strangers did no lesse seduce them then the Chananites they beleeved they ought equally to exclude them all not so much by the letter and propper tearmes as by the spirit of the law which they also interpreted contrary to the precedent practise in respect of the Moabites the Synagogue alwayes beleeving herselfe to have received from God himselfe a right to give decisions according to occurring necessityes I do not beleeve that any one will persuade himselfe that they observed according to the letter and in all sorts of cases Exod. 21.24.28 Lev. 24.19.20 Dont 19.21 that severe law of Talionis so often repeated in the Bookes of Moyses For even to regard these tearmes only eye for eye tooth for tooth hand for hand bruse for bruse wound for wound nothing dos appeare to establish a more perfect and a more just compensation yet nothing is in reality further from it if wee weigh the circumstances and nothing in fine would have been more unequall then such an equality nor indeed is it alwayes possible to give to a malefactor a wound altogeather proportionable to that he had given his brother Practise taught the Jewes that the true dessigne of the law was to make them sensible there ought to be a reasonable compensation profitable both to particulars and to the publick which as it consists not in a precise point nor in a certain measure the same practise determined it by a just estimation It would not be hard to alledge many other Traditions of the antient people as much approved of as these The ablest writers of the new reforme do grand it When therefore they would destroy all unwritten Traditions in generall under pretense of the words of our Lord where he condemnes those Traditions which were contrary to the tearmes or to the sense and intent of the law Math. 15.3 Mark 7.7 c. and in short those which had not a sufficiently sollid foundation there is no sincerity in their discourses and all men of sence will agree that there was lawfull traditions though not written without which the practise it selfe of the law was impossible in so much that it cannot be denyed but that they obliged in conscience Will the Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformed Religion permit me to mention in this place the Tradition of prayer for the dead This prayer is manifest by the Book of Machabees 2. Mach. 11.43.46 neither neede wee here enter into dispute with these Gentlemen whether this Booke be canonicall or no seeing it suffices as to this point that it was certainly writ before the Gospell This custome remaines to this day amongst the Jewes and the tradition of it my be asserted by these words of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 15.29 What shall they do else who are baptised that is to say purifyed and mortifyed for the dead if the dead rise not at all JESUS-CHRIST and his Apostles had found amongst the Jewes this Tradition of praying for the dead without reprehending them for it on the contrary it passed immediately from the Judaicall to the Christian Church and Protestants who have writ bookes where they shew this Tradition was establised in the primitive times of Christianity could yet never shew the beginning of it Notwithstanding it is certain there was nothing of it in the law It came to the Jewes by the same way which handed to them so many other unviolable Traditions But if a law which descendes to so minute particulars and which is as I may say wholy literall stood in need that it might be rightly understood according to its true sence of being interpreted by the practise and declarations of the Synagogue how much more need have wee in the law of the Gospell where there is a greater liberty in the observances and where the practises are lesse circumstanced A hundred examples will manifest the truth of what I say I will draw them from the very practises of the Pretended Reformers themselves and I will not stick at the same time to relate togeather with them as a thing which will decide the matter what passed for current in the antient Church because I cannot imagine that these Gentlemen can with sincerity reject it § VI. A proofe from the observances of the New Testament THE institution of the Sabaoth day preceded the law of Moyses and had its ground from the creation and neverthelesse these Gentlemen dispense as well as wee with that observance without any other foundation then that of Tradition and the practise of the Church which cannot be dirived from other then divine authority The allegation that the first day of the weeke consecrated by the Resurrection of JESUS-CHRIST Act. 20.7 1. Cor. 16.2 is mentioned in the writings of the Apostles as a day of assembly for Christians and that it is also called in the Revelations Apoc. 1.10 the day of the Lord or Sunday Is vaine for besides that there is no mention made in the New Testament of that rest annexed to the Sunday it is moreover manifest that the addition of a new day dit not suffise to take away the solemnity of the old nor to make us change the Preceps of the Decalogue togeather with humain Tradition The