from the III. age to the VI. it stops not there wee finde it even to the last ages and even at present in the Greeke Church Allat Tract de cons utr Eccles Anno. de Comm. Orient Thom. Smith Ep. de Ecc. Gr. stat hod p. 104. 1. ed. Hugo de S. Vict. erudit Theol. lib. I. c. 10. Bib. PP Par. de div Offic. Allatius a Catholick and Thomas Smith an English Protestant Minister each of them relate it equally after a great number of Authors and the thing it selfe has no difficulty It is true M. Smith has varyed in his second edition For they were afraid in England to authorise an example which wee make use of to establish communion under one species M. Smith after having remarked in his Preface the advantage wee take from it Praef. 2. edit init thinks he can remove it by two or three very feeble testimonyes of moderne Grecians who studyed in England or who live there and whose writings are printed in Protestant towns The last testimony he alledges is that of an Archbishop of Samos whom wee have too much seen in this country to rely much upon his capacity any more then upon his sincerity He is at present established at London and M. Smith produces us a letter which he writ to him wherein he sayes that after the baptisme of infants the Priest holding the Chalice where the blood is togeather with the body of our Saviour reduced into little particles takes in a little spoon one drop of this blood so mixed in such sort that some little crums of the consecrated bread are found in this spoon which suffices to make the child participate of the Body of our Lord. M. Smith adds that these crums are so little that they cannot well be perceived because of their smalnesse and that they stick to the spoon though never so little dipt into this holy liquor See here all can be drawn from a Grecian who is entertained at London and from M. Smith in favour of the communion under both species given in baptisme to children in the Greeke Church That is that they gave them the blood in which the body was mixed with so little of designe to give them the sacred body that they give them not any part of that which they see swimme in the holy liquor and which they give to them of riper yeares as M. Smith himselfe sayes They content themselves to presume that some insensible particle of the consecrated bread sticks to the spoon of the childe see what they call communicating them under both species In truth had not M. Smith done as well to change nothing in his booke and will not every man of sense believe himselfe obliged to stand to that which he said ingenuously in his first edition so much the rather because he sees it conformable to the antient Tradition which wee have exposed And if wee finde the communion of little children under the sole species of wine in the Greeke Church wee finde it no lesse amongst the Latins It is found according to M. de la Roque in the Decrees of Pope Paschal II. as wee have lately seene that is to say in the eleventh age It is found till the XII age in the same Latin Church Hug. de S. Vict. erud Tb. l. III. cap. 20. and Hugo de Sainto Victore so much praysed by S. Bernard sayes expressely that the Blessed Sacrament was not given to little infants in baptisme but under the sole species of blood teaching also afterwards that under each species the body and blood of Christ were both received Wee finde the same doctrine with the same manner of communicating little children in William de Champeaux Bishop of Châlon Ex lib. manuscript qui dicitur Pancrisis relat in praef Saec. 3. Bened. p. 1. num 75. intimately conversant with the same Saint Bernard Father Mabillon Benedictin Monke of the Congregation of Saint Maur whose sincerity is not to be called in question any more then his capacity has found in an antient manuscript a long passage of this worthy Bishop one of the most famous of his age for piety and learning where he teaches that he who receives one sole species receives JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire because adds he he is not received neither by little and little nor by parts but whole and entire under one or two species from whence it eomes that they give the Chalice alone to infants newly baptized because they cannot receive the bread but they do not therefore lesse receive JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire in the Chalice alone The Ministers confounded by these practises found established without an contradiction in all past ages fly ordinarily to incident questions Du Bourd 1. rép p. 36. sec rép c. 20.21 to withdraw us from the principall They exaggerate the abuse of Communion of little infants for so they call it against the authority of all ages an abuse which they say was founded upon the great and dangerous errour of the absolute necessity of receiving the Eucharist in all ages under paine of eternall damnation which according to them is the error of Saint Cyprian Saint Augustin Saint Innocent Pope Saint Cyril Saint Chrysostome Saint Cesarius Bishop of Arles and not only of many of the Fathers but also of many ages Oh holy antiquity and Church of the first ages too boldly condemned by Ministers without reaping from thence any thing but the pleasure to have made their people believe that the Church could fall into errour even in the purest times For as to the substance what availes this controversy to our subject The antient Church believed the Eucharist necessary for little infants Wee have allready demonstrated that supposing the two species to have been of the essence of this Sacrament that belife would have been a new motive to give it them under both Why therefore give they it them but under one and what can these Ministers say here if not to answer us that the antient Church added to the errour of believing that the communion was absolutely necessary to salvation that of beleving the communion to have its entire effect under one sole species and that by making an antiquity so pure to erre they be willing to shew themselves visibly in an error Wee have God be praysed a doctrine which obliges us not to cast our selves into such excesses I could very easily explicate how the Grace of that Sacrament of the Eucharist is in effect necessary to all the faithfull how the Eucharist and its grace is virtually contained in Baptisme which produces in the faithfull that sacred right which they there receive to the body and Blood of our Lord and how it belongs to the Church to regulate the time of exercising this right I might also shew upon these grounds that if some one as for example that William Bishop of Châlons quoted so faithfully by Father Mabillon seeme to have beleeved the necessity of the Eucharist yet
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
although it be not consecrated by that solemn and particular consecration which changes it into the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST becomes notwithstanding sacred by tooching the sacred Body of our Lord yet of a quite different manner from that consecration which according to this Saint is made by the words taken out of the Gospel That it is of this imperfect and inferiour sort of consecration which these Authors wee explicate do here speake will be acknowledged an undeniable truth if wee finde that these Authors and in the sames places say there cannot be made a true consecration of the Blood of our Lord but by words and by the words even of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe Alcuinus is expresse herein when explicating the Canon of the Masse as wee have it to this day when he comes to the place where wee prononce the sacramentall words which are those of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe This is my Body this is my Blood he sayes these are the words by which they consecrated the Bread and the Chalice in the beginning by which they are consecrated at present and by which they shall be consecrated eternally because JESUS-CHRIST prononcing again his own words by the Priests renders his holy Body and his sacred Blood present by a celestiall bcnediction Amal. l. III. 24. ibid. And Amalarius upon the same part of the Canon sayes no lesse clearly that it is in this place and by the pronunciation of these words that the nature of the Bread and Wine is changed into the nature of the Body and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST Lib. I. 12. and he had said before in particular concerning the consecration of the Chalice that a simple liquor was changed by the benediction of the Priest into the Sacrament of the Blood of our Lord which shews how far he and Alcuinus were from beleeving that the only mixing them without any words could produce this effect When therefore they say that the pure wine is sanctifyed by the mixture of the Body of JESUS-CHRIST it appeares sufficiently their meaning is that by tooching the Holy of Holyes this wine ceases to be profane and becomes some thing of holy but that it should become the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST and that it should be changed into his Blood without prononcing the words of JESUS-CHRIST upon it is an errour inconsistent with their doctrine All those who have writ of the Divine Office and of that of the Masse use the same language these two Authors do Isaac Bishop of Langres their contemporary Isaac Lingâ—â—t Specil T. â— p. 151. in his explication of the Canon and place where they consecrate sayes that the Priest having thetherto done what he could to the end he may then do something more wonderfull borrows the words of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe that is to say these words This is my Body Powerfull words says he to which the Lord gives his vertue according to the expression of the Psalmist words which have allvayes their effect because the Word who is the power of God sayes and dos all at a time in so much that there is here made by these words contrary to all humain reason a new nourishment for a new man a new JESUS borne of the spirit an Hoste come downe fro heaven and the rest which makes nothing to our subject this being but too sufficient to shew that this great Bishop has placed consecration in the words of our Saviour Remigius Bishop of Auxerre in the booke which he composed of the Masse towards the end of the ninth age is visibly of the same judgement with Alcuinus seeing he has done nothing but transcribe word for word all that part of his booke where this matter is treated of Hildebertus Bishop of Mans Hildeb eod T. Bibl. PP and afterwards of Tours famous for his piety as well as for his eloquence and learning and commended even by the Protestants themselves because of the prayses he has given to Bengarius yet after he was returned or pretended to be retourned from his errours affirmes in expresse words that the Priest consecrates not by his own words but by those of JESUS-CHRIST that then under the signe of the crosse and the words the nature becomes changed that the Bread honours the Altar by becoming the Body and the Wine by becoming Blood which obliges the Priest to elevate at that time the Bread and the wine thereby to shew that by consecration they are elevated to some thing of a higher nature then what they were The Abbot Rupertus sayes the same thing Rup de Div. Off. l. II. c. 9. lib. V. c. 20. Hug. de S. Vict. erud Theol. l. III. c. 20. and after him Hugo de Sainto Victore Wee finde all these bookes collected in the Bibliotheca of Patrum in that tome which beares the title de Divinis Officiis This Tradition is so constant especially in the Latin Church that it cannot be imagined the contrary could be found in the Ordo Romanus nor that it could