The history of the Eucharist divided into three parts : the first treating of the form of celebration : the second of the doctrine : the third of worship in the sacrament / written originally in French by monsieur L'Arroque ... done into English by J.W.

CHAP. XII.

Of the things distributed and received.

WHat was distributed unto Believers in Com∣municating, were the things which had been Blessed and Consecrated, to be made the Sa∣craments of the Body and Blood of our Lord. I will not now examine the change which Consecration may thereunto bring, this not being the place to treat of the Doctrine of the holy Fathers, which shall appear in the second part of this Treatise: it will suffice here to enquire if Christians have always participated of both Symboles, and if they have ever been permitted to Communicate under both kinds, as is spoken; or under one kind only. As for the Symbole of Bread, it is an undoubted truth that it hath always been given to Believers in all Christian Communions in the whole world; and there hath never been any contest on this subject, at least in what regards the thing it self, I mean the matter of fact, not to speak of the difference touching the quality of the Bread which ought to be used in this Mystery: The greatest diffi∣culty then is to know the practice of the Church in the spe∣cies of Wine; we are indispensably forced to treat of the Com∣munion under both kinds, and to lay before the Readers eyes the practice of Christians, with the changes and innovations which have therein happened. Jesus Christ, who distributed the Bread unto his Apostles, gave unto them also the Cup, and expresly commanded them all to drink of it, as S. Matthew hath written: S. Mark hath said that they all drank of it. The Christians im∣mediately following the Apostles practised the very same; but because it would make a whole Volume, to collect the passages of the Ancients to prove the certainty of this matter, and be∣sides, both Roman Catholicks, as well as Protestants, confess, That Jesus Christ did institute this Sacrament under both kinds, That the Apostles taught so, and that it was so practised by the primitive Church for a long time, as I think it may suffice to prove this Tradition from age to age by some of the clear∣est passages, and to follow it until its abolishing at the Council of Constance, and from that time until the Council of Trent.

Justin Martyr affirms, that in his time, there was distributed Consecra∣ted Bread and Wine unto all the Communicants. The pretended Ignatius tells us, of one only Cup distributed unto all; And S. Irenaeus, disputing against certain Hereticks who denied the Resurrection of the Body; How (saith he) do they deny that the Body is capable of the gift of God, which is life eternal, which is nourished with the Blood and Body of Christ? And again, How do they again say, that the Body corrupteth (that is to say, with a final corruption), and that it re∣ceiveth not life; (to wit, in rising again) being nourished with the Body and Blood of Christ. Origen on the Book of Numbers, What is this people which are wont to drink Blood? the Christian people, the faith∣ful people, follow him who said, If you eat not my Flesh, and drink not my Blood, you have no life in you; because my Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed. And to shew, that he speaks of the Sacramental Communion, he adds; It is said, that we drink the Blood of Jesus Christ, not only in the Celebration of the Sacraments, but also when we receive his words. And elsewhere he speaks, of unad∣visedly taking the Bread of our Lord and his Cup. The blessed Martyr S. Cyprian, hath written a Treatise expresly of the Sacrament of the Cup, as S. Austin calls it, where he amply proves this Com∣munion which we examin; and in another place, writing, with his Brethren, unto Cornelius Bishop of Rome, touching the reso∣lution they had taken to admit into the unity of the Church, those who had flinched in times of persecution; and speaking of the excellent Motive which they found in communicating of the Cup to incourage Christians unto Martyrdom; see here what they said, How should we incourage them to shed their blood for the confession of the name of Jesus, if going to the Combat, we should deny them the Blood of Christ? Or how should we make them fit to drink the Cup of Martyrdom, if we do not admit them first to drink in the Church, the Cup of the Lord by the right of Communication? And in his Trea∣tise of those that had fallen during the persecution of the Church, he saith, That the Deacon presented the Cup unto them who were present, as Justin Martyr also hath taught us. The Councils of Ancyra, An∣no 314. in the second Canon, and that of Neocaesarea the same Year in the XIII. Canon, inform us also the same thing; as also a Synod of Alexandria, Assembled during the Persecutions stirred up by the Arrians against S. Athanasius. Thence it is, that Leo the First, speaking in the V. Century of S. Vincent Levite, (that is to say, Deacon and glorious Martyr) saith, That he admini∣stred the Cup unto the Christians for their salvation. Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Numidia, observes the same of Cecilian, as he was yet but Deacon of the Church of Carthage, and writes also, that what drew on him the hatred of Lucilla, a powerful and factious

Woman, who by her Riches and Credit, supported the Party of the ••onatists, against Cecilian, promoted to be a Bishop, was, That Cecilian performing the Office of a Deacon, pronounced a severe Sentence against her; because in presenting her the Cup, she kissed the Bone of some dead person or Martyr, before she put her lips unto the Cup of the Lord. S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his My∣stagogicks, Aster having communicated of the Body of Christ, draw near unto the Cup of his Blood, &c. S. Basil said, the benefit of the words of the Institution of the Eucharist is, That eating and drink∣ing, we should alwaies have him in remembrance who Died, and is Ri∣sen again for us; And elsewhere, It is a thing good and profitable to communicate daily, and to participate of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; The Liturgies also which go in his name, may be here alledged, and all the others which are now remaining, from which it is easie to collect the use and practice of communicating under both kinds. S Chrysostom in his Homilies upon S. Matthew, The same Table is offered unto all, the same Drink is given unto all, but not only the same Liquor, but it is also given unto us all to drink of one, and the same Cup; for our Father injoining us to love one another, he so ordered it, that we should drink of the same Cup; And upon S. John, speaking of the Water and Blood which came out of Christs side; The Mysteries do from thence take their Original, to the end as oft as ye approach unto the terrible Cup, ye should draw near, as if it were to drink out of his side it self. And upon the Second to the Corinthians, There are certain times, when there is no difference betwixt the Priest and those over whom he doth preside; as when they are to participate of the terri∣ble Mysteries, for we are all equally admitted there; it is not as under the old Law, the Priest ate some things, and the people other things, and the people were not permitted to eat of what the Priest did eat: but now it is otherwise, for one Body, and one Cup, is offered unto all. S. Austin in his Questions upon Leviticus, The Lord saying, If you eat not my Flesh, and drink my Blood, you have no life in you. What was the reason of so strictly prohibiting the people from the Blood of the Sa∣crifices offered for sins, if those Sacrifices did represent the only Sacri∣fice, wherein the true and full remission of sins is made? nevertheless, no person is hindred from taking this Sacrifice for his nourishment, but ra∣ther all those who would be saved, are exhorted to drink it. Leo the First, in his Lent Sermon speaking of the Manicheans, who, not to appear what they were, frequented the Assemblies of Belie∣vers, and did also participate with them of their Sacraments: To hide (saith he) their Infidelity, they have the impudence to assist at our Mysteries, they so dispose themselves in the Communion of the Sa∣craments; to shelter themselves the better, they receive with an unwor∣thy mouth the Body of Christ, but they absolutely refuse drinking the

