given to the people which is the cause why the table of our Lord so tearmed by Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians 1. Cor. 10.21 Heb. 13.10 is called Altar by the same Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrewes It is not our businesse here neither to establish nor explaine this sacrifice the nature of which may be seene in our Treatise of the Exposition Exp. art 14. and I shall only say because my subject requires it that JESUS-CHRIST has made this sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist in the most perfect representation of the sacrifice on the Crosse that could be imagined Whereupon it is that he said expressely This is my Body and This is my Blood renewing mystically by these words as by a spirituall sword togeather with all the wounds he received in his Body the totall effusion of his Blood and although this Body and this Blood once seperated ought to be eternally reunited in his Resurrection to make a perfect man perfectly living he would notwithstanding that this seperation once made upon the Crosse should never cease to appeare in the mystery of the holy table It is in this mysticall seperation that he would have the essence of the sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist to make it a perfect image or representation of the sacrifice of the Crosse to the end that as this later sacrifice consits in the actuall seperation of the Body and Blood this likewise which is the perfect image of it should consist also in this representative and mysticall seperation But whether JESUS-CHRIST has seperated his Body and his Blood either really upon the Crosse or mystically upon the Altars yet can he not seperate the vertue nor effect that any other Grace shall accompany his Blood shed then that same in the ground and in substance which accompanyes his Body immolated which is the cause that this so lively and so strong a resemblane or expression necessary to the sacrifice is no more so in the reception of the Eucharist it being every whit as impossible to seperate in the application the effect of his Blood from that of his Body as it is easy and naturall to represent to the eyes of the faithfull the actuall seperation of the one from the other For this reason it is that wee have found upon so many occasions in antiquity the Body given without the Blood and the Blood given without the Body but never one of them consecrated without the other Our Forefathers were perswaded that the faithfull would be deprived of some thing too pretious if the two species were not consecrated in which JESUS-CHRIST had made togeather with the perfect representation of his death the essence of the sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist but that nothing essentiall was taken from them in giving them but one because one only containes the vertue of both and the minde once preoccupayed by the death of our Lord in the consecration of the two species receives nothing from the Altar where they were consecrated which do's not conserve this figure of death and the character of a victime in so much that whether wee eate or whether wee drinke or whether wee do both togeather wee allwayes apply the same death and receive allwayes the same Grace in substance Neither must so much stresse bee put upon the eating and drinking seing that eating and drinking spiritually is apparently the same thing and that both the one and the other is to beleeve Let it be then that wee eate or that wee drinke according to the body wee both eat and drinke togeather according to the spirit if wee beleeve and wee receive the whole effect of the Sacrament § III. That the Pretended Reformers do agree with us in this principle and can have no other foundation of their discipline An Examen of the doctrine of M. Jurieux in his booke entilled Le Préservatif c. BUT without any further dispute I would only aske the Ministers of the Pretended Reformed Religion whether they do not beleeve when they have received the bread of the Lords Supper with a firme faith they have received the Grace which do's fully incorporate us to JESUS-CHRIST and the entire fruict of his sacrifise What will then the species of wine add there unto if not a more full expression of the same mystery Furthermore they beleeve they receive not only the figure but the proper substance of JESUS-CHRIST Whether it bee by Faith or otherwise is not to our present purpose Do they receive it whole and entire or do they only receive one halfe of it when the Bread of the Lords Supper is given to them JESUS-CHRIST is he divided And if they receive the substance of JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire let them tell us whether the essence of the Sacrament can be wanting to them And it can be no other then this reason that as persuaded them they could give the bread alone to those who could not drinke wine This is expresse in the VII art of the XII chapter of their discipline which is that concerning the Supper This argument proposed at first by the great Cardinall Richelieu intangled very much the Pretended Reformers I have endeavoured in my Exposition to solve some of the answers they give thereto Exp. art XVII and I have carefully related what their Synods have regulated in confirmation of that article of their discipline The matter is left without contest those who have writ against me have all of them with one accord acknowledged it as publick and notorious but they do not likwise agree in the manner of answering it All were not satisfyed with the common answer which