning) where he teaches that he who receives one sole species receives JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire, because (adds he) he is not received neither by little and little, nor by parts, but whole and entire under one or two species: from whence it eomes that they give the Chalice alone to infants newly baptized, because they cannot receive the bread; but they do not therefore lesse receive JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire in the Chalice alone.

The Ministers confounded by these practises found established without an contradiction in all past ages, fly ordinarily to incident questions,⁶³ to withdraw us from the principall. They exaggerate the abuse of Communion of little infants, (for so they call it against the authority of all ages;) an abuse which they say was founded upon the great and dangerous errour of the absolute necessity of receiving the Eucharist in all ages under paine of eternall damnation, which, according to them, is the error of Saint Cyprian, Saint Augustin, Saint Innocent Pope, Saint Cyril, Saint Chrysostome, Saint Cesarius Bishop of Arles, and not only of many of the Fathers, but also of many ages. Oh holy antiquity, and Church of the first ages too boldly condemned by Ministers, without reaping from thence any thing but the pleasure to have made their people believe that the Church could fall into errour even in the purest times! For as to the substance what availes this controversy to our subject? The antient Church believed the Eucharist necessary for little infants? Wee have allready demonstrated that, supposing the two species to have been of the essence of this Sacrament, that belife would have been a new motive to give it them under both. Why therefore give they it them but under one? and what can these Ministers say here, if not to answer us, that the antient Church added to the errour of believing that the communion was absolutely necessary to salvation, that of beleving the communion to have its entire effect under one sole species, and that by making an antiquity so pure to erre, they be willing to shew themselves visibly in an error.

Wee have, God be praysed, a doctrine which obliges us not to cast our selves into such excesses. I could very easily explicate how the Grace of that Sacrament of the Eucharist is in effect necessary to all the faithfull; how the Eucharist and its grace is virtually contained in Baptisme; which produces in the faithfull that sacred right which they there receive to the body and Blood of our Lord, and how it belongs to the Church to regulate the time of exercising this right. I might also shew upon these grounds that if some one, as for example that William Bishop of Châlons quoted so faithfully by Father Mabillon seeme to have beleeved the necessity of the Eucharist, yet this opinion was so far from universall, that wee finde it strongly opposed by other authors of the same time,⁶⁴ as by Hugo de Santo Victore cited in M. de la Roques booke and many others. I could also tell you how these Authors have explicated S. Augustin according to S. Fulgentius, and shew with them by expresse passages, and by the whole doctrine of this Father how far he is from that errour they attribute to him. But my designe is here to teach what wee ought to believe concerning the two species, and not to trouble my selfe and my readers with these incident questions. Therefore I enter not into them, and without burdning my discourse with an un profitable examen, I shall deliver in few words the fayth of the Church.

The Church did allwayes and dos still believe that infants are capable to receive the Eucharist as well as Baptisme, and finds no more obstacle, as to communion, in these words of S. Paul,⁶⁵ Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eat, then she finds, as to Baptisme, in these words of our Saviour, Teach and baptise.⁶⁶ But as she knows that the Eucharist cannot be absolutely necessary to their salvation, after they have received a full remission of their sins in Baptisme, she beleeves that it is a matter of discipline to give or not to give the communion at that age.

Whereupon for good reasons she gave it the space of eleaven or twelve hundred yeares, and for other good reasons she ceased to give it from that time. But the Church which found her selfe free to communicate or not to communicate children, could never have beleeved she had liberty to communicate them in a manner contrary to the institution of JESUS-CHRIST, nor would ever have given one only species, if she had beleeved the two species inseparable by their institution.

In a word, to disengage our selves at once from these unprofitable disputes: when the Church gave the communion to little infants under the sole species of wine, she either judged this Sacrament necessary to their salvation, or she did not. If she did not thinke it necessary, why should she presse so to give it, as to give it wrong? And if she judged it necessary, it is a new demonstration that she beleeved the whole effect of the Sacrament included under one sole species.

And further to shew this was her beliefe, the same Church which gave the Eucharist to little children under the sole species of wine, gave them it when more advanced in yeares without scrupule under the sole species of bread. None is ignorant of the antient custome of the Church, to give to innocent children that which remained of the Body of our Lord after the communion of the faithfull. Some Churches burnt these sacred remainders, and such was the custome of the Church of Jerusalem, as Hesychius Priest of that Church relates.⁶⁷ JESUS-CHRIST is absolutely above all corruption: but humain sense demanded that, out of respect to this Sacrament, that should be observed which least offends the senses; and it was thought much better to burne these sacred remainders, then to see them changed by keeping them after a manner lesse becoming. That which the Church of Jerusalem consumed by fire, the Church of Constantinople gave to be consummated by little children, looking upon them in that age, where their baptismal grace was entire, as its most holy vessells.⁶⁸ Evagrius writes in the VI. age that this was the antient custome of the Church of Constantinople.⁶⁹ M. de la Roque takes notice of this custome and shews us the same practise at the same time in France, where a Council ordained that the remainders of the Sacrifice, after Masse was finished, should be given sprinkled with wine Wednesdays and Frydayes to innocent children, to whom they ordained to fast that they might to receive them. It was without doubt the Body of our Lord which they received as well as the rest of the faithfull.⁷⁰ Evagrius calls these remainders the particles of the immaculate Body of JESUS-CHRIST our God, and thus it is that M. de la Roque translates it. The same Evagrius relates that this communion preserved a Jewish child, which had communicated in this manner with the children of the faithfull from a burning fournace whereinto his father had thrown him in hatred of that communion he had received, God being willing to confirme this communion under one species by so illustrious a miracle. None ever dreamed of saying they did amisse in giving the body with out the blood, nor that such a communion was defective. If the custome have beene changed, it has been upon other reasons, and after the same manner other things of discipline have been altered without condemning the precedent practice. So that this custome, although it have ceased to be in practise in the Church, remains in Historyes and Canons in testimony against the Protestants: The communion of infants is a cleare conviction of their errour: The youngest sort of infants communicate under the sole species of wine, and the children of a more advanced age under that of bread, both one and the others concurring to make apparent the integrity of communion under one species only.

§ IV. Third Custome. Domestick Communion.