Blood of our Redemption; Therefore we give your Holiness notice of it, to the end this kind of men may be known by these marks, and that such other Sacrilegious Dissimulation hath been discovered, may be marked, and that being forbidden to be present in the Society of the Saints, they might be expell'd by the Priestly Authority. In the Tenth Action of the Council of Chalcedon, Assembled An. 451. there is a request of the Priests of the Church of Edessa, against Ibas their Bishop, wherein they complain of many things, but more especially, That when the Commemoration of Martyrs was made, there was no Wine given to offer at the Altar, to be Sanctified and distributed unto the people, except it were a very lit∣tle, and that bad and muddy, just newly prest and made. Pope Gelasius at the end of the V. Century, in Gratians Decree: We have been informed (saith he) that some persons having only taken part of the ho∣ly Body, do refrain the Cup of the holy Blood; which persons doubtless, it being said, they are hindred by I know not what Superstition, ought to re∣ceive the whole Sacraments, or be quite excluded from them; because that the dividing of one and the same Mysterie, cannot be done without Sa∣criledge. S. Fulgentius said, That we participate of the Body and Blood of Christ, when we eat of his Bread, and drink of his Cup. S. Eloy Bishop of Noyon in the VII. Century, requires, That the sick should with Faith and Devotion, receive the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ. The Third Council of Toledo, Assembled Anno 589. in the second Canon, Ordains; That the peoples heart being purified by Faith, they should draw near to eat the Body and Blood of Christ. Which the Fourth held in the year of our Lord 633. in the 7. and 8. Canons called, To receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. And in the Eighteenth Canon, it makes this Rule for reforming a certain abuse crept into the Church, in the celebration of this Sa∣crament. Some Priests communicate presently after saying the Lords Prayer, and then give the Blessing unto the people, which we forbid for the future; but that after the Lords Prayer, and the conjunction of the Bread and the Cup, the blessing be given the people, and that then the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord be received in this manner, that the Priest and Deacon communicate before the Altar, the Clergy in the Quire, and the people without the Quire. From which words it appears, That in Spain in the VII. Century, the Communion of the Laity, did nothing differ from that of the Priest who Officia∣ted as to the manner, but in respect of the place only. Also the XI. Council of Toledo, Assembled Anno 675. in the Eleventh Canon plainly speaks also of the Communion under both the Sym∣bols of Bread and Wine, when it forgiveth such as being very sick through weakness, refuse the Eucharist, not through infidelity, But because they cannot swallow it down, except it be what they drink of the Lords Cup. Thus far it was the practice of the Church, to

administer unto Communicants both Symbols severally apart; It is true, that at the same time of this XI. Council of Toledo, some go∣ing about to change this wholsom custom, and to administer the Bread steept in the Consecrated Wine, the Council of Braga in Gallicia, made a Decree to stop the current of this practice; but before we alledge this new Decree, it must be observed, That the Church by a charitable condescension, suffered the Eucharist steeped to be given unto very weak and sick persons, and to young Children, who were of a long time admitted to the par∣ticipation of the Sacrament, as hath been shewn; We have an in∣stance of the first, in the old Man Serapion, a Penitent, and Bed∣ridden, (for as I perceive in the Third Century, the Eucharist was administred to no sick folks, but such as were of the number of the Penitents, and in danger of Death); And we read in Eusebi∣us, that a Priest of Alexandria following the example of Denys his Bishop, sent by a young Boy a bit, or little parcel of the Eucharist, commanding that it should be steept, and put into the old Mans mouth, that he might swallow it. As for young Children it appears, that it may be collected both from S. Cyprian in his Treatise of those that were fallen and yielded, during the time of Persecution, and of the counterfeit Prosper, in what he hath written of Promi∣ses and Predictions, that it was so done to such as were very weak; I say it may seem to be gathered, for the thing is very dubious in S. Cyprian who teacheth us, that the Communion was given unto little Children, but he doth not positively say, that the Bread was steept in the Wine; the pretended Prosper speaks more formally. In a word, it is evident, that this kind of Com∣munion was not practised but in great necessity, and also as Cas∣sander hath judiciously observed, Those persons who steeped the Bread in the Wine, did plainly shew and declare, how necessary they be∣lieved both Symbols were, to make a lawful Communion.