have entred into the thoughts of Alcuinus and Amalarius tho they had not explicated themselves so clearly as wee have seene they have But this Tradition came from a higher source These many fore cited French Authors as were preceded by a Bishop of the Gallican Church Euseb Gailic sive Euch. T. 6. Max. Bib. P P. hom V. de Pasch who said in the V. age that the creatures placed upon the holy Altars and blessed by the celestiallwords ceased to be the substance of Bread and Wine and became the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saint Ambrose before him understood by these celestiall words Amb. de init c. 9. the proper words of JESUS-CHRIST This is my Body this is my Blood adding that the consecration as well of the Body as of the Blood was made by the words of our Lord. And the Author of the booke of Sacraments be he whom he will Saint Ambrose or some other neere unto his time Amb. lib. IV. Sac. c. 5. who imitates him troughout who ever he be well known in antiquity speaks after the same manner and all the Fathers of the same time keepe the like conformity in their language and before them all Saint Ireneus laught that ordinary bread is made the Eucharist by the invocation of God which it receives over it Iren. IV. 34. and Saint Justin Just ap 2. whom he often cites said before him that the Eucharist was made by the prayer of the word which comes from JESUS-CHRIST and that it was by this word that the ordinary food which usvally by being changed nourisheth our flesh and our blood became the Body and the Blood of that JESUS-CHRIST incarnated for us and before all the Fathers the Apostle Saint Paul clearly remarked the particular benediction of the Chalice 1. Cor. 10.16 when he said the Chalice of benediction which wee blesse And to go to the very originall JESUS-CHRIST consecrates the Wine in saying This is my Blood as he
of the primitive Church p. 7 First Custome Communion of the sick p. 8 III. Second Custome Communion of little Children p. 65 IV. Third Custome Domestick Communion p. 94 V. Fourth Custome Communion at the Church and in the ordinary Office p. 119 VI. A continuation The Masse on Good Friday and that of the Presanctifyed p. 131 VII The Judgement and Practise of the later ages founded upon the judgement and Practise of the primitive Church p. 160 THE SECOND PART Principles on which are established the judgement and practise of the Church of which principles the Pretended Reformers make use as well as wee I. FIrst Principle There is nothing indispensible in the Sacraments but that which is of their substance or essentiall to them p. 167 II. Second Principle To know the substance or essence of a Sacrament wee must regard its essentiall effect p. 173 III. That the Pretended Reformers do agree with us in this principle and can have no other foundation of their discipline An examen of the doctrine of M. Jurieux in his Booke entituled Le Préservatif c. p. 165 IV. 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 p. 194 V. A proofe from the observances of the Old Testament p. 205 VI. A proofe from the observances of the New Testament p. 224 VII Communion under one kind established without contradiction p. 260 VIII A refutation of the History concerning the taking away the Cupp writt by M. Jurieux p. 279 IX A reflection upon concomitancy and upon the doctrine of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Saint John p. 306 X. Some Objections solved by the precedent doctrine p. 322 XI A reflection upon the manner how the Pretended Reformers make use of Scripture p. 334 XII Occurring difficulties vain subtilityes of the Calvinists and M. Jurieux the judgement of antiquity concerning concomitancy reverence exhibited to JESUS-CHRIST in the Eucharist the doctrine of this Treatise confirmed 342 A TREATISE OF COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES A division of this discourse into two parts THIS Question concerning the two Species whatever is said thereof by those of the Pretended Reformed Religion hath but an apparent difficulty which may be solved by the constant and perpetuall practise of the Church and by Principles assented unto by the Pretended Reformers themselves I shall then in this discourse lay open 1. This Practise of the Church 2. These Principles on which this Practise is grounded Thus the businesse will be cleared for on the one side wee shall see the constant matter of Fact and on the other side the assured causes of it THE FIRST PART The Practise and judgement of the Church from the first ages § I. An Explication of this Practise THE Practise of the Church from the Primitive times is that Communicants received under one or both kinds without ever imagining there wanted any thing to the integrity of Communion when they received under one alone It was never so much as thought on that the Grace annexed to the Body of our Lord was any other then that which was annexed to his Blood He gave his Body before he gave his Blood and it may be further concluded from the words of S. Lukc and S. Paul Lukc 22. v. 20. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. that he gave his Body during the supper and his Blood after supper in such sort that there was a considerable interval between the two actions Did he then suspend the effect which his body was to produce untill such time as the Apostles had received the Blood or did they so soon as they had received the Body at the same instant receive also the Grace which accompanied it that is to say that of being incorporated to Jesus Christ and nourished by his substance Undoubtedly the later So that the receiving of the Blood is not necessary for the Grace of the Sacrament nor for the ground of the Mystery The substance is there whol and entiere under one sole Species and neither dos each of the Species nor both togeather containe other then the same ground of sanctification and of Grace S. 1. Cor. 11.27 Paul manifestly supposeth this Doctrine when he writes that Hee who eateth this Bread or drinketh the Chalice of our Lord unworthily is guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord From whence he leaveth us to draw this consequence that if in receiving the one or the other unworthily wee profane them both in receiving either of the two worthily wee participate of the Grace of both To this there can be no other reply but by saying as the Protestants also do that the disjunctive particle or which the Apostle makes use of in the first part of the Text hath the force of the conjunctive and of which he serveth himselfe in the second This is the only answer M. Exam. de l'Euch V I. Tr. 7. Sect. p. 483. Jurieux affords to this passage in the treatise he lately published upon the subject of the Eucharist and he calls our Argument a ridiculous cavill but without ground For though he had made it out that these particles are sometimes taken the one for the other yet here where S. Paul useth them both so manifestly with designe in placing or in the first part of his discourse and reserving and for the second wee must of necessity acknowledge that by so remarkable a distinction he would render us attentive to some important truth and the truth which he would here teach us is that if after having taken worthily the consecrated Bread wee should so forgett the Grace received afterwards to take the sacred liquor with a criminall intention wee should be guilly not only of the blood of our Lord but also of his Body A truth which can have no other ground then what wee lay dowen viz that both the one and the other part of this Sacrament have the same foundation of Grace in such a manner as that wee cannot profane one without profaning both nor also receive either of the two devoutly without partaking of the sanctity and vertue both of the one and the other 'T is also for this reason that from the beginning of Christianity the faithfull beleeved that after what manner soever they communicated whether under one or both species the Communion had alwayes the same efficacy of vertue § II. Four authentick Customes to shew the judgement of the Primitive Church FOUR authentick customes of the Primitive Church demonstrate this Truth These customs will appeare so constant and the oppositions made against them so contradictory and vaine that I dare avouch an expresse acknowledgement of them would not render them more indisputable First Custome Communion of the sick I Finde then the custome of receiving under one kind or Species in the Communion of the sick in the Communion of infants in domestick Communions formerly in practise when the Faithfull carryed the Eucharist
in these descriptions wee often omit that which is most common and that probably wees hould not have known by this testimony of Paulinus that his Bishop had communicated if this writer had not intended to shew us the particular care which God tooke to procure him this grace But is this Minister ignorant that in these occasions one only positive testimony renverses the whole fabrik of these negative arguments which they build with so much industry upon nothing and is it possible he should not lee that the example alone of Saint Ambrose shews us an established custome seeing that so soon as Saint Honoratus knew this great man was dying he understood without having need that the Eucharist should be mentioned to him that it was time to carry it to this sick Saint No matter The Ministers would have one to doubt of this custome to the end they may give some resemblance of singularity and novelty to a communion which was but too clearly given to a Saint and by a Saint under one species And what shall wee say to Calixtus who seems to be astonished that wee dare count Saint Ambrose amongst those who communicated under one species Calixt v. 163. in dying Is it not effect an unheard of baldnesse to say this after a grave Historian who had been an eye witnesse of what he writes and who sent his history to Saint Augustin after having writ it at his intreaty But the businesse is they must be able to say they have answered and when they are at a non plus it is then the most confidence must be showen In a word we finde in Paulinus nothing but the common customes of the Church which every where makes no mention but of the body when it mentions that which was kept for the sick Cone Tur. II. c. 3. Tom. 1. Conc. Gall. The second Council of Tours celebrated in the yeare 567. ordaines that the body of our Lord should be placed upon the Altar not in the rank of the Images non in imaginario ordine but under the figure of the Crosse sed sub Crucis titulo By the way it may be noted that there were Images placed in the Churches and that there was a Crosse during these primitive ages it was under this figure of the Crosse they reserved the body of our Lord and the body only for this reason peradventure it is that Gregory of Tours at the same tyme this Council was held tells us of certaine Vessalls or Tabernacles in forme of Towers Greg. Tur. L. I. cap. 8.6 wherin the Box or Pix containing or Lord's Body was reserved and which were placed on the Altar in tyme of Sacrifice without doubt in Order to the Adoration of the Sacrament soe reserved By the Ordinance of Hincmarus the famous Archibishop of Reims who lived in the 1 x. age Cap. Hincmar art VIII Tom. II. Conc. Gall. there ought to be a box where the holy oblation for the Viaticum of the sick should be decently conserved both the box and the word it selfe of holy oblation shew sufficiently to those who understand Ecclesiasticall language Leo IV. Hom. Tom. VIII Conc. Spicil T. II. p. 263. that only the body was there meant which was ordinarily expressed by this