The third practise is that the faithfull, after having communicated in the Church and in the holy assembly, carryed with them the Eucharist to communicate every day in their houses. The species of wine could not be given them, because it could not be conserved, especially in so little a quantity as that which is made use of in the holy Mystyres; and it is certain also that it was given them under the species of bread only.⁷¹ Tertullian who mentions this custome in his booke de Oratione, speaks only of taking and keeping the Body of our Lord; and in an other place he speaks of the Bread which Christians eat fasting in secret,⁷² without any other addition. Saint Cyprian lets us see the same practise in his treatise de Lapsis. This custome which begun during the persecutions, and whilst Ecclesiasticall meetings were not free, did not cease neverthelesse to continue for other reasons during the peace of the Church. Wee learne from Saint Basile that the Solitaryes or Hermites communicated after no other manner in the deserts where there was no Priests.⁷³ And it is certain moreover that these wonderfull men not coming to the Church but at most on principall solemnityes, could not possibly have conserved the species of wine. There is likewise no mention in Saint Basil but of that which was put into the hand to be carryed to the mouth, that is to say of consecrated Bread, and this is that which they had the liberty to reserve, as the same Father expresses: to which he adds, that it is indifferent to receive in the hand one or many morcells, making use of a word which can constantly signify no other but a parcelle or portion of some sollid thing; and this makes Aubertin also understand it only of the sacred Bread.⁷⁴ And although Saint Basil makes it cleare aswell by these tearmes, as by the whole connection of his discourse, that the faithfull in these occasions tooke and reserved the body only, yet he concludes that their communion was no lesse holy nor lesse perfect in their houses then in the Church.⁷⁵ He sayes also that this custome was universall throughout Egypt even to Alexandria. M. de la Roque concludes very well from a passage of S. Hierome, that it was also at Rome, where without going alwayes to the Church, the Faithfull received every day the Body of our Lord at home; to which this Father adds: Is it not the same JESUS-CHRIST which wee receive in the house and in the Church? To shew that one of these communions is no lesse entire nor lesse perfect then the other. The same M.⁷⁶ de la Roque grants that the Christians of the first ages sent the Eucharist one to another in token of communion, as in effect it appeares by a letter of Saint Ireneus that it was sent from Rome even to Asia,⁷⁷ and moreover that they carryed it with them in their voyages by sea,⁷⁸ and by land: which confirmes the use of that species which alone could be carryed, and which alone could be conserved so long time inso little quantity. Witnesse Satyrus brother to Saint Ambrose,⁷⁹ who, as this Saint relates, though only a Catechumen, obtained of the faithfull by the fervour of his faith this divine Sacrament, wrapped it in a linnen cloth, and having tyed it about his neek, threw himselfe into the sea with this pretious pledge, by which he was also saved. I need not mention the other passages where this custome is established,⁸⁰ seing M. de la Roque acknowledges it and dispenses with us as to the proofe of it.⁸¹ Wee finde even in the passages which he quotes in what manner the holy oblation was carryed, and it appeares that it was in a little coffer, or in a verry clean linning. He findes some foot stepps of this custome in the time of Saint Hormisdas Pope, that is in the beginning of VI. age; and it is true that under this Pope a false reporte of a persecution being spread abroad in Thessalonia,⁸² the Eucharist was distributed to all the faithfull by baskets full for a long time. Those who distributed it are not blamed for giving it in this manner, but for having malitiously frightned the people by the rumor of an imaginary persecution.

In short wee must not looke upon this manner of communicating at home as an abuse, under pretence that this practice was not continued: for in matters of discipline only, as this is, the Church has reasons to forbid at one time, what she permits at another. It is in the time of persecutions, that is in the most holy times, that these customes have been for the most part in practise, so the Communion under one species is authorised by the constant practise of the best of times, and by the exemple of all the Martyrs. It is moreover certain that at this time they communicated oftner under the sole species of bread, then under both species, seing it was an establissed custome to communicate every day in their houses under that species only, whereas they could not receive both species but in Church assemblyes, which Were not so frequent; and no body ever suspected, during so many ages, that either of these wayes of communicating was defective or more imperfect then the other. Those who know, with how much respect they treated holy things in these dayes, will not finde it an irreverence to put the Communion into the hands of the faithfull, no more then to permit them to carry it to their particular houses, where it is certain, to our shame, that there was more veneration then there is at present in our Churches.

Wee know likewise the extreame care Christians tooke to keepe this pretious depositum of the body of our Lord, and above all to hide it from profane hands. Wee see in the acts of the Martyrs of Nicomedia that when the Magistrates visited the chamber where S. Domna lived with the Eunuch Indes who served her,⁸³ they found only a Crosse, the booke of the Acts of the Apostles, two matts spread upon the bare ground, which were the beds of these Martyrs, an earthen censer, a lampe, a little box of wood where they placed the holy Oblation they received. They found not the holy Oblation which they had been carefull to consummate. It belongs to the Protestants to tell us what these Martyrs did with this Crosse and this censer. Catholicks are not in paine about them, and they are over joyd to see amongst the utensils of these Saints, togeather with the simplicity of the primitive times, the markes of their religion, and of the honour they rendred to the Eucharist. But that which makes for our purpose is that wee manifestly see in this history how the Eucharist was kept, and what care they tooke not to let it fall into the hands of infidels. God himselfe assisted some times, and the Acts of Saint Tharsicius an Acolyte shew that this holy Martyr being met by Pagans whilst he carryed the Sacraments of the Body of our Lord, would never discover what he carryed, and was killed with sticks and stones; after which these infidells searching him they neither found in his hands, nor in his cloaths any parcells of the Sacraments of JESUS-CHRIST, God himselfe having provided for the safely of these heavenly guifts. Those who are acquainted with the stile of these times, acknowledge it in these acts, where it is spoke of the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST, and of the Sacraments of his Body. They made use of this word Sacrament indifferently either in the plurall or singular number in speaking of the Eucharist, sometimes to expresse the perfect unity, and sometime to make it appeare that there was in one sole Sacrament and in one sole mystery (for these tearmes are equivolent) yea and in each particle of this adorable Sacrament, many Sacraments and many mysteryes together.

This keeping of the Eucharist under the sole species of bread in particular houses, confirmes what ought to be beleeved of the keeping of it in the Church, or the Bishops houses for the use of the sick; and such practises which sustaine one another so well put the doctrine of the Church out of all dispute.

All that the Ministers answer hereto, serves only to discover their incumbrance.

They all accuse (with one accord) this custome of profanation and abuse even after they had established it as universall for many ages,⁸⁴ and what is yet more strange during the purest times of Christianity. This answer refutes it selfe; and it will be an easy matter to grant it, seeing the whole consists in this to know whether all the Martyrs were profane persons, or whether the Ministers who accuse them be not temerarious.

Calixtus and M.⁸⁵ du Bourdieu who exactely followes him mention two Canons of the Church of Spain, one of the Council of Saragoza, and the other of the first Council of Toledo, where those who do not swallow the Eucharist received from the hands of the Bishop are expelled as sacrilegious and excommunicated persons.

M.⁸⁶ de la Roque answers them that he dos not beleeve this Canon of Saragoza was made to abolish the custome of carrying away the Eucharist and keeping of it. And he sayes the same afterwards of the first Council of Toledo; which he proves from the eleaventh Canon of the eleventh Council held at the same place.⁸⁷

And though the opinions of M. de la Roque were not to be relyed upon, it is sufficiently cleare that these two Councils held in the IV. age or there about, could not have detested as a sacrilege a custom which all the Fathers shew us to have been common in those times, as wee have proved by the acknowledgement even of the Ministers themselves.

In fine these Councils speake not of those who receiving in the Church a part of the consecrated bread reserve another part for domestick communion; but of those who receiving the communion from the hands of the Bishop swallow none at all of it. Behold what these Councils forbid and it is not difficult to guesse at the motives of this their prohibition, seeing the I. Council of Toledo (which in the XIII. Canon so severely blames those who affected in assisting at the Church never to communicate there;) when it condemnes in the following Canon, as sacrilegious persons those who swallow not the communion after they have received it from the hand of the Priest, makes it known sufficiently by this connection that its intention was to condemne another manner of avoiding the communion so much the worse because it shewed either a sacrilegious hipocricy or too visible an aversion to this holy mystery.

