home to communicate in their own houses and lastly a thing which will much surprize our Reformers in the publick and solemne Communions of the Church These important and decisive Points have I confesse been frequently handled yet peradventure all the vaine subtilities of the Ministers have not been sufficiently examined God by his Grace assist us to performe this in such a manner that not only antiquity may be illustrated but that truth also may be come manifest and triumphant The first practise I insist upon is that the sick were usually communicated under the Species of Bread alone The Species of wine could not be either so long or so easily reserved being too subject to alteration and JESUS CHRIST would not that any thing should appeare to the sense in this mystery of Faith contrary to the ordinary course of nature It was also too subject to be spilt especially when it was to be carryed to many persons in places far distant and with very little conveniency during the times of persecution The Church therefore would at once both facilitate the Communion of the sick and avoid the danger of this effusion which was never beheld without horror in all ages as hereafter shall appeare The example of Serapion recorded in the Ecclesiasticall History Euseb l. VI. c. 44. edit Val. makes cleare what was practised in regard to the sick He was in pennance but as the law required that the Eucharist should be given to Penitents when they were in danger of death Serapion perceiving himselfe in this state sent to demande this holy Viaticum The Priest who could not carry it himselfe gave to a young man a small parcell of the Eucharist which he ordered him to Moisten and so convey into the mouth of the old man The youth being retourned home moistned the parcell of the Eucharist and at the same time infused it into the mouth of Serapion who having by degrees swallowed it presently gave up the Ghost Although it appeares by this relation that the Priest sent only to his penitent that part of the Sacrament which was solid in that he ordained only the young man whom he sent to moisten it in some liquor before he gave it to the sick person yet the good old man never complained that any thing was wanting on the contrary having thus communicated he departed in peace and God who myraculously preserved him untill he had been partaker of this Grace enfranchised him immediately after he had received S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria who lived in the third age of the Church writ this history in a letter cited at large by Eusebius of Caesaraea and he writ it to a renowned Bishop mentioning this passage as a thing then usuall by which it is demonstrative that it was received and authorized and moreover so holy that God was pleased to confirme it by a visible effect of his Grace The most able and ingenuous Protestants Willingly acknowledge there is no mention made Tho. Smith Ep. de Eccles Gr. hod stat p. 107. 108. 2. ed. 130. seqq but of the consecrated Bread in this passage M. Smith a Protestant Minister of the Church of England accordeth hereunto in a learned and judicious Treatise which he writ some yeares since and he owneth at the same time that there was nothing reserved but the consecrated Bread in Domestick communions which he regards as the source of that reserve which was made for the sick But M. Hist de l' Eucharist I. p. chap. 12. p. 145. de la Roque a famous Minister who has writ an history of the Eucharist and M. Du Bourd deux rép à deux Traitez sur le retranchement de la coupe Seconde rép chap. 22. p. 367. du Bourdieu a Minister at Montpellier who has lately dedicated to M. Claude a treatise concerning the taking away of the Cupp approved by the same M. Claude by another of his brethren have not the same sincerity These would willingly persuade us that this Penitent received the holy Sacrament under both kinds and that the two species were mixed togeather as it was often practised but a long time after these primitive ages and as it is still practised in the East at the ordinary communions of the faithfull But besides that this mixture of the two species so expressly seperated in the Gospel is but a late invention and appeares no sooner then in the VII age where it appeares even then only to be forbidden as wee shall see hereafter the words of S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria wil not beare the interpretation of these gentlemen sayng the Priest of whom he there speakes doth not command to mingle the two species but to moisten that which he gives that is to say without doubt the solid part which having been kept severall dayes for the vse of the sick according to the perpetual custome of the Church stood need of being moistned in some liquor that it might enter the parched throat of an agonizing man The same reason makes the Fathers of the III. Council of Carthage to which S. Conc. Carthag III. c. 76. t. 3. Conc. ult edit Paris Augustin subscribed say that the Eucharist must