I say this sort of Communion was not practised; I mean that the Bread was not steeped in Wine, but upon great necessity. In fine, Hugh Maynard a learned Benedictine, speaking of the Council of Clermont under Pope Ʋrban the second, as 'tis reported by Cardi∣nal Baronius, he collects, that according to the intent of the Coun∣cil, may be given in a Spoon, unto sick Persons ready to dye, the Body of our Lord steeped in the Blood, that they might swal∣low it the easier. And to shew that the Eucharist was not so ad∣ministred, but unto such as were very weak, he makes mention of a Manuscript of St. Remy of Rheims, Of the anointing the sick, written towards the end of the X. Century: upon which he observes, that when the Sacrament was administred unto such as were not ex∣tream ill, it was said unto them separately, The Body of our Lord Jesus

Christ keep you to life everlasting; the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ransom you unto life everlasting: which words (saith he) make a sepa∣rate and distinct reception. But as for those who were as 'twere at the point of death, these two expressions were joined together, saying, The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul unto ever∣lasting life; because (saith he) there was given unto the sick Person in a Spoon, the Body of the Lord steeped in the holy Blood. Now to return to the Council of Braga in Gallicia, it was assembled in the year of our Lord 675. and in the second Canon, which Gratian, Ives of Chartres, Cassander, and several others mis-alledge, as a Fragment of an Epistle of Pope Julius to the Egyptians; I say, in the second Canon it reproves divers abuses, and amongst others, that of ad∣ministring the Sacrament steeped; therefore we will rest satisfi∣ed with alledging that which properly relates to the Subject in hand, We are given to understand that some Persons present unto the peo∣ple, as a perfect Communion, the Eucharist steeped. And having touched another abuse, and having proved by the Scriptures, that Milk should not be offered in stead of Wine in divine Sacrifices, the Fa∣thers add, And whereas they give unto the people as a perfect Communion the Eucharist steeped, the example of the Scripture which is alledged, where Jesus Christ recommended his Body and Blood unto his Apostles, will not admit of it: for it is said, that he bid them take his Body apart, and his Blood apart. And we do not read that Jesus Christ gave the steeped Bread unto any but the Disciple, which should be known to be him, to whom 'twas given, even him that would betray his Master, and not to shew the In∣stitution of the Sacrament. We are then arrived at the end of the VII. Century, without seeing any other attempt against the Com∣munion under both kinds separately, but that which was vigo∣rously condemned and censured by the Council of Braga. Let us continue to give farther proofs of this use. A Council at Paris assembled Anno 829 under Lewis the Debonnair, it is the VI. which unto that time was there celebrated; this Council I say, in the first Book, Canon the 45. condemns an abuse which was crept into certain Provinces, Where the Women distributed unto the people (that is in the Churches) the Body and Blood of our Lord; and in the 47. Canon, it forbids Priests, to celebrate Masses any where but in consecrated places, unless it be in case of necessity, To the end the people should not be without the celebration of Masses, and the participa∣tion of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Theodulph Bishop of Orleans, in the same Century, speaking of life eternal: To obtain (saith he) this life, we are Baptized, and we eat the flesh of Christ and do drink his Blood, and afterwards, the Church continues the custom of re∣ceiving the Eucharist which was bequeathed unto her by Jesus Christ, that is when any one is new born by Water and the spirit, (that is to say, is

Baptized), he is nourished with the body of our Lord, and drinks his Blood; because that immediately after Baptism, they received the Sa∣crament. Amalarius Fortunatus; It is to be observed (saith he) that every Sunday in Lent, all the believers, (except such as are excommu∣nicated) ought to receive the Sacraments of the Body and blood of Christ. Pope Nicholas the First, in his answer to the Bulgarians, requires, that the venerable Body of Christ, and his pretious Blood, be distinguished and discerned from other meat, and that the one and the other be re∣ceived. Regino, in his Chronicle of the year of our Lord 869. observes that Pope Adrian the second gave the Sacrament unto King Lothair, after that he had sworn, that he had dismist for e∣ver, Waldrad, his Concubine, and that this Prince received in his hands the Body and Blood of the Lord: and that it may not be thought it was a priviledge belonging to Lothair by reason of his Kingly Dignity, the Historian saith, that Pope Adrian did present the Communion unto all those which accompanied Lothair, with these words, If you have not been assisting unto Lothair your Lord and King, in the sin of Adultery laid to his charge, and if you have no way consented thereunto, and have had no communication with Waldrad, and others who have been excommunicated by this Apostolical Chair, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable unto you for life everlasting. Ratherius, Bishop of Verona in Italy, towards the end of the X. Century, Let all evil intentions be laid aside, as well of those which receive, as of those which administer the Body and Blood of the Lord; in his Synodical unto his Priests, he orders them, to warn Be∣lievers to come four times a year to the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ; and in his first Sermon of Easter, Let us (saith he) ce∣lebrate the Feast, (that is to say) let us eat the flesh of the Lord, and drink his Blood; And again, Lay aside wickedness, if you will eat the flesh of the Lamb of God, and drink his Blood. And again speaking of him that had unduly celebrated the precedent Easter, He dared approach to re∣ceive the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God. And of him that had not followed the example of the Saints, How doth he presume without sighing and grieving, this day to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord; And in his second Sermon. Let us with joy receive the Body and Blood of Christ, which was sacrificed for us; And in the third, Let every one examine himself, to see if the Priest hath said true of him (that is to say) if he hath received the Body and Blood of the Lord, with the unlevened Bread of sincerity and of truth. Ratherius dyed Anno 974. yet it is true, that the practice of administring the Eucharist steeped, was introduced into some places about the time Ratherius did write; for Hugh Maynard above mentioned, amongst several Manuscripts he used in his work upon the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the First, makes use of one under the name of Ratold, Abbot of Corby,