prohibition of eating Blood and that of eating the flesh of strangled creatures was given to all the children of Noe before the establishment of legal observances from which wee are freed by the Gospel and the Apostles have confirmed it in the Council of Jerusalem in joyning it to two unchangeable observances of which the one is the prohibition to participate of sacrifices to Idols and the other the condemnation of the sin of fornication But because the Church alwayes beleeved that this law though observed during many ages was not essentiall to Christianity the Pretended Reformers as well as we dispence with themselves about it though the Scriptures have no where derogated from so precise and so solemne a decision of the Apostles expressely registred in their Acts by Saint Luke But to shew how necessary it is to know the Tradition and practise of the Church in what regards the Sacraments let us consider what is practised in the Sacrament of Baptisme and that of the Eucharist which are the two Sacraments our adversaryes acknowledge with one accord It is to the Apostles that is to the heads of the flock Math. 28.19 that JESUS-CHRIST gave the charge of administring Baptisme Tertull. de Bapt. Concil Illid c. 38. c. notwithstanding the whole Church has understood not only that Priests but Deacons also yea even all the faithfull in cases of necessity were the Ministers of this Sacrament Tradition alone has interpreted that Baptisme which JESUS-CHRIST committed only into the hands of his Church and of his Apostles could be validly administred by Hereticks and out of the communion of the truly faithfull In the XI chapter of the Discipline of the Pretended Reformers and first article it is said that Baptisme administred by him who
A TREATISE OF COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES By the Lord JAMES BENIGNE BOSSUET ' Bishop of Meaux Councellour to the King heretofore Preceptor to Monseigneur le DAUPHIN first Almoner to Madame la DAUPHINE PRINTED AT PARIS By SEBASTIAN MABRE CRAMOISY Printer to his Majesty M.DC.LXXXV WITH PRIVILEDGE THE PVBLISHER TO THE READER MANY doubtesse will wonder that I who cannot well endure the very Name even but of a Papist in Masquerade should yet translate and publish a Book of popery and this too in a point peradventure of higher concerne then any other now in debate betwen Papists and Protestants To give therefore some account of my proceeding herein it is to be noted that the Church of England if I apprehend her doctrine aright concerning the Sacrament of the last Supper hath receded from the Tenent of the Church of Rome not so much in the thing received as in the manner of receiving Christs Body and Blood both Churches agree that Christ our Saviour is truely really wholy yea and substantially though not exposed to our externall senses present in the Sacrament And thus they understand the words of Christ This is my Body which shall be delivered for you This is my Blood which shall be shedd for the remission of sins my Flesh is meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed c. Only the Papists say This reall presence is effected by Transsubstantiation of the elements and Protestants say noe but by some other way unintelligible to us Nor is the adoration of Christ acknowledged present under the formes of bread and wine so great a Bugbeare as some peradventure imagine For as John Calvin rightly intimates adoration is a necessary sequel to reall presence Calvin de Participat Corpor. Chr. in Coenâ What is more strange saith he then to place him in Bread and yet not to adore him there And if JESUS-CHRIST be in the bread t is then under the bread he ought to be adored Much lesse is the Oblation of Christ when present upon the Altar under the symboles such an incongruity as to render the Breach between Papists and Protestants by Protestants I mean Church of England men wholy irreparable for if Christ be really present under the consecrated species upon the Altar why may he not so present be offered a gratefull Sacrifice to his heavenly Father in thanksgiving for blessings received in a propitiation for sin and in commemoration of his Death and Passion 1. Cor. 11. But the main stone of offence and Rock of scandall in this grand Affaire is Communion under one kinde 1. Pet. 2.8 wherein the Roman Clergy are by some heartily blamed for depriving tke Laity of halfe Christ and halfe the Sacrament For my part I am not for making wider Divisions already too great nor do I approve of the spirit of those who teare Christs seamelesse Garment by fomenting and augmenting schismes in the universall Church Indeed I do not finde it any Part or Article of the Protestant faith to beleeve that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper one halfe of Christ is in the bread and the other halfe in the Wine but on the contrary that in some exigences as of sicknesse a man may receive under one kind or species all Christ and an entire Sacrament So that upon the whole matter the difference herein betweene the Church of England and the Roman seemes to me from the