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
he can upon this impossibility so often repeted at last concludes that the party mentioned to whom the Bread alone is given p. 264. to speake properly dos not take with the mouth the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST because this Sacrament is composed of two parts and he receives but one Exam. de l'Euch Tr. 6. sect 7. this he likewise confirmes in the last booke he set forth This is what the Pretended Reformers durst nost that I know of hetherto affirme Verily a Communion which is not a Sacrament is a strange mystery and the Pretended Reformers who are at last obliged to acknowledge it would do as well to grant the consequence wee draw from their discipline seing they can finde no other way to unty this knott but by a prodigy never heard of in the Church But the doctrine of this Author appeares yet more strange when considered with all its circumstances Préservatif p. 266. 267. According to him the Church presents in this case the true Sacrament but neverthelesse what is received is not the true Sacrament or raither it is not a true Sacrament as to the signe but it is a true Sacrament as to the thing signifyed because the faithfull receive JESUS-CHRIST signifyed by the Sacrament and receive as many Graces as those who communicate under the Sacrament it selfe because the Sacrament is presented to him whole and entire because he receives it with heart and affection and because the sole insuperable impossibility hinders him to communicate under the signe What do these subtilityes availe him He might conclude from his arguments that the faithfull who cannot according to his principles receive the true Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST seeing he cannot receive an essentiall part is excused by his inability from the obligation to receive at all and that the desire he has to receive the Sacrament supplyes the effect But that upon this account wee should be obliged to seperate that which is inseperable by its institution and to give a man a Sacrament which he cannot receive or rather to give him solemnly that which being not the true Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST can be nothing else but meere bread is to invent a new mystery in Christian Religion and to deceive in the face of the Church à Christian who beleeves he receives that which in reality he do's not Behold neverthelesse the last refuge of our Reformers behold what he has writ who writ against me the last of any whose booke is so much spread by the Protestants through France Holland and other parts in divers languages with a magnificent Preface as the most efficacious antidote the new Reforme could invent against this Exposition so often attaqued He has found out by his way of improving and refining of others this new absurdity that what is received amongst them with so much solemnity when they cannot drinke wine is not the Sacrament of our Lord and that it is by consequence a meere invention of humain wi lt which a Church who sayes she is founded upon the pure word of God is not afraid to establish without so much as finding one syllable of it in that word To conclude JESUS-CHRIST has not made a particular law for those wee here speake of Man could not dispense with them in an expresse precept of our Lord nor allow them any thing he did not institute Wherefore either nothing must be given them or if one species be given them it must be beleeved that by the institution of our Lord this single species containes the whole essence of the Sacrament and that the receiving of the other can add nothing but what is accidentall to it §. IV. The third Principle The law ought to be explained by constant and perpetuall Practise An exposition of this Principle by the example of the civill law BUT to come to our third Principle which alone carryes along with it the decision of this question This is it To know what appertaines or do's not appertaine to the substance of the Sacraments wee must consult the practise and sentiment of the Church Let us speake more generally In all practicall matters wee must alwayes regard what has been understood and practised by the Church and as herein consists the true spirit of the law I write this for an intelligent and clearsighted Judge who is sensible that to understand an Ordonance and to discerne the meaning of it aright hee must know after what manner it was alwayes understood and practised otherwise since every man argues after his owne fashon the law would become arbitrary The rule then is to examin how it has been understood and how practised in following which a man shall not be deceived God to honour his Church and to oblige particuler persons to her holy decisions would that this rule should have place in his law as it has in humain lawes and the true manner to understand this holy law is to consider in what manner it has alwayes been understood and observed in the Church The reason of this is that there appeares in this interpretation and perpetuall practise a Tradition which cannot come but from God himselfe according to this doctrine of the Fathers that what is seene alwayes and in all places of the Church cannot come but from the Apostles who learned it from JESUS-CHRIST and from that Spirit of truth which he has given for a teacher And for feare any one should be deceived by the different significations of the word Tradition I declare that the Tradition I alledge here as a necessary interpreter of the law of God is an unwritten doctrine procedeng from God himselfe and conserved in the judgement and practise of the universall Church I have no neede here to prove this Tradition and what followes will make it appeare that our Reformers are forced to acknowledge it at least in this matter But it will not be amisse to remove in few words the false ideas which they ordinarily apply to this word of Tradition They tell us