which conserves it But as nourishment followes birth if the Church had not known her selfe taught by God she durst not any longtime refuse to Christians regenerated by Baptisme that nourishment which JESUS-CHRIST has prepared for them in the Eucharist For neither JESUS-CHRIST nor the Apostles have ordained any thing left by writing concerning it The Church then has learnt by another way but alwayes equally certain what she can give or take away without doing any injury to her children and they have nothing to do but to rely upon her faith Let not our adversaryes thinke they can avoid the force of this argument under pretence that they do not understand these two passages of the Gospel as wee do I know very well they do neither understand of Baptisme with water this passage where it is said If you be not regenerated or borne again of water and the Holy Spirit nor of the eating and drinking of the Eucharist this other where it is writt If you eat not and drinke not so that they finde themselves no more obliged by these passages to give the Eucharist then Baptisme to little infants But without pressing too close upon these passages let us make them only this demande This precept Eat you this and drinke you all of it which you think is so universall dos it comprehend little children that are baptized If it comprehend all Christians what words of Scripture exclude little children Are they not Christians Woust wee give the victory to the Anabaptists who say they are not and condemne all antiquity which has acknowledged them as such But why do you except them from so generall a precept without any authority of Scripture In a word upon what foundation has your Discipline made this precise law Discip ch 12. art 2. Children under twelve yeares old shall not be admitted to the Supper but for those above that age it shall be left to the discretion of the Ministers 1. Cor. 11.28 c. Your children are they not Christians before that age Do you reject them till that age because Saint Paul has said Let a man prove himselfe and so let him eate But wee have already seene that it is no lesse precisely written Math. 21. Marke 16. Act. 2.38 Teach and baptize he that shall believe and be baptized do pennance and receive Baptisme And if your Catechisme interpret that it ought to be only in regard of such as are capable Dim 50. why shall wee not say as much of the proofe recommended by the Apostle Be it as it will the Apostle dos not decide which is the age proper for this probation One is at the age of reason before he is twelve yeares old one may before this age both sin and practise vertue why do you dispence with your children in a divine precept wherof they are capable If you say that JESUS-CHRIST has remitted that to the Church show me that permission in Scripture or believe with us that all that which is necessary to the understanding and practise the Gospel is not written and that wee must rely upon the authority of the Church § XI A reflection upon the manner how the Pretended Reformers make use of Scripture SAINT Basile advertises us that those who dispise unwritten Traditions do at the same time dispise the Scriptures themselves which they boast to follow in all things Basil de Sp. S. c. 27. This misfortune has arrived to the Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformed Religion They speake to us of nothing but of Scripture and boast they have established all the practises of their Church upon this rule Notwithstanding they easily dispence with many important practises which wee read in expresse tearmes in Scripture They have taken away the Extreame-Unction soe expressely ordained in the Epistle of Saint James James 5 1â—.15 tho this Apostle has annexed to it so cleare a promis of the remission of sins They neglect the imposition of hands practised by the Apostles towards all the faithfull in giving the Holy Ghost and as if this divine Spirit ought not to descende otherwise then visibly they dispise the ceremony by which he was given because he is now no more given after this visible manner They have no greater esteeme for the imposition of hands Discip ch 1. art s. Observ by which the Ministers were ordained For although they do ordinarily practise it they declare in their Discipline they do not believe it essentiall and that one might dispense with a practise so clearly set downe in Scripture Poit 1560. Par. 1565. Two nationall Synods have decided there was no necessity of making use of it and neverthelesse one of these Synods adds they ought to make it their businesse to conforme to one another in this ceremony because it is expedient for edification conformable to the custome of the Apostles and to the practise of the antient Church So that the custome of the Apostles manifestly written and in so many places in the words of God is no more a law to them then the practise of the antient Church to beleive ones selfe obliged to this custome is a superstition reprehended in their discipline Ch. 1. art 8. such false ideas do they frame to themselves of Religion and christian liberty But why do wee speake here of particular