written about the year of our Lord 986. wherein it is read that the Bishop should give the Communion unto the sub-Deacons, In mingling the Sacrifice, that is to say, in mingling the holy Bread with the consecrated Wine; for as for the Priests and Deacons, he will have them to taste with their lips, the Blood in the Cup, the sub-Deacon holding it; And another of John, Bishop of Auranch, whose title is The antient manner of celebrating Mass, which he got from an antient Manuscript of the Priory of Saluza, of the Prebends of the Order of St. Austin in Normandy, of Vexin near Vernon. But it appears by the beginning of the Manuscript cited by Maynard, that this John, Bishop of Auranch, is Author of the piece which he dedi∣cated to Maurill, Archbishop of Roan, and this John dyed, as the same Maynard in his Notes observes, in the year 1079. there this is to be read, That the Priest should communicate not with steeped Bread, but according to the definition of the Council of Toledo (in all likelihood he means that of Braga, in the year 675.) The Body apart, and the Blood apart, excepting the people, unto whom he is permit∣ted to give the Communion with steeped Bread, not by authority, but by great necessity, for fear of shedding the Blood of Christ: where the Rea∣der may observe if he please, that the case is, by way of per∣mission; and farther, of a permission grounded not upon the au∣thority of a Council, but upon the necessity that is alledged, of the fear or danger of effusion: something of like nature is to be found in the antient customs of the Monastery of Cluny, which were writ∣ten after the death of the Abbot Odilon, who dyed about the mid∣dle of the XI. Century, but in such a manner, as appears that this custom was peculiar to the Congregation of Cluny, the other Church∣es distributing both Symbols severally: Ʋuto all those unto whom he gives the holy Body, (say these antient customs) he first wets or steeps it in the Blood; but in the Margent, they make this observation, Another Manuscript adds, Although this be contrary to the practice of other Churches, because some of our Novices are such slovens that should they receive the Blood by it self, they would not fail of being guilty of some great neglect. Which words, Cassander alledged in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds; for he saw the Ma∣nuscripts before the customs were Printed, as they have been with∣in this six or seven years past; but it appears by the words above alledged, that in most Churches, the Bread and Wine of the Sa∣crament were given apart and distinct from one another. In the year 1095. Ʋrban the Second held a Council at Clermont in Auvergna, that made a Decree which is variously reported; Cardinal Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals gives it us in these terms, That no Body pre∣sume to Communicate at the Altar without receiving the Body apart, and also the Blood by it self, unless it be by necessity and with precaution. This necessity regards the sick above-mentioned, and this care, or pre∣caution,

refers in all likelihood, to the danger of spilling, which might happen more especially at great and festival Communions, by reason of the great number of people that comunicates; and doubtless it was upon such occasions that John Bishop of Auranch intended it should be permitted to give the Sacrament steeped un∣to the people; if it were not better to refer unto the same sub∣ject (that is to say) unto sick bed-rid Persons, both the necessity and precaution of the Canon in Baronius. In a word, Oderic Vital in his ninth Book of his Ecclesiastical History upon the year 1095. upon the relation of Maynard in his Notes upon the same Book of Sacraments of Gregory, thus represents unto us the Canon, That the Body of the Lord be received separately, and also the Blood of the Lord; he speaks neither of necessity nor precaution: and with∣out that, the Canon is clear and intelligible and without any difficulty; it is no easiy matter to judge in what manner the Council exprest it self, it only can be said, that it seems to express it self, as Oderic Vital saith, if it be considered in the first place, that 'twas in this Council of Clermont, the Croy∣sade was granted for recovering the Holy Land. Secondly, that it appears by a Letter written from Antioch by the Adventurers, four years after the Council, that is to say, in the year 1099. and directed unto Manasses, Archbishop of Rheims, that the Christians resolving to make a sally upon those which held them closely be∣sieged in Antioch, did first Communicate, but under both Symbols distinctly, These things being heard, the Christians being purified by cenfessing their sins, and strongly armed by receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord, and being prepared for the combat, they marched out of the gate. Unto which may be added, that a little before the Coun∣cil of Clermont, most Churches did Communicate, as we have been informed by the antient customs of Cluny, under both kinds distinctly. But Paschal the Second who succeeded unto Ʋrban, Anno 1099. commands both Symbols to be distributed separately, except it be unto young Children, and such as are at the point of death; for unto such, he gives liberty they should be communicated with the holy Wine only, because they cannot swallow down the Bread. And about the same time the Micrologue observes, that the Communion with the steeped Sacrament, is no lawful Com∣munion, and proves it by the authority of the Roman Order. It appears also that about fifty years before this Council of Cler∣mont, the steeped Sacrament was not always given unto Persons ready to depart this life, but the holy Bread, and the sanctified Cup apart; at least nothing hinders but it may so be gathered from the Chronicle of Fontanella, otherwise St. Wandrill, in Normandy: for speaking of Gradulph, one of its Abbots, who dyed in the

year 1047. it saith, That being at the point of death, and having received the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, he dyed.

Nevertheless, the best and most holy things absolutely dege∣nerate from their institution, let us see the manner that the Com∣munion with the steeped Eucharist was introduced and establish∣ed in several places, but not universally. We have a Letter of Ernulph, or Arnulph, or if you please of Arnold, at first a Monk at S. Lueiens of Beauvais, then at Canterbury in Lanfranck's time, after∣wards made a Prior by Anselm; a little after, Abbot of Burk, and at last by Radulph, Bishop of Rose, now Rochester, in England; he died Anno 1124. in this Letter which he writes unto one Lam∣bert, who demanded wherefore the Sacrament was then given steept, seeing our Saviour gave the Bread and Wine distinctly; he approves this new manner of giving the Sacrament, although he owns that Jesus Christ distributed it otherwise, and he likes it for the danger of shedding, especially upon Festival daies, be∣cause of the great numbers of persons that then use to communi∣cate; also he touches the inconvenience might happen by reason of men that have long and great Beards, representing, that if at their Meals, they wet their Whiskars in the Liquor before they re∣ceive it in their mouth, it may be feared, they do the same in the Consecrated Wine, if they are admitted unto the Sacramental Cup, which he accounts a great crime, which he chargeth upon the Communicant, and also him that celebrates: besides, to strengthen what he saith, of the danger of effusion upon solemn Festival daies, when great numbers of Men and Women must be communicated of all sorts, and conditions; he observes, that he that officiates, will be still in danger of spilling something out of the Sacred Cup, let him take never so much care and caution in distributing it, because he often runs the hazard of this effusion, when he is about to drink of it himself; which cannot be done, as he tells us, without falling into a great sin, whereof he must be obliged to make great repentance. From all which he concludes, in favour of the steeped Sacrament, and praiseth the wisdom of those who first established this manner of Communicating with the Bread steept in Wine, saying, That pious men had prudently directed, that the little portion of the Body should not be given dry, as our Lord had done, but that it should be distributed unto Believers steeped in the Blood of our Lord, and that by this means it should happen, that ac∣cording to the precept of our Saviour, we should eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood, and that he that feared to sin in so great a matter, might a∣void the danger. And he gives for a reason of this conduct, That we eat dry, and drink liquid what goes down the throat, after having re∣ceived it in the mouth, either together, or separately. And because some

