caused a necessity at last in the time of Saint Gelasius of making an expresse ordre to take equally the body and the blood under paine of being deprived of them both M. Ibid. p. 283. du Bourdieu conceales here from us with a great deale of artifice the motive inducing this Pope to make that prohibition See here the words of the Decree Qui proculdubio quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur adstringi aut integra Sacramenta percipiant aut ab integra arceantur Gel. ibid. Wee have discovered that some persons in taking the sacred Body only abstaine from the holy Chalice which persons truly because they seeme to adhere to I know not what superstition let them either take the Sacrament under both species or let them be entirely deprived of the one and the other This particle because of Pope Galasius which shews manifestly that the superstitious abstinence of these Hereticks was the particular reason why he obliged them to both species is left out by this Minister for se what he makes this Pope say I know not what superstition they are addicted to either let them receive the entire Sacraments or let them be deprived of the entire Sacraments He durst not let that particle appeare in his translation by which this Pope shews expressely that his prohibition had a particular motive for feare it might be too easily concluded against him that there was nothing in it selfe more free then to communicate without receiving the Blood since that there was need of reasons and a particular occasion to oblige the doing of it There is likewise another crafty artifice but verry feeble in the translation of this Minister For insteed of what the Pope sayes as I have above translated it Which persons truly Nescioqua superstitione decentur adstringi becanse they seme to adhere to I know not what superstition that is to say indefinitely as is manifest to some certain superstition which he will not vouchsafe to expresse Du Bourd ibid. p. 283. this Minister makes him say both precisely and more strongly I know not what superstition they are addicted to to the end he might conclude a little after that this did not concerne the Manicheans whose errours sayes he this learned Bishop was not ignorant of nor of those which were in vogue in his time Calixtus had endeavoured before him to distinguish the practise of Hereticks mentioned by Saint Leo from this prohibited by Saint Gelasius thereby to hinder any one from beleeving that the Decree of this last Pope in favour of the two species was to be regarded as in relation to the errors of the Manicheans What dos this pittifull refuge availe him Seeing that it appeares clearly by the tearms of this Decree that it had a particular motive what dos it import us whether it were the Manicheans errour or some other such like superstition And is not this alwayes sufficient to let us see take it which way you will that it was necessary the Church should have some particular reasons to oblige them to both species But as to the whole it cannot be doubted but this superstition of which Saint Gelasius speakes here was that of the Manicheans seing that Anastasius the Bibliothecarian sayes expressely in the life of this Pope Vit. Gel. T. IV. Conc. that he discovered the Manicheans at Rome that he sent them into exile and that he caused their books to be burnt before the Saint Marys Church Wee do not in effect see what other superstition besides that of the Manicheans could have inspired a horror to wine and that of the Blood of our Lord. On the other side it is manifest that these Hereticks had unheard of artifices to insinuate themselves secretly amongst the faithfull and that there was in their prodigious discourses such an efficacy of errour that it was a most difficult thing to efface wholy those impressions they left in the minde None therefore can doubt but that these superstitious people of whom Saint Gelasius speakes were the hidden remainders of those Manicheans that Saint Leo his predecessor had discovered thirty or forty yeares before and whereat Saint Gelasius has said they are addicted to I know not what superstition it is not that he did know verry well their errours but he speakes this out of contempt or rather because this obscure sect changed it selfe into a thousand shapes so that what remained of this poison was not alwayes known or it was not alwayes thought convenient to explicate it to the people But behold the last refuge of these Ministers They maintaine wee are in the wrong in searching a particular reason of the Ordinance of Saint Gelasius since he establishes it manifestly upon the nature of the Mystery Let us once more therefore relate the words of this Pope already cited and let us add thereto their whole consequence Wee have discovered sayes he that some persons take only the sacred Body and abstaine from the sacred Blood which persons truly because they seeme to adhere to I know not what superstition let them take both parts or let them be deprived of both because the division of one and the same mystery cannot be done without a great sacrilege To understand aright the consequence of these words wee finde that the division which he accuses of sacrilege was that same grounded upon the above mentioned superstition where the Blood of our Lord consecrated under the species of wine was regarded as an object of aversion Indeed it is a deviding of the mystery to beleeve that there is one part of it which JESUS-CHRIST did not institute and which ought to be rejected as abominable But to beleeve that JESUS-CHRIST has equally instituted both parts and not withstanding to take but one not out of contempt to the other God forbid but because wee beleeve that the vertue of both is received in either and that in them both there is but one sole fondation of Grace if this be to divide the mystery the primitive Church dividid it when they communicated the sick little children and generally all the faithfull in their houses under one sole species But as wee cannot have such an opinion of the antient Church wee must of necessity avouch that to divide this mystery some thing more must be beleeved and practised then that which is beleeved and practised by all Catholicks § VI. The Masse of Holy Fryday and that of the Presanctifyed THE antient Church was so far from beleeving that to give this Mystery under one sole species was to divide it that she had certain solemne dayes in which she distributed nothing but the sacred Body of our Lord in the Church and to all the assistants Such was the Office of Good Fryday in the Latin Church and such was the Office of the Greeke Church every day in Lent except Saturday and Sunday To begin with the Latin Church wee finde in the Ordo Romanus Bib. PP Var. T. de div Off. in