articles The whole state of their Church is visibly contrary to the word of God I do here with them tearme the state of the Church the society of Pastors and people which wee see there established Conf. de Foy art 31. this is that which is called the state of the Church in their confession of Faith and they there declare that this state is founded upon the extraordinary vocation of their first Reformers In vertue of this article of their Confession of Faith one of their nationall Synods has decided that when the question shall be concerning the vocation of their Pastors who have reformed the Church or concerning the establishment of the authority they had to reforme and to teach it must be referred according to the XXXI article of the Confession of Faith to an extraordinary vocation by which God interiourly pushed them on to their ministery yet in the mean time they neither prove by any miracle that God did push them interiourly to their ministry neither do they prove which is yet more essentiall by any text of Scripture that such a vocation should ever have place in the Church from whence it followes that their Pastors have no authority to preach according to these words of Saint Paul Rom. 10.15 How shall they preach unlesse they be sent and that the whole state of their Church is without foundation They flatter themselves with this vain thought that JESUS-CHRIST has left a power to the Church to give her selfe a forme and to establish Pastors when the succession is interrupted this is what M. Jurieux and M. Claude endeavour to prove without finding any thing that
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 Aub. lib. 11. p. 442. 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 I. Part. c. 14. p. 173. Hier. ad Param 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. Hist Euch. I. part c. 15. p. 176. de la Roque grants that the Christians of the first ages sent the Eucharist one to another in token of communion as in effect it appeares by a letter of Saint Ireneus that it was sent from Rome even to Asia Euseb Hist Eccl. l. V. c. 24. and moreover that they carryed it with them in their voyages by sea Hist Euch. I. p. ch 14. p. 174. 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 Amb. de ob frat Sat. T. 4. 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 I. Part. c. 12. p. 159. c. 14. p. 172. seq seing M. de la Roque acknowledges it and dispenses with us as to the proofe of it Joan. Mosch Prat. Spir. T. XIII Bib. PP p. 1089. 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 Inter Ep. Horm Papae post ep 62. Sugg Germ. c. post Ep. 67. Ind. Joan. Episc T. V. Conc. 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 Act Mart. Nicom ap Bar. an 293. 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
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 Hist Euch. I. P. ch 12. p. 159. 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 Disp num 10. At the beginning of the treatise he has given us about communion in both kinds he had candidly owned that some reserved the sacred bread to eat it either in their houses or on a journey and after having related many passages amongst others that of S. Basil which suffers no evasion he had concluded that it was certain from these passages that some moved by a religious affection towards the Eucharist 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. I. Part. ch 11. p. 144. 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 T is 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
he can upon this impossibility so often repeted at last concludes that the party mentioned to whom the Bread alone is given p. 264. to speake properly dos not take with the mouth the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST because this Sacrament is composed of two parts and he receives but one Exam. de l'Euch Tr. 6. sect 7. this he likewise confirmes in the last booke he set forth This is what the Pretended Reformers durst nost that I know of hetherto affirme Verily a Communion which is not a Sacrament is a strange mystery and the Pretended Reformers who are at last obliged to acknowledge it would do as well to grant the consequence wee draw from their discipline seing they can finde no other way to unty this knott but by a prodigy never heard of in the Church But the doctrine of this Author appeares yet more strange when considered with all its circumstances Préservatif p. 266. 