§ I. An Explication of this Practise.

THE Practise of the Church from the Primitive times is, that Communicants recei­ved [Page 3]under one or both kinds, without ever imagining there wanted any thing to the inte­grity of Communion, when they received under one alone.

It was never so much as thought on, that the Grace an­nexed to the Body of our Lord was any other then that which was annexed to his Blood. He gave his Body before he gave his Blood; and it may be fur­ther concluded from the words of S. Lukc, and S. Paul, Lukc. 22. v. 20. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. that he gave his Body during the supper, and his Blood after sup­per, in such sort that there was a considerable interval bet­ween the two actions. Did he then suspend the effect, which his body was to produce, un­till such time as the Apostles had received the Blood? or did they so soon as they had received the Body at the same [Page 4]instant receive also the Grace which accompanied it, that is to say, that of being incor­porated to Jesus Christ, and nourished by his substance? Undoubtedly the later. So that the receiving of the Blood is not necessary for the Grace of the Sacrament, nor for the ground of the Mystery: The sub­stance is there whol and entiere under one sole Species; and nei­ther dos each of the Species, nor both togeather containe other then the same ground of sancti­fication and of Grace.

S. 1. Cor. 11.27. Paul manifestly supposeth this Doctrine when he writes, that Hee who eateth this Bread or drinketh the Chalice of our Lord unworthily, is guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord: From whence he leaveth us to draw this consequence, that if in receiving the one or the [Page 5]other unworthily wee profane them both, in receiving either of the two worthily wee parti­cipate of the Grace of both.

To this there can be no other reply, but by saying, as the Protestants also do, that the disjunctive particle or which the Apostle makes use of in the first part of the Text, hath the force of the conjunctive, and of which he serveth himselfe in the second. This is the only answer M. Exam. de l'Euch. V I. Tr. 7. Sect. p. 483. Jurieux affords to this passage, in the treatise he lately published upon the sub­ject of the Eucharist; and he calls our Argument a ridicu­lous cavill, but without ground. For though he had made it out, that these particles are someti­mes taken the one for the other, yet here, where S. Paul useth them both so manifestly with designe, in placing or in the [Page 6]first part of his discourse, and reserving and for the second, wee must of necessity acknow­ledge, that by so remarkable a distinction he would render us attentive to some important truth; and the truth which he would here teach us is, that if after having taken worthily the consecrated Bread, wee should so forgett the Grace re­ceived, afterwards to take the sacred liquor with a criminall intention, wee should be guil­ly not only of the blood of our Lord but also of his Body. A truth which can have no o­ther ground then what wee lay dowen (viz) that both the one and the other part of this Sacra­ment have the same foundation of Grace, in such a manner as that wee cannot profane one without profaning both; nor al­so receive either of the two de­voutly, [Page 7]without partaking of the sanctity and vertue both of the one and the other.

'Tis also for this reason, that from the beginning of Christianity the faithfull belee­ved, that after what manner soever they communicated, whether under one or both species, the Communion had alwayes the same efficacy of vertue.

§ II. Four authentick Customes to shew the judgement of the Primi­tive Church.

FOUR authentick customes of the Primitive Church demonstrate this Truth. These customs will appeare so cons­tant, and the oppositions made against them so contradictory and vaine, that I dare avouch [Page 8]an expresse acknowledgement of them would not render them more indisputable.

§ 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 [Page 66]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 [Page 67]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 [Page 68]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 [Page 69]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, [Page 70]but in the time of Saint Cy­prian himselfe, as it appeares in his letter to Cecilius, Ep. 63. and before S. Cyprian seing wee fin­de mention in Tertullian of the sacred bread which the faith­full tooke in secret before all other nourishement, Lib. II. ad ux. 5. and in a word before them all because they speake of it as of an esta­blished custome. This conside­ration which alone was the rea­son why they gave the blood only to little children though never so strong in it selfe, would have beene forcelesse against a divine command. It was there­fore most certainly believed that there was not any divine pre­cept of uniting the two species togeather.

M. Hist. Euch. I. p. ch. 12. p. 145. de la Roque would gladly say, though he dare not do it in plain tearmes, that they mi­xed the body with the blood [Page 71]for infants, and imagines, it might be gathered from the words of Saint Cyprian, though there is not one syllable, as wee see, which tends to it. But besides that the discipline of that ti­me did not suffer this mixture, Saint Cyprian speakes only of the blood, It is the blood, says he, that cannot stay in defiled entrals, and the distribution of the sacred Chalice of which alone this infant had partici­pated, is too clearly expressed to leave the least place for that conjecture which M. de la Ro­que would make. Thus the Example is precise: the custo­me of giving the Communion to little children under the spe­cies of wine only cannot be contested, and that doubt which they would raise in the min­de without any ground, shews only the perplexity they are [Page 72]thrown into by the great au­thority of Saint Cyprian and the Church in his time.

Certainly M. Hist. Euch. I. p. ch. 11. p. 136. ch. 12. p. 150. de la Roque would have acted with more sincerity, if he had kept him­selfe to that Idee which first presented it selfe as it were na­turally unto him. The first ti­me he had spoke of this passa­ge of Saint Cyprian, he told us that they powred by force into the mouth of the child some of the sacred Chalice; that is without question some drops of the pre­tious blood pure and without any mixture, just as it was pre­sented to the rest of the peo­ple who had already received the body. And on the other side wee have even now seen that this Minister does not bla­me the Pope Paschalis the II. who, according to him, per­mitted little children to com­municate [Page 73]under the sole spe­cies of wine: so much did his conscience dictate that this pra­ctise had no difficulty, in it.

As for M. du Bourdieu, Du Bourd. I. rép. p. 37. Et repliq. ch. 20. p. 341. this passage of Saint Cyprian had at the first also produced its ef­fect in his minde; And this pas­sage having been objected to him by a Catholique, this Mi­nister easily accorded in his first answer, that in effect nothing had been given to this childe but the consecrated wine alo­ne. He comes of in saying that the antients who beleeved the communion absolutely necessa­ry for little infants, gave it them as they could; that it was for this reason Saint Cyprians Dea­con beleeving this childe would be damned if it dyed without the Eucharist, opened by force its mouth, to poure into it a little wine, and that a case of necessi­ty, [Page 74]a particular case cannot have the name of a custome. What ef­forts are these to elude a thing so cleare! Where are those ex­traordinary reasons this Minis­ter would here imagine to him­selfe? Is there one single word in Saint Cyprian which shewes the danger of this infant as the motive of giving it the Com­munion? Dos it not on the contrary appeare by the who­le discourse, that this blessed Sacrament was given to it on­ly because it was the custome to give it to all children so often as they were brought to the assemblyes? Why will M. du Bourdieu divine that this little girle had never communica­ted? Ch. 20. p. 345. Was she not baptised? Was it not the custome to give the communion togeather with baptisme even to infants? To what purpose is it therefore to [Page 75]speake here of a feare they should have, least she should be damned for not having re­ceived the Eucharist, since they had already given her it in gi­ving her baptisme? Is it that they believed also in the an­tient Church that it did not suffise to the salvation of a child to have communicated once, and that it should be damned if they dit not reitera­te the Communion? What chy­meras do men invent, rather then give place to truth, and confesse their errors with sin­cerity! But to what end do they throw us here upon the question of the necessity of the Eucharist, and upon the errour they would have Saint Cyprian to have been incident to in this point? Grant it were true that this holy Martyr and the Church in his time should [Page 76]have believed the Communion absolutely necessary to infants, what advantage would M. du Bourdieu draw from thence? and who dos not on the con­trary see, that if the two spe­cies be essentiall to Commu­nion, as the Pretended Refor­mers would have it, the more one shall believe the Commu­nion necessary to little chil­dren, the lesse will he be dis­penced with in giving them both these species? M. du Bour­dieu foresaw verry well this consequence so contrary to his pretentions; and in his second reply he would divine, though Saint Cyprian has sayd nothing of it, and against the whole connection of his discourse, that this little girle when she was so cruelly and so miracu­lously tormented after the ta­king of the Blood, had alrea­dy [Page 77]received the Body without receiving any prejudice there­by: where is a man when he makes such answers?

But why do wee dispute any longer? There is no better proofe, nor better interpreter of a custome then the custome it selfe, I would say, that the­re is nothing which demons­trates more that a custome co­mes from the first ages, then when it is seen to continue suc­cessively to the last. This of communicating little children under the sole species of wine, which wee finde established in the III. age, and in the time of Saint Cyprian, continued alwayes so common that it is found in all after ages. It is found in the V. or VI. Jobius de Verb. incar. lib. III. c. 18. Bibl. Phot. Cod. 222. age in the book of Jobius, where that learned Religious speaking of the three Sacraments which [Page 78]were given togeather, in a ti­me when the Christian Reli­gion being established very few others were baptised, no more then at present, but the chil­dren of the faithfull, speakes thus. They baptise us, sayes he, after that they anoint us, that is they confirme us, and lastly they give us the pretious Blood. He makes no mention of the Body, becaus it was not given to children. And for this rea­son he takes great care in the same place to explaine how the Blood may be given even be­fore the Body a thing which having no place in the com­munion of those of riper yea­res, was found only in that which the Faithfull had all of them received in receiving the Blood alone in their infancy. So that this custome has alrea­dy passed from the III. age to [Page 79]the VI. it stops not there, wee finde it even to the last ages, and even at present in the Greeke Church. Allat. Tract. de cons. utr. Eccles. Anno. de Comm. O­rient. Thom. Smith. Ep. de Ecc. Gr. stat. hod. p. 104. 1. ed. Hugo de S. Vict. erudit. Theol. lib. I. c. 10. Bib. PP. Par. de div. Offic. Allatius a Catholick and Thomas Smith an English Protestant Minister each of them relate it equally after a great number of Authors, and the thing it selfe has no diffi­culty.

It is true M. Smith has va­ryed in his second edition. For they were afraid in England to authorise an example which wee make use of to establish communion under one species. M. Smith after having remar­ked in his Preface the advan­tage wee take from it, Praef. 2. edit. init. thinks he can remove it by two or three very feeble testimonyes of moderne Grecians who studyed in England, or who live there, and whose writings are prin­ted in Protestant towns.

The last testimony he alled­ges is that of an Archbishop of Samos whom wee have too much seen in this country, to rely much upon his capacity any more then upon his since­rity. He is at present establis­hed at London; and M. Smith produces us a letter which he writ to him, wherein he sayes, that after the baptisme of in­fants, the Priest holding the Cha­lice where the blood is togeather with the body of our Saviour re­duced into little particles, takes in a little spoon one drop of this blood so mixed, in such sort that some little crums of the consecra­ted bread are found in this spoon, which suffices to make the child participate of the Body of our Lord. M. Smith adds that these crums are so little, that they cannot well be perceived because of their smalnesse, and that they [Page 81]stick to the spoon though never so little dipt into this holy liquor. See here all can be drawn from a Grecian who is entertained at London, and from M. Smith, in favour of the communion under both species given in baptisme to children in the Greeke Church: That is that they gave them the blood in which the body was mixed, with so little of designe to give them the sacred body, that they give them not any part of that which they see swimme in the holy liquor, and which they give to them of riper yeares, as M. Smith himselfe sayes. They con­tent themselves to presume that some insensible particle of the consecrated bread sticks to the spoon of the childe: see what they call communicating them under both species. In truth had not M. Smith done as well [Page 82]to change nothing in his booke; and will not every man of sen­se believe himselfe obliged to stand to that which he said in­genuously in his first edition, so much the rather because he sees it conformable to the an­tient Tradition which wee ha­ve exposed?

And if wee finde the com­munion of little children un­der the sole species of wine in the Greeke Church, wee finde it no lesse amongst the Latins. It is found, according to M. de la Roque in the Decrees of Pope Paschal II. as wee have lately seene, that is to say in the eleventh age. It is found till the XII. age in the same La­tin Church; Hug. de S. Vict. erud. Tb. l. III. cap. 20. and Hugo de Sainto Victore, so much pray­sed by S. Bernard, sayes expres­sely, that the Blessed Sacrament was not given to little infants [Page 83]in baptisme but under the sole species of blood; teaching also afterwards that under each spe­cies the body and blood of Christ were both received.

Wee finde the same doctrine with the same manner of com­municating little children in William de Champeaux Bishop of Châlon, Ex lib. ma­nuscript. qui dicitur Pan­crisis relat. in praef. Saec. 3. Bened. p. 1. num. 75. intimately conver­sant with the same Saint Ber­nard. Father Mabillon Benedi­ctin Monke of the Congrega­tion of Saint Maur, (whose sin­cerity is not to be called in question any more then his ca­pacity) has found in an antient manuscript a long passage of this worthy Bishop, (one of the most famous of his age for piety and learning) where he teaches that he who receives one sole species receives JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire, because (adds he) he is not received neither by little and [Page 84]little, nor by parts, but whole and entire under one or two spe­cies: from whence it eomes that they give the Chalice alone to in­fants newly baptized, because they cannot receive the bread; but they do not therefore lesse receive JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire in the Chalice alone.

The Ministers confounded by these practises found esta­blished without an contradi­ction in all past ages, fly ordi­narily to incident questions, Du Bourd. 1. rép. p. 36. & sec. rép. c. 20.21. to withdraw us from the princi­pall. They exaggerate the abu­se of Communion of little in­fants, (for so they call it against the authority of all ages;) an abuse which they say was foun­ded upon the great and dangerous errour of the absolute necessity of receiving the Eucharist in all ages under paine of eternall damnation, which, according [Page 85]to them, is the error of Saint Cyprian, Saint Augustin, Saint Innocent Pope, Saint Cyril, Saint Chrysostome, Saint Ce­sarius Bishop of Arles, and not only of many of the Fathers, but also of many ages. Oh holy an­tiquity, and Church of the first ages too boldly condem­ned by Ministers, without rea­ping from thence any thing but the pleasure to have made their people believe that the Church could fall into errour even in the purest times! For as to the substance what avai­les this controversy to our sub­ject? The antient Church be­lieved the Eucharist necessary for little infants? Wee have all­ready demonstrated that, sup­posing the two species to have been of the essence of this Sa­crament, that belife would ha­ve been a new motive to give [Page 86]it them under both. Why there­fore give they it them but un­der one? and what can these Ministers say here, if not to answer us, that the antient Church added to the errour of believing that the commu­nion was absolutely necessary to salvation, that of beleving the communion to have its en­tire effect under one sole spe­cies, and that by making an antiquity so pure to erre, they be willing to shew themselves visibly in an error.