although it be not consecrated by that solemn and particular consecration which changes it into the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST becomes notwithstanding sacred by tooching the sacred Body of our Lord yet of a quite different manner from that consecration which according to this Saint is made by the words taken out of the Gospel That it is of this imperfect and inferiour sort of consecration which these Authors wee explicate do here speake will be acknowledged an undeniable truth if wee finde that these Authors and in the sames places say there cannot be made a true consecration of the Blood of our Lord but by words and by the words even of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe Alcuinus is expresse herein when explicating the Canon of the Masse as wee have it to this day when he comes to the place where wee prononce the sacramentall words which are those of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe This is my Body this is my Blood he sayes these are the words by which they consecrated the Bread and the Chalice in the beginning by which they are consecrated at present and by which they shall be consecrated eternally because JESUS-CHRIST prononcing again his own words by the Priests renders his holy Body and his sacred Blood present by a celestiall bcnediction Amal. l. III. 24. ibid. And Amalarius upon the same part of the Canon sayes no lesse clearly that it is in this place and by the pronunciation of these words that the nature of the Bread and Wine is changed into the nature of the Body and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST Lib. I. 12. and he had said before in particular concerning the consecration of the Chalice that a simple liquor was changed by the benediction of the Priest into the Sacrament of the Blood of our Lord which shews how far he and Alcuinus were from beleeving that the only mixing them without any words could produce this effect When therefore they say that the pure wine is sanctifyed by the mixture of the Body of JESUS-CHRIST it appeares sufficiently their meaning is that by tooching the Holy of Holyes this wine ceases to be profane and becomes some thing of holy but that it should become the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST and that it should be changed into his Blood without prononcing the words of JESUS-CHRIST upon it is an errour inconsistent with their doctrine All those who have writ of the Divine Office and of that of the Masse use the same language these two Authors do Isaac Bishop of Langres their contemporary Isaac Lingâ—â—t Specil T. â— p. 151. in his explication of the Canon and place where they consecrate sayes that the Priest having thetherto done what he could to the end he may then do something more wonderfull borrows the words of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe that is to say these words This is my Body Powerfull words says he to which the Lord gives his vertue according to the expression of the Psalmist words which have allvayes their effect because the Word who is the power of God sayes and dos all at a time in so much that there is here made by these words contrary to all humain reason a new nourishment for a new man a new JESUS borne of the spirit an Hoste come downe fro heaven and the rest which makes nothing to our subject this being but too sufficient to shew that this great Bishop has placed consecration in the words of our Saviour Remigius Bishop of Auxerre in the booke which he composed of the Masse towards the end of the ninth age is visibly of the same judgement with Alcuinus seeing he has done nothing but transcribe word for word all that part of his booke where this matter is treated of Hildebertus Bishop of Mans Hildeb eod T. Bibl. PP and afterwards of Tours famous for his piety as well as for his eloquence and learning and commended even by the Protestants themselves because of the prayses he has given to Bengarius yet after he was returned or pretended to be retourned from his errours affirmes in expresse words that the Priest consecrates not by his own words but by those of JESUS-CHRIST that then under the signe of the crosse and the words the nature becomes changed that the Bread honours the Altar by becoming the Body and the Wine by becoming Blood which obliges the Priest to elevate at that time the Bread and the wine thereby to shew that by consecration they are elevated to some thing of a higher nature then what they were The Abbot Rupertus sayes the same thing Rup de Div. Off. l. II. c. 9. lib. V. c. 20. Hug. de S. Vict. erud Theol. l. III. c. 20. and after him Hugo de Sainto Victore Wee finde all these bookes collected in the Bibliotheca of Patrum in that tome which beares the title de Divinis Officiis This Tradition is so constant especially in the Latin Church that it cannot be imagined the contrary could be found in the Ordo Romanus nor that it could have entred into the thoughts of Alcuinus and Amalarius tho they had not explicated themselves so clearly as wee have seene they have But this Tradition came from a higher source These many fore cited French Authors as were preceded by a Bishop of the Gallican Church Euseb Gailic sive Euch. T. 6. Max. Bib. P P. hom V. de Pasch who said in the V. age that the creatures placed upon the holy Altars and blessed by the celestiallwords ceased to be the substance of Bread and Wine and became the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saint Ambrose before him understood by these celestiall words Amb. de init c. 9. the proper words of JESUS-CHRIST This is my Body this is my Blood adding that the consecration as well of the Body as of the Blood was made by the words of our Lord. And the Author of the booke of Sacraments be he whom he will Saint Ambrose or some other neere unto his time Amb. lib. IV. Sac. c. 5. who imitates him troughout who ever he be well known in antiquity speaks after the same manner and all the Fathers of the same time keepe the like conformity in their language and before them all Saint Ireneus laught that ordinary bread is made the Eucharist by the invocation of God which it receives over it Iren. IV. 34. and Saint Justin Just ap 2. whom he often cites said before him that the Eucharist was made by the prayer of the word which comes from JESUS-CHRIST and that it was by this word that the ordinary food which usvally by being changed nourisheth our flesh and our blood became the Body and the Blood of that JESUS-CHRIST incarnated for us and before all the Fathers the Apostle Saint Paul clearly remarked the particular benediction of the Chalice 1. Cor. 10.16 when he said the Chalice of benediction which wee blesse And to go to the very originall JESUS-CHRIST consecrates the Wine in saying This is my Blood as he