name or by that of Communion or simply by that of the Eucharist The blood was expressed either by its naturall name or by that of the Chalice Wee finde in the same times a Decree of Leo the IV. Ibid. where after having spoke of the body and blood for the ordinary communion of the faithfull when he treats of the sick he speaks only of the box where the Body of our Lord was kept for their Viaticum This Ordinance is repeated in the following age by the famous Rathierus Bishop of Verone and some time after under King Robert Gest Concil Aurel. ibid. 673. a Council held at Orleans speakes of the ashes of an infant that was burnt which some abominable heriticks hept with as much veneration as Christian piety observes in the custome of keeping the body of our Lord for the Viaticum of the sick Wee finde here also the body and the blood expressed in the Ordinary communion of the Faithfull and the body only for that of the sick To all these authorityes wee must joyne here that of the Ordo Romanus Bib. P P. part T. de div off which is not little seing it is the antient Ceremoniall of the Roman Church cited and explicated by authors eight or nine hundred yeares since Wee see there in two places the consecrated bread divided into three parts the one to be distributed to the people the other to be put into the Chalice not for the communion of the people but for the Priest alone after he had taken the consecrated bread separately as wee do at this present and the third to be reserved upon the Altar It was this they kept for the sick which was for that reason called the dying peoples part Microlog de Ecc. observ 17. T. XVIII Max. 616. as the Micrologist an author of the eleventh age sayes and was consecrated in honour of the buriall of JESUS-CHRIST as the two other parts represented his conversation upon Earth and his resurrection Those who have read the antient interpreters of the Ecclesiasticall Ceremonyes understand this language and the mystery of these holy Ceremonyes The Author of the life of Saint Basile observes likewise that this great man separated the consecrated bread into three parts the third of which he hung over the Altar in a Dove of Gold he had caused to be made Amphil. vit S. Basil This third part of the consecrated bread which he ordered to be placed there was manifestly that which was reserved for the sick and these Doves of gold to hang over the Altars are antient in the Greeke Church as it appeares by a Council of Constantinople held by Mennas under the Empire of Justinien Cone Const Menna ad s. T. V. Conc. Wee see likewise these Doves amongst the Latins neere the same time all our Authors make mention of them and the will of Perpetuus Bishp of Tours remarkes amongst the vessells and instruments made use of in the Sacrifice Test Perp. T. V. Spicil a Dove of silver wherein to keepe the Blessed Sacrament ad repositorium Furthermore without tying my selfe to the name of Amphilochius S. Basils Contemporary to whom the life of this Saint is attributed I will admit that the passage taken out of this life proves only for that time in which this History was writ let who will be the author of it Let them say moreover if they will that this Author attributes to S. Basil the practise of those times in which this life was composed yet is it enough in either case to confirme what is otherwise certain that the custome of reserving the species of Bread only for the sick is of great antiquity in the Greeke Church seing
body and blood even in giving the body only and this by the naturall union of the substance and the Grace both of the one and the other Wee see neverthelesse that this Council had some scrupule concerning this matter and beleeved that in expressing the two species they ought both of them to be given in some manner In effect it is true that in some sence to be able to call it the body and the blood the two species must be given because the naturall dessine of this expression is to denote that which each of them containes in vertue of the Institution But it will be granted me that to mix them in this manner and let them dry for eight dayes togeather was but a very weake meanes to conserve the two species and how ever it be this part of the Canon which containes a custome so particular cannot be a prejudice to so many decrees where wee see not only nothing resembling it but moreover quite the contrary That which is most certain is that this Canon makes it appeare they did not beleeve the holy liquor could with ease be conserved in its proper species and that their endeavours were cheefely to conserve the consecrated bread As to the other part which regards the mixture what wee have said tooching the Grecians may be applyed here and all the subtility of the Ministers cannot hinder but it will alwayes be certain by this Cannon that they never beleeved themselves bound either to make the person communicating drink or to give him the blood seperated from the body to denote the violent death of our Lord or lastly to give him in effect any liquor at all seing after eight dayes it is sufficiently cleare there remained nothing of the oblation but the drye and solid part So that this Canon so much boasted of by the Ministers without concluding any thing against us serves only to shew that liberty which the Churches thought them selves to have in the administration of the sacred species of the Eucharist After all these remarks wee have made it must passe for constant and undeniable that neither the Greeks nor the Latins ever believed that all that is writt in the Gospell tooching the communion under two species was essentiall and expressely commanded and that on the contrary it was allwayes believed even from the first ages that one sole species was sufficient for a true communion seing that the custome was to keepe nothing for nor give nothing to the sick but one only It serves for nothing to object that the two species were frequently carryed to the sick and more over in generall that they were carryed to those that were absent Saint Justin Just Apol. 1. I owne is expresse in this matter But why do they alledge to us these passages which serve for nothing It is one thing to say as Saint Justin does that the two species of the Sacrament were carryed at the same time as M. de la Roque speaks it was celebrated in the Church Hist de l'Eucharist 1. P. c. 15. p. 176. and another thing to say they could reserve them so long a time as was necessary for the sick and that it was the custome to do so especially in a time when persecution permitted not frequent Ecclesiasticall assemblyes Hier. Ep. IV. ad Rust The same thing must be said of Saint Exuperius Bishop of Toulouze of whom Saint Hierome writ that after he had sold all the rich vessells of the Church to redeeme captives and solace the poor he carryed the Body of our Lord in a basket and the Blood in a vessell of glasse He carryed them sayes S. Hierome but he does not say he kept them which is our question And I acknowledge that when there was any sick persons to be communicated in those circumstances where they could commodiously receive both the species without being at all changed they made no difficulty in it But it is no lesse certain by the common deposition of so many testimonys that where as the species of wine could not be kept with ease the ordinary communion of the sick like that of Serapion and Saint Ambrose was under the sole species of bread In effect Hist Fr. Script T. IV. wee read in the life of Louis the VI. called the Grosse written by Sugerus Abbot of Saint Denis that in the last sicknesse of this Prince the Body and Blood of our Lord was carryed to him but wee see there also that this faithfull Historien thought himselfe obliged to render the reason of it and to advertise that it was as they came from saying Masse and that they carryed it devoutly in procession to his chamher which ought to make us understand in what manner it was used out of these conjunctures But that which putts the thing out of all doubt is that in substance M. de la Roque agrees with us as to the matter of fact in debate There is no more difficulty to communicate the sick under the sole species of bread then under that of wine only a practise which this curious observer shews us in the VII Hist Euch. I. p. ch 12. p. 150. 160. age in the cleaventh Council of Toledo Canon XI He sayes as much of the eleavent age and of Pope Paschalis II. Conc. Tolet. XI Pasch II. Ep. 32. ad Pont. by whom he makes the same thing to be permitted for little infants Hee is so far from disapproving these practises that he is carefull to defend them and excuses them himselfe upon an invincible necessity as if a parcel of the sacred bread could not be so steeped that a sick person or even an infant might swallow it almost as easily as wine But the businesse was that he must finde some excuse to hinder us from concluding from his own observations that the Church believed she had a full liberty to give one species only without any prejudice to the integrety of communion Behold what wee finde tooching the communion of the sick in the tradition of all ages If some of these practises which I have observed concerning that veneration which was payed to the Eucharist astonish owr reformers and appeare new to them I engage my selfe to shew them shortly and in few words for it is not difficult that the originall of it is antient in the Church or reather that it never had a beginning But at present that wee may not quit our matter it is sufficient for me to shew them only by comparing the customes of the first and last ages a continuall Tradition of communicating the sick ordinarily under the sole species of bread although the Church alwayes tender to her children if she had beleeved both the species necessary would rather have had them consecrated extraordinarily in the sick persons chamber Capit. Anytonis Basil Episc temp Car. Mag. cap. 14. T. VI. Spicil as it has been often actually practised then to deprive them of this succour on the contrary she