only consists in saying that those mentioned in the article of their discipline are excused from taking the wine by their incapacity of drinking it and that it is a particular case which must not be drawne into a consequence for on the contrary they saw very well that this particular case ought to be decided by generall principles If the intention of JESUS-CHRIST were that the two species should be inseperable if the essence or substance of the Sacrament consist in the union of the one and the other since essenses are indivisible it is not the Sacrament which these receive it is a meere humaine invention and has not its foundation in the Gospell They were forced therefore at last but with extreame paine and after infinite turnings and windings to say that in this case he who receives only the Bread dos not receive the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST M. Jurieux who writ the last against my Exposition in his book entitled Le Préservatif Préservatif art XIII p. 262. suiv after having seen the answers of all the others and after having given himselfe much trouble sometimes in being angry at M. de Condom who amuses himselfe sayes he like a petty Missioner in things of so low a nature and in these old kind of cavils sometimes in putting as much stresse as
body and blood even in giving the body only and this by the naturall union of the substance and the Grace both of the one and the other Wee see neverthelesse that this Council had some scrupule concerning this matter and beleeved that in expressing the two species they ought both of them to be given in some manner In effect it is true that in some sence to be able to call it the body and the blood the two species must be given because the naturall dessine of this expression is to denote that which each of them containes in vertue of the Institution But it will be granted me that to mix them in this manner and let them dry for eight dayes togeather was but a very weake meanes to conserve the two species and how ever it be this part of the Canon which containes a custome so particular cannot be a prejudice to so many decrees where wee see not only nothing resembling it but moreover quite the contrary That which is most certain is that this Canon makes it appeare they did not beleeve the holy liquor could with ease be conserved in its proper species and that their endeavours were cheefely to conserve the consecrated bread As to the other part which regards the mixture what wee have said tooching the Grecians may be applyed here and all the subtility of the Ministers cannot hinder but it will alwayes be certain by this Cannon that they never beleeved themselves bound either to make the person communicating drink or to give him the blood seperated from the body to denote the violent death of our Lord or lastly to give him in effect any liquor at all seing after eight dayes it is sufficiently cleare there remained nothing of the oblation but the drye and solid part So that this Canon so much boasted of by the Ministers without concluding any thing against us serves only to shew that liberty which the Churches thought them selves to have in the administration of the sacred species of the Eucharist After all these remarks wee have made it must passe for constant and undeniable that neither the Greeks nor the Latins ever believed that all that is writt in the Gospell tooching the communion under two species was essentiall and expressely commanded and that on the contrary it was allwayes believed even from the first ages that one sole species was sufficient for a true communion seing that the custome was to keepe nothing for nor give nothing to the sick but one only It serves for nothing to object that the two species were frequently carryed to the sick and more over in generall that they were carryed to those that were absent Saint Justin Just Apol. 1. I owne is expresse in this matter But why do they alledge to us these passages which serve for nothing It is one thing to say as Saint Justin does that the two species of the Sacrament were carryed at the same time as M. de la Roque speaks it was celebrated in the Church Hist de l'Eucharist 1. P. c. 15. p. 176. and another thing to say they could reserve them so long a time as was necessary for the sick and that it was the custome to do so especially in a time when persecution permitted not frequent Ecclesiasticall assemblyes Hier. Ep. IV. ad Rust The same thing must be said of Saint Exuperius Bishop of Toulouze of whom Saint Hierome writ that after he had sold all the rich vessells of the Church to redeeme captives and solace the poor he carryed the Body of our Lord in a basket and the Blood in a vessell of glasse He carryed them sayes S. Hierome but he does not say he kept them which is our question And I acknowledge that when there was any sick persons to be communicated in those circumstances where they could commodiously receive both the species without being at all changed they made no difficulty in it But it is no lesse certain by the common deposition of so many testimonys that where as the species of wine could not be kept with ease the ordinary communion of the sick like that of Serapion and Saint Ambrose was under the sole species of bread In effect Hist Fr. Script T. IV. wee read in the life of Louis the VI. called the Grosse written by Sugerus Abbot of Saint Denis that in the last sicknesse of this Prince the Body and Blood of our Lord was carryed to him but wee see there also that this faithfull Historien thought himselfe obliged to render the reason of it and to advertise that it was as they came from saying Masse and that they carryed it devoutly in procession to his chamher which ought to make us understand in what manner it was used out of these conjunctures But that which putts the thing out of all doubt is that in substance M. de la Roque agrees with us as to the matter of fact in debate There is no more difficulty to communicate the sick under the sole species of bread then under that of wine only a practise which this curious observer shews us in the VII Hist Euch. I. p. ch 12. p. 150. 