Wee have, God be praysed, a doctrine which obliges us not to cast our selves into such ex­cesses. I could very easily expli­cate how the Grace of that Sa­crament of the Eucharist is in effect necessary to all the faith­full; how the Eucharist and its grace is virtually contained in Baptisme; which produces in [Page 87]the faithfull that sacred right which they there receive to the body and Blood of our Lord, and how it belongs to the Church to regulate the ti­me of exercising this right. I might also shew upon these grounds that if some one, as for example that William Bis­hop of Châlons quoted so faith­fully by Father Mabillon seeme to have beleeved the necessity of the Eucharist, yet 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 [Page 88]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 [Page 89]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 [Page 90]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 [Page 91]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 [Page 92]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. [Page 93]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 [Page 94]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 [Page 95]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. [Page 96]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 mouth, that is to say of con­secrated Bread, and this is that which they had the liberty to reserve, as the same Father ex­presses: to which he adds, that it is indifferent to receive in the hand one or many morcells, ma­king use of a word which can constantly signify no other but a parcelle or portion of some sollid thing; and this makes [Page 97]Aubertin also understand it on­ly of the sacred Bread. Aub. lib. 11. p. 442. And although Saint Basil makes it cleare aswell by these tearmes, as by the whole connection of his discourse, that the faithfull in these occasions tooke and reserved the body only, yet he concludes that their commu­nion was no lesse holy nor lesse perfect in their houses then in the Church. I. Part. c. 14. p. 173. Hier. ad Param. He sayes also that this custome was universall throug­hout Egypt even to Alexan­dria. M. de la Roque conclu­des very well from a passage of S. Hierome, that it was al­so at Rome, where without going alwayes to the Church, the Faithfull received every day the Body of our Lord at home; to which this Father adds: Is it not the same JESUS-CHRIST which wee receive in the house and in the Church? To shew [Page 98]that one of these communions is no lesse entire nor lesse per­fect then the other. The same M. Hist. Euch. I. part. c. 15. p. 176. de la Roque grants that the Christians of the first ages sent the Eucharist one to ano­ther in token of communion, as in effect it appeares by a let­ter of Saint Ireneus that it was sent from Rome even to Asia, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. V. c. 24. and moreover that they car­ryed it with them in their voya­ges by sea, Hist. Euch. I. p. ch. 14. p. 174. and by land: which confirmes the use of that spe­cies which alone could be car­ryed, and which alone could be conserved so long time in­so little quantity. Witnesse Sa­tyrus brother to Saint Ambro­se, Amb. de ob. frat. Sat. T. 4. who, as this Saint relates, though only a Catechumen, ob­tained of the faithfull by the fervour of his faith this divine Sacrament, wrapped it in a lin­nen cloth, and having tyed it [Page 99]about his neek, threw himselfe in­to the sea with this pretious pledge, by which he was also saved. I need not mention the other passages where this cus­tome is established, I. Part. c. 12. p. 159. c. 14. p. 172. & seq. seing M. de la Roque acknowledges it and dispenses with us as to the proo­fe of it. Joan. Mosch. Prat. Spir. T. XIII. Bib. PP. p. 1089. Wee finde even in the passages which he quotes in what manner the holy obla­tion was carryed, and it appea­res that it was in a little cof­fer, or in a verry clean linning. He findes some foot stepps of this custome in the time of Saint Hormisdas Pope, that is in the beginning of VI. age; and it is true that under this Pope a false reporte of a per­secution being spread abroad in Thessalonia, Inter Ep. Horm. Papae, post ep. 62. Sugg. Germ. &c. & post Ep. 67. Ind. Joan. Episc. T. V. Conc. the Eucharist was distributed to all the faith­full by baskets full for a long ti­me. Those who distributed it [Page 100]are not blamed for giving it in this manner, but for having malitiously frightned the peo­ple by the rumor of an imagi­nary persecution.

In short wee must not looke upon this manner of commu­nicating at home as an abuse, under pretence that this practi­ce was not continued: for in matters of discipline only, as this is, the Church has reasons to forbid at one time, what she permits at another. It is in the time of persecutions, that is in the most holy times, that these customes have been for the most part in practise, so the Communion under one species is authorised by the constant practise of the best of times, and by the exemple of all the Martyrs. It is moreover certain that at this time they communicated oftner under the [Page 101]sole species of bread, then under both species, seing it was an establissed custome to com­municate every day in their houses under that species only, whereas they could not receive both species but in Church as­semblyes, which Were not so frequent; and no body ever suspected, during so many ages, that either of these wayes of communicating was defective or more imperfect then the other. Those who know, with how much respect they treated holy things in these dayes, will not finde it an irreverence to put the Communion into the hands of the faithfull, no mo­re then to permit them to carry it to their particular houses, where it is certain, to our sha­me, that there was more vene­ration then there is at present in our Churches.

Wee know likewise the ex­treame care Christians tooke to keepe this pretious depositum of the body of our Lord, and above all to hide it from pro­fane hands. Wee see in the acts of the Martyrs of Nicomedia that when the Magistrates vi­sited the chamber where S. Dom­na lived with the Eunuch Indes who served her, Act Mart. Nicom. ap. Bar. an. 293. they found only a Crosse, the booke of the Acts of the Apostles, two matts spread upon the bare ground, which were the beds of these Martyrs, an ear­then censer, a lampe, a little box of wood where they placed the holy Oblation they received. They found not the holy Oblation which they had been carefull to consum­mate. It belongs to the Protes­tants to tell us what these Mar­tyrs did with this Crosse and this censer. Catholicks are not in paine about them, and they [Page 103]are over joyd to see amongst the utensils of these Saints, to­geather with the simplicity of the primitive times, the mar­kes of their religion, and of the honour they rendred to the Eucharist. But that which makes for our purpose is that wee manifestly see in this his­tory how the Eucharist was kept, and what care they too­ke not to let it fall into the hands of infidels. God himsel­fe assisted some times, and the Acts of Saint Tharsicius an A­colyte shew that this holy Mar­tyr being met by Pagans whilst he carryed the Sacraments of the Body of our Lord, would never discover what he carryed, and was killed with sticks and stones; after which these infidells sear­ching him they neither found in his hands, nor in his cloaths any parcells of the Sacraments of [Page 104]JESUS-CHRIST, God him­selfe having provided for the safely of these heavenly guifts. Those who are acquainted with the stile of these times, ac­knowledge it in these acts, where it is spoke of the Sa­crament of JESUS-CHRIST, and of the Sacraments of his Body. They made use of this word Sacrament indifferently either in the plurall or singu­lar number in speaking of the Eucharist, sometimes to expres­se the perfect unity, and so­metime to make it appeare that there was in one sole Sacra­ment and in one sole mystery (for these tearmes are equi­volent) yea and in each par­ticle of this adorable Sacra­ment, many Sacraments and many mysteryes together.

This keeping of the Eucha­rist under the sole species of [Page 105]bread in particular houses, con­firmes what ought to be belee­ved of the keeping of it in the Church, or the Bishops houses for the use of the sick; and such practises which sus­taine one another so well put the doctrine of the Church out of all dispute.

All that the Ministers answer hereto, serves only to disco­ver their incumbrance.

They all accuse (with one accord) this custome of pro­fanation and abuse even after they had established it as uni­versall for many ages, Hist. Euch. I. P. ch. 11. pag. 159. ch. 14. p. 175. Bourd. rep. ch. 19. and what is yet more strange during the purest times of Christianity. This answer refutes it selfe; and it will be an easy matter to grant it, seeing the whole consists in this to know whe­ther all the Martyrs were pro­fane persons, or whether the [Page 106]Ministers who accuse them be not temerarious.

Calixtus and M. Calixt. n. 11. Bourd. rép. ch. 19. Conc. Caesar­aug. C. III. Conc. Tol. I. C. XIV. T. II. Conc. du Bour­dieu who exactely followes him mention two Canons of the Church of Spain, one of the Council of Saragoza, and the other of the first Council of Toledo, where those who do not swallow the Eucharist received from the hands of the Bishop are expelled as sacrilegious and ex­communicated persons.

M. Hist. Euch. I. P. ch. 14. p. 174. de la Roque answers them that he dos not beleeve this Ca­non of Saragoza was made to abolish the custome of carry­ing away the Eucharist and keeping of it. And he sayes the same afterwards of the first Council of Toledo; which he proves from the eleaventh Ca­non of the eleventh Council held at the same place. Conc. Tol. XI. C. XI. T. VI. Conc.

And though the opinions of [Page 107]M. de la Roque were not to be relyed upon, it is sufficiently cleare that these two Councils held in the IV. age or there about, could not have detested as a sacrilege a custom which all the Fathers shew us to have been common in those times, as wee have proved by the ac­knowledgement even of the Ministers themselves.

In fine these Councils spea­ke not of those who receiving in the Church a part of the consecrated bread reserve ano­ther part for domestick com­munion; but of those who re­ceiving the communion from the hands of the Bishop swal­low none at all of it. Behold what these Councils forbid and it is not difficult to guesse at the motives of this their pro­hibition, seeing the I. Coun­cil of Toledo (which in the [Page 108]XIII. Canon so severely bla­mes those who affected in as­sisting at the Church never to com­municate there;) when it condem­nes in the following Canon, as sacrilegious persons those who swallow not the communion after they have received it from the hand of the Priest, makes it known sufficiently by this con­nection that its intention was to condemne another manner of avoiding the communion so much the worse because it shewed either a sacrilegious hi­pocricy or too visible an aver­sion to this holy mystery.

These unfortunate people who so obstinately avoided the com­munion were the Priscillianis­tes, hereticks of those times and places, who mixed them­selves ordinarily with the faith­full. But if they will not grant this to have been the motive [Page 109]of that Canon, they cannot at least deny but there are other evill motives not to swallow the Eucharist which might be condemned in these Councils. A man may refraine from the Eucharist out of superstition, he may reserve it to abuse it, he may reject it out of infide­lity; and the XI. Council of Toledo informes us that it was such a sacrilege which the first condemned. These or the like abuses taken notice on in certain places might have gi­ven occasion to local prohibi­tions, which brought no pre­judice to the customes of other countryes: and it is certain mo­reover that what is practised in one place as well as in one ti­me with reverence, may be so badly practised in another time and place, that it shall be re­jected as sacrilegious. There­fore [Page 110]in what manner soever a man will take these Canons, they do not in any sort autho­rise the errour, of them who would make the practises of the holy Martyrs and of the whole antient Church passe for an abuse, and who can fin­de no other answer to an in­vincible argument but in con­demning their proceedings.

M. du Bourdieu endeavours to come of by an other evasion no lesse impertinent. He would have it be beleeved that the faithfull communicated under both species in these domes­tick communions and reserved them both: Rep. ch. 18. for which he brings after Calixtus four testimonyes, Just. apol. 2. that of Saint Justinus who sayes that after consecration in the Church the Deacons carryed the two species to them that were absent; That of S. Gre­gory [Page 111]the great, Greg. Dial. III. c. 136. who relates that in a voyage from Rome to Con­stantinople and in a great tem­pest the faithfull received the Body and the Blood; that of Am­philochius, who tells us in the life of S. I. vit. Basile that a Jew jay­ning himselfe to the faithfull in their assembly, carryed away to is house some of the remain­ders of the Body and Blood; and lastly that of Saint Gregory of Nazianzen who relates of his sister Saint Gorgonia that she mixed with her teares what she had gathered of the species or symboles of the Body and Blood, Naz. he ought to have translated it of the Body or the Blood, as it is in the text and not of the Body and the Blood as he has done thereby to insinuate that both the one and the other were reserved togeather.

Of these four examples the [Page 112]two first are manifestly no­thing to our subject.

Wee have already remarked with M. de la Roque that in the example of Saint Justinus the two species tis true were carryed, but presently after they had been consecrated, by which it dos not appeare that they kept them, which is precisely our question.

To shew that in the passage mentioned by Saint Gregory the faithfull had kept the two species in their vesselle from Rome to Constantinople, it ought before to have been cer­tain that there was no Priest in this vesselle who could cele­brate, or that Maximian of whom Saint Gregory speakes in this place, was none, though he was the Superieur of a Mo­nastery. This great Pope sayes nothing of these circumstan­ces, [Page 113]and leaves us the liberty to supply them by other rea­sons, of which the principall is drawn from that impossibi­lity already so often remarked of keeping so little quantity of consecrated wine so long a time.

What M. du Bourdieu sayes here that they durst not have celebrated in a ship showes that he searches only to cavil, without so much as conside­ring that even at present wee celebrate in all sort of places when there is a reason for it.

So that of these four exam­ples behold two of them al­ready uselesse. The two others, with the passages of Baronius and the learned Aubespinus Bishop of Orleans with which they defend them, may verry well prove that the blood was not refused to the faithfull to [Page 114]carry with them if they requi­red it (for upon what account should they also refuse it, and beleeve that the Sacred Body with which they trusted them was more pretious then the Blood?) but can never prove that they could keepe it any long time, since that nature it selfe opposed it, nor that it was the custome to do it, the Church being so well persua­ded the communion was e­quall under one or both spe­cies, that the least difficulty made them determine to give it either in the one or the other kind. Wee see also in that passage of Saint Gregory of Nazianzen that the dos not say that his sister watered the Body and the Blood with her teares, as if it had been certain she had the one and the other, but the Body or the Blood, to shew [Page 115]that he did not know which of the two she had in her kee­ping it being ordinary to re­serve the body only.

What serves it therefore to ca­vil as a constant practise? Truth ought alwayes at the last to co­me to light? And M. de la Ro­que, he who of all the Minis­ters has examined this matter with most exactnesse, ingenious­ly confesses that the faithfull car­ryed home the bread of the Eucha­rist to take it when they would, Hist. Euch. I. P. ch. 12. p. 159. sa­ving himselfe as well as he can from the consequence by the re­marke he makes that this abu­sive and particular custome can­not prejudice the general pra­ctise, and that even those who carryed the Eucharist home dit not probably do it till after they had eaten a part in the assem­bly, and participated of the Chalice of our Lord.

Calixtus brings himselfe of with the same answer almost. Disp. num. 10. At the beginning of the trea­tise he has given us about com­munion in both kinds he had candidly owned that some re­served the sacred bread to eat it either in their houses or on a journey; and after having re­lated many passages, amongst others that of S. Basil which suffers no evasion, he had con­cluded, that it was certain from these passages that some moved by a religious affection towards the Eucharist, carryed away with them a part of the consecrated bread or of the holy symbole. There is no body who rea­ding these passages even in Calixtus himselfe dos not see that these whom he cals so sly­ly some, are the whole Church: and when he adds that this cus­tome was tolerated some time, [Page 117]this which he cals some time, is as much as to say four or fi­ve hundred yeares, and that in the time of the greatest pu­rity; and this which he cals tolerated is no other then uni­versally received in these beau­tifull ages of the Church, no body ever attempting either to blame them, or to say that this communion was unsuffi­cient.

In the sequel of his dispute Calixtus chafes, and labours to prove by the examples al­ready refuted, that this com­munion might be made under the two species. But he retur­nes at last to the solution which he at first had given, that the faithfull, who com­municated under the sole spe­cies of bread in their houses had received the species of wine in the Church, and that [Page 118]there is no example that they ever communicated publickly un­der one species for a thousand or cleaven hundred yeares. As if it did not suffice to convince him that communion under one species had been declared per­fect and sufficient; or that it was permitted to communica­te contrary to the order of JESUS-CHRIST, and to di­vide his mystery in the house rather then in the Church; or lastly that this parcelle of sa­cred Bread which was taken in private in the house was not given at the Church it sel­fe, and by the hands of the Pastors for that use.

Behold the vaine Cavills by which these Ministers think to elude a manifest truth: but I will not leave them in their errour as to publick commu­nion; and although it suffise [Page 119]to have for us this commu­nion taken in private with the approbation of the whole Church, wee shall presently se, that communion under one species was no lesse free in solemne assemblyes then in the house.

§ V. Fourth Custome.
Communion at the Church and in the ordinary Office.

I Place therefore as the fourth practise, that in the Church it selfe and in the assemblyes of Christians it was free for them to receive either both species or one only. The Ma­nicheans abhorred wine which they beleeved was created by the Devill. The same Mani­cheans denyed that the son of [Page 120]God had shed his Blood for our redemption, beleeving that his Passion was nothing but an illusion and a phantastical appearence. These two reasons gave an aversion from the pre­tious Blood of our Lord which was received in the Mysteryes under the species of wine: And as, to hide themselves the bet­ter, sayes Saint Leo, and to spread more easily their venom, they mixed themselves with Ca­tholicks even to communicate with them, so they received the Body of our Lord only, avoiding to drink the Blood by which wee were redeemed. This fraudulent proceeding of theirs could hardly be discovered because Catholicks themselves did not all of them communicate un­der both species. At the last it was taken notice of that these Hereticks dit it out of affe­ctation: [Page 121]in so much that the Holy Pope S. Leo the Great would that those who were known as such by this marke, should be expelled the Church; and Saint Gelasius his disciple and suc­cessour was obliged to forbid expressely to communiacte any other wayes then under both species: a signe that the thing was free before, and that they would not have thought of making this ordinance, but to take from the Manicheans the meanes of deceiving.