concessions of the most learned and antient Protestants for I wave the figments of moderne Novelists reducible in great measure to mere forme and Ceremony It is true Christ instituted this Sacrament at his Iast Supper under two kinds which he did as well to signify by a corporeall Analogy to bread and wine the full effect and refreshment this divine food workes in the soule as also say the Papists to render the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood upon the Altar distinctly commemorative or representative of his Passion and therefore when he said Luke 22. This is my Body which is now given not only to you but for you 1. Cor. 11. he added This not only eat but doe that is Offer or Sacrifice in remembrance of mee Act. 13.2 Hence the Christians in the Acts of the Apostles are found Ministring that is as the Greeke text hath it sacrificing to the Lord of which Sacrifice Saint Paul also speaks Wee have an Altar saith he whereof they have no right to eat who serve the Tabernacle But that Christ gave his Body seperated from his Blood under one element and his Blood squeezed from his Body under another and that by consequence he that receives under one kind receives only halfe Christ and halfe a Sacrament is as Saint Austin attests a Judaicall way of understanding this Mystery no wise agreable as is before said to the doctrine of the Church of England Jo. 6.53 Neverthelesse this Communion under one kind though in my judgement but a bare Ceremony yet hath beene since the reformation alwayes regarded as a mighty eye-sore and alleaged as one sufficient cause of a voluntary departure and seperation from the preexistent Church of Rome Wherefore being conscious of the dreadfull guilt danger and mischeife of Shisme and unwilling to shutt my selfe out of Christs visible sheepfold upon dislike of a Ceremony so to loose the substance for the shadow after having duly examined the Arguments made by some Protestant divines against the Papists on this subject I thought it prudence and justice both to my selfe and them to heare also what the Papists could say in their owne defence And least I might be imposed upon by the malice or ignorance of any in a businesse of this high nature I made choice of an Author whose learning and vertue renders him omni exceptione major above the reach of calumny to denigrate or even criticisme to finde a blemish in A person who were he not a Romanist might justly be stiled the Treasury of Wisdome the Fountaine of Eloquence the Oracle of his age In breife to speake all in a word 'T is the great James formerly Bishop of Condom now of Meaux Whether the Author enoble the worke or the worke the Author I dare not say but 't is certain that if he write reason he deserves to be believed if otherwise he deserves to be confuted And however it be 'T is no fault especially in Protestants who adhere to the Dictamen of their own Judgement without penning their Faith on Church-Authority to read him and this too without Passion or Prejudice To which end I have here as a friend to Truth and lover of unity translated his Treatise into English for the benefit of such as being of the same spirit with me are yet strangers to the French language A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES contained in this Treatise THE FIRST PART The Practise and Judgement of the Church from the first ages I. AN Explication of this Practise p. 2 II. Four authentique Customes to ' shew the judgement
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
had consecrated the Bread in saying This is my Body in such sort that it cannot enter into the minde of a man of sense that it could ever be beleeved in the Church the Wine was consecrated without words by the sole mixture with the Body from whence it followes that it was under the Bread alone that our Fathers communicated upon Good Fryday § VII The sentiments and the practise of the last ages grounded upon the sentiments and practise of the primitive Church THUS many constant practises of the primitive Church thus many different circumstances whereby it appeares in particular and in publick and allwayes with an universall approbation and according to the established law that she gave the Communion under one species so many ages before the Council of Constance and from the origine of Christianity till the time of this Council do invincibly demonstrate that this Council did but follow the Tradition of all ages when it defined that the Communion under one kind was as good and sufficient as under both and that in which manner soever they tooke it they neither contradicted the institution of JESUS-CHRIST nor deprived themselves of the fruict of this Sacrament In matters of this nature the Church has allwayes beleeved she might change her laws according to the conjuncture of times and occurrences and upon this account after having left the Communion under one or both species as indifferent after having obliged to both species for particular reasons she has for other reasons reduced the faithfull to one sole species being ready to give both