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
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
of the primitive Church p. 7 First Custome Communion of the sick p. 8 III. Second Custome Communion of little Children p. 65 IV. Third Custome Domestick Communion p. 94 V. Fourth Custome Communion at the Church and in the ordinary Office p. 119 VI. A continuation The Masse on Good Friday and that of the Presanctifyed p. 131 VII The Judgement and Practise of the later ages founded upon the judgement and Practise of the primitive Church p. 160 THE SECOND PART Principles on which are established the judgement and practise of the Church of which principles the Pretended Reformers make use as well as wee I. FIrst Principle There is nothing indispensible in the Sacraments but that which is of their substance or essentiall to them p. 167 II. Second Principle To know the substance or essence of a Sacrament wee must regard its essentiall effect p. 173 III. That the Pretended Reformers do agree with us in this principle and can have no other foundation of their discipline An examen of the doctrine of M. Jurieux in his Booke entituled Le Préservatif c. p. 165 IV. Third Principle The law ought to be explained by constant and perpetuall Practise An exposition of this Principle by the example of the civill law p. 194 V. A proofe from the observances of the Old Testament p. 205 VI. A proofe from the observances of the New Testament p. 224 VII Communion under one kind established without contradiction p. 260 VIII A refutation of the History concerning the taking away the Cupp writt by M. Jurieux p. 279 IX A reflection upon concomitancy and upon the doctrine of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Saint John p. 306 X. Some Objections solved by the precedent doctrine p. 322 XI A reflection upon the manner how the Pretended Reformers make use of Scripture p. 334 XII Occurring difficulties vain subtilityes of the Calvinists and M. Jurieux the judgement of antiquity concerning concomitancy reverence exhibited to JESUS-CHRIST in the Eucharist the doctrine of this Treatise confirmed 342 A TREATISE OF COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES A division of this discourse into two parts THIS Question concerning the two Species whatever is said thereof by those of the Pretended Reformed Religion hath but an apparent difficulty which may be solved by the constant and perpetuall practise of the Church and by Principles assented unto by the Pretended Reformers themselves I shall then in this discourse lay open 1. This Practise of the Church 2. These Principles on which this Practise is grounded Thus the businesse will be cleared for on the one side wee shall see the constant matter of Fact and on the other side the assured causes of it THE FIRST PART The Practise and judgement of the Church from the first ages § I. An Explication of this Practise THE Practise of the Church from the Primitive times is that Communicants received under one or both kinds without ever imagining there wanted any thing to the integrity of Communion when they received under one alone It was never so much as thought on that the Grace annexed to the Body of our Lord was any other then that which was annexed to his Blood He gave his Body before he gave his Blood and it may be further concluded from the words of S. Lukc and S. Paul Lukc 22. v. 20. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. that he gave his Body during the supper and his Blood after supper in such sort that there was a considerable interval between the two actions Did he then suspend the effect which his body was to produce untill such time as the Apostles had received the Blood or did they so soon as they had received the Body at the same instant receive also the Grace which accompanied it that is to say that of being incorporated to Jesus Christ and nourished by his substance Undoubtedly the later So that the receiving of the Blood is not necessary for the Grace of the Sacrament nor for the ground of the Mystery The substance is there whol and entiere under one sole Species and neither dos each of the Species nor both togeather containe other then the same ground of sanctification and of Grace S. 1. Cor. 11.27 Paul manifestly supposeth this Doctrine when he writes that Hee who eateth this Bread or drinketh the Chalice of our Lord unworthily is guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord From whence he leaveth us to draw this consequence that if in receiving the one or the other unworthily wee profane them both in receiving either of the two worthily wee participate of the Grace of both To this there can be no other reply but by saying as the Protestants also do that the disjunctive particle or which the Apostle makes use of in the first part of the Text hath the force of the conjunctive and of which he serveth himselfe in the second This is the only answer M. Exam. de l'Euch V I. Tr. 7. Sect. p. 483. Jurieux affords to this passage in the treatise he lately published upon the subject of the Eucharist and he calls our Argument a ridiculous cavill but without ground For though he had made it out that these particles are sometimes taken the one for the other yet here where S. Paul useth them both so manifestly with designe in placing or in the first part of his discourse and reserving and for the second wee must of necessity acknowledge that by so remarkable a distinction he would render us attentive to some important truth and the truth which he would here teach us is that if after having taken worthily the consecrated Bread wee should so forgett the Grace received afterwards to take the sacred liquor with a criminall intention wee should be guilly not only of the blood of our Lord but also of his Body A truth which can have no other ground then what wee lay dowen viz that both the one and the other part of this Sacrament have the same foundation of Grace in such a manner as that wee cannot profane one without profaning both nor also receive either of the two devoutly without partaking of the sanctity and vertue both of the one and the other 'T is also for this reason that from the beginning of Christianity the faithfull beleeved that after what manner soever they communicated whether under one or both species the Communion had alwayes the same efficacy of vertue § II. Four authentick Customes to shew the judgement of the Primitive Church FOUR authentick customes of the Primitive Church demonstrate this Truth These customs will appeare so constant and the oppositions made against them so contradictory and vaine that I dare avouch an expresse acknowledgement of them would not render them more indisputable First Custome Communion of the sick I Finde then the custome of receiving under one kind or Species in the Communion of the sick in the Communion of infants in domestick Communions formerly in practise when the Faithfull carryed the Eucharist