This practise is of the V. I. Part. ch. 11. p. 144. age. M. de la Roque and others relate it togeather with the jud­gement of these two Popes, and take their advantage from it. But on the contrary this pra­ctise shews clearly that there was need of a particular rea­son to oblige the faithfull to a necessity of communicating [Page 122]under both species, and that the thing was indifferently pra­ctised both wayes before: o­therwise the Manicheans would immediately have too much exposed themselves, and could not have expected to be suffe­red.

But if it had been freely per­mitted, say the Ministers, to communicate under the sole species of bread when they would, the Manicheans could not have been distinguished by this marke: as if there were no difference betwixt a liberty to receive one or both species, and a perpetuall affectation of these Hereticks obstinately to refuse the consecrated wine. What an effect of prejudice is this not to observe wilfully a thing so manifest!

Tis true that this liberty being allowed, there must ha­ve [Page 123]been time and a particular vigilance to discerne these he­reticks from amongst the faith­full. And this was also the rea­son of the long continuance of their deceit, and that which caused a necessity at last, in the time of Saint Gelasius, of ma­king an expresse ordre to ta­ke equally the body and the blood, under paine of being deprived of them both.

M. Ibid. p. 283. du Bourdieu conceales here from us with a great dea­le of artifice the motive indu­cing this Pope to make that prohibition. See here the words of the Decree. Qui procul­dubio (quo­niam nescio qua supersti­tione docentur adstringi) aut integra Sacra­menta perci­piant, aut ab integra ar­ceantur. Gel. ibid. Wee have disco­vered that some persons in ta­king the sacred Body only, ab­staine from the holy Chalice, which persons truly, (because they see­me to adhere to I know not what superstition) let them either ta­ke the Sacrament under both spe­cies, [Page 124]or let them be entirely de­prived of the one and the other. This particle because of Pope Galasius, which shews mani­festly that the superstitious ab­stinence of these Hereticks was the particular reason why he obliged them to both species, is left out by this Minister; for se what he makes this Po­pe say: I know not what super­stition they are addicted to: ei­ther let them receive the entire Sacraments, or let them be de­prived of the entire Sacraments.

He durst not let that parti­cle appeare in his translation by which this Pope shews ex­pressely that his prohibition had a particular motive, for feare it might be too easily concluded against him, that there was nothing in it selfe more free then to communica­te without receiving the Blood, [Page 125]since that there was need of reasons and a particular occa­sion to oblige the doing of it.

There is likewise another crafty artifice, but verry feeble in the translation of this Mi­nister. For insteed of what the Pope sayes (as I have above translated it) Which persons tru­ly, Nescioqua su­perstitione de­centur adstrin­gi. becanse they seme to adhere to I know not what superstition, that is to say indefinitely, as is ma­nifest, to some certain supersti­tion, which he will not vouch­safe to expresse; Du Bourd. ibid. p. 283. this Minister makes him say both precisely and more strongly: I know not what superstition they are addi­cted to, to the end he might conclude a little after that this did not concerne the Mani­cheans, whose errours, sayes he, this learned Bishop was not igno­rant of, nor of those which were in vogue in his time.

Calixtus had endeavoured be­fore him to distinguish the pra­ctise of Hereticks mentioned by Saint Leo from this prohi­bited by Saint Gelasius, there­by to hinder any one from be­leeving that the Decree of this last Pope in favour of the two species was to be regarded as in relation to the errors of the Manicheans. What dos this pittifull refuge availe him? Seeing that it appeares clearly by the tearms of this Decree, that it had a particular moti­ve, what dos it import us whe­ther it were the Manicheans er­rour, or some other such like superstition? And is not this alwayes sufficient to let us see, (take it which way you will) that it was necessary the Church should have some particular reasons to oblige them to both species?

But as to the whole it can­not be doubted but this super­stition of which Saint Gela­sius speakes here was that of the Manicheans, seing that Anastasius the Bibliothecarian sayes expressely in the life of this Pope, Vit. Gel. T. IV. Conc. that he discovered the Manicheans at Rome, that he sent them into exile, and that he caused their books to be burnt before the Saint Marys Church. Wee do not in effect see what other superstition besides that of the Manicheans could have inspired a horror to wine and that of the Blood of our Lord. On the other side it is mani­fest that these Hereticks had unheard of artifices to insinua­te themselves secretly amongst the faithfull, and that there was in their prodigious discourses such an efficacy of errour, that it was a most difficult thing to [Page 128]efface wholy those impressions they left in the minde. None therefore can doubt but that these superstitious people of whom Saint Gelasius speakes, were the hidden remainders of those Manicheans that Saint Leo his predecessor had disco­vered thirty or forty yeares be­fore; and whereat Saint Gela­sius has said they are addicted to I know not what superstition, it is not that he did know verry well their errours, but he spea­kes this out of contempt, or rather, because this obscure sect changed it selfe into a thousand shapes, so that what remained of this poison was not alwayes known, or it was not alwayes thought conve­nient to explicate it to the people.

But behold the last refuge of these Ministers. They main­taine [Page 129]wee are in the wrong in searching a particular rea­son of the Ordinance of Saint Gelasius, since he establishes it manifestly upon the nature of the Mystery. Let us once more therefore relate the words of this Pope already cited, and let us add thereto their whole consequence. Wee have disco­vered, sayes he, that some per­sons take only the sacred Body, and abstaine from the sacred Blood, which persons truly (be­cause they seeme to adhere to I know not what superstition) let them take both parts or let them be deprived of both, because the division of one and the same mys­tery cannot be done without a great sacrilege.

To understand aright the consequence of these words, wee finde that the division which he accuses of sacrilege [Page 130]was that same grounded upon the above mentioned supersti­tion where the Blood of our Lord consecrated under the species of wine was regarded as an object of aversion. In­deed it is a deviding of the mystery to beleeve that there is one part of it which JESUS-CHRIST did not institute, and which ought to be rejected as abominable. But to beleeve that JESUS-CHRIST has e­qually instituted both parts, and not withstanding to take but one, not out of contempt to the other (God forbid) but because wee beleeve that the vertue of both is received in either, and that in them both there is but one sole fondation of Grace: if this be to divi­de the mystery, the primitive Church dividid it when they communicated the sick, little [Page 131]children, and generally all the faithfull in their houses under one sole species. But as wee cannot have such an opinion of the antient Church wee must of necessity avouch that to di­vide this mystery some thing more must be beleeved and practised then that which is beleeved and practised by all Catholicks.

§ VI. The Masse of Holy Fryday, and that of the Presanctifyed.

THE antient Church was so far from beleeving that to give this Mystery under one sole species was to divide it, that she had certain solemne dayes in which she distributed nothing but the sacred Body of our Lord in the Church, and to all the assistants. Such [Page 132]was the Office of Good Fry­day in the Latin Church; and such was the Office of the Greeke Church every day in Lent, except Saturday and Sun­day.

To begin with the Latin Church, wee finde in the Ordo Romanus, Bib. PP. Var. T. de div. Off. in Alcuinus, or in that antient author whose ex­plication of that booke wee have under his name, in Ama­larius, in Abbot Rupert, in Hugo de Sainto Victore what wee practise even to this very day, that they dit not conse­crate upon Good Fryday, but that they reserved for com­munion the Body of our Lord consecrated the day before, and that they received it upon Good Fryday in unconsecrated wine. It is expressely remar­ked in all these places that the Body only was reserved without [Page 133]reserving the Blood, the reason of which is (sayes Hugo de Sainto Victore,) Hug. de S. Vict. erud. Theol. l. III. c. 20. that the Body and the Blood are received un­der each species, and that the species of wine cannot be kept with security. This last reason wee finde in one of the editions of Amalarius, which is no lesse his then the others, this Author ha­ving frequently reviewd his book, severall of which, so re­viewed, have been preserved to our dayes. Such was like­wise the practise of Jonas Bis­hop of Orleans, and of many other Authors; and without troubling our selves with these criticismes, the matter of fact is that Amalarius after divers mysticall reasons which he brings for this custome accor­ding to the example of other Authors, concludes that it may be said yet more sincerely that [Page 134]the consecrated wine is not reser­ved, because it is more subject to alteration then the bread. Which confirmes in short all what wee have shown too­ching the communion of the sick under the sole species of bread, and shews verry vell that the Eucharist which was constantly kept for them du­ring many dayes according to the spirit of the Church, could not be kept for them under the species of wine, since they feare even that change which might, happen to it from one day to the next, that is from Thursday to Good Fryday.

I might here take notice that the Church endeavours not on­ly to avoid the corruption of the species which change the nature, and the necessary mat­ter of the Sacrament, but also every change which makes the [Page 135]least alteration in them, being desirous out of respect to this Sacrament, that all there should be pure and propper, and that the least even sensible disrelish should not be suffered in a Mys­tery where JESUS-CHRIST was to be the banquet. But these remarkes being little ne­cessary to our subject are for another place; and it suffises us to see here, that they reser­ved at that time, as wee do to this verry day do, nothing but the sacred Body for the servi­ce upon Good Fryday.

Neverthelesse it is certain by all the Authors and by all the passages wee have lately quo­ted, that the Priest, the who­le Clergy, and all the people communicated this holy day, and by consequence commu­nicated under one species on­ly. This custome appeares prin­cipally [Page 136]in the Gallican Church, since most of these Authors we­re of it, so that it ought to finde a particular veneration amongst us: but it would be too visable in abusing ones sel­fe to say, that a custome so firmely established in the VIII. age had no higher a begin­ning. Wee finde not the origi­nall; wherefore if that opinion, which beleeves communion under one species to be sacri­legious, should be admitted, wee must say that the primiti­ve Church had purposely ma­de choyce of Good Fryday, the day of our Blessed Saviours death, on which she might profane a Mystery instituted in memory of it. They commu­nicated after the same manner upon Easter Eve seeing that on the one side it is certain by all Authors that Good Fry­day [Page 137]and Easter Eve were dayes of communion for all the peo­ple, and on the other side it is no lesse constant that they did not Sacrifise during these two dayes; A thing which oc­casions that even at this day wee have no proper Masse in our Missel for Easter Eve. So that they communicated un­der the sole species of Bread kept from Holy Thursday; and if wee will believe our Refor­mers they prepared themsel­ves for a Paschal communion by two sacrilegious ones.

The Monks of Clugny, as holy as they were, did no bet­ter then others; and the book of their customs, once alrea­dy cited in this discourse, showes that six hundred yea­res since, they did not com­municate at that holy time but under one sole species.

These practises let us see suf­ficiently the universall custome of the Latine Church. But the Greeks go yet further: They do not consecrate upon fasting dayes to the end they may not mixe the joy and solemnity of the Sacrifice with the sorrow­fulnesse of a fast. From when­ce it is that in the time of Lent they do not consecrate but upon Sundayes, and on Saturdayes upon which they fast not. Upon other dayes they offer the Sacrament reser­ved on those two solemne dayes, which they call the im­perfect Masse, or the Masse of the Presanctified, because the Eucharist which they offer in these dayes had been conse­crated and sanctifyed in the two precedent dayes, and in the Masse they call perfect.

The antiquity of this obser­vance [Page 139]cannot be contested, being it appeares in the VI. age in the Councile in Trullo: Conc. Trull. c. 52. where wee see the fondation of it from the IV. age in the Council of Laodicea, Conc. Laod. c. 49.91. and the­re is nothing more remarka­ble amongst the Greeks then this Masse of the Presanctified.

If wee would at present know what it is they offerd there, wee have no more to do then to read in their Euchologes and in Bibliotheca Patrum the antient Liturgies of the Pre­sanctified; Euch. Goat. Bibl. PP. Paris. T. II and wee shall there see that they reserved nothing but the sacred Bread: It is the sacred Bread which they car­ry from the Sacristy, it is the sacred Bread which they ele­vate, which they adore, and which they incense, it is the sacred Bread which they mix without saying any prayer with [Page 140]unconsecrated wine and water, and which in fine they distri­bute to the people. In so much that all the Lent, that most holy time of the yeare, they com­municated five dayes of the weeke under the sole species of Bread.

I know not why some of the Latins have undertaken to bla­me this custome of the Greeks which neither the Popes nor Councils ever reprehended; and on the contrary the Latin Church having followed this custome upon Good Fryday, it is manifest that this Office, with the manner of commu­nicating practised in it, is con­secrated by the tradition of both Churches.

What is here most remarka­ble is that though it be so ap­parent that the Greeks recei­ve not any thing upon these [Page 141]dayes but the Body of our Lord, yet they change nothin in their ordinary formularyes. The sa­cred guifts are allwayes named in the plurall, and they speake no lesse there in their prayers of the Body and the Blood: so stedfastly is it imprinted in the minds of Christians that they cannot receive one of the spe­cies without receiving at the same time not only the vertue, but the substance also both of the one and the other.

It is true the moderne Greeks explane thēselves other wayes, and appeare not, for the most part, very favourable to com­munion under one species: but it is in this the force of truth appeares the greater, since that in despite of them, their own customes, their own Liturgies, their own Traditions pronoun­ce sentence against them.

But is it not true will some say that they put some drops of the pretious Blood in for­me of a Crosse upon the par­cells of the sacred Body which they reserve for the following dayes, and for the Office of Presanctified? It is true they do it for the most part; but it is true at the same time, that this custome is new amongst them, and that in the substan­ce to examin it entirely, it con­cludes nothing against us.

It concludes nothing against us, because, besides that two or three drops of consecrated wine cannot be preserved any long time, the Greekes take care, immediately after they have dropped them upon the consecrated bread, to dry it upon a chafendish and to re­duce it to powder, for it is in that manner they keep it [Page 143]as well for the sick as for the Office of the Presanctified: A certain signe that the authors of this Tradition had not in prospect by this mixture the Communion under both spe­cies, which they would have given in another manner if they had beleeved them neces­sary; but indeed the expres­sion of some mystery, such as might be the Resurrection of our Lord, which all Liturgyes both Greeke and Latin figured by the mixture of the Body and the Blood in the Chalice, because the death of our Lord arriving by the effusion of his Blood, this mixture of his Body and his Blood is very proper to represent how this man-God tooke life again.

I should be ashamed to men­tion here all the vaine subtili­tyes of the modern Greeks, and [Page 144]the false arguments they make about the wine, and about its more grosse and more substan­tiall parts, which remain after the sollid bodyes with which wine may be mixed bacome dryed: from whence they con­clude that a like effect is pro­duced in the species of conse­crated wine, and therefore that the Blood of our Lord may re­main in the sacred Bread even after it has been upon the cha­fendish, and is entirely drye. By these wise reasonings the Lees and the Tartar orsalt would still be wine and a law­full matter for the Eucharist. Must wee thus argued concer­ning the mysteryes of JESUS-CHRIST? It was wine, as pro­perly called so, that is a li­quid and flowing wine which JESUS-CHRIST instituted for the matter of his Sacrament. [Page 145]It is a liquor which he has gi­ven us to represent to our eyes his Blood which was shedd; and the simplicity of the Gospell will not suffer the­se subtilityes of the modern Grecians.