that the authority which wee give to Tradition subjects the Scripture to the thoughts of men and declares it imperfect They are palpably deceived Scripture and Tradition make togeather but one and the same body of doctrine revealed by God and so far is it that the obligation of interpreting Scripture by Tradition subjects the Scripture to the thoughts of men that there is nothing can give it more preeminence above them When particular persons are permitted as it is amongst our Pretended Reformers to interpret Scripture every one according to his own fancy there is liberty necessarily given to arbitrary interpretations and in effect scripture is subjected to the thoughts of men who interpret it each one according to his own mode but when every one in particular is obliged to receive it in the sense the Church doth receive and alwayes hath received it there is nothing elevates the authority of Scripture more nor renders it more independent of all particular opinions A man is never
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
which conserves it But as nourishment followes birth if the Church had not known her selfe taught by God she durst not any longtime refuse to Christians regenerated by Baptisme that nourishment which JESUS-CHRIST has prepared for them in the Eucharist For neither JESUS-CHRIST nor the Apostles have ordained any thing left by writing concerning it The Church then has learnt by another way but alwayes equally certain what she can give or take away without doing any injury to her children and they have nothing to do but to rely upon her faith Let not our adversaryes thinke they can avoid the force of this argument under pretence that they do not understand these two passages of the Gospel as wee do I know very well they do neither understand of Baptisme with water this passage where it is said If you be not regenerated or borne again of water and the Holy Spirit nor of the eating and drinking of the Eucharist this other where it is writt If you eat not and drinke not so that they finde themselves no more obliged by these passages to give the Eucharist then Baptisme to little infants But without pressing too close upon these passages let us make them only this demande This precept Eat you this and drinke you all of it which you think is so universall dos it comprehend little children that are baptized If it comprehend all Christians what words of Scripture exclude little children Are they not Christians Woust wee give the victory to the Anabaptists who say they are not and condemne all antiquity which has acknowledged them as such But why do you except them from so generall a precept without any authority of Scripture In a word upon what foundation has your Discipline made this precise law Discip ch 12. art 2. Children under twelve yeares old shall not be admitted to the Supper but for those above that age it shall be left to the discretion of the Ministers 1. Cor. 11.28 c. Your children are they not Christians before that age Do you reject them till that age because Saint Paul has said Let a man prove himselfe and so let him eate But wee have already seene that it is no lesse precisely written Math. 21. Marke 16. Act. 2.38 Teach and baptize he that shall believe and be baptized do pennance and receive Baptisme And if your Catechisme interpret that it ought to be only in regard of such as are capable Dim 50. why shall wee not say as much of the proofe recommended by the Apostle Be it as it will the Apostle dos not decide which is the age proper for this probation One is at the age of reason before he is twelve yeares old one may before this age both sin and practise vertue why do you dispence with your children in a divine precept wherof they are capable If you say that JESUS-CHRIST has remitted that to the Church show me that permission in Scripture or believe with us that all that which is necessary to the understanding and practise the Gospel is not written and that wee must rely upon the authority of the Church § XI A reflection upon the manner how the Pretended Reformers make use of Scripture SAINT Basile advertises us that those who dispise unwritten Traditions do at the same time dispise the Scriptures themselves which they boast to follow in all things Basil de Sp. S. c. 27. This misfortune has arrived to the Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformed Religion They speake to us of nothing but of Scripture and boast they have established all the practises of their Church upon this rule Notwithstanding they easily dispence with many important practises which wee read in expresse tearmes in Scripture They have taken away the Extreame-Unction soe expressely ordained in the Epistle of Saint James James 5 1â—.15 tho this Apostle has annexed to it so cleare a promis of the remission of sins They neglect the imposition of hands practised by the Apostles towards all the faithfull in giving the Holy Ghost and as if this divine Spirit ought not to descende otherwise then visibly they dispise the ceremony by which he was given because he is now no more given after this visible manner They have no greater esteeme for the imposition of hands Discip ch 1. art s. Observ by which the Ministers were ordained For although they do ordinarily practise it they declare in their Discipline they do not believe it essentiall and that one might dispense with a practise so clearly set downe in Scripture Poit 1560. Par. 1565. Two nationall Synods have decided there was no necessity of making use of it and neverthelesse one of these Synods adds they ought to make it their businesse to conforme to one another in this ceremony because it is expedient for edification conformable to the custome of the Apostles and to the practise of the antient Church So that the custome of the Apostles manifestly written and in so many places in the words of God is no more a law to them then the practise of the antient