A TREATISE OF COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES By the Lord JAMES BENIGNE BOSSUET ' Bishop of Meaux Councellour to the King heretofore Preceptor to Monseigneur le DAUPHIN first Almoner to Madame la DAUPHINE PRINTED AT PARIS By SEBASTIAN MABRE CRAMOISY Printer to his Majesty M.DC.LXXXV WITH PRIVILEDGE THE PVBLISHER TO THE READER MANY doubtesse will wonder that I who cannot well endure the very Name even but of a Papist in Masquerade should yet translate and publish a Book of popery and this too in a point peradventure of higher concerne then any other now in debate betwen Papists and Protestants To give therefore some account of my proceeding herein it is to be noted that the Church of England if I apprehend her doctrine aright concerning the Sacrament of the last Supper hath receded from the Tenent of the Church of Rome not so much in the thing received as in the manner of receiving Christs Body and Blood both Churches agree that Christ our Saviour is truely really wholy yea and substantially though not exposed to our externall senses present in the Sacrament And thus they understand the words of Christ This is my Body which shall be delivered for you This is my Blood which shall be shedd for the remission of sins my Flesh is meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed c. Only the Papists say This reall presence is effected by Transsubstantiation of the elements and Protestants say noe but by some other way unintelligible to us Nor is the adoration of Christ acknowledged present under the formes of bread and wine so great a Bugbeare as some peradventure imagine For as John Calvin rightly intimates adoration is a necessary sequel to reall presence Calvin de Participat Corpor. Chr. in Coenâ What is more strange saith he then to place him in Bread and yet not to adore him there And if JESUS-CHRIST be in the bread t is then under the bread he ought to be adored Much lesse is the Oblation of Christ when present upon the Altar under the symboles such an incongruity as to render the Breach between Papists and Protestants by Protestants I mean Church of England men wholy irreparable for if Christ be really present under the consecrated species upon the Altar why may he not so present be offered a gratefull Sacrifice to his heavenly Father in thanksgiving for blessings received in a propitiation for sin and in commemoration of his Death and Passion 1. Cor. 11. But the main stone of offence and Rock of scandall in this grand Affaire is Communion under one kinde 1. Pet. 2.8 wherein the Roman Clergy are by some heartily blamed for depriving tke Laity of halfe Christ and halfe the Sacrament For my part I am not for making wider Divisions already too great nor do I approve of the spirit of those who teare Christs seamelesse Garment by fomenting and augmenting schismes in the universall Church Indeed I do not finde it any Part or Article of the Protestant faith to beleeve that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper one halfe of Christ is in the bread and the other halfe in the Wine but on the contrary that in some exigences as of sicknesse a man may receive under one kind or species all Christ and an entire Sacrament So that upon the whole matter the difference herein betweene the Church of England and the Roman seemes to me from the concessions of the most learned and antient Protestants for I wave the figments of moderne Novelists reducible in great measure to mere forme and Ceremony It is true Christ instituted this Sacrament at his Iast Supper under two kinds which he did as well to signify by a corporeall Analogy to bread and wine the full effect and refreshment this divine food workes in the soule as also say the Papists to render the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood upon the Altar distinctly commemorative or representative of his Passion and therefore when he said Luke 22. This is my Body which is now given not only to you but for you 1. Cor. 11. he added This not only eat but doe that is Offer or Sacrifice in remembrance of mee Act. 13.2 Hence the Christians in the Acts of the Apostles are found Ministring that is as the Greeke text hath it sacrificing to the Lord of which Sacrifice Saint Paul also speaks Wee have an Altar saith he whereof they have no right to eat who serve the Tabernacle But that Christ gave his Body seperated from his Blood under one element and his Blood squeezed from his Body under another and that by consequence he that receives under one kind receives only halfe Christ and halfe a Sacrament is as Saint Austin attests a Judaicall way of understanding this Mystery no wise agreable as is before said to the doctrine of the Church of England Jo. 6.53 Neverthelesse this Communion under one kind though in my judgement but a bare Ceremony yet hath beene since the reformation alwayes regarded as a mighty eye-sore and alleaged as one sufficient cause of a voluntary departure and seperation from the preexistent Church of Rome Wherefore being conscious of the dreadfull guilt danger and mischeife of Shisme and unwilling to shutt my selfe out of Christs visible sheepfold upon dislike of a Ceremony so to loose the substance for the shadow after having duly examined the Arguments made by some Protestant divines against the Papists on this subject I thought it prudence and justice both to my selfe and them to heare also what the Papists could say in their owne defence And least I might be imposed upon by the malice or ignorance of any in a businesse of this high nature I made choice of an Author whose learning and vertue renders him omni exceptione major above the reach of calumny to denigrate or even criticisme to finde a blemish in A person who were he not a Romanist might justly be stiled the Treasury of Wisdome the Fountaine of Eloquence the Oracle of his age In breife to speake all in a word 'T is the great James formerly Bishop of Condom now of Meaux Whether the Author enoble the worke or the worke the Author I dare not say but 't is certain that if he write reason he deserves to be believed if otherwise he deserves to be confuted And however it be 'T is no fault especially in Protestants who adhere to the Dictamen of their own Judgement without penning their Faith on Church-Authority to read him and this too without Passion or Prejudice To which end I have here as a friend to Truth and lover of unity translated his Treatise into English for the benefit of such as being of the same spirit with me are yet strangers to the French language A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES contained in this Treatise THE FIRST PART The Practise and Judgement of the Church from the first ages I. AN Explication of this Practise p. 2 II. Four authentique Customes to ' shew the judgement