160. age in the cleaventh Council of Toledo Canon XI He sayes as much of the eleavent age and of Pope Paschalis II. Conc. Tolet. XI Pasch II. Ep. 32. ad Pont. by whom he makes the same thing to be permitted for little infants Hee is so far from disapproving these practises that he is carefull to defend them and excuses them himselfe upon an invincible necessity as if a parcel of the sacred bread could not be so steeped that a sick person or even an infant might swallow it almost as easily as wine But the businesse was that he must finde some excuse to hinder us from concluding from his own observations that the Church believed she had a full liberty to give one species only without any prejudice to the integrety of communion Behold what wee finde tooching the communion of the sick in the tradition of all ages If some of these practises which I have observed concerning that veneration which was payed to the Eucharist astonish owr reformers and appeare new to them I engage my selfe to shew them shortly and in few words for it is not difficult that the originall of it is antient in the Church or reather that it never had a beginning But at present that wee may not quit our matter it is sufficient for me to shew them only by comparing the customes of the first and last ages a continuall Tradition of communicating the sick ordinarily under the sole species of bread although the Church alwayes tender to her children if she had beleeved both the species necessary would rather have had them consecrated extraordinarily in the sick persons chamber Capit. Anytonis Basil Episc temp Car. Mag. cap. 14. T. VI. Spicil as it has been often actually practised then to deprive them of this succour on the contrary she
Alcuinus or in that antient author whose explication of that booke wee have under his name in Amalarius in Abbot Rupert in Hugo de Sainto Victore what wee practise even to this very day that they dit not consecrate upon Good Fryday but that they reserved for communion the Body of our Lord consecrated the day before and that they received it upon Good Fryday in unconsecrated wine It is expressely remarked in all these places that the Body only was reserved without reserving the Blood the reason of which is sayes Hugo de Sainto Victore Hug. de S. Vict. erud Theol. l. III. c. 20. that the Body and the Blood are received under each species and that the species of wine cannot be kept with security This last reason wee finde in one of the editions of Amalarius which is no lesse his then the others this Author having frequently reviewd his book severall of which so reviewed have been preserved to our dayes Such was likewise the practise of Jonas Bishop of Orleans and of many other Authors and without troubling our selves with these criticismes the matter of fact is that Amalarius after divers mysticall reasons which he brings for this custome according to the example of other Authors concludes that it may be said yet more sincerely that the consecrated wine is not reserved because it is more subject to alteration then the bread Which confirmes in short all what wee have shown tooching the communion of the sick under the sole species of bread and shews verry vell that the Eucharist which was constantly kept for them during many dayes according to the spirit of the Church could not be kept for them under the species of wine since they feare even that change which might happen to it from one day to the next that is from Thursday to Good Fryday I might here take notice that the Church endeavours not only to avoid the corruption of the species which change the nature and the necessary matter of the Sacrament but also every change which makes the least alteration in them being desirous out of respect to this Sacrament that all there should be pure and propper and that the least even sensible disrelish should not be suffered in a Mystery where JESUS-CHRIST was to be the banquet But these remarkes being little necessary to our subject are for another place and it suffises us to see here that they reserved at that time as wee do to this verry day do nothing but the sacred Body for the service upon Good Fryday Neverthelesse it is certain by all the Authors and by all the passages wee have lately quoted that the Priest the whole Clergy and all the people communicated this holy day and by consequence communicated under one species only This custome appeares principally in the Gallican Church since most of these Authors were of it so that it ought to finde a particular veneration amongst us but it would be too visable in abusing ones selfe to say that a custome so firmely established in the VIII age had no higher a beginning Wee finde not the originall wherefore if that opinion which beleeves communion under one species to be sacrilegious should be admitted wee must say that the primitive Church had purposely made choyce of Good Fryday the day of our Blessed Saviours death on which she might profane a Mystery instituted in memory of it