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
exclusion of Deacons and Elders themselves though they seeme amongst them to represent the second order of the Ministers of the Church that is that of Priests who have alwayes constantly offered and distributed not only the Sacred Chalice but moreover the whole entire Eucharist Our Pretended Reformers did not at first arrive to this decision Ibid. Observ p. 184. seq Their first Synods said that the Ministers only should administer the Coupp as far as it might be done This restriction continued under two and twenty successive nationall Synods evento that of alais which was held in our dayes in 1620. There they ordained that these words as far as it might be done should be expunged and the administration of the Cupp was reserved to the Ministers alone Till that time the Elders and the Deacons also had upon occasion administred the Eucharist and principally the Cupp Ibid. p. 186. The Church of Geneva formed by Calvin had this practise and it was but in the yeare 1623. that they there resolved to conforme themselves to the sentiment of those of France This businesse did not passe without contradiction in the Provinces The reason of the Synod of Alais as it is inserted in the discipline is that it appartained only to the lawfully established Pastors to distribute this Sacrament a Maxime which visibly regards Doctrine and which by consequence according to the Principles of the new Reformation ought to be found expressely in Scripture from whence it followes that all the Synods and Pretended Reformed Churches untill that of Alais did grossely erre against the institution of JESUS-CHRIST Or if they answer us that these words were not verry cleare as these variations seeme sufficiently to shew they ought to acknewledge with us that to understand these words a man is obliged to have recourse to the interpretation of the Church and to that Tradition which subjects us to her To be assembled togeather at the same Table is a signe of society and Communion which JESUS-CHRIST would have to appeare in the institution of his Sacrament for he was at Table with his Apostles Ibid. Observ aprés l'art XIV p. 189. Some Churches of the Pretended Reformers to imitate this example and to do all that our Lord had done ranged the Communicants by table-fulls The Synod of Saint Maixent cited in the same place rejects this observance What was there seemingly more opposite to what had been practised at the institution then the custome of carrying away with them the Communion and of receiving it in private Wee have seen notwithstanding that this was practised in the primitive times of martyrdome not to say any thing here of the following ages There appeares nothing in Scripture of the reserving as it should be the Eucharist for the use of the sick neverthelesse wee finde it practised from the very originall of Christianity Those who mixed the two species and tooke them both togeather appeared as much estrainged from the tearmes and designe of the institution as those who received under one only These two articles have had their approbation in the Church and the practise of mixing which displeases our Pretended Reformers the least is that which wee finde the most forbiden It is prohibited in the VII Conc. Brac. IV. T. VI. Conc. c. 2. age in the IIII. Council of Brague It is prohibited in the XI Conc. Clarom C. age in the Council of Clermont where Pope Urbanus the II. was in person with about two hundred Bishops and by Pope Paschalis the II. The Council of Clermont excepts the cases of necessity and precaution Ep. 32. Pope Paschalis excepts the Communion of infants and of the sick This Communion which the West permitted not but with these reservations was infine established there for some time and moreover is become from six or seven hundred yeares the ordinary Communion of the whole East without beeing regarded as a matter of schisme The most important thing in the Sacraments is the words which give efficacy to the action JESUS-CHRIST has not expressely prescribed any for the Eucharist in his Gospel nor the Apostles in their Epistles JESUS-CHRIST in saying Do this only insinuated that they should repete his proper words by which the bread and wine were changed But that which has determined us invincibly to this sense is Tradition Tradition has also regulated those prayers which ought to be joyned to the words of JESUS-CHRIST and it is upon this account Saint Basil in his booke of the Holy-Ghost places amongst unwritten Traditions Basil de Sp. S. 27. the words of invocation which are made use of in consecration or to render it word for word when the Eucharist is shown By the VIII article of the XII chapter of the Discipline of the Pretended Reformers it is left indifferent to the Pastors to use the accustomed words in the distribution of the Supper The article is of the Synods of Sainte-Foy and of Figeac in the yeares 1578. and 1579. And in effect it appeares in the Synod of Privas held in the yeare 1612. Ibid. Observ sur l'art IX p. 185. that in the Church of Geneva the Deacons do not speake no nor even the Ministers in the distribution So that the Sacrament according to the doctrine of our Reformers consisting only in the usage of it it followes that they acknowlege a Sacrament which subsists without words In the same Synod of Privas Ibid. the Deacons who give the Cupp are forbidden to speake because JESUS-CHRIST spoke alone and the Church of Mets is exhorted to conforme in this to the example of JESUS-CHRIST without neverthelesse using any violence The example of JESUS-CHRIST do's not therefore make a law according to this Synod and according to other Synods it is freely permitted to seperate in the celebration of this Sacrament the words which are indeed the soule of the Sacraments as the example of Baptisme may make apparent not to alledge here the harmonious consent of the whole Christian world and of all ages Wee see by these decisions that what JESUS-CHRIST did dos not appeare to be a law to the Pretended Reformers A distinction must be made betwixt that which is essentiall and that which is not so JESUS-CHRIST dit not do it himselfe he only spoke in general Do this It belongs therefore to the Church to do it and her constant practise ought to be an unviolable law But in fine to attache our Ministers in their own fortresse seeing they place the stresse of their argument for the most part in these words Do this let us see when JESUS-CHRIST pronounced them He dit not pronounce them until after he had said Take Luk. 22.19 eat this is my Body For it is then that Saint Luke alone makes him add Do this in memory of me this Evangelist not mentioning that he said the like after the Chalice It is true Saint Paul mentions that after the consecration of the Chalice JESUS-CHRIST said
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