exclusion of Deacons and Elders themselves though they seeme amongst them to represent the second order of the Ministers of the Church that is that of Priests who have alwayes constantly offered and distributed not only the Sacred Chalice but moreover the whole entire Eucharist Our Pretended Reformers did not at first arrive to this decision Ibid. Observ p. 184. seq Their first Synods said that the Ministers only should administer the Coupp as far as it might be done This restriction continued under two and twenty successive nationall Synods evento that of alais which was held in our dayes in 1620. There they ordained that these words as far as it might be done should be expunged and the administration of the Cupp was reserved to the Ministers alone Till that time the Elders and the Deacons also had upon occasion administred the Eucharist and principally the Cupp Ibid. p. 186. The Church of Geneva formed by Calvin had this practise and it was but in the yeare 1623. that they there resolved to conforme themselves to the sentiment of those of France This businesse did not passe without contradiction in the Provinces The reason of the Synod of Alais as it is inserted in the discipline is that it appartained only to the lawfully established Pastors to distribute this Sacrament a Maxime which visibly regards Doctrine and which by consequence according to the Principles of the new Reformation ought to be found expressely in Scripture from whence it followes that all the Synods and Pretended Reformed Churches untill that of Alais did grossely erre against the institution of JESUS-CHRIST Or if they answer us that these words were not verry cleare as these variations seeme sufficiently to shew they ought to acknewledge with us that to understand these words a man is obliged to have recourse to the interpretation of the Church and to that Tradition which subjects us to her To be assembled togeather at the same Table is a signe of society and Communion which JESUS-CHRIST would have to appeare in the institution of his Sacrament for he was at Table with his Apostles Ibid. Observ aprés l'art XIV p. 189. Some Churches of the Pretended Reformers to imitate this example and to do all that our Lord had done ranged the Communicants by table-fulls The Synod of Saint Maixent cited in the same place rejects this observance What was there seemingly more opposite to what had been practised at the institution then the custome of carrying away with them the Communion and of receiving it in private Wee have seen notwithstanding that this was practised in the primitive times of martyrdome not to say any thing here of the following ages There appeares nothing in Scripture of the reserving as it should be the Eucharist for the use of the sick neverthelesse wee finde it practised from the very originall of Christianity Those who mixed the two species and tooke them both togeather appeared as much estrainged from the tearmes and designe of the institution as those who received under one only These two articles have had their approbation in the Church and the practise of mixing which displeases our Pretended Reformers the least is that which wee finde the most forbiden It is prohibited in the VII Conc. Brac. IV. T. VI. Conc. c. 2. age in the IIII. Council of Brague It is prohibited in the XI Conc. Clarom C. age in the Council of Clermont where Pope Urbanus the II. was in person with about two hundred Bishops and by Pope Paschalis the II. The Council of Clermont excepts the cases of necessity and precaution Ep. 32. Pope Paschalis excepts the Communion of infants and of the sick This Communion which the West permitted not but with these reservations was infine established there for some time and moreover is become from six or seven hundred yeares the ordinary Communion of the whole East without beeing regarded as a matter of schisme The most important thing in the Sacraments is the words which give efficacy to the action JESUS-CHRIST has not expressely prescribed any for the Eucharist in his Gospel nor the Apostles in their Epistles JESUS-CHRIST in saying Do this only insinuated that they should repete his proper words by which the bread and wine were changed But that which has determined us invincibly to this sense is Tradition Tradition has also regulated those prayers which ought to be joyned to the words of JESUS-CHRIST and it is upon this account Saint Basil in his booke of the Holy-Ghost places amongst unwritten Traditions Basil de Sp. S. 27. the words of invocation which are made use of in consecration or to render it word for word when the Eucharist is shown By the VIII article of the XII chapter of the Discipline of the Pretended Reformers it is left indifferent to the Pastors to use the accustomed words in the distribution of the Supper The article is of the Synods of Sainte-Foy and of Figeac in the yeares 1578. and 1579. And in effect it appeares in the Synod of Privas held in the yeare 1612. Ibid. Observ sur l'art IX p. 185. that in the Church of Geneva the Deacons do not speake no nor even the Ministers in the distribution So that the Sacrament according to the doctrine of our Reformers consisting only in the usage of it it followes that they acknowlege a Sacrament which subsists without words In the same Synod of Privas Ibid. the Deacons who give the Cupp are forbidden to speake because JESUS-CHRIST spoke alone and the Church of Mets is exhorted to conforme in this to the example of JESUS-CHRIST without neverthelesse using any violence The example of JESUS-CHRIST do's not therefore make a law according to this Synod and according to other Synods it is freely permitted to seperate in the celebration of this Sacrament the words which are indeed the soule of the Sacraments as the example of Baptisme may make apparent not to alledge here the harmonious consent of the whole Christian world and of all ages Wee see by these decisions that what JESUS-CHRIST did dos not appeare to be a law to the Pretended Reformers A distinction must be made betwixt that which is essentiall and that which is not so JESUS-CHRIST dit not do it himselfe he only spoke in general Do this It belongs therefore to the Church to do it and her constant practise ought to be an unviolable law But in fine to attache our Ministers in their own fortresse seeing they place the stresse of their argument for the most part in these words Do this let us see when JESUS-CHRIST pronounced them He dit not pronounce them until after he had said Take Luk. 22.19 eat this is my Body For it is then that Saint Luke alone makes him add Do this in memory of me this Evangelist not mentioning that he said the like after the Chalice It is true Saint Paul mentions that after the consecration of the Chalice JESUS-CHRIST said