It must also be acknowledged they arrived to this but of ve­ry late, and moreover that the custome of putting these drops of consecrated Wine upon the Bread of the Eucharist was not established amongst them but since their schisme. The Patriarch Michael Cerularius, who may be called the true author of this schisme, writes notwithstanding in a booke which he composed in defen­ce of the Office of the Presan­ctified, That the sacred Breads, Synodic. seu Pand. Guill. Bevereg. Oxon. 1672. Not. in Can. 52. Conc. which are beleeved to be, and which are in effect, the quickning Body of our Lord must be kept [Page 146]for this sacrifice, Trull. T. II. p. 156. Leo All. Ep. ad Nihus. without sprin­cling one drop of the pretious Blood upon them. And wee fin­de notes upon the Councils by a famous Canonist who was one of the Clergy belonging to the Church of Constanti­nople, in which he expressely takes notice, that according to the doctrine of Blessed John (Patriarch of Constantinople) The pretious Blood must not be sprincled upon the Presanctified which they would reserve, Harmenop. Ep. Can. sect. 2. Tit. 6. and this, said he, is the practise of our Church. So that, let the modern Grecians say what they please, their tradition is expressly a­gainst this mixture; and accor­ding to their own authors, and their own proper tradition the­re remains not so much as a pre­tense to defend the necessity of the two species in the Presan­ctified mysteries.

For can any one so much as conceive what Patriarch Mi­chael in the worke by us new­ly cited sayes, That the wine in which they mix the Body re­served, is changed into the pre­tious Blood by this mixing, with­out so much as prononcing upon the wine, as appeares by the Euchologes, and by Mi­chaels own confession, any one of the mystick and sanctifying prayers, that is to say without prononcing the words of con­secration, bee they what they will (for it is not to our purpose to dispute here of them:) A pro­digious and unheard of opi­nion; that a Sacrament can be made without words, contrary to the authority of the Scriptu­re, and the constant tradition of all Churches, which neither the Grecians nor any body else ever called in question.

By how much therefore wee ought to reverence the antient traditions of the Grecians, which descend to them from their fathers, and from those times whilst they were united to us; by so much ought wee to dispise those errours into which they are falne in the following ages, weakned and blinded by schisme. I need not here relate them, because the Protestants themselves do nor deny but that they are great, and I should recede too far from my subject: But I will only say, to do justice to the modern Grecians, that they do not all hold this grosse opi­nion of Michaels, and that it is not an universall opinion amongst them that the wine is changed into the Blood by this mixture of the Body not­withstanding that Scripture [Page 149]and Tradition assigne a parti­cular benediction by words as well to it as to the Body.

Wee are much lesse to be­leeve that the Latins who ex­posed to us but even now the Office of Good Fryday could be fallen into this er­rour, since they explicate them­selves quite contrary in ex­presse words; and to the end wee may omit nothing, wee must again in few words pro­pose their sentiments.

It is true then that wee fin­de in the Ordo Romanus and in this Office of Good Fryday that the unconsecrated wine is sanctifyed by the sanctifyed bread which is mixed with it. The same is found in the bookes of Alcuinus and Amalarius upon the Divine Office. Alc. de Div. Off. Amal. lib. r. de Div. Off. Bib. PP. de Div. Off. But upon the least reflection made of the doctrine they teach in these [Page 150]same bookes, it will be gran­ted, that this sanctification of the unconsecrated Wine by the mixture of the Body of our Lord, cannot be that true con­secration, by which the wine is changed into the Blood; but a sanctification of another na­ture, and of a much inferiour order: such as that is of which Saint Bernard speakes when he sayes that the Wine mixed with the consecrated Hoste, Bern. Ep. 69. p. 92. al­though it be not consecrated by that solemn and particular con­secration which changes it into the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST, becomes notwithstanding sacred by tooching the sacred Body of our Lord, yet of a quite diffe­rent manner from that conse­cration which, according to this Saint, is made by the words taken out of the Gos­pel.

That it is of this imperfect and inferiour sort of consecra­tion which these Authors wee explicate do here speake, will be acknowledged an undenia­ble truth, if wee finde that these Authors, and in the sa­mes places, say there cannot be made a true consecration of the Blood of our Lord but by words, and by the words even of JESUS-CHRIST him­selfe.

Alcuinus is expresse herein, when explicating the Canon of the Masse as wee have it to this day when he comes to the place where wee prononce the sacramentall words which are those of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe, This is my Body, this is my Blood, he sayes, these are the words by which they consecrated the Bread and the Chalice in the beginning, by which they [Page 152]are consecrated at present, and by which they shall be consecra­ted eternally, because JESUS-CHRIST prononcing again his own words by the Priests renders his holy Body and his sacred Blood present by a celestiall bc­nediction. Amal. l. III. 24. ibid. And Amalarius, upon the same part of the Canon sayes no lesse clearly, that it is in this place and by the pronunciation of these words, that the nature of the Bread and Wine is changed into the nature of the Body and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST; Lib. I. 12. and he had said before in particular concer­ning the consecration of the Chalice, that a simple liquor was changed by the benediction of the Priest into the Sacrament of the Blood of our Lord: which shews how far he and Alcui­nus were from beleeving that the only mixing them without [Page 153]any words could produce this effect. When therefore they say that the pure wine is sancti­fyed by the mixture of the Body of JESUS-CHRIST, it appeares sufficiently their mea­ning is, that by tooching the Holy of Holyes this wine cea­ses to be profane, and beco­mes some thing of holy: but that it should become the Sa­crament of JESUS-CHRIST; and that it should be changed into his Blood without pro­noncing the words of JESUS-CHRIST upon it, is an er­rour inconsistent with their doctrine.

All those who have writ of the Divine Office, and of that of the Masse use the same lan­guage these two Authors do.

Isaac Bishop of Langres their contemporary, Isaac Ling [...]t. Specil. T. [...]. p. 151. in his explica­tion of the Canon and place [Page 154]where they consecrate, sayes that the Priest having thether­to done what he could; to the end he may then do some­thing more wonderfull, bor­rows the words of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe, that is to say these words, This is my Body: Powerfull words, says he, to which the Lord gives his ver­tue, according to the expres­sion of the Psalmist; words which have allvayes their effect, because the Word who is the power of God sayes and dos all at a time: in so much that there is here ma­de by these words contrary to all humain reason a new nourish­ment for a new man, a new JESUS borne of the spirit, an Hoste co­me downe fro heaven, and the rest, which makes nothing to our subject, this being but too sufficient to shew that this great Bishop has placed con­secration [Page 155]in the words of our Saviour.

Remigius Bishop of Auxerre, in the booke which he com­posed of the Masse towards the end of the ninth age, is visibly of the same judgement with Alcuinus, seeing he has done nothing but transcribe word for word all that part of his booke where this matter is treated of.

Hildebertus Bishop of Mans, Hildeb eod. T. Bibl. PP. and afterwards of Tours, fa­mous for his piety as well as for his eloquence, and learning, and commended even by the Protestants themselves, because of the prayses he has given to Bengarius; yet after he was re­turned, or pretended to be re­tourned from his errours, af­firmes in expresse words that the Priest consecrates not by his own words, but by those of [Page 156]JESUS-CHRIST; that then under the signe of the crosse and the words, the nature becomes changed; that the Bread honours the Altar by becoming the Body, and the Wine by becoming Blood: which obliges the Priest to eleva­te at that time the Bread and the wine, thereby to shew that by consecration they are elevated to some thing of a higher nature then what they were.

The Abbot Rupertus sayes the same thing, Rup. de Div. Off. l. II. c. 9. & lib. V. c. 20. Hug. de S. Vict. erud. Theol. l. III. c. 20. and after him Hugo de Sainto Victore. Wee finde all these bookes colle­cted in the Bibliotheca of Pa­trum, in that tome which bea­res the title de Divinis Officiis.

This Tradition is so constant especially in the Latin Church, that it cannot be imagined the contrary could be found in the Ordo Romanus, nor that it could have entred into the [Page 157]thoughts of Alcuinus and A­malarius, tho they had not ex­plicated themselves so clearly as wee have seene they have. But this Tradition came from a higher source. These many fore cited French Authors as were preceded by a Bishop of the Gallican Church, Euseb. Gailic. sive Euch. T. 6. Max. Bib. P P. hom. V. de Pasch. who said in the V. age, that the creatu­res placed upon the holy Altars, and blessed by the celestiallwords, ceased to be the substance of Bread and Wine, and became the Bo­dy and Blood of our Lord; and Saint Ambrose before him un­derstood by these celestiall words, Amb. de init. c. 9. the proper words of JESUS-CHRIST, This is my Body, this is my Blood, adding, that the consecration as well of the Body as of the Blood, was made by the words of our Lord. And the Author of the booke of Sacraments, be he whom he [Page 158]will Saint Ambrose or some other neere unto his time, Amb. lib. IV. Sac. c. 5. who imitates him troughout who ever he be well known in an­tiquity, speaks after the same manner; and all the Fathers of the same time keepe the like conformity in their lan­guage; and before them all Saint Ireneus laught that ordi­nary bread is made the Eucha­rist by the invocation of God which it receives over it; Iren. IV. 34. and Saint Justin, Just. ap. 2. whom he often cites, said before him that the Eucharist was made by the prayer of the word which comes from JESUS-CHRIST, and that it was by this word, that the ordinary food which usvally, by being changed, nourisheth our flesh and our blood, became the Body and the Blood of that JESUS-CHRIST incarnated for us: and before all the Fa­thers, [Page 159]the Apostle Saint Paul clearly remarked the particu­lar benediction of the Chali­ce, 1. Cor. 10.16. when he said, the Chalice of benediction which wee blesse. And to go to the very origi­nall JESUS-CHRIST conse­crates the Wine in saying, This is my Blood, as he 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 [Page 161]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 [Page 162]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 [Page 163]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 [Page 164]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 [Page 165]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.

§ 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 [Page 168]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, [Page 169]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 [Page 170]the waters of Jordan to denote that he had been wholy and entirely immerged, or dipped.

It do's not appeare in the 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 [Page 171]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 [Page 172]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 [Page 174]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 [Page 175]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 [Page 177]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 [Page 178]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 [Page 179]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 given to the people: which is the cause why the table of our Lord, so [Page 180]tearmed by Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 10.21. Heb. 13.10. is called Altar by the same Apos­tle in the Epistle to the He­brewes. It is not our businesse here neither to establish nor explaine this sacrifice the na­ture of which may be seene in our Treatise of the Exposition, Exp. art. 14. and I shall only say, because my subject requires it, that JESUS-CHRIST has made this sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist in the most perfect representation of the sacrifice on the Crosse that could be imagined. Whereupon it is that he said expressely, This is my Body, and This is my Blood, renewing mystically by these words, as by a spirituall sword, togeather with all the wounds he received in his Body the totall effusion of his Blood; and although this Body and this [Page 181]Blood once seperated ought to be eternally reunited in his Re­surrection to make a perfect man perfectly living, he would notwithstanding that this se­peration once made upon the Crosse should never cease to appeare in the mystery of the holy table. It is in this mysti­call seperation that he would have the essence of the sacri­fice of the Eucharist to consist to make it a perfect image or representation of the sacrifice of the Crosse: to the end that as this later sacrifice consits in the actuall seperation of the Body and Blood, this likewise which is the perfect image of it should consist also in this representative and mysticall se­peration. But whether JESUS-CHRIST has seperated his Body and his Blood either real­ly upon the Crosse, or mysti­cally [Page 182]upon the Altars, yet can he not seperate the vertue, nor effect that any other Grace shall accompany his Blood shed then that same in the ground and in substance which accompanyes his Body immolated: which is the cause that this so lively and so strong a resemblane or ex­pression, necessary to the sacri­fice, is no more so in the re­ception of the Eucharist, it being every whit as impossi­ble to seperate in the applica­tion the effect of his Blood from that of his Body, as it is easy and naturall to represent to the eyes of the faithfull the actuall seperation of the one from the other. For this rea­son it is that wee have found upon so many occasions in an­tiquity the Body given without the Blood, and the Blood gi­ven without the Body, but ne­ver [Page 183]one of them consecrated without the other. Our Fore­fathers were perswaded that the faithfull would be depri­ved of some thing too pre­tious if the two species we­re not consecrated in which JESUS-CHRIST had made togeather with the perfect re­presentation of his death the essence of the sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist; but that nothing essentiall was taken from them in giving them but one, because one only contai­nes the vertue of both, and the minde once preoccupayed by the death of our Lord in the consecration of the two species, receives nothing from the Altar where they were con­secrated which do's not con­serve this figure of death, and the character of a victime: in so much that whether wee [Page 184]eate, or whether wee drinke, or whether wee do both to­geather, wee allwayes apply the same death, and receive allwayes the same Grace in substance.

Neither must so much stresse bee put upon the eating and drinking, seing that eating and drinking spiritually, is appa­rently the same thing, and that both the one and the other is to beleeve. Let it be then that wee eate, or that wee drinke according to the body, wee both eat and drinke togeather according to the spirit if wee beleeve, and wee receive the whole effect of the Sacrament.

§ III. That the Pretended Reformers do agree with us in this prin­ciple, and can have no other foundation of their discipline.
An Examen of the doctrine of M. Jurieux in his booke entil­led, Le Préservatif, &c.

BUT without any further dispute, I would only aske the Ministers of the Pretended Reformed Religion whether they do not beleeve, when they have received the bread of the Lords Supper with a firme faith, they have received the Grace which do's fully incor­porate us to JESUS-CHRIST, and the entire fruict of his sa­crifise? What will then the spe­cies of wine add there unto, if not a more full expression of the same mystery?

Furthermore, they beleeve they receive not only the figu­re but the proper substance of JESUS-CHRIST. Whether it bee by Faith or otherwise, is not to our present purpose. Do they receive it whole and en­tire, or do they only receive one halfe of it when the Bread of the Lords Supper is given to them? JESUS-CHRIST is he divided? And if they re­ceive the substance of JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire, let them tell us whether the es­sence of the Sacrament can be wanting to them?

And it can be no other then this reason that as persuaded them they could give the bread alone to those who could not drinke wine. This is expresse in the VII art. of the XII. chap­ter of their discipline, which is that concerning the Supper.

This argument proposed at first by the great Cardinall Ri­chelieu intangled very much the Pretended Reformers. I have endeavoured in my Expo­sition to solve some of the answers they give thereto, Exp. art. XVII. and I have carefully related what their Synods have regulated in confirmation of that article of their discipline. The matter is left without contest: those who have writ against me have all of them with one accord ac­knowledged it as publick and notorious; but they do not lik­wise agree in the manner of answering it.

All were not satisfyed with the common answer, which only consists in saying that tho­se mentioned in the article of their discipline are excused from taking the wine by their incapacity of drinking it, and [Page 188]that it is a particular case which must not be drawne into a con­sequence; for on the contrary they saw very well that this particular case ought to be de­cided by generall principles. If the intention of JESUS-CHRIST were that the two species should be inseperable: if the essence or substance of the Sacrament con­sist in the union of the one and the other: since essenses are in­divisible, it is not the Sacra­ment which these receive, it is a meere humaine invention, and has not its foundation in the Gospell.

They were forced therefore at last, but with extreame pai­ne, and after infinite turnings and windings, to say that in this case he who receives only the Bread dos not receive the Sa­crament of JESUS-CHRIST.

M. Jurieux who writ the last [Page 189]against my Exposition in his book entitled, Le Préservatif, Préservatif, art. XIII. p. 262. & suiv. after having seen the answers of all the others, and after ha­ving given himselfe much trou­ble sometimes in being angry at M. de Condom, who amuses himselfe (sayes he) like a petty Missioner in things of so low a nature and in these old kind of cavils, sometimes in putting as much stresse as 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 [Page 190]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 [Page 191]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 [Page 192]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 [Page 193]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 wilt, 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. [Page 194]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 [Page 195]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: [Page 196]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 [Page 199]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 [Page 200]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 [Page 201]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: [Page 202]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 [Page 203]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 [Page 206]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 [Page 207]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 [Page 208]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. [Page 209](viz) whether it were permit­ted to repaire a breach upon the Sabaoth. For although it had been decided that they might defend their lives when they were immediately atta­qued, yet they doubted whe­ther that permission extended to those occasions where the attaque was not so immedia­te. The Jewes beseeged in Je­rusalem durst not extend the dispensation so far, and let themselves be taken by Pom­pey. The scruple appeared a little to nice, and I bring this Example to shew how many cases might happen in which the law had not provided, and where the declaration of the Synagogue was necessary to the quiet of there consciences.