he can upon this impossibility so often repeted at last concludes that the party mentioned to whom the Bread alone is given p. 264. to speake properly dos not take with the mouth the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST because this Sacrament is composed of two parts and he receives but one Exam. de l'Euch Tr. 6. sect 7. this he likewise confirmes in the last booke he set forth This is what the Pretended Reformers durst nost that I know of hetherto affirme Verily a Communion which is not a Sacrament is a strange mystery and the Pretended Reformers who are at last obliged to acknowledge it would do as well to grant the consequence wee draw from their discipline seing they can finde no other way to unty this knott but by a prodigy never heard of in the Church But the doctrine of this Author appeares yet more strange when considered with all its circumstances Préservatif p. 266. 267. According to him the Church presents in this case the true Sacrament but neverthelesse what is received is not the true Sacrament or raither it is not a true Sacrament as to the signe but it is a true Sacrament as to the thing signifyed because the faithfull receive JESUS-CHRIST signifyed by the Sacrament and receive as many Graces as those who communicate under the Sacrament it selfe because the Sacrament is presented to him whole and entire because he receives it with heart and affection and because the sole insuperable impossibility hinders him to communicate under the signe What do these subtilityes availe him He might conclude from his arguments that the faithfull who cannot according to his principles receive the true Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST seeing he cannot receive an essentiall part is excused by his inability from the obligation to receive at all and that the desire he has to receive the Sacrament supplyes the effect But that upon this account wee should be obliged to seperate that which is inseperable by its institution and to give a man a Sacrament which he cannot receive or rather to give him solemnly that which being not the true Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST can be nothing else but meere bread is to invent a new mystery in Christian Religion and to deceive in the face of the Church à Christian who beleeves he receives that which in reality he do's not Behold neverthelesse the last refuge of our Reformers behold what he has writ who writ against me the last of any whose booke is so much spread by the Protestants through France Holland and other parts in divers languages with a magnificent Preface as the most efficacious antidote the new Reforme could invent against this Exposition so often attaqued He has found out by his way of improving and refining of others this new absurdity that what is received amongst them with so much solemnity when they cannot drinke wine is not the Sacrament of our Lord and that it is by consequence a meere invention of humain wi lt which a Church who sayes she is founded upon the pure word of God is not afraid to establish without so much as finding one syllable of it in that word To conclude JESUS-CHRIST has not made a particular law for those wee here speake of Man could not dispense with them in an expresse precept of our Lord nor allow them any thing he did not institute Wherefore either nothing must be given them or if one species be given them it must be beleeved that by the institution of our Lord this single species containes the whole essence of the Sacrament and that the receiving of the other can add nothing but what is accidentall to it §. IV. The third Principle The law ought to be explained by constant and perpetuall Practise An exposition of this Principle by the example of the civill law BUT to come to our third Principle which alone carryes along with it the decision of this question This is it To know what appertaines or do's not appertaine to the substance of the Sacraments wee must consult the practise and sentiment of the Church Let us speake more generally In all practicall matters wee must alwayes regard what has been understood and practised by the Church and as herein consists the true spirit of the law I write this for an intelligent and clearsighted Judge who is sensible that to understand an Ordonance and to discerne the meaning of it aright hee must know after what manner it was alwayes understood and practised otherwise since every man argues after his owne fashon the law would become arbitrary The rule then is to examin how it has been understood and how practised in following which a man shall not be deceived God to honour his Church and to oblige particuler persons to her holy decisions would that this rule should have place in his law as it has in humain lawes and the true manner to understand this holy law is to consider in what manner it has alwayes been understood and observed in the Church The reason of this is that there appeares in this interpretation and perpetuall practise a Tradition which cannot come but from God himselfe according to this doctrine of the Fathers that what is seene alwayes and in all places of the Church cannot come but from the Apostles who learned it from JESUS-CHRIST and from that Spirit of truth which he has given for a teacher And for feare any one should be deceived by the different significations of the word Tradition I declare that the Tradition I alledge here as a necessary interpreter of the law of God is an unwritten doctrine procedeng from God himselfe and conserved in the judgement and practise of the universall Church I have no neede here to prove this Tradition and what followes will make it appeare that our Reformers are forced to acknowledge it at least in this matter But it will not be amisse to remove in few words the false ideas which they ordinarily apply to this word of Tradition They tell us that the authority which wee give to Tradition subjects the Scripture to the thoughts of men and declares it imperfect They are palpably deceived Scripture and Tradition make togeather but one and the same body of doctrine revealed by God and so far is it that the obligation of interpreting Scripture by Tradition subjects the Scripture to the thoughts of men that there is nothing can give it more preeminence above them When particular persons are permitted as it is amongst our Pretended Reformers to interpret Scripture every one according to his own fancy there is liberty necessarily given to arbitrary interpretations and in effect scripture is subjected to the thoughts of men who interpret it each one according to his own mode but when every one in particular is obliged to receive it in the sense the Church doth receive and alwayes hath received it there is nothing elevates the authority of Scripture more nor renders it more independent of all particular opinions A man is never
more assured to understand aright the spirit and sense of the law then when he understands it as it has alwayes been understood since its first establishment Never dos a man honour more the Lawgiver the minde is never more captivated under the authority of the law nor more restrained to its true sense never are particular lights and false glosses more excluded Thus when our Fore Fathers in all their Councils in all their Books in all their Decrees obliged themselves by an indispensable law to understand the Holy Scriptures as it has been alwayes understood they were so far fom believing that by this meanes they submitted it to humain phancies that on the contrary they beleeved there was no surer meanes to exclude them The Holy-Ghost who dictated the Scripture and deposited it in the hands of the Church gave her an understanding of it from the beginning and in all ages in so much that the sence thereof which has alwayes appeared in the Church is as well inspired as the Scripture it selfe The Scripture is not imperfect because it has need of such an interpretation It belonged to the majesty of Scripture to be concise in its words profound in its sense and full of a wisdome which alwayes appeared so much the more impenetrable by how much the more it was penetrated into It was with these characters of the divinity that the Holy-Ghost was pleased to invest it It ought to be meditated on to be understood and that which the Church has alwayes understood thereof by meditating upon it ought to be received as a law So