These unfortunate people who so obstinately avoided the communion were the Priscillianistes, hereticks of those times and places, who mixed themselves ordinarily with the faithfull. But if they will not grant this to have been the motive of that Canon, they cannot at least deny but there are other evill motives not to swallow the Eucharist which might be condemned in these Councils. A man may refraine from the Eucharist out of superstition, he may reserve it to abuse it, he may reject it out of infidelity; and the XI. Council of Toledo informes us that it was such a sacrilege which the first condemned. These or the like abuses taken notice on in certain places might have given occasion to local prohibitions, which brought no prejudice to the customes of other countryes: and it is certain moreover that what is practised in one place as well as in one time with reverence, may be so badly practised in another time and place, that it shall be rejected as sacrilegious. Therefore in what manner soever a man will take these Canons, they do not in any sort authorise the errour, of them who would make the practises of the holy Martyrs and of the whole antient Church passe for an abuse, and who can finde no other answer to an invincible argument but in condemning their proceedings.

M. du Bourdieu endeavours to come of by an other evasion no lesse impertinent. He would have it be beleeved that the faithfull communicated under both species in these domestick communions and reserved them both:⁸⁸ for which he brings after Calixtus four testimonyes,⁸⁹ that of Saint Justinus who sayes that after consecration in the Church the Deacons carryed the two species to them that were absent; That of S. Gregory the great,⁹⁰ who relates that in a voyage from Rome to Constantinople and in a great tempest the faithfull received the Body and the Blood; that of Amphilochius, who tells us in the life of S.⁹¹ Basile that a Jew jayning himselfe to the faithfull in their assembly, carryed away to is house some of the remainders of the Body and Blood; and lastly that of Saint Gregory of Nazianzen who relates of his sister Saint Gorgonia that she mixed with her teares what she had gathered of the species or symboles of the Body and Blood,⁹² he ought to have translated it of the Body or the Blood, as it is in the text and not of the Body and the Blood as he has done thereby to insinuate that both the one and the other were reserved togeather.

Of these four examples the two first are manifestly nothing to our subject.

Wee have already remarked with M. de la Roque that in the example of Saint Justinus the two species tis true were carryed, but presently after they had been consecrated, by which it dos not appeare that they kept them, which is precisely our question.

To shew that in the passage mentioned by Saint Gregory the faithfull had kept the two species in their vesselle from Rome to Constantinople, it ought before to have been certain that there was no Priest in this vesselle who could celebrate, or that Maximian of whom Saint Gregory speakes in this place, was none, though he was the Superieur of a Monastery. This great Pope sayes nothing of these circumstances, and leaves us the liberty to supply them by other reasons, of which the principall is drawn from that impossibility already so often remarked of keeping so little quantity of consecrated wine so long a time.

What M. du Bourdieu sayes here that they durst not have celebrated in a ship showes that he searches only to cavil, without so much as considering that even at present wee celebrate in all sort of places when there is a reason for it.

So that of these four examples behold two of them already uselesse. The two others, with the passages of Baronius and the learned Aubespinus Bishop of Orleans with which they defend them, may verry well prove that the blood was not refused to the faithfull to carry with them if they required it (for upon what account should they also refuse it, and beleeve that the Sacred Body with which they trusted them was more pretious then the Blood?) but can never prove that they could keepe it any long time, since that nature it selfe opposed it, nor that it was the custome to do it, the Church being so well persuaded the communion was equall under one or both species, that the least difficulty made them determine to give it either in the one or the other kind. Wee see also in that passage of Saint Gregory of Nazianzen that the dos not say that his sister watered the Body and the Blood with her teares, as if it had been certain she had the one and the other, but the Body or the Blood, to shew that he did not know which of the two she had in her keeping it being ordinary to reserve the body only.

What serves it therefore to cavil as a constant practise? Truth ought alwayes at the last to come to light? And M. de la Roque, he who of all the Ministers has examined this matter with most exactnesse, ingeniously confesses that the faithfull carryed home the bread of the Eucharist to take it when they would,⁹³ saving himselfe as well as he can from the consequence by the remarke he makes that this abusive and particular custome cannot prejudice the general practise, and that even those who carryed the Eucharist home dit not probably do it till after they had eaten a part in the assembly, and participated of the Chalice of our Lord.

Calixtus brings himselfe of with the same answer almost.⁹⁴ At the beginning of the treatise he has given us about communion in both kinds he had candidly owned that some reserved the sacred bread to eat it either in their houses or on a journey; and after having related many passages, amongst others that of S. Basil which suffers no evasion, he had concluded, that it was certain from these passages that some moved by a religious affection towards the Eucharist, carryed away with them a part of the consecrated bread or of the holy symbole. There is no body who reading these passages even in Calixtus himselfe dos not see that these whom he cals so slyly some, are the whole Church: and when he adds that this custome was tolerated some time, this which he cals some time, is as much as to say four or five hundred yeares, and that in the time of the greatest purity; and this which he cals tolerated is no other then universally received in these beautifull ages of the Church, no body ever attempting either to blame them, or to say that this communion was unsufficient.

In the sequel of his dispute Calixtus chafes, and labours to prove by the examples already refuted, that this communion might be made under the two species. But he returnes at last to the solution which he at first had given, that the faithfull, who communicated under the sole species of bread in their houses had received the species of wine in the Church, and that there is no example that they ever communicated publickly under one species for a thousand or cleaven hundred yeares. As if it did not suffice to convince him that communion under one species had been declared perfect and sufficient; or that it was permitted to communicate contrary to the order of JESUS-CHRIST, and to divide his mystery in the house rather then in the Church; or lastly that this parcelle of sacred Bread which was taken in private in the house was not given at the Church it selfe, and by the hands of the Pastors for that use.

Behold the vaine Cavills by which these Ministers think to elude a manifest truth: but I will not leave them in their errour as to publick communion; and although it suffise to have for us this communion taken in private with the approbation of the whole Church, wee shall presently se, that communion under one species was no lesse free in solemne assemblyes then in the house.

§ V. Fourth Custome. Communion at the Church and in the ordinary Office.

I Place therefore as the fourth practise, that in the Church it selfe and in the assemblyes of Christians it was free for them to receive either both species or one only. The Manicheans abhorred wine which they beleeved was created by the Devill. The same Manicheans denyed that the son of God had shed his Blood for our redemption, beleeving that his Passion was nothing but an illusion and a phantastical appearence. These two reasons gave an aversion from the pretious Blood of our Lord which was received in the Mysteryes under the species of wine: And as, to hide themselves the better, sayes Saint Leo, and to spread more easily their venom, they mixed themselves with Catholicks even to communicate with them, so they received the Body of our Lord only, avoiding to drink the Blood by which wee were redeemed. This fraudulent proceeding of theirs could hardly be discovered because Catholicks themselves did not all of them communicate under both species. At the last it was taken notice of that these Hereticks dit it out of affectation: in so much that the Holy Pope S. Leo the Great would that those who were known as such by this marke, should be expelled the Church; and Saint Gelasius his disciple and successour was obliged to forbid expressely to communiacte any other wayes then under both species: a signe that the thing was free before, and that they would not have thought of making this ordinance, but to take from the Manicheans the meanes of deceiving.