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
would have given them so much the rather to dying persons by how much they had a greater combate to sustain and at the article of death the most need of their Viaticum Lastly I do not believe the Gentlemen of the pretended Reformation will raise us here any difficultyes upon the change of the species of which wee shall have occasion to speake often in this discourse Those Cavils with which they fill their books upon this point regard not our question but that of the reall presence from whence also to speake candidly they ought to have been retrenched long since it being cleare as I have already remarked that the Son of God who would not in this Mystery do any myracle apparent as such to the senses ought not to suffer himselfe to be obliged to discover in any conjuncture what ever that which he designed expressely to hide from our senses nor by consequence to change what ordinarily happens to the matter which it has pleased him to make use of to the end he might leave his body and blood to the faithfull There is no man of reason who with a little reflection will not of his own accord enter into the same sentiment and at the same time grant that these pretended undecencyes which are brough against us with so much seeming applause avail only to moove the humain senses but in reality they are too much below the Majesty of JESUS-CHRIST to hinder the course of his dessigns and the desire he has to unite himselfe to us in so particular a manner It happens thus so very often in these matters and especially to our Reformers to passe from one question to another that I esteeme my selfe obliged to keepe them close to our question by this advertisement The same reason obliges me to desire them not to draw any advantage from the expression of bread and wine which will occurre so often because they know that even in believing as wee do the change of the substance it is permitted us to leave the first name to those things that are changed as well as it was to Moyses to learne that a rod which was turned into a serpent Exod. 8.12 or that water which was become blood Ibid. 21.24 or the Angels men becaus they appeared such Gen. 18.2.26 not to alledge here Saint John who cals the wine at the marriage of Cana water made wine John 2.9 It is naturall to man that he may facilitate his discourse to abridge his phrases and to speake according to the appearances neither is advantage usvally taken from this manner of speech and I do not beleeve that any one would object to a Philosopher who defends the motion of the Earth that he overthrows his hypothesis when he sayes that the Sun rises or setts After this sleight digression to which the desire of procceding with clearenesse has engaged me I retourne to my matter and to those practises which I have promised to explicate whereby to shew in antiquity the communion under one species § III. Second Custome Communion of little Infants THE second practise I undertake to prove is that when the Communion was given to little children that were baptised it was given them in the first ages yea and ordinarily in all the following under the species of wine only S. Cyp. Tr. de Lapsis Cyprien who suffered martyrdome in the third age authorises this practise in his treatise de Lapsis This great man represents there to us with a gravity worthy of himselfe what passed in the Church and in his presence to a little girle to whom had been given a little moistned bread offred to Idols Her mother who knew nothing of it omitted not to bring her according to custome into the Church assembly But God who would shew by a miraculous signe how much they were unworthy of the society of the faithfull who had participated of the impure table of Divells caused an extraordinary agitation and trouble to appeare in this childe during prayer as if sayes S. Cyprian for default of speach she had found her selfe forced to declare by this meanes as well as she could the misfortune she was fallen into This agitation which ceased not during the whole time of prayer augmented at the approching of the Eucharist where JESUS-CHRIST was so truly present For as S. Cyprian pursues after the accustomed solemnityes the Deacon who presented the holy cup to the faithfull being come to the order or ranke of this child JESUS-CHRIST who knows how to make himselfe be perceived by whom he pleases caused this infant at that moment to feele a terrible impression of the presence of his Majesty She turned away her face sayes Saint Cyprian as not able to support so great Majesty she shuts her mouth she refused the Chalice But after they had made her by force swallow some drops of the pretious blood she could not adds this Father retaine it in those defiled entrals so great is the power and Majesty of our Lord. It became the body of our Lord to produce no lesse effects and Saint Cyprian who represents to us with so much care and zeale togeather the trouble of this child during all prayer time not mentioning this extraordinary emotion caused by the Eucharist but at the approaching and receiving of the consecrated Chalice without speaking one only word of the body shews sufficiently that in effect they did not offer her a nourishment that was inconvenient to her age It is not that they could not with sufficient facility make a childe swallow a little of the sacred bread by steeping of it seing it appears even in this history that the little girle mentioned here had in this manner taken the bread offered to Idols But this is so far from hurting us that on the contrary it lets us see how much they were persuaded that one sole species was sufficient because there being in deed no impossibility of giving the body to little infants they so easily determinated to give them the blood alone It suffised that the sollid part was not so convenient to that age and on the other side as they would have been obliged to steepe the sacred bread to the end they might make little children swallow it so in these ages where wee have seen that they did not so much as dreame of mixing the two species they must have been obliged to take an ordinary liquor before that sacred liquor the blood of our Lord contrary to the dignity of such a Sacrament which the Church has alwayes believed ought to enter into our bodyes before all other nourishment August Ep. 118. ad Jan. It was alwayes I say believed and not only in the time of Saint Augustin Ep. 118. from whom wee have borrowed those words wee last produced but in the time of Saint Cyprian himselfe as it appeares in his letter to Cecilius Ep. 63. and before S. Cyprian seing wee finde mention in Tertullian of the sacred