267. According to him the Church presents in this case the true Sacrament but neverthelesse what is received is not the true Sacrament or raither it is not a true Sacrament as to the signe but it is a true Sacrament as to the thing signifyed because the faithfull receive JESUS-CHRIST signifyed by the Sacrament and receive as many Graces as those who communicate under the Sacrament it selfe because the Sacrament is presented to him whole and entire because he receives it with heart and affection and because the sole insuperable impossibility hinders him to communicate under the signe What do these subtilityes availe him He might conclude from his arguments that the faithfull who cannot according to his principles receive the true Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST seeing he cannot receive an essentiall part is excused by his inability from the obligation to receive at all and that the desire he has to receive the Sacrament supplyes the effect But that upon this account wee should be obliged to seperate that which is inseperable by its institution and to give a man a Sacrament which he cannot receive or rather to give him solemnly that which being not the true Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST can be nothing else but meere bread is to invent a new mystery in Christian Religion and to deceive in the face of the Church à Christian who beleeves he receives that which in reality he do's not Behold neverthelesse the last refuge of our Reformers behold what he has writ who writ against me the last of any whose booke is so much spread by the Protestants through France Holland and other parts in divers languages with a magnificent Preface as the most efficacious antidote the new Reforme could invent against this Exposition so often attaqued He has found out by his way of improving and refining of others this new absurdity that what is received amongst them with so much solemnity when they cannot drinke wine is not the Sacrament of our Lord and that it is by consequence a meere invention of humain wi lt which a Church who sayes she is founded upon the pure word of God is not afraid to establish without so much as finding one syllable of it in that word To conclude JESUS-CHRIST has not made a particular law for those wee here speake of Man could not dispense with them in an expresse precept of our Lord nor allow them any thing he did not institute Wherefore either nothing must be given them or if one species be given them it must be beleeved that by the institution of our Lord this single species containes the whole essence of the Sacrament and that the receiving of the other can add nothing but what is accidentall to it §. IV. The third Principle The law ought to be explained by constant and perpetuall Practise An exposition of this Principle by the example of the civill law BUT to come to our third Principle which alone carryes along with it the decision of this question This is it To know what appertaines or do's not appertaine to the substance of the Sacraments wee must consult the practise and sentiment of the Church Let us speake more generally In all practicall matters wee must alwayes regard what has been understood and practised by the Church and as herein consists the true spirit of the law I write this for an intelligent and clearsighted Judge who is sensible that to understand an Ordonance and to discerne the meaning of it aright hee must know after what manner it was alwayes understood and practised otherwise since every man argues after his owne fashon the law would become arbitrary The rule then is to examin how it has been understood and how practised in following which a man shall not be deceived God to honour his Church and to oblige particuler persons to her holy decisions would that this rule should have place in his law as it has in humain lawes and the true manner to understand this holy law is to consider in what manner it has alwayes been understood and observed in the Church The reason of this is that there appeares in this interpretation and perpetuall practise a Tradition which cannot come but from God himselfe according to this doctrine of the Fathers that what is seene alwayes and in all places of the Church cannot come but from the Apostles who learned it from JESUS-CHRIST and from that Spirit of truth which he has given for a teacher And for feare any one should be deceived by the different significations of the word Tradition I declare that the Tradition I alledge here as a necessary interpreter of the law of God is an unwritten doctrine procedeng from God himselfe and conserved in the judgement and practise of the universall Church I have no neede here to prove this Tradition and what followes will make it appeare that our Reformers are forced to acknowledge it at least in this matter But it will not be amisse to remove in few words the false ideas which they ordinarily apply to this word of Tradition They tell us that the authority which wee give to Tradition subjects the Scripture to the thoughts of men and declares it imperfect They are palpably deceived Scripture and Tradition make togeather but one and the same body of doctrine revealed by God and so far is it that the obligation of interpreting Scripture by Tradition subjects the Scripture to the thoughts of men that there is nothing can give it more preeminence above them When particular persons are permitted as it is amongst our Pretended Reformers to interpret Scripture every one according to his own fancy there is liberty necessarily given to arbitrary interpretations and in effect scripture is subjected to the thoughts of men who interpret it each one according to his own mode but when every one in particular is obliged to receive it in the sense the Church doth receive and alwayes hath received it there is nothing elevates the authority of Scripture more nor renders it more independent of all particular opinions A man is never