It was an indispensable law to observe the new Moons to the end they might celebrate [Page 210]a Feast which the law ordai­ned precisely upon that day, and might also calculate exact­ly the other dayes which had their particular observances. There were no Ephemerides regulated in those first times and besides the Jewes never trusted to any thing of that nature, and not being willing to expose themselves to the errours of calculation, they found no other security then to cause some persons to ob­serve upon the highest moun­tains when the Moon should appeare. Neither the manner of observing this, nor of co­ming and declaring this to the Council, nor that of pu­blishing the new Moone, and the beginning of the Festivall were expressed in the law. Tra­dition had provided for the­se; and the same Tradition had [Page 211]decided that what was requi­site in order to the observa­tion and declaration of the new Moon was not contrary to the law of the Sabaoth.

I will not speake of the sa­crifises, Levit. 2 4.8. Num. 28.9. nor of the other cere­moneyes which were performed upon the Sabaoth day accor­ding to the law, because the law having regulated them, wee might say it had made an exce­ption in this point: but there are many other things which were to be done on the Sa­baoth day in cases which the law had not regulated.

When the Passover fell upon the first day of the weeke, which is our Sunday, there were divers things to be done for the prepa­ration of the Paschall sacrifise. The victime was to be chosen, it was to be examined by the Priests if it had the qualifica­tion [Page 212]requisite, it was to be led to the Temple and to the Altar, to be immolated at the hower prefixed. All these things with many others we­re done upon the vigil of the Passeover. The levained bread was likewise to be cast away, which according to the preci­se tearmes of the law, Exod. 12.15. ought not to be found throughout all Israel, when the day of the Pas­seover begun. The law might have regulated that these things should be done upon the Fry­day, when the Passeover fel u­pon Sunday; or otherwise dis­pense with the observance of the Sabaoth to accomplish them. It would not do it: Tradition alone authorised the Priests to do their fun­ctions; and wee may say in these cases, as well as in those which our Blessed Saviour has [Page 213]noted, Math. 12.5. that the Priests violate the Sabaoth in the Temple, and are without reproach.

And do's he not also appro­ve what David did, Ibid. 4. when pres­sed with hunger he eat the Bread of proposition contra­ry to the law, 1. Kings. 21.4. and followed the interpretation of the High Priest Achimelec, though it were no where written.

The Passeover and all the Feasts of the Israelites as well as their Sabaoths begun in the evening and at the time of Ves­pres according to the expresse disposition of the law: but though the true time of Ves­pres be the setting of the Sun, yet the Vespres were not taken so precisely amongst the Jewes. The law neverthelesse had not determined it, and custome a­lone had regulated that Ves­pres or the evening should [Page 214]begin presently after mid-day, and when the Sun begun to decline.

Neither could it also be de­termined by the precise tear­mes of the law what was that time betwixt the two Vespres, which is ordained for the Pas­seover in the Hebrew text of Exodus, Exod. 12.6. and Tradition alone had explicated that it was all that time which was compre­hended betwixt the declining of the Sun, and its setting.

It cannot be denyed but that all these things were of an ab­solute necessity for the obser­vation of the law; and if it appeare that the law would not foresee them, it ought to be concluded that it would leave the explication of them to custome.

The same thing may be said of divers other ceremonyes, [Page 215]which, according to the tear­mes of the law, concurred pre­cisely at the same time, nei­ther was it possible to perfor­me them together. For exam­ple, the law ordined an eve­ning sacrifise which ought to be offered every day, and this was that they called the Ta­mid or the perpetuall sacrifise. There was that of the Sabaoth, and that also of the Passeover which weere all to be perfor­med at the same hour; in such sort that upon Easter day, ac­cording to the prescript of the law, these three sacrifises con­curred togeather: There was neverthelesse but one only Al­tar for the Sacrifises, and it was neither permitted nor possible to offer all these sacrifises at the same time. Nor did they know how or where to be­gin; and in so strict an ob­servance [Page 216]as the law exacted in all rigour, they might have fal­len into an unavoidable laba­rinth, if custome had not ex­plicated that the more ordina­ry sacrifise ought to be offered first. So that they were not a­fraid to anticipate the perpe­tual sacrifise to give place to that of the Sabaoth, and that also of the Sabaoth to give place to the Passeover.

If wee stick to the precise termes of the law of Moyses, Deut. 7.1.2.3. wee finde no mariage with strangers forbidden but only those which were contracted with the daughters of the sea­ven Nations so often detested in the Scripture. Ibid. 2. Ibid. 4. It was these abominable Nations which we­re to be exterminated without mercy. It was the daughters of these Nations who should seduce the Israelites, and allu­re [Page 217]them to the worship of fal­se Gods; and it was for this reason that the law forbid to marry them. There was no­thing of this kind said, nei­ther of the daughters of the Moabites and Ammonites, nor of those of the Egyptians, and so far was marriage from being forbidden with the daughters of the Moabites, Ruch. 4. that Booz is praysed by the whole Council and by all the people for mar­rying Ruth who was of that Country. Behold what wee fin­de in the law, and neverthelesse wee finde that in the time of Esdras it was a thing established amongst the Jewes to number the Egyptians, 1. Esd. 9. [...].10.19. 2. Esd. 18.1.2. &c. the daughters of the Ammonites and Moabites, and in a word of all strangers in the same ranke vith the Chana­nites: in so much that they bro­ke all the marriages contracted [Page 218]with these women as abomina­ble. From whence comes this, if not that since Salomons time a long experience having taught the Israelites that the Egyptians and other strangers did no lesse seduce them then the Chanani­tes, they beleeved they ought equally to exclude them all, not so much by the letter and prop­per tearmes, as by the spirit of the law; which they also in­terpreted contrary to the pre­cedent practise in respect of the Moabites, the Synagogue alwayes beleeving herselfe to have received from God him­selfe a right to give decisions, according to occurring neces­sityes?

I do not beleeve that any one will persuade himselfe that they observed according to the let­ter and in all sorts of cases, Exod. 21.24.28. Lev. 24.19.20. Dont. 19.21. that severe law of Talionis so often [Page 219]repeated in the Bookes of Moy­ses. For even to regard these tearmes only eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, bruse for bruse, wound for wound, no­thing dos appeare to establish a more perfect and a more just compensation; yet nothing is in reality further from it, if wee weigh the circumstances, and nothing in fine would ha­ve been more unequall then such an equality: nor indeed is it alwayes possible to give to a malefactor a wound altogea­ther proportionable to that he had given his brother. Practi­se taught the Jewes that the true dessigne of the law was to make them sensible there ought to be a reasonable com­pensation, profitable both to particulars and to the publick, which as it consists not in a pre­cise point, nor in a certain mea­sure, [Page 220]the same practise de­termined it by a just estima­tion.

It would not be hard to al­ledge many other Traditions of the antient people as much ap­proved of as these. The ablest writers of the new reforme do grand it. When therefore they would destroy all unwritten Traditions in generall (under pretense of the words of our Lord where he condemnes tho­se Traditions which were con­trary to the tearmes or to the sense and intent of the law, Math. 15.3. Mark. 7.7. &c. and in short those which had not a sufficiently sollid foundation) there is no sincerity in their discourses: and all men of sen­ce will agree that there was lawfull traditions though not written, without which the practise it selfe of the law was impossible; in so much that it [Page 221]cannot be denyed but that they obliged in conscience.

Will the Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformed Religion permit me to mention in this place the Tradition of prayer for the dead? This prayer is manifest by the Book of Ma­chabees: 2. Mach. 11.43.46. neither neede wee here enter into dispute with these Gentlemen whether this Booke be canonicall or no, seeing it suffices as to this point that it was certainly writ befo­re the Gospell. This custome remaines to this day amongst the Jewes, and the tradition of it my be asserted by these words of Saint Paul: 1. Cor. 15.29. What shall they do else who are baptised, that is to say purifyed and mortifyed for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? JESUS-CHRIST and his Apostles had found amongst the Jewes this Tradition of [Page 222]praying for the dead without reprehending them for it; on the contrary it passed immedia­tely from the Judaicall to the Christian Church, and Protes­tants who have writ bookes where they shew this Tradi­tion was establised in the pri­mitive times of Christianity, could yet never shew the be­ginning of it. Notwithstan­ding it is certain there was no­thing of it in the law. It came to the Jewes by the same way which handed to them so ma­ny other unviolable Tradi­tions.

But if a law which descen­des to so minute particulars, and which is (as I may say) wholy literall, stood in need, that it might be rightly under­stood according to its true sen­ce, of being interpreted by the practise and declarations of the [Page 223]Synagogue, how much more need have wee in the law of the Gospell where there is a greater liberty in the observan­ces, and where the practises are lesse circumstanced.

A hundred examples will ma­nifest the truth of what I say. I will draw them from the ve­ry practises of the Pretended Reformers themselves, and I will not stick at the same time to relate togeather with them (as a thing which will decide the matter) what passed for current in the antient Church, because I cannot imagine that these Gentlemen can with sin­cerity reject it.

§ VI. A proofe from the observances of the New Testament.

THE institution of the Sa­baoth day preceded the law of Moyses and had its ground from the creation; and neverthelesse these Gentlemen dispense as well as wee with that observance without any other foundation then that of Tradition and the practise of the Church, which cannot be dirived from other then divi­ne authority.

The allegation that the first day of the weeke consecrated by the Resurrection of JESUS-CHRIST, Act. 20.7. 1. Cor. 16.2. is mentioned in the writings of the Apostles as a day of assembly for Christians, and that it is also called in the Revelations, Apoc. 1.10. the day of the Lord, [Page 225]or Sunday. Is vaine for besides that there is no mention made in the New Testament of that rest annexed to the Sunday, it is moreover manifest that the addition of a new day dit not suffise to take away the solem­nity of the old, nor to make us change the Preceps of the Decalogue togeather with hu­main Tradition.

The prohibition of eating Blood, and that of eating the flesh of strangled creatures was given to all the children of Noe before the establishment of le­gal observances, from which wee are freed by the Gospel, and the Apostles have confir­med it in the Council of Jeru­salem in joyning it to two un­changeable observances, of which the one is the prohibi­tion to participate of sacrifices to Idols, and the other the con­demnation [Page 226]of the sin of forni­cation. But because the Church alwayes beleeved that this law though observed during many ages was not essentiall to Chris­tianity, the Pretended Refor­mers as well as we dispen­ce with themselves about it, though the Scriptures have no where derogated from so pre­cise and so solemne a decision of the Apostles expressely re­gistred in their Acts by Saint Luke.

But to shew how necessary it is to know the Tradition and practise of the Church in what regards the Sacraments, let us consider what is practi­sed in the Sacrament of Baptis­me, and that of the Eucharist, which are the two Sacraments our adversaryes acknowledge with one accord.

It is to the Apostles, that is [Page 227]to the heads of the flock, Math. 28.19. that JESUS-CHRIST gave the charge of administring Baptis­me: Tertull. de Bapt. Concil. Illid. c. 38. &c. notwithstanding the who­le Church has understood, not only that Priests, but Deacons also yea even all the faithfull, in cases of necessity, were the Ministers of this Sacrament.

Tradition alone has inter­preted that Baptisme (which JESUS-CHRIST committed only into the hands of his Church and of his Apostles) could be validly administred by Hereticks, and out of the communion of the truly faith­full.

In the XI. chapter of the Discipline of the Pretended Reformers, and first article, it is said that Baptisme adminis­tred by him who has no vocation at all is wholy nul; Discip. c. XI. art. 1. & ob­serv. and the observations drawn from the [Page 228]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 [Page 229]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 [Page 230]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 [Page 231]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 [Page 232]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 [Page 233]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 [Page 234]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 [Page 235]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 [Page 236]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 int 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 [Page 237]to acknowledge that in these matters the perpetuall practise of these Church is of an un­violable authority.

Let us come now to the Eu­charist. The Pretended Refor­mers boast they have found in these words, Drinke ye all of it, Math. 26.27. an expresse command for all the faithfull to participate of the cupp. But if wee tell them that these words were addres­sed to the Apostles only who were present, and had their entire accomplishment when in effect they all drunke of it, as Saint Mark says, Mark. 14.23. What refuge will they finde in Scripture? Where can they finde that these words of JESUS-CHRIST, Drinke ye all of it, are to be applyed to any others then to those to whom the same JESUS-CHRIST said, Do this? Luk. 22.19. But [Page 238]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, [Page 239]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 [Page 240]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 [Page 241]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 [Page 242]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 [Page 243]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 [Page 244]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 [Page 245]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 [Page 246]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 [Page 247]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; [Page 248]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 [Page 249]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 [Page 250]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 [Page 251]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 [Page 252]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, [Page 253]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 [Page 254]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 [Page 255]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, 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, [Page 256]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 [Page 257]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 [Page 258]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 [Page 259]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 [Page 260]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 [Page 262]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 [Page 263]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; [Page 264]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 [Page 265]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 nothing to be seen of it nei­ther in the letters of Grego­ry the eleveinth, Tom. XI. Conc. nor in the two Councils held at London by William of Courtenay, and by Thomas Arundel Arch­bishops of Cantorbury, nor in the Councill at Oxford, cele­brated by the same Thomas under Gregory the XII. nor in the Councill at Rome under John the XXIII. Tom. XII. Conc. nor in the third Councill of London un­der the same Pope, nor in the Councill of Constance, nor fi­nally in all the Councils, and all the Decrees, where the con­demnation of that Arch-Heri­tick [Page 266]and the Catalogus of his errors are registred: by which it appears, that either he did not insist upon that point, or that there was no great stir made about it.

Calixtus agrees with Aeneas Sylvius an Author neere those times, N. 24.25. an author about those times. who writ this History, that the first who mooved that Question was one named Peter Dresde School-Master of Pra­gue, and he made use against us of the authority of that Passage in S. John: If ye eat not the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink not his Bloud you shall have no life in you. This Passage missed Jaco­bel de Misne who caused the whole Church of Bohemia, towards the end of the XIV. age to revolt. He was followed by John Hus in the begining of the XV. age so that the contest between us about the [Page 267]two species has no higher an originall.

Moreover it must be remor­ked that John Hus did not pre­sume at first to say that Commu­nion under both species was necessary: Ibid. It suffised him that they should grant it was per­mitted and expedient to give it; but he ditermined not the ne­cessity of it: so certaine and es­tablished a thing it was, there was no such necessity.

When any change of essentiall customes is made, the spirit of Tradition always living in the Church, is never wanting to make an opposition. The Mi­nisters withall there great rea­sonings, find yet very great difficulty to accustome their people to see their children dye without Baptisme, and in des­pite of the opinion they have in­fused into them, that Baptisme [Page 268]is not necessary to salvation, they are not able to divert the trouble so funest an event pro­duces in them, nor scarce res­traine the Fathers who absolute­ly require their children should be Baptised in that necessity, ac­cording to ancient custome. I my self have observed it by ex­perience, and the same may be seen by what I have cited out of their Synodes: so true it is that a custome which an immemoriall and universall tra­dition hath imprinted in their mindes as necessary hath an ir­rissistable power; and so fare are men from being able to extin­guish such a sentiment in the wholl Church, that it is very dificult even to extinguish it a­mongst those who with a deli­berate resolution contradict it. If there fore the Communion under one sole species hath pas­sed [Page 269]without contradiction, and without noyse, it is, as we have said, that all Christians from the infancie of Christianity were nourished in that faith; that the same vertue was diffused in either of the two species, and that nothing of the substance was lost when but one of them only was received.