when the exigence of the Church shall require it as it appeares by the Decrees of the Council of Trent This Council after having decided that Communion under both species was not necessary Sess 21. post Canon proposes to it selfe to treat of two points The first whether it were convenient to grant the Cupp to some countrys and the second upon what conditions it might be granted They had an example of this concession in the Council of Basile where the Cupp was granted to the Bohemians upon condition they should acknowledge that JESUS-CHRIST was received wholy and entirely under each of the two species and that the reception of both the one and the other was not necessary It was therefore doubted a long time at Trent whether they should not grant the same thing to those of Germany and France who demanded it in hopes thereby more easily to reduce the Lutherans and the Calvinists In fine the Council judged it most expedient for many important reasons to remit the matter to the Pope Sess 22. in fine to the end he might do herein according as his prudence should dictate what might be the most advantagious to Christianity and the most convenient for the salvation of such as should make this demande In consequence to this Decree and according to the example of Paul the III. his successour Pius the IV. at the instance of the Emperour Ferdinand and some other Princes of Germany by his Breifs of the first of September 1563. sent a permission to some Bishops to render the Cupp to the Germans upon the conditions set down in these Breifs conformable to those of Basile if they found it profitable to the salvation of soules This was put in execution at Vienna in Austria and in some other places But it appeared presently that their mindes were to much exasperated to receive any profit from this remedy The Lutheran Ministers sought nothing but an occasion to cry in the eares of the people that the Church herselfe acknowledged she had been deceived whilst she had beleeved that the substance of the Sacrament was received entirely under one sole species a thing manifestly contrary to that declaration she exacted but passion makes prevaricated persons under take and belecve any thing So that they ceased to make use of that concession which the Pope had given with prudence and which it may be at another time in better dispositions would have had a better effect The Church which ought in all things to hold the ballance equall ought neither to make that appeare as indifferent which is essentiall nor that as essentiall which is not so and ought not to change her discipline but for an evident advantage to all her children and it is from this prudent dispensation whence all the changes are come which wee have remarked in the administration of one or both species THE SECOND PART Principles upon which are established the judgement and practise of the Church of which principles the Pretended Reformers make use as well as wee SUCH hath been the practise of the Church The Principles upon which this practise is founded are no lesse certain then the practise has been constant To the end that nothing of difficulty may remain in this matter I will not alledge any one Principle that the Reformers can call in question § I. First Principle There is nothing indispensable in the Sacraments but that which is of their substance or essentiall to them THE first Principle I establish is that in the administration of Sacraments wee are obliged to do not all that which JESUS-CHRIST hath done but only that which is essentiall to them This principle is without contest The Pretended Reformers do not immerge or dipp their infants in the water of Baptisme as JESUS-CHRIST was immerged or dipped in the river of Jourdan when Saint John baptised him neither do they give the Lords Supper at table or during Supper as JESUS-CHRIST did neither do they regard as necessary many other things which he observed But must especially it imports us to consider the ceremonyes of Baptisme which may serve for a ground to many things in this matter To baptise signifies to dippe or immerge and herein the whole world agree This ceremony is drawn from the purifications of the Jewes and as the most perfect purification did consist in a total immerging or dipping in water JESUS-CHRIST who come to sanctify and accomplish the antient ceremonyes was willing to choose this as the most significative and the most plane to expresse the remission of sins and the regeneration of a new man The Baptisme of Saint John which served as a preparative to this of JESUS-CHRIST was performed by dipping or immerging That prodigious multitude of people who flocked to this Baptisme Math. 3.5.6 Luk. 3.3 John 3.23 caused Saint John to make choice of the borders of Jordan and amongst those borders of the country of Annon neere to Salim because there was much water there and a great facility to immerge or dipp the men who came to consecrate themselves to Pennance by this holy ceremony When JESUS-CHRIST came to Saint John to the end that by receiving Baptisme he might elevate it to a more wonderfull effect Mat. 3.16 Mark 1.10 the Scriptures say that he ascended out of the waters of Jordan to denote that he had been wholy and entirely immerged or dipped It do's not appeare in the