more assured to understand aright the spirit and sense of the law then when he understands it as it has alwayes been understood since its first establishment Never dos a man honour more the Lawgiver the minde is never more captivated under the authority of the law nor more restrained to its true sense never are particular lights and false glosses more excluded Thus when our Fore Fathers in all their Councils in all their Books in all their Decrees obliged themselves by an indispensable law to understand the Holy Scriptures as it has been alwayes understood they were so far fom believing that by this meanes they submitted it to humain phancies that on the contrary they beleeved there was no surer meanes to exclude them The Holy-Ghost who dictated the Scripture and deposited it in the hands of the Church gave her an understanding of it from the beginning and in all ages in so much that the sence thereof which has alwayes appeared in the Church is as well inspired as the Scripture it selfe The Scripture is not imperfect because it has need of such an interpretation It belonged to the majesty of Scripture to be concise in its words profound in its sense and full of a wisdome which alwayes appeared so much the more impenetrable by how much the more it was penetrated into It was with these characters of the divinity that the Holy-Ghost was pleased to invest it It ought to be meditated on to be understood and that which the Church has alwayes understood thereof by meditating upon it ought to be received as a law So that that which is not writ is no lesse venerable then that which is whilst both of them come by the same way Each one corresponds to the upholding of the other seing that Scripture is the necessary groundworke of Tradition and Tradition the infallible interpreter of Scripture If I should affirme that the whole Scripture ought to be interpreted after this manner I should affirme a truth which the Church has alwayes acknowledged but I should recede from the matter in question I reduce my selfe to things of practise and principally to what is of ceremony I maintaine that wee cannot distinguish what is essentiall and indispensable from what is left to the liberty of the Church but by examining Tradition and constant practise This is what I undertake to prove by Scripture it selfe by all antiquity and to the end that nothing may be wanting in point of proofe by the plain confession of our very adversaryes Under the name of ceremony I do here comprehend the Sacraments which are in effect facred signes and ceremonyes divinely instituted to signify and confer Grace Experience shewes that what belongs to ceremony cannot be well explained but by the received manner of practising it By this our question is decided In the sacred ceremony of the Lords Supper wee have seene that the Church has alwayes beleeved she gave the whole substance and applyed the whole vertue of the Sacrament in giving only one sole species Behold what has been alwayes practised behold what ought to stand for a law This rule is not rejected by the Pretended Reformers Wee have even now seene that if they had not beleeved that the judgement of the Church and her interpretation stand for a law they would never have divided the supper in favour of those who drinke no wine nor given a decision which is not in the Gospell But it is not in this only that they have followed the interpretation of a Church Wee shall shortly see many other points where they cannot avoid having recourse to this rule wee propose I establish therefore without hesitation this generall proposition and I advance as the constant practise acknowledged by the antient and moderne Jewes by the Christians in all ages and by the Pretended Reformers themselves that the ceremoniall lawes of both the old and new Testament cannot be understood but by practise and that without this meanes it is impossible to comprehend the true spirit of the law § V. A proofe from the observances of the old Testament THE matter is more surprising in the old Testament where every thing was circumstanced and particularised with so much care yet notwithstanding it is certain that a law written with so much exactnesse stood in neede of Tradition and the interpretation of the Synagogue to be well understood The law of the Sabaoth alone fournisheth many examples of this Every one knowes how strict was the observance of this sacred rest Exod. 16.23.35.3 in which it was forbid under paine of death to prepare their diet or so much as to light their fire In a word the law forbid so precisely all manner of worke that many durst scarce move on this holy day At least it was certain that none could either undertake or continue a journey and wee know what hapned to the army of Antiochus Sidetes Joseph Ant. 13.16 when this Prince stopped his march in favour of John Hyrcanus and the Jewes during two dayes on which their law obliged them to a rest equall to that of the Sabaoth