considering that Jesus Christ had given the steept morsel unto Ju∣das, did not approve this manner of distributing the Sacrament, he saith, there's a great deal of difference betwixt the Eucharist steeped, and the Morsel which our Lord gave the Disciple that betray'd him, because the actions which have a different occasion, cannot agree well together: Afterwards taking with many others, the Decree of the Council of Braga, of the year 675. against the steeped Sacrament, for a Decree of Pope Julius, he saith, this De∣cree is no longer of force with modern persons, and that the cu∣stoms of the Church, which surpasse all others, as well in rea∣son, as in authority, hath overcome this ancient Constitution, that it should not be thought strange, because the Decrees of o∣ther Popes are changed for the like, and sometimes upon smaller occasions.

But although this Author of the XII. Century, of whom Car∣dinal Cusa cites something in Cassander, in his Liturgies, gives us this form of administring the Sacrament with steept Bread, as esta∣blish'd in his time in the West; it cannot be said, that it was uni∣versally received in all Churches without exception. In fine, be∣sides what we alledged out of the Micrologue, and of Pope Pas∣chal, who made his Decree in the XII. Century; Arnold of Bonne∣val, contemporary with S. Bernard, in his Sermon of the Supper of the Lord, in S. Cyprian's Works, sheweth us sufficiently, that in the same XII. Century wherein he lived, the use of the Cup was not forbidden the people, when he saith, It was under the Do∣ctor Christ Jesus, that this Discipline first of all appeared in the World, that Christians should drink Blood, whereof the use was so strictly pro∣hibited by the Authority of the ancient Law; for the Law forbids eating of Blood, and the Gospel commands to drink it; And again, We drink Blood, Jesus Christ himself commanding it, being partakers by, and with him of everlasting life. And at the conclusion of the Treatise, he with several other Doctors of the Church, who lived before him, in that Believers are partakers of one Bread, and of one Cup, doth search a type of their union, or rather of their Spiritual unity in Christ Jesus, who is the head of this Divine Body. We also (saith he) being made his Body, are tied and bound unto our head, both by the Sacrament, and by the matter of the Sacrament; and being members one of another, we mutually render each other the duties of love, we communicate by charity, we participate with eating one and the same meat, and drink one and the same drink, which flows and springs from the Spiritual Rock, which meat and drink is our Lord Jesus Christ. I believe we may join unto Arnold of Bonneval, Peter de Celles, Abbot of S. Remy of Rheims, who lived at the end of the XII. Century; for in his Treatise of Cloister Discipline, which is come to light

but within these seven or eight years, he speaks in this manner; The communication of the Body of Christ, and of the Blood of Christ pour∣ed forth, to wit, of the Lamb without spot, purifieth us from all guilt, and from all sin. Let us say something more formal, Peter of Ta∣rantes, afterwards Pope, under the name of Innocent IV. writes, That the most considerable, as the Priests and Ministers of the Altar, do receive the Sacrament under both kinds. William of Montelaudana; in sundry places (saith he) They communicate with the Bread and Wine, (that is to say) with the whole Sacrament. And Peter de Pa∣lude, testifies, that in his time, It was the practice in several Churches to communicate under the one and the other species. Richard de Media∣villa, was of the same Judgement with Innocent IV. the one and the other giving for a reason, that those unto whom they admi∣nister the Communion under both kinds, Know very well how to yield thereunto the greater reverence and caution. All these, saith Cassander, lived about the 1300. year of our Lord. Wherefore the same Cassander observes in the same place, that Thomas Aquinas, who defends the use of communicating under one kind, doth not say, that this custom was universally received, but in some Churches only. And to say the truth, Christians found so much consolation and benefit in participating of the Cup of their Lord, that when in latter times they began to tell them of the danger of effusion, to dispose them to the use of communicating under one kind, there were several Churches, that rather than they would be deprived of the participation of the sacred Cup, invented cer∣tain little Quills which were fastened unto the Chalices, by means whereof, they drank the Mystical Blood of our Lord, as Beatus Rhenanus, testifies in his Notes upon Tertullian's Book De Corona Militis; and Cassander in his Treatise of the Com∣munion under both kinds: both of them in their time, having seen of these Quills or little Pipes, which were used for com∣municating the Laity. Let us descend yet lower, and we shall find about 35. years before the Council of Constance, an exam∣ple of the Communion under both kinds in Rome it self, not in∣deed of the People, but of all the Cardinal Deacons; for Ʋrban VI. who began the great Schism which lasted from the year 1378. until 1428. being Elected Pope at Rome Anno 1378. in the place of Gregory XI. He solemnly celebrated Mass upon S. Peter's Al∣tar, in his Pontifical Habit; wherein all things were performed accord∣ing to the order of the Rubrick; and in fine, he with his own hands gave the Communion unto all the Cardinal Deacons, with the pretious Body and Blood of Christ; as it was alwaies the manner of Popes to do; Thus it was written unto Lewis Earl of Flanders, Anno 1378. by Pilei••de Prata, Archbishop of Ravenna, and Cardinal,

in one of the Tomes of the collection of Dom Luke de Achery.