would have given them so much the rather to dying persons by how much they had a greater combate to sustain and at the article of death the most need of their Viaticum Lastly I do not believe the Gentlemen of the pretended Reformation will raise us here any difficultyes upon the change of the species of which wee shall have occasion to speake often in this discourse Those Cavils with which they fill their books upon this point regard not our question but that of the reall presence from whence also to speake candidly they ought to have been retrenched long since it being cleare as I have already remarked that the Son of God who would not in this Mystery do any myracle apparent as such to the senses ought not to suffer himselfe to be obliged to discover in any conjuncture what ever that which he designed expressely to hide from our senses nor by consequence to change what ordinarily happens to the matter which it has pleased him to make use of to the end he might leave his body and blood to the faithfull There is no man of reason who with a little reflection will not of his own accord enter into the same sentiment and at the same time grant that these pretended undecencyes which are brough against us with so much seeming applause avail only to moove the humain senses but in reality they are too much below the Majesty of JESUS-CHRIST to hinder the course of his dessigns and the desire he has to unite himselfe to us in so particular a manner It happens thus so very often in these matters and especially to our Reformers to passe from one question to another that I esteeme my selfe obliged to keepe them close to our question by this advertisement The same reason obliges me to desire them not to draw any advantage from the expression of bread and wine which will occurre so often because they know that even in believing as wee do the change of the substance it is permitted us to leave the first name to those things that are changed as well as it was to Moyses to learne that a rod which was turned into a serpent Exod. 8.12 or that water which was become blood Ibid. 21.24 or the Angels men becaus they appeared such Gen. 18.2.26 not to alledge here Saint John who cals the wine at the marriage of Cana water made wine John 2.9 It is naturall to man that he may facilitate his discourse to abridge his phrases and to speake according to the appearances neither is advantage usvally taken from this manner of speech and I do not beleeve that any one would object to a Philosopher who defends the motion of the Earth that he overthrows his hypothesis when he sayes that the Sun rises or setts After this sleight digression to which the desire of procceding with clearenesse has engaged me I retourne to my matter and to those practises which I have promised to explicate whereby to shew in antiquity the communion under one species § III. Second Custome Communion of little Infants THE second practise I undertake to prove is that when the Communion was given to little children that were baptised it was given them in the first ages yea and ordinarily in all the following under the species of wine only S. Cyp. Tr. de Lapsis Cyprien who suffered martyrdome in the third age authorises this practise in his treatise de Lapsis This great man represents there to us with a gravity worthy of himselfe what passed in the Church and in his presence to a little girle to whom had been given a little moistned bread offred to Idols Her mother who knew nothing of it omitted not to bring her according to custome into the Church assembly But God who would shew by a miraculous signe how much they were unworthy of the society of the faithfull who had participated of the impure table of Divells caused an extraordinary agitation and trouble to appeare in this childe during prayer as if sayes S. Cyprian for default of speach she had found her selfe forced to declare by this meanes as well as she could the misfortune she was fallen into This agitation which ceased not during the whole time of prayer augmented at the approching of the Eucharist where JESUS-CHRIST was so truly present For as S. Cyprian pursues after the accustomed solemnityes the Deacon who presented the holy cup to the faithfull being come to the order or ranke of this child JESUS-CHRIST who knows how to make himselfe be perceived by whom he pleases caused this infant at that moment to feele a terrible impression of the presence of his Majesty She turned away her face sayes Saint Cyprian as not able to support so great Majesty she shuts her mouth she refused the Chalice But after they had made her by force swallow some drops of the pretious blood she could not adds this Father retaine it in those defiled entrals so great is the power and Majesty of our Lord. It became the body of our Lord to produce no lesse effects and Saint Cyprian who represents to us with so much care and zeale togeather the trouble of this child during all prayer time not mentioning this extraordinary emotion caused by the Eucharist but at the approaching and receiving of the consecrated Chalice without speaking one only word of the body shews sufficiently that in effect they did not offer her a nourishment that was inconvenient to her age It is not that they could not with sufficient facility make a childe swallow a little of the sacred bread by steeping of it seing it appears even in this history that the little girle mentioned here had in this manner taken the bread offered to Idols But this is so far from hurting us that on the contrary it lets us see how much they were persuaded that one sole species was sufficient because there being in deed no impossibility of giving the body to little infants they so easily determinated to give them the blood alone It suffised that the sollid part was not so convenient to that age and on the other side as they would have been obliged to steepe the sacred bread to the end they might make little children swallow it so in these ages where wee have seen that they did not so much as dreame of mixing the two species they must have been obliged to take an ordinary liquor before that sacred liquor the blood of our Lord contrary to the dignity of such a Sacrament which the Church has alwayes believed ought to enter into our bodyes before all other nourishment August Ep. 118. ad Jan. It was alwayes I say believed and not only in the time of Saint Augustin Ep. 118. from whom wee have borrowed those words wee last produced but in the time of Saint Cyprian himselfe as it appeares in his letter to Cecilius Ep. 63. and before S. Cyprian seing wee finde mention in Tertullian of the sacred
other It is true the moderne Greeks explane thēselves other wayes and appeare not for the most part very favourable to communion under one species but it is in this the force of truth appeares the greater since that in despite of them their own customes their own Liturgies their own Traditions pronounce sentence against them But is it not true will some say that they put some drops of the pretious Blood in forme of a Crosse upon the parcells of the sacred Body which they reserve for the following dayes and for the Office of Presanctified It is true they do it for the most part but it is true at the same time that this custome is new amongst them and that in the substance to examin it entirely it concludes nothing against us It concludes nothing against us because besides that two or three drops of consecrated wine cannot be preserved any long time the Greekes take care immediately after they have dropped them upon the consecrated bread to dry it upon a chafendish and to reduce it to powder for it is in that manner they keep it as well for the sick as for the Office of the Presanctified A certain signe that the authors of this Tradition had not in prospect by this mixture the Communion under both species which they would have given in another manner if they had beleeved them necessary but indeed the expression of some mystery such as might be the Resurrection of our Lord which all Liturgyes both Greeke and Latin figured by the mixture of the Body and the Blood in the Chalice because the death of our Lord arriving by the effusion of his Blood this mixture of his Body and his Blood is very proper to represent how this man-God tooke life again I should be ashamed to mention here all the vaine subtilityes of the modern Greeks and the false arguments they make about the wine and about its more grosse and more substantiall parts which remain after the sollid bodyes with which wine may be mixed bacome dryed from whence they conclude that a like effect is produced in the species of consecrated wine and therefore that the Blood of our Lord may remain in the sacred Bread even after it has been upon the chafendish and is entirely drye By these wise reasonings the Lees and the Tartar orsalt would still be wine and a lawfull matter for the Eucharist Must wee thus argued concerning the mysteryes of JESUS-CHRIST It was wine as properly called so that is a liquid and flowing wine which JESUS-CHRIST instituted for the matter of his Sacrament It is a liquor which he has given us to represent to our eyes his Blood which was shedd and the simplicity of the Gospell will not suffer these subtilityes of the modern Grecians It must also be acknowledged they arrived to this but of very late and moreover that the custome of putting these drops of consecrated Wine upon the Bread of the Eucharist was not established amongst them but since their schisme The Patriarch Michael Cerularius who may be called the true author of this schisme writes notwithstanding in a booke which he composed in defence of the Office of the Presanctified That the sacred Breads Synodic seu Pand. Guill Bevereg Oxon. 1672. Not. in Can. 52. Conc. which are beleeved to be and which are in effect the quickning Body of our Lord must be kept for this sacrifice Trull T. II. p. 156. Leo All. Ep. ad Nihus without sprincling one drop of the pretious Blood upon them And wee finde notes upon the Councils by a famous Canonist who was one of the Clergy belonging to the Church of Constantinople in which he expressely takes notice that according to the doctrine of Blessed John Patriarch of Constantinople The pretious Blood must not be sprincled upon the Presanctified which they would reserve Harmenop Ep. Can. sect 2. Tit. 6. and this said he is the practise of our Church So that let the modern Grecians say what they please their tradition is expressly against this mixture and according to their own authors and their own proper tradition there remains not so much as a pretense to defend the necessity of the two species in the Presanctified mysteries For can any one so much as conceive what Patriarch Michael in the worke by us newly cited sayes That the wine in which they mix the Body reserved is changed into the pretious Blood by this mixing without so much as prononcing upon the wine as appeares by the Euchologes and by Michaels own confession any one of the mystick and sanctifying prayers that is to say without prononcing the words of consecration bee they what they will for it is not to our purpose to dispute here of them A prodigious and unheard of opinion that a Sacrament can be made without words contrary to the authority of the Scripture and the constant tradition of all Churches which neither the Grecians nor any body else ever called in question By how much therefore wee ought to reverence the antient traditions of the Grecians which descend to them from their fathers and from those times whilst they were united to us by so much ought wee to dispise those errours into which they are falne in the following ages weakned and blinded by schisme I need not here relate them because the Protestants themselves do nor deny but that they are great and I should recede too far from my subject But I will only say to do justice to the modern Grecians that they do not all hold this grosse opinion of Michaels and that it is not an universall opinion amongst them that the wine is changed into the Blood by this mixture of the Body notwithstanding that Scripture and Tradition assigne a particular benediction by words as well to it as to the Body Wee are much lesse to beleeve that the Latins who exposed to us but even now the Office of Good Fryday could be fallen into this errour since they explicate themselves quite contrary in expresse words and to the end wee may omit nothing wee must again in few words propose their sentiments It is true then that wee finde in the Ordo Romanus and in this Office of Good Fryday that the unconsecrated wine is sanctifyed by the sanctifyed bread which is mixed with it The same is found in the bookes of Alcuinus and Amalarius upon the Divine Office Alc. de Div. Off. Amal. lib. r. de Div. Off. Bib. PP de Div. Off. But upon the least reflection made of the doctrine they teach in these same bookes it will be granted that this sanctification of the unconsecrated Wine by the mixture of the Body of our Lord cannot be that true consecration by which the wine is changed into the Blood but a sanctification of another nature and of a much inferiour order such as that is of which Saint Bernard speakes when he sayes that the Wine mixed with the consecrated Hoste Bern. Ep. 69. p. 92.