It was not needfull to use any extraordinary effort to make the faithfull enter into this sen­timent. The Communion of infants, the Communion of the sick, domestick Communion, the custome to communicate under one or both species in­diferently in the Church it sel­fe, and in holy assemblies, and in fine those other things we have seen, had naturally inspi­red all the faithfull with this sentiment from the first ages of the Church.

So when John of Pick ham Ar­chbishop of Cantorbury in the XIII. Conc. Lameth. C. I. T. XI. Conc. age with so much care cau­sed his people to be taught, that under that one sole species they had distributed to them, they received JESUS-CHRIST whole and intire, it past without the lest difficulty, and not one persone in the least contradicted it.

It would be cavilling to say that this great care makes it appear, they mett with some opposition in it, because we have already seen that William Archbishop of Chalons, and Hugo de Sainto Victore, (not to ascend any higher at present) had constantly taught above a hundred yeares before him, the same doctrine, not one finding in it any thing either new or strange: so much naturally dos it take an impression in the min­de. We see in all times and in [Page 271]all places the Pastorall charity carefull to prevent even the least thoughts which ignoran­ce might chance to let fall in­to the minds of men. And in fine it is de facto certain, that there was neither complaint nor contradiction upon this article during many ages.

I doe also positively averre that not one of those who be­leived the reall presence ever ingenuously called in doubt this integrity, that I may so say, of the person of JESUS-CHRIST under each species, seing it would have been to give a dead body, to give a body without blood and without soul, the very thoughts of which strikes a horrour.

From whence it comes that in beleiving the reall presen­ce, one is carried to beleive the full sufficiency of commu­nion [Page 272]under one species. We see also that Luther was natu­rally induced to this opinion, and a good while after he had made a publick revolte from the Church, it is certain that he had the matter still as in­different, or at least of small importance, highly censuring Carlostadius, who had, contra­ry to his advice established Communion under both kinds, and who seemed, Ep. Luth. ad Casp. Guttol. Tom. II. Ep. 56. said he, to place the whole reforme in these things of nothing.

He also uttered these insolent words in the Treatise which he published in 1523. upon the formula of the Masse: If a Councill ordained or permited the two species, wee would in con­tempt of that Councill receive but one of them, or we would neither take the one or the other, and curse those whoreceive both­in [Page 273]vertue of that Ordinance: words which shew clearly that when both he and those of his party are of late so ob­stinately zealous for the two species, it is rather out of a spirit of contradiction then a­ny sollid reason.

In effect he approoved the same year the common pla­ces of Melancton, where he putts amongst things indiffe­rent Communion under one or both species. In 1528. Visit. Sax. T. VI. Ihen. in his vi­sitation of Saxony he left them expressy the liberty to receive but one only, and persisted still in that opinion in 1533. five­teen years after he had erected himselfe as a Reformer.

The whole Lutheran party supposes that nothing either essentiall or necessary to salva­tion is lost, when one doth not communicate under both [Page 274]species, seeing that in the Apo­logie of the Confession of Aus­bourge (a treatise as authen­tique with that party, as the Confession of Ausbourge it self, and equally subscribed to by all those who embraced it) it is expresly set downe, Apol. 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 [Page 275] 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 [Page 276]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 [Page 277]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 [Page 278]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 [Page 279]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 [Page 280]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 [Page 281]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, tis 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 [Page 282]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 [Page 283]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 [Page 284]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 [Page 285]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: [Page 286]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 [Page 287]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 [Page 288]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 [Page 289]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 [Page 290]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 [Page 292]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 or no it were fitt to condemne so many Martyrs, so many other Saints, and the whole primiti­ve [Page 293]Church which practised this domestick Communion.

M. Jurieux cuts of the dis­course with too much confi­dence: Is there the least sinceri­ty (sayes he) to draw a proofe from a practise opposed to that of the Apostles, which is condem­ned at present, and which would passe in the Church of Rome for the worst of crimes?

Was it not his businesse here again to make the world be­leeve that wee condemne to­geather with him and his the practise of so many Saints as contrary to that of the Apos­tles? But wee are far from such horrible temerity. M. Jurieux knows it very well; and a man who boasts thus much of sin­cerity, ought to have so much of it as to take notice that the Church (as I have showne el­sewhere) dos not condemne [Page 294]all the practises she changes; and that the Holy-Ghost who guides her, makes her not only condemne ill practises, but al­so to quitt good ones, and for­bid them severely, when they are abused.

I beleeve the falsity of this History which M. Jurieux gi­ves us of the first ages of the Church for a eleaven hundred or a thousand yeares appeares sufficiently: what he sayes of following times is no lesse contrary to truth.

I have no neede to speake of the manner how he relates the establishment of the reall presence and Transubstantia­tion during the X. age: that is not to our present subject, Sect. V. p. 469. and otherwise nothing obliges us to refute what he advances without proofe. But that which is to be remarked is, that he re­gards [Page 295]Communion under one kind as a thing which was not introduced but by presuppo­sing Transubstantiation. All in good time: when therefore it shall henceforth appeare (as wee have invincibly shown) that Communion under one species was practised even in the first ages of the Church, and in the times of the Mar­tyrs, it can be no more doub­ted but that Transubstantiation was also at that time establi­sed; and M. Jurieux himselfe will be obliged to grant this consequence. But let us retour­ne to what follows in his His­tory.

He shows us there Commu­nion under one species, as a thing first thought of in the eleaventh age, after the reall presence and Transubstantia­tion had been well established: [Page 296]For then they perceived (sayes he) that under a crumme of bread, Ibid. 470. as well as under every drop of wine, the whole Flesh and all the Blood of our Lord were included. What happened upon it? Let us heare: This false reason pre­vailed in such a manner over the institution of our Lord, and over the practise of the whole antient Church, that the custome of com­municating under the sole species of Bread was insensibly establis­hed in the XII. and XIII. ages. It was insensibly established; so much the better for us. What I have said then is true, that the people reduced them­selves without contradiction and without difficulty to the sole species of Bread, so well were they prepared by the Communion of the sick, by that of infants, by that which was received at home, by that [Page 297]which was practised in the Church it selfe, and finally by all those practises wee have seen, to acknowlege a true and perfect Communion under one species.

This is an untoward and trou­blesome businesse for our Re­formers: They have great rea­son indeed to boast of these insensible changes where in they putt the whole stresse of their cause; they never yet pro­duced, neither will they ever produce one example of such a change in essentiall matters. That indifferent matters should be insensibly changed and with­out contradiction, is no such great wonder: but (as wee ha­ve said) the faith of the peo­ple, and those practises which are beleeved essentiall to Re­ligion are not so easily chan­ged. For then Tradition, the [Page 298]antient beliefe, custome it selfe, and the Holy Ghost who ani­mates the Body of the Church oppose themselves to his novel­ly. When therefore a change is made without difficulty, and without being perceived, it is a signe the matter was never beleeved to be so necessary.

M. Jurieux saw this conse­quence; Ibid. and after having said that the custome of communicating under the sole species of bread was establised insensibly in the XII. and XIII. age, he adds im­mediately after: It was not how­ever without resistance; the peo­ple could not suffer without great impatience that they should ta­ke from them halfe of JESUS-CHRIST; they murmured in all parts. He had said a little before that this change, (ver­ry different from those which are made after an insensible man­ner, [Page 299]without opposition, and with­out noise) was on the contrary made with great noise and splen­dour. These Gentlemen answer things as best pleases them: the present difficulty transports them; and beeing pressed by the objection, they say at that moment what seemes most to disentangle them from it, with­out much reflecting whether it agree, I do not say with truth, but with their own thoughts. The cause it selfe demands this, and wee must not expect that an errour can be defended af­ter a consequent manner. This is the state in which M. Ju­rieux found himselfe. This cus­tome, says he, that is to say this of communicating under one kind, was insensibly esta­blished; nothing can be mo­re quiet and tranquile. It was not neverthelesse without re­sistance, [Page 300]without noise, without the greatest impatience, without murmuring on all sides; behold a grand commotion. Truth ma­de him candidly speake the first, and the adhesion to his cause made him say the other. In ef­fect nothing can be found of these universall murmurs, of these extreame impatiences, of these re­sistances of the people; and this induceth to the establising an insensible change. On the o­ther side it must not be said that a practise which is represented so strange, so unheard of, so evidently sacrilegious, was es­tablished without repugnance, and without taking any notice of it. To avoid this inconve­nience a resistance must be i­magined, and, if none can be found, invented.

But furthermore what could be the subject of these univer­sall [Page 301]murmurings? M. Jurieux has told us his thoughts of them: but in this point he coheares as little with himsel­fe as in all the rest. That which caused these murmurings, is (sayes he) that the people suf­fered with the greatest impatien­ce that they should be deprived of one halfe of JESUS-CHRIST. Has he forgot what he even now said, that the reall pre­sence had made them see that under each crumme of bread the whole Flesh and all the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST were contai­ned? Ibid. p. 469. Dos he reflect upon what he is presently about to say, that if the doctrine of Transsub­stantiation and of the reall pre­sence be true, Sect. VI. p. 480. it is true also that the bread containes the Flesh and the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST? Where then was this half of JESUS-CHRIST taken away, [Page 302]which the people suffered (ac­cording to him) with the highest impatience? If a man will have them make com­plaints, let him at least afford them matter conformable to their sentiments, and such as carrys a face of probability.

But in reality there was no­ne. Nor dos M. Jurieux shew us any in the Authors of that time. The first contradiction is that which gave occasion to the decision of the Councile of Constance in the yeare 1415. It begun in Bohemia (as wee have seene) about the end of the XIV. age: and, if accor­ding to the relation of M. Ju­rieux, the custome of commu­nicating under one sole spe­cies begun in the XI. age, if they do not begin to complai­ne, and that in Bohemia only, but towards the end of the [Page 303]XIV. age; by the acknowled­gement of this Minister, three hundred whole yeares should be passed, before a change so strange, so bold, if wee belee­ve him, so visibly opposite to the institution of JESUS CHRIST and to all precedent practises, should have made any noise. Beleive it that will: for my part I am sensible, that to beleeve it, all remorse of conscience must be stifled.

M. Jurieux must without doubt have some of them, to fee himselfe forced by the bad­nesse of his cause to disguise truth so many wayes in an historicall relation, that is, in a kind of discourse which a­bove all others requires can­dor and sincerity.

He do's not so much as state the question sincerely. V. Sect. p. 464. The sta­te of the question (says he) is [Page 304]very easy to comprehend. he will then I hope declare it clearely and distinctly. Let us see. It is granted (adds he) that when they communicate the faithfull, as well the people as the Clergy, they are obliged to give them the Bread to eate: but they pretend it is not the same as to the Cupp. He will not so much as drea­me that wee beleeve Commu­nion equally vallid and perfect under eather of the two spe­cies. But beeing willing by the very state of the question to ha­ve it understood that wee be­leive more perfection or more necessity in that of the Bread then in the other, or that JE­SUS-CHRIST is not equally in them both: he would there­by render us manifestly ridicu­lous. But he knows verry well that wee are far from these phancyes; and it may be seene [Page 305]in this Treatise, that wee be­leeve the Communion given to little children during so ma­ny ages under the sole species of wine, as good and vallid as that which was given in so many other occurrences under the sole species of Bread. So that M. Jurieux states the ques­tion wrong. He begins his dis­pute concerning the two spe­cies upon that question so sta­ted: He continues it by a his­tory where wee have seene he advances as many falsityes as facts. Behold here the man whom our Reformers looke upon at present every where as the strongest defendour of their cause.

§. IX. A reflection upon concomitan­cy, and upon the doctrine of the sixth chapter of Saint Johns Gospel.

IF wee add to the proofs of those practises which wee have drawn from the most pu­re and holy source of antiqui­ty, and to those solid maximes wee have established by the consent of the Pretended Re­formers; if wee add I say to all these, what wee have al­ready said, but which it may be has not been sufficiently weighed, that the reall presen­ce being supposed, it cannot be denyed but that each spe­cies containes JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire: Communion under one species will remai­ne undoubted, there being no­thing [Page 307]more unreasonable then to make the grace of a Sacra­ment, where JESUS-CHRIST has wouchsafed to be present, nor to depend of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe, but of the species under which he is hid­den.

These Gentlemen of the Pre­tended Reformation must per­mitt us here to explicate more fully this concomitancy, so much attaqued by their dispu­tes; and seing they have let passe the reall presence as a doctrine which has no veno­me in it, they ought not hence­forth to have such an aversion from what is but a manifest consequence of it.

M. Jurieux has acknowle­ged it in the places heretofore mentioned. Exam. p. 480. If (says he) the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the reall presence were true, it is [Page 308]true that the Bread would con­taine the Flesh and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST. So that con­comitancy is an effect of the reall presence, and the Preten­ded Reformers do not deny us this consequence.

Let them then at present pre­suppose this reall presence, seing they suffer it in their bre­thren the Lutherans, and let them consider with us the ne­cessary consequences: they will see that our Lord could not give us his Body and his Blood perpetually seperated, nor give us either the one or the other without giving us his person whole and entire in either of the two.

Verily when he said, Take, eat, this is my Body, and by those words gave us the flesh of his sacrifise to eate, he know verry well he did not give us [Page 309]the flesh of a pure man, but that he gave us a flesh united to the divinity, and in a word the flesh of God and man both togeather. The same must be said of his Blood, which would not be the price of our salvation, if it were not the Blood of God; Blood which the Divine Word had appropriated to himselfe after a most parti­cular manner by making him­selfe man, conformable to these words of Saint Paul: Heb. 11.14.17. Because his servants are composed of flesh and blood; he who ought in all things to be like unto them, would partake both of the one and the other.

But if he would not give us in his Sacrament a flesh pure­ly humain, he would much lesse give us in it a flesh with­out a soule, a dead flesh, a carcase, or by the same reason [Page 310]a flesh despoiled of blood, and blood actually seperated from the body: otherwise he ought to dye often, and often to shed his Blood, a thing unworthy the glorious state of his Re­surrection, where he ought to conserve eternally humain nature as entire as he had at first assumed it. So that he knew verry well that wee should have in his flesh his Blood, that in his Blood wee should have his flesh, and that wee should have in both the one and the other his blessed soule with his divinity whole and entire, without which his flesh would not be quickning, nor his Blood full of spirit and grace.

Why then in giving us such great treasors, his holy soule his divinity, all that he is; why I say did he only name [Page 311]his Body, and his Blood, if it were not to make us under­stand it is by that infirmity, which he would have com­mon with us, wee must arrive to his strength? And why has he in his word distinguished this Body and this Blood, which he would not effectual­ly seperate but during that little time he was in the se­pulchre, if it be not to make us also understand this Body and this Blood, with which he nourisheth and quickneth us would not have the vertue, if they had not beene once actually seperated; and if this seperation had not caused the violent death of our Saviour by which he became our vi­ctime? So that the vertue of this Body and this Blood co­ming from his death, he would conserve the image of this [Page 312]death when he gave us them in his holy Supper, and by so lively a representation keepe us alwayes in minde to the cau­se of our salvation that is to say the sacrifise of the Crosse.

According to this doctrine, wee ought to have our living victime under an image of death; otherwise wee should not be enlivened. JESUS-CHRIST tells us also at his holy table: I am living but I have beene dead; Apoc. 1.11. and living in effect I beare only upon wee the ima­ge of that death which I have endured. It is also thereby that I enliven, because by the figu­re of my death once suffered, I introduce those who belee­ve, to that life which I pos­sesse eternally.

Thus the Lambe who is be­fore the Throne as dead, Apoc. 5.6. or rather, as slaine, do's not cease [Page 313]to be living, for he is slanding; and he sends throughout the world the seaven Spirits of God, and he takes the booke and opens it, and he fils heaven and earth with joy and with grace.