that that which is not writ is no lesse venerable then that which is whilst both of them come by the same way Each one corresponds to the upholding of the other seing that Scripture is the necessary groundworke of Tradition and Tradition the infallible interpreter of Scripture If I should affirme that the whole Scripture ought to be interpreted after this manner I should affirme a truth which the Church has alwayes acknowledged but I should recede from the matter in question I reduce my selfe to things of practise and principally to what is of ceremony I maintaine that wee cannot distinguish what is essentiall and indispensable from what is left to the liberty of the Church but by examining Tradition and constant practise This is what I undertake to prove by Scripture it selfe by all antiquity and to the end that nothing may be wanting in point of proofe by the plain confession of our very adversaryes Under the name of ceremony I do here comprehend the Sacraments which are in effect facred signes and ceremonyes divinely instituted to signify and confer Grace Experience shewes that what belongs to ceremony cannot be well explained but by the received manner of practising it By this our question is decided In the sacred ceremony of the Lords Supper wee have seene that the Church has alwayes beleeved she gave the whole substance and applyed the whole vertue of the Sacrament in giving only one sole species Behold what has been alwayes practised behold what ought to stand for a law This rule is not rejected by the Pretended Reformers Wee have even now seene that if they had not beleeved that the judgement of the Church and her interpretation stand for a law they would never have divided the supper in favour of those who drinke no wine nor given a decision which is not in the Gospell But it is not in this only that they have followed the interpretation of a Church Wee shall shortly see many other points where they cannot avoid having recourse to this rule wee propose I establish therefore without hesitation this generall proposition and I advance as the constant practise acknowledged by the antient and moderne Jewes by the Christians in all ages and by the Pretended Reformers themselves that the ceremoniall lawes of both the old and new Testament cannot be understood but by practise and that without this meanes it is impossible to comprehend the true spirit of the law § V. A proofe from the observances of the old Testament THE matter is more surprising in the old Testament where every thing was circumstanced and particularised with so much care yet notwithstanding it is certain that a law written with so much exactnesse stood in neede of Tradition and the interpretation of the Synagogue to be well understood The law of the Sabaoth alone fournisheth many examples of this Every one knowes how strict was the observance of this sacred rest Exod. 16.23.35.3 in which it was forbid under paine of death to prepare their diet or so much as to light their fire In a word the law forbid so precisely all manner of worke that many durst scarce move on this holy day At least it was certain that none could either undertake or continue a journey and wee know what hapned to the army of Antiochus Sidetes Joseph Ant. 13.16 when this Prince stopped his march in favour of John Hyrcanus and the Jewes during two dayes on which their law obliged them to a rest equall to that of the Sabaoth In this strict obligation to remain in rest Tradition and custome alone had explicated how far one might go without violating the tranquility requisite during these holy dayes From hence comes that manner of speech mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles from such a place to such a place is a Sabaoth dayes journey Act. 1.12 This Tradition was established in the time of our Saviour neither did he nor his Apostles who mentioned it ever reprehend it The exactitude of this rest did not hinder but that it was permitted to untye a beast and lead it to drinke Luk. 13.15.14.5 or to pull it out if fallen into a ditch Our Lord who alledges these examples as publick and notorious to the Jewes does not only not blame them but further authorises them though the law had said nothing concerning them and that these actions seemed to be comprehended under the generall prohibition It must not be imagined that these observances were of little or no importance in a law so severe and where it was necessary to take care even to an ïota and the least title the least prevarication drawing down most terrible paines and an inevitable malediction upon the transgressors But behold a thing which appeares yet more important in the time of the Machabees a question was proposed whether it was permitted to defend ones life upon the Sabaoth day 1. Mach. 2.32.38.40.41 2. Mach. 15.1.2 c. and the Jewes suffered themselves to be killed til such times as the Synagogue had interpreted and declared that selfe defence was permitted though the law had not excepted that action In permitting selfe defence they dit not permitt an onsett what advantage soever might thereby arrive to the publick and the Synagogue durst never go so far But after the Synagogue had permitted selfe defence there remained yet one scrupule Joseph Ant. 14.8 viz
has no vocation at all is wholy nul Discip c. XI art 1. observ and the observations drawn from the Synods declare that to the validity of this Sacrament it suffises that these Ministers have an outwardly seeming vocation such as is that of Curates Priests and Religious men in the Roman Church who are permitted to preach Where do they finde in Scripture that this outwardly seeming vocation can conferre a power which JESUS-CHRIST has given only to those whom he himselfe did effectively call JESUS-CHRIST said Baptize that is immerge or dipp as wee have often remarked Wee have also related that he was baptized according to this forme that the Apostles followed it and that it was continued in the Church till the XII and XIII ages and notwithstanding Baptisme by infusion or sprincling is admitted without difficulty by the sole authority of the Church JESUS-CHRIST said Math. 28.19 Mark 16.15.16 Teach and baptize and again He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved The Church has interpreted by the sole authority of Tradition and practise that the instruction and faith which JESUS-CHRIST had united to Baptisme might be seperated in order to little infants These words Discip c. XI art VI. Observ p. 166. Teach and baptize did a long time perplexe our Reformers and occasioned them to say till the yeare 1614. that it was not lawfull to baptize with out a precedent or an immediately subsequent sermon This is what was decided in the Synod of Tonneins conformably to all the precedent Synods But in the Synod of Castres in 1626. they begun to relaxe as to this point and it was resolved not to press the observance of the regulation of Tonneins Lastly in the Synod of Charinton in 1631. in which they admitted the Lutherans to the Supper it was declared that preaching before or after Baptisme appertaines not to the essence of it but to discipline of which the Church has pover to dispose So that what they had beleeved and practised so long as prescribed by JESUS-CHRIST himselfe was changed and without any testimony of Scripture they declared that it was a thing concerning which the Church might ordaine as she pleased As for little infants the Pretended Reformers say verry well that their Baptisme is founded upon Scripture but they cite no expresse passage and they argue from farfetched not to say doubtfull yea and even false consequences It is