In this strict obligation to remain in rest Tradition and custome alone had explicated how far one might go without violating the tranquility requisite during these holy dayes From hence comes that manner of speech mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles from such a place to such a place is a Sabaoth dayes journey Act. 1.12 This Tradition was established in the time of our Saviour neither did he nor his Apostles who mentioned it ever reprehend it The exactitude of this rest did not hinder but that it was permitted to untye a beast and lead it to drinke Luk. 13.15.14.5 or to pull it out if fallen into a ditch Our Lord who alledges these examples as publick and notorious to the Jewes does not only not blame them but further authorises them though the law had said nothing concerning them and that these actions seemed to be comprehended under the generall prohibition It must not be imagined that these observances were of little or no importance in a law so severe and where it was necessary to take care even to an ïota and the least title the least prevarication drawing down most terrible paines and an inevitable malediction upon the transgressors But behold a thing which appeares yet more important in the time of the Machabees a question was proposed whether it was permitted to defend ones life upon the Sabaoth day 1. Mach. 2.32.38.40.41 2. Mach. 15.1.2 c. and the Jewes suffered themselves to be killed til such times as the Synagogue had interpreted and declared that selfe defence was permitted though the law had not excepted that action In permitting selfe defence they dit not permitt an onsett what advantage soever might thereby arrive to the publick and the Synagogue durst never go so far But after the Synagogue had permitted selfe defence there remained yet one scrupule Joseph Ant. 14.8 viz
strangers did no lesse seduce them then the Chananites they beleeved they ought equally to exclude them all not so much by the letter and propper tearmes as by the spirit of the law which they also interpreted contrary to the precedent practise in respect of the Moabites the Synagogue alwayes beleeving herselfe to have received from God himselfe a right to give decisions according to occurring necessityes I do not beleeve that any one will persuade himselfe that they observed according to the letter and in all sorts of cases Exod. 21.24.28 Lev. 24.19.20 Dont 19.21 that severe law of Talionis so often repeated in the Bookes of Moyses For even to regard these tearmes only eye for eye tooth for tooth hand for hand bruse for bruse wound for wound nothing dos appeare to establish a more perfect and a more just compensation yet nothing is in reality further from it if wee weigh the circumstances and nothing in fine would have been more unequall then such an equality nor indeed is it alwayes possible to give to a malefactor a wound altogeather proportionable to that he had given his brother Practise taught the Jewes that the true dessigne of the law was to make them sensible there ought to be a reasonable compensation profitable both to particulars and to the publick which as it consists not in a precise point nor in a certain measure the same practise determined it by a just estimation It would not be hard to alledge many other Traditions of the antient people as much approved of as these The ablest writers of the new reforme do grand it When therefore they would destroy all unwritten Traditions in generall under pretense of the words of our Lord where he condemnes those Traditions which were contrary to the tearmes or to the sense and intent of the law Math. 15.3 Mark 7.7 c. and in short those which had not a sufficiently sollid foundation there is no sincerity in their discourses and all men of sence will agree that there was lawfull traditions though not written without which the practise it selfe of the law was impossible in so much that it cannot be denyed but that they obliged in conscience Will the Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformed Religion permit me to mention in this place the Tradition of prayer for the dead This prayer is manifest by the Book of Machabees 2. Mach. 11.43.46 neither neede wee here enter into dispute with these Gentlemen whether this Booke be canonicall or no seeing it suffices as to this point that it was certainly writ before the Gospell This custome remaines to this day amongst the Jewes and the tradition of it my be asserted by these words of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 15.29 What shall they do else who are baptised that is to say purifyed and mortifyed for the dead if the dead rise not at all JESUS-CHRIST and his Apostles had found amongst the Jewes this Tradition of praying for the dead without reprehending them for it on the contrary it passed immediately from the Judaicall to the Christian Church and Protestants who have writ bookes where they shew this Tradition was establised in the primitive times of Christianity could yet never shew the beginning of it Notwithstanding it is certain there was nothing of it in the law It came to the Jewes