bread which the faithfull tooke in secret before all other nourishement Lib. II. ad ux 5. and in a word before them all because they speake of it as of an established custome This consideration which alone was the reason why they gave the blood only to little children though never so strong in it selfe would have beene forcelesse against a divine command It was therefore most certainly believed that there was not any divine precept of uniting the two species togeather M. Hist Euch. I. p. ch 12. p. 145. de la Roque would gladly say though he dare not do it in plain tearmes that they mixed the body with the blood for infants and imagines it might be gathered from the words of Saint Cyprian though there is not one syllable as wee see which tends to it But besides that the discipline of that time did not suffer this mixture Saint Cyprian speakes only of the blood It is the blood says he that cannot stay in defiled entrals and the distribution of the sacred Chalice of which alone this infant had participated is too clearly expressed to leave the least place for that conjecture which M. de la Roque would make Thus the Example is precise the custome of giving the Communion to little children under the species of wine only cannot be contested and that doubt which they would raise in the minde without any ground shews only the perplexity they are thrown into by the great authority of Saint Cyprian and the Church in his time Certainly M. Hist Euch. I. p. ch 11. p. 136. ch 12. p. 150. de la Roque would have acted with more sincerity if he had kept himselfe to that Idee which first presented it selfe as it were naturally unto him The first time he had spoke of this passage of Saint Cyprian he told us that they powred by force into the mouth of the child some of the sacred Chalice that is without question some drops of the pretious blood pure and without any mixture just as it was presented to the rest of the people who had already received the body And on the other side wee have even now seen that this Minister does not blame the Pope Paschalis the II. who according to him permitted little children to communicate under the sole species of wine so much did his conscience dictate that this practise had no difficulty in it As for M. du Bourdieu Du Bourd I. rép p. 37. Et repliq ch 20. p. 341. this passage of Saint Cyprian had at the first also produced its effect in his minde And this passage having been objected to him by a Catholique this Minister easily accorded in his first answer that in effect nothing had been given to this childe but the consecrated wine alone He comes of in saying that the antients who beleeved the communion absolutely necessary for little infants gave it them as they could that it was for this reason Saint Cyprians Deacon beleeving this childe would be damned if it dyed without the Eucharist opened by force its mouth to poure into it a little wine and that a case of necessity a particular case cannot have the name of a custome What efforts are these to elude a thing so cleare Where are those extraordinary reasons this Minister would here imagine to himselfe Is there one single word in Saint Cyprian which shewes the danger of this infant as the motive of giving it the Communion Dos it not on the contrary appeare by the whole discourse that this blessed Sacrament was given to it only because it was the custome to give it to all children so often as they were brought to the assemblyes Why will M. du Bourdieu divine that this little girle had never communicated Ch. 20. p. 345. Was she not baptised Was it not the custome to give the communion togeather with baptisme even to infants To what purpose is it therefore to speake here of a feare they should have least she should be damned for not having received the Eucharist since they had already given her it in giving her baptisme Is it that they believed also in the antient Church that it did not suffise to the salvation of a child to have communicated once and that it should be damned if they dit not reiterate the Communion What chymeras do men invent rather then give place to truth and confesse their errors with sincerity But to what end do they throw us here upon the question of the necessity of the Eucharist and upon the errour they would have Saint Cyprian to have been incident to in this point Grant it were true that this holy Martyr and the Church in his time should have believed the Communion absolutely necessary to infants what advantage would M. du Bourdieu draw from thence and who dos not on the contrary see that if the two species be essentiall to Communion as the Pretended Reformers would have it the more one shall believe the Communion necessary to little children the lesse will he be dispenced with in giving them both these species M. du Bourdieu foresaw verry well this consequence so contrary to his pretentions and in his second reply he would divine though Saint Cyprian has sayd nothing of it and against the whole connection of his discourse that this little girle when she was so cruelly and so miraculously tormented after the taking of the Blood had already received the Body without receiving any prejudice thereby where is a man when he makes such answers But why do wee dispute any longer There is no better proofe nor better interpreter of a custome then the custome it selfe I would say that there is nothing which demonstrates more that a custome comes from the first ages then when it is seen to continue successively to the last This of communicating little children under the sole species of wine which wee finde established in the III. age and in the time of Saint Cyprian continued alwayes so common that it is found in all after ages It is found in the V. or VI. Jobius de Verb. incar lib. III. c. 18. Bibl. Phot. Cod. 222. age in the book of Jobius where that learned Religious speaking of the three Sacraments which were given togeather in a time when the Christian Religion being established very few others were baptised no more then at present but the children of the faithfull speakes thus They baptise us sayes he after that they anoint us that is they confirme us and lastly they give us the pretious Blood He makes no mention of the Body becaus it was not given to children And for this reason he takes great care in the same place to explaine how the Blood may be given even before the Body a thing which having no place in the communion of those of riper yeares was found only in that which the Faithfull had all of them received in receiving the Blood alone in their infancy So that this custome has already passed
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.