certain that all the proofes they can draw from Scripture upon this subject have no force and that they themselves destroy those that might have any That which might have force to establish the Baptisme of little infants 1. Tim. 4.10 is that on the one side it is written JESUS-CHRIST is the Saviour of all Math. 19.14 and that he himselfe has said Suffer little children to come unto mee and on the other that he has prononced none can come unto him nor have any part in him if he do not receive Baptisme conformable to these words John 3.3.5 If you be not borne again of water and the Holy Spirit you shall not enter into the Kingdome of God But these passages have no force according to the doctrine of our Reformers since they beleeve it as of faith that Baptisme is not necessary to the salvation of infants Nothing affords them more difficulty in their Discipline Discip c. XI art VI. Observ then to see every day that anxiety of Parents of their communion to have their little children baptized when they are sick or in danger of death This piety of the parents is called in their Synods an infirmity It is a weaknesse to feare least the children of the faithfull should dye without receiving Baptisme One Synode went so far as to permit them to baptize their children extraordinarily in evident danger of death Ibid. But the following Synod reprehended this weaknesse and these strong in faith effaced that clause where they testifyed some regarde to that danger because it gives some ouverture to the opinion of the necessity of Baptisme Thus the proofs drawn from the necessity of Baptisme to oblige the giving of it to little infants are destroyed by our Reformers Let us see those they substitute in their place such as are inserted in their Catechisme in their Confession of faith Cat. Dim 50. Conf. de Foy art 35. Forme d'administrer le Bapt. and in their prayers That is that the children of the Faithfull are borne in alliance conformable to this promis I shall be thy God and the God of thy seede to a thousand generations From whence they conclude that the vertue and substance of Baptisme appertaining to little children they should do them an injury to deny them the signe which is inferiour By the like reason they will finde themselves obliged to give them the Supper togeather with Baptisme for those who are in the alliance are incorporated to JESUS-CHRIST the little children of the Faithfull are in the alliance they are therefore incorporated to JESUS-CHRIST and having by this meanes according to them the vertue and substance of the Supper it ought to be said as of Baptisme that the signe cannot be refused them without injury The Anabaptists maintaine that these words let a man trye himselve and so let him eat have no greater force to exact yeares of discretion to receive the Supper then these hee that shall beleeve and shall be baptised have to exact them in Baptisme The consequence drawn amongst the new Reformers from the alliance of the antient people and from Circumcision mooves them not The alliance of the antient people say they was contracted by birth because it was carnall and upon this account the seale was printed in the flesh by Circumcision immediately after birth But in the new alliance it dos not suffise to be borne wee must be newborne to enter into it and as the two alliances have nothing of resemblance there is nothing say they to be concluded from one sign to another so that the comparaison which they make of Circumcision with Baptisme is voide and of no effect Experience has shown that all the attempts of our Reformers whereby to confound the Anabaptist from Scripture has beene weake and feeble So that at the last they are obliged to plead practise Wee finde in their Discipline at the end of the XI chapter the forme of receiving persons of a more advanced age in t their Communion where they make the Anabaptist who is converted acknowledge that the Baptisme of little infants has its foundation in Scripture and in the perpetuall practise of the Church When the Pretended Reformers beleeve they have the expresse word of God it is not their custome to ground themselves upon the perpetuall practise of the Church But here where the Scripture furnisheth them with nothing whereby to stop the mouths of Anabaptists they were necessitated to support themselves else where and at the same time to acknowledge that in these matters the
which conserves it But as nourishment followes birth if the Church had not known her selfe taught by God she durst not any longtime refuse to Christians regenerated by Baptisme that nourishment which JESUS-CHRIST has prepared for them in the Eucharist For neither JESUS-CHRIST nor the Apostles have ordained any thing left by writing concerning it The Church then has learnt by another way but alwayes equally certain what she can give or take away without doing any injury to her children and they have nothing to do but to rely upon her faith Let not our adversaryes thinke they can avoid the force of this argument under pretence that they do not understand these two passages of the Gospel as wee do I know very well they do neither understand of Baptisme with water this passage where it is said If you be not regenerated or borne again of water and the Holy Spirit nor of the eating and drinking of the Eucharist this other where it is writt If you eat not and drinke not so that they finde themselves no more obliged by these passages to give the Eucharist then Baptisme to little infants But without pressing too close upon these passages let us make them only this demande This precept Eat you this and drinke you all of it which you think is so universall dos it comprehend little children that are baptized If it comprehend all Christians what words of Scripture exclude little children Are they not Christians Woust wee give the victory to the Anabaptists who say they are not and condemne all antiquity which has acknowledged them as such But why do you except them from so generall a precept without any authority of Scripture In a word upon what foundation has your Discipline made this precise law Discip ch 12. art 2. Children under twelve yeares old shall not be admitted to the Supper but for those above that age it shall be left to the discretion of the Ministers 1. Cor. 11.28 c. Your children are they not Christians before that age Do you reject them till that age because Saint Paul has said Let a man prove himselfe and so let him eate But wee have already seene that it is no lesse precisely written Math. 21. Marke 16. Act. 2.38 Teach and baptize he that shall believe and be baptized do pennance and receive Baptisme And if your Catechisme interpret that it ought to be only in regard of such as are capable Dim 50. why shall wee not say as much of the proofe recommended by the Apostle Be it as it will the Apostle dos not decide which is the age proper for this probation One is at the age of reason before he is twelve yeares old one may before this age both sin and practise vertue why do you dispence with your children in a divine precept wherof they are capable If you say that JESUS-CHRIST has remitted that to the Church show me that permission in Scripture or believe with us that all that which is necessary to the understanding and practise the Gospel is not written and that wee must rely upon the authority of the Church § XI A reflection upon the manner how the Pretended Reformers make use of Scripture SAINT Basile advertises us that those who dispise unwritten Traditions do at the same time dispise the Scriptures themselves which they boast to follow in all things Basil de Sp. S. c. 27. This