by the same way which handed to them so many other unviolable Traditions But if a law which descendes to so minute particulars and which is as I may say wholy literall stood in need that it might be rightly understood according to its true sence of being interpreted by the practise and declarations of the Synagogue how much more need have wee in the law of the Gospell where there is a greater liberty in the observances and where the practises are lesse circumstanced A hundred examples will manifest the truth of what I say I will draw them from the very practises of the Pretended Reformers themselves and I will not stick at the same time to relate togeather with them as a thing which will decide the matter what passed for current in the antient Church because I cannot imagine that these Gentlemen can with sincerity reject it § VI. A proofe from the observances of the New Testament THE institution of the Sabaoth day preceded the law of Moyses and had its ground from the creation and neverthelesse these Gentlemen dispense as well as wee with that observance without any other foundation then that of Tradition and the practise of the Church which cannot be dirived from other then divine authority The allegation that the first day of the weeke consecrated by the Resurrection of JESUS-CHRIST Act. 20.7 1. Cor. 16.2 is mentioned in the writings of the Apostles as a day of assembly for Christians and that it is also called in the Revelations Apoc. 1.10 the day of the Lord or Sunday Is vaine for besides that there is no mention made in the New Testament of that rest annexed to the Sunday it is moreover manifest that the addition of a new day dit not suffise to take away the solemnity of the old nor to make us change the Preceps of the Decalogue togeather with humain Tradition The prohibition of eating Blood and that of eating the flesh of strangled creatures was given to all the children of Noe before the establishment of legal observances from which wee are freed by the Gospel and the Apostles have confirmed it in the Council of Jerusalem in joyning it to two unchangeable observances of which the one is the prohibition to participate of sacrifices to Idols and the other the condemnation of the sin of fornication But because the Church alwayes beleeved that this law though observed during many ages was not essentiall to Christianity the Pretended Reformers as well as we dispence with themselves about it though the Scriptures have no where derogated from so precise and so solemne a decision of the Apostles expressely registred in their Acts by Saint Luke But to shew how necessary it is to know the Tradition and practise of the Church in what regards the Sacraments let us consider what is practised in the Sacrament of Baptisme and that of the Eucharist which are the two Sacraments our adversaryes acknowledge with one accord It is to the Apostles that is to the heads of the flock Math. 28.19 that JESUS-CHRIST gave the charge of administring Baptisme Tertull. de Bapt. Concil Illid c. 38. c. notwithstanding the whole Church has understood not only that Priests but Deacons also yea even all the faithfull in cases of necessity were the Ministers of this Sacrament Tradition alone has interpreted that Baptisme which JESUS-CHRIST committed only into the hands of his Church and of his Apostles could be validly administred by Hereticks and out of the communion of the truly faithfull In the XI chapter of the Discipline of the Pretended Reformers and first article it is said that Baptisme administred by him who
nothing to be seen of it neither in the letters of Gregory the eleveinth Tom. XI Conc. nor in the two Councils held at London by William of Courtenay and by Thomas Arundel Archbishops of Cantorbury nor in the Councill at Oxford celebrated by the same Thomas under Gregory the XII nor in the Councill at Rome under John the XXIII Tom. XII Conc. nor in the third Councill of London under the same Pope nor in the Councill of Constance nor finally in all the Councils and all the Decrees where the condemnation of that Arch-Heritick and the Catalogus of his errors are registred by which it appears that either he did not insist upon that point or that there was no great stir made about it Calixtus agrees with Aeneas Sylvius an Author neere those times N. 24.25 an author about those times who writ this History that the first who mooved that Question was one named Peter Dresde School-Master of Prague and he made use against us of the authority of that Passage in S. John If ye eat not the flesh of the Son of Man and drink not his Bloud you shall have no life in you This Passage missed Jacobel de Misne who caused the whole Church of Bohemia towards the end of the XIV age to revolt He was followed by John Hus in the begining of the XV. age so that the contest between us about the two species has no higher an originall Moreover it must be remorked that John Hus did not presume at first to say that Communion under both species was necessary Ibid. It suffised him that they should grant it was permitted and expedient to give it but he ditermined not the