given to the people which is the cause why the table of our Lord so tearmed by Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians 1. Cor. 10.21 Heb. 13.10 is called Altar by the same Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrewes It is not our businesse here neither to establish nor explaine this sacrifice the nature of which may be seene in our Treatise of the Exposition Exp. art 14. and I shall only say because my subject requires it that JESUS-CHRIST has made this sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist in the most perfect representation of the sacrifice on the Crosse that could be imagined Whereupon it is that he said expressely This is my Body and This is my Blood renewing mystically by these words as by a spirituall sword togeather with all the wounds he received in his Body the totall effusion of his Blood and although this Body and this Blood once seperated ought to be eternally reunited in his Resurrection to make a perfect man perfectly living he would notwithstanding that this seperation once made upon the Crosse should never cease to appeare in the mystery of the holy table It is in this mysticall seperation that he would have the essence of the sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist to make it a perfect image or representation of the sacrifice of the Crosse to the end that as this later sacrifice consits in the actuall seperation of the Body and Blood this likewise which is the perfect image of it should consist also in this representative and mysticall seperation But whether JESUS-CHRIST has seperated his Body and his Blood either really upon the Crosse or mystically upon the Altars yet can he not seperate the vertue nor effect that any other Grace shall accompany his Blood shed then that same in the ground and in substance which accompanyes his Body immolated which is the cause that this so lively and so strong a resemblane or expression necessary to the sacrifice is no more so in the reception of the Eucharist it being every whit as impossible to seperate in the application the effect of his Blood from that of his Body as it is easy and naturall to represent to the eyes of the faithfull the actuall seperation of the one from the other For this reason it is that wee have found upon so many occasions in antiquity the Body given without the Blood and the Blood given without the Body but never one of them consecrated without the other Our Forefathers were perswaded that the faithfull would be deprived of some thing too pretious if the two species were not consecrated in which JESUS-CHRIST had made togeather with the perfect representation of his death the essence of the sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist but that nothing essentiall was taken from them in giving them but one because one only containes the vertue of both and the minde once preoccupayed by the death of our Lord in the consecration of the two species receives nothing from the Altar where they were consecrated which do's not conserve this figure of death and the character of a victime in so much that whether wee eate or whether wee drinke or whether wee do both togeather wee allwayes apply the same death and receive allwayes the same Grace in substance Neither must so much stresse bee put upon the eating and drinking seing that eating and drinking spiritually is apparently the same thing and that both the one and the other is to beleeve Let it be then that wee eate or that wee drinke according to the body wee both eat and drinke togeather according to the spirit if wee beleeve and wee receive the whole effect of the Sacrament § 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 entilled Le Préservatif c. BUT without any further dispute I would only aske the Ministers of the Pretended Reformed Religion whether they do not beleeve when they have received the bread of the Lords Supper with a firme faith they have received the Grace which do's fully incorporate us to JESUS-CHRIST and the entire fruict of his sacrifise What will then the species of wine add there unto if not a more full expression of the same mystery Furthermore they beleeve they receive not only the figure but the proper substance of JESUS-CHRIST Whether it bee by Faith or otherwise is not to our present purpose Do they receive it whole and entire or do they only receive one halfe of it when the Bread of the Lords Supper is given to them JESUS-CHRIST is he divided And if they receive the substance of JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire let them tell us whether the essence of the Sacrament can be wanting to them And it can be no other then this reason that as persuaded them they could give the bread alone to those who could not drinke wine This is expresse in the VII art of the XII chapter of their discipline which is that concerning the Supper This argument