misfortune has arrived to the Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformed Religion They speake to us of nothing but of Scripture and boast they have established all the practises of their Church upon this rule Notwithstanding they easily dispence with many important practises which wee read in expresse tearmes in Scripture They have taken away the Extreame-Unction soe expressely ordained in the Epistle of Saint James James 5 1â—.15 tho this Apostle has annexed to it so cleare a promis of the remission of sins They neglect the imposition of hands practised by the Apostles towards all the faithfull in giving the Holy Ghost and as if this divine Spirit ought not to descende otherwise then visibly they dispise the ceremony by which he was given because he is now no more given after this visible manner They have no greater esteeme for the imposition of hands Discip ch 1. art s. Observ by which the Ministers were ordained For although they do ordinarily practise it they declare in their Discipline they do not believe it essentiall and that one might dispense with a practise so clearly set downe in Scripture Poit 1560. Par. 1565. Two nationall Synods have decided there was no necessity of making use of it and neverthelesse one of these Synods adds they ought to make it their businesse to conforme to one another in this ceremony because it is expedient for edification conformable to the custome of the Apostles and to the practise of the antient Church So that the custome of the Apostles manifestly written and in so many places in the words of God is no more a law to them then the practise of the antient Church to beleive ones selfe obliged to this custome is a superstition reprehended in their discipline Ch. 1. art 8. such false ideas do they frame to themselves of Religion and christian liberty But why do wee speake here of particular articles The whole state of their Church is visibly contrary to the word of God I do here with them tearme the state of the Church the society of Pastors and people which wee see there established Conf. de Foy art 31. this is that which is called the state of the Church in their confession of Faith and they there declare that this state is founded upon the extraordinary vocation of their first Reformers In vertue of this article of their Confession of Faith one of their nationall Synods has decided that when the question shall be concerning the vocation of their Pastors who have reformed the Church or concerning the establishment of the authority they had to reforme and to teach it must be referred according to the XXXI article of the Confession of Faith to an extraordinary vocation by which God interiourly pushed them on to their ministery yet in the mean time they neither prove by any miracle that God did push them interiourly to their ministry neither do they prove which is yet more essentiall by any text of Scripture that such a vocation should ever have place in the Church from whence it followes that their Pastors have no authority to preach according to these words of Saint Paul Rom. 10.15 How shall they preach unlesse they be sent and that the whole state of their Church is without foundation They flatter themselves with this vain thought that JESUS-CHRIST has left a power to the Church to give her selfe a forme and to establish Pastors when the succession is interrupted this is what M. Jurieux and M. Claude endeavour to prove without finding any thing that
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
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
this opinion was so far from universall that wee finde it strongly opposed by other authors of the same time Hug. de S. Vict. lib. I erud Theol. c. 20. Hist Euch. l. p. ch 11. p. 139. Fulg. Ep. ad Ferr. Diac. as by Hugo de Santo Victore cited in M. de la Roques booke and many others I could also tell you how these Authors have explicated S. Augustin according to S. Fulgentius and shew with them by expresse passages and by the whole doctrine of this Father how far he is from that errour they attribute to him But my designe is here to teach what wee ought to believe concerning the two species and not to trouble my selfe and my readers with these incident questions Therefore I enter not into them and without burdning my discourse with an un profitable examen I shall deliver in few words the fayth of the Church The Church did allwayes and dos still believe that infants are capable to receive the Eucharist as well as Baptisme and finds no more obstacle as to communion in these words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.22 Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eat then she finds as to Baptisme in these words of our Saviour Teach and baptise Mat. 22.19 But as she knows that the Eucharist cannot be absolutely necessary to their salvation after they have received a full remission of their sins in Baptisme she beleeves that it is a matter of discipline to give or not to give the communion at that age Whereupon for good reasons she gave it the space of eleaven or twelve hundred yeares and for other good reasons she ceased to give it from that time But the Church which found her selfe free to communicate or not to communicate children could never have beleeved she had liberty to communicate them in a manner contrary to the institution of JESUS-CHRIST nor would ever have given one only species if she had beleeved the two species inseparable by their institution In a word to disengage our selves at once from these unprofitable disputes when the Church gave the communion to little infants under the sole species of wine she either judged this Sacrament necessary to their salvation or she did not If she did not thinke it necessary why should she presse so to give it as to give it wrong And if she judged it necessary it is a new demonstration that she beleeved the whole effect of the Sacrament included under one sole species And further to shew this was her beliefe the same Church which gave the Eucharist to little children under the sole species of wine gave them it when more advanced in yeares without scrupule under the sole species of bread None is ignorant of the antient custome of the Church to give to innocent children that which remained of the Body of our Lord after the communion of the faithfull Some Churches burnt these sacred remainders and such was the custome of the Church of Jerusalem as Hesychius Priest of that Church relates Hesych in Levit. lib. II. 68. JESUS-CHRIST is absolutely above all corruption but humain sense demanded that out of respect to this Sacrament that should be observed which least offends the senses and it was thought much better to burne these sacred remainders then to see them changed by keeping them after a manner lesse becoming That which the Church of Jerusalem consumed by fire the Church of Constantinople gave to be consummated by little children looking upon them in that age where their baptismal grace was entire as its most holy vessells Evag. lib. IV. c. 35. Evagrius writes in the VI. age that this was the antient custome of the Church of Constantinople Conc. Matisc II. c. 2. T. I. Conc. Gall. Hist Euch. I. P. ch 16. p. 183. M. de la Roque takes notice of this custome and shews us the same practise at the same time in France where a Council ordained that the remainders of the Sacrifice after Masse was finished should be given sprinkled with wine Wednesdays and Frydayes to innocent children to whom they ordained to fast that they might to receive them It was without doubt the Body of our Lord which they received as well as the rest of