Church to beleive ones selfe obliged to this custome is a superstition reprehended in their discipline Ch. 1. art 8. such false ideas do they frame to themselves of Religion and christian liberty But why do wee speake here of particular articles The whole state of their Church is visibly contrary to the word of God I do here with them tearme the state of the Church the society of Pastors and people which wee see there established Conf. de Foy art 31. this is that which is called the state of the Church in their confession of Faith and they there declare that this state is founded upon the extraordinary vocation of their first Reformers In vertue of this article of their Confession of Faith one of their nationall Synods has decided that when the question shall be concerning the vocation of their Pastors who have reformed the Church or concerning the establishment of the authority they had to reforme and to teach it must be referred according to the XXXI article of the Confession of Faith to an extraordinary vocation by which God interiourly pushed them on to their ministery yet in the mean time they neither prove by any miracle that God did push them interiourly to their ministry neither do they prove which is yet more essentiall by any text of Scripture that such a vocation should ever have place in the Church from whence it followes that their Pastors have no authority to preach according to these words of Saint Paul Rom. 10.15 How shall they preach unlesse they be sent and that the whole state of their Church is without foundation They flatter themselves with this vain thought that JESUS-CHRIST has left a power to the Church to give her selfe a forme and to establish Pastors when the succession is interrupted this is what M. Jurieux and M. Claude endeavour to prove without finding any thing that
ressembles it in Scripture seing on the Contrary JESUS-CHRIST has said As my Father sent me John 20.25 so send I you and Saint Paul an Apostle by JESUS-CHRIST did establish Titus so as that he might afterwards establish others Gal. 1.1 c. Tit. 1.5 in such sort that the mission came wholy from JESUS-CHRIST sent from God Behold what wee finde in Scripture and what they would say at present of the authority of the people is but a meere illusion The same errour induces the Ministers to say the Church has the liberty to fraime Ecclesiasticall government as she thinkes fitt to take away or retaine Episcopacy to make Antients and Deacons for a time Ch. 3. des Anciens Diacres art 6.7 Observ that is to say send them back at pleasure to a common secular life after having consecrated them to God to give them power to decide what concernes doctrine togeather with the Pastors in equality of suffrages that is to say to admit them without being Pastors for they are not so upon any account in the new reforme to a function the most essentiall to Postorall authority all which wee finde in their discipline and in their Synods without so much as one sole text of Scripture to second them either in these or in the power it selfe which they vainly attribute to themselves of disposing all things according to their own phancy In these matters and in many others which I could remarke they have not only no holy Scripture for them as they are obliged but moreover they dispense with themselves to follow it without having neither any reason or Tradition to support them On the contrary Tradition has alwayes received both Extreame-Unction and the imposition of hands as well that which is given to all the faithfull as that which is made use of for the consecration of the Ministers of the Church and the successive mission of her Pastors and likewise those other things which our Reformers have dispised In this their licence is excessive but it ought at least to render them more equitable towards us whilst in the administration of the Sacraments the wee receive for a legitimate interpreter of Scripture constant Tradition and universall practise of the Church § XII Occurring difficultyes vain subtilityes of the Calvinists and of M. Jurieux the judgment of antiquity concerning concomitancy reverence exhibited to JESUS-CHRIST in the Eucharist the doctrine of this Treatise confirmed WEe should here have finish this discourse if charity which urges us to procure the salvation of these Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformed Religion did not oblige us to remove some scruples which the perusall of these practises I have related may perchance have raised in their mindes It is incessantly inculcated by the Ministers that this concomitancy upon which wee establish the validity of Communion under one species is a mystery unknown to the antient Church where none ever mentioned as a matter of faith that togeather with the Body of our Lord his Blood his Soule and his Divinity were necessarily received They add that this doctrine of concomitancy being according to us a necessary sequell of the reall presence it may be beleeved that this reall presence was unhnown where they know not this concomitancy The Ministers retort upon us those precautions wee alledge in our own behalfe Wee do not finde say they in the antient Church any of these precautions now established in these later ages for keeping the Eucharist for exciting the people to adore it for hindring least it should be let fall upon that ground This feare add they was no impediment for so many ages to the giving the Communion in botk kinds to all the people and these new precautions serve for nothing but to let us see they have a different opinion of the Eucharist from that of the primitive times For a conclusion they tell us that wee have given our selves an uselesse trouble in proving with so much paines it is free to communicate under one or boath species seing all that can arise from this proofe is that at last wee must leave the choice to the people and not restrain a liberty which JESUS-CHRIST