be infused into the mouth of a dying man infundi ori ejus Eucharistiam This word infused infundi dos not denote the blood alone as it might be imagined for from what has been said out of Eusebius and the history of Serapion wee find that although the consecrated bread and the solid part of the Blessed Sacrament were only given yet they expressed it by infusion when they gave it steeped in any liquor for its more easy reception only And Rufinus who writ in the time of the III. Hist Eccl. Euseb Ruf. init lib. 6. cap. 34. Council of Carthage in his translation of Eusebius expresses Serapions communion no other wise then the Council saying that they caused a little of the Eucharist to be infused into his mouth Parum Eucharistiae infusum jussit seni praeberi The which demonstrates the custome of these primitive times and explicates what was meant by this infusion of the Eucharist It is the interest of Truth only which obliges me to make this remarke seing in the substance it imports little to our subject wheather the body or the blood alone were given to the sick and that in short it is still to communicate under one species alone For as to the distribution of the two species mixed togeather I feare not that any one who is sincere if never so little read in antiquity should imagine it to have beene in use in these primitive times during which it appeares not upon any account that so much as the Idea was had of it The History of Serapion makes it sufficiently appeare that the consecrated bread alone was carryed from the Preist to the sick and that it was in the sick mans house they moistned it to the end he might swallow it with more ease and
that they were so far from the thought of mingling it with the blood that they mad use of another liquor to steepe it in a common liquor taken at the house of the sick In fine this distribution of the body and blood mixed togeather begins not to appeare till the VII Conc. Brac. IV. t. 6. Concil ult edit c. 2. age in the Council of Brague where it is moreover forbidden by an expresse Canon From whence it is easy to comprehend how much a coustume which at first appeares only in the VII age in a Canon which disapproves it is short not only of the third age and the time of S. Denis of Alexandria but likewise of the fourth and that of the third Council of Carthage viz three or four hundred yeares Wee shall see in another place hwo much difficulty was made to admit of the establishment of this mixture even in the X. and XI age especially in the Latine Church and this will serve as a new argument to demonstrate how little it was thought of in the primitive times and in the III. Council of Carthage from whence may be undoubtfully gathered that the Communion which was there ordained for the sick was without doubt under one species and moreover like that of Serapions under the species of bread only Neither will there be any difficulty to acknowledge this when we reflect upon the manner how S. Ambrose communicated at his death in the same age Wee have the life of this Great man writ at the intreaty of S. Augustin and dedicated to him by Paulinus S. Ambroses Deacon and Secretary whom Erasmus improperly confounds with the great Saint Paulinus Bishop of Nole in which he relates that S. Honoratus the famous Bishop of Verceil who was come to assist this Saint at his death heard this voice three times during the silence of the night Rise stay not he is going to dye He went down presented him the body of our Lord and the Saint had no sooner received it but he gave up the ghost Who dos not see that this great Saint is represented to us as one for whom God took care that he should dye in a state where nothing more could be desired seeing he had just received the body of his Lord And at the same time who would not beleeve that he had communicated aright in receiving after the same manner that Saint Ambrose did in dying after the same manner that Saint Honoratus gave it after the same manner it was writ to Saint Augustin and after the same manner the whole Church saw it without finding therein any thing of new or extraordinary The subtility of the Protestants is at a losse about this passage Georg. Calixt disp cont comm sub una specie n. 162. The famous George Calixte the most able amongst the Lutherans of our times and he who has writ the most learnedly upon the two species against us sustaines that Saint Ambrose received in both kinds and for an answer to Paulinus who relates only that the body was given him which he had no sooner received but he gave up the Ghost this subtile Minister has recourse to a Grammaticall figure called Synecdoche which puts the part for the whole without ever so much as offering to bring us one example of such a kind of speech in a like occasion Oh strange effect of a prejudicate opinion Wee see in the Communion of Serapion an assured example of one only species where the restriction of the figure Synecdoche cannot have the least admittance seeing Saint Denis