This practise is of the V.⁹⁵ age. M. de la Roque and others relate it togeather with the judgement of these two Popes, and take their advantage from it. But on the contrary this practise shews clearly that there was need of a particular reason to oblige the faithfull to a necessity of communicating under both species, and that the thing was indifferently practised both wayes before: otherwise the Manicheans would immediately have too much exposed themselves, and could not have expected to be suffered.

But if it had been freely permitted, say the Ministers, to communicate under the sole species of bread when they would, the Manicheans could not have been distinguished by this marke: as if there were no difference betwixt a liberty to receive one or both species, and a perpetuall affectation of these Hereticks obstinately to refuse the consecrated wine. What an effect of prejudice is this not to observe wilfully a thing so manifest!

Tis true that this liberty being allowed, there must have been time and a particular vigilance to discerne these hereticks from amongst the faithfull. And this was also the reason of the long continuance of their deceit, and that which caused a necessity at last, in the time of Saint Gelasius, of making an expresse ordre to take equally the body and the blood, under paine of being deprived of them both.

M.⁹⁶ du Bourdieu conceales here from us with a great deale of artifice the motive inducing this Pope to make that prohibition. See here the words of the Decree.⁹⁷ Wee have discovered that some persons in taking the sacred Body only, abstaine from the holy Chalice, which persons truly, (because they seeme to adhere to I know not what superstition) let them either take the Sacrament under both species, or let them be entirely deprived of the one and the other. This particle because of Pope Galasius, which shews manifestly that the superstitious abstinence of these Hereticks was the particular reason why he obliged them to both species, is left out by this Minister; for se what he makes this Pope say: I know not what superstition they are addicted to: either let them receive the entire Sacraments, or let them be deprived of the entire Sacraments.

He durst not let that particle appeare in his translation by which this Pope shews expressely that his prohibition had a particular motive, for feare it might be too easily concluded against him, that there was nothing in it selfe more free then to communicate without receiving the Blood, since that there was need of reasons and a particular occasion to oblige the doing of it.

There is likewise another crafty artifice, but verry feeble in the translation of this Minister. For insteed of what the Pope sayes (as I have above translated it) Which persons truly,⁹⁸ becanse they seme to adhere to I know not what superstition, that is to say indefinitely, as is manifest, to some certain superstition, which he will not vouchsafe to expresse;⁹⁹ this Minister makes him say both precisely and more strongly: I know not what superstition they are addicted to, to the end he might conclude a little after that this did not concerne the Manicheans, whose errours, sayes he, this learned Bishop was not ignorant of, nor of those which were in vogue in his time.

Calixtus had endeavoured before him to distinguish the practise of Hereticks mentioned by Saint Leo from this prohibited by Saint Gelasius, thereby to hinder any one from beleeving that the Decree of this last Pope in favour of the two species was to be regarded as in relation to the errors of the Manicheans. What dos this pittifull refuge availe him? Seeing that it appeares clearly by the tearms of this Decree, that it had a particular motive, what dos it import us whether it were the Manicheans errour, or some other such like superstition? And is not this alwayes sufficient to let us see, (take it which way you will) that it was necessary the Church should have some particular reasons to oblige them to both species?

But as to the whole it cannot be doubted but this superstition of which Saint Gelasius speakes here was that of the Manicheans, seing that Anastasius the Bibliothecarian sayes expressely in the life of this Pope,¹⁰⁰ that he discovered the Manicheans at Rome, that he sent them into exile, and that he caused their books to be burnt before the Saint Marys Church. Wee do not in effect see what other superstition besides that of the Manicheans could have inspired a horror to wine and that of the Blood of our Lord. On the other side it is manifest that these Hereticks had unheard of artifices to insinuate themselves secretly amongst the faithfull, and that there was in their prodigious discourses such an efficacy of errour, that it was a most difficult thing to efface wholy those impressions they left in the minde. None therefore can doubt but that these superstitious people of whom Saint Gelasius speakes, were the hidden remainders of those Manicheans that Saint Leo his predecessor had discovered thirty or forty yeares before; and whereat Saint Gelasius has said they are addicted to I know not what superstition, it is not that he did know verry well their errours, but he speakes this out of contempt, or rather, because this obscure sect changed it selfe into a thousand shapes, so that what remained of this poison was not alwayes known, or it was not alwayes thought convenient to explicate it to the people.

But behold the last refuge of these Ministers. They maintaine wee are in the wrong in searching a particular reason of the Ordinance of Saint Gelasius, since he establishes it manifestly upon the nature of the Mystery. Let us once more therefore relate the words of this Pope already cited, and let us add thereto their whole consequence. Wee have discovered, sayes he, that some persons take only the sacred Body, and abstaine from the sacred Blood, which persons truly (because they seeme to adhere to I know not what superstition) let them take both parts or let them be deprived of both, because the division of one and the same mystery cannot be done without a great sacrilege.

To understand aright the consequence of these words, wee finde that the division which he accuses of sacrilege was that same grounded upon the above mentioned superstition where the Blood of our Lord consecrated under the species of wine was regarded as an object of aversion. Indeed it is a deviding of the mystery to beleeve that there is one part of it which JESUS-CHRIST did not institute, and which ought to be rejected as abominable. But to beleeve that JESUS-CHRIST has equally instituted both parts, and not withstanding to take but one, not out of contempt to the other (God forbid) but because wee beleeve that the vertue of both is received in either, and that in them both there is but one sole fondation of Grace: if this be to divide the mystery, the primitive Church dividid it when they communicated the sick, little children, and generally all the faithfull in their houses under one sole species. But as wee cannot have such an opinion of the antient Church wee must of necessity avouch that to divide this mystery some thing more must be beleeved and practised then that which is beleeved and practised by all Catholicks.

§ VI. The Masse of Holy Fryday, and that of the Presanctifyed.

The antient Church was so far from beleeving that to give this Mystery under one sole species was to divide it, that she had certain solemne dayes in which she distributed nothing but the sacred Body of our Lord in the Church, and to all the assistants. Such was the Office of Good Fryday in the Latin Church; and such was the Office of the Greeke Church every day in Lent, except Saturday and Sunday.