Acts of the Apostles that the three thousand and five thousand who were converted at the first Sermons of Saint Peter were baptised after any other manner and the great number of these converts is no proofe that they were baptised by sprinkling as some would conjecture For besides that nothing obliges us to affirme they were all baptised upon the same day it is certain that Saint John Baptist who baptised no lesse then they since all Judea flocked to him did notwithstanding baptise them by immersion or dipping and his example has showed us that to baptise a great nomber of man they were accustomed to make choice of a place where there was much water to which wee may further add that the baths and purifications of the antients and principally those of the Jewes rendred this ceremony facile and familiar in this time In fine wee read not in the Scriptures of any other manner of baptising and wee can shew by the acts of Councils and by antient Rituells that for thirteen hundred yeares the whole Church baptised after this manner as much as it was possible The very word also which is used in the Rituells to expresse the action of Godfathers and Godmothers when they say that they elevate the child from the font of Baptisme shows sufficiently that it was the custome to immerge or dipp them in it Though these truths be without dispute yet neither wee nor the pretended Reformers regarde the Anabaptists who hold that this immersion is essentiall and no wayes to be dispensed with and neither the one nor the other of us have any difficulty to change this plunging if I may call it so of the whole body into a meere sprinckling or a powring upon some part of the body No other reason can be given for this change but that this immersion or dipping is not essentiall to Baptisme and the pretended Reformers agreeing herein the first principle wee have layd must be also without contest § II. Second Principle To know the substance or essence of a Sacrament wee must regarde the essentiall effect THE second principle is that to distinguish what appertaines or do's not appertaine to the substance of a Sacrament wee must regard the essentiall effect of that Sacrament Thus though the words of JESUS-CHRIST Baptise signify immerge or dipp as has beene already said yet it was beleeved that the effect of the Sacrament was not restrained to the quantity of the water so that Baptisme by infusion and sprinckling or by immersion or dipping appearing in substance to have the same effect both the one and the other manner is judged vallid But as wee have said no essentiall effect of the Body distinct from that of the Blood can be found in the Eucharist so that the Grace both of the one and the other in the ground and in substance can be no other but the same It is nothing to the purpose to say that the representation of the death of our Lord is more exactly expressed in the two species I grant it in like manner the representation of new birth of the faithfull is more exactly expressed by immersion or dipping then by meere infusion or sprinckling For the faithfull being dipped or plunged in the water of Baptisme is buryed with JESUS-CHRIST Rom. 6.4 Coloss 2.12 according to the expression of the Apostle and the same faithfull coming out of the waters comes out of the Grave with his Saviour and represents more perfectly the mystery of JESUS-CHRIST that regenerated him Immersion by which water is applyed to the whole body and to all its parts do's also more perfectly signify that a man is fully and entirely washed from his spotts And yet Baptisme given by immersion or plunging is of no more vallue then Baptisme given by meere infusion and upon one only part it suffises that the expression of the mystery of JESUS-CHRIST and of the effect of Grace be found in substance in the Sacrament and that an ultimate exactnesse of representation is not there requisite Thus in the Eucharist the signification of the death of our Lord being found in substance when the Body delivered for us in given to us and an expression of the Grace of the Sacrament being also found when under the species of Bread the image of our spirituall nourishment is administred unto us the Blood which dos nothing but add to it a more expresse signification is not there absolutely necessary This is what is manifestly proved by the very words of our Lord and the reflection of Saint Paul when relating these words 1. Cor. 11.25.26 Do this in remembrance of me he immediately after concludes that so often as wee eat this Bread and drinke this Cupp wee shew forth the death of our Lord. Thus according to the interpretation of the Disciple the Masters intention is that when he ordaines wee should be mindfull of him wee should be mindfull of his death To the end therefore wee may rightly understand wheather the remembrance of this death consists in the sole participation of the whole mystery or in the participation of either of its parts wee need but consider that our Saviour dos not expect till the whole mystery be ended and the whole Eucharist received in both its parts before he sayes Ibid. 24.25 Do this in remembrance of me Saint Paul remarked that at each part he expressely ordained this remembrance For after having said Eat This is my Body do this in remembrance of me in giving the Blood he again repeates As often as you shall drinke this do it in remembrance of me declaring unto us by this repetition that wee shew forth his death in the participation of each kinde From whence it followes that when Saint Paul concludes from these words that in eating the Body and drinking the Blood wee shew forth the death of the Lord wee must understand that this death is not only shown forth by taking the whole but also by taking either part and the rather because it is otherwise apparent that in this mysticall separation which JESUS-CHRIST has signifyed by his words the Body seperated from the Blood and the Blood seperated from the Body have the same effect to shew forth the violent death of our Lord. So that if there be a more distinct expression in receiving the whole Representation more pressing it dos not cease neverthelesse to be true that by the reception of either part his death is wholy and entire represented and the whole Grace applyed to us But if any here demande to what purpose then was the institution of both species and this more lively represention of the death of our Lord which wee have here remarked it is that they will not reflect of one quality of the Eucharist well known to the antients though rejected by our Reformers All the antients beleeved that the Eucharist was not only a nourishment but also a sacrifice and that it was offered to God in consecrating of it before it was
of this Body and this Blood coming from his death he would conserve the image of this death when he gave us them in his holy Supper and by so lively a representation keepe us alwayes in minde to the cause of our salvation that is to say the sacrifise of the Crosse According to this doctrine wee ought to have our living victime under an image of death otherwise wee should not be enlivened JESUS-CHRIST tells us also at his holy table I am living but I have beene dead Apoc. 1.11 and living in effect I beare only upon wee the image of that death which I have endured It is also thereby that I enliven because by the figure of my death once suffered I introduce those who beleeve to that life which I possesse eternally Thus the Lambe who is before the Throne as dead Apoc. 5.6 or rather as slaine do's not cease to be living for he is slanding and he sends throughout the world the seaven Spirits of God and he takes the booke and opens it and he fils heaven and earth with joy and with grace Our Reformers will not or it may be cannot yet understand so high a mystery for it enters not into the hearts but of those who are prepared by a purifyed Faith But if they cannot understand it they may at least understand very well that wee cannot beleeve a reall presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST without admitting all the other things wee have even now explicated and these things thus explicated is what wee call concomitancy But as soone as concomitancy is supposed and that wee have acknowledged JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire under each species it is verry easy to understand in what the vertue of this Sacrament consists John VI. 64. Cvr. lib. IV. in Joh. c. 34. Ia. Anath XI Conc. Eph. p. I. T. III. Conc. The flesh profiteth nothing and if wee understand it as Saint Cyrille whose sence was followed by the whole Council of Ephesus it profiteth nothing to beleeve it alone to believe it the flesh of a pure man but to believe it the flesh of God a flesh full of divinity and by consequence of spirit and of life it profiteth very much without doubt because in this state it is full of an infinite vertue and in it wee receive togeather with the entire humanity of JESUS-CHRIST his divinity also whole and entire and the very source or fountaine of graces For this reason it is the Son of God who knew what he would place in his mystery knew also very well how to make us understand in what he would place the vertue of it What he has said in Saint John must therefore be no more objected John 6.54 If you eate not the Flesh of the Son of man and drinke not his Blood you shall not have life in you The manifest meaning of these words is there is no life for those who seperate themselves from the one and the other for indeede it is not the eating and drinking but the receiving of JESUS-CHRIST that gives life JESUS-CHRIST sayes himselfe and as it is excellently remarked by the Councill of Trent Sess XXI c. 1. too injustly calumniated by our adversaryes He who said John 6.54 IF YOU EATE NOT THE FLESCH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINKE NOT HIS BLOOD YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU has also said Ibid. 52. IF ANY ONE EAT OF THIS BREAD HE SHALL HAVE LIFE EVERLASTING And he who said Ibid. 55. HE WHO EATES MY FLESH AND DRINKES MY BLOOD HAS ETERNALL LIFE Ibid. 52. has said also THE BREAD WHICH I WILL GIVE IS MY FLESH WHICH I WILL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD And lastly he who said Ibid. 57. HE THAT EATES MY FLESH AND DRINKES MY BLOOD REMAINES IN ME AND I IN HIM has also said HE WHO EATES THIS BREAD Ibid. 59. SHALL HAVE ETERNALL LIFE and againe Ibid. 58. HE THAT EATES ME LIVES FOR ME AND SHALL LIVE BY ME. By which he obliges us not to the eating and drinking at his holy Table or to the species which containe his Body and his Blood but to his propper substance which is there communicated to us and togeather with it grace and life So that this passage of Saint John from whence as wee have said Jacobel tooke occasion to revolt and all Bohemia to rise in rebellion becomes a proofe for us The Pretended Reformers themselves would undertake to defend us if wee would against this passage so much boasted of by Jacobel seeing they owne with a common consent this passage is not to be understood of the Eucharist Calvin has said it Cal. Inst IV. c. Aub. lib. I. de Sacr. Euch. c. 30. c. Aubertin has said it every one says it and M. du Bourdieu says it also in his Treatise so often cited Repl. ch VI. p. 201. But without taking any advantage from their acknowledgements wee on the contrary with all antiquity maintaine that a passage where the Flesh and Blood as well as eating and drinking are so often and so clearly distinguished cannot be understood meerely of a communion where eating and drinking is the same thing such as is a spirituall Communion and by faith It belongs therefore to them and not to us to defend themselves from the authority of this passage where the businesse being to explicate the vertue and the fruict of the Eucharist it appeares that the Son of God places them not in eating and drinking nor in the manner of receiving his Body and his Blood but in the foundation and in the substance of both the one and the other Whereupon the antient Fathers for example Saint Cyprian he who most certainly gave nothing but the Blood alone to little infants as wee have seene so precisely in his Treatise De lapsis Test. ad Quir. III. 25.20 dos not omit to say in the same Treatise that the parents who led their children to the sacrifises of Idols deprived them of the Body and Blood of our Lord and teaches also in another place that they actually fulfill and accomplish in those who have life and by consequence in infants by giving them nothing but the Blood all that which is intended by these words If you eate not my Flesh and drink not my Blood you shall not have life in you Aug. Ep. 23. Saint Augustin sayes often the same thing though he had seene and examined in one of his Epistles that passage of Saint Cyprian where he speakes of the Communion of infants by Blood alone without finding any thing extraordinary in this manner of communion and that it is not to be doubted but the African Church where Saint Augustin was Bishop had retained the Tradition which Saint Cyprian so great a Martyr Bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa had left behind him The foundation of this is that the Body and Blood inseperably accompany each other for although the species which