the faithfull Ibid. Evagrius calls these remainders the particles of the immaculate Body of JESUS-CHRIST our God and thus it is that M. de la Roque translates it The same Evagrius relates that this communion preserved a Jewish child which had communicated in this manner with the children of the faithfull from a burning fournace whereinto his father had thrown him in hatred of that communion he had received God being willing to confirme this communion under one species by so illustrious a miracle None ever dreamed of saying they did amisse in giving the body with out the blood nor that such a communion was defective If the custome have beene changed it has been upon other reasons and after the same manner other things of discipline have been altered without condemning the precedent practice So that this custome although it have ceased to be in practise in the Church remains in Historyes and Canons in testimony against the Protestants The communion of infants is a cleare conviction of their errour The youngest sort of infants communicate under the sole species of wine and the children of a more advanced age under that of bread both one and the others concurring to make apparent the integrity of communion under one species only § IV. Third Custome Domestick Communion THE third practise is that the faithfull after having communicated in the Church and in the holy assembly carryed with them the Eucharist to communicate every day in their houses The species of wine could not be given them because it could not be conserved especially in so little a quantity as that which is made use of in the holy Mystyres and it is certain also that it was given them under the species of bread only Tert. de Orat. c. 14. Tertullian who mentions this custome in his booke de Oratione speaks only of taking and keeping the Body of our Lord and in an other place he speaks of the Bread which Christians eat fasting in secret Lib. 11. ad ux 5. without any other addition Saint Cyprian lets us see the same practise in his treatise de Lapsis This custome which begun during the persecutions and whilst Ecclesiasticall meetings were not free did not cease neverthelesse to continue for other reasons during the peace of the Church Wee learne from Saint Basile that the Solitaryes or Hermites communicated after no other manner in the deserts where there was no Priests Bas Ep. 289. And it is certain moreover that these wonderfull men not coming to the Church but at most on principall solemnityes could not possibly have conserved the species of wine There is likewise no mention in Saint Basil but of that which was put into the hand to be carryed to the
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
1. Cor. 11.23 Do this in remembrance of me so often as you shall drinke But after all this discourse of our Saviour to take it in rigour and in its precise tearmes imports only a conditionall ordre to do this in remembrance of JESUS-CHRIST as often as one shall do it and not an order absolutely to do it the which I could prove by Protestant interpreters if the thing were not of it selfe too cleare to neede a proofe And thus the words Do this would be found absolutely applyed to these words only Take eate and the Protestants would loose their cause But if they say as some of theirs do that these words attributed to the reception of the Body Do this in remembrance of me have the same force as these which are saide after the Chalice As often as you shall drinke do it in remembrance of me the one as well as the other ordaining only to do it in remembrance and not absolutely their cause will be but the worse because on that account there will not remaine in the whole Gospel any absolute precept contrary to their doctrine to receive either of the species much lesse both It serves them for nothing to answer that the institution of JESUS-CHRIST suffices them seeing the question alwayes retournes to know what appertaines to the essence of the institution JESUS-CHRIST not having distinguished it and all the foregoing examples demonstrating invincibly that it cannot be learnd but from Tradition If they add that in all cases they cannot be deceived in doing what is written and what JESUS-CHRIST did this is with a seeming reason to leave the difficulty untouched because on the one side they have seene so many things which ought to be observed though they be not regulated in Scripture and on the other part they see also so great a number of those that are written and done by JESUS-CHRIST which are not observed amongst themselves without finding any thing in Scripture which can assure them they are lesse important then others So that without the assistance of Tradition wee should not know how to consecrate how to give how to receive nor in a word how to celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist no more then that of Baptisme and this discussion may aide us to understand with how much reason Saint Basil said that in rejecting unwritten Tradition the Gospel it selfe is attached and Preaching is reduced to meere words Basil de Sp. S. cap. 27. the meaning of which is not intelligible In effect all the answers and all the reasonings of these Ministers do manifestly produce nothing but new difficultyes and the sole meanes to disentangle themselves is to search as wee do the essence of our Lords institution and the right understanding of his commands in the Tradition and practise of the Church If therefore she has alwayes beleeved the grace of the Eucharist was not restrained to both species if she has beleeved that Communion under one or both species was a saving Communion if the Pretended Reformers have followed this sentiment in a certain case not mentioned in the Gospel that is to say in regard of those who drinke no wine what difficulty can be founde in a thing regulated by such certain principles and by so constant a practise § VII Communion under one Species was established without contradiction WE see also that Communion under one species was established without noise without contradiction without complaint in the same manner as Baptisme was established with bare sprinkling and other innocent customes The feare they had to spill our Saviours Blood in the midst of a multitude which approached to Communion with much confusion was the reason why the faithfull being always persuaded that one sole species was sufficient insensibly accustomed themselves to receive in effect but one onely There was so great difficulty not to spill this precious Blood in those Churches where there were but few Ministers and where there was a numerous Congregation the precautions which were necessary in distributing of it rendred the service so long especially on great solemnities and in great assemblies that for that reason they easily brought themselves to the usage of one sole species In the conference held at Constantinople in the yeare 1054. under Pope Leo the IX Disp Humb. Card. apud Bar. app T. XI between the Latins and the Greeks Cardinall Humbert Bishop of Sylva candida produced a custome of the Church of Jerusalem attested by a passage of an antient Patriarke of this Church This custome was to communicate all the people under the species of bread solely and seperatly without mingling it with the other according to the practise of the rest of the east There it is expresly noted that they reserved what was remaining of the consecrated Bread of the Eucharist for the Communion of the day following without giveing there the least intimation of the sacred Chalice and this custome was so antient in that Church that it was attributed to the Apostles I am willing