But, as from the distribution of both Symbols separately, in the latter Ages they came to administer the Bread in the Consecra∣ted Wine; so from the distributing the Eucharist steeped, by lit∣tle and little, insensibly in some Churches of the West, they gave the Communicants only the consecrated Bread, a custom which in process of time introduced it self almost into all the Western Churches, until that it was established in the year 1415. upon Saturday, the 15. of June, by this Decree of the Council of Con∣stance. This present holy general Council of Constance lawfully Assem∣bled by the Holy Ghost, declares, discerns, and defines, that although Jesus Christ after Supper instituted and administred unto his Disci∣ples, this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of Bread and Wine, yet nevertheless the commendable authority of holy Canons, and the approved custom of the Church hath observed, and doth observe, that this Sacra∣ment ought not to be celebrated after Supper, nor to be received of Be∣lievers but fasting, except in case of sickness or some other necessity, al∣lowed, or admitted by Law, or by the Church: and in like manner, that although in the Primitive Church, Believers received the Sacrament un∣der both kinds; yet nevertheless to avoid certain perils, inconveniencies, and scandals, this custom was fitly introduced, that those who officiated should receive under both kinds, and the Laity under the species of Bread only, withall that they should firmly believe and nothing doubt, that the intire Body of Christ, and the Blood, are truly contained, as well under the species of Bread, as under the species of Wine. Therefore such a custom being reasonably introduced both by the Church and by the holy Fathers, and that it was a long while observed, it ought to pass for a Law, which is not allowed to be rejected, nor changed by every bodies fancy, without the Au∣thority of the Church. Therefore they are to be judged erroneous, that think it to be Sacrilegious or unjust to observe this custom, or this Law; and those who obstinately affirm the contrary of what is above said, ought to be banished as Hereticks, and severely punished by the Diocesans of the places, or their Offi∣cials, or by the Inquisitors of the Heretical evil, in the Kingdoms or Pro∣vinces, where by hazard or on purpose, they have attempted or presumed any thing against this Decree, according to the lawful Ordinances and Canons which have been seasonably made against Hereticks, and their abet∣tors against the Catholick Faith. But notwithstanding the seve∣rity of this Decree, Cassander hath left us upon Record in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds formerly cited, That it is read, that Pope Martin the Fifth, after the Council of Constance, did practise, in the solemn Office of Easter, the Precept and Formulary of the Roman Order, in giving the Communion unto the people under both kinds: The same in the same place relates, as from Thomas Waldensis, That after the Synod of Constance, the Pope of Rome did not forbear giving the Communion after the use of Rome (that is

to say, under both kinds) unto the Deacons, the Ministers of the Altar, and unto other persons eminent in Piety and Worth, as also unto Rectors of places, and considerable Monasteries, his Brethren, and unto others he thought worthy of so great a Gift. He saith moreover, That Cardinal Cusa, in his Letter written unto the Clergy and learned Men of Bohemia, Anno 1452. some years after the Council of Basle, declares, That until very near his time, the Pope, at the Feast of Easter, suffered the Laity, unto whom he had with his own hands given the Body of the Lord, to receive the Blood from the hands of the Deacons: And that Nicholas of Palerma, who assisted at the Council of Basle, saith, That the opinion of Doctors is, That it would not be ill done that the Com∣municant should also receive the Blood. This Council of Basle, whereat this Archbishop was present, granted unto the Bohemians the Com∣munion under both kinds, provided that in all other things they should conform unto the Church of Rome, and that they would instruct them to believe, that Jesus Christ was contained wholly under the one and the other species. All those who are any thing read in the History of those times, know that those of Bohemia, who differed nothing from the Church of Rome, but only in the matter of the Communion under both kinds, were called for that reason Calixtins, different from the true Taborites: but so 'tis, as it appears by a Letter from George Pogiebrac, King of Bohemia, that these Calixtins did not quietly enjoy this Grant; for in this Letter, which was written in the year 1468. and for which we are obliged unto Dom Luke d'Achery, a Benedictine Monk, this Prince declares himself plainly to be a Calixtin; That he was bred up in this manner of Communicating under both kinds; That his Father, Mother, and Grand-mother had so practised; That the Council of Basle had granted Liberty of it unto his Subjects, not by way of permission, as the Church sometimes tolerates Sins, but to the end it should be allowed by the Authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our holy Mother the Church, his Spouse; That in all other things he agrees with the Church of Rome; so that it appears by this apologetical Letter, which he writes unto Matthias King of Hungary, his Son-in-Law, that he only desired liberty of Communicating under both kinds, as he had been taught by his Father and Grandfather; and I doubt not, but a part of this Apology will in convenient time and place, give suffici∣ent ground for making a clear and certain Judgement of the Be∣lief of the ancient Taborites, upon the point of the Eucharist. But after all these changes, happened at sundry times, the Council of Trent in the 21. Session, being the Fifth under Pope Pius IV. Anno 1562. the 16. of July, after having spoken of the Authority which the Church hath alwaies had in the dispensation of Sacra∣ments, to change in time, and place, what she thought fit, the

substance still remaining intire: it adds, That therefore the Holy Mo∣ther the Church, being sensible of this wholsom Authority in the admini∣stration of Sacraments, although that at the beginning of Christian Reli∣gion, the use of both kinds was frequent; nevertheless, in process of time this custom being changed, it was introduced for wise and solid reasons, to approve this custom of communicating under one kind, and hath com∣manded it to pass into a Law, which shall not be allowed to be alter'd or laid aside at pleasure, without the Authority of the same Church. And in the following Chapter, which is the Third of Doctrine, It declares moreover, That though our Redeemer (as it is said) in his last Supper, instituted this Sacrament under both kinds, and gave it unto his Apostles; Yet it must be confessed, that Jesus Christ intirely, and the true Sacrament; is received under one species, and that so, as to what concerns the benefit, such are not deprived of any grace necessary to salva∣tion, who receive but under one kind. After all which, the Council makes these three Canons: If any one shall say, that by the command of Christ, or for necessity of Salvation, all Believers in general, and each one in particular, is obliged to receive both kinds of the holy Sa∣crament of the Eucharist, let him be Anathema. If any one shall say, that the holy Catholick Church was not moved by just causes, and reasons, to administer the Communion unto the Laity, and Clergy not officiating, under the species of Bread only, or that she hath therein erred, let him be Anathema. If any body shall deny, that whole Christ, the Fountain and Author of all Graces, is received under the sole species of Bread, because as some falsely suggest, he is not received according to Christ's own In∣stitution under both kinds, let him be accursed. See here exactly whereunto things amounted in the West. Whereupon some have made these Reflections; In the first place, that about 300. years before the use of the Cup was taken away from the people by publick Authority; the Albigenses, and Waldenses, had separated themselves from the Latin Church, to make a Body apart, which Body hath alwaies practised the Communion under both kinds: Secondly, that at the time the Council of Constance made her De∣cree, there was in Bohemia, besides the Calixtins, who only de∣sired the use of the Cup, agreeing in all other points with the Church of Rome, the Taborites, so called from the Mountain Tabor where they had their Assemblies, unto whom some joining ma∣ny of the Waldenses, who, according to the testimony of Dubravius, had sheltered themselves in those parts ever since the XII. Centu∣ry, and that there were not only of these Waldenses at that time in Bohemia only, but also that there were great numbers of them in England, in Provence, the Valleys of Piedmont, and elsewhere. In the third place, that when the Council of Trent, in our Fathers daies, renewed and confirmed the Decree of Constance, touching