himselfe has given them But to begin with this objection which seemes the most plausible who on the other side dos not see more cleare then the day that it is in the power of the Church to make choice of one part in things which are free and that when she has chosen that it ought not to be permitted to contemne her decrees Ep. ad Jan. lib. de Bapt. c. Saint Augustin has very often affirmed it is an insupportable folly not to follow what has been regulated by a generall Council or by the universall custome of the Church But if our Reformers be not disposed to believe Saint Augustin in this will they themselves allow that any one of theirs who under pretense that Baptisme was so long given by immersion should doubt with the Anabaptists of the validity of his Baptisme and should be so obstinate as either to make himselfe be rebaptized or at the least to make his children be baptized according to the antient practise But if he should require the Communion should be given his son but yet an infant under pretence that it was given to little children during a thousand yeares would they esteeme themselves obliged to condescende to his desire On the contrary would they not treat such an one and all like him as unquiet and turbulent spirits who trouble the peace of the Church Would they not tell them with the Apostre If any one amongst you be contentious 1. Cor. 11.16 wee and the Church of God have not this custome and if they have never so little ingenuity would they not finde in this sole passage enough to make them submit to the authority of the customes of the Church Nay further it is certain that the antient Church although she baptized little infants which were presented to her yet did not alwayes with the outmost rigour oblige their parents to present them at that age upon condition they baptized them when in danger and the Ecclesiasticall history lets us see many Catecumens of a more advanced age without the Church having forced them to be sooner baptized The Pretended Reformers who believe not the necessity of Baptisme and cannot produce any divine precept which obliges it to be given to infants are much more free in this matter Discip ch XI de Bapt. art XVI Observat This freedome has it hindred the severe regulations of their Discipline which obliges parents under the paine of the most rigourouse censures to present their little children to be baptized Let them grant with us that the Church can make lawes in indifferent matters and if they acknowledge from so many examples that Communion under one or both species is of this kind let them cease to cavill with us and to give themselves an uselesse trouble
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.
has no vocation at all is wholy nul Discip c. XI art 1. observ and the observations drawn from the Synods declare that to the validity of this Sacrament it suffises that these Ministers have an outwardly seeming vocation such as is that of Curates Priests and Religious men in the Roman Church who are permitted to preach Where do they finde in Scripture that this outwardly seeming vocation can conferre a power which JESUS-CHRIST has given only to those whom he himselfe did effectively call JESUS-CHRIST said Baptize that is immerge or dipp as wee have often remarked Wee have also related that he was baptized according to this forme that the Apostles followed it and that it was continued in the Church till the XII and XIII ages and notwithstanding Baptisme by infusion or sprincling is admitted without difficulty by the sole authority of the Church JESUS-CHRIST said Math. 28.19 Mark 16.15.16 Teach and baptize and again He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved The Church has interpreted by the sole authority of Tradition and practise that the instruction and faith which JESUS-CHRIST had united to Baptisme might be seperated in order to little infants These words Discip c. XI art VI. Observ p. 166. Teach and baptize did a long time perplexe our Reformers and occasioned them to say till the yeare 1614. that it was not lawfull to baptize with out a precedent or an immediately subsequent sermon This is what was decided in the Synod of Tonneins conformably to all the precedent Synods But in the Synod of Castres in 1626. they begun to relaxe as to this point and it was resolved not to press the observance of the regulation of Tonneins Lastly in the Synod of Charinton in 1631. in which they admitted the Lutherans to the Supper it was declared that preaching before or after Baptisme appertaines not to the essence of it but to discipline of which the Church has pover to dispose So that what they had beleeved and practised so long as prescribed by JESUS-CHRIST himselfe was changed and without any testimony of Scripture they declared that it was a thing concerning which the Church might ordaine as she pleased As for little infants the Pretended Reformers say verry well that their Baptisme is founded upon Scripture but they cite no expresse passage and they argue from farfetched not to say doubtfull yea and even false consequences It is certain that all the proofes they can draw from Scripture upon this subject have no force and that they themselves destroy those that might have any That which might have force to establish the Baptisme of little infants 1. Tim. 4.10 is that on the one side it is written JESUS-CHRIST is the Saviour of all Math. 19.14 and that he himselfe has said Suffer little children to come unto mee and on the other that he has prononced none can come unto him nor have any part in him if he do not receive Baptisme conformable to these words John 3.3.5 If you be not borne again of water and the Holy Spirit you shall not enter into the Kingdome of God But these passages have no force according to the doctrine of our Reformers since they beleeve it as of faith that Baptisme is not necessary to the salvation of infants Nothing affords them more