of Alexandria expresses so precisely that the bread and solid part alone was given Wee finde the same language and the same thing in the Council of Carthage and wee see at the same time Saint Ambroses communion in which there is no mention of any thing but the body Nay further for I may well here presuppose what I shall presently demonstrate all ages shew us nothing but the body alone reserved for the ordinary communion of the sick and yet this consequence must not be allowed and a Synecdoche without aledging one example must be preferred to so many examples that are received What blindnesse or rather what cavill is this If these Gentlemen would act sincerely and not study how to evade rather then to instruct they would see that it dos not suffise to alledge at random the figure Synecdoche and to say that it is ordinary by the use of this figure to expresse the whole by its part All things are eluded by these meanes and nothing of certain is left in speech A man must come to the matter proposed in particular and to the place under debate He must examin for example weather the figure he would apply to this relation of Paulinus be found in any other of the like nature and weather it agree in particular to that of this Historian Calixt dos nothing of all this because all this would only have served to confound him And at the very first sight it is cleare and certain the figure of which he speakes is not one of those which are common in ordinary speech as when wee say to eat togeather to expresse the whole feast and to drink as wel as to eat or as the Hebrews mentioned bread alone to expresse in generall the whole nourishment It is not the custome of Ecclesiasticall language nor in common use to name the body alone to expresse the body and the blood seing on the contrary we may finde passages in every page of the fathers where the distribution of the body and blood is related in expressely naming the one and the other and it may be for certain held that this is the ordinary practice But without tiring our selves unprofitabley in the search of those passages where the Fathers may have mentioned the one without the other nor the particular reasons which might have obliged them to it I will say sticking to the Examples debated of in this place that I have never seen any relation where in recounting the distribution of the body and the blood they have expressed only one of the two And if I have not observed any example of this neither has Calixte remarked any such more then I And what ought to make any one beleeve that there is none is that a man so carefull as he has been to heap togeather all he can against us has not beene able to finde any I finde also M. Du Bourd ch 17. p. 317. du Bourdieu who has writ since him and read him so well that he followes him almost throughout and therefore ought to have supplyed his defects tells us not upon occasion of Paulinus and Saint Ambrose but upon occasion of Tertullien that if this Father in speaking of Domestick Communion of which wee shall also treat in its proper place has mentioned nothing but the body and consecrated bread without naming the blood or the wine it is that he expresses the whole by the part and
has no vocation at all is wholy nul Discip c. XI art 1. observ and the observations drawn from the Synods declare that to the validity of this Sacrament it suffises that these Ministers have an outwardly seeming vocation such as is that of Curates Priests and Religious men in the Roman Church who are permitted to preach Where do they finde in Scripture that this outwardly seeming vocation can conferre a power which JESUS-CHRIST has given only to those whom he himselfe did effectively call JESUS-CHRIST said Baptize that is immerge or dipp as wee have often remarked Wee have also related that he was baptized according to this forme that the Apostles followed it and that it was continued in the Church till the XII and XIII ages and notwithstanding Baptisme by infusion or sprincling is admitted without difficulty by the sole authority of the Church JESUS-CHRIST said Math. 28.19 Mark 16.15.16 Teach and baptize and again He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved The Church has interpreted by the sole authority of Tradition and practise that the instruction and faith which JESUS-CHRIST had united to Baptisme might be seperated in order to little infants These words Discip c. XI art VI. Observ p. 166. Teach and baptize did a long time perplexe our Reformers and occasioned them to say till the yeare 1614. that it was not lawfull to baptize with out a precedent or an immediately subsequent sermon This is what was decided in the Synod of Tonneins conformably to all the precedent Synods But in the Synod of Castres in 1626. they begun to relaxe as to this point and it was resolved not to press the observance of the regulation of Tonneins Lastly in the Synod of Charinton in 1631. in which they admitted the Lutherans to the Supper it was declared that