necessity of it so certaine and established a thing it was there was no such necessity When any change of essentiall customes is made the spirit of Tradition always living in the Church is never wanting to make an opposition The Ministers withall there great reasonings find yet very great difficulty to accustome their people to see their children dye without Baptisme and in despite of the opinion they have infused into them that Baptisme is not necessary to salvation they are not able to divert the trouble so funest an event produces in them nor scarce restraine the Fathers who absolutely require their children should be Baptised in that necessity according to ancient custome I my self have observed it by experience and the same may be seen by what I have cited out of their Synodes so true it is that a custome which an immemoriall and universall tradition hath imprinted in their mindes as necessary hath an irrissistable power and so fare are men from being able to extinguish such a sentiment in the wholl Church that it is very dificult even to extinguish it amongst those who with a deliberate resolution contradict it If there fore the Communion under one sole species hath passed without contradiction and without noyse it is as we have said that all Christians from the infancie of Christianity were nourished in that faith that the same vertue was diffused in either of the two species and that nothing of the substance was lost when but one of them only was received It was not needfull to use any extraordinary effort to make the faithfull enter into this sentiment The Communion of infants the Communion of the sick domestick Communion the custome to communicate under one or both species indiferently in the Church it selfe and in holy assemblies and in fine those other things we have seen had naturally inspired all the faithfull with this sentiment from the first ages of the Church So when John of Pick ham Archbishop of Cantorbury in the XIII Conc. Lameth C. I. T. XI Conc. age with so much care caused his people to be taught that under that one sole species they had distributed to them they received JESUS-CHRIST whole and intire it past without the lest difficulty and not one persone in the least contradicted it It would be cavilling to say that this great care makes it appear they mett with some opposition in it because we have already seen that William Archbishop of Chalons and Hugo de Sainto Victore not to ascend any higher at present had constantly taught above a hundred yeares before him the same doctrine not one finding in it any thing either new or strange so much naturally dos it take an impression in the minde We see in all times and in all places the Pastorall charity carefull to prevent even the least thoughts which ignorance might chance to let fall into the minds of men And in fine it is de facto certain that there was neither complaint nor contradiction upon this article during many ages I doe also positively averre that not one of those who beleived the reall presence ever ingenuously called in doubt this integrity that I may so say of the person of JESUS-CHRIST under each species seing it would have been to give a dead body to give a body without blood and without soul the very thoughts of which strikes a horrour From whence it comes that in beleiving the reall presence one is carried to beleive the full sufficiency of communion under one species We see also that Luther was naturally induced to this opinion and a good while after he had made a publick revolte from the Church it is certain that he had the matter still as indifferent or at least of small importance highly censuring Carlostadius who had contrary to his advice established Communion under both kinds and who seemed Ep. Luth. ad Casp Guttol Tom. II. Ep. 56. said he to place the whole reforme in these things of nothing He also uttered these insolent words in the Treatise which he published in 1523. upon the formula of the Masse If a Councill ordained or permited the two species wee would in contempt of that Councill receive but one of them or we would neither take the one or the other and curse those whoreceive bothin vertue of that Ordinance words which shew clearly that when both he and those of his party are of late so obstinately zealous for the two species it is rather out of a spirit of contradiction then any sollid reason In effect he approoved the same year the common places of Melancton where he putts amongst things indifferent Communion under one or both species In 1528. Visit Sax. T. VI. Ihen in his visitation of Saxony he left them expressy the liberty to receive but one only and persisted still in that opinion in 1533. fiveteen years after he had erected himselfe as a Reformer The whole Lutheran party supposes that nothing either essentiall or necessary to salvation is lost when one doth not communicate under both species seeing that in the Apologie of the Confession of Ausbourge a treatise as authentique with that party as the Confession of Ausbourge it self and equally subscribed to by all those who embraced it it is expresly set downe Apol.