To begin with the Latin Church, wee finde in the Ordo Romanus,¹⁰¹ in Alcuinus, or in that antient author whose explication of that booke wee have under his name, in Amalarius, in Abbot Rupert, in Hugo de Sainto Victore what wee practise even to this very day, that they dit not consecrate upon Good Fryday, but that they reserved for communion the Body of our Lord consecrated the day before, and that they received it upon Good Fryday in unconsecrated wine. It is expressely remarked in all these places that the Body only was reserved without reserving the Blood, the reason of which is (sayes Hugo de Sainto Victore,)¹⁰² that the Body and the Blood are received under each species, and that the species of wine cannot be kept with security. This last reason wee finde in one of the editions of Amalarius, which is no lesse his then the others, this Author having frequently reviewd his book, severall of which, so reviewed, have been preserved to our dayes. Such was likewise the practise of Jonas Bishop of Orleans, and of many other Authors; and without troubling our selves with these criticismes, the matter of fact is that Amalarius after divers mysticall reasons which he brings for this custome according to the example of other Authors, concludes that it may be said yet more sincerely that the consecrated wine is not reserved, because it is more subject to alteration then the bread. Which confirmes in short all what wee have shown tooching the communion of the sick under the sole species of bread, and shews verry vell that the Eucharist which was constantly kept for them during many dayes according to the spirit of the Church, could not be kept for them under the species of wine, since they feare even that change which might, happen to it from one day to the next, that is from Thursday to Good Fryday.

I might here take notice that the Church endeavours not only to avoid the corruption of the species which change the nature, and the necessary matter of the Sacrament, but also every change which makes the least alteration in them, being desirous out of respect to this Sacrament, that all there should be pure and propper, and that the least even sensible disrelish should not be suffered in a Mystery where JESUS-CHRIST was to be the banquet. But these remarkes being little necessary to our subject are for another place; and it suffises us to see here, that they reserved at that time, as wee do to this verry day do, nothing but the sacred Body for the service upon Good Fryday.

Neverthelesse it is certain by all the Authors and by all the passages wee have lately quoted, that the Priest, the whole Clergy, and all the people communicated this holy day, and by consequence communicated under one species only. This custome appeares principally in the Gallican Church, since most of these Authors were of it, so that it ought to finde a particular veneration amongst us: but it would be too visable in abusing ones selfe to say, that a custome so firmely established in the VIII. age had no higher a beginning. Wee finde not the originall; wherefore if that opinion, which beleeves communion under one species to be sacrilegious, should be admitted, wee must say that the primitive Church had purposely made choyce of Good Fryday, the day of our Blessed Saviours death, on which she might profane a Mystery instituted in memory of it. They communicated after the same manner upon Easter Eve seeing that on the one side it is certain by all Authors that Good Fryday and Easter Eve were dayes of communion for all the people, and on the other side it is no lesse constant that they did not Sacrifise during these two dayes; A thing which occasions that even at this day wee have no proper Masse in our Missel for Easter Eve. So that they communicated under the sole species of Bread kept from Holy Thursday; and if wee will believe our Reformers they prepared themselves for a Paschal communion by two sacrilegious ones.

The Monks of Clugny, as holy as they were, did no better then others; and the book of their customs, once already cited in this discourse, showes that six hundred yeares since, they did not communicate at that holy time but under one sole species.

These practises let us see sufficiently the universall custome of the Latine Church. But the Greeks go yet further: They do not consecrate upon fasting dayes to the end they may not mixe the joy and solemnity of the Sacrifice with the sorrowfulnesse of a fast. From whence it is that in the time of Lent they do not consecrate but upon Sundayes, and on Saturdayes upon which they fast not. Upon other dayes they offer the Sacrament reserved on those two solemne dayes, which they call the imperfect Masse, or the Masse of the Presanctified, because the Eucharist which they offer in these dayes had been consecrated and sanctifyed in the two precedent dayes, and in the Masse they call perfect.

The antiquity of this observance cannot be contested, being it appeares in the VI. age in the Councile in Trullo:¹⁰³ where wee see the fondation of it from the IV. age in the Council of Laodicea,¹⁰⁴ and there is nothing more remarkable amongst the Greeks then this Masse of the Presanctified.

If wee would at present know what it is they offerd there, wee have no more to do then to read in their Euchologes and in Bibliotheca Patrum the antient Liturgies of the Presanctified;¹⁰⁵ and wee shall there see that they reserved nothing but the sacred Bread: It is the sacred Bread which they carry from the Sacristy, it is the sacred Bread which they elevate, which they adore, and which they incense, it is the sacred Bread which they mix without saying any prayer with unconsecrated wine and water, and which in fine they distribute to the people. In so much that all the Lent, that most holy time of the yeare, they communicated five dayes of the weeke under the sole species of Bread.

I know not why some of the Latins have undertaken to blame this custome of the Greeks which neither the Popes nor Councils ever reprehended; and on the contrary the Latin Church having followed this custome upon Good Fryday, it is manifest that this Office, with the manner of communicating practised in it, is consecrated by the tradition of both Churches.

What is here most remarkable is that though it be so apparent that the Greeks receive not any thing upon these dayes but the Body of our Lord, yet they change nothin in their ordinary formularyes. The sacred guifts are allwayes named in the plurall, and they speake no lesse there in their prayers of the Body and the Blood: so stedfastly is it imprinted in the minds of Christians that they cannot receive one of the species without receiving at the same time not only the vertue, but the substance also both of the one and the other.

It is true the moderne Greeks explane themselves other wayes, and appeare not, for the most part, very favourable to communion under one species: but it is in this the force of truth appeares the greater, since that in despite of them, their own customes, their own Liturgies, their own Traditions pronounce sentence against them.

But is it not true will some say that they put some drops of the pretious Blood in forme of a Crosse upon the parcells of the sacred Body which they reserve for the following dayes, and for the Office of Presanctified? It is true they do it for the most part; but it is true at the same time, that this custome is new amongst them, and that in the substance to examin it entirely, it concludes nothing against us.

It concludes nothing against us, because, besides that two or three drops of consecrated wine cannot be preserved any long time, the Greekes take care, immediately after they have dropped them upon the consecrated bread, to dry it upon a chafendish and to reduce it to powder, for it is in that manner they keep it as well for the sick as for the Office of the Presanctified: A certain signe that the authors of this Tradition had not in prospect by this mixture the Communion under both species, which they would have given in another manner if they had beleeved them necessary; but indeed the expression of some mystery, such as might be the Resurrection of our Lord, which all Liturgyes both Greeke and Latin figured by the mixture of the Body and the Blood in the Chalice, because the death of our Lord arriving by the effusion of his Blood, this mixture of his Body and his Blood is very proper to represent how this man-God tooke life again.

I should be ashamed to mention here all the vaine subtilityes of the modern Greeks, and the false arguments they make about the wine, and about its more grosse and more substantiall parts, which remain after the sollid bodyes with which wine may be mixed bacome dryed: from whence they conclude that a like effect is produced in the species of consecrated wine, and therefore that the Blood of our Lord may remain in the sacred Bread even after it has been upon the chafendish, and is entirely drye. By these wise reasonings the Lees and the Tartar orsalt would still be wine and a lawfull matter for the Eucharist. Must wee thus argued concerning the mysteryes of JESUS-CHRIST? It was wine, as properly called so, that is a liquid and flowing wine which JESUS-CHRIST instituted for the matter of his Sacrament. It is a liquor which he has given us to represent to our eyes his Blood which was shedd; and the simplicity of the Gospell will not suffer these subtilityes of the modern Grecians.