They communicated after the same manner upon Easter Eve seeing that on the one side it is certain by all Authors that Good Fryday and Easter Eve were dayes of communion for all the people and on the other side it is no lesse constant that they did not Sacrifise during these two dayes A thing which occasions that even at this day wee have no proper Masse in our Missel for Easter Eve So that they communicated under the sole species of Bread kept from Holy Thursday and if wee will believe our Reformers they prepared themselves for a Paschal communion by two sacrilegious ones The Monks of Clugny as holy as they were did no better then others and the book of their customs once already cited in this discourse showes that six hundred yeares since they did not communicate at that holy time but under one sole species These practises let us see sufficiently the universall custome of the Latine Church But the Greeks go yet further They do not consecrate upon fasting dayes to the end they may not mixe the joy and solemnity of the Sacrifice with the sorrowfulnesse of a fast From whence it is that in the time of Lent they do not consecrate but upon Sundayes and on Saturdayes upon which they fast not Upon other dayes they offer the Sacrament reserved on those two solemne dayes which they call the imperfect Masse or the Masse of the Presanctified because the Eucharist which they offer in these dayes had been consecrated and sanctifyed in the two precedent dayes and in the Masse they call perfect The antiquity of this observance cannot be contested being it appeares in the VI. age in the Councile in Trullo Conc. Trull c. 52. where wee see the fondation of it from the IV. age in the Council of Laodicea Conc. Laod. c. 49.91 and there is nothing more remarkable amongst the Greeks then this Masse of the Presanctified If wee would at present know what it is they offerd there wee have no more to do then to read in their Euchologes and in Bibliotheca Patrum the antient Liturgies of the Presanctified Euch. Goat Bibl. PP Paris T. II and wee shall there see that they reserved nothing but the sacred Bread It is the sacred Bread which they carry from the Sacristy it is the sacred Bread which they elevate which they adore and which they incense it is the sacred Bread which they mix without saying any prayer with unconsecrated wine and water and which in fine they distribute to the people In so much that all the Lent that most holy time of the yeare they communicated five dayes of the weeke under the sole species of Bread I know not why some of the Latins have undertaken to blame this custome of the Greeks which neither the Popes nor Councils ever reprehended and on the contrary the Latin Church having followed this custome upon Good Fryday it is manifest that this Office with the manner of communicating practised in it is consecrated by the tradition of both Churches What is here most remarkable is that though it be so apparent that the Greeks receive not any thing upon these dayes but the Body of our Lord yet they change nothin in their ordinary formularyes The sacred guifts are allwayes named in the plurall and they speake no lesse there in their prayers of the Body and the Blood so stedfastly is it imprinted in the minds of Christians that they cannot receive one of the species without receiving at the same time not only the vertue but the substance also both of the one and the
and such as carrys a face of probability But in reality there was none Nor dos M. Jurieux shew us any in the Authors of that time The first contradiction is that which gave occasion to the decision of the Councile of Constance in the yeare 1415. It begun in Bohemia as wee have seene about the end of the XIV age and if according to the relation of M. Jurieux the custome of communicating under one sole species begun in the XI age if they do not begin to complaine and that in Bohemia only but towards the end of the XIV age by the acknowledgement of this Minister three hundred whole yeares should be passed before a change so strange so bold if wee beleeve him so visibly opposite to the institution of JESUS CHRIST and to all precedent practises should have made any noise Beleive it that will for my part I am sensible that to beleeve it all remorse of conscience must be stifled M. Jurieux must without doubt have some of them to fee himselfe forced by the badnesse of his cause to disguise truth so many wayes in an historicall relation that is in a kind of discourse which above all others requires candor and sincerity He do's not so much as state the question sincerely V. Sect. p. 464. The state of the question says he is very easy to comprehend he will then I hope declare it clearely and distinctly Let us see It is granted adds he that when they communicate the faithfull as well the people as the Clergy they are obliged to give them the Bread to eate but they pretend it is not the same as to the Cupp He will not so much as dreame that wee beleeve Communion equally vallid and perfect under eather of the two species But beeing willing by the very state of the question to have it understood that wee beleive more perfection or more necessity in that of the Bread then in the other or that JESUS-CHRIST is not equally in them both he would thereby render us manifestly ridiculous But he knows verry well that wee are far from these phancyes and it may be seene in this Treatise that wee beleeve the Communion given to little children during so many ages under the sole species of wine as good and vallid as that which was given in so