wilfully loose this seede of life or rather the eternall truth it brings us There needs no more to confound M. Jurieux Exam. T. VI. sect 5. p. 469. At that time sayes he that is to say in the eleaventh age when according to him Transsubstantiation was established they begun to thinke of the consequences of Transsubstantiation When men were persuaded that the Body of our Lord was contained whole and entire under each little dropp of wine they were seized with a feare least it should be spilt If then this feare of effusion seized also our Forefathers from the primitive ages of the Church then did they already believe Transsubstantiation and all its consequences M. Jurieux goes on They trembled to thinke the adorable Body of our Lord should lye upon the ground amongst dust and dirt without a possibility of taking it up If the Fathers have trembled to thinke of it as well as they then had they according to him the same beliefe He is never weary of shewin us this feare of effusion as a necessary consequence of the beliefe of the reall presence Ibid. Sect. 7. This reason sayes he that is to say that which is drawn from the feare of effusion may be proper for them that is to say for the Catholicks but it is of no account to us who do not acknowledge that the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour are really contained under Bread and Wine You see Gentlemen your Ministers would feare as well as wee this spilling or effusion if they believed the same reall presence the Fathers then once more believed it seing they had as it is manifest the same feare and apprehension It is in vaine that M. Jurieux scoffs at this feare Ibid. 469. In an age sayes he when men were not as they are at present ashamed to carry upon their faces the character or marke of their sexe they dipped a great beard into the sacred Cupp and carryed back with them a multitute of Bodyes of JESUS-CHRIST which hang at each haire This gave them horrour and I finde they had reason This fine phancy pleased him P. 485. I am in paine sayes he in another place to conceive how the Faithfull of the antient Church dit not tremble to see so many Bodyes of JESUS-CHRIST hang at all the hares of a great beard after receiving the sacred Cupp How came it they had not an horrour to see this beard wiped with a handkerchief and the Body of our Lord put into the pocket of some seaman or soldier As if a sea-man or soldier were lesse considerable in the eyes of God then other men If this unseasonable buffoon had remarked in the antient Fathers with what decency and respect they approched to the Eucharist if he would have regarded in Saint Cyrill after what manner the faithfull at this time tasted the sacred Cupp Cyr. Hier. Gat. 5. myst and how they were so far from suffering one drop of it to be lost that with respect they touched that moistnesse which remained upon their lipps to applye it to their eyes and the other organs of the sences which they believed to be sanctified thereby hee would have found it a thing more worthy himselfe to have candidly set forth this act of piety than to make his party laugh by the ridiculous description wee have now heard But these seoffers may do their worst their railleries can do no more injury to the Eucharist then those of others did to the Trinity and to the Incarnation of the Son of God and the majesty of these mysteryes cannot be debased by such discourses M. Jurieux reprefents us as men who feare least there should arrive some offensive accident to the Body and Blood of our Lord. I do not perceive sayes he that he is better placed upon a white cloth then in the dust and seeing wee can behold him without horrour in the mouth and stomack wee ought not to be astonished to see him upon the pavement In effect to speake humanly and according to the flesh the pavement is perhaps a place as much or more proper then our stomacks and to speake according to faith the glorious state of JESUS CHRIST at present dos equally elevate him above all but respect and decency will have it that as far as lyes in us wee should place him where himselfe would be It is man that he seekes and he is so far from having on abhorrance from our flesh seing he created it seing he redeemed it seing he vallues it that he willingly approches to sanctify it What ever has a relation to this use honours him because it has a dependance upon that glorious quality of Saviour of man kinde Wee do as much as lyes in us endeavour to hinder whatever may derogate from the veneration due to the Body and Blood of our Master and without fearing any accident should happen prejudiciall to JESUS-CHRIST wee avoid whatever might shew in us the least want of respect But if our precautions cannot prevent all wee know that JESUS-CHRIST who is sufficiently guarded by his own Majesty is contented with our zeale and cannot be debased by any place A man may railly if he will at this doctrine but wee are so far from blushing at it that wee blush for those who do not remember that those railleries they make use of against our precautions reflect upon the Holy Fathers no lesse cautious then wee If it was fitting to augment them these later ages it is not that the Eucharist hath been more honoured then in the first but raither that piety being relaxed it was necessary it should be excited by more efficacious meanes in such sort that these new and needfull precautions in denoting our respects make it appeare there has been some negligence in our conduct For my selfe I easily believe that amidst the order the silence the gravity of antient Ecclesiasticall assemblyes it seldome or never arrived that the Blood of our Lord was spilt it was only in the tumult and confusion of these last ages that these scandals frequently arriving caused the people to desire to receive that species only which they saw lesse exposed to the like inconveniencies so much the rather because in receiving it alone they knew they lost nothing seing they possessed him whole and entire who was the sole object of their love Neverthelesse I will not deny but that after Berengarius had rejected in despite of the Church of his time and the Tradition of all the Fathers the reall presence of JESUS-CHRIST in this Sacrament the beliefe of this mystery was as I may say enlivened or animated and that the piety of the faithfull offended by this heresy sought how to signalize it selfe by new testimonyes I acknowledge in this the spirit of the Church which did not adore JESUS-CHRIST nor the Holy Ghost with such illustrious testimonyes til after hereticks had denyed their divinity The mistery of the Eucharist ought to be in equall proportion with the rest and Berengarius his heresy must not serve the Church lesse then that of Arius and Macedonius As to what concernes adoration Cyr. Hier. Cat. myst 5. Amb. lib. III. de Spir. S. c. 12. Aug. Tr. in Ps 98. Theodor. Dial. II. Chrys lib. VI. de Sacerd. Aug lib. II. p. 432. 803. 822. Hist Euch. 3. p. ch 4. p. 341. seq what necessity is there that I should speake of it after so many passages of the Fathers cited even by Aubertin and since him by M. de la Roque in his history of the Eucharist Do not wee see in these passages the Eucharist adored or rather JESUS-CHRIST adored in the Eucharist and adored by the Angells themselves whom Saint Chrysostome represents to us as bowing before JESUS-CHRIST in this mystery and rendring him the same respects which the Emperours Gards rendred to their Master It is true Hist Euch. III. p. ch 4 p. 541. seqq these Ministers answer that this adoration of the Eucharist is not a souveraine adoration rendred to the Divinity but an inferiour adoration rendred to the sacred Symboles But can they show us the like adoration rendred to the water of Baptisme Chrys lib. VI. de Sacerd c. Theod. loc cit c. sup What can be answered to those Passages where it appeares the adoration rendred here is like to that which is rendred to the King when present that this adoration is rendred to the mysteryes as being in effect what they were believed to be as beeing the Flesh of JESUS-CHRIST God and man These Passages of the Antients are formall and till such times as our Reformers have comprehended them so far as to be convinced of it they will at least see this inferiour worship upon which they make so many cavills they will see a worship distinguished from the supreme worship yet neverthelesse a religious one seing it makes a part of the divine service and of the reception thus of the Holy Sacraments By justifying themselves so so concerning the Eucharist they take from themselves all wayes or meanes of accusing us in relation to Reliques Images and the veneration of Saints So true it is that their Church and Religion ressembles a ruinous structure which cannot as I may say be covered on one side without beeing exposed on the other and can never exhibit that perfect integrity and proportion of parts which compose the beauty and solidity of a building
that there is nothing more common in books and ordinary in humain language But I find not that in the matter wee treat of and in the relation which is made of the distribution of the Eucharist he has found in the Fathers any more then Calixte one single example of an expression which according to him should be so common Behold two Ministers in the same perplexity Calixtes finds the body alone mentioned in the communion of the sick and M. du Bourdieu the same in domestick communion Wee are not astonished at it wee beleeve that the body alone was given in both these Communions These Ministers will beleeve nothing of it both of them bring the figure Synecdoche where by to save themselves both of them are equally destitute of Examples in the like cases What therefore remaines but to conclude that their Synecdoche is but imaginary and that in particular if Saint Paulinus speake only of the body in the Communion of Saint Ambrose it is in effect that Saint Ambrose did receive nothing but the body only according to custome If he tell us that this great man expired immediately after having received wee must not here search after subtilityes nor fancy to our selves a figure It is the simple truth and matter of fact which makes him thus plainly relate what passed But to the end wee may compleat the conviction of these Ministers supposing that their Synecdoche is as common in such like cases as it is rare or rather unheard of let us se whether it agree with the passage in question and with the History of Saint Ambrose Paulinus sayes S. Honoratus being gone to repose during the silence of the night a voice from heaven advertised him that his sick man was going to expire that he immediately went down presented him with the body of our Lord and that the Saint give up the Ghost presently after having received it How comes it to pass that he did not rather say that he dyed immediately after having received the pretious blood if the thing hapned really so Were it as ordinary as Calixtus would have it to expresse only the body to signify the receiving of the body and the blood by this figure which puts the part for the whole it is as naturall also for the same reason and by the same figure the blood alone should be sometimes made use of