the taking away the Cup from the Laity, and Clergy that did not officiate, yet it referred unto the Popes disposing and power, to grant it unto those whom he should think fitting, and upon what conditions he should judge convenient, without insisting here up∣on the liberty our Kings have of Communicating under both kinds. In the fourth place, that since the Decree of the Council of Trent, an infinite number of persons of that same Commu∣nion, earnestly wished, that the use of the Cup which had been taken away, might be restored unto the people. Those which be any thing curious, may read what Cassander hath written, a man of the Communion of the Roman Church, and very intelli∣gent in Ecclesiastical Antiquity; I say, in his Consultation, Art. 22. In his Defence of the Book touching the Duty of a Devout Man, page 864. and in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds; and the demand which Catherine de Medicis, Queen of France, caused to be made unto the Pope in the behalf of France, Anno 1561. as is related at large by Monsieur de Thou, in his History. In fine, that the practice of all Christians is contrary to that of the Latins, because they all administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper under both kinds, to wit, the Grecians, the Melchites or Assyrians, the Georgi∣ans, Circassians, and Mingrelians, the Muscovites, and Russians, the Nestorians, the Christians of S. Thomas in the Indies, before they turned to the Latins, which was but in the last Century heither did they renounce their belief or worship, to imbrace the wor∣ship of the Latin Church, till the year 1599. the Jacobites, which are exceeding numerous, the Cophtites, or Christians in E∣gypt, the Abassins under Prester John, who is one of the greatest Princes in the World, the Armenians; and in fine, the Maronites, until that they submitted themselves unto the Latin Church in Clement VIII. his time. It is certain, there is some difference in the manner of distributing the Sacrament under both kinds a∣mongst these Christian Nations; for some of them put the Bread and Wine both together in a Spoon, as the Muscovites; others ad∣minister the Sacrament steeped, as the Armenians; if we may cre∣dit some persons; It is said, that the Greeks at this time do so, heretofore they distributed both kinds separately. In effect I see, that all agree that the Greeks give the Bread steept. There∣fore Humbert Cardinal of Blanoh-Selva, writing against the Ca∣lumnies of the Greeks in the XI. Century, said, That they put the Bread and Wine together, as we said the Muscovites do, who are of the Religion of the Greeks, taking them in a Spoon, which the Laity do at this time by relation of Goar, in his Notes upon the E••chology; but the Clergy receive both kinds separately. As for all the other Christians above mentioned, they Communicate

under both kinds separately, unto whom we may join all the Protestant Christians; but so it is, that there is not any one Chri∣stian Communion in the whole World, excepting only the La∣tin, but believe that the use of both Symbols is necessary unto a lawful Communion, whatever difference there may be amongst them in the manner of administring of it. Now it is evident by what hath been said, that unto this Communion under both kinds, cannot be opposed that, called the Communion of the Lai∣ty by the Ancients, because that means nothing else, as the learn∣ed on both sides agree, but to communicate with the people, and not with the Clergy; for instance, when a Clergy-man was degraded from his Office for some great sin, he was reduced to the degree of the common people, amongst whom he did com∣municate, and not with the Clergy, which is at this time practi∣sed amongst the Abyssins, and amongst the Protestants; but that makes nothing to the communicating under one kind, because the people participated of both kinds; Nor the peregrine Communi∣on, whereof mention is made, but very seldom, in the Monu∣ments which remain unto us of Antiquity; for all the certain knowledge we have of it, by reason of the few places that speak of it, is, that it regarded strangers who came from some other parts, unto some Church where they were admitted to receive the Sacrament; but after the manner that 'twas there celebrated, under both kinds. If this peregrine Communion may not better be understood of Clergy-men which travelled from one Church to another without Attestations or Certificates, in which case they were civilly received by reason of their character, but without ad∣mitting them unto the Communion of Divine Mysteries, almost as S. Chrysostom served Ammonius, and Isidorus; which also administred unto Theophilus Bp. of Alexandria, a pretext for persecuting S. Chry∣sostome; Nor that Believers were suffered to carry home unto their Houses the Bread of the Eucharist, to take it when they pleas'd: for besides, that it was an abuse which indeed was tolerated along time in the Church, but could be no prejudice unto the practice generally received, it may be observed, that those very persons which carried home with them the Bread of the Sacrament, did it not in all likelihood until after they had eaten part of it in the Assembly, and participated of the Cup of the Lord. Nor that there was given unto sick Folks at the point of Death, the Eu∣charist steeped, because it was a thing extraordinary, and that beside it was shewn by this practice, that both Symbols were be∣lieved to be necessary, nor that the XI. Council of Toledo, per∣mits the Cup only to be given unto those who are so weak, that they are not able to swallow down the consecrated Bread, unto

whom Pope Paschal II. joins young Children, because this suf∣ferance is grounded upon invincible necessity, as well as that which is practised by some Protestant Churches, towards those who have naturally such an aversion for Wine, that 'tis not in their power to surmount; in which cases, she dispenseth with the participation of the Cup, and is content to administer the Bread only.