It must also be acknowledged they arrived to this but of very late, and moreover that the custome of putting these drops of consecrated Wine upon the Bread of the Eucharist was not established amongst them but since their schisme. The Patriarch Michael Cerularius, who may be called the true author of this schisme, writes notwithstanding in a booke which he composed in defence of the Office of the Presanctified, That the sacred Breads,¹⁰⁶ which are beleeved to be, and which are in effect, the quickning Body of our Lord must be kept for this sacrifice,¹⁰⁷ without sprincling one drop of the pretious Blood upon them. And wee finde notes upon the Councils by a famous Canonist who was one of the Clergy belonging to the Church of Constantinople, in which he expressely takes notice, that according to the doctrine of Blessed John (Patriarch of Constantinople) The pretious Blood must not be sprincled upon the Presanctified which they would reserve,¹⁰⁸ and this, said he, is the practise of our Church. So that, let the modern Grecians say what they please, their tradition is expressly against this mixture; and according to their own authors, and their own proper tradition there remains not so much as a pretense to defend the necessity of the two species in the Presanctified mysteries.

For can any one so much as conceive what Patriarch Michael in the worke by us newly cited sayes, That the wine in which they mix the Body reserved, is changed into the pretious Blood by this mixing, without so much as prononcing upon the wine, as appeares by the Euchologes, and by Michaels own confession, any one of the mystick and sanctifying prayers, that is to say without prononcing the words of consecration, bee they what they will (for it is not to our purpose to dispute here of them:) A prodigious and unheard of opinion; that a Sacrament can be made without words, contrary to the authority of the Scripture, and the constant tradition of all Churches, which neither the Grecians nor any body else ever called in question.

By how much therefore wee ought to reverence the antient traditions of the Grecians, which descend to them from their fathers, and from those times whilst they were united to us; by so much ought wee to dispise those errours into which they are falne in the following ages, weakned and blinded by schisme. I need not here relate them, because the Protestants themselves do nor deny but that they are great, and I should recede too far from my subject: But I will only say, to do justice to the modern Grecians, that they do not all hold this grosse opinion of Michaels, and that it is not an universall opinion amongst them that the wine is changed into the Blood by this mixture of the Body notwithstanding that Scripture and Tradition assigne a particular benediction by words as well to it as to the Body.

Wee are much lesse to beleeve that the Latins who exposed to us but even now the Office of Good Fryday could be fallen into this errour, since they explicate themselves quite contrary in expresse words; and to the end wee may omit nothing, wee must again in few words propose their sentiments.

It is true then that wee finde in the Ordo Romanus and in this Office of Good Fryday that the unconsecrated wine is sanctifyed by the sanctifyed bread which is mixed with it. The same is found in the bookes of Alcuinus and Amalarius upon the Divine Office.¹⁰⁹ But upon the least reflection made of the doctrine they teach in these same bookes, it will be granted, that this sanctification of the unconsecrated Wine by the mixture of the Body of our Lord, cannot be that true consecration, by which the wine is changed into the Blood; but a sanctification of another nature, and of a much inferiour order: such as that is of which Saint Bernard speakes when he sayes that the Wine mixed with the consecrated Hoste,¹¹⁰ although it be not consecrated by that solemn and particular consecration which changes it into the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST, becomes notwithstanding sacred by tooching the sacred Body of our Lord, yet of a quite different manner from that consecration which, according to this Saint, is made by the words taken out of the Gospel.

That it is of this imperfect and inferiour sort of consecration which these Authors wee explicate do here speake, will be acknowledged an undeniable truth, if wee finde that these Authors, and in the sames places, say there cannot be made a true consecration of the Blood of our Lord but by words, and by the words even of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe.

Alcuinus is expresse herein, when explicating the Canon of the Masse as wee have it to this day when he comes to the place where wee prononce the sacramentall words which are those of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe, This is my Body, this is my Blood, he sayes, these are the words by which they consecrated the Bread and the Chalice in the beginning, by which they are consecrated at present, and by which they shall be consecrated eternally, because JESUS-CHRIST prononcing again his own words by the Priests renders his holy Body and his sacred Blood present by a celestiall bcnediction.¹¹¹ And Amalarius, upon the same part of the Canon sayes no lesse clearly, that it is in this place and by the pronunciation of these words, that the nature of the Bread and Wine is changed into the nature of the Body and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST;¹¹² and he had said before in particular concerning the consecration of the Chalice, that a simple liquor was changed by the benediction of the Priest into the Sacrament of the Blood of our Lord: which shews how far he and Alcuinus were from beleeving that the only mixing them without any words could produce this effect. When therefore they say that the pure wine is sanctifyed by the mixture of the Body of JESUS-CHRIST, it appeares sufficiently their meaning is, that by tooching the Holy of Holyes this wine ceases to be profane, and becomes some thing of holy: but that it should become the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST; and that it should be changed into his Blood without prononcing the words of JESUS-CHRIST upon it, is an errour inconsistent with their doctrine.

All those who have writ of the Divine Office, and of that of the Masse use the same language these two Authors do.

Isaac Bishop of Langres their contemporary,¹¹³ in his explication of the Canon and place where they consecrate, sayes that the Priest having thetherto done what he could; to the end he may then do something more wonderfull, borrows the words of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe, that is to say these words, This is my Body: Powerfull words, says he, to which the Lord gives his vertue, according to the expression of the Psalmist; words which have allvayes their effect, because the Word who is the power of God sayes and dos all at a time: in so much that there is here made by these words contrary to all humain reason a new nourishment for a new man, a new JESUS borne of the spirit, an Hoste come downe fro heaven, and the rest, which makes nothing to our subject, this being but too sufficient to shew that this great Bishop has placed consecration in the words of our Saviour.

Remigius Bishop of Auxerre, in the booke which he composed of the Masse towards the end of the ninth age, is visibly of the same judgement with Alcuinus, seeing he has done nothing but transcribe word for word all that part of his booke where this matter is treated of.

Hildebertus Bishop of Mans,¹¹⁴ and afterwards of Tours, famous for his piety as well as for his eloquence, and learning, and commended even by the Protestants themselves, because of the prayses he has given to Bengarius; yet after he was returned, or pretended to be retourned from his errours, affirmes in expresse words that the Priest consecrates not by his own words, but by those of JESUS-CHRIST; that then under the signe of the crosse and the words, the nature becomes changed; that the Bread honours the Altar by becoming the Body, and the Wine by becoming Blood: which obliges the Priest to elevate at that time the Bread and the wine, thereby to shew that by consecration they are elevated to some thing of a higher nature then what they were.

The Abbot Rupertus sayes the same thing,¹¹⁵ and after him Hugo de Sainto Victore. Wee finde all these bookes collected in the Bibliotheca of Patrum, in that tome which beares the title de Divinis Officiis.