Our Reformers will not, or it may be cannot yet under­stand so high a mystery, for it enters not into the hearts but of those who are prepared by a purifyed Faith: But if they cannot understand it, they may at least understand very well, that wee cannot beleeve a reall presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST without admitting all the other things wee have even now explica­ted; and these things thus ex­plicated is what wee call con­comitancy.

But as soone as concomitan­cy is supposed, and that wee have acknowledged JESUS-CHRIST [Page 314]whole and entire un­der each species, it is verry easy to understand in what the vertue of this Sacrament con­sists. John. VI. 64. Cvr. lib. IV. in Joh. c. 34. Ia. Anath. XI. Conc. Eph. p. I. T. III. Conc. The flesh profiteth nothing; and if wee understand it as Saint Cyrille, whose sence was followed by the whole Coun­cil of Ephesus, it profiteth no­thing to beleeve it alone, to believe it the flesh of a pure man: but to believe it the flesh of God a flesh full of divini­ty, and by consequence, of spi­rit and of life; it profiteth very much, without doubt, becau­se in this state it is full of an infinite vertue, and in it wee receive togeather with the en­tire humanity of JESUS-CHRIST, his divinity also whole and en­tire, and the very source or fountaine of graces.

For this reason it is the Son of God, who knew what he [Page 315]would place in his mystery, knew also very well how to make us understand in what he would place the vertue of it. What he has said in Saint John must therefore be no more ob­jected: John. 6.54. If you eate not the Flesh of the Son of man, and drinke not his Blood, you shall not have life in you. The manifest mea­ning of these words is there is no life for those who sepe­rate themselves from the one and the other: for indeede, it is not the eating and drinking, but the receiving of JESUS-CHRIST, that gives life. JE­SUS-CHRIST sayes himselfe, and as it is excellently remar­ked by the Councill of Trent, Sess. XXI. c. 1. too injustly calumniated by our adversaryes: He who said, John. 6.54. IF YOU EATE NOT THE FLESCH OF THE SON OF MAN, AND DRINKE NOT HIS BLOOD, [Page 316]YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU, has also said: Ibid. 52. IF ANY ONE EAT OF THIS BREAD, HE SHALL HAVE LIFE EVERLASTING. And he who said, Ibid. 55. HE WHO EATES MY FLESH, AND DRINKES MY BLOOD, HAS ETERNALL LIFE, Ibid. 52. has said also: THE BREAD WHICH I WILL GIVE IS MY FLESH WHICH I WILL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. And lastly he who said. Ibid. 57. HE THAT EATES MY FLESH, AND DRINKES MY BLOOD, REMAINES IN ME AND I IN HIM, has also said: HE WHO EATES THIS BREAD, Ibid. 59. SHALL HAVE ETERNALL LIFE; and againe: Ibid. 58. HE THAT EATES ME LIVES FOR ME, AND SHALL LIVE BY ME. By which he obliges us, not to the eating and drinking at his holy Table, or to the species [Page 317]which containe his Body and his Blood, but to his propper substance, which is there com­municated to us, and togea­ther with it grace and life.

So that this passage of Saint John from whence, as wee have said, Jacobel tooke occasion to revolt and all Bohemia to rise in rebellion, becomes a proo­fe for us. The Pretended Re­formers themselves would un­dertake to defend us, if wee would, against this passage so much boasted of by Jacobel, seeing they owne with a com­mon consent, this passage is not to be understood of the Eucharist. Calvin has said it, Cal. Inst. IV. &c. Aub. lib. I. de Sacr. Euch. c. 30. &c. Aubertin has said it, every one says it, and M. du Bourdieu says it also in his Treatise so often cited. Repl. ch. VI. p. 201. But without ta­king any advantage from their acknowledgements, wee on the [Page 318]contrary with all antiquity maintaine that a passage where the Flesh and Blood as well as eating and drinking are so often and so clearly distinguis­hed, cannot be understood meerely of a communion whe­re eating and drinking is the same thing, such as is a spiri­tuall Communion, and by faith. It belongs therefore to them, and not to us, to defend them­selves from the authority of this passage, where the busi­nesse being to explicate the ver­tue and the fruict of the Eu­charist, it appeares that the Son of God places them not in ea­ting and drinking, nor in the manner of receiving his Body and his Blood, but in the foun­dation and in the substance of both the one and the other. Whereupon the antient Fa­thers, for example Saint Cy­prian, [Page 319]he who most certainly gave nothing but the Blood alone to little infants, as wee have seene so precisely in his Treatise De lapsis, Test. ad Quir. III. 25.20. dos not o­mit to say in the same Treati­se, that the parents who led their children to the sacrifises of Idols deprived them of the Body and Blood of our Lord: and teaches also in another pla­ce that they actually fulfill and accomplish in those who have life, and by consequence in in­fants, by giving them nothing but the Blood, all that which is intended by these words: If you eate not my Flesh and drink not my Blood, you shall not have life in you. Aug. Ep. 23. Saint Au­gustin sayes often the same thing, though he had seene and examined in one of his Epistles, that passage of Saint Cyprian where he speakes of [Page 320]the Communion of infants by Blood alone, without finding any thing extraordinary in this manner of communion; and that it is not to be doubted but the African Church, where Saint Augustin was Bishop, had retained the Tradition which Saint Cyprian so great a Mar­tyr Bishop of Carthage, and Primate of Africa had left be­hind him. The foundation of this is that the Body and Blood inseperably accompany each other, for although the species which containe parti­cularly the one or the other in vertue of the institution are taken seperately, their substan­ce can be no more seperated then their vertue and their grace: in so much that infants in drinking only the Blood, do not only receive the essen­tiall fruit of the Eucharist, but [Page 321]also the whole substance of this Sacrament, and in a word an actuall and perfect Commu­nion.

All these things shew suffi­ciently the reason wee have to believe that Communion un­der one or both species con­taines, togeather with the sub­stance of this Sacrament the whole effect essentiall to it. The practise of all ages which have explained it in this man­ner, has its reason grounded both in the foundation of the mystery, and in the words themselves of JESUS-CHRIST; and never was any custome established upon more sollid foundations, nor upon a more constant practise.

§ X. Some objections solved by the precedent Doctrine.

I Do not wonder that our Reformers, who acknow­lege nothing but bare signes in the bread and wine of their Supper, endeavour by all mea­nes to have them both: but I am astonished that they will not understand, that in placing, as wee do, JESUS-CHRIST entirely under each of these sa­cred Symboles, wee can content our selves with one of the two.

M. Exam. Tr. VI. Sect. 6. p. 480. 481. Jurieux objects against us, that the reall presence being supposed, the Body and the Blood would in reality be re­ceived under the Bread alone, but that yet this would not suffise, because, tis true, this would be to receive the Blood, [Page 323] but not the Sacrament of the Blood: this would be to re­ceive JESUS-CHRIST wholy, entirely, really, but not sacra­mentally as they call it. Is it pos­sible that a man should belie­ve it is not enough for a Chris­tian to receive entire JESUS-CHRIST? Is it not a Sacra­ment where JESUS-CHRIST is pleased to be in person there­by to bring with himselfe all his graces, to place the vertue of this Sacrament in the signes with which he is vailed rather then in his proper person which he gives us wholy and entirely; Is not this (I say) contrary to what he himselfe has said with his own mouth, John. 6.57.58. he who eates of this Bread shall have eternall life, (and), he who eates me shall live for me, and by me, as I my selfe live for my Father and by my Father?

But if M. Jurieux maintaine in despite of these words, that it dos not suffise to have JE­SUS-CHRIST if wee have not in the Sacrament of his Body and his Blood the perfect ima­ge of his death; as he do's no­thing in that but repete an obje­ction alread cleared, so I send him to the answers I have gi­ven to this argument, and to the undeniable examples I ha­ve set down, to shew that by the avouched confession of his Churches, when the substance of the Sacrament is received, the ultimate perfection of its signification is no more neces­sary. But if this principle be true even in those very Sacra­ments were JESUS-CHRIST is not really and substantially contained as in that of Baptis­me: how much the rather is it certain in the Eucharist, [Page 325]where JESUS-CHRIST is present in his person, and what is it he can desire more, who possesses him entirely?

But in fine, will some say, there must not be such arguing upon expresse words. Seing it is your sentiment that the VI. chapter of Saint John ought to be understood of the Eu­charist, you cannot dispence with your selves in the practi­se of it as to the letter, and to give the Blood to drinke as well as the Body to eat, seing JESUS-CHRIST has equally prononced both of the one and of the other, If you eat not my Body and drinke not my Blood, you shall have no life in you.

Let us once stop the mouths of these obstinate and conten­tious spirits, who will not un­derstand these words of JESUS-CHRIST [Page 326]by their whole con­nexion. I demande of them whence it comes they do not by these words believe Com­munion absolutely necessary for the salvation of all men, yea even of little infants new­ly baptised. If nothing must be explicated let us give to them the Communion as well as to others, and if it must be explicated, let us explicate all by the same rule. I say by the same rule, because the sa­me principle and the same au­thoritè from which wee lear­ne that Communion in gene­rall is not necessary to the sal­vation of those who have re­ceived Baptisme, teach us that the particular Communion of the Blood is not necessary to those who have been already partakers of the Body.

The principle which shews [Page 327]us that the Communion is not necessary to the salvation of little infants baptized, is that they have already received the remission of sins, and a new life in Baptisme, because they have beene thereby regenera­ted and sanctifyed: in so much that if they should perish for want of being communicated they would perish in the state of innocence and grace. The same principle shews also, that he who has received the Bread of life, has no neede of recei­ving the sacred Blood, seing, as wee have frequently demon­strated, he has received togea­ther with the Bread of life the whole substance of the Sacra­ment, and togeather with that fubstance the whole essentiall vertue of the Eucharist.

The substance of the Eucha­rist is JESUS-CHRIST him­selfe: [Page 328]The vertue of the Eu­charist is to nourish the soule, to conserve therein that new life it has received in Baptis­me, to confirme the union with JESUS-CHRIST, and to replenish even our bodyes with sanctity and life: I aske whether in the very moment the Body of our Lord is recei­ved, all these effect be not likewise received, and whether the Blood can add thereunto any thing essentiall.

Behold what regards the prin­ciple: let us come now to what regards the authority.

The authority which persua­des us that Communion is not so necessary to the salvation of little infants as Baptisme, is the authority of the Church. It is in effect this authority which carryes with it in the Tradi­tion of all ages, the true mea­ning [Page 329]of the Scripture; and as this authority has taught us that he who is baptised wants not any thing necessary to sal­vation, so dos it also teach us that he who receives one sole species, wants none of those effects which the Eucharist ought to produce in us: From hence in the very primitive times they communicated ei­ther under one or under both species, without believing they hazarded any thing of that grace which they ought to re­ceive in the Sacrament.

Wherefore, though it be writt, If you do not eate my Body and drinke my Blood, John. 6.54. you shall have no life in you; it is also writt after the same manner, John. 3.8. If a man be not regenerated of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the Kingdome of God: The Church hath not under­stoud [Page 330]an equall necessity in these two Sentences: on the contra­ry she alwayes understood that Baptisme which gives life is more necessary then the Eu­charist 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 [Page 332]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 [Page 333]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 [Page 334]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. [Page 335]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 5.1 [...].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 [Page 336]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. [Page 337]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, [Page 338]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 [Page 339]this vain thought, that JESUS-CHRIST has left a power to the Church to give her selfe a forme, and to establish Pas­tors when the succession is in­terrupted; this is what M. Ju­rieux and M. Claude endea­vour to prove without finding any thing that ressembles it in Scripture, seing on the Con­trary JESUS-CHRIST has said, As my Father sent me, John. 20.25. so send I you, and Saint Paul an Apostle by JESUS-CHRIST did establish Titus so as that he might afterwards establish others, Gal. 1.1. &c. Tit. 1.5. in such sort that the mission came wholy from JE­SUS-CHRIST sent from God. Behold what wee finde in Scri­pture; and what they would say at present of the authority of the people is but a meere illusion.

The same errour induces the [Page 340]Ministers to say the Church has the liberty to fraime Ec­clesiasticall government as she thinkes fitt; to take away or retaine Episcopacy; to make Antients and Deacons for a time, Ch. 3. des Anciens & Diacres. art. 6.7. & Ob­serv. that is to say, send them back at pleasure to a common secular life after having conse­crated them to God; to give them power to decide what concernes doctrine togeather with the Pastors in equality of suffrages, that is to say, to ad­mit them without being Pas­tors (for they are not so upon any account in the new refor­me) to a function the most essentiall to Postorall authori­ty: all which wee finde in their discipline and in their Synods, without so much as one sole text of Scripture, to second them either in these or in the power it selfe which they vain­ly [Page 341]attribute to themselves of disposing all things according to their own phancy.

In these matters and in many others which I could remarke, they have not only no holy Scripture for them, as they are obliged: but moreover they dispense with themselves to fol­low it, without having neither any reason or Tradition to sup­port them. On the contrary Tradition has alwayes received both Extreame-Unction and the imposition of hands, (as well that which is given to all the faithfull, as that which is made use of for the conse­cration of the Ministers of the Church, and the successive mis­sion of her Pastors) and like­wise those other things which our Reformers have dispised. In this their licence is excessi­ve; but it ought at least to [Page 342]render them more equitable towards us, whilst in the ad­ministration of the Sacraments the wee receive for a legitima­te interpreter of Scripture cons­tant Tradition and universall practise of the Church.

§ XII. Occurring difficultyes: vain sub­tilityes of the Calvinists, and of M. Jurieux: the judgment of antiquity concerning conco­mitancy: reverence exhibited to JESUS-CHRIST in the Eucharist: the doctrine of this Treatise confirmed.

WEe should here have fi­nish this discourse, if charity which urges us to pro­cure the salvation of these Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformed Religion, did not oblige us to remove some scru­ples, [Page 443]which the perusall of these practises, I have related, may perchance have raised in their mindes.

It is incessantly inculcated by the Ministers, that this con­comitancy, upon which wee establish the validity of Com­munion under one species, is a mystery unknown to the an­tient Church, where none e­ver mentioned as a matter of faith that togeather with the Body of our Lord, his Blood, his Soule and his Divinity were necessarily received. They add that this doctrine of con­comitancy being, according to us, a necessary sequell of the reall presence, it may be beleeved that this reall pre­sence was unhnown where they know not this concomi­tancy.

The Ministers retort upon us [Page 344]those precautions wee alledge in our own behalfe. Wee do not finde, say they, in the an­tient Church any of these pre­cautions now established in these later ages for keeping the Eucharist, for exciting the people to adore it, for hin­dring least it should be let fall upon that ground. This feare (add they) was no impedi­ment for so many ages to the giving the Communion in botk kinds to all the people; and these new precautions ser­ve for nothing but to let us see they have a different opi­nion of the Eucharist from that of the primitive times.

For a conclusion they tell us, that wee have given our selves an uselesse trouble in proving with so much paines it is free to communicate under one or boath species, seing all that [Page 345]can arise from this proofe is that at last wee must leave the choice to the people, and not restrain a liberty which JESUS-CHRIST himselfe has given them.