to acknowledgd that those of Jerusalem were mistaken in that point seeing there are none but those customes that are as well universall as immemoriall which according to the rule of the Church ought to be referred to that originall Neverthelesse by this means we see the antiquity of that custome It was received in the holy city and throughout the Province that depended upon it as the Cardinall affirmed Nicetas Pretoratus his Antagonist dos not in the least contradict him The wholl world resorted to Jerusalem and went with a holy zeale to communicate in those parts where the Mysteries of our salvation were accomplished It was with out doubt the vast multitude of communicants which made the custome to communicate under one species be embraced not one person complained of it and Cardinal Humbert who appeared concerned at the mixture sayes not a word concerning the Communion under one species There are many other reasons which induce us to think that the usage of one sole species bigan on great festivalls by reason of the multitude of Communicants and however it was it is certain the people without the least reluctancy conformd to that manner of communicateing grounded on the antient faith which they had embraced viz that they received under one sole and under both the species the same substance of the Sacrament and the same effect of grace The most certain mark that a custome is held as free is when it is changed without any trouble so when they defisted either to administer the Communion to little infants or to baptise them by immersion not one person was disturbed at it just so they brought themselves to communicate under one species and for many ages the people communicated not but in that manner when the Bohemians bethought themselves to say that it was ill done I doe not find that Wiclef their cheif Leader as rash as he was did yet condemne that custome of the Church at least it is certain there is
Aug. Cons That the Church is worthy of excuse for not having received but one sole species when shee could not have both But the case is quite otherwise in regard to the authors of this injustice What a notion of the Church is this which they represent to us before Luthers time as forced to receive but halfe of the Sacrament by the fault of her Pastors as if the Pastors themselves were not by the institution of JESUS CHRIST a part of the Church But in fine it appears from hence by the concession of the Lutherans that what distroyed the Church according to them was not absolutly essentiall seeing it can never be excusable nor tolerable to receive the Sacraments upon what account soever contrary to the essence of their institution and that the right administration of the Sacraments is no less essentiall to the Church then the pure preaching the word of God Calixtus who relates carefully all these passages N. 199. excuses Luther and the first authors of the Reformation upon this account that haveing undertook see here a memorable acknowledgment and a worthy beginning of the Reformation upon this account sais Calixtus that the first authors having undertaken it the Reformation rather by the violence of others then by any voluntary motive that is to say rather out of a spirit of contradiction then out of a sincere love of truth they could not at first discover the necessity of the precept to communicate under both kinds nor reject that custome behold what Calixtus saith and he sees not how much himselfe over throwes the evidence he attributed to this precept in makieng it apparently unknown to the first authors of that new Reformation and by those whom they beleeved chosen from God for this worke Could not they have perceived a thing which Calixtus findes so cleare or has not Calixtus overdone it when he gives us that for so clear and manifest which is not at all perceived by such Doctors But to say no more of them Calixtus himself that very Calixtus who has writ so much against the Communion under one kind in the end of the same treatise where he hath opposed it so much is so far from treating of it as a matter where on salvation depends that he declares De Communione sub utraque n. 200. jud n. 76. he does not exclude from the number of the truely Faithfull our ancesters who communicated under one kind above five hundred years since and that which is much more remarkable now those who communicate so at this very day seing they candoe no better and concludes in generall that whatever we think or what ewer we practise concerning the Sacrament cannot put any obstacle to our salvation nor a warrantable matter of separation becaus the reception of this Sacrament is not of essentiall obligation Whether this principle of Calixtus be true and the consequence rightly drawn from it is not our present dispute It is sufficient fore that this zealous defender of the two kinds is forced at last to grant that a man may be le saved in that Church where there is but one kind only received by which he is obliged to aknowlegd either that a man may obteine salvation out of the true Church which certainly he will not grant or which he will mentaine as little that the true Church may remainsuch and yet want a sacrament or which is more naturall and what we also in effect doe affirm that Communion under both kinds is not essentiall to the Sacrament of that Eucharist Behold whether these great disputes against Communion under one kind tende And after having exercised all his subtelty he is comes at last by all these efforts to acknowledg tacitely that which he had endeavored to oppose by such studied and elaborate treatises § VIII A refutation of the History concerning the taking away of the Cupp written by M. Jurieux IN the last Treatise that M. Jurieux published he proposes to himselfe the making an abridgment to the history of taking away the Cupp Exam. de l'Euch 6. Traité 5. Sect. where although he gives us for indisputable all that he is there pleased to impose it will be easy for us to dectet almost as many falsityes as he has mentioned matters of fact He proposes nothing new upon the Gospels and the Epistles of Saint Paul concerning which we have sufficiently spoken From the Apostles times he passes to the following ages where he showes without difficulty that the use of the two species was ordinary But he soon perceived that he brought nothing against us if he said nothing else for he knows very well we mentain that at the same time the two species were in practise they were not beleived so necessary but that they communicated as often and as publickly under one only without any ones complaint To take away this our defence and to say something concluding it did not suffise to assure us that the use of the two species was frequent but he ought also to assure us that it was regarded a indispensable and that they never communicated after any other manner M. Jurieux found that he ought to say this he has said it in effect but he has not so much as offered to proove it so much did he dispaire of succeding in it Only by a bold and vehement affirmation he thought he might supply the defect of a proof which he wanted It is saye he a thing notoriously known and that as no need of proof t is a matter not in the least questioned These affirmative manner of speeches impose upon men the Pretended Reformers beleive a Minister upon his word and cannot imagin he dars venture to avouch any thing as not contested when de facto it is Nevertheless the truth is that there is not any thing not only more contested but also more false then that which M. Jurieux gives us here as for indisputable as equally confessed by both parties But let us consider his words as they lye with what followes This is sayes he an affaire which is not contested During the space of above a thousand yeares none in the Church had ever undertaken to celebrate this Sacrament and communicate the Faithfull otherwise then the Lord had commanded it that is to say under both species except when to communicate the sick with more facility some undertooke to moisten the bread in the wine and to make them receive both the one and the other kinde at the same time The proposition and the exception are neither the one nor the other made with sincerity The proposition is that during the space of above a thousand yeares none had ever undertaken to celebrate this Sacrament nor to give it otherwise then under both species He confounds at the very first two very different things to celebrate this Sacrament and to give it None ever celebrated it but under both species wee grant it and wee have shown a reason for it drawn from