difficulty in their Discipline Discip c. XI art VI. Observ then to see every day that anxiety of Parents of their communion to have their little children baptized when they are sick or in danger of death This piety of the parents is called in their Synods an infirmity It is a weaknesse to feare least the children of the faithfull should dye without receiving Baptisme One Synode went so far as to permit them to baptize their children extraordinarily in evident danger of death Ibid. But the following Synod reprehended this weaknesse and these strong in faith effaced that clause where they testifyed some regarde to that danger because it gives some ouverture to the opinion of the necessity of Baptisme Thus the proofs drawn from the necessity of Baptisme to oblige the giving of it to little infants are destroyed by our Reformers Let us see those they substitute in their place such as are inserted in their Catechisme in their Confession of faith Cat. Dim 50. Conf. de Foy art 35. Forme d'administrer le Bapt. and in their prayers That is that the children of the Faithfull are borne in alliance conformable to this promis I shall be thy God and the God of thy seede to a thousand generations From whence they conclude that the vertue and substance of Baptisme appertaining to little children they should do them an injury to deny them the signe which is inferiour By the like reason they will finde themselves obliged to give them the Supper togeather with Baptisme for those who are in the alliance are incorporated to JESUS-CHRIST the little children of the Faithfull are in the alliance they are therefore incorporated to JESUS-CHRIST and having by this meanes according to them the vertue and substance of the Supper it ought to be said as of Baptisme that the signe cannot be refused them without injury The Anabaptists maintaine that these words let a man trye himselve and so let him eat have no greater force to exact yeares of discretion to receive the Supper then these hee that shall beleeve and shall be baptised have to exact them in Baptisme The consequence drawn amongst the new Reformers from the alliance of the antient people and from Circumcision mooves them not The alliance of the antient people say they was contracted by birth because it was carnall and upon this account the seale was printed in the flesh by Circumcision immediately after birth But in the new alliance it dos not suffise to be borne wee must be newborne to enter into it and as the two alliances have nothing of resemblance there is nothing say they to be concluded from one sign to another so that the comparaison which they make of Circumcision with Baptisme is voide and of no effect Experience has shown that all the attempts of our Reformers whereby to confound the Anabaptist from Scripture has beene weake and feeble So that at the last they are obliged to plead practise Wee finde in their Discipline at the end of the XI chapter the forme of receiving persons of a more advanced age in t their Communion where they make the Anabaptist who is converted acknowledge that the Baptisme of little infants has its foundation in Scripture and in the perpetuall practise of the Church When the Pretended Reformers beleeve they have the expresse word of God it is not their custome to ground themselves upon the perpetuall practise of the Church But here where the Scripture furnisheth them with nothing whereby to stop the mouths of Anabaptists they were necessitated to support themselves else where and at the same time to acknowledge that in these matters the
perpetuall practise of these Church is of an unviolable authority Let us come now to the Eucharist The Pretended Reformers boast they have found in these words Drinke ye all of it Math. 26.27 an expresse command for all the faithfull to participate of the cupp But if wee tell them that these words were addressed to the Apostles only who were present and had their entire accomplishment when in effect they all drunke of it as Saint Mark says Mark 14.23 What refuge will they finde in Scripture Where can they finde that these words of JESUS-CHRIST Drinke ye all of it are to be applyed to any others then to those to whom the same JESUS-CHRIST said Do this Luk. 22.19 But these words Do this regard only the Ministers of the Eucharist who alone can do what JESUS-CHRIST did that is to say consecrate and distribute the Eucharist as well as receive it By what therefore will they prove that these other words Drinke ye all of it have a further extent But if they say that some words of our Lord regard all the faithfull and others the Ministers only what rule will they finde us in Scripture whereby to distinguish which appertaine to the one and which to the others seeing JESUS-CHRIST speakes every where after the same manner and without distinction But in fine let it be as it will say some of them these words of JESUS-CHRIST Do this addressed to the Holy Apostles and in them to all Pastors decide the question seing that in saying to them Do this he ordaines them to do all that he did by consequence to distribute all that he distributed and in a word to cause to be done by all succeding ages what JESUS-CHRIST had caused them to do This is in effect the most plausible thing they can say But they are nothing the wiser when wee shew them so many things done by JESUS-CHRIST in this mystery which they do not beleeve themselves obliged to do For what rule have they to make the distinction And since that JESUS-CHRIST comprehends all he did under this same word Do this without explicating himselfe any further what other thing remaines except Tradition to distinguish what is essentiall from what is not This argument is without answer and will appeare so much the more to be so by how much wee shall more exactly descended to particulars JESUS-CHRIST instituted this Sacrament in the evening at the beginning of the night in which he was to be delivered 