After what hath been hitherto spoken of the Communion un∣der both kinds, I think it will be needless to add any more unto this History, which if I mistake not, I have written large enough to satisfie the curiosity of those who desire to be informed of what passed in the ancient Church, in the practice of so impor∣tant a matter, as is that of the Communion of the holy Cup; not but that a great number of other testimonies may be alledged for the establishment of this Tradition; but when I consider that if the great number of passages doth not prejudice the mat∣ter which is examined, yet it proves tedious unto the Reader, when too large: I shall forbear alledging any more to avoid ti∣ring those who shall give themselves the trouble of reading this Treatise; and I forbear the rather, that if they are persons who have any knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, they will know of themselves without my help, that there be many others in the Works of Tertullian, of S. Ambrose, Gaudentius, S. Jerome, S. Au∣stin, besides those related by Gratian in his Decree of Gregory the First, in the Roman Order, in the Books of Images, under the name of Charlemaine, in the Writings of Rabanus of Paschase, of Oecumenius, Theophylact, Fulbert of Chartres, Humbert of Blanch-Selva, of Lanfranc, Guilmond, Rupert de Duitz, Alger, S. Bernard, Odo Bishop of Cambray, of Lombard Master of the Sentences, and else∣where; as for such as have not applied themselves to the reading the Holy Fathers, they may sufficiently inform themselves of what I have written, how Christians have from time to time governed themselves in the matter of communicating under both kinds. Therefore I shall content my self in touching a circum∣stance which I had almost forgotten, and which in all likelihood will not be displeasing unto any; it concerns a Chalice of Saint Remy Archbishop of Rheims; this Prelate who was so famous in our France, especially after he had Baptized Clovis the first of our Kings who imbraced the Christian Religion: this Prelate I say, did Consecrate unto God a Cup to distribute the Communion un∣to the people, upon which he caused three Latin Verses to be in∣graved, which are preserved unto our daies, although the Cha∣lice is not in being, the Church of Rheims having been constrain∣ed to melt it, and to pay it for their Ransom unto the Normans,

above 700. years ago; and these Verses plainly shew, that in S. Remy's time, that is, towards the end of the V. Century, the people did not participate of the Bread of the Sacrament only, but also of the Cup of Benediction: Flodoard cites them in his Hi∣story of the Church of Rheims, and I'll make no difficulty of re∣presenting them in this History, in the same stile in which they were written;

Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro Injecto aeternus quem fudit vulnere Christus. Remigius reddit Domino sua vota Sacerdos.

Now I say to conclude this Chapter, it appears plainly by all that hath been said, that the Christian Church universally practised the Communion under both kinds separately, the space of 1000. years; that since that time, they began in some places in the La∣tin Church, to administer the Sacrament mixt, or steeped; from the Eucharist steeped, they came in process of time to distribute the consecrated Bread only, not in all places, but in some Churches, until that the Council of Constance, in the Year 1415. commanded by a publick Decree, the Communion to be given under one kind only, which yet was not so generally obeyed, but that we have produced since that time, examples and instances of a con∣trary practice. But in fine, the Council of Trent made its last Essay in the manner as hath been above declared; as for all the other Christian Churches which hold no commerce with the La∣tin, they administer the Sacrament under both Symbols, although it be with some little difference.

Notes

• Apolog. 1.
• Ep. ad Phila∣delph.
• Advers. haer. l. 5. c. 2.
• L. 4. c. 34.
• Hom. 16.
• Hom. 14. in Matth.
• Ep. 63.
• Ep. 54.
• P. 175. ult. edit.
• Apud Atha∣nas. Apolog. p. 732.
• In natal. ejus c. 2. L. 1. contr. Parmen.
• Mystag 5. p. 245. vide p. 244. L. de Baptism. c. 3.
• Ep. 289.
• Hom. 32. Graec. p. 319. E.
• Hom. 85. Graec.
• Hom. 18.
• L. 3. c. 57. t. 4.
• Serm. ••. c. 5.
• T 3. Concil. p. 382. F. ult. edit.
• De consecr. dist. 2. Ep. ad Major. & Joan.
• Fragm. 28. contr. Fabian. L. 2. de vita sua, c 15. p. 216.
• T. 4. Concil. p. 503.
• Ibid. p. 584, 587.
• Ib. p. 825.
• Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 44.
• Dimid. temp. c. 6.
• De commun. sub utraque spec. p. 1027.
• T. 4. Concil. p. 832.
• T. 3. Concil. Gall.
• De ord. Bapt. z. c. 18.
• T. 7. Spicil. p. 174.
• T. 6. Concil. p. 619. c. 65.
• Regino in Chro. ad an. 869.
• De Contempt. can. part. 1. t. 2. Spicileg. p. 182. Ib. p. 262.
• P. 309.
• Page 310.
• P. 311.
• P. 313.
• P. 320.
• P. 277.
• L. 2. c. 30. p. 146. t. 4. spicil.
• Non rema∣neret.
• T. 11. ad an. 1095.
• Page 379.
• T. 7. Spicil. p. 195.
• Pascal. 2. Ep. 32. t. 7. part. 1. p. 130.
• Cardinal Humbert a∣gainst the Greeks. t. 4. Bibl. patr. part 2. p. 217. A. Microlog. c. 18.
• C. 8. t. 3. Spicil. p. 268.
• T. 2. Spicil. p. 432.
• Apud. Cypr. p. 329. ult. edit. vid. p. 330.
• Ibid. p. 33••.
• T. 3. Spicil. p. 99.
• Apud. Cas∣sand. de Commun. sub utraque specie, p. 1043.
• p. 438.
• p. 1036.
• T. 4. p. 306.
• Sess. 13. t. 7. Concil. part. 2. p. 1042.
• p. 1037,
• T. 4. Spicileg. p. 413, 414, 415.
• Sess. 21. c. 2. & 3. de doctr.
• Can. 1.
• Can. 2.
• Can. 3.
• Hist. Thuan. l. 27.
• Flodoard. Histor. Re∣mens. l. 1. c. 10.