This Tradition is so constant especially in the Latin Church, that it cannot be imagined the contrary could be found in the Ordo Romanus, nor that it could have entred into the thoughts of Alcuinus and Amalarius, tho they had not explicated themselves so clearly as wee have seene they have. But this Tradition came from a higher source. These many fore cited French Authors as were preceded by a Bishop of the Gallican Church,¹¹⁶ who said in the V. age, that the creatures placed upon the holy Altars, and blessed by the celestiallwords, ceased to be the substance of Bread and Wine, and became the Body and Blood of our Lord; and Saint Ambrose before him understood by these celestiall words,¹¹⁷ the proper words of JESUS-CHRIST, This is my Body, this is my Blood, adding, that the consecration as well of the Body as of the Blood, was made by the words of our Lord. And the Author of the booke of Sacraments, be he whom he will Saint Ambrose or some other neere unto his time,¹¹⁸ who imitates him troughout who ever he be well known in antiquity, speaks after the same manner; and all the Fathers of the same time keepe the like conformity in their language; and before them all Saint Ireneus laught that ordinary bread is made the Eucharist by the invocation of God which it receives over it;¹¹⁹ and Saint Justin,¹²⁰ whom he often cites, said before him that the Eucharist was made by the prayer of the word which comes from JESUS-CHRIST, and that it was by this word, that the ordinary food which usvally, by being changed, nourisheth our flesh and our blood, became the Body and the Blood of that JESUS-CHRIST incarnated for us: and before all the Fathers, the Apostle Saint Paul clearly remarked the particular benediction of the Chalice,¹²¹ when he said, the Chalice of benediction which wee blesse. And to go to the very originall JESUS-CHRIST consecrates the Wine in saying, This is my Blood, as he had consecrated the Bread in saying, This is my Body: in such sort that it cannot enter into the minde of a man of sense, that it could ever be beleeved in the Church, the Wine was consecrated without words by the sole mixture with the Body: from whence it followes that it was under the Bread alone that our Fathers communicated upon Good Fryday.

§ VII. The sentiments and the practise of the last ages, grounded upon the sentiments and practise of the primitive Church.

Thus many constant practises of the primitive Church, thus many different circumstances, whereby it appeares in particular and in publick, and allwayes with an universall approbation, and according to the established law, that she gave the Communion under one species, so many ages before the Council of Constance, and from the origine of Christianity till the time of this Council, do invincibly demonstrate that this Council did but follow the Tradition of all ages, when it defined that the Communion under one kind was as good and sufficient as under both, and that, in which manner soever they tooke it, they neither contradicted the institution of JESUS-CHRIST, nor deprived themselves of the fruict of this Sacrament.

In matters of this nature the Church has allwayes beleeved she might change her laws according to the conjuncture of times and occurrences; and upon this account, after having left the Communion under one or both species as indifferent; after having obliged to both species for particular reasons, she has for other reasons reduced the faithfull to one sole species, being ready to give both when the exigence of the Church shall require it, as it appeares by the Decrees of the Council of Trent

This Council, after having decided that Communion under both species was not necessary,¹²² proposes to it selfe to treat of two points. The first, whether it were convenient to grant the Cupp to some countrys; and the second upon what conditions it might be granted.

They had an example of this concession in the Council of Basile, where the Cupp was granted to the Bohemians, upon condition they should acknowledge that JESUS-CHRIST was received wholy and entirely under each of the two species, and that the reception of both the one and the other was not necessary.

It was therefore doubted a long time at Trent whether they should not grant the same thing to those of Germany and France who demanded it, in hopes thereby more easily to reduce the Lutherans and the Calvinists. In fine the Council judged it most expedient, for many important reasons, to remit the matter to the Pope,¹²³ to the end he might do herein according as his prudence should dictate what might be the most advantagious to Christianity, and the most convenient for the salvation of such as should make this demande.

In consequence to this Decree, and according to the example of Paul the III. his successour Pius the IV. at the instance of the Emperour Ferdinand and some other Princes of Germany, by his Breifs of the first of September 1563. sent a permission to some Bishops to render the Cupp to the Germans upon the conditions set down in these Breifs conformable to those of Basile, if they found it profitable to the salvation of soules. This was put in execution at Vienna in Austria, and in some other places. But it appeared presently that their mindes were to much exasperated to receive any profit from this remedy. The Lutheran Ministers sought nothing but an occasion to cry in the eares of the people, that the Church herselfe acknowledged she had been deceived, whilst she had beleeved that the substance of the Sacrament was received entirely under one sole species: a thing manifestly contrary to that declaration she exacted; but passion makes prevaricated persons under take and belecve any thing. So that they ceased to make use of that concession which the Pope had given with prudence, and which it may be at another time in better dispositions would have had a better effect.

The Church which ought in all things to hold the ballance equall, ought neither to make that appeare as indifferent, which is essentiall, nor that as essentiall which is not so, and ought not to change her discipline but for an evident advantage to all her children; and it is from this prudent dispensation whence all the changes are come which wee have remarked in the administration of one or both species.

Footnotes

1. Lukc. 22. v. 20. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. ↩

2. 1. Cor. 11.27.
   ↩

3. Exam. de l'Euch. V I. Tr. 7. Sect. p. 483. ↩

4. Euseb. l. VI. c. 44. edit. Val. ↩

5. Tho. Smith. Ep. de Eccles. Gr. hod. stat. p. 107. 108. 2. ed. 130. & seqq. ↩

6. Hist. de l' Eucharist. I. p. chap. 12. p. 145. ↩

7. Du Bourd. deux rép. à deux Traitez sur le retranchement de la coupe. Seconde rép. chap. 22. p. 367. ↩

8. Conc. Carthag. III. c. 76. t. 3. Conc. ult. edit. Paris. ↩

9. Hist. Eccl. Euseb. Ruf. init. lib. 6. cap. 34. ↩

10. Conc. Brac. IV. t. 6. Concil. ult. edit. c. 2. ↩

11. Georg. Calixt. disp. cont. comm. sub una specie n. 162. ↩

12. Du Bourd. ch. 17. p. 317. ↩

13. Ibid. ↩

14. Du Bourd. rép. chap. 13. p. 378. ↩

15. Ibid. ↩

16. Ibid. 382. ↩

17. Calixt. v. 163. ↩

18. Cone. Tur. II. c. 3. Tom. 1. Conc. Gall. ↩

19. Greg. Tur. L. I. cap. 8.6. ↩

20. Cap. Hincmar. art. VIII. Tom. II. Conc. Gall. ↩

21. Leo IV. Hom. Tom. VIII. Conc. Spicil. T. II. p. 263. ↩

22. Ibid. ↩

23. Gest. Concil. Aurel. ibid. 673. ↩

24. Bib. P P. part. T. de div. off. ↩

25. Microlog. de Ecc. observ. 17. T. XVIII. Max. 616. ↩

26. Amphil. vit. S. Basil. ↩

27. Cone. Const. Menna ad s. T. V. Conc. ↩

28. Test. Perp. T. V. Spicil. ↩

29. Aeneas Ep. Par. lib. adv. Graec. T. IV. Spic. p. 80. 81. ↩

30. Anast. Bib. vit. Leon. III. T. II. Conc. Gal. ↩

31. Ant. Consuet. Cluniac. l. III. c. 28. Tom. IV. Spicil. ↩

32. Hist. Euch. I. P. c. 16, p. 183. ↩

33. Const. Odon. Paris. Episc. c. 5. art. 3. T. X. Conc. ↩

34. Const. Episc. anon. T. XI. Syn. Bajoc. c. 77. ibid. 2. p. ↩

35. Conc. sub Edg. Rege Can. 38. T. IX. Conc. p. 628. Conc. Bitur. c. 2. ibid. p. 865. Constit. Odon. Paris. Episc. T. X. p. 1802. Constit. Episc. anon. T. XI. 1. p. Innoc. IV. Ep. X. ibid. 1. Conc. Lambeth. c. 1. ibid. Syn. Exon. c. 4. ibid. 2. p. Synod. Bajoc. c. 12.77. Conc. Ravenn. II. Rub. VII. Conc. Vaur. 6.85 ibid. ↩