proposed at first by the great Cardinall Richelieu intangled very much the Pretended Reformers I have endeavoured in my Exposition to solve some of the answers they give thereto Exp. art XVII and I have carefully related what their Synods have regulated in confirmation of that article of their discipline The matter is left without contest those who have writ against me have all of them with one accord acknowledged it as publick and notorious but they do not likwise agree in the manner of answering it All were not satisfyed with the common answer which only consists in saying that those mentioned in the article of their discipline are excused from taking the wine by their incapacity of drinking it and that it is a particular case which must not be drawne into a consequence for on the contrary they saw very well that this particular case ought to be decided by generall principles If the intention of JESUS-CHRIST were that the two species should be inseperable if the essence or substance of the Sacrament consist in the union of the one and the other since essenses are indivisible it is not the Sacrament which these receive it is a meere humaine invention and has not its foundation in the Gospell They were forced therefore at last but with extreame paine and after infinite turnings and windings to say that in this case he who receives only the Bread dos not receive the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST M. Jurieux who writ the last against my Exposition in his book entitled Le Préservatif Préservatif art XIII p. 262. suiv after having seen the answers of all the others and after having given himselfe much trouble sometimes in being angry at M. de Condom who amuses himselfe sayes he like a petty Missioner in things of so low a nature and in these old kind of cavils sometimes in putting as much stresse as
more assured to understand aright the spirit and sense of the law then when he understands it as it has alwayes been understood since its first establishment Never dos a man honour more the Lawgiver the minde is never more captivated under the authority of the law nor more restrained to its true sense never are particular lights and false glosses more excluded Thus when our Fore Fathers in all their Councils in all their Books in all their Decrees obliged themselves by an indispensable law to understand the Holy Scriptures as it has been alwayes understood they were so far fom believing that by this meanes they submitted it to humain phancies that on the contrary they beleeved there was no surer meanes to exclude them The Holy-Ghost who dictated the Scripture and deposited it in the hands of the Church gave her an understanding of it from the beginning and in all ages in so much that the sence thereof which has alwayes appeared in the Church is as well inspired as the Scripture it selfe The Scripture is not imperfect because it has need of such an interpretation It belonged to the majesty of Scripture to be concise in its words profound in its sense and full of a wisdome which alwayes appeared so much the more impenetrable by how much the more it was penetrated into It was with these characters of the divinity that the Holy-Ghost was pleased to invest it It ought to be meditated on to be understood and that which the Church has alwayes understood thereof by meditating upon it ought to be received as a law So that that which is not writ is no lesse venerable then that which is whilst both of them come by the same way Each one corresponds to the upholding of the other seing that Scripture is the necessary groundworke of Tradition and Tradition the infallible interpreter of Scripture If I should affirme that the whole Scripture ought to be interpreted after this manner I should affirme a truth which the Church has alwayes acknowledged but I should recede from the matter in question I reduce my selfe to things of practise and principally to what is of ceremony I maintaine that wee cannot distinguish what is essentiall and indispensable from what is left to the liberty of the Church but by examining Tradition and constant practise This is what I undertake to prove by Scripture it selfe by all antiquity and to the end that nothing may be wanting in point of proofe by the plain confession of our very adversaryes Under the name of ceremony I do here comprehend the Sacraments which are in effect facred signes and ceremonyes divinely instituted to signify and confer Grace Experience shewes that what belongs to ceremony cannot be well explained but by the received manner of practising it By this our question is decided In the sacred ceremony of the Lords Supper wee have seene that the Church has alwayes beleeved she gave the whole substance and applyed the whole vertue of the Sacrament in giving only one sole species Behold what has been alwayes practised behold what ought to stand for a law This rule is not rejected by the Pretended Reformers Wee have even now seene that if they had not beleeved that the judgement of the Church and her interpretation stand for a law they would never