to expresse the receiving under both the one and the other species But if ever this should have hapned it ought to have been cheefly upon the occasion of this Communion of Saint Ambrose and of the relation which Paulinus has left us of it For since he would shew the receiving of the Eucharist so immediately fallowed by the death of the Saint and would represent this great man dying as another Moyses in the embraces of his Lord If he intended to abridge his discourse he should have done it in abridging and shuning in the relation of that part or action wherein this Holy Bishop terminated his life that is to say in the reception of the blood which is alwayes the last and the rather because this supposed the other and it would have beene in effect immediatly after this that the Saint rendred up his blessed soule to God Nothing would have so much struck the senses nothing would have been so strongly printed in the memory nothing would have presented it selfe sooner to the thoughts and nothing by consequence would have run more naturally in discourse If therefore no mention of the blood be found in this historian it is indeed because Saint Ambrose did not receive it Calixtus foresaw verry well Ibid. that the recitate of Paulinus would forme this idea naturally in the readers mindes and it is thereupon that he adds it may verry well be that they carryed to the Saint the pretious blood togeather with the body as equally necessary but that Saint Ambrose had not the time to receave it being prevented by death Oh unhappy refuge in a desperate cause If Paulinus had this idea instead of representing us his holy Bishop as a man who by a speciall care of the Divine Providence dyed with all the helps which a Christian could wish for he would on the contrary by some word have denoted that notwithstanding this heavenly advertissement and the extreame diligence of S. Honoratus a sodain death had deprived this sick Saint of the blood of his Master and of so essentiall at part of the Sacrament But they had not these Ideas in those times and the Saints beleeved they gave and received all in the body only Thus the two answers of Calixtus are equally vaine In like manner M. du Bourdieu his great follower has not dared to expresse eather the one or the other and in that perplexitay whereinto so pecise testimony had thrown him he endeavours to save himselfe by answering only that Du Bourd rép chap. 13. p. 378. Saint Ambrose received the communion as he could not dreaming that he had immediately before said they had given the two species to Serapion and that if it had been the custome it would not have been more difficult to give them to Saint Ambrose Moreover if they had beleived them inseparable as these Ministers with all those of their religon pretend it is cleare that they would raither have resolved to give neither of the two then to give only one Thus all the answers of these Ministers are turned against themselves and M. du Bourdieu cannot fight against us without fighting against himselfe He has notwithstanding found another expedient to weaken the authority of this passage and is not afraid in so knowing an age as this is to write that before this example of Saint Ambrose there is not any tract to be found of the Communion of the sick in any words of the ansients Ibid. The testimony of Saint Justin who in his second Apologie sayes they carryed the Eucharist to those that were absent touches him not Ibid. 382. For Saint Justin sayes he has not expressely specifyed the sick as if their sicknesse had been a sufficient cause to deprive them of this common consolation and not raither a new motive to give it them But what becomes of the example of Serapion Is it not clearly enough said that he was sick and dying T is true but the reason was because he was one of those who had sacrifised to Idols and one that was ranked amongst the penitents He must have been an Idolator to merit to receive the Eucharist in dying and the faithfull who during the whole course of their lives have never been excluded from the participation of this Sacrament by any crime must be excluded at their death when they have the most need of such a succour And thus a man amuses himselfe and thinks he has done a learned exploit when he heaps togeather as this Minister does the examples of dyinh persons where there is no mention made of communion without reflectinh that
that the life of Saint Basil is found already translated into Latin in the time of Charles the bald Aeneas Ep. Par. lib. adv Graec. T. IV. Spic p. 80. 81. and cited by Eneas Bishop of Paris renowned in these times for his piety and learning who moreover quotes the very place in this life where mention is made of these Doves and of the Sacrament of our Lord kept therein and hung over the Altar Hereunto may be reduced those Ciboriums mentioned amongst the presents which Charlemagne gave to the Roman Church Anast Bib. vit Leon. III. T. II. Conc. Gal. and all antiquity is full of the like examples And to the end the Tradition of the first and last ages may appeare conformable to each other as wee have seen in the first ages in the history of Serapion and in the Council of Carthage that in communicating the sick under the species of bread only they moistned it in some liqueur so does the same custome appeare in after ages Wee see this above six hundred yeares since in the antient customs of Clugny Ant. Consuet Cluniac l. III. c. 28. Tom. IV. Spicil collected at that time out of most antient memorials by S. Udalricus a Monke of this Order Hist Euch. I. P. c. 16 p. 183. and the Minister de la Roque in his history of the Eucharist cites this booke without any reproche It is remarked in this booke that the infirme Religious received the body only which was given to them steeped in unconsecrated wine There wee finde also a cupp in which it was steeped and thus it was the Religious of the most famous and most holy Monastery in the world communicated their sick By this wee may judge of the custome of the rest of the Church Const Odon Paris Episc c. 5. art 3. T. X. Conc. In fine wee find every where mention of this cupp which was carryed for the communion of the sick Const Episc anon T. XI Syn. Bajoc c. 77. ibid. 2. p. but which was made use of only to give them the consecrated bread moistned in common wine to facilitate the passage of this heavenly food The Greeks also retained this tradition as well as the Latins and as their inviolable custome is not to Consecrate the Eucharist for the sick but upon holy Thursday only they mixe the species of bread wholy dryed during so long a time either with water or unconsecrated wine As for consecrated wine it is manifest it could not be kept so long especially in those hot countryes so that their custome of consecrating for the sick only one day in the yeare obliged them to communicate them under one only species that is under that of bread which they could keepe without difficulty their Sacrifice in leavened bread keeping better them ours in unleavened especially after the drying wee lately mentioned It is true for wee will dissemble nothing that at present they make a Crosse with the pretious bloods upon the consecrated bread which they reserve for the sick But besides that this is not to give the blood of our Lord to drink as it is expressed in the Gospell nor to marke the seperation of the body and the blood which alone perswades our Reformers of the necessity of the two species It abundantly appeares that at the yeares end nothing remains of one or two drops of the pretious blood which they put upon the heavenly bread and that there is nothing left for the sick but one only species To which wee must add that after all this custome of the Greeks to mixe a little of the blood with the sacred Body concerning which wee see nothing in their antient Fathers or Canons is new amongst them and wee shall finde some occasion to make this more clearely appeare in the following discourse Those who deny every thing may deny these observances of the Greeke Church but they do not therefore cease to be indubitable and no one can deny it without a wonderfull insincerity if he be never so little read in the Euchologes of the Greeks or instructed concerning their rights And as for the Latin Church Conc. sub Edg. Rege Can. 38. T. IX Conc. p. 628. Conc. Bitur c. 2. ibid. p. 865. Constit Odon Paris Episc T. X. p. 1802. Constit Episc anon T. XI 1. p. Innoc. IV. Ep. X. ibid. 1. Conc. Lambeth c. 1. ibid. Syn. Exon. c. 4. ibid. 2. p. Synod Bajoc c. 12.77 Conc. Ravenn II. Rub. VII Conc. Vaur 6.85 ibid. the Councils are full of necessary precautions for the conserving of the Body of our Lord the carrying it with respect and a convenient decorum and to cause a due adoration to be rendred to it by the people They speake likewise of the box and linnen in which it was kept and of the care which the Priests ought to have to renew the Hosts every eight dayes and to consummate the old ones before they drunke the holy cup. They ordaine likewise how those Hosts which had been kept too long should be burnt and the ashes reserved under the Altar without so much as ever speaking amongst so many observances either of vialls to conserve the pretious Blood in or of any precautions for the keeping of it although it be given us under a species much more capable of alteration Wee may aledge also upon the same account a Canon which all the Ministers object against us It is a Canon of the Council of Tours which wee finde not in the volumes of the Councils Burch Coll. Can. l. V. c. 9. Yvo dec II. P. c. 19. but in Burchard and Yvo of Chartres collectors of the Canons of the eleaventh age This Canon as well as others sayes that the holy oblation which is kept for the sick that is the species of bread as appeares by what followes ought to be renewed every eight dayes but id adds which wee finde no where else in the West that it must be dipped in the blood to the end it may be said truly that the body and blood is given If this Canon gave us any difficulty Aubert de Euch. lib. II. in Exam. Pii p. 288. wee might say with Aubertin what is very true that Burchard and Yvo of Charters collected many things togeather without choice or judgement and that they give us many peices as antient which are not such But to act in every thing which sincerity it may be said that this Canon so exactly transcribed by these Authors is not false as also that it is none of those which were admitted since wee see nothing like it in all the others Moreover this Canon which does not appeare but in above named collections for certain was not made any long time before and the sole mixing of the body and blood shews sufficiently how far short it is of the first antiquity But let it be in what time it will it is apparent that before it was made it was the custome to name the