But to begin with this ob­jection which seemes the most plausible: who on the other side dos not see more cleare then the day that it is in the power of the Church to make choice of one part in things which are free, and that when she has chosen that, it ought not to be permitted to con­temne her decrees? Ep. ad Jan. lib. de Bapt. &c. Saint Au­gustin has very often affirmed, it is an insupportable folly not to follow what has been re­gulated by a generall Council or by the universall custome of the Church. But if our Re­formers be not disposed to be­lieve Saint Augustin in this; [Page 346]will they themselves allow that any one of theirs who, un­der pretense that Baptisme was so long given by immersion, should doubt with the Ana­baptists of the validity of his Baptisme, and should be so obstinate as either to make himselfe be rebaptized, or at the least to make his children be baptized according to the antient practise? But if he should require the Communion should be given his son but yet an in­fant under pretence, that it was given to little children during a thousand yeares, would they esteeme themselves obliged to condescende to his desire? On the contrary would they not treat such an one and all like him, as unquiet and turbulent spirits who trouble the peace of the Church? Would they not tell them with the Apos­tre: [Page 347] If any one amongst you be contentious, 1. Cor. 11.16. wee and the Church of God have not this custome; and, if they have never so little ingenuity, would they not finde in this sole passage enough to make them submit to the au­thority of the customes of the Church? Nay further, it is cer­tain that the antient Church, al­though she baptized little in­fants which were presented to her, yet did not alwayes with the outmost rigour oblige their parents to present them at that age, upon condition they ba­ptized them when in danger; and the Ecclesiasticall history lets us see many Catecumens of a more advanced age with­out the Church having for­ced them to be sooner bapti­zed. The Pretended Reformers who believe not the necessity of Baptisme, and cannot pro­duce [Page 348]any divine precept which obliges it to be given to infants, are much more free in this mat­ter. Discip. ch. XI. de Bapt. art. XVI. & Observat. This freedome has it hin­dred the severe regulations of their Discipline, which obliges parents under the paine of the most rigourouse censures to pre­sent their little children to be baptized? Let them grant with us that the Church can make lawes in indifferent matters; and if they acknowledge from so many examples that Commu­nion under one or both spe­cies is of this kind, let them cease to cavill with us, and to give themselves an uselesse trou­ble about this matter.

But it may be they would say, that in these practises I have re­lated, those who communica­ted sometimes under one spe­cies, communicated also some­times under the other; which [Page 349]suffices in the whole to accom­plish the precept of our Lord: as if our Lord would at the same time inspire us with a fir­me faith that wee loose nothing by takind one species only, and yet oblige us under paine of damnation to receive them both; a cavill so manifest that it dos not merit to be refuted.

Wee must therefore at length examin once again what is es­sentiall to the Eucharist, and prescribe our selves a rule to understand it aright. This is what these Gentlemen will ne­ver do, if they come not back to our principles and to the authority of Tradition. M. Exam. T. VI. sect. s. p. 465. Ju­rieux goes too far when he pro­poses for a rule according to the principles of his Religion, to doe universally all that JE­SUS-CHRIST did, in such sort that wee should regard [Page 350] all circumstances he observed, at being of absolute necessity. The­se are his own words. He al­leges to this purpose the an­tient Passeover of the Jewes, where after having cut the throat of a lambe in the mor­ning, Ibid. Sect. 6.474.475. another was to have his throat cutt in the evening, to be roasted, to be eaten with bitter hearbs, to be consumed the same night, and nothing of it to be re­served till the following day. He represents the necessity of all these ceremonyes, and not on­ly the substance but all the cir­cumstances. This word of JE­SUS-CHRIST, Do this, ma­kes him conclude the same of the Eucharist. So that wee should be restrained, accor­ding to his principles, to all that JESUS-CHRIST did, and not only to bread and wine, but moreover to the hour, and to [Page 351]the whole manner of receiving it; Sup. 2. p. art. VI. p. 296. and the rather because (as wee have seene) every one had its reason, and mistery, as well as that which Moyses or­dained concerning the antient Passeover. Neverthelesse how many things have wee remar­ked which neither these Mi­nisters nor wee observe? Ibid. But beholde one which I omitted, and which may in this place give great light.

Amongst other things which our Lord observed in the last Supper, one of those which the Calvinists believe as most necessary, is the breaking of the bread. The Lutherans are of a contrary opinion, and make use of round breads which they breake not. This is a matter of great contest betwixt these Gentlemen. The Calvinists lay much stresse upon this that the [Page 352]Evangelists and Saint Paul do of one common accord write that the same night JESUS CHRIST was delivered to the Jewes, 1. Cor. 11.24. he tooke bread, blessed it, brooke it, and gave it. They insiste much u­pon this breaking of the bread, which according to them repre­sents that the Boby of our Lord was broken for us upon the Crosse, and remarke with great care that Saint Paul, after ha­ving said that JESUS broke bread, 1. Cor. 11.24. makes him say according to the Greeke text, This is my Body broken for you; to shew, as they pretend, the reference this Bread broken has to the Body immolated. So that this breaking appeares to them ne­cessary to the mystery; and this is it which makes those of Heidelberg say in their Cate­chisme much esteemed by those of their party, Catech. Heid. qu. 75. that as truly as [Page 353]they see the bread of the Supper broken to be given to them, so truly has JESUS-CHRIST been offered and broken for us.

There was a proposall made for an accord or union with the Lutherans, Colloq. Cassel an. 1661. and a confe­rence was held for this about twenty yeares since, that is in the yeare 1661. The Calvinists of Marpourg hereupon found quickly a distinction, and in the declaration which they gave to the Lutherans of Rintell, they said, that the breaking appertai­ned not to the essense but only to the integrity of the Sacrament, as beeing necessary because of the example and command of JE­SUS-CHRIST: so that the Lu­therans ceased not to have, without this breaking of the Bread, the substance of the Supper, and thus they might mutually tolerate one another. The Calvinists have not [Page 354]beene, that I know of, repre­hended by any of theirs, and the union which was made had on their side its entire effect: in so much that they cannot hereaf­ter insist upon the words of the institution seing one may by their own acknowledgement haye the substance of the Sup­per without entirely subjecting himselfe to the institution, e­xample and expresse command of our Lord. What would they say if we should make use of such an answer? But as all is permitted to the Lutherans so all is insupportable amongst Catholicks.

The other objections carry no greater weight and are as easily solved.

The concomitancy upon which the Roman Church grounds Communion under one species is not (say you) [Page 355]found in antiquity. First what I have drawn from the antient Church to establish this Com­munion, is matter of fact; and if Communion under one spe­cies suppose concomitancy to­geather with the reality, it followes from thence that both the one and the other were be­lieved in antiquity where Com­munion under one kind was so frequent. Secondly, Gentle­men, open your own bookes, open Aubertin the most learnest defendor of your doctrine: Aub. lib. III. p. 431. 485. 505. 539. 570. &c. you will finde there in almost eve­ry page passages taken from Saint Ambrose, Amb. lib. I. in Luc. Cyr. Hieros. Cat. 5. myst. Greg. Nyss. orat. Cathec. Cyr. Alex. lib IV. in Joan. c. 3. 4. Chrys. hom. 51.83. in Mat. lib. 3. de Sa­cerd. 4. &c. from Saint Chrysostome, from the two Cyrilles and from many others, where you may read that in receiving the sacred Body of our Lord they received his per­son it selfe, seing they received (say they) the King in their [Page 356]hands: they received JESUS-CHRIST and the Word of God; they received his Flesh as li­ving; not as the flesh of a meere man, but as the Flesh of a God. Is not this to receive the Divi­nity togeather with the Huma­nity of the Son of God, and in a word his entire person? After this what would you call con­comitancy.

As for those precautions used least the Eucharist should be let fall upon the ground, there nee­des only a little fincerity to ac­knowledge they are as antient as the Church her selfe. Auber­tin will shew you them in Ori­gines: Orig. in Exod. hom. 13. Cyr. Hier. Cat 5. myst. Aug. 50. ho­mil. 26. Aub. lib. II. p. 431. 432. &c. in S. Cyrill of Jerusalem, and in Saint Augustin not to mention others. You will see in these holy Doctors (expres­sions strange to the ear of Re­formere viz) that to let full the least particles of the Eu­charist, [Page 357]is as if one should let fall gold and pretious stones, is as if one should prejudice even his owne limbes; is as if one should let slip the word of God which is annonced to us, and wilfully loose this seede of life, or rather the eternall truth it brings us.

There needs no more to con­found M. Jurieux. Exam. T. VI. sect. 5. p. 469. At that ti­me, sayes he, that is to say in the eleaventh age when, accor­ding to him, Transsubstantia­tion was established, they be­gun to thinke of the consequen­ces of Transsubstantiation. When men were persuaded that the Bo­dy of our Lord was contained who­le and entire under each little dropp of wine they were seized with a feare least it should be spilt. If then this feare of effu­sion seized also our Forefathers from the primitive ages of the [Page 358]Church, then did they already believe Transsubstantiation and all its consequences. M. Jurieux goes on: They trembled to thinke the adorable Body of our Lord should lye upon the ground a­mongst dust and dirt, without a possibility of taking it up. If the Fathers have trembled to thin­ke of it as well as they, then had they according to him the same beliefe. He is never weary of shewin us this feare of ef­fusion as a necessary consequen­ce of the beliefe of the reall presence. Ibid. Sect. 7. This reason (sayes he) that is to say that which is drawn from the feare of effu­sion, may be proper for them, that is to say for the Catho­licks: but it is of no account to us who do not acknowledge that the Flesh and Blood of our Sa­viour are really contained under Bread and Wine. You see, [Page 359]Gentlemen; your Ministers would feare, as well as wee, this spilling or effusion, if they believed the same reall presen­ce: the Fathers then once mo­re believed it seing they had, as it is manifest, the same feare and apprehension.

It is in vaine that M. Jurieux scoffs at this feare. Ibid. 469. In an age (sayes he) when men were not as they are at present ashamed to carry upon their faces the cha­racter or marke of their sexe, they dipped a great beard into the sa­cred Cupp, and carryed back with them a multitute of Bodyes of JESUS-CHRIST which hang at each haire. This gave them horrour, and I finde they had reason. This fine phancy plea­sed him. P. 485. I am in paine (sayes he in another place) to concei­ve how the Faithfull of the an­tient Church dit not tremble to [Page 360]see so many Bodyes of JESUS-CHRIST hang at all the hares of a great beard after receiving the sacred Cupp. How came it they had not an horrour to see this beard wiped with a hand­kerchief, and the Body of our Lord put into the pocket of some seaman or soldier? As if a sea­man or soldier were lesse con­siderable in the eyes of God then other men. If this unsea­sonable buffoon had remarked in the antient Fathers with what decency and respect they approched to the Eucharist; if he would have regarded in Saint Cyrill after what man­ner the faithfull at this time tasted the sacred Cupp, Cyr. Hier. Gat. 5. myst. and how they were so far from suffering one drop of it to be lost that with respect they tou­ched that moistnesse which re­mained upon their lipps to [Page 361]applye it to their eyes, and the other organs of the sen­ces which they believed to be sanctified thereby: hee would have found it a thing more worthy himselfe to have can­didly set forth this act of piety, than to make his party laugh by the ridiculous description wee have now heard. But these seof­fers may do their worst, their railleries can do no more injury to the Eucharist, then those of others did to the Trinity, and to the Incarnation of the Son of God; and the majesty of these mysteryes cannot be debased by such discourses.

M. Jurieux reprefents us as men who feare least there should ar­rive some offensive accident to the Body and Blood of our Lord. I do not perceive (sayes he) that he is better placed upon a white cloth then in the dust; and seeing wee [Page 362]can behold him without horrour in the mouth and stomack, wee ought not to be astonished to see him upon the pavement. In ef­fect to speake humanly and ac­cording to the flesh, the pave­ment is perhaps a place as much or more proper then our sto­macks; and to speake accor­ding to faith, the glorious sta­te of JESUS CHRIST at pre­sent dos equally elevate him above all: but respect and de­cency will have it, that as far as lyes in us, wee should pla­ce him, where himselfe would be. It is man that he seekes, and he is so far from having on abhorrance from our flesh, seing he created it, seing he redeemed it, seing he vallues it, that he willingly approches to sanctify it. What ever has a re­lation to this use, honours him, because it has a dependance [Page 363]upon that glorious quality of Saviour of man kinde. Wee do, as much as lyes in us, endea­vour to hinder whatever may derogate from the veneration due to the Body and Blood of our Master; and without fea­ring any accident should hap­pen prejudiciall to JESUS-CHRIST, wee avoid what­ever might shew in us the least want of respect. But if our pre­cautions cannot prevent all, wee know that JESUS-CHRIST, who is sufficiently guarded by his own Majesty, is contented with our zeale, and cannot be debased by any place. A man may railly if he will at this do­ctrine: but wee are so far from blushing at it, that wee blush for those who do not remem­ber that those railleries they make use of against our precau­tions reflect upon the Holy Fa­thers [Page 364]no lesse cautious then wee. If it was fitting to augment them these later ages, it is not that the Eucharist hath been more honoured then in the first; but raither that piety being rela­xed it was necessary it should be excited by more efficacious meanes: in such sort that these new and needfull precautions; in denoting our respects, make it appeare there has been some negligence in our conduct.

For my selfe, I easily belie­ve that amidst the order, the silence, the gravity of antient Ecclesiasticall assemblyes, it sel­dome or never arrived, that the Blood of our Lord was spilt: it was only in the tu­mult and confusion of these last ages, that these scandals frequently arriving caused the people to desire to receive that species only which they saw [Page 365]lesse exposed to the like incon­veniencies; so much the rather because in receiving it alone, they knew they lost nothing, seing they possessed him whole and entire who was the sole object of their love.

Neverthelesse I will not deny but that after Berengarius had rejected, (in despite of the Church of his time and the Tradition of all the Fathers) the reall presence of JESUS-CHRIST in this Sacrament, the beliefe of this mystery was (as I may say) enlivened or a­nimated, and that the piety of the faithfull, offended by this heresy, sought how to signalize it selfe by new testimonyes. I acknowledge in this the spirit of the Church, which did not adore JESUS-CHRIST nor the Holy Ghost with such il­lustrious testimonyes til after [Page 366]hereticks had denyed their di­vinity. The mistery of the Eu­charist ought to be in equall proportion with the rest, and Berengarius his heresy must not serve the Church lesse then that of Arius and Macedonius.

As to what concernes adora­tion, Cyr. Hier. Cat. myst. 5. Amb. lib. III. de Spir. S. c. 12. Aug. Tr. in Ps. 98. Theodor. Dial. II. Chrys. lib. VI. de Sacerd. Aug lib. II. p. 432. 803. 822. Hist. Euch. 3. p. ch. 4. p. 341. & seq. what necessity is there that I should speake of it af­ter so many passages of the Fa­thers, cited even by Aubertin, and since him by M. de la Ro­que in his history of the Eucha­rist? Do not wee see in these passages the Eucharist adored, or rather JESUS-CHRIST a­dored in the Eucharist, and adored by the Angells them­selves whom Saint Chrysostome represents to us as bowing before JESUS-CHRIST in this myste­ry, and rendring him the same respects which the Emperours Gards rendred to their Master.

It is true, Hist. Euch. III. p. ch. 4 p. 541. & seqq. these Ministers answer, that this adoration of the Eucharist is not a souveraine adoration rendred to the Divi­nity, but an inferiour adoration rendred to the sacred Symboles.

But can they show us the li­ke adoration rendred to the water of Baptisme? Chrys. lib. VI. de Sa­cerd. &c. Theod. loc. cit. &c. sup. What can be answered to those Passages where it appeares the adora­tion rendred here is like to that which is rendred to the King when present? that this ado­ration is rendred to the myste­ryes, as being in effect what they were believed to be, as beeing the Flesh of JESUS-CHRIST God and man? These Passages of the Antients are for­mall, and till such times as our Reformers have comprehended them so far as to be convinced of it, they will at least see this inferiour worship, upon which [Page 368]they make so many cavills; they will see a worship distinguished from the supreme worship; yet neverthelesse a religious one, seing it makes a part of the divi­ne service, and of the reception thus of the Holy Sacraments. By justifying themselves so so concerning the Eucharist, they take from themselves all wayes or meanes of accusing us in re­lation to Reliques, Images, and the veneration of Saints. So true it is that their Church and Religion ressembles a ruinous structure, which cannot, as I may say, be covered on one side, without beeing exposed on the other, and can never exhibit that perfect integrity, and propor­tion of parts which compose the beauty and solidity of a buil­ding.