have divided the supper in favour of those who drinke no wine nor given a decision which is not in the Gospell But it is not in this only that they have followed the interpretation of a Church Wee shall shortly see many other points where they cannot avoid having recourse to this rule wee propose I establish therefore without hesitation this generall proposition and I advance as the constant practise acknowledged by the antient and moderne Jewes by the Christians in all ages and by the Pretended Reformers themselves that the ceremoniall lawes of both the old and new Testament cannot be understood but by practise and that without this meanes it is impossible to comprehend the true spirit of the law § V. A proofe from the observances of the old Testament THE matter is more surprising in the old Testament where every thing was circumstanced and particularised with so much care yet notwithstanding it is certain that a law written with so much exactnesse stood in neede of Tradition and the interpretation of the Synagogue to be well understood The law of the Sabaoth alone fournisheth many examples of this Every one knowes how strict was the observance of this sacred rest Exod. 16.23.35.3 in which it was forbid under paine of death to prepare their diet or so much as to light their fire In a word the law forbid so precisely all manner of worke that many durst scarce move on this holy day At least it was certain that none could either undertake or continue a journey and wee know what hapned to the army of Antiochus Sidetes Joseph Ant. 13.16 when this Prince stopped his march in favour of John Hyrcanus and the Jewes during two dayes on which their law obliged them to a rest equall to that of the Sabaoth In this strict obligation to remain in rest Tradition and custome alone had explicated how far one might go without violating the tranquility requisite during these holy dayes From hence comes that manner of speech mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles from such a place to such a place is a Sabaoth dayes journey Act. 1.12 This Tradition was established in the time of our Saviour neither did he nor his Apostles who mentioned it ever reprehend it The exactitude of this rest did not hinder but that it was permitted to untye a beast and lead it to drinke Luk. 13.15.14.5 or to pull it out if fallen into a ditch Our Lord who alledges these examples as publick and notorious to the Jewes does not only not blame them but further authorises them though the law had said nothing concerning them and that these actions seemed to be comprehended under the generall prohibition It must not be imagined that these observances were of little or no importance in a law so severe and where it was necessary to take care even to an ïota and the least title the least prevarication drawing down most terrible paines and an inevitable malediction upon the transgressors But behold a thing which appeares yet more important in the time of the Machabees a question was proposed whether it was permitted to defend ones life upon the Sabaoth day 1. Mach. 2.32.38.40.41 2. Mach. 15.1.2 c. and the Jewes suffered themselves to be killed til such times as the Synagogue had interpreted and declared that selfe defence was permitted though the law had not excepted that action In permitting selfe defence they dit not permitt an onsett what advantage soever might thereby arrive to the publick and the Synagogue durst never go so far But after the Synagogue had permitted selfe defence there remained yet one scrupule Joseph Ant. 14.8 viz
about this matter But it may be they would say that in these practises I have related those who communicated sometimes under one species communicated also sometimes under the other which suffices in the whole to accomplish the precept of our Lord as if our Lord would at the same time inspire us with a firme faith that wee loose nothing by takind one species only and yet oblige us under paine of damnation to receive them both a cavill so manifest that it dos not merit to be refuted Wee must therefore at length examin once again what is essentiall to the Eucharist and prescribe our selves a rule to understand it aright This is what these Gentlemen will never do if they come not back to our principles and to the authority of Tradition M. Exam. T. VI. sect s. p. 465. Jurieux goes too far when he proposes for a rule according to the principles of his Religion to doe universally all that JESUS-CHRIST did in such sort that wee should regard all circumstances he observed at being of absolute necessity These are his own words He alleges to this purpose the antient Passeover of the Jewes where after having cut the throat of a lambe in the morning Ibid. Sect. 6.474.475 another was to have his throat cutt in the evening to be roasted to be eaten with bitter hearbs to be consumed the same night and nothing of it to be reserved till the following day He represents the necessity of all these ceremonyes and not only the substance but all the circumstances This word of JESUS-CHRIST Do this makes him conclude