many other occurrences under the sole species of Bread So that M. Jurieux states the question wrong He begins his dispute concerning the two species upon that question so stated He continues it by a history where wee have seene he advances as many falsityes as facts Behold here the man whom our Reformers looke upon at present every where as the strongest defendour of their cause §. IX A reflection upon concomitancy and upon the doctrine of the sixth chapter of Saint Johns Gospel IF wee add to the proofs of those practises which wee have drawn from the most pure and holy source of antiquity and to those solid maximes wee have established by the consent of the Pretended Reformers if wee add I say to all these what wee have already said but which it may be has not been sufficiently weighed that the reall presence being supposed it cannot be denyed but that each species containes JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire Communion under one species will remaine undoubted there being nothing more unreasonable then to make the grace of a Sacrament where JESUS-CHRIST has wouchsafed to be present nor to depend of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe but of the species under which he is hidden These Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformation must permitt us here to explicate more fully this concomitancy so much attaqued by their disputes and seing they have let passe the reall presence as a doctrine which has no venome in it they ought not henceforth to have such an aversion from what is but a manifest consequence of it M. Jurieux has acknowleged it in the places heretofore mentioned Exam. p. 480. If says he the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the reall presence were true it is true that the Bread would containe the Flesh and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST So that concomitancy is an effect of the reall presence and the Pretended Reformers do not deny us this consequence Let them then at present presuppose this reall presence seing they suffer it in their brethren the Lutherans and let them consider with us the necessary consequences they will see that our Lord could not give us his Body and his Blood perpetually seperated nor give us either the one or the other without giving us his person whole and entire in either of the two Verily when he said Take eat this is my Body and by those words gave us the flesh of his sacrifise to eate he know verry well he did not give us the flesh of a pure man but that he gave us a flesh united to the divinity and in a word the flesh of God and man both togeather The same must be said of his Blood which would not be the price of our salvation if it were not the Blood of God Blood which the Divine Word had appropriated to himselfe after a most particular manner by making himselfe man conformable to these words of Saint Paul Heb. 11.14.17 Because his servants are composed of flesh and blood he who ought in all things to be like unto them would partake both of the one and the other But if he would not give us in his Sacrament a flesh purely humain he would much lesse give us in it a flesh without a soule a dead flesh a carcase or by the same reason a flesh despoiled of blood and blood actually seperated from the body otherwise he ought to dye often and often to shed his Blood a thing unworthy the glorious state of his Resurrection where he ought to conserve eternally humain nature as entire as he had at first assumed it So that he knew verry well that wee should have in his flesh his Blood that in his Blood wee should have his flesh and that wee should have in both the one and the other his blessed soule with his divinity whole and entire without which his flesh would not be quickning nor his Blood full of spirit and grace Why then in giving us such great treasors his holy soule his divinity all that he is why I say did he only name his Body and his Blood if it were not to make us understand it is by that infirmity which he would have common with us wee must arrive to his strength And why has he in his word distinguished this Body and this Blood which he would not effectually seperate but during that little time he was in the sepulchre if it be not to make us also understand this Body and this Blood with which he nourisheth and quickneth us would not have the vertue if they had not beene once actually seperated and if this seperation had not caused the violent death of our Saviour by which he became our victime So that the vertue
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
of this Body and this Blood coming from his death he would conserve the image of this death when he gave us them in his holy Supper and by so lively a representation keepe us alwayes in minde to the cause of our salvation that is to say the sacrifise of the Crosse According to this doctrine wee ought to have our living victime under an image of death otherwise wee should not be enlivened JESUS-CHRIST tells us also at his holy table I am living but I have beene dead Apoc. 1.11 and living in effect I beare only upon wee the image of that death which I have endured It is also thereby that I enliven because by the figure of my death once suffered I introduce those who beleeve to that life which I possesse eternally Thus the Lambe who is before the Throne as dead Apoc. 5.6 or rather as slaine do's not cease to be living for he is slanding and he sends throughout the world the seaven Spirits of God and he takes the booke and opens it and he fils heaven and earth with joy and