36. Burch. Coll. Can. l. V. c. 9. Yvo dec. II. P. c. 19. ↩

37. Aubert. de Euch. lib. II. in Exam. Pii. p. 288. ↩

38. Just. Apol. 1. ↩

39. Hist. de l'Eucharist. 1. P. c. 15. p. 176. ↩

40. Hier. Ep. IV. ad Rust. ↩

41. Hist. Fr. Script. T. IV. ↩

42. Hist. Euch. I. p. ch. 12. p. 150. 160. ↩

43. Conc. Tolet. XI. Pasch. II. Ep. 32. ad Pont. ↩

44. Capit. Anytonis Basil. Episc. temp. Car. Mag. cap. 14. T. VI. Spicil. ↩

45. Exod. 8.12. ↩

46. Ibid. 21.24. ↩

47. Gen. 18.2.26. ↩

48. John. 2.9. ↩

49. Cyp. Tr. de Lapsis. ↩

50. August. Ep. 118. ad Jan. ↩

51. Ep. 118. ↩

52. Ep. 63. ↩

53. Lib. II. ad ux. 5. ↩

54. Hist. Euch. I. p. ch. 12. p. 145. ↩

55. Hist. Euch. I. p. ch. 11. p. 136. ch. 12. p. 150. ↩

56. Du Bourd. I. rép. p. 37. Et repliq. ch. 20. p. 341. ↩

57. Ch. 20. p. 345. ↩

58. Jobius de Verb. incar. lib. III. c. 18. Bibl. Phot. Cod. 222. ↩

59. Allat. Tract. de cons. utr. Eccles. Anno. de Comm. Orient. Thom. Smith. Ep. de Ecc. Gr. stat. hod. p. 104. 1. ed. Hugo de S. Vict. erudit. Theol. lib. I. c. 10. Bib. PP. Par. de div. Offic. ↩

60. Praef. 2. edit. init. ↩

61. Hug. de S. Vict. erud. Tb. l. III. cap. 20. ↩

62. Ex lib. manuscript. qui dicitur Pancrisis relat. in praef. Saec. 3. Bened. p. 1. num. 75. ↩

63. Du Bourd. 1. rép. p. 36. & sec. rép. c. 20.21. ↩

64. Hug. de S. Vict. lib. I, erud. Theol. c. 20. Hist. Euch. l. p. ch. 11. p. 139. Fulg. Ep. ad Ferr. Diac. ↩

65. 1. Cor. 11.22.
    ↩

66. Mat. 22.19. ↩

67. Hesych. in Levit. lib. II. 68. ↩

68. Evag. lib. IV. c. 35. ↩

69. Conc. Matisc. II. c. 2. T. I. Conc. Gall. Hist. Euch. I. P. ch. 16. p. 183. ↩

70. Ibid. ↩

71. Tert. de Orat. c. 14. ↩

72. Lib. 11. ad ux. 5. ↩

73. Bas. Ep. 289. ↩

74. Aub. lib. 11. p. 442. ↩

75. I. Part. c. 14. p. 173. Hier. ad Param. ↩

76. Hist. Euch. I. part. c. 15. p. 176. ↩

77. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. V. c. 24. ↩

78. Hist. Euch. I. p. ch. 14. p. 174. ↩

79. Amb. de ob. frat. Sat. T. 4. ↩

80. I. Part. c. 12. p. 159. c. 14. p. 172. & seq. ↩

81. Joan. Mosch. Prat. Spir. T. XIII. Bib. PP. p. 1089. ↩

82. Inter Ep. Horm. Papae, post ep. 62. Sugg. Germ. &c. & post Ep. 67. Ind. Joan. Episc. T. V. Conc. ↩

83. Act Mart. Nicom. ap. Bar. an. 293. ↩

84. Hist. Euch. I. P. ch. 11. pag. 159. ch. 14. p. 175. Bourd. rep. ch. 19. ↩

85. Calixt. n. 11. Bourd. rép. ch. 19. Conc. Caesaraug. C. III. Conc. Tol. I. C. XIV. T. II. Conc. ↩

86. Hist. Euch. I. P. ch. 14. p. 174. ↩

87. Conc. Tol. XI. C. XI. T. VI. Conc. ↩

88. Rep. ch. 18. ↩

89. Just. apol. 2. ↩

90. Greg. Dial. III. c. 136. ↩

91. I. vit. ↩

92. Naz. ↩

93. Hist. Euch. I. P. ch. 12. p. 159. ↩

94. Disp. num. 10. ↩

95. I. Part. ch. 11. p. 144. ↩

96. Ibid. p. 283. ↩

97. Qui proculdubio (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur adstringi) aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integra arceantur. Gel. ibid. ↩

98. Nescioqua superstitione decentur adstringi. ↩

99. Du Bourd. ibid. p. 283. ↩

100. Vit. Gel. T. IV. Conc. ↩

101. Bib. PP. Var. T. de div. Off. ↩

102. Hug. de S. Vict. erud. Theol. l. III. c. 20. ↩

103. Conc. Trull. c. 52. ↩

104. Conc. Laod. c. 49.91. ↩

105. Euch. Goat. Bibl. PP. Paris. T. II ↩

106. Synodic. seu Pand. Guill. Bevereg. Oxon. 1672. Not. in Can. 52. Conc. ↩

107. Trull. T. II. p. 156. Leo All. Ep. ad Nihus. ↩

108. Harmenop. Ep. Can. sect. 2. Tit. 6. ↩

109. Alc. de Div. Off. Amal. lib. r. de Div. Off. Bib. PP. de Div. Off. ↩

110. Bern. Ep. 69. p. 92. ↩

111. Amal. l. III. 24. ibid. ↩

112. Lib. I. 12. ↩

113. Isaac Ling[…]t. Specil. T.[…]. p. 151. ↩

114. Hildeb eod. T. Bibl. PP. ↩

115. Rup. de Div. Off. l. II. c. 9. & lib. V. c. 20. Hug. de S. Vict. erud. Theol. l. III. c. 20. ↩

116. Euseb. Gailic. sive Euch. T. 6. Max. Bib. P P. hom. V. de Pasch. ↩

117. Amb. de init. c. 9. ↩

118. Amb. lib. IV. Sac. c. 5. ↩

119. Iren. IV. 34. ↩

120. Just. ap. 2. ↩

121. 1. Cor. 10.16.
     ↩

122. Sess. 21. post Canon. ↩

123. Sess. 22. in fine. ↩