1. Cor. 11.23 It was at this time he would leave us his Body given for us Luk. 22.19 To consecrate at that same hower would be to render the memory of his passion more lively and with all to represent that JESUS-CHRIST was to dye at the last hower that is to say in the last period of times Notwithstanding none beleeve these words Do this binde us to an hower so full of mysteries The Church has made a law to take that fasting which JESUS-CHRIST gave after Supper If wee regard Scripture only and the words of JESUS-CHRIST which are asserted in it the Pretended Reformers will never have any thing of certain as to what relates to the Minister of the Eucharist The Anabaptists and other such like sects beleeve each Faithfull may give this Sacrament in his family without necessity of another Minister The Pretended Reformers can never convince them by Scripture only They cannot proove against them that these words Do this were addressed to the Apostles only if these Drinke yee all of it prononced in the following part of the same discourse and with as little distinction were addressed to all the faithfull as they tell us every day And on the other side it will be answered that the Apostles to whom JESUS-CHRIST said Do this assisted at his holy Table as simple communicants and not as persons consecrating nor distributing or as Ministers from whence it may be concluded that these words do not confer upon them any Ministry in particular And in short it could not be decided but by the help of Tradition that this Sacrament had any Ministers specially established by the Son of God or that these Ministers ought to be those to whom he has committed the charge of preaching his word This is that which made Tertullian say in his booke De corona militis De cor mil. c. 3. that wee learne from unwritten Tradition only that the Eucharist ought not to be received but from the hands of Ecclesiasticall superiours Et omnibus mandatum à Domino althoug the comission to give it if wee regarde precisely the words of JESUS-CHRIST was addressed to all the faithfull The same Tradition which declares the Pastors of the Church sole Ministers of the Sacrament of the Eucharist teaches us that the second order of these Ministers that is to say the Priests have part in this honour although JESUS-CHRIST said not Do this but to the Apostles only who were the heads of his flock Wee do not read that our Lord gave his Body or his Blood to each of his Disciples but only that in breaking the Bread he said to them Take and eate and as for the Cupp it is likely that having placed it in the midest of them he ordained them to partake of it one after the other The Synod of Privas one of the Pretended Reformation Disc c. XII art IX mentioned in the IX Article of the XII chapter of their Discipline sayes that our Lord permitted the Apostle to distribute the Bread and the Cupp one to the other and from hand to hand But though JESUS-CHRIST did do it after this manner constant practise has interpreted that the consecrated Bread and Wine should be given to the faithfull by the Ministers of the Church Conformably to the example of our Lord and the Apostles some of the Pretended Reformers would have Communicants to give the Cupp to one another Syn. de Privas ibid. Syn. de Saint Maixent Disc c. XII Observat aprés l'art XIV and it is certain this Ceremony was a solemne signe of union But the Synods of the Pretended Reformers did not judge it necessary to follow herein what they acknowledged to have been practised by JESUS-CHRIST and his Apostles in the institution of the Supper and on the contrary they attribute to the Pastors only the distribution of the Cupp as well as of the Bread All Antiquity allowes to Deacons the distribution of the Cupp Conc. Carth. IV. c. 38. c. though neither JESUS-CHRIST nor his Apostles ordained any thing of this nature that appeares in Scripture None ever opposed it and the Pretended Reformers approve this practise in some of their Synods quoted amongst the observations upon the IX Disc c. XII Observ sur l'art IX article of the chapter concerning the Supper They have since that changed this practise Ibid. and attributed to the sole Pastors the distribution of the Eucharist yea even that of the Cupp to the
1. Cor. 11.23 Do this in remembrance of me so often as you shall drinke But after all this discourse of our Saviour to take it in rigour and in its precise tearmes imports only a conditionall ordre to do this in remembrance of JESUS-CHRIST as often as one shall do it and not an order absolutely to do it the which I could prove by Protestant interpreters if the thing were not of it selfe too cleare to neede a proofe And thus the words Do this would be found absolutely applyed to these words only Take eate and the Protestants would loose their cause But if they say as some of theirs do that these words attributed to the reception of the Body Do this in remembrance of me have the same force as these which are saide after the Chalice As often as you shall drinke do it in remembrance of me the one as well as the other ordaining only to do it in remembrance and not absolutely their cause will be but the worse because on that account there will not remaine in the whole Gospel any absolute precept contrary to their doctrine to receive either of the species much lesse both It serves them for nothing to answer that the institution of JESUS-CHRIST suffices them seeing the question alwayes retournes to know what appertaines to the essence of the institution JESUS-CHRIST not having distinguished it and all the foregoing examples demonstrating invincibly that it cannot be learnd but from Tradition If they add that in all cases they cannot be deceived in doing what is written and what JESUS-CHRIST did this is with a seeming reason to leave the difficulty untouched because on the one side they have seene so many things which ought to be observed though they be not