with grace Our Reformers will not or it may be cannot yet understand so high a mystery for it enters not into the hearts but of those who are prepared by a purifyed Faith But if they cannot understand it they may at least understand very well that wee cannot beleeve a reall presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST without admitting all the other things wee have even now explicated and these things thus explicated is what wee call concomitancy But as soone as concomitancy is supposed and that wee have acknowledged JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire under each species it is verry easy to understand in what the vertue of this Sacrament consists John VI. 64. Cvr. lib. IV. in Joh. c. 34. Ia. Anath XI Conc. Eph. p. I. T. III. Conc. The flesh profiteth nothing and if wee understand it as Saint Cyrille whose sence was followed by the whole Council of Ephesus it profiteth nothing to beleeve it alone to believe it the flesh of a pure man but to believe it the flesh of God a flesh full of divinity and by consequence of spirit and of life it profiteth very much without doubt because in this state it is full of an infinite vertue and in it wee receive togeather with the entire humanity of JESUS-CHRIST his divinity also whole and entire and the very source or fountaine of graces For this reason it is the Son of God who knew what he would place in his mystery knew also very well how to make us understand in what he would place the vertue of it What he has said in Saint John must therefore be no more objected John 6.54 If you eate not the Flesh of the Son of man and drinke not his Blood you shall not have life in you The manifest meaning of these words is there is no life for those who seperate themselves from the one and the other for indeede it is not the eating and drinking but the receiving of JESUS-CHRIST that gives life JESUS-CHRIST sayes himselfe and as it is excellently remarked by the Councill of Trent Sess XXI c. 1. too injustly calumniated by our adversaryes He who said John 6.54 IF YOU EATE NOT THE FLESCH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINKE NOT HIS BLOOD YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU has also said Ibid. 52. IF ANY ONE EAT OF THIS BREAD HE SHALL HAVE LIFE EVERLASTING And he who said Ibid. 55. HE WHO EATES MY FLESH AND DRINKES MY BLOOD HAS ETERNALL LIFE Ibid. 52. has said also THE BREAD WHICH I WILL GIVE IS MY FLESH WHICH I WILL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD And lastly he who said Ibid. 57. HE THAT EATES MY FLESH AND DRINKES MY BLOOD REMAINES IN ME AND I IN HIM has also said HE WHO EATES THIS BREAD Ibid. 59. SHALL HAVE ETERNALL LIFE and againe Ibid. 58. HE THAT EATES ME LIVES FOR ME AND SHALL LIVE BY ME. By which he obliges us not to the eating and drinking at his holy Table or to the species which containe his Body and his Blood but to his propper substance which is there communicated to us and togeather with it grace and life So that this passage of Saint John from whence as wee have said Jacobel tooke occasion to revolt and all Bohemia to rise in rebellion becomes a proofe for us The Pretended Reformers themselves would undertake to defend us if wee would against this passage so much boasted of by Jacobel seeing they owne with a common consent this passage is not to be understood of the Eucharist Calvin has said it Cal. Inst IV. c. Aub. lib. I. de Sacr. Euch. c. 30. c. Aubertin has said it every one says it and M. du Bourdieu says it also in his Treatise so often cited Repl. ch VI. p. 201. But without taking any advantage from their acknowledgements wee on the contrary with all antiquity maintaine that a passage where the Flesh and Blood as well as eating and drinking are so often and so clearly distinguished cannot be understood meerely of a communion where eating and drinking is the same thing such as is a spirituall Communion and by faith It belongs therefore to them and not to us to defend themselves from the authority of this passage where the businesse being to explicate the vertue and the fruict of the Eucharist it appeares that the Son of God places them not in eating and drinking nor in the manner of receiving his Body and his Blood but in the foundation and in the substance of both the one and the other Whereupon the antient Fathers for example Saint Cyprian he who most certainly gave nothing but the Blood alone to little infants as wee have seene so precisely in his Treatise De lapsis Test. ad Quir. III. 25.20 dos not omit to say in the same Treatise that the parents who led their children to the sacrifises of Idols deprived them of the Body and Blood of our Lord and teaches also in another place that they actually fulfill and accomplish in those who have life and by consequence in infants by giving them nothing but the Blood all that which is intended by these words If you eate not my Flesh and drink not my Blood you shall not have life in you Aug. Ep. 23. Saint Augustin sayes often the same thing though he had seene and examined in one of his Epistles that passage of Saint Cyprian where he speakes of the Communion of infants by Blood alone without finding any thing extraordinary in this manner of communion and that it is not to be doubted but the African Church where Saint Augustin was Bishop had retained the Tradition which Saint Cyprian so great a Martyr Bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa had left behind him The foundation of this is that the Body and Blood inseperably accompany each other for although the species which