the same of the Eucharist So that wee should be restrained according to his principles to all that JESUS-CHRIST did and not only to bread and wine but moreover to the hour and to the whole manner of receiving it Sup. 2. p. art VI. p. 296. and the rather because as wee have seene every one had its reason and mistery as well as that which Moyses ordained concerning the antient Passeover Neverthelesse how many things have wee remarked which neither these Ministers nor wee observe Ibid. But beholde one which I omitted and which may in this place give great light Amongst other things which our Lord observed in the last Supper one of those which the Calvinists believe as most necessary is the breaking of the bread The Lutherans are of a contrary opinion and make use of round breads which they breake not This is a matter of great contest betwixt these Gentlemen The Calvinists lay much stresse upon this that the Evangelists and Saint Paul do of one common accord write that the same night JESUS CHRIST was delivered to the Jewes 1. Cor. 11.24 he tooke bread blessed it brooke it and gave it They insiste much upon this breaking of the bread which according to them represents that the Boby of our Lord was broken for us upon the Crosse and remarke with great care that Saint Paul after having said that JESUS broke bread 1. Cor. 11.24 makes him say according to the Greeke text This is my Body broken for you to shew as they pretend the reference this Bread broken has to the Body immolated So that this breaking appeares to them necessary to the mystery and this is it which makes those of Heidelberg say in their Catechisme much esteemed by those of their party Catech. Heid qu. 75. that as truly as they see the bread of the Supper broken to be given to them so truly has JESUS-CHRIST been offered and broken for us There was a proposall made for an accord or union with the Lutherans Colloq Cassel an 1661. and a conference was held for this about twenty yeares since that is in the yeare 1661. The Calvinists of Marpourg hereupon found quickly a distinction and in the declaration which they gave to the Lutherans of Rintell they said that the breaking appertained not to the essense but only to the integrity of the Sacrament as beeing necessary because of the example and command of JESUS-CHRIST so that the Lutherans ceased not to have without this breaking of the Bread the substance of the Supper and thus they might mutually tolerate one another The Calvinists have not beene that I know of reprehended by any of theirs and the union which was made had on their side its entire effect in so much that they cannot hereafter insist upon the words of the institution seing one may by their own acknowledgement haye the substance of the Supper without entirely subjecting himselfe to the institution example and expresse command of our Lord. What would they say if we should make use of such an answer But as all is permitted to the Lutherans so all is insupportable amongst Catholicks The other objections carry no greater weight and are as easily solved The concomitancy upon which the Roman Church grounds Communion under one species is not say you found in antiquity First what I have drawn from the antient Church to establish this Communion is matter of fact and if Communion under one species suppose concomitancy togeather with the reality it followes from thence that both the one and the other were believed in antiquity where Communion under one kind was so frequent Secondly Gentlemen open your own bookes open Aubertin the most learnest defendor of your doctrine Aub. lib. III. p. 431. 485. 505. 539. 570. c. you will finde there in almost every page passages taken from Saint Ambrose Amb. lib. I. in Luc. Cyr. Hieros Cat. 5. myst Greg. Nyss orat Cathec Cyr. Alex. lib IV. in Joan. c. 3. 4. Chrys hom 51.83 in Mat. lib. 3. de Sacerd 4. c. from Saint Chrysostome from the two Cyrilles and from many others where you may read that in receiving the sacred Body of our Lord they received his person it selfe seing they received say they the King in their hands they received JESUS-CHRIST and the Word of God they received his Flesh as living not as the flesh of a meere man but as the Flesh of a God Is not this to receive the Divinity togeather with the Humanity of the Son of God and in a word his entire person After this what would you call concomitancy As for those precautions used least the Eucharist should be let fall upon the ground there needes only a little fincerity to acknowledge they are as antient as the Church her selfe Aubertin will shew you them in Origines Orig. in Exod. hom 13. Cyr. Hier. Cat 5. myst Aug. 50. homil 26. Aub. lib. II. p. 431. 432. c. in S. Cyrill of Jerusalem and in Saint Augustin not to mention others You will see in these holy Doctors expressions strange to the ear of Reformere viz that to let full the least particles of the Eucharist is as if one should let fall gold and pretious stones is as if one should prejudice even his owne limbes is as if one should let slip the word of God which is annonced to us and