regulated in Scripture and on the other part they see also so great a number of those that are written and done by JESUS-CHRIST which are not observed amongst themselves without finding any thing in Scripture which can assure them they are lesse important then others So that without the assistance of Tradition wee should not know how to consecrate how to give how to receive nor in a word how to celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist no more then that of Baptisme and this discussion may aide us to understand with how much reason Saint Basil said that in rejecting unwritten Tradition the Gospel it selfe is attached and Preaching is reduced to meere words Basil de Sp. S. cap. 27. the meaning of which is not intelligible In effect all the answers and all the reasonings of these Ministers do manifestly produce nothing but new difficultyes and the sole meanes to disentangle themselves is to search as wee do the essence of our Lords institution and the right understanding of his commands in the Tradition and practise of the Church If therefore she has alwayes beleeved the grace of the Eucharist was not restrained to both species if she has beleeved that Communion under one or both species was a saving Communion if the Pretended Reformers have followed this sentiment in a certain case not mentioned in the Gospel that is to say in regard of those who drinke no wine what difficulty can be founde in a thing regulated by such certain principles and by so constant a practise § VII Communion under one Species was established without contradiction WE see also that Communion under one species was established without noise without contradiction without complaint in the same manner as Baptisme was established with bare sprinkling and other innocent customes The feare they had to spill our Saviours Blood in the midst of a multitude which approached to Communion with much confusion was the reason why the faithfull being always persuaded that one sole species was sufficient insensibly accustomed themselves to receive in effect but one onely There was so great difficulty not to spill this precious Blood in those Churches where there were but few Ministers and where there was a numerous Congregation the precautions which were necessary in distributing of it rendred the service so long especially on great solemnities and in great assemblies that for that reason they easily brought themselves to the usage of one sole species In the conference held at Constantinople in the yeare 1054. under Pope Leo the IX Disp Humb. Card. apud Bar. app T. XI between the Latins and the Greeks Cardinall Humbert Bishop of Sylva candida produced a custome of the Church of Jerusalem attested by a passage of an antient Patriarke of this Church This custome was to communicate all the people under the species of bread solely and seperatly without mingling it with the other according to the practise of the rest of the east There it is expresly noted that they reserved what was remaining of the consecrated Bread of the Eucharist for the Communion of the day following without giveing there the least intimation of the sacred Chalice and this custome was so antient in that Church that it was attributed to the Apostles I am willing to acknowledgd that those of Jerusalem were mistaken in that point seeing there are none but those customes that are as well universall as immemoriall which according to the rule of the Church ought to be referred to that originall Neverthelesse by this means we see the antiquity of that custome It was received in the holy city and throughout the Province that depended upon it as the Cardinall affirmed Nicetas Pretoratus his Antagonist dos not in the least contradict him The wholl world resorted to Jerusalem and went with a holy zeale to communicate in those parts where the Mysteries of our salvation were accomplished It was with out doubt the vast multitude of communicants which made the custome to communicate under one species be embraced not one person complained of it and Cardinal Humbert who appeared concerned at the mixture sayes not a word concerning the Communion under one species There are many other reasons which induce us to think that the usage of one sole species bigan on great festivalls by reason of the multitude of Communicants and however it was it is certain the people without the least reluctancy conformd to that manner of communicateing grounded on the antient faith which they had embraced viz that they received under one sole and under both the species the same substance of the Sacrament and the same effect of grace The most certain mark that a custome is held as free is when it is changed without any trouble so when they defisted either to administer the Communion to little infants or to baptise them by immersion not one person was disturbed at it just so they brought themselves to communicate under one species and for many ages the people communicated not but in that manner when the Bohemians bethought themselves to say that it was ill done I doe not find that Wiclef their cheif Leader as rash as he was did yet condemne that custome of the Church at least it is certain there is