preaching before or after Baptisme appertaines not to the essence of it but to discipline of which the Church has pover to dispose So that what they had beleeved and practised so long as prescribed by JESUS-CHRIST himselfe was changed and without any testimony of Scripture they declared that it was a thing concerning which the Church might ordaine as she pleased As for little infants the Pretended Reformers say verry well that their Baptisme is founded upon Scripture but they cite no expresse passage and they argue from farfetched not to say doubtfull yea and even false consequences It is certain that all the proofes they can draw from Scripture upon this subject have no force and that they themselves destroy those that might have any That which might have force to establish the Baptisme of little infants 1. Tim. 4.10 is that on the one side it is written JESUS-CHRIST is the Saviour of all Math. 19.14 and that he himselfe has said Suffer little children to come unto mee and on the other that he has prononced none can come unto him nor have any part in him if he do not receive Baptisme conformable to these words John 3.3.5 If you be not borne again of water and the Holy Spirit you shall not enter into the Kingdome of God But these passages have no force according to the doctrine of our Reformers since they beleeve it as of faith that Baptisme is not necessary to the salvation of infants Nothing affords them more difficulty in their Discipline Discip c. XI art VI. Observ then to see every day that anxiety of Parents of their communion to have their little children baptized when they are sick or in danger of death This piety of the parents is called in their Synods an infirmity It is a weaknesse to feare least the children of the faithfull should dye without receiving Baptisme One Synode went so far as to permit them to baptize their children extraordinarily in evident danger of death Ibid. But the following Synod reprehended this weaknesse and these strong in faith effaced that clause where they testifyed some regarde to that danger because it gives some ouverture to the opinion of the necessity of Baptisme Thus the proofs drawn from the necessity of Baptisme to oblige the giving of it to little infants are destroyed by our Reformers Let us see those they substitute in their place such as are inserted in their Catechisme in their Confession of faith Cat. Dim 50. Conf. de Foy art 35. Forme d'administrer le Bapt. and in their prayers That is that the children of the Faithfull are borne in alliance conformable to this promis I shall be thy God and the God of thy seede to a thousand generations From whence they conclude that the vertue and substance of Baptisme appertaining to little children they should do them an injury to deny them the signe which is inferiour By the like reason they will finde themselves obliged to give them the Supper togeather with Baptisme for those who are in the alliance are incorporated to JESUS-CHRIST the little children of the Faithfull are in the alliance they are therefore incorporated to JESUS-CHRIST and having by this meanes according to them the vertue and substance of the Supper it ought to be said as of Baptisme that the signe cannot be refused them without injury The Anabaptists maintaine that these words let a man trye himselve and so let him eat have no greater force to exact yeares of discretion to receive the Supper then these hee that shall beleeve and shall be baptised have to exact them in Baptisme The consequence drawn amongst the new Reformers from the alliance of the antient people and from Circumcision mooves them not The alliance of the antient people say they was contracted by birth because it was carnall and upon this account the seale was printed in the flesh by Circumcision immediately after birth But in the new alliance it dos not suffise to be borne wee must be newborne to enter into it and as the two alliances have nothing of resemblance there is nothing say they to be concluded from one sign to another so that the comparaison which they make of Circumcision with Baptisme is voide and of no effect Experience has shown that all the attempts of our Reformers whereby to confound the Anabaptist from Scripture has beene weake and feeble So that at the last they are obliged to plead practise Wee finde in their Discipline at the end of the XI chapter the forme of receiving persons of a more advanced age in t their Communion where they make the Anabaptist who is converted acknowledge that the Baptisme of little infants has its foundation in Scripture and in the perpetuall practise of the Church When the Pretended Reformers beleeve they have the expresse word of God it is not their custome to ground themselves upon the perpetuall practise of the Church But here where the Scripture furnisheth them with nothing whereby to stop the mouths of Anabaptists they were necessitated to support themselves else where and at the same time to acknowledge that in these matters the