caused a necessity at last in the time of Saint Gelasius of making an expresse ordre to take equally the body and the blood under paine of being deprived of them both M. Ibid. p. 283. du Bourdieu conceales here from us with a great deale of artifice the motive inducing this Pope to make that prohibition See here the words of the Decree Qui proculdubio quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur adstringi aut integra Sacramenta percipiant aut ab integra arceantur Gel. ibid. Wee have discovered that some persons in taking the sacred Body only abstaine from the holy Chalice which persons truly because they seeme to adhere to I know not what superstition let them either take the Sacrament under both species or let them be entirely deprived of the one and the other This particle because of Pope Galasius which shews manifestly that the superstitious abstinence of these Hereticks was the particular reason why he obliged them to both species is left out by this Minister for se what he makes this Pope say I know not what superstition they are addicted to either let them receive the entire Sacraments or let them be deprived of the entire Sacraments He durst not let that particle appeare in his translation by which this Pope shews expressely that his prohibition had a particular motive for feare it might be too easily concluded against him that there was nothing in it selfe more free then to communicate without receiving the Blood since that there was need of reasons and a particular occasion to oblige the doing of it There is likewise another crafty artifice but verry feeble in the translation of this Minister For insteed of what the Pope sayes as I have above translated it Which persons truly Nescioqua superstitione decentur adstringi becanse they seme to adhere to I know not what superstition that is to say indefinitely as is manifest to some certain superstition which he will not vouchsafe to expresse Du Bourd ibid. p. 283. this Minister makes him say both precisely and more strongly I know not what superstition they are addicted to to the end he might conclude a little after that this did not concerne the Manicheans whose errours sayes he this learned Bishop was not ignorant of nor of those which were in vogue in his time Calixtus had endeavoured before him to distinguish the practise of Hereticks mentioned by Saint Leo from this prohibited by Saint Gelasius thereby to hinder any one from beleeving that the Decree of this last Pope in favour of the two species was to be regarded as in relation to the errors of the Manicheans What dos this pittifull refuge availe him Seeing that it appeares clearly by the tearms of this Decree that it had a particular motive what dos it import us whether it were the Manicheans errour or some other such like superstition And is not this alwayes sufficient to let us see take it which way you will that it was necessary the Church should have some particular reasons to oblige them to both species But as to the whole it cannot be doubted but this superstition of which Saint Gelasius speakes here was that of the Manicheans seing that Anastasius the Bibliothecarian sayes expressely in the life of this Pope Vit. Gel. T. IV. Conc. that he discovered the Manicheans at Rome that he sent them into exile and that he caused their books to be burnt before the Saint Marys Church Wee do not in effect see what other superstition besides that of the Manicheans could have inspired a horror to wine and that of the Blood of our Lord. On the other side it is manifest that these Hereticks had unheard of artifices to insinuate themselves secretly amongst the faithfull and that there was in their prodigious discourses such an efficacy of errour that it was a most difficult thing to efface wholy those impressions they left in the minde None therefore can doubt but that these superstitious people of whom Saint Gelasius speakes were the hidden remainders of those Manicheans that Saint Leo his predecessor had discovered thirty or forty yeares before and whereat Saint Gelasius has said they are addicted to I know not what superstition it is not that he did know verry well their errours but he speakes this out of contempt or rather because this obscure sect changed it selfe into a thousand shapes so that what remained of this poison was not alwayes known or it was not alwayes thought convenient to explicate it to the people But behold the last refuge of these Ministers They maintaine wee are in the wrong in searching a particular reason of the Ordinance of Saint Gelasius since he establishes it manifestly upon the nature of the Mystery Let us once more therefore relate the words of this Pope already cited and let us add thereto their whole consequence Wee have discovered sayes he that some persons take only the sacred Body and abstaine from the sacred Blood which persons truly because they seeme to adhere to I know not what superstition let them take both parts or let them be deprived of both because the division of one and the same mystery cannot be done without a great sacrilege To understand aright the consequence of these words wee finde that the division which he accuses of sacrilege was that same grounded upon the above mentioned superstition where the Blood of our Lord consecrated under the species of wine was regarded as an object of aversion Indeed it is a deviding of the mystery to beleeve that there is one part of it which JESUS-CHRIST did not institute and which ought to be rejected as abominable But to beleeve that JESUS-CHRIST has equally instituted both parts and not withstanding to take but one not out of contempt to the other God forbid but because wee beleeve that the vertue of both is received in either and that in them both there is but one sole fondation of Grace if this be to divide the mystery the primitive Church dividid it when they communicated the sick little children and generally all the faithfull in their houses under one sole species But as wee cannot have such an opinion of the antient Church wee must of necessity avouch that to divide this mystery some thing more must be beleeved and practised then that which is beleeved and practised by all Catholicks § VI. The Masse of Holy Fryday and that of the Presanctifyed THE antient Church was so far from beleeving that to give this Mystery under one sole species was to divide it that she had certain solemne dayes in which she distributed nothing but the sacred Body of our Lord in the Church and to all the assistants Such was the Office of Good Fryday in the Latin Church and such was the Office of the Greeke Church every day in Lent except Saturday and Sunday To begin with the Latin Church wee finde in the Ordo Romanus Bib. PP Var. T. de div Off. in
or no it were fitt to condemne so many Martyrs so many other Saints and the whole primitive Church which practised this domestick Communion M. Jurieux cuts of the discourse with too much confidence Is there the least sincerity sayes he to draw a proofe from a practise opposed to that of the Apostles which is condemned at present and which would passe in the Church of Rome for the worst of crimes Was it not his businesse here again to make the world beleeve that wee condemne togeather with him and his the practise of so many Saints as contrary to that of the Apostles But wee are far from such horrible temerity M. Jurieux knows it very well and a man who boasts thus much of sincerity ought to have so much of it as to take notice that the Church as I have showne elsewhere dos not condemne all the practises she changes and that the Holy-Ghost who guides her makes her not only condemne ill practises but also to quitt good ones and forbid them severely when they are abused I beleeve the falsity of this History which M. Jurieux gives us of the first ages of the Church for a eleaven hundred or a thousand yeares appeares sufficiently what he sayes of following times is no lesse contrary to truth I have no neede to speake of the manner how he relates the establishment of the reall presence and Transubstantiation during the X. age that is not to our present subject Sect. V. p. 469. and otherwise nothing obliges us to refute what he advances without proofe But that which is to be remarked is that he regards Communion under one kind as a thing which was not introduced but by presupposing Transubstantiation All in good time when therefore it shall henceforth appeare as wee have invincibly shown that Communion under one species was practised even in the first ages of the Church and in the times of the Martyrs it can be no more doubted but that Transubstantiation was also at that time establised and M. Jurieux himselfe will be obliged to grant this consequence But let us retourne to what follows in his History He shows us there Communion under one species as a thing first thought of in the eleaventh age after the reall presence and Transubstantiation had been well established For then they perceived sayes he that under a crumme of bread Ibid. 470. as well as under every drop of wine the whole Flesh and all the Blood of our Lord were included What happened upon it Let us heare This false reason prevailed in such a manner over the institution of our Lord and over the practise of the whole antient Church that the custome of communicating under the sole species of Bread was insensibly established in the XII and XIII ages It was insensibly established so much the better for us What I have said then is true that the people reduced themselves without contradiction and without difficulty to the sole species of Bread so well were they prepared by the Communion of the sick by that of infants by that which was received at home by that which was practised in the Church it selfe and finally by all those practises wee have seen to acknowlege a true and perfect Communion under one species This is an untoward and troublesome businesse for our Reformers They have great reason indeed to boast of these insensible changes where in they putt the whole stresse of their cause they never yet produced neither will they ever produce one example of such a change in essentiall matters That indifferent matters should be insensibly changed and without contradiction is no such great wonder but as wee have said the faith of the people and those practises which are beleeved essentiall to Religion are not so easily changed For then Tradition the antient beliefe custome it selfe and the Holy Ghost who animates the Body of the Church oppose themselves to his novelly When therefore a change is made without difficulty and without being perceived it is a signe the matter was never beleeved to be so necessary M. Jurieux saw this consequence Ibid. and after having said that the custome of communicating under the sole species of bread was establised insensibly in the XII and XIII age he adds immediately after It was not however without resistance the people could not suffer without great impatience that they should take from them halfe of JESUS-CHRIST they murmured in all parts He had said a little before that this change verry different from those which are made after an insensible manner without opposition and without noise was on the contrary made with great noise and splendour These Gentlemen answer things as best pleases them the present difficulty transports them and beeing pressed by the objection they say at that moment what seemes most to disentangle them from it without much reflecting whether it agree I do not say with truth but with their own thoughts The cause it selfe demands this and wee must not expect that an errour can be defended after a consequent manner This is the state in which M. Jurieux found himselfe This custome says he that is to say this of communicating under one kind was insensibly established nothing can be more quiet and tranquile It was not neverthelesse without resistance without noise without the greatest impatience without murmuring on all sides behold a grand commotion Truth made him candidly speake the first and the adhesion to his cause made him say the other In effect nothing can be found of these universall murmurs of these extreame impatiences of these resistances of the people and this induceth to the establising an insensible change On the other side it must not be said that a practise which is represented so strange so unheard of so evidently sacrilegious was established without repugnance and without taking any notice of it To avoid this inconvenience a resistance must be imagined and if none can be found invented But furthermore what could be the subject of these universall murmurings M. Jurieux has told us his thoughts of them but in this point he coheares as little with himselfe as in all the rest That which caused these murmurings is sayes he that the people suffered with the greatest impatience that they should be deprived of one halfe of JESUS-CHRIST Has he forgot what he even now said that the reall presence had made them see that under each crumme of bread the whole Flesh and all the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST were contained Ibid. p. 469. Dos he reflect upon what he is presently about to say that if the doctrine of Transsubstantiation and of the reall presence be true Sect. VI. p. 480. it is true also that the bread containes the Flesh and the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST Where then was this half of JESUS-CHRIST taken away which the people suffered according to him with the highest impatience If a man will have them make complaints let him at least afford them matter conformable to their sentiments