the nature of a Sacrifise but that none ever gave the two species is what wee dispute and good ordre not to say sincerity dit not permitt that these two things should be equally joyned togeather as indisputable But that which seemes most intolerable is that it should be asserted that during the space of above a thousand yeares the Communion was never given but under both species and that this also should be a thing notorious and publick a thing which needs no proofe a thing which is not contested Wee ought to regard publick faith and not to abuse these weighty expressions M. Jurieux knows in his own conscience that wee deny all he here sayes the sole titles of the articles of the first part of this discourse show clearly enough how many occasions there are where wee uphold that Communion was given under one kinde I am not the first that have said it God forbid and I do nothing but explicate what all other Catholicks have said before me But can any thing be lesse sincere then to bring here no exception from ordinary communions but only that of the sick and with all to finde there no difference but in this that they then mixed the two species togeather seeing M. Jurieux would relate nothing but what is not contested by Catholicks he ought to speake after another manner He knows very well wee maintaine that the Communion of the sick consisted not in giving them the two species mixed but in giving them ordinaryly the sole species of bread He knows very well what our Authors say upon the Communion of Serapion upon that of Saint Ambrose upon others which I have remarked and that in a word wee say the ordinary manner of communicating the sick was to communicate them under one sole species It is already to much to dare to deny a matter of fact so well established but to advance this boldnesse to such a height as to say the contrary is not contested is what I know not how M. Jurieux could resolve upon But what is it he would be at when he affirmes as a thing not contested by us that during the space of above a thousand yeares the Communion was never given otherwise then under both species except in the Communion of the sick where both the species were given mixed togeather What a strange kind of exception is this Both species were alwayes given except when they gave them both mixed togeather M. Jurieux would willingly have said much better then he did But in affirming as he does that during the space of above a thousand yeares they never gave the Communion but under both species he saw verry well that he ought at least to except the communion of the sick He would have done it had he proceded candidly but at the same time he foresaw by this exception alone he lost the fruict of so universall a proposition and otherwise there was not any likelihood the antient Church sent dying persons to the Tribunall of JESUS-CHRIST after a Communion received contrary to his command So that he durst not say what naturally occurred and fell into a manifest labarynth In fine wherefore speakes he only of the Communion of the sick Whence comes it that in this relation he has said nothing of the Communion of infants and domestick Communion both which he knows verry well wee alledge as given under one species only Why do's he dissemble what our Authors have maintained what I have proved after them by the Decrees of Saint Leo and Saint Gelasius that it was free to communicate under one or both species I say in the Church it selfe and at the publick Sacrifise Was M. Jurieux ignorant of these things to say nothing of the rest Was he ignorant of the Office of Good Friday and of the Communion then and there under one sole species A man so learned as he did he not know what was writ concerning this by Amalarius and Authors of the VIII and IX ages whom wee have quoted To know these things and to affirme as an indispautable practise that during the space of above a thousand yeares the Communion was never given but under both species is it not manifestly to be tray the truth and defile his own conscience The other Authors of his Communion who have writ against us act with more sincerity Calixtus M. du Bourdieu and the others endeavour to answer those objections wee make M. Jurieux followes another method and contents himselfe to say boldly That during the space of above a thousand yeares none ever undertooke to communicate the faithfull otherwise then under both species and that this matter is not contested This is the shortest way and the surest to deceive the simple But wee must beleeve that those who love their salvation will open their eyes and not suffer themselves to be any longer imposed on M. Jurieux has but one only remaning refuge to witt that these Communions so frequent in the antient Church under one species were not the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST any more then the Communion which is given in their Churches in bread alone to those who drinke no wine In answering after this manner he would have answered according to his principles I confesse but after all I maintaine he had not the boldnesse to make use of this answer nor to impute to the antient Church this monstrous practise where a Sacrament is given which is in reality no Sacrament but an humain invention in Communion Neverthelesse in a history such as he had promised it was his businesse to have alwayes related these considerable matters of fact He says not one word of them in his narrative I wonder not at it for he could not have spoken of so many important practises without showing that there was at the least a great contestation betwixt them and us and it pleased him to say that it is a thing which has no need of proofe and is not contested It is true that in another place in answering objections he speakes a word or two of domestick Communion But he comes of in answering that it is not certain whether those who carried away with them the Eucharist after this manner Ibid. Sect. VII 483. 484. carried not also the wine and that this later is much more likely It is not certain this last is much more apparent Certainly a man thus positive as he is diffides verry much of his cause when he speakes at this rate but at least seing he doubts he ought not to say that it is a matter without contestation that no body ever undertooke during above a thousand yeares to communicate the Faithfull otherwise then under both species Behold even in the first ages of the Church an infinite number of Communions that he himselfe durst not affirme to have been under both species It was an abuse sayes he What then the practise was to be related the question concerning the abuse would come after and wee should then see whether