containe particularly the one or the other in vertue of the institution are taken seperately their substance can be no more seperated then their vertue and their grace in so much that infants in drinking only the Blood do not only receive the essentiall fruit of the Eucharist but also the whole substance of this Sacrament and in a word an actuall and perfect Communion All these things shew sufficiently the reason wee have to believe that Communion under one or both species containes togeather with the substance of this Sacrament the whole effect essentiall to it The practise of all ages which have explained it in this manner has its reason grounded both in the foundation of the mystery and in the words themselves of JESUS-CHRIST and never was any custome established upon more sollid foundations nor upon a more constant practise § X. Some objections solved by the precedent Doctrine I Do not wonder that our Reformers who acknowlege nothing but bare signes in the bread and wine of their Supper endeavour by all meanes to have them both but I am astonished that they will not understand that in placing as wee do JESUS-CHRIST entirely under each of these sacred Symboles wee can content our selves with one of the two M. Exam. Tr. VI. Sect. 6. p. 480. 481. Jurieux objects against us that the reall presence being supposed the Body and the Blood would in reality be received under the Bread alone but that yet this would not suffise because t is true this would be to receive the Blood but not the Sacrament of the Blood this would be to receive JESUS-CHRIST wholy entirely really but not sacramentally as they call it Is it possible that a man should believe it is not enough for a Christian to receive entire JESUS-CHRIST Is it not a Sacrament where JESUS-CHRIST is pleased to be in person thereby to bring with himselfe all his graces to place the vertue of this Sacrament in the signes with which he is vailed rather then in his proper person which he gives us wholy and entirely Is not this I say contrary to what he himselfe has said with his own mouth John 6.57.58 he who eates of this Bread shall have eternall life and he who eates me shall live for me and by me as I my selfe live for my Father and by my Father But if M. Jurieux maintaine in despite of these words that it dos not suffise to have JESUS-CHRIST if wee have not in the Sacrament of his Body and his Blood the perfect image of his death as he do's nothing in that but repete an objection alread cleared so I send him to the answers I have given to this argument and to the undeniable examples I have set down to shew that by the avouched confession of his Churches when the substance of the Sacrament is received the ultimate perfection of its signification is no more necessary But if this principle be true even in those very Sacraments were JESUS-CHRIST is not really and substantially contained as in that of Baptisme how much the rather is it certain in the Eucharist where JESUS-CHRIST is present in his person and what is it he can desire more who possesses him entirely But in fine will some say there must not be such arguing upon expresse words Seing it is your sentiment that the VI. chapter of Saint John ought to be understood of the Eucharist you cannot dispence with your selves in the practise of it as to the letter and to give the Blood to drinke as well as the Body to eat seing JESUS-CHRIST has equally prononced both of the one and of the other If you eat not my Body and drinke not my Blood you shall have no life in you Let us once stop the mouths of these obstinate and contentious spirits who will not understand these words of JESUS-CHRIST by their whole connexion I demande of them whence it comes they do not by these words believe Communion absolutely necessary for the salvation of all men yea even of little infants newly baptised If nothing must be explicated let us give to them the Communion as well as to others and if it must be explicated let us explicate all by the same rule I say by the same rule because the same principle and the same authoritè from which wee learne that Communion in generall is not necessary to the salvation of those who have received Baptisme teach us that the particular Communion of the Blood is not necessary to those who have been already partakers of the Body The principle which shews us that the Communion is not necessary to the salvation of little infants baptized is that they have already received the remission of sins and a new life in Baptisme because they have beene thereby regenerated and sanctifyed in so much that if they should perish for want of being communicated they would perish in the state of innocence and grace The same principle shews also that he who has received the Bread of life has no neede of receiving the sacred Blood seing as wee have frequently demonstrated he has received togeather with the Bread of life the whole substance of the Sacrament and togeather with that fubstance the whole essentiall vertue of the Eucharist The substance of the Eucharist is JESUS-CHRIST himselfe The vertue of the Eucharist is to nourish the soule to conserve therein that new life it has received in Baptisme to confirme the union with JESUS-CHRIST and to replenish even our bodyes with sanctity and life I aske whether in the very moment the Body of our Lord is received all these effect be not likewise received and whether the Blood can add thereunto any thing essentiall Behold what regards the principle let us come now to what regards the authority The authority which persuades us that Communion is not so necessary to the salvation of little infants as Baptisme is the authority of the Church It is in effect this authority which carryes with it in the Tradition of all ages the true meaning of the Scripture and as this authority has taught us that he who is baptised wants not any thing necessary to salvation so dos it also teach us that he who receives one sole species wants none of those effects which the Eucharist ought to produce in us From hence in the very primitive times they communicated either under one or under both species without believing they hazarded any thing of that grace which they ought to receive in the Sacrament Wherefore though it be writt If you do not eate my Body and drinke my Blood John 6.54 you shall have no life in you it is also writt after the same manner John 3.8 If a man be not regenerated of water and the Holy Ghost he shall not enter into the Kingdome of God The Church hath not understoud an equall necessity in these two Sentences on the contrary she alwayes understood that Baptisme which gives life is more necessary then the Eucharist