had consecrated the Bread in saying This is my Body in such sort that it cannot enter into the minde of a man of sense that it could ever be beleeved in the Church the Wine was consecrated without words by the sole mixture with the Body from whence it followes that it was under the Bread alone that our Fathers communicated upon Good Fryday § VII The sentiments and the practise of the last ages grounded upon the sentiments and practise of the primitive Church THUS many constant practises of the primitive Church thus many different circumstances whereby it appeares in particular and in publick and allwayes with an universall approbation and according to the established law that she gave the Communion under one species so many ages before the Council of Constance and from the origine of Christianity till the time of this Council do invincibly demonstrate that this Council did but follow the Tradition of all ages when it defined that the Communion under one kind was as good and sufficient as under both and that in which manner soever they tooke it they neither contradicted the institution of JESUS-CHRIST nor deprived themselves of the fruict of this Sacrament In matters of this nature the Church has allwayes beleeved she might change her laws according to the conjuncture of times and occurrences and upon this account after having left the Communion under one or both species as indifferent after having obliged to both species for particular reasons she has for other reasons reduced the faithfull to one sole species being ready to give both when the exigence of the Church shall require it as it appeares by the Decrees of the Council of Trent This Council after having decided that Communion under both species was not necessary Sess 21. post Canon proposes to it selfe to treat of two points The first whether it were convenient to grant the Cupp to some countrys and the second upon what conditions it might be granted They had an example of this concession in the Council of Basile where the Cupp was granted to the Bohemians upon condition they should acknowledge that JESUS-CHRIST was received wholy and entirely under each of the two species and that the reception of both the one and the other was not necessary It was therefore doubted a long time at Trent whether they should not grant the same thing to those of Germany and France who demanded it in hopes thereby more easily to reduce the Lutherans and the Calvinists In fine the Council judged it most expedient for many important reasons to remit the matter to the Pope Sess 22. in fine to the end he might do herein according as his prudence should dictate what might be the most advantagious to Christianity and the most convenient for the salvation of such as should make this demande In consequence to this Decree and according to the example of Paul the III. his successour Pius the IV. at the instance of the Emperour Ferdinand and some other Princes of Germany by his Breifs of the first of September 1563. sent a permission to some Bishops to render the Cupp to the Germans upon the conditions set down in these Breifs conformable to those of Basile if they found it profitable to the salvation of soules This was put in execution at Vienna in Austria and in some other places But it appeared presently that their mindes were to much exasperated to receive any profit from this remedy The Lutheran Ministers sought nothing but an occasion to cry in the eares of the people that the Church herselfe acknowledged she had been deceived whilst she had beleeved that the substance of the Sacrament was received entirely under one sole species a thing manifestly contrary to that declaration she exacted but passion makes prevaricated persons under take and belecve any thing So that they ceased to make use of that concession which the Pope had given with prudence and which it may be at another time in better dispositions would have had a better effect The Church which ought in all things to hold the ballance equall ought neither to make that appeare as indifferent which is essentiall nor that as essentiall which is not so and ought not to change her discipline but for an evident advantage to all her children and it is from this prudent dispensation whence all the changes are come which wee have remarked in the administration of one or both species THE SECOND PART Principles upon which are established the judgement and practise of the Church of which principles the Pretended Reformers make use as well as wee SUCH hath been the practise of the Church The Principles upon which this practise is founded are no lesse certain then the practise has been constant To the end that nothing of difficulty may remain in this matter I will not alledge any one Principle that the Reformers can call in question § I. First Principle There is nothing indispensable in the Sacraments but that which is of their substance or essentiall to them THE first Principle I establish is that in the administration of Sacraments wee are obliged to do not all that which JESUS-CHRIST hath done but only that which is essentiall to them This principle is without contest The Pretended Reformers do not immerge or dipp their infants in the water of Baptisme as JESUS-CHRIST was immerged or dipped in the river of Jourdan when Saint John baptised him neither do they give the Lords Supper at table or during Supper as JESUS-CHRIST did neither do they regard as necessary many other things which he observed But must especially it imports us to consider the ceremonyes of Baptisme which may serve for a ground to many things in this matter To baptise signifies to dippe or immerge and herein the whole world agree This ceremony is drawn from the purifications of the Jewes and as the most perfect purification did consist in a total immerging or dipping in water JESUS-CHRIST who come to sanctify and accomplish the antient ceremonyes was willing to choose this as the most significative and the most plane to expresse the remission of sins and the regeneration of a new man The Baptisme of Saint John which served as a preparative to this of JESUS-CHRIST was performed by dipping or immerging That prodigious multitude of people who flocked to this Baptisme Math. 3.5.6 Luk. 3.3 John 3.23 caused Saint John to make choice of the borders of Jordan and amongst those borders of the country of Annon neere to Salim because there was much water there and a great facility to immerge or dipp the men who came to consecrate themselves to Pennance by this holy ceremony When JESUS-CHRIST came to Saint John to the end that by receiving Baptisme he might elevate it to a more wonderfull effect Mat. 3.16 Mark 1.10 the Scriptures say that he ascended out of the waters of Jordan to denote that he had been wholy and entirely immerged or dipped It do's not appeare in the
given to the people which is the cause why the table of our Lord so tearmed by Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians 1. Cor. 10.21 Heb. 13.10 is called Altar by the same Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrewes It is not our businesse here neither to establish nor explaine this sacrifice the nature of which may be seene in our Treatise of the Exposition Exp. art 14. and I shall only say because my subject requires it that JESUS-CHRIST has made this sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist in the most perfect representation of the sacrifice on the Crosse that could be imagined Whereupon it is that he said expressely This is my Body and This is my Blood renewing mystically by these words as by a spirituall sword togeather with all the wounds he received in his Body the totall effusion of his Blood and although this Body and this Blood once seperated ought to be eternally reunited in his Resurrection to make a perfect man perfectly living he would notwithstanding that this seperation once made upon the Crosse should never cease to appeare in the mystery of the holy table It is in this mysticall seperation that he would have the essence of the sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist to make it a perfect image or representation of the sacrifice of the Crosse to the end that as this later sacrifice consits in the actuall seperation of the Body and Blood this likewise which is the perfect image of it should consist also in this representative and mysticall seperation But whether JESUS-CHRIST has seperated his Body and his Blood either really upon the Crosse or mystically upon the Altars yet can he not seperate the vertue nor effect that any other Grace shall accompany his Blood shed then that same in the ground and in substance which accompanyes his Body immolated which is the cause that this so lively and so strong a resemblane or expression necessary to the sacrifice is no more so in the reception of the Eucharist it being every whit as impossible to seperate in the application the effect of his Blood from that of his Body as it is easy and naturall to represent to the eyes of the faithfull the actuall seperation of the one from the other For this reason it is that wee have found upon so many occasions in antiquity the Body given without the Blood and the Blood given without the Body but never one of them consecrated without the other Our Forefathers were perswaded that the faithfull would be deprived of some thing too pretious if the two species were not consecrated in which JESUS-CHRIST had made togeather with the perfect representation of his death the essence of the sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist but that nothing essentiall was taken from them in giving them but one because one only containes the vertue of both and the minde once preoccupayed by the death of our Lord in the consecration of the two species receives nothing from the Altar where they were consecrated which do's not conserve this figure of death and the character of a victime in so much that whether wee eate or whether wee drinke or whether wee do both togeather wee allwayes apply the same death and receive allwayes the same Grace in substance Neither must so much stresse bee put upon the eating and drinking seing that eating and drinking spiritually is apparently the same thing and that both the one and the other is to beleeve Let it be then that wee eate or that wee drinke according to the body wee both eat and drinke togeather according to the spirit if wee beleeve and wee receive the whole effect of the Sacrament § III. That the Pretended Reformers do agree with us in this principle and can have no other foundation of their discipline An Examen of the doctrine of M. Jurieux in his booke entilled Le Préservatif c. BUT without any further dispute I would only aske the Ministers of the Pretended Reformed Religion whether they do not beleeve when they have received the bread of the Lords Supper with a firme faith they have received the Grace which do's fully incorporate us to JESUS-CHRIST and the entire fruict of his sacrifise What will then the species of wine add there unto if not a more full expression of the same mystery Furthermore they beleeve they receive not only the figure but the proper substance of JESUS-CHRIST Whether it bee by Faith or otherwise is not to our present purpose Do they receive it whole and entire or do they only receive one halfe of it when the Bread of the Lords Supper is given to them JESUS-CHRIST is he divided And if they receive the substance of JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire let them tell us whether the essence of the Sacrament can be wanting to them And it can be no other then this reason that as persuaded them they could give the bread alone to those who could not drinke wine This is expresse in the VII art of the XII chapter of their discipline which is that concerning the Supper This argument proposed at first by the great Cardinall Richelieu intangled very much the Pretended Reformers I have endeavoured in my Exposition to solve some of the answers they give thereto Exp. art XVII and I have carefully related what their Synods have regulated in confirmation of that article of their discipline The matter is left without contest those who have writ against me have all of them with one accord acknowledged it as publick and notorious but they do not likwise agree in the manner of answering it All were not satisfyed with the common answer which only consists in saying that those mentioned in the article of their discipline are excused from taking the wine by their incapacity of drinking it and that it is a particular case which must not be drawne into a consequence for on the contrary they saw very well that this particular case ought to be decided by generall principles If the intention of JESUS-CHRIST were that the two species should be inseperable if the essence or substance of the Sacrament consist in the union of the one and the other since essenses are indivisible it is not the Sacrament which these receive it is a meere humaine invention and has not its foundation in the Gospell They were forced therefore at last but with extreame paine and after infinite turnings and windings to say that in this case he who receives only the Bread dos not receive the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST M. Jurieux who writ the last against my Exposition in his book entitled Le Préservatif Préservatif art XIII p. 262. suiv after having seen the answers of all the others and after having given himselfe much trouble sometimes in being angry at M. de Condom who amuses himselfe sayes he like a petty Missioner in things of so low a nature and in these old kind of cavils sometimes in putting as much stresse as
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
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
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
Acts of the Apostles that the three thousand and five thousand who were converted at the first Sermons of Saint Peter were baptised after any other manner and the great number of these converts is no proofe that they were baptised by sprinkling as some would conjecture For besides that nothing obliges us to affirme they were all baptised upon the same day it is certain that Saint John Baptist who baptised no lesse then they since all Judea flocked to him did notwithstanding baptise them by immersion or dipping and his example has showed us that to baptise a great nomber of man they were accustomed to make choice of a place where there was much water to which wee may further add that the baths and purifications of the antients and principally those of the Jewes rendred this ceremony facile and familiar in this time In fine wee read not in the Scriptures of any other manner of baptising and wee can shew by the acts of Councils and by antient Rituells that for thirteen hundred yeares the whole Church baptised after this manner as much as it was possible The very word also which is used in the Rituells to expresse the action of Godfathers and Godmothers when they say that they elevate the child from the font of Baptisme shows sufficiently that it was the custome to immerge or dipp them in it Though these truths be without dispute yet neither wee nor the pretended Reformers regarde the Anabaptists who hold that this immersion is essentiall and no wayes to be dispensed with and neither the one nor the other of us have any difficulty to change this plunging if I may call it so of the whole body into a meere sprinckling or a powring upon some part of the body No other reason can be given for this change but that this immersion or dipping is not essentiall to Baptisme and the pretended Reformers agreeing herein the first principle wee have layd must be also without contest § II. Second Principle To know the substance or essence of a Sacrament wee must regarde the essentiall effect THE second principle is that to distinguish what appertaines or do's not appertaine to the substance of a Sacrament wee must regard the essentiall effect of that Sacrament Thus though the words of JESUS-CHRIST Baptise signify immerge or dipp as has beene already said yet it was beleeved that the effect of the Sacrament was not restrained to the quantity of the water so that Baptisme by infusion and sprinckling or by immersion or dipping appearing in substance to have the same effect both the one and the other manner is judged vallid But as wee have said no essentiall effect of the Body distinct from that of the Blood can be found in the Eucharist so that the Grace both of the one and the other in the ground and in substance can be no other but the same It is nothing to the purpose to say that the representation of the death of our Lord is more exactly expressed in the two species I grant it in like manner the representation of new birth of the faithfull is more exactly expressed by immersion or dipping then by meere infusion or sprinckling For the faithfull being dipped or plunged in the water of Baptisme is buryed with JESUS-CHRIST Rom. 6.4 Coloss 2.12 according to the expression of the Apostle and the same faithfull coming out of the waters comes out of the Grave with his Saviour and represents more perfectly the mystery of JESUS-CHRIST that regenerated him Immersion by which water is applyed to the whole body and to all its parts do's also more perfectly signify that a man is fully and entirely washed from his spotts And yet Baptisme given by immersion or plunging is of no more vallue then Baptisme given by meere infusion and upon one only part it suffises that the expression of the mystery of JESUS-CHRIST and of the effect of Grace be found in substance in the Sacrament and that an ultimate exactnesse of representation is not there requisite Thus in the Eucharist the signification of the death of our Lord being found in substance when the Body delivered for us in given to us and an expression of the Grace of the Sacrament being also found when under the species of Bread the image of our spirituall nourishment is administred unto us the Blood which dos nothing but add to it a more expresse signification is not there absolutely necessary This is what is manifestly proved by the very words of our Lord and the reflection of Saint Paul when relating these words 1. Cor. 11.25.26 Do this in remembrance of me he immediately after concludes that so often as wee eat this Bread and drinke this Cupp wee shew forth the death of our Lord. Thus according to the interpretation of the Disciple the Masters intention is that when he ordaines wee should be mindfull of him wee should be mindfull of his death To the end therefore wee may rightly understand wheather the remembrance of this death consists in the sole participation of the whole mystery or in the participation of either of its parts wee need but consider that our Saviour dos not expect till the whole mystery be ended and the whole Eucharist received in both its parts before he sayes Ibid. 24.25 Do this in remembrance of me Saint Paul remarked that at each part he expressely ordained this remembrance For after having said Eat This is my Body do this in remembrance of me in giving the Blood he again repeates As often as you shall drinke this do it in remembrance of me declaring unto us by this repetition that wee shew forth his death in the participation of each kinde From whence it followes that when Saint Paul concludes from these words that in eating the Body and drinking the Blood wee shew forth the death of the Lord wee must understand that this death is not only shown forth by taking the whole but also by taking either part and the rather because it is otherwise apparent that in this mysticall separation which JESUS-CHRIST has signifyed by his words the Body seperated from the Blood and the Blood seperated from the Body have the same effect to shew forth the violent death of our Lord. So that if there be a more distinct expression in receiving the whole Representation more pressing it dos not cease neverthelesse to be true that by the reception of either part his death is wholy and entire represented and the whole Grace applyed to us But if any here demande to what purpose then was the institution of both species and this more lively represention of the death of our Lord which wee have here remarked it is that they will not reflect of one quality of the Eucharist well known to the antients though rejected by our Reformers All the antients beleeved that the Eucharist